ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
Attax
Posts: 3589
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:59 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Attax » Mon Jan 27, 2014 12:52 pm

tjsmms061906 wrote:W&L with full tuition (GI Bill) and $25K/yr no stips


I'm no lawyer or student yet, but that seems like that's a pretty good situation to be in!

User avatar
Dr. Review
Posts: 1797
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:51 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Dr. Review » Mon Jan 27, 2014 12:56 pm

tjsmms061906 wrote:W&L with full tuition (GI Bill) and $25K/yr no stips (I will try to recode so I can apply it to cost of living)

Full tuition with possible recode sounds worth it, but I'd make sure I have VA/NC ties (more VA than NC). Wouldn't go for less than 80% scholarship.

rad lulz
Posts: 9844
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby rad lulz » Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:02 pm

John Everyman wrote:BU or BC

Edit: Also curious about ND

Probably would go for about $75k-$100k debt, somewhere in there

rad lulz
Posts: 9844
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby rad lulz » Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:03 pm

lawpanther wrote:Does it have to be our top choice or just a school we're considering?

My vote would be for UC Irvine.

thanks!

Wouldn't do it

I don't know when they're gonna exhaust their goodwill but it's too much of an unknown

User avatar
catsinboxes
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 4:03 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby catsinboxes » Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:05 pm

George Mason, part time w/ $8,000 a year (will try to negotiate more). I work full time (no cost of living loans) as a paralegal in DC in a niche area, have ties to both government and private companies. Employer may pay some tuition, and I can pay part part of it each semester. Yay?Nay?

User avatar
worldtraveler
Posts: 7669
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:47 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby worldtraveler » Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:32 pm

Checking in as practicing attorney.

User avatar
Dr. Review
Posts: 1797
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:51 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Dr. Review » Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:34 pm

catsinboxes wrote:George Mason, part time w/ $8,000 a year (will try to negotiate more). I work full time (no cost of living loans) as a paralegal in DC in a niche area, have ties to both government and private companies. Employer may pay some tuition, and I can pay part part of it each semester. Yay?Nay?

Probably only if you are staying at your current firm as an attorney after graduation. There's a long list of DC area/VA schools, and George Mason is not near the top of it in hiring.

User avatar
Dr. Review
Posts: 1797
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:51 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Dr. Review » Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:39 pm

Austinbound wrote:SMU @ 90k

I'd do SMU @ 50% with proper ties. 90k is within reason

User avatar
worldtraveler
Posts: 7669
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:47 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby worldtraveler » Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:40 pm

catsinboxes wrote:George Mason, part time w/ $8,000 a year (will try to negotiate more). I work full time (no cost of living loans) as a paralegal in DC in a niche area, have ties to both government and private companies. Employer may pay some tuition, and I can pay part part of it each semester. Yay?Nay?


Wouldn't do it.

User avatar
Dr. Review
Posts: 1797
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:51 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Dr. Review » Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:40 pm

Other practitioners:
Thoughts on ND? I am on the fence between "only for free" and "greater than half is OK".

User avatar
bound
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 4:49 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby bound » Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:41 pm

Bedsole wrote:
Austinbound wrote:SMU @ 90k

I'd do SMU @ 50% with proper ties. 90k is within reason



Cool thanks. Tuition would come out to ~54K for the three years so I didn't know if people would argue that that was too high.

rad lulz
Posts: 9844
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby rad lulz » Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:42 pm

km
Last edited by rad lulz on Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby timbs4339 » Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:42 pm

Bedsole wrote:Other practitioners:
Thoughts on ND? I am on the fence between "only for free" and "greater than half is OK".


Greater than half is ok, but it really depends on what your goals are.

User avatar
Dr. Review
Posts: 1797
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:51 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Dr. Review » Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:42 pm

rad lulz wrote:
worldtraveler wrote:
catsinboxes wrote:George Mason, part time w/ $8,000 a year (will try to negotiate more). I work full time (no cost of living loans) as a paralegal in DC in a niche area, have ties to both government and private companies. Employer may pay some tuition, and I can pay part part of it each semester. Yay?Nay?


Wouldn't do it.

Same

Job outlook sucks

I'm leaning towards "not for any cost"
Agree/disagree?

timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby timbs4339 » Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:44 pm

It's really vital to post what you want to do and if you have ties. NYLS for free to work NYC biglaw isn't worth it. NYLS for free to work at Dad's Law Firm (and Dad's rich enough to give you enough to party it up in MFH while you're in law school) is probably not a bad deal, since literally all you need is a piece of paper to sit for the bar.

timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby timbs4339 » Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:45 pm

tjsmms061906 wrote:W&L with full tuition (GI Bill) and $25K/yr no stips (I will try to recode so I can apply it to cost of living)


This seems like a good deal.

User avatar
Dr. Review
Posts: 1797
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:51 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Dr. Review » Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:46 pm

timbs4339 wrote:It's really vital to post what you want to do and if you have ties. NYLS for free to work NYC biglaw isn't worth it. NYLS for free to work at Dad's Law Firm (and Dad's rich enough to give you enough to party it up in MFH while you're in law school) is probably not a bad deal, since literally all you need is a piece of paper to sit for the bar.

OP updated to request info about ties/scholarship/goals.
Edit: practitioners, listing your alma mater and what scholly level you'd attend might help.

Pitt: I had a good outcome, but if I had it to re-do, I'd only go for free/close to free.

User avatar
Attax
Posts: 3589
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:59 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Attax » Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:52 pm

Updating for info:

Goals: Biglawl
Ties: Texas at some big firms, only two big firms connections with hiring individuals
UG Location: Texas
Desire to practice: Don't care, but Texas seems like the place to be given connections.

Texas with tuition exemption (no stip)
Washington & Lee with 35k/year (no stip)
WUStL with no schollie info yet
Baylor with full ride + stipend (2.7 stip)

rad lulz
Posts: 9844
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby rad lulz » Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:54 pm

Attax wrote:Updating for info:

Goals: Biglawl
Ties: Texas at some big firms, only two big firms connections with hiring individuals
UG Location: Texas
Desire to practice: Don't care, but Texas seems like the place to be given connections.

Texas with tuition exemption (no stip)
Washington & Lee with 35k/year (no stip)
WUStL with no schollie info yet
Baylor with full ride + stipend (2.7 stip)

Texas isn't a bad idea but biglaw is unlikely

User avatar
Dr. Review
Posts: 1797
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:51 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Dr. Review » Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:55 pm

rad lulz wrote:
Attax wrote:Updating for info:

Goals: Biglawl
Ties: Texas at some big firms, only two big firms connections with hiring individuals
UG Location: Texas
Desire to practice: Don't care, but Texas seems like the place to be given connections.

Texas with tuition exemption (no stip)
Washington & Lee with 35k/year (no stip)
WUStL with no schollie info yet
Baylor with full ride + stipend (2.7 stip)

Texas isn't a bad idea but biglaw is unlikely

W&L seems like a rando on that list with ties to TX. Wouldn't do W&L for that price.

User avatar
yossarian
Posts: 1303
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 2:45 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby yossarian » Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:55 pm

Bedsole wrote:
timbs4339 wrote:It's really vital to post what you want to do and if you have ties. NYLS for free to work NYC biglaw isn't worth it. NYLS for free to work at Dad's Law Firm (and Dad's rich enough to give you enough to party it up in MFH while you're in law school) is probably not a bad deal, since literally all you need is a piece of paper to sit for the bar.

OP updated to request info about ties/scholarship/goals.
Edit: practitioners, listing your alma mater and what scholly level you'd attend might help.

Pitt: I had a good outcome, but if I had it to re-do, I'd only go for free/close to free.


1) Thanks everyone. Really appreciate the advice from the practitioners.

2) I understand that to some degree, no advice can be given without goals, but if the purpose of this thread is the list in the OP, doesn't a more generalized goal need to be assumed. Just, gainful employment to pay off debt (at whatever level the school gets classified into)? Again, perhaps if this is assumed, the list has no value anyway, but it is, after all, a generalized list of tiered classification.

3) Curious as to the thoughts between listing BU/BC firmly in the 50% category but ND closer to 75%. Both are saturated markets (East Coast Metros and CHI), and both seem to function similarly in their regions (from what I can tell). Thoughts on this?

User avatar
Attax
Posts: 3589
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:59 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Attax » Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:56 pm

Bedsole wrote:
rad lulz wrote:
Attax wrote:Updating for info:

Goals: Biglawl
Ties: Texas at some big firms, only two big firms connections with hiring individuals
UG Location: Texas
Desire to practice: Don't care, but Texas seems like the place to be given connections.

Texas with tuition exemption (no stip)
Washington & Lee with 35k/year (no stip)
WUStL with no schollie info yet
Baylor with full ride + stipend (2.7 stip)

Texas isn't a bad idea but biglaw is unlikely

W&L seems like a rando on that list with ties to TX. Wouldn't do W&L for that price.


Yeah, they are mostly in it for scholarship negotiations, but as of now is the best official offer I have from a school.

User avatar
Dr. Review
Posts: 1797
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:51 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Dr. Review » Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:59 pm

yossarian71 wrote:3) Curious as to the thoughts between listing BU/BC firmly in the 50% category but ND closer to 75%. Both are saturated markets (East Coast Metros and CHI), and both seem to function similarly in their regions (from what I can tell). Thoughts on this?

personally, I think BU/BC might best fall into the "for free" zone, but rad expressed his opinion of ~50% as being OK. These kinds of lists are good starting points, not bibles to follow for all purposes.

That said, I wouldn't attend either for less than half, and I'd prefer closer to 2/3 or 3/4 scholly for both.

User avatar
yossarian
Posts: 1303
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 2:45 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby yossarian » Mon Jan 27, 2014 2:00 pm

UPDATED POST WITH GOALS

Goal: Biglaw
Region: Indianapolis
Connections: Lifer, no strong ties to law firms, but loose relationships with a few partners (an email or coffee once/twice per year kinda thing)

Schools:
ND w/ $ (no word yet on amount, let's assume 50%)
WUSTL (no scholly info yet, let's assume 50%)
IU-B (in state plus 50%)

User avatar
Dr. Review
Posts: 1797
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:51 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Dr. Review » Mon Jan 27, 2014 2:00 pm

yossarian71 wrote:2) I understand that to some degree, no advice can be given without goals, but if the purpose of this thread is the list in the OP, doesn't a more generalized goal need to be assumed. Just, gainful employment to pay off debt (at whatever level the school gets classified into)? Again, perhaps if this is assumed, the list has no value anyway, but it is, after all, a generalized list of tiered classification.

OP list is to keep people from rehashing the same schools. Individual responses cover the goals listed in the request.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: neptunian and 2 guests