ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
sublime
Posts: 15398
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:21 pm

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

Postby sublime » Wed Jan 29, 2014 3:16 pm

..

NYstate
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:44 am

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

Postby NYstate » Wed Jan 29, 2014 3:24 pm

C0NFUSED0L wrote:I'm relatively new to the site, but it has been extremely informative and interesting for the few weeks I have been lurking.

Wanted to get thoughts on my current situation.

(I know if I had posted this a few months ago, I would be seeing a ton of "RETAKE" advice, but here goes.)

166 LSAT, 4.0X GPA

GOALS: honestly unsure, but the biglaw lifestyle doesn't sound overly appealing. Willing to find any place that fits for me.

REGIONAL TIES: live and work in NYC, minor connections, but nothing serious. Currently working for a lawyer, but the operation is small and I do not know exactly how helpful this may be down the road (for networking purposes).

SCHOOLS: into Cardozo on full scholarship, Fordham on half (both guaranteed I THINK), also admitted to UCLA, GW, and BU with no scholly's.

waiting to hear back from T14's including MVP/CCN (not so hopeful for any, but an upcoming interview with Chicago can't hurt, right?)

Parents are by no means rich, but they seem to be willing to cover my rent within reason (i would guess about 800/mo, but that doesn't go all that far in NYC)



Hope I can get some good responses. Regardless, this site has been eye opening and I find you guys to be thoughtful and entertaining, so keep up the good work. TIA.


Don't go to Cardozo.

I am sure you assume that you are a good student and will be able to just work hard and you will do well. You need to understand the mandatory curve which dictates that only a few people will get the highest grade. You have to assume you will be at median at any school you attend. Trust me, everyone at law school expects they will be in the top and be successful.

When grades come out there are people who have never had a B who can end up below median.

People have given you great advice. You need to open your mind and listen instead of stamping your feet and saying that you can not retake.
T
Are there stipulations on that scholarship? If so, what happens if you lose it.

User avatar
BlueLotus
Posts: 2428
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 8:07 pm

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

Postby BlueLotus » Wed Jan 29, 2014 3:25 pm

yossarian71 wrote:
Bikeflip wrote:
BlueLotus wrote:So grads, is this the Boston pecking order?:

Harvard>BC=BU>Northeastern>Suffolk>New England>Western New England>UMass Dartmouth>unaccredited shiz




Very close, but I would say it's the following for Boston:


Harvard>top 6 with ties>BC=BU=top 14 with ties>Northeastern>top 30 with strong ties>Suffolk>top 50 state school with strong ties>New England>Western New England>UMass Dartmouth>unaccredited shiz


Note if you want Boston biglaw, do not go lower than BC/BU/T14 with ties & a big scholarship.


I think pecking order for top 50 markets could be an interesting thread


Bikeflip, is that pecking order the same for Boston DA/PD/Legal Aid?

User avatar
Bikeflip
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:01 pm

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

Postby Bikeflip » Wed Jan 29, 2014 4:07 pm

BlueLotus wrote:
Bikeflip, is that pecking order the same for Boston DA/PD/Legal Aid?



If you're gonna do PSLF work anywhere, the major order you should worry about is debt free >> little debt >>>>> big debt. For the organizations, the pecking order for PSLF stuff will be more dictated by a demonstrated PSLF interest. If you wanna do PSLF stuff, get into a quality school on a significant scholarship and get your § 303 eligibility (LinkRemoved) in your 2L year by doing a clinic.


Sure. Places like the ACLU or the EDF might take a Harvard bro over a Northeastern bro, everything being equal, but many PD's office won't care nearly as much.

That said, if you can do Harvard at sticker, and get in their LRAP program, then it's probably a much better bet than Northeastern with little to no debt. However, I know jack about LRAP programs. So I dunno how likely it is to get in Harvard's LRAP program. It would be super shitty to have to pay back any Harvard loans at all if you're at GBLS and you could have gotten the same job from a free Northeastern education.

C0NFUSED0L
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 7:22 pm

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

Postby C0NFUSED0L » Wed Jan 29, 2014 4:29 pm

sublime wrote:Don't go to Cardozo.

I am sure you assume that you are a good student and will be able to just work hard and you will do well. You need to understand the mandatory curve which dictates that only a few people will get the highest grade. You have to assume you will be at median at any school you attend. Trust me, everyone at law school expects they will be in the top and be successful.

When grades come out there are people who have never had a B who can end up below median.

People have given you great advice. You need to open your mind and listen instead of stamping your feet and saying that you can not retake.
T
Are there stipulations on that scholarship? If so, what happens if you lose it.




I do not believe there are stipulations, aside from maintaining good standing....The other figures I saw on TLS suggested that I would need to maintain a 2.95 GPA (=80%). What's the best way of finding out and being sure the answer is correct?

I'm in a position where I don't think retaking will be as beneficial to me as it would for the generic TLS'er. I feel a real need to start school this year.

If the worst case scenario is median at Cardozo with 20-30K in debt (partial COL), I don't feel like I would have too many regrets (compared to the way I think i'd feel if i went to Fordham on half a scholarship and finished median, or waited a year and went to a T14 sticker). As suggested, I checked out the Vale thread, and it's super scary. This might be backwards thinking, but that thread actually leaves thinking that the last thing I want to do is spend an additional year + 3 in school + debt going to a more prestigious school. Saw a quote in that thread explaining how little ranking/prestige and grades matter in that situation. Being pretty debt averse, and having the offer of NYC rent on the table, my worst case scenario doesn't seem that bad if i go to Cardozo. Being that biglaw isn't my goal (and my only potential connections are small-law), I don't understand why I would wanna push my future off a year further, to go to another city (when I love NY and it makes the most sense) and pay to go to a better school.

For me, the fear of being in serious debt (even with better job prospects) is outweighing the thinking of waiting a year, and going to a better/more expensive school.

User avatar
BlueLotus
Posts: 2428
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 8:07 pm

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

Postby BlueLotus » Wed Jan 29, 2014 4:31 pm

Bikeflip wrote:
BlueLotus wrote:
Bikeflip, is that pecking order the same for Boston DA/PD/Legal Aid?



If you're gonna do PSLF work anywhere, the major order you should worry about is debt free >> little debt >>>>> big debt. For the organizations, the pecking order for PSLF stuff will be more dictated by a demonstrated PSLF interest. If you wanna do PSLF stuff, get into a quality school on a significant scholarship and get your § 303 eligibility (LinkRemoved) in your 2L year by doing a clinic.


Sure. Places like the ACLU or the EDF might take a Harvard bro over a Northeastern bro, everything being equal, but many PD's office won't care nearly as much.

That said, if you can do Harvard at sticker, and get in their LRAP program, then it's probably a much better bet than Northeastern with little to no debt. However, I know jack about LRAP programs. So I dunno how likely it is to get in Harvard's LRAP program. It would be super shitty to have to pay back any Harvard loans at all if you're at GBLS and you could have gotten the same job from a free Northeastern education.


Someone w/ numbers to get into Harvard probably will get a full-ride at BC or BU. I was laboring under the impression that Northeastern was on the "never worth it list", along with Suffolk, NESL, WNEC, UMass, and further down the chain.

User avatar
Bikeflip
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:01 pm

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

Postby Bikeflip » Wed Jan 29, 2014 4:53 pm

C0NFUSED0L wrote:I do not believe there are stipulations, aside from maintaining good standing....The other figures I saw on TLS suggested that I would need to maintain a 2.95 GPA (=80%). What's the best way of finding out and being sure the answer is correct?

I'm in a position where I don't think retaking will be as beneficial to me as it would for the generic TLS'er. I feel a real need to start school this year.

If the worst case scenario is median at Cardozo with 20-30K in debt (partial COL), I don't feel like I would have too many regrets (compared to the way I think i'd feel if i went to Fordham on half a scholarship and finished median, or waited a year and went to a T14 sticker).


Read up on section stacking. Many schools, and possibly Cardozo, will lump all the scholarship kids into the same section, guaranteeing that some kids will be on the bottom of the curve, losing their scholarship. In short, there is a way for you to lose your good standing scholarship.

As for the "real need to start school this year," I honestly understand. You want to move on to the next chapter of your life. There's nothing wrong with that, but you want to move on intelligently. Jumping into school for the sake of jumping into school is harmful when the school choice doesn't lend itself to good outcomes. You don't want to stall out in the Vale.

C0NFUSED0L wrote:As suggested, I checked out the Vale thread, and it's super scary. This might be backwards thinking, but that thread actually leaves thinking that the last thing I want to do is spend an additional year + 3 in school + debt going to a more prestigious school.


And you're not wrong to think that. However, what we're getting at is not jump to a T30 at sticker. We're saying go to Fordham on the cheap b/c it's worth the risk (and dropout if your 1L grades are bad). Cardozo's too risky at any cost.

C0NFUSED0L wrote:Saw a quote in that thread explaining how little ranking/prestige and grades matter in that situation. Being pretty debt averse, and having the offer of NYC rent on the table, my worst case scenario doesn't seem that bad if i go to Cardozo. Being that biglaw isn't my goal (and my only potential connections are small-law), I don't understand why I would wanna push my future off a year further, to go to another city (when I love NY and it makes the most sense) and pay to go to a better school.

For me, the fear of being in serious debt (even with better job prospects) is outweighing the thinking of waiting a year, and going to a better/more expensive school.


Being debt-averse is the right attitude, but it's only part of the equation. Because there's a tiny $160 cost to retaking the LSAT, and most schools take the highest score, you want to finish our your risk-reward analysis by seeing where you can get the most band for your buck on a multi-year basis. The opportunity cost of waiting a year to go to a decent school on a decent scholarship is far smaller than going to a bad school, money or not, and not getting a job. The former is one year. The latter may be until you die.


BlueLotus wrote:Someone w/ numbers to get into Harvard probably will get a full-ride at BC or BU. I was laboring under the impression that Northeastern was on the "never worth it list", along with Suffolk, NESL, WNEC, UMass, and further down the chain.


You're right. Someone who got into Harvard would almost likely get a (near) full-ride to BC/BU, and Northeastern is on my don't go list. That said, Northeastern brands themselves as Boston's "public interest school," especially with their co-op program. So I'm using Northeastern for the standard they've set themselves. In other words, there's more than one way into New England public service, as you probably know.

User avatar
Crowing
Posts: 2636
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:20 pm

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

Postby Crowing » Wed Jan 29, 2014 5:07 pm

yossarian71 wrote:
rad lulz wrote:When a ton of schools basically aren't worthwhile at all or w out full scholarship quibbling about which schools are better in a market is silly:

Ex Boston: Haravrd > bc or bu > don't go


Fair point.

Where it becomes interesting is for smaller markets like Indy/Louisville/Cinci. Obv. HYS > UChi = NU > T6 > T14. But, where do regionals fall in the pecking order in what cities. Does WUSTL carry any midwest clout to these markets? Vandy? If so, more or less than ND/IUB/Moritz/UK. Does UK carry any clout in Indy? IUB in Louisville? Not looking for specific answers to these questions. I just mean that is what's interesting to me.

(But again, you're point comes into play, if you're talking BigLaw, after UCHI, NU, regional powerhouse, the differences are so minimal, it doesn't matter, even if interesting).


I don't know if you can really create such rigid hierarchies. Midwestern secondary markets at least have some pretty serious concerns about T14 students that present their own sets of challenges that you wouldn't face from a local school.

User avatar
BlueLotus
Posts: 2428
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 8:07 pm

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

Postby BlueLotus » Wed Jan 29, 2014 5:08 pm

Bikeflip wrote:
C0NFUSED0L wrote:I do not believe there are stipulations, aside from maintaining good standing....The other figures I saw on TLS suggested that I would need to maintain a 2.95 GPA (=80%). What's the best way of finding out and being sure the answer is correct?

I'm in a position where I don't think retaking will be as beneficial to me as it would for the generic TLS'er. I feel a real need to start school this year.

If the worst case scenario is median at Cardozo with 20-30K in debt (partial COL), I don't feel like I would have too many regrets (compared to the way I think i'd feel if i went to Fordham on half a scholarship and finished median, or waited a year and went to a T14 sticker).


Read up on section stacking. Many schools, and possibly Cardozo, will lump all the scholarship kids into the same section, guaranteeing that some kids will be on the bottom of the curve, losing their scholarship. In short, there is a way for you to lose your good standing scholarship.

As for the "real need to start school this year," I honestly understand. You want to move on to the next chapter of your life. There's nothing wrong with that, but you want to move on intelligently. Jumping into school for the sake of jumping into school is harmful when the school choice doesn't lend itself to good outcomes. You don't want to stall out in the Vale.

C0NFUSED0L wrote:As suggested, I checked out the Vale thread, and it's super scary. This might be backwards thinking, but that thread actually leaves thinking that the last thing I want to do is spend an additional year + 3 in school + debt going to a more prestigious school.


And you're not wrong to think that. However, what we're getting at is not jump to a T30 at sticker. We're saying go to Fordham on the cheap b/c it's worth the risk (and dropout if your 1L grades are bad). Cardozo's too risky at any cost.

C0NFUSED0L wrote:Saw a quote in that thread explaining how little ranking/prestige and grades matter in that situation. Being pretty debt averse, and having the offer of NYC rent on the table, my worst case scenario doesn't seem that bad if i go to Cardozo. Being that biglaw isn't my goal (and my only potential connections are small-law), I don't understand why I would wanna push my future off a year further, to go to another city (when I love NY and it makes the most sense) and pay to go to a better school.

For me, the fear of being in serious debt (even with better job prospects) is outweighing the thinking of waiting a year, and going to a better/more expensive school.


Being debt-averse is the right attitude, but it's only part of the equation. Because there's a tiny $160 cost to retaking the LSAT, and most schools take the highest score, you want to finish our your risk-reward analysis by seeing where you can get the most band for your buck on a multi-year basis. The opportunity cost of waiting a year to go to a decent school on a decent scholarship is far smaller than going to a bad school, money or not, and not getting a job. The former is one year. The latter may be until you die.


BlueLotus wrote:Someone w/ numbers to get into Harvard probably will get a full-ride at BC or BU. I was laboring under the impression that Northeastern was on the "never worth it list", along with Suffolk, NESL, WNEC, UMass, and further down the chain.


You're right. Someone who got into Harvard would almost likely get a (near) full-ride to BC/BU, and Northeastern is on my don't go list. That said, Northeastern brands themselves as Boston's "public interest school," especially with their co-op program. So I'm using Northeastern for the standard they've set themselves. In other words, there's more than one way into New England public service, as you probably know.


If you want to be in northern New England (i.e. ME, VT, NH), what's better--the local third-tier flagships in those states, or BC$/BU$/T-14 with ties?

User avatar
Bikeflip
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:01 pm

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

Postby Bikeflip » Wed Jan 29, 2014 5:14 pm

BlueLotus wrote:If you want to be in northern New England (i.e. ME, VT, NH), what's better--the local third-tier flagships in those states, or BC$/BU$/T-14 with ties?



I can't help ya too much with that one, as I don't know what those places want. Best I can do is tell you an anecdote that a few of my bros in that situation went for the T30, and their results were mixed. One bro went for VT for enviro-law. Bro's out of the legal market and in DC doing enviro-stuff. Sorry I can't be more helpful, bud.

squee116
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 1:18 pm

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

Postby squee116 » Wed Jan 29, 2014 7:32 pm

Goal: small IP law
Schools:
IU-B w/ 15k a year scholarship (stip: good standing)
University of Arizona (no $$ info yet)
Baylor w/ 9k a year (stip: gpa above 2.75)
SMU (still waiting on decision)
Emory (still waiting on decision)

I will be paying for this through savings and parents will cover the rest.
No negotiation on scholarships has occurred yet. (If any is even plausible)

Ties:
Nothing strong.
Born, raised, and lived in California up to this point. I've considered moving for some time, and I was originally eyeballing Texas and Arizona with that intent.
Arizona - family that I visit regularly. I've been to, and like the state.
I've never stepped foot into Georgia or Indiana, and I've only had a connecting flight through Texas once.
I lean towards Texas largely because it has the larger legal market, but from what I'm to understand, the South in general is fairly selective in regards to ties.

User avatar
rpupkin
Posts: 3864
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

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

Postby rpupkin » Wed Jan 29, 2014 7:58 pm

squee116 wrote:Goal: small IP law
Schools:
IU-B w/ 15k a year scholarship (stip: good standing)
University of Arizona (no $$ info yet)
Baylor w/ 9k a year (stip: gpa above 2.75)
SMU (still waiting on decision)
Emory (still waiting on decision)

I will be paying for this through savings and parents will cover the rest.
No negotiation on scholarships has occurred yet. (If any is even plausible)

Ties:
Nothing strong.
Born, raised, and lived in California up to this point. I've considered moving for some time, and I was originally eyeballing Texas and Arizona with that intent.
Arizona - family that I visit regularly. I've been to, and like the state.
I've never stepped foot into Georgia or Indiana, and I've only had a connecting flight through Texas once.
I lean towards Texas largely because it has the larger legal market, but from what I'm to understand, the South in general is fairly selective in regards to ties.

If you want to do IP law, you're making a strange choice in leaving California, which is full of patent prosecution/litigation, as well as a fair amount of soft IP. Texas has IP as well but, as you observed, it can be tough to get a job there without ties. And some of those other regions will be tough going for an aspiring IP lawyer coming out of a non T-14 school.

squee116
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 1:18 pm

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

Postby squee116 » Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:03 pm

A large reason I didn't think CA was viable was that I often hear the CA legal market is over saturated. Is that not the case?

User avatar
rpupkin
Posts: 3864
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

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

Postby rpupkin » Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:06 pm

squee116 wrote:A large reason I didn't think CA was viable was that I often hear the CA legal market is over saturated. Is that not the case?

For IP law? Not really. That's the one part of the CA legal market that has continued to thrive over the past few years.

Do you have a technical background? Are you patent bar eligible? If so, then a school like Santa Clara wouldn't be a bad choice. I know it's on the "do not go under any circumstances" list on the first page of the thread, but I'm not sure it belongs there for someone with a technical background who wants to do IP work in California. And I bet they'd throw some money at you right now.

squee116
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 1:18 pm

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

Postby squee116 » Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:14 pm

rpupkin wrote:
squee116 wrote:A large reason I didn't think CA was viable was that I often hear the CA legal market is over saturated. Is that not the case?

For IP law? Not really. That's the one part of the CA legal market that has continued to thrive over the past few years.

Do you have a technical background? Are you patent bar eligible? If so, then a school like Santa Clara wouldn't be a bad choice. I know it's on the "do not go under any circumstances" list on the first page of the thread, but I'm not sure it belongs there for someone with a technical background who wants to do IP work in California. And I bet they'd throw some money at you right now.


I did get accepted to Santa Clara, and they offered 90k but the general consensus in regards to SCU on this forum has not been positive.

*edit: my background is mixed. I spent two hours of ug as a computer science major but switched to business. I did a fair amount of calculus classes, but not nearly the amount a math major would do.

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 » Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:55 pm

rpupkin wrote:
squee116 wrote:A large reason I didn't think CA was viable was that I often hear the CA legal market is over saturated. Is that not the case?

For IP law? Not really. That's the one part of the CA legal market that has continued to thrive over the past few years.

Do you have a technical background? Are you patent bar eligible? If so, then a school like Santa Clara wouldn't be a bad choice. I know it's on the "do not go under any circumstances" list on the first page of the thread, but I'm not sure it belongs there for someone with a technical background who wants to do IP work in California. And I bet they'd throw some money at you right now.

No 0Ls providing info ITT, especially ones who recommend SanTTTa Clara

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3401
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

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

Postby ManoftheHour » Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:57 pm

Bedsole wrote:
rpupkin wrote:
squee116 wrote:A large reason I didn't think CA was viable was that I often hear the CA legal market is over saturated. Is that not the case?

For IP law? Not really. That's the one part of the CA legal market that has continued to thrive over the past few years.

Do you have a technical background? Are you patent bar eligible? If so, then a school like Santa Clara wouldn't be a bad choice. I know it's on the "do not go under any circumstances" list on the first page of the thread, but I'm not sure it belongs there for someone with a technical background who wants to do IP work in California. And I bet they'd throw some money at you right now.

No 0Ls providing info ITT, especially ones who recommend SanTTTa Clara


My friend's friend the other day really tried recommending me to apply. He's a pre-med who is in love with Norcal.

Jerry Jones
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:44 pm

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

Postby Jerry Jones » Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:00 pm

Goal: Biglaw in Texas

School: UT

COA: 140k

Ties: Texas

Numbers: 3.5 168 (URM)

User avatar
worldtraveler
Posts: 7662
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:47 am

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

Postby worldtraveler » Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:03 pm

Bedsole wrote:
rpupkin wrote:
squee116 wrote:A large reason I didn't think CA was viable was that I often hear the CA legal market is over saturated. Is that not the case?

For IP law? Not really. That's the one part of the CA legal market that has continued to thrive over the past few years.

Do you have a technical background? Are you patent bar eligible? If so, then a school like Santa Clara wouldn't be a bad choice. I know it's on the "do not go under any circumstances" list on the first page of the thread, but I'm not sure it belongs there for someone with a technical background who wants to do IP work in California. And I bet they'd throw some money at you right now.

No 0Ls providing info ITT, especially ones who recommend SanTTTa Clara


Can we put a warning in the thread title, similar to the one the vale thread has?

User avatar
rpupkin
Posts: 3864
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

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

Postby rpupkin » Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:11 pm

Bedsole wrote:
rpupkin wrote:Do you have a technical background? Are you patent bar eligible? If so, then a school like Santa Clara wouldn't be a bad choice. I know it's on the "do not go under any circumstances" list on the first page of the thread, but I'm not sure it belongs there for someone with a technical background who wants to do IP work in California. And I bet they'd throw some money at you right now.

No 0Ls providing info ITT, especially ones who recommend SanTTTa Clara

What a joke. The "advice" in this thread comes mostly of first- and second-year associates making recommendations based largely on data from law school transparency. There isn't a lot of insight here. Your "do go under any circumstances" list contains schools that people should consider in certain circumstances. If an applicant wants to do patent prosecution in Northern California and has a full ride to Santa Clara, would you really suggest that the applicant not attend the school? C'mon.

The benefit of a thread like this is that you can offer nuanced advice tailored to people's specific circumstances. And that's mostly not happening here. But, hey, you spelled Santa Clara with three T's! That's the sort of biting cleverness that 0Ls just can't bring to the table.

User avatar
deadpanic
Posts: 1168
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 5:09 pm

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

Postby deadpanic » Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:15 pm

Jerry Jones wrote:Goal: Biglaw in Texas

School: UT

COA: 140k

Ties: Texas

Numbers: 3.5 168 (URM)


What type of URM?

I would think you would have T14 options with $ as a URM with those numbers.

californiauser
Posts: 1181
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 1:10 am

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

Postby californiauser » Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:16 pm

rpupkin wrote:
Bedsole wrote:
rpupkin wrote:Do you have a technical background? Are you patent bar eligible? If so, then a school like Santa Clara wouldn't be a bad choice. I know it's on the "do not go under any circumstances" list on the first page of the thread, but I'm not sure it belongs there for someone with a technical background who wants to do IP work in California. And I bet they'd throw some money at you right now.

No 0Ls providing info ITT, especially ones who recommend SanTTTa Clara

What a joke. The "advice" in this thread comes mostly of first- and second-year associates making recommendations based largely on data from law school transparency. There isn't a lot of insight here. Your "do go under any circumstances" list contains schools that people should consider in certain circumstances. If an applicant wants to do patent prosecution in Northern California and has a full ride to Santa Clara, would you really suggest that the applicant not attend the school? C'mon.

The benefit of a thread like this is that you can offer nuanced advice tailored to people's specific circumstances. And that's mostly not happening here. But, hey, you spelled Santa Clara with three T's! That's the sort of biting cleverness that 0Ls just can't bring to the table.



Santa Clara is a terrible school and should be closed. If you don't like the advice ITT, don't click the link.

User avatar
worldtraveler
Posts: 7662
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:47 am

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

Postby worldtraveler » Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:16 pm

rpupkin wrote:
Bedsole wrote:
rpupkin wrote:Do you have a technical background? Are you patent bar eligible? If so, then a school like Santa Clara wouldn't be a bad choice. I know it's on the "do not go under any circumstances" list on the first page of the thread, but I'm not sure it belongs there for someone with a technical background who wants to do IP work in California. And I bet they'd throw some money at you right now.

No 0Ls providing info ITT, especially ones who recommend SanTTTa Clara

What a joke. The "advice" in this thread comes mostly of first- and second-year associates making recommendations based largely on data from law school transparency. There isn't a lot of insight here. Your "do go under any circumstances" list contains schools that people should consider in certain circumstances. If an applicant wants to do patent prosecution in Northern California and has a full ride to Santa Clara, would you really suggest that the applicant not attend the school? C'mon.

The benefit of a thread like this is that you can offer nuanced advice tailored to people's specific circumstances. And that's mostly not happening here. But, hey, you spelled Santa Clara with three T's! That's the sort of biting cleverness that 0Ls just can't bring to the table.


I would absolutely say they shouldn't go, yes. That isn't from law school transparency. That is from my own experience graduating from a school in the bay area and seeing people struggle to find jobs (which is precisely the insight 0Ls are lacking and why they are not supposed to be giving advice ITT).

If you don't like the rules of the thread, go make your own.

User avatar
deadpanic
Posts: 1168
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 5:09 pm

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

Postby deadpanic » Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:19 pm

rpupkin wrote:
Bedsole wrote:
rpupkin wrote:Do you have a technical background? Are you patent bar eligible? If so, then a school like Santa Clara wouldn't be a bad choice. I know it's on the "do not go under any circumstances" list on the first page of the thread, but I'm not sure it belongs there for someone with a technical background who wants to do IP work in California. And I bet they'd throw some money at you right now.

No 0Ls providing info ITT, especially ones who recommend SanTTTa Clara

What a joke. The "advice" in this thread comes mostly of first- and second-year associates making recommendations based largely on data from law school transparency. There isn't a lot of insight here. Your "do go under any circumstances" list contains schools that people should consider in certain circumstances. If an applicant wants to do patent prosecution in Northern California and has a full ride to Santa Clara, would you really suggest that the applicant not attend the school? C'mon.


Yep, I would suggest not going. Part of going to law school entails getting a job as a lawyer. Coming out of Santa Clara right now, it is more likely than not you will get a job that doesn't require a law degree.

It COULD work out in your favor, but the odds aren't very good. If you have the #s for a full ride at Santa Clara, you probably have better schools that also offer you money and are a better investment to becoming an actual practicing attorney.

Please tell us more though

User avatar
rpupkin
Posts: 3864
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

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

Postby rpupkin » Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:22 pm

worldtraveler wrote:
I would absolutely say they shouldn't go, yes. That isn't from law school transparency. That is from my own experience graduating from a school in the bay area and seeing people struggle to find jobs (which is precisely the insight 0Ls are lacking and why they are not supposed to be giving advice ITT).

If you don't like the rules of the thread, go make your own.

I'm not sure what makes you think I'm a 0L. In any event, didn't you go to school at Boalt? Even there, I'm sure there were plenty of students struggling to find jobs. But were folks with science degrees among them?

Santa Clara isn't Boalt. Not even close. But for narrow segments of the legal job market (primarily patent prosecution), I believe they continue to place well. Do you have reason to believe that is not the case?
Last edited by rpupkin on Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: carlos_danger, chargers21, jarico, Lawl_Schoolz, MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot] and 7 guests