ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
worldtraveler
Posts: 7663
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 9:23 pm

deadpanic wrote:
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.


Or negotiate with UT. That debt level is pretty high but UT with plans to remain in TX is not a bad option.

User avatar
worldtraveler
Posts: 7663
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 9:26 pm

rpupkin wrote:
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?


The guy you're encouraging doesn't appear to have the background necessary for the patent bar anyway. And given how prestige obsessed patent firms are, Santa Clara is not a good idea even if you do have the background. I'm sure it works out for some people, but that is true of every school.

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 9:35 pm

worldtraveler wrote:The guy you're encouraging doesn't appear to have the background necessary for the patent bar anyway. And given how prestige obsessed patent firms are, Santa Clara is not a good idea even if you do have the background. I'm sure it works out for some people, but that is true of every school.

First, I agree that it's not clear whether that poster has the background necessary for the patent bar. Before I got instructed to stop offering advice, I was going to ask how many CMPS units he has. If he has close to 40 and if he went to the right school, he can sit for the patent bar with his non-science bachelors.

Second, I don't agree with your blanket statement that patent firms are "prestige obsessed." If we're talking about patent litigation, then, yes, you'll find most of the same prestige biases that exist in general commercial litigation. The firms that dominate patent lit in the SF Bay Area--Quinn, MoFO, Gibson, etc.--definitely care about prestige. But patent prosecution is a different story. Plenty of prosecution firms (and prosecution groups at larger firms) hire from Santa Clara.

Basically, I think the "Don't go to Santa Clara!" advice is generally sound for a run-of-the-mill applicant with no technical background. But if someone is eligible for the patent bar and wants to do patent prosecution, then I think it's a choice worth considering if COA is low.

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 9:35 pm

C0NFUSED0L wrote:
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.


My concern is that you won't find any job practicing law as a Cardozo grad. If you do, I'm concerned it won't be at a salary that you can afford to live on in New York. How much do you think you will earn? What happens if you don't get a job as a lawyer? How will you support yourself?


Do you have connections that can get you a job?

I'm debt averse too. I'm not suggesting that you go into massive debt. My advice is to study, retake and see what you can get next year. At least go to a school that gives you a solid chance at a job. Maybe you could clerk or be a paralegal for one of these small firms and see what it is like. Do you have any idea what kind of law you want to practice ?

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 9:37 pm

rpupkin wrote:
worldtraveler wrote:The guy you're encouraging doesn't appear to have the background necessary for the patent bar anyway. And given how prestige obsessed patent firms are, Santa Clara is not a good idea even if you do have the background. I'm sure it works out for some people, but that is true of every school.

First, I agree that it's not clear whether that poster has the background necessary for the patent bar. Before I got instructed to stop offering advice, I was going to ask how many CMPS units he has. If he has close to 40 and if he went to the right school, he can sit for the patent bar with his non-science bachelors.

Second, I don't agree with your blanket statement that patent firms are "prestige obsessed." If we're talking about patent litigation, then, yes, you'll find most of the same prestige biases that exist in general commercial litigation. The firms that dominate patent lit in the SF Bay Area--Quinn, MoFO, Gibson, etc.--definitely care about prestige. But patent prosecution is a different story. Plenty of prosecution firms (and prosecution groups at larger firms) hire from Santa Clara.

Basically, I think the "Don't go to Santa Clara!" advice is generally sound for a run-of-the-mill applicant with no technical background. But if someone is eligible for the patent bar and wants to do patent prosecution, then I think it's a choice worth considering if COA is low.


Please just start an 0L giving advice to other 0Ls thread if this means so much to you. I would never recommend a Santa Clara. That is just stupid.

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 » Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:50 pm

m
Last edited by rad lulz on Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 9:51 pm

Let's assume I won't be able eligible for the patent bar and can't take the necessary classes to be eligible (which I've asked about and still communicating with admissions about). What about the options I had listed in my post?

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 » Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm

m
Last edited by rad lulz on Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 10:01 pm

rad lulz wrote:IP isn't some panacea where every dumbass who decides to go to santa clara and has a science degree can get a job

santa clara is a raging tire fire


Thank you.

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 10:02 pm

rad lulz wrote:
squee116 wrote:Let's assume I won't be able eligible for the patent bar and can't take the necessary classes to be eligible (which I've asked about and still communicating with admissions about). What about the options I had listed in my post?

at those prices for those schools don't bother

Thank you much.

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 10:06 pm

What should I do now to decrease my chances of being a perpetual Valer as a T30'er going to school for free and aiming for PI (PD/Legal Aid)?

User avatar
prezidentv8
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am

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

Postby prezidentv8 » Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:09 pm

NYstate wrote:
rad lulz wrote:IP isn't some panacea where every dumbass who decides to go to santa clara and has a science degree can get a job

santa clara is a raging tire fire


Thank you.


Summon Stephen Diamond

User avatar
presh
Posts: 7978
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:00 am

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

Postby presh » Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:13 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.


I know the thread has moved on to fighting about Santa Clara, but regarding your original choices, neither Baylor nor SMU are good choices for IP in Texas (or really great choices period). Definitely, definitely not if you only have a 9k scholarship.

And yes, Texas can be very insular, even the larger cities.

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 10:21 pm

presh wrote:
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.


I know the thread has moved on to fighting about Santa Clara, but regarding your original choices, neither Baylor nor SMU are good choices for IP in Texas (or really great choices period). Definitely, definitely not if you only have a 9k scholarship.

And yes, Texas can be very insular, even the larger cities.


OP: how did you decide where to apply? This list seems a little random. Are you looking at any other schools? For your own benefit, you might want to calculate the actual
COA of these schools and I think you would agree that it is too expensive. Though I admit upfront I know nothing about Arizona hiring IP or otherwise.

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 » Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:27 pm

Crowing wrote:
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.


Yeah, I mean, I guess in my mind, the exercise was: all other things equal, with school left as the only determinant factor, what's the order? But, you are right, that is a silly exercise that has little bearing on most real life hiring circumstances.

Had a coffee meeting with a selection committee partner at local biglaw yesterday. Interestingly, he seemed to indicate that once you're in the door, the only schools that matter are HYS. Otherwise, school differences are about chances of getting an interview/callback. The UChi or Cornell guy has the same shot as the UK or Moritz guy (again, assuming ties, flight risk are equal) once at the callback stage.

Sorry, not trying to be a 0L giving advice to anyone here. Just thought I'd pass that along.

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 10:37 pm

NYstate wrote:
presh wrote:
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.


I know the thread has moved on to fighting about Santa Clara, but regarding your original choices, neither Baylor nor SMU are good choices for IP in Texas (or really great choices period). Definitely, definitely not if you only have a 9k scholarship.

And yes, Texas can be very insular, even the larger cities.


OP: how did you decide where to apply? This list seems a little random. Are you looking at any other schools? For your own benefit, you might want to calculate the actual
COA of these schools and I think you would agree that it is too expensive. Though I admit upfront I know nothing about Arizona hiring IP or otherwise.


The story might be a little too long, but long story short, I was interested in IP law because a majority of time is spent dealing with tech, mechanical or electrical in my job and hobbies. I picked the schools for application a few months before finding this site, and made some ill-informed choices based off the USNWR rankings alone, both general and specialized. Things like "ties" didn't occur to me until all the apps were in. So in essence, the list is random because I didn't do my due diligence. Regardless, the schools I have are what I'm left with, unless I turn down my parents money and put law school on the backburner, retake, and attend when I can fund it myself, which is a real possibility at this point.

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 » Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:38 pm

Show lawschooltransparency.com to your folks and tell em youre just doin your best not to mess up your life

User avatar
AT9
Posts: 1299
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 6:00 pm

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

Postby AT9 » Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:45 pm

Thanks to deadpanic, Bedsole, and worldtraveler for answering my question about Wake about 10 pages back.

User avatar
Blindmelon
Posts: 1708
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:13 am

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

Postby Blindmelon » Thu Jan 30, 2014 9:29 am

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


As an associate at a bigfirm in Boston, yup. There are other T14 grads here, but about 90% of each firm's summer class are from these 3 schools.

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 » Thu Jan 30, 2014 10:39 am

rpupkin wrote:First, I agree that it's not clear whether that poster has the background necessary for the patent bar. Before I got instructed to stop offering advice, I was going to ask how many CMPS units he has. If he has close to 40 and if he went to the right school, he can sit for the patent bar with his non-science bachelors.


Sitting for the patent bar with the minimum requirements is silly. Just because you're eligible doesn't mean it is a meaningful credential. Clients don't want to look at your bio and see "psych major, but took a bunch of science classes when I wanted to be an engineer"

rpupkin wrote:Second, I don't agree with your blanket statement that patent firms are "prestige obsessed." If we're talking about patent litigation, then, yes, you'll find most of the same prestige biases that exist in general commercial litigation. The firms that dominate patent lit in the SF Bay Area--Quinn, MoFO, Gibson, etc.--definitely care about prestige. But patent prosecution is a different story. Plenty of prosecution firms (and prosecution groups at larger firms) hire from Santa Clara.


I'll go along with that. Plenty of patent prosecution hiring firms/attorneys don't really give a shit where you went, so long as you can do the work. The problem is that a) if they can get someone with a degree from a more well regarded school, what is their incentive to reach down to other schools and b) just because some pros groups/firms do hire from Santa Clara doesn't mean that you're guaranteed any kind of a positive outcome worth having.

rpupkin wrote:Basically, I think the "Don't go to Santa Clara!" advice is generally sound for a run-of-the-mill applicant with no technical background. But if someone is eligible for the patent bar and wants to do patent prosecution, then I think it's a choice worth considering if COA is low.

While I will agree that having the right background can go a long way, it isn't a cure-all. I know people with median grades with good jobs and people with top 10% grades from the same school with VERY similar tech backgrounds who are doing doc review. We aren't saying that no one will get any jobs from many of these schools. What we are saying is that the risk that you will wind up in a bad situation is too high to bother with a lot of these schools. High enough that it isn't even worth the opportunity cost of attending, particularly if there is any debt involved.

In the OP, I placed a post from Campos. I think it's particularly relevant for patent bar eligible people to read it. The type of people who have great backgrounds for pros work are often (although not always) the type of people who are eligible for 60K + starting salaries as engineers, scientists, and researchers. Leaving that job for a low likelihood of success at a shithole is not a good idea, even if the shithole pays for your tuition.

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

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

Postby timbs4339 » Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:21 am

Bedsole wrote:Sitting for the patent bar with the minimum requirements is silly. Just because you're eligible doesn't mean it is a meaningful credential. Clients don't want to look at your bio and see "psych major, but took a bunch of science classes when I wanted to be an engineer"


This. I know several people who thought about taking a bunch of CC science classes to become eligible and were told that it's not a good idea. It's what the firm can sell to the client, and the firm sells a book of associates who actually have degrees in the same stuff their clients do. And there are plenty more law students who have STEM degrees at top schools.

Santa Clara is an overpriced terlet and you are not going to represent Google just because it is highly ranked in USNWR's useless specialty rankings. If soft IP is your goal, then you need to retake and get into a school that sends a lot of people to firms that do IP litigation.

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

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

Postby dresden doll » Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:35 am

BlueLotus wrote:
beach_terror wrote:
BlueLotus wrote:Why Cardozo=Bad Under Any Circumstances and Temple=Good, when they are similarly ranked (and both located in markets saturated with lawl schools)?

Philadelphia isn't saturated like NYC is (and is much cheaper). Temple is also high in the peaking order, along with Villanova. The Philadelphia equivalent of a Cardozo in NYC is Widener or Drexel. Job prospects in Philly are still very poor, FWIW.


Thanks!

I chose to go to a T30 in a neighboring market for free, and wanna do PD/Legal Aid in Philly. As someone familiar with that market, what steps would you recommend I take? Did my 1L summer there, and secured a 2L summer PI jerb in Philly as well as a spring/winter break pro bono thing. Have strong ties, as in grew up in southeastern PA.


Does your school offer fellowships? If so, it may be easiest to apply for those (although I'd still search otherwise and treat the fellowship as a backup option). Many PDs will take on law school fellows because they perpetually need more staff than they can afford to fund. You may wind up with a full time gig from that point onwards; a number of people have.

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 » Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:19 pm

dresden doll wrote:
BlueLotus wrote:
beach_terror wrote:
BlueLotus wrote:Why Cardozo=Bad Under Any Circumstances and Temple=Good, when they are similarly ranked (and both located in markets saturated with lawl schools)?

Philadelphia isn't saturated like NYC is (and is much cheaper). Temple is also high in the peaking order, along with Villanova. The Philadelphia equivalent of a Cardozo in NYC is Widener or Drexel. Job prospects in Philly are still very poor, FWIW.


Thanks!

I chose to go to a T30 in a neighboring market for free, and wanna do PD/Legal Aid in Philly. As someone familiar with that market, what steps would you recommend I take? Did my 1L summer there, and secured a 2L summer PI jerb in Philly as well as a spring/winter break pro bono thing. Have strong ties, as in grew up in southeastern PA.


Does your school offer fellowships? If so, it may be easiest to apply for those (although I'd still search otherwise and treat the fellowship as a backup option). Many PDs will take on law school fellows because they perpetually need more staff than they can afford to fund. You may wind up with a full time gig from that point onwards; a number of people have.


there's talks in the works at my school about establishing fellowships. realllllly hope they materialize.

The Godfather
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2014 10:59 pm

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

Postby The Godfather » Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:51 pm

Goal : Biglaw law in the local region
Full Ride at U of Minn Law (if kept above 2.5)

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 » Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:53 pm

The Godfather wrote:Goal : Biglaw law in the local region
Full Ride at U of Minn Law (if kept above 2.5)



Is MSP the local region? If so, Minn didn't place over 15% into local big law last year.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Necho2, Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests