ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

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

Postby JCougar » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:53 pm

palbatron wrote:
BlueLotus wrote:
palbatron wrote:Out of curiosity, assuming the goal is decent employment after graduation, what are thoughts on MSU College of Law with a King scholarship (full ride, group of 20 students, collaboration with dean, etc.)?


Any stips to the scholly? (i.e. have to be top 1/3 or you lose it)



Only stips are that you maintain a 3.5 GPA or you are removed from the program (but you can still have the full-ride as long as you are in good academic standing). I'm looking at this along with a full ride to Kent and 32k/yr to Loyola, with other schools to hear from, but I know Kent was already mentioned in this thread. Looking to stay in the Midwest region (I'm from Michigan).


Kent isn't the greatest school, but if you have a full ride there, you should definitely take it above MSU. MSU's reputation is really TTT. Kent is at least in a decent-sized market, and it actually has some biglaw connections, and a decent reputation among small and mid-sized firms in Chicago. MSU is just garbage. Look at their employment score on LST...it's 30%. My brother's friend went to MSU and graduated like three years ago and just finally found a JD-preferred compliance job making like $40K/year. After three years of compounding interest...and sporadic doc review projects.

palbatron
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 12:23 am

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

Postby palbatron » Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:18 pm

Thanks for your input cougar. I also have a full ride to Wayne State, but never really considered it. The only reason I am even entertaining Wayne or MSU is due to their placement in the top 50 or so firms in Michigan. I know there are several associates from both schools that work at Miller, Honigman, Dickinson, Bodman, and others. All of the first year associate salaries for these top 30 or so firms are between 95k and 115k, something I would be very comfortable with.

Ideally I would love to stay in Michigan, but I really am fighting for a job that I would be making at least 95k starting out. I am not sure if I would be better off gambling and heading to an in state school and hoping to place at one of these firms, or if the better option is to go to Chicago and place my roots there. I have an interview with WUSTL tomorrow, so aside from any horrible mistake on my part, I could also throw that into the mix.

User avatar
deadpanic
Posts: 1169
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 5:09 pm

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

Postby deadpanic » Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:52 pm

palbatron wrote:Ideally I would love to stay in Michigan, but I really am fighting for a job that I would be making at least 95k starting out. I am not sure if I would be better off gambling and heading to an in state school and hoping to place at one of these firms, or if the better option is to go to Chicago and place my roots there. I have an interview with WUSTL tomorrow, so aside from any horrible mistake on my part, I could also throw that into the mix.


Then you need to go to a much better school and/or lower your expectations. Going to MSU/Wayne/Kent/etc. makes it damn near impossible for a big law job; even WUSTL doesn't give you very good odds of getting hired by a large firm.

If you want a high paying big firm job -> HYS, Chicago, Northwestern, or maybe Michigan. Even Michigan ITE is probably not a safe bet for Chicago big law.

ETA - If you want to stay in Michigan, retake for Michigan. Misread it and thought you were gunning for Chicago.

User avatar
worldtraveler
Posts: 7667
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:47 am

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

Postby worldtraveler » Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:26 am

palbatron wrote:Thanks for your input cougar. I also have a full ride to Wayne State, but never really considered it. The only reason I am even entertaining Wayne or MSU is due to their placement in the top 50 or so firms in Michigan. I know there are several associates from both schools that work at Miller, Honigman, Dickinson, Bodman, and others. All of the first year associate salaries for these top 30 or so firms are between 95k and 115k, something I would be very comfortable with.

Ideally I would love to stay in Michigan, but I really am fighting for a job that I would be making at least 95k starting out. I am not sure if I would be better off gambling and heading to an in state school and hoping to place at one of these firms, or if the better option is to go to Chicago and place my roots there. I have an interview with WUSTL tomorrow, so aside from any horrible mistake on my part, I could also throw that into the mix.


You have about a .00001% chance of making that salary starting out. Either adjust your expectations or don't go.

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3402
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

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

Postby ManoftheHour » Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:26 am

lawschool2014hopeful wrote:Well according to this

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school= ... class=2011

at least 50% of class is hired in a legal job? and 80% have some sort of job?

I mean it just seems like alot better than what I would expect from a TTT.


Going to a school for 3 years and paying thousands of dollars for a 50% shot to do something legal is awful. We're not talking about 50% end up in big law, we're talking about 50% ending up as attorneys period. Personally, I wouldn't go to law school if there was only a 50% chance I'd end up becoming an attorney. Also, some sort of job includes barista at Starbucks though. It counts as "business and industry." Think about it this way. If you were a law grad that was unemployed, what would you do? Stay unemployed? No. I'd try to get ANY job. Hardly anybody would sit on their ass and do nothing. $8/hr is better than $0/hr. This is why LST exists. It calculates the amount of MEANINGFUL jobs. A lot of those other jobs (including barista) does not require a JD that took thousands of dollars and 3 years of your life to earn.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

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

Postby JCougar » Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:31 am

palbatron wrote:Thanks for your input cougar. I also have a full ride to Wayne State, but never really considered it. The only reason I am even entertaining Wayne or MSU is due to their placement in the top 50 or so firms in Michigan. I know there are several associates from both schools that work at Miller, Honigman, Dickinson, Bodman, and others. All of the first year associate salaries for these top 30 or so firms are between 95k and 115k, something I would be very comfortable with.


The question you should be asking is not "what percentage of the lawyers at these firms went to MSU or Wayne State?" It is "what percentage of the people that graduate from MSU and Wayne State make it into these firms?"

It's kind of like an LSAT logical reasoning question. But it's easy enough that you probably get my drift.

But I guess if you really want to stay in Michigan, there's really nothing in between UM and the schools you list that are in state...i.e. no T2 or lower T1 Michigan schools. Still, even MSU for free is a bad decision, as significantly more than half the class can't even be a lawyer at all.

The answer is probably retake and try as you might to get into Michigan.

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 Feb 05, 2014 12:55 am

BlueLotus wrote:I'm at a T30 but aiming for PI (PD/Legal Aid) in the Philly area. Thoughts on doing a visiting year at Temple during 3L? I would be claiming in-state tuition and living with parents.



Can you do a graded externship?

User avatar
KatyMarie
Posts: 616
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 2:16 pm

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

Postby KatyMarie » Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:14 pm

Thoughts on UT Austin with an OOS equalizer and 20,000/year scholarship? Only stip is good academic standing.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

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

Postby JCougar » Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:23 pm

KatyMarie wrote:Thoughts on UT Austin with an OOS equalizer and 20,000/year scholarship? Only stip is good academic standing.


That's probably pretty good. Even more so if you want to work in Texas. Just be frugal with your COL expenses. You don't need to take out $20K/year to live in a fancy apartment, etc.

User avatar
KatyMarie
Posts: 616
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 2:16 pm

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

Postby KatyMarie » Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:35 pm

JCougar wrote:
KatyMarie wrote:Thoughts on UT Austin with an OOS equalizer and 20,000/year scholarship? Only stip is good academic standing.


That's probably pretty good. Even more so if you want to work in Texas. Just be frugal with your COL expenses. You don't need to take out $20K/year to live in a fancy apartment, etc.


Thanks! I probably want to meander my way back to dixie at some point, but I don't think I'd mind living in TX for a while. Also looking at Vanderbilt (not sure of $$ there yet). Assuming a similar scholarship, what would be the better choice?

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

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

Postby JCougar » Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:37 pm

KatyMarie wrote:
JCougar wrote:
KatyMarie wrote:Thoughts on UT Austin with an OOS equalizer and 20,000/year scholarship? Only stip is good academic standing.


That's probably pretty good. Even more so if you want to work in Texas. Just be frugal with your COL expenses. You don't need to take out $20K/year to live in a fancy apartment, etc.


Thanks! I probably want to meander my way back to dixie at some point, but I don't think I'd mind living in TX for a while. Also looking at Vanderbilt (not sure of $$ there yet). Assuming a similar scholarship, what would be the better choice?


Vanderbilt with equal $$$ is better for the rest of the South, Texas is better for Texas. Other than that, it's pretty much a toss-up.

Although living in Austin for three years would probably be cooler.

legal-eagle
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:51 pm

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

Postby legal-eagle » Thu Feb 06, 2014 6:55 pm

any thoughts on full scholarship to Rutgers Newark? 3.0 stip or top 50% .. commute from home , no costs for living , in state, worst case scenario losing it and paying 23k 2nd and 3rd year .. won't let that happen though

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3402
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

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

Postby ManoftheHour » Thu Feb 06, 2014 6:59 pm

Colorado full ride, no stips. COL will be covered.

Goals: District attorney or bust. I wouldn't mind practicing in Colorado forever, but I do have a preference for CA.
Ties: Southern Cal, born and raised.

Let's hear it.

:lol:

User avatar
bjsesq
TLS Poet Laureate
Posts: 13383
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am

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

Postby bjsesq » Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:00 pm

ManoftheHour wrote:Colorado full ride, no stips. COL will be covered.

Goals: District attorney or bust. I wouldn't mind practicing in Colorado forever, but I do have a preference for CA.
Ties: Southern Cal, born and raised.

Let's hear it.

:lol:


Do it.

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 » Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:24 pm

bjsesq wrote:
ManoftheHour wrote:Colorado full ride, no stips. COL will be covered.

Goals: District attorney or bust. I wouldn't mind practicing in Colorado forever, but I do have a preference for CA.
Ties: Southern Cal, born and raised.

Let's hear it.

:lol:


Do it.


Cleared for takeoff.

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3402
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

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

Postby ManoftheHour » Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:25 pm

prezidentv8 wrote:
bjsesq wrote:
ManoftheHour wrote:Colorado full ride, no stips. COL will be covered.

Goals: District attorney or bust. I wouldn't mind practicing in Colorado forever, but I do have a preference for CA.
Ties: Southern Cal, born and raised.

Let's hear it.

:lol:


Do it.


Cleared for takeoff.


Debt free and snowboarding sounded awesome.

User avatar
worldtraveler
Posts: 7667
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:47 am

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

Postby worldtraveler » Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:26 pm

legal-eagle wrote:any thoughts on full scholarship to Rutgers Newark? 3.0 stip or top 50% .. commute from home , no costs for living , in state, worst case scenario losing it and paying 23k 2nd and 3rd year .. won't let that happen though


Negotiate those stipulations first.

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3402
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

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

Postby ManoftheHour » Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:28 pm

In all seriousness, is Colorado that bad if you are PI or bust? I thought the school prestige/grades do not matter for PI.

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 Feb 06, 2014 7:34 pm

ManoftheHour wrote:In all seriousness, is Colorado that bad if you are PI or bust? I thought the school prestige/grades do not matter for PI.


they matter for certain kinds of PI (int'l human rights, ACLU, DoJ, SPLC, etc.) For PD/DA/Legal Aid? Not so much.

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3402
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

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

Postby ManoftheHour » Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:38 pm

BlueLotus wrote:
ManoftheHour wrote:In all seriousness, is Colorado that bad if you are PI or bust? I thought the school prestige/grades do not matter for PI.


they matter for certain kinds of PI (int'l human rights, ACLU, DoJ, SPLC, etc.) For PD/DA/Legal Aid? Not so much.


That's good to know. I'd rather go to a school in CA, but I'm not sure if I can get this kind of aid from USC. Loyola threw me $$$, but their schollies come with sTTTTips. I've heard it doesn't matter, but it does bother me going to a school that isn't in my preferred market. Just wondering what others thought.

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 Feb 06, 2014 7:42 pm

ManoftheHour wrote:
BlueLotus wrote:
ManoftheHour wrote:In all seriousness, is Colorado that bad if you are PI or bust? I thought the school prestige/grades do not matter for PI.


they matter for certain kinds of PI (int'l human rights, ACLU, DoJ, SPLC, etc.) For PD/DA/Legal Aid? Not so much.


That's good to know. I'd rather go to a school in CA, but I'm not sure if I can get this kind of aid from USC. Loyola threw me $$$, but their schollies come with sTTTTips. I've heard it doesn't matter, but it does bother me going to a school that isn't in my preferred market. Just wondering what others thought.


You'll get a good amount of dough from USC, based on your numbers.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

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

Postby JCougar » Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:49 pm

ManoftheHour wrote:
BlueLotus wrote:
ManoftheHour wrote:In all seriousness, is Colorado that bad if you are PI or bust? I thought the school prestige/grades do not matter for PI.


they matter for certain kinds of PI (int'l human rights, ACLU, DoJ, SPLC, etc.) For PD/DA/Legal Aid? Not so much.


That's good to know. I'd rather go to a school in CA, but I'm not sure if I can get this kind of aid from USC. Loyola threw me $$$, but their schollies come with sTTTTips. I've heard it doesn't matter, but it does bother me going to a school that isn't in my preferred market. Just wondering what others thought.


If you simply mean to return to your home market, I don't think going to a school out of that market is a terrible decision. It's not that hard to transfer back to someplace you already have ties. All things equal, I'd still try to go to school in your home market as well, but if you get a substantially better deal somewhere else that isn't a total shiTTThole, it may be worth it.

The real thing you want to avoid is going to any school and then thinking you're going to get a job simply based on the degree's "portability." I think true "portability" is mostly a myth...except maybe from HYS. Basically, all firms, even Biglaw, prefer to hire people with ties to their market. NYC for Biglaw and DC for FedGov are limited exceptions...they'll take outsiders, because they're basically king of the mountain and people will stay in those places even if they don't have ties.

Also, there's really two types of PI...like BlueLotus said. There's prestigious PI (plaintiff's civil rights stuff, ACLU, SPLC, etc.) which mostly requires you to have a T6 + Berkeley degree, or have some tremendous other stuff on your resume (very few positions open in this field). And then there's stuff like PD, state-based legal aid agencies, non-profits, etc. which care far more about your legal/non-legal work/internship experience in the area, or anything else that demonstrates a serious commitment to the field. These places care a lot less about school/rank, and you should probably take the full scholly if this is your target.

User avatar
cron1834
Posts: 1920
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:36 am

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

Postby cron1834 » Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:39 pm

Piggy-backing on Man of the Hour's sitch: is it feasible/useful/successful to move away from your target market to go to school and apply hard for summer placements back home? I'm in the PNW, and I'd like to practice here, but I'm not enamored of my regional options ...

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3402
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

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

Postby ManoftheHour » Fri Feb 07, 2014 12:57 am

JCougar wrote:
Also, there's really two types of PI...like BlueLotus said. There's prestigious PI (plaintiff's civil rights stuff, ACLU, SPLC, etc.) which mostly requires you to have a T6 + Berkeley degree, or have some tremendous other stuff on your resume (very few positions open in this field). And then there's stuff like PD, state-based legal aid agencies, non-profits, etc. which care far more about your legal/non-legal work/internship experience in the area, or anything else that demonstrates a serious commitment to the field. These places care a lot less about school/rank, and you should probably take the full scholly if this is your target.


I'm pretty much CA DA or bust. Born here, raised here, went to UG here. Never left. Going to spend all my summers doing that kind of work. I just really wanted to know because Colorado is pretty much random as fuck when I want to get back to California. Right now, it looks good for my goals though. As stated, I do want USC for cheap. I'd go in a heartbeat. I'd also go Davis for cheap too. I can't go any lower because the rest of the CA TTTs have sTTTTips on their schollies. The thing I like about the Colorado offer is that it's free and doesn't have any of those sTTTTips. Hell, in my letter, it does not even say that I need to maintain good standing.

Thanks for your replies. I wasn't sure if the above posters were being sarcastic or not by telling me to go.

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 » Fri Feb 07, 2014 1:08 am

ManoftheHour wrote:
JCougar wrote:
Also, there's really two types of PI...like BlueLotus said. There's prestigious PI (plaintiff's civil rights stuff, ACLU, SPLC, etc.) which mostly requires you to have a T6 + Berkeley degree, or have some tremendous other stuff on your resume (very few positions open in this field). And then there's stuff like PD, state-based legal aid agencies, non-profits, etc. which care far more about your legal/non-legal work/internship experience in the area, or anything else that demonstrates a serious commitment to the field. These places care a lot less about school/rank, and you should probably take the full scholly if this is your target.


I'm pretty much CA DA or bust. Born here, raised here, went to UG here. Never left. Going to spend all my summers doing that kind of work. I just really wanted to know because Colorado is pretty much random as fuck when I want to get back to California. Right now, it looks good for my goals though. As stated, I do want USC for cheap. I'd go in a heartbeat. I'd also go Davis for cheap too. I can't go any lower because the rest of the CA TTTs have sTTTTips on their schollies. The thing I like about the Colorado offer is that it's free and doesn't have any of those sTTTTips. Hell, in my letter, it does not even say that I need to maintain good standing.

Thanks for your replies. I wasn't sure if the above posters were being sarcastic or not by telling me to go.



Colorado will allow you to be a DA in Rich Orange County Lite, aka Douglas County. Don't expect it to get you back to California, though. CU for free, if you want to do gubmint in Colorado, would be a great option. You might be able to swing back to California if you network the hell out of things and do every internship back there, including a semester in practice. I don't know for sure, since I know jack about the CA legal market.

Also, looking at your profile, it looks like you have a free ride to CU for 1L year and instate tuition minus $5-10K off 2L & 3L year? That changes things a ton.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests