ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
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 Apr 30, 2014 8:53 pm

Pragmatic Gun wrote:
Nomo wrote:
Pragmatic Gun wrote:I'm not surprised by these responses. It corroborates my biggest fear. So my Plan B is to work at a large firm, pay off my debts, and go into public interest. Workable?


No. Not workable for 2 of reasons.

First, to get biglaw is really hard to get out of GW. Many want it, few get it. Biglaw is a reasonable backup plan for students at the top 3-6 schools at best . . . everyone else needs a backup plan for if they don't get biglaw.

Second, biglaw will require you to get a 2L SA. But, your international goals will likely also require you to use your 2L summer in certain types of international work. Can't do both.

A realistic backup plan needs to be something that at least 80 to 90 percent of GW students can actually get. Looking at the number of unemployed or underemployed GW students the idea of a backup plan is problematic in and of itself. At best your backup plan should be something like, personal injury work for a 3 attorney firm making 40k/yr.


My father knows a couple of lawyers, and my stepmohter's old boss with whom she has a good relationship owns a law firm in Manhattan. The company for which I work had an in house counsel but quit. My supervisor told me the owners got excited when they found out that I'm heading to law school. Plus my girlfriend's brother is a lawyer at a small.

There's that.


Everyone's Dad knows a couple of lawyers. None of these are sure-fire JOBS. They are leads that could turn into possible employment. Most people going to law school will have a connection to several lawyers and law firms--I would not rely on that at all.

You seem to be trying to sell us and give you confirmation to go. I just honestly think it is way too much and DC is the most competitive legal market in the country. If you don't get big law out of GW, I'm not even sure what you do because there really isn't much "small law" (and certainly no real midlaw jobs you'll be able to get) in DC. You'll have to go a less competitive market or intern for a politician making $0/year with 100K+ in debt. Or that non profit you mentioned earlier, which would be pretty disastrous.

User avatar
Pragmatic Gun
Posts: 783
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2013 3:25 pm

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

Postby Pragmatic Gun » Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:13 pm

deadpanic wrote:
Pragmatic Gun wrote:
Nomo wrote:
Pragmatic Gun wrote:I'm not surprised by these responses. It corroborates my biggest fear. So my Plan B is to work at a large firm, pay off my debts, and go into public interest. Workable?


No. Not workable for 2 of reasons.

First, to get biglaw is really hard to get out of GW. Many want it, few get it. Biglaw is a reasonable backup plan for students at the top 3-6 schools at best . . . everyone else needs a backup plan for if they don't get biglaw.

Second, biglaw will require you to get a 2L SA. But, your international goals will likely also require you to use your 2L summer in certain types of international work. Can't do both.

A realistic backup plan needs to be something that at least 80 to 90 percent of GW students can actually get. Looking at the number of unemployed or underemployed GW students the idea of a backup plan is problematic in and of itself. At best your backup plan should be something like, personal injury work for a 3 attorney firm making 40k/yr.


My father knows a couple of lawyers, and my stepmohter's old boss with whom she has a good relationship owns a law firm in Manhattan. The company for which I work had an in house counsel but quit. My supervisor told me the owners got excited when they found out that I'm heading to law school. Plus my girlfriend's brother is a lawyer at a small.

There's that.


Everyone's Dad knows a couple of lawyers. None of these are sure-fire JOBS. They are leads that could turn into possible employment. Most people going to law school will have a connection to several lawyers and law firms--I would not rely on that at all.

You seem to be trying to sell us and give you confirmation to go. I just honestly think it is way too much and DC is the most competitive legal market in the country. If you don't get big law out of GW, I'm not even sure what you do because there really isn't much "small law" (and certainly no real midlaw jobs you'll be able to get) in DC. You'll have to go a less competitive market or intern for a politician making $0/year with 100K+ in debt. Or that non profit you mentioned earlier, which would be pretty disastrous.


I need to know my worst-case scenario to help me plan better. TLS is extremely good at that.

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 May 01, 2014 11:45 am

Nomo wrote:
Pragmatic Gun wrote:Interested in Pi and government work. I want to work with an international NGO like Human Rights Watch. DC seems to be the most logical choice. Plus I would love to practice there.

Top choice: GWU.

COA (w/o interest): $110K

Connection to a non-profit in the area. Have a family member living and interning for a Congressman. But I'm merely posting these for the sake of following the guidelines and would not rely on them.

Chew away.


You absolutely should not be going to GWU at that price with those goals.


Yeah, with those goals, OP only has one option: retake, re-apply and get into HYSCCN.

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 May 01, 2014 11:48 am

Yanky91 wrote:
JCougar wrote:
Also, I would be wary of the 25% of UIUC to biglaw. 2013 was their last class with legitimate, T25 medians. All the classes after that have TTT medians, and if you think Biglaw is going to continue to recruit from a TTT class when jobs are scarce and they have plenty of better options, I would think twice.


I don't think a firm will stop hiring from a school because their median LSAT fell. This is evident by the fact that their median LSAT fell from a 167 three years ago to a 163, and their big law employment was unaffected (in 2011 all the numbers fell, and the scandal had just broke). In fact, their big law employment has steadily been increasing over the years, as their medians fell (LSAT and GPA). If what you're saying is true, then what about UNC: median 161, Ohio State: median 160, Wisconsin-Madison: 161, and other schools whose medians fell, but maintained their employment? I just think UIUC has the employment it has because it has a strong alumni network, and a strong reputation in IL. A hiring manager/partner isn't going to say, "Oh you went to UIUC, let me check their medians"…… at least I don't think that. I could be wrong.


Like I said, the class of 2013 (the one we just got employment numbers from) still had a median of 167. The new ones have like 160. That's not your average LSAT drop. The bottom fell out.

User avatar
Pragmatic Gun
Posts: 783
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2013 3:25 pm

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

Postby Pragmatic Gun » Thu May 01, 2014 12:27 pm

JCougar wrote:
Nomo wrote:
Pragmatic Gun wrote:Interested in Pi and government work. I want to work with an international NGO like Human Rights Watch. DC seems to be the most logical choice. Plus I would love to practice there.

Top choice: GWU.

COA (w/o interest): $110K

Connection to a non-profit in the area. Have a family member living and interning for a Congressman. But I'm merely posting these for the sake of following the guidelines and would not rely on them.

Chew away.


You absolutely should not be going to GWU at that price with those goals.


Yeah, with those goals, OP only has one option: retake, re-apply and get into HYSCCN.


I am retaking the June LSAT, as a matter of fact. Wish me luck!

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 » Thu May 01, 2014 12:37 pm

Pragmatic Gun wrote:
Bikeflip wrote:
Pragmatic Gun wrote:Interested in Pi and government work.
Top choice: GWU.
COA (w/o interest): $110K
Connection to a non-profit in the area. Have a family member living and interning for a Congressman.

Chew away.



A non-profit? And a Congressman? Those are only 2 small (and probably low paying) connections to justify $110,000 ($120,000), and PSLF is probably going to get gutted.


I updated my post. I want to work for an international NGO or a government branch that deals with international affairs. My future goal is to work for an international criminal tribunal, and I want to lay the groundwork for that.


You would have better luck finding a job on the moon.

User avatar
Pragmatic Gun
Posts: 783
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2013 3:25 pm

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

Postby Pragmatic Gun » Thu May 01, 2014 12:49 pm

worldtraveler wrote:
Pragmatic Gun wrote:
Bikeflip wrote:
Pragmatic Gun wrote:Interested in Pi and government work.
Top choice: GWU.
COA (w/o interest): $110K
Connection to a non-profit in the area. Have a family member living and interning for a Congressman.

Chew away.



A non-profit? And a Congressman? Those are only 2 small (and probably low paying) connections to justify $110,000 ($120,000), and PSLF is probably going to get gutted.


I updated my post. I want to work for an international NGO or a government branch that deals with international affairs. My future goal is to work for an international criminal tribunal, and I want to lay the groundwork for that.


You would have better luck finding a job on the moon.


I'm thinking really, really long-term here I'm obviously not anticipating working for the UN straight out of law school. That's ridiculous. The posts of their legal jobs indicate they need years of experience. I have contacts with the UN here in NY. I already speak three languages fluently. All I need is a JD and then I can continue working toward my goal, debt be damned (but not too much).

User avatar
Pragmatic Gun
Posts: 783
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2013 3:25 pm

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

Postby Pragmatic Gun » Thu May 01, 2014 12:54 pm

worldtraveler wrote:You would have better luck finding a job on the moon.


I'm thinking really, really long-term here I'm obviously not anticipating working for the UN straight out of law school. That's ridiculous. The posts of their legal jobs indicate they need years of experience. I have contacts with the UN here in NY. I already speak three languages fluently. All I need is a JD and then I can continue working toward my goal, debt be damned (but not too much).[/quote]

I don't mean to sound haughty or a know-it-all and I do appreciate the tough love here. If I can't answer your challenges, then it means I need to re-examine my goals and strategy.

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 » Thu May 01, 2014 12:58 pm

Pragmatic Gun wrote:
worldtraveler wrote:You would have better luck finding a job on the moon.


I'm thinking really, really long-term here I'm obviously not anticipating working for the UN straight out of law school. That's ridiculous. The posts of their legal jobs indicate they need years of experience. I have contacts with the UN here in NY. I already speak three languages fluently. All I need is a JD and then I can continue working toward my goal, debt be damned (but not too much).


I don't mean to sound haughty or a know-it-all and I do appreciate the tough love here. If I can't answer your challenges, then it means I need to re-examine my goals and strategy.[/quote]

You don't just need a JD. You need a JD from a top school and all kinds of other qualifications.

If this is what you really want, retake for a top school or go a different route.

User avatar
Pragmatic Gun
Posts: 783
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2013 3:25 pm

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

Postby Pragmatic Gun » Thu May 01, 2014 1:07 pm

worldtraveler wrote:
Pragmatic Gun wrote:
worldtraveler wrote:You would have better luck finding a job on the moon.


I'm thinking really, really long-term here I'm obviously not anticipating working for the UN straight out of law school. That's ridiculous. The posts of their legal jobs indicate they need years of experience. I have contacts with the UN here in NY. I already speak three languages fluently. All I need is a JD and then I can continue working toward my goal, debt be damned (but not too much).


I don't mean to sound haughty or a know-it-all and I do appreciate the tough love here. If I can't answer your challenges, then it means I need to re-examine my goals and strategy.


You don't just need a JD. You need a JD from a top school and all kinds of other qualifications.

If this is what you really want, retake for a top school or go a different route.[/quote]

Wish me luck on the June LSAT then. :)

Yanky91
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:04 pm

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

Postby Yanky91 » Thu May 01, 2014 1:13 pm

JCougar wrote:
Yanky91 wrote:
JCougar wrote:
Also, I would be wary of the 25% of UIUC to biglaw. 2013 was their last class with legitimate, T25 medians. All the classes after that have TTT medians, and if you think Biglaw is going to continue to recruit from a TTT class when jobs are scarce and they have plenty of better options, I would think twice.


I don't think a firm will stop hiring from a school because their median LSAT fell. This is evident by the fact that their median LSAT fell from a 167 three years ago to a 163, and their big law employment was unaffected (in 2011 all the numbers fell, and the scandal had just broke). In fact, their big law employment has steadily been increasing over the years, as their medians fell (LSAT and GPA). If what you're saying is true, then what about UNC: median 161, Ohio State: median 160, Wisconsin-Madison: 161, and other schools whose medians fell, but maintained their employment? I just think UIUC has the employment it has because it has a strong alumni network, and a strong reputation in IL. A hiring manager/partner isn't going to say, "Oh you went to UIUC, let me check their medians"…… at least I don't think that. I could be wrong.


Like I said, the class of 2013 (the one we just got employment numbers from) still had a median of 167. The new ones have like 160. That's not your average LSAT drop. The bottom fell out.


It wasn't really a 167. The scandal was that they were inflating their median to a 167 when it was really a 163. So in your eyes, is Wake a better option? Obviously you do not think UIUC will regain the rep it once had because you think their employment is going to continue to decline, and if their employment falls, and their medians fall, well then they're in trouble. What is your overall opinion of my choices?

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 May 01, 2014 2:12 pm

Yanky91 wrote:It wasn't really a 167. The scandal was that they were inflating their median to a 167 when it was really a 163. So in your eyes, is Wake a better option? Obviously you do not think UIUC will regain the rep it once had because you think their employment is going to continue to decline, and if their employment falls, and their medians fall, well then they're in trouble. What is your overall opinion of my choices?


No, the class of 2013 was either really a 167 or 168...I can't remember. It was either accurate, or it was off by only one point.

The 168/163 exaggeration didn't happen until class of 2014. And then c/o 2015 it dropped to like 160 after word of the scandal got out.

Employers don't care about a 1 or 2-point LSAT drop because it ends up being statistical noise. But a 7-8 point drop is statistically significant. Why should employers hire from UIUC when they can get the same quality students from IIT-Kent and Loyola?

User avatar
bugsy33
Posts: 261
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:04 pm

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

Postby bugsy33 » Thu May 01, 2014 3:00 pm

JCougar wrote:Employers don't care about a 1 or 2-point LSAT drop because it ends up being statistical noise. But a 7-8 point drop is statistically significant. Why should employers hire from UIUC when they can get the same quality students from IIT-Kent and Loyola?



This is outrageous, employers aren't sitting around looking up LSAT medians. Last year's UIUC class out performed all of the other peer schools minus Iowa. That includes Notre Dame, WashU, and most of the B1G. There is a huge alumni base in Chicago that is not going to give two shits about the most recent LSAT scores. Law School reputations aren't built or lost overnight. Most practicing attorneys still see UIUC as a very good school, and there's no reason they shouldn't.

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3398
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

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

Postby ManoftheHour » Thu May 01, 2014 3:09 pm

bugsy33 wrote:
JCougar wrote:Employers don't care about a 1 or 2-point LSAT drop because it ends up being statistical noise. But a 7-8 point drop is statistically significant. Why should employers hire from UIUC when they can get the same quality students from IIT-Kent and Loyola?



This is outrageous, employers aren't sitting around looking up LSAT medians. Last year's UIUC class out performed all of the other peer schools minus Iowa. That includes Notre Dame, WashU, and most of the B1G. There is a huge alumni base in Chicago that is not going to give two shits about the most recent LSAT scores. Law School reputations aren't built or lost overnight. Most practicing attorneys still see UIUC as a very good school, and there's no reason they shouldn't.


They didn't outperform ND. UIUC has a 10% school funded rate. ND has 1%. ND also has a higher big law and fed clerkship rate and has almost half the underemployment.

User avatar
Ricky-Bobby
Posts: 1151
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 12:42 pm

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

Postby Ricky-Bobby » Thu May 01, 2014 3:26 pm

bugsy33 wrote:
JCougar wrote:Employers don't care about a 1 or 2-point LSAT drop because it ends up being statistical noise. But a 7-8 point drop is statistically significant. Why should employers hire from UIUC when they can get the same quality students from IIT-Kent and Loyola?



This is outrageous, employers aren't sitting around looking up LSAT medians. Last year's UIUC class out performed all of the other peer schools minus Iowa. That includes Notre Dame, WashU, and most of the B1G. There is a huge alumni base in Chicago that is not going to give two shits about the most recent LSAT scores. Law School reputations aren't built or lost overnight. Most practicing attorneys still see UIUC as a very good school, and there's no reason they shouldn't.

And again, you can't use last year's employment numbers to back up your claims. C/O 2014 was the last entering class before the scandal broke. I don't know if UIUC's employment numbers will fall, but you're building an argument on irrelevant data.

Yanky91
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:04 pm

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

Postby Yanky91 » Thu May 01, 2014 3:34 pm

JCougar wrote:
Yanky91 wrote:It wasn't really a 167. The scandal was that they were inflating their median to a 167 when it was really a 163. So in your eyes, is Wake a better option? Obviously you do not think UIUC will regain the rep it once had because you think their employment is going to continue to decline, and if their employment falls, and their medians fall, well then they're in trouble. What is your overall opinion of my choices?


No, the class of 2013 was either really a 167 or 168...I can't remember. It was either accurate, or it was off by only one point.

The 168/163 exaggeration didn't happen until class of 2014. And then c/o 2015 it dropped to like 160 after word of the scandal got out.

Employers don't care about a 1 or 2-point LSAT drop because it ends up being statistical noise. But a 7-8 point drop is statistically significant. Why should employers hire from UIUC when they can get the same quality students from IIT-Kent and Loyola?


Yeah, you're right. My bad. For that year they inflated their GPA's not their LSAT's. You really think employers calculate/research the difference and what year the LSAT was high and what year it was lower? Also, just because the median LSAT for a school is a 160, it does not mean that the quality of the student body is worse. Based off of what you're saying, there really is no difference in the quality of students between UNC and the schools you mentioned. This clearly is not the case.
Last edited by Yanky91 on Thu May 01, 2014 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yanky91
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:04 pm

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

Postby Yanky91 » Thu May 01, 2014 3:40 pm

ManoftheHour wrote:They didn't outperform ND. UIUC has a 10% school funded rate. ND has 1%. ND also has a higher big law and fed clerkship rate and has almost half the underemployment.


Illinois: 72.7% of graduates were known to be employed in long-term, full-time legal jobs. This figure includes no school-funded jobs.
Notre Dame: 71.7% of graduates were known to be employed in long-term, full-time legal jobs. This figure includes no school-funded jobs.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/illinois/jobs/

I don't know if it is a mistake or what, but LST says that the 72.7% is without school funded jobs.

User avatar
Ricky-Bobby
Posts: 1151
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 12:42 pm

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

Postby Ricky-Bobby » Thu May 01, 2014 4:17 pm

Yanky91 wrote:
ManoftheHour wrote:They didn't outperform ND. UIUC has a 10% school funded rate. ND has 1%. ND also has a higher big law and fed clerkship rate and has almost half the underemployment.


Illinois: 72.7% of graduates were known to be employed in long-term, full-time legal jobs. This figure includes no school-funded jobs.
Notre Dame: 71.7% of graduates were known to be employed in long-term, full-time legal jobs. This figure includes no school-funded jobs.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/illinois/jobs/

I don't know if it is a mistake or what, but LST says that the 72.7% is without school funded jobs.

Look at the link you posted. There's a box on that page showing 10.4% school-funded, with 8.7% being FTLT. That FTLT number directly raises the LST employment score.

This is also denoted by the (now gigantic) red asterisk on the main page:
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/illinois/

Yanky91
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:04 pm

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

Postby Yanky91 » Thu May 01, 2014 4:32 pm

Ricky-Bobby wrote:
Yanky91 wrote:
ManoftheHour wrote:They didn't outperform ND. UIUC has a 10% school funded rate. ND has 1%. ND also has a higher big law and fed clerkship rate and has almost half the underemployment.


Illinois: 72.7% of graduates were known to be employed in long-term, full-time legal jobs. This figure includes no school-funded jobs.
Notre Dame: 71.7% of graduates were known to be employed in long-term, full-time legal jobs. This figure includes no school-funded jobs.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/illinois/jobs/

I don't know if it is a mistake or what, but LST says that the 72.7% is without school funded jobs.

Look at the link you posted. There's a box on that page showing 10.4% school-funded, with 8.7% being FTLT. That FTLT number directly raises the LST employment score.

This is also denoted by the (now gigantic) red asterisk on the main page:
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/illinois/


I think there is a mistake, or maybe I am just not seeing it right, but on the page above, it says 72.3% employment score and when you scroll over the red asterisk it says 8% of this figure is school funded. Then when you click on jobs data, or just look at the page I posted, it says 72.7% of graduates were known to be employed in long-term, full-time legal jobs. This figure includes no school-funded jobs.

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 May 01, 2014 5:00 pm

bugsy33 wrote:
JCougar wrote:Employers don't care about a 1 or 2-point LSAT drop because it ends up being statistical noise. But a 7-8 point drop is statistically significant. Why should employers hire from UIUC when they can get the same quality students from IIT-Kent and Loyola?



This is outrageous, employers aren't sitting around looking up LSAT medians. Last year's UIUC class out performed all of the other peer schools minus Iowa. That includes Notre Dame, WashU, and most of the B1G. There is a huge alumni base in Chicago that is not going to give two shits about the most recent LSAT scores. Law School reputations aren't built or lost overnight. Most practicing attorneys still see UIUC as a very good school, and there's no reason they shouldn't.


That's totally not outrageous. The only reason they were hiring more from UIUC in the first place (as opposed to Loyola or Kent) was because it had a more attractive entering student profile.

What is outrageous is to think that an industry that justifies their billing rates via raw, unbridled elitism is going to keep hiring from a school who's class profile went from T25 to second tier in a matter of 2 years.

These changes aren't going to be instant, but the long-term trend from such a rapid decline in student quality is going to make getting a job from UIUC much harder.

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 May 01, 2014 5:04 pm

Yanky91 wrote:You really think employers calculate/research the difference and what year the LSAT was high and what year it was lower?


Not usually, but in the case of an 8-point drop, I'm pretty sure they would respond.

Also, just because the median LSAT for a school is a 160, it does not mean that the quality of the student body is worse.


Yes it does. Why do you think Biglaw hires more from the top schools, but hires almost nobody from schools with a 160 median? Hint: it's not because top schools are better at preparing you for being a lawyer.

User avatar
bugsy33
Posts: 261
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:04 pm

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

Postby bugsy33 » Thu May 01, 2014 5:05 pm

Yanky91 wrote:
Ricky-Bobby wrote:
Yanky91 wrote:
ManoftheHour wrote:They didn't outperform ND. UIUC has a 10% school funded rate. ND has 1%. ND also has a higher big law and fed clerkship rate and has almost half the underemployment.


Illinois: 72.7% of graduates were known to be employed in long-term, full-time legal jobs. This figure includes no school-funded jobs.
Notre Dame: 71.7% of graduates were known to be employed in long-term, full-time legal jobs. This figure includes no school-funded jobs.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/illinois/jobs/

I don't know if it is a mistake or what, but LST says that the 72.7% is without school funded jobs.

Look at the link you posted. There's a box on that page showing 10.4% school-funded, with 8.7% being FTLT. That FTLT number directly raises the LST employment score.

This is also denoted by the (now gigantic) red asterisk on the main page:
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/illinois/


I think there is a mistake, or maybe I am just not seeing it right, but on the page above, it says 72.3% employment score and when you scroll over the red asterisk it says 8% of this figure is school funded. Then when you click on jobs data, or just look at the page I posted, it says 72.7% of graduates were known to be employed in long-term, full-time legal jobs. This figure includes no school-funded jobs.


Yanky, I'm pretty sure the LST score does include some school funded jobs. Even still, it doesn't change the point. UIUC has been, and always will be, a peer school to ND, WashU, and the other B1G schools. It is classified as a strong regional and is a good option if you have a significant discount. It remains to be seen how the dropping medians will impact employment, but my guess is that it won't.

Saying UIUC is now equivalent to Loyola and Kent is just flat out false. It still has the resources of a T-25 school, including an alumni base that has many mid-law and big-law partners. Just because the medians have fallen FOR TWO YEARS, does not make it a TTT. The fact that we're even having this discussion is ridiculous to me.
Last edited by bugsy33 on Thu May 01, 2014 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 May 01, 2014 5:08 pm

School-funded jobs are classified as LTFT. They are counted in the employment score because they last at least one year (which makes them "long-term").

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 May 01, 2014 5:12 pm

bugsy33 wrote:Saying UIUC is now equivalent to Loyola and Kent is just flat out false.


No one said they were equivalent overall.

I do remember one person saying that their entering classes were now similar.

UIUC might have more resources to dig themselves out of this current hole they are in, but law firms are still going to know that their entering class statistics are similar to that of a T2. The story of the rankings scandal was all over the news here, in the paper, on the radio, etc. Everyone knows about it, including local clients.

Shirosham
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:06 pm

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

Postby Shirosham » Thu May 01, 2014 9:14 pm

Preferred format:

Goal(s): Not sure. PI/IP (Not enough units to become Patent)

Regional Ties: Family in California, most of my work & friends in California.

School(s):
Wake Forest - 90,000 (Academic Standing Stip)
Pepperdine - 180,000 (Top 50% stip)
Santa Clara - 90,000 (3.0 stip) - 50% scholarships aren't retained, bit worried about section stacking.
Lewis & Clark - 90,000 (2.6 or something Stip)

Name of school and total cost to attend (NOT the total scholarship award) after scholarships and cost of living
Other pertinent information:

I'm good with undergraduate loans.

Ideally I'd like to end up staying in California, but I'm open to living and working somewhere else. N




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: carlos_danger and 4 guests