ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
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 » Fri May 02, 2014 2:39 pm

blackbeardspubes wrote:
bjsesq wrote:What are your numbers? Applying late in the cycle fucks you.


Yes, as i found out. If I apply and matriculate next cycle, I'll have 2 full years WE. Undergrad GPA = 2.9 LSAT = 173

EDIT: 1 full year public interest work


Apply early. I would think WUSTL and NU are in the realm of possibilities, but that shit GPA makes predicting things tough.

User avatar
06102016
Posts: 13466
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:29 pm

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

Postby 06102016 » Fri May 02, 2014 2:41 pm

..

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 May 02, 2014 2:44 pm

blackbeardspubes wrote:
bound wrote:
blackbeardspubes wrote:
why tha FUK would i take advice from you? you're not even IN law school. [REDACTED.


EDIT: LOL you're going to LOYOLA!! your advice is beyond hilarious within that context.




that escalated quickly. :shock:



uhmmm. why don't you either adhere to the topic of the thread or FUCK OFFF!


Wtf is wrong with you?

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 » Fri May 02, 2014 2:44 pm

ManoftheHour wrote:Wtf is wrong with you?


slackademic wrote:
blackbeardspubes wrote:USER WAS BANNED FOR BEING A TURD

He was a turd.

User avatar
06102016
Posts: 13466
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:29 pm

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

Postby 06102016 » Fri May 02, 2014 2:45 pm

..

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

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

Postby Dr. Review » Mon May 05, 2014 3:00 pm

I just got a PM from a 0L that brought me back to this forum for the first time in months. I had hoped this thread would have gotten the message across, but I now believe that it requires reiteration.

Not going to law school is an option, one which most people should pursue, particularly if they cannot graduate with little to no debt from a state flagship (in a state where they have significant ties) or from a T14. If your options are a school near you with bad employment numbers, or a school on the opposite coast from you with slightly better, but still bad employment numbers, the decision is not a binary one. It is not simply "this or that". You may be dying to be a lawyer, but if you cannot attend a school that helps you do this, you should either retake or do something else. Just because you can't think of anything you'd rather do than law doesn't mean the schools you can attend will help you achieve this dream.

Be realistic.

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 » Mon May 05, 2014 4:03 pm

Bedsole wrote:I just got a PM from a 0L that brought me back to this forum for the first time in months. I had hoped this thread would have gotten the message across, but I now believe that it requires reiteration.

Not going to law school is an option, one which most people should pursue, particularly if they cannot graduate with little to no debt from a state flagship (in a state where they have significant ties) or from a T14. If your options are a school near you with bad employment numbers, or a school on the opposite coast from you with slightly better, but still bad employment numbers, the decision is not a binary one. It is not simply "this or that". You may be dying to be a lawyer, but if you cannot attend a school that helps you do this, you should either retake or do something else. Just because you can't think of anything you'd rather do than law doesn't mean the schools you can attend will help you achieve this dream.

Be realistic.


+1

Even if the declining number of law school matriculants seems to promise a somewhat easier time in the future for law grads getting jobs...keep in mind that there's probably about three years worth of slack still left in the legal job market. Lots of graduates from the last three years either volunteering or working at some terrible shitlaw temp job (or just living with their parents working whatever odd job they can find) will be trying to lateral in to any new job opportunities offered.

workaholic82
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:29 pm

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

Postby workaholic82 » Mon May 05, 2014 4:30 pm

Shirosham wrote: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

Goals: big law or any job where i start at 50k + with room to make more. Have been a paralegal pulling in 30k for years with no signs of being able to make more. I'm in my early 30's and need to make a big career move before i miss my chance.

Regional ties:
Strong ties to Midwest, lived in Chicago my whole life, family in St. Louis as well.

Schools:
UIUC: 40,000 or less (no stip)
WUSTL: 137,000 but this is after i let an exploding offer lapse. Dropped from 120,000 scholly to 75,000, not ruling out possibility of future higher offer from WUSTL.
NU: currently held. If i get in, COA would be anywhere from 145,000 to 250,000 depending on many factors.

Important: i have 35,000 UG loans that were not included in COA above.

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 » Mon May 05, 2014 10:45 pm

What is the status of GW, vis-a-vis the OP's list?

Nomo
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:06 am

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

Postby Nomo » Mon May 05, 2014 10:54 pm

workaholic82 wrote:Goals: big law or any job where i start at 50k + with room to make more. Have been a paralegal pulling in 30k for years with no signs of being able to make more. I'm in my early 30's and need to make a big career move before i miss my chance.

Regional ties:
Strong ties to Midwest, lived in Chicago my whole life, family in St. Louis as well.

Schools:
UIUC: 40,000 or less (no stip)
WUSTL: 137,000 but this is after i let an exploding offer lapse. Dropped from 120,000 scholly to 75,000, not ruling out possibility of future higher offer from WUSTL.
NU: currently held. If i get in, COA would be anywhere from 145,000 to 250,000 depending on many factors.

Important: i have 35,000 UG loans that were not included in COA above.


UIUC seems like the only reasonable option to me. The others are just really risky. I understand the desire to make more money, but law school might not be a good way to do it. Sadly, there might not be any good way to do it.

workaholic82
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:29 pm

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

Postby workaholic82 » Mon May 05, 2014 10:57 pm

Nomo wrote:
workaholic82 wrote:Goals: big law or any job where i start at 50k + with room to make more. Have been a paralegal pulling in 30k for years with no signs of being able to make more. I'm in my early 30's and need to make a big career move before i miss my chance.

Regional ties:
Strong ties to Midwest, lived in Chicago my whole life, family in St. Louis as well.

Schools:
UIUC: 40,000 or less (no stip)
WUSTL: 137,000 but this is after i let an exploding offer lapse. Dropped from 120,000 scholly to 75,000, not ruling out possibility of future higher offer from WUSTL.
NU: currently held. If i get in, COA would be anywhere from 145,000 to 250,000 depending on many factors.

Important: i have 35,000 UG loans that were not included in COA above.


UIUC seems like the only reasonable option to me. The others are just really risky. I understand the desire to make more money, but law school might not be a good way to do it. Sadly, there might not be any good way to do it.

Yes, unless WUSTL needs high LSATS and comes over the top with a full ride, I'm definitely leaning towards UIUC. I don't need big money, but I'd like more than $30K, and, while it's a long shot, even UIUC offers the potential for far greater than that. If I had a miracle and could get NU for $130-140,000, you still think UIUC is better?

User avatar
mt2165
Posts: 508
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:58 pm

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

Postby mt2165 » Mon May 05, 2014 11:10 pm

mt2165 wrote:Goals: Eventually Gov/PI/Politics, expecting some biglaw to pay off debts, perhaps as a (mediocre/risky) segue into my desired fields. Would love to practice in DC/NYC/CLE in that order.

Regional ties: NE Ohio, and Upstate NY

Schools I'm considering: Cornell at 100k COA.

Other info: AA Male, no outstanding debt.


Sorry to do this, but curious.

workaholic82
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:29 pm

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

Postby workaholic82 » Mon May 05, 2014 11:20 pm

mt2165 wrote:
mt2165 wrote:Goals: Eventually Gov/PI/Politics, expecting some biglaw to pay off debts, perhaps as a (mediocre/risky) segue into my desired fields. Would love to practice in DC/NYC/CLE in that order.

Regional ties: NE Ohio, and Upstate NY

Schools I'm considering: Cornell at 100k COA.

Other info: AA Male, no outstanding debt.


Sorry to do this, but curious.

By all means... this isn't a contest!

User avatar
BigJimboOrleans
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:50 am

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

Postby BigJimboOrleans » Tue May 06, 2014 5:55 pm

Goals: Health/Science gov law (NIST, FDA, etc) or private

Between American U and UMaryland. I keep hearing a lot of hate from the boards about AU, but I see no problems with the school when I look at their ABA numbers?

UMaryland is about $10k/year cheaper with in state tuition vs scholly to AU and "ranked" way higher, yet their employment numbers look close to the same. My biggest concern with jumping to UMd is the fact that it is in Baltimore as opposed to the DC/MD/VA gov area (where I want to end up).

I'm a veteran w/ a BS bio undergrad with some government ties.

Side note: I really hate Baltimore and want nothing to do with it after graduation if I do attend UMd. My only other option is Baylor and the CoA is too high.

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 May 07, 2014 3:34 am

I've gotten quite a few PMs lately with 0Ls asking if they should attend certain TTT schools. And TTT is basically anything outside of the top 25 schools unless it's a public flagship with in-state tuition and no better private schools in the state. And even ranks 14-25 could legitimately be considered TTT under a lot of circumstances.

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but many 0Ls are reading these pages for the first time. Let me just state this plainly. Legal education in this country is a scam. The people who run law schools are swindlers--many of them lower than Bernie Madoff. At least Bernie screwed people who were already rich and could afford to lose money while still keeping a roof over their head. Law school administrators screw people who have nothing, and pay themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for running a "non-profit."

The federal government will not investigate this scam, because they're in on it. They're making a huge profit on the interest on these loans, as they are trying to balance their budget by turning a profit through the Department of Education. The average law school grad will end up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars of interest on their school loans.

It's a little different than Bernie Madoff, though. Bernie ran a Ponzi scheme, while the legal education industry is running a pyramid scheme. There simply are not enough jobs out there to pay off all the loan debt that students are graduating with. 10% get Biglaw, but even many of these people don't last long enough to pay off all their debt. And Biglaw is another pyramid scheme in and of itself, but that's a story for a different thread.

0Ls need to realize that even schools with a 60% LST employment score...many of those people who are counted as employed full-time long-term are in terrible shitlaw jobs that pay you about the same amount that a manager at Home Depot would make. And schools are trying to inflate that employment score any way they can. These are schools that just 4 years ago made claims that their average graduate was making six figures, when in reality, their average graduate was unemployed and deeply and hopelessly in debt. Why should anyone give them the benefit of the doubt this time around when judging whether a job is really JD required or long-term?

All the advice you will get on TLS and elsewhere is simply advice as to how to beat the scam. How to get to the top of the pyramid. But that doesn't change the fact that this whole system is just a con to extract as much money from as many people as possible without any regard for the outcomes of the marks. So if you are even thinking for one second that you should attend a TTT at any cost (and this includes at least half of the "Tier 1" US News), you really need to think again. Because you are the mark.

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 May 07, 2014 6:32 am

JCougar wrote:I've gotten quite a few PMs lately with 0Ls asking if they should attend certain TTT schools. And TTT is basically anything outside of the top 25 schools unless it's a public flagship with in-state tuition and no better private schools in the state. And even ranks 14-25 could legitimately be considered TTT under a lot of circumstances.

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but many 0Ls are reading these pages for the first time. Let me just state this plainly. Legal education in this country is a scam. The people who run law schools are swindlers--many of them lower than Bernie Madoff. At least Bernie screwed people who were already rich and could afford to lose money while still keeping a roof over their head. Law school administrators screw people who have nothing, and pay themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for running a "non-profit."

The federal government will not investigate this scam, because they're in on it. They're making a huge profit on the interest on these loans, as they are trying to balance their budget by turning a profit through the Department of Education. The average law school grad will end up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars of interest on their school loans.

It's a little different than Bernie Madoff, though. Bernie ran a Ponzi scheme, while the legal education industry is running a pyramid scheme. There simply are not enough jobs out there to pay off all the loan debt that students are graduating with. 10% get Biglaw, but even many of these people don't last long enough to pay off all their debt. And Biglaw is another pyramid scheme in and of itself, but that's a story for a different thread.

0Ls need to realize that even schools with a 60% LST employment score...many of those people who are counted as employed full-time long-term are in terrible shitlaw jobs that pay you about the same amount that a manager at Home Depot would make. And schools are trying to inflate that employment score any way they can. These are schools that just 4 years ago made claims that their average graduate was making six figures, when in reality, their average graduate was unemployed and deeply and hopelessly in debt. Why should anyone give them the benefit of the doubt this time around when judging whether a job is really JD required or long-term?

All the advice you will get on TLS and elsewhere is simply advice as to how to beat the scam. How to get to the top of the pyramid. But that doesn't change the fact that this whole system is just a con to extract as much money from as many people as possible without any regard for the outcomes of the marks. So if you are even thinking for one second that you should attend a TTT at any cost (and this includes at least half of the "Tier 1" US News), you really need to think again. Because you are the mark.


0L checking in. I'm glad for TLS because it gave me a huge reality check regarding my career goals; and it made me realize how twisted the law school system has become. It's important we beat them at their own game, guys.

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 May 07, 2014 2:50 pm

Just for posterity's sake, here's a good example of the kind of con men that run law schools these days:

http://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/sex ... id=4307875

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 May 07, 2014 5:06 pm

Well, the man is a creep, no doubt. I'm really surprised by how banal many of the students' responses were to his behavior. I understand his actions led to greater prestige, funding, and outcomes for the school, but he was a ticking timebomb. Was his downfall worth the short-term gains?

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 May 07, 2014 6:03 pm

Pragmatic Gun wrote:Well, the man is a creep, no doubt. I'm really surprised by how banal many of the students' responses were to his behavior. I understand his actions led to greater prestige, funding, and outcomes for the school, but he was a ticking timebomb. Was his downfall worth the short-term gains?


No, but that story only goes to show where most universities' priorities are.

Fundraising and rankings are all that matters. What happens to the students is somewhere far down on the list. As long as they can juice their job stats, their concern for you ends as soon as you sign your name to the last loan document. And the university's big donors clearly wanted Mitchell in place despite the concerns about sexual harassment, etc. So donor pressure overrode even the slightest bit of common sense within the university administration.

Also, I'm not sure that a lot of universities would react any different.

wiltthestilt
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 12:29 pm

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

Postby wiltthestilt » Wed May 07, 2014 7:40 pm

Is Michigan at 1/3 scholly absurd if the goal is biglaw?

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

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

Postby worldtraveler » Wed May 07, 2014 7:42 pm

wiltthestilt wrote:Is Michigan at 1/3 scholly absurd if the goal is biglaw?


no, but what are your other options?

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 May 07, 2014 7:49 pm

Is GWU with a $120K skolly a bad decision period?

User avatar
cron1834
Posts: 1921
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:36 am

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

Postby cron1834 » Wed May 07, 2014 8:11 pm

JCougar wrote:Just for posterity's sake, here's a good example of the kind of con men that run law schools these days:

http://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/sex ... id=4307875


This was an awesome read. What a prick.

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 May 07, 2014 9:41 pm

cron1834 wrote:
JCougar wrote:Just for posterity's sake, here's a good example of the kind of con men that run law schools these days:

http://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/sex ... id=4307875


This was an awesome read. What a prick.


I just can't get over how many repeated incidents there were, and the school still didn't take action. And they're still sticking by him.

That situation, on the school's part, goes beyond just denial and willful ignorance--to blatant disregard for any sort of moral conduct whatsoever. And also blind faith in some sort of Machiavellian agenda that anyone with an iota of foresight could have predicted would blow up in their faces in the long run. Dean Mitchell was a walking time bomb, and these people were way too stupid to see that.

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 May 14, 2014 2:59 am

Wasn't Case Western one of the schools sued by its alumni? Assholes.

ETA: Nah. Was Cal Western.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: laowhynot109 and 3 guests