CA Law Schools

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
JSara
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2015 3:53 pm

CA Law Schools

Postby JSara » Tue Jan 27, 2015 3:59 pm

I understand that many on this forum are very pessimistic about non T14 law schools particularly in the LA area, but considering my stats (3.45, 163), how crazy is it to attend Pepp or LMU with a 30K scholly. I understand the initial placement into firms is not great unless one is top of their class, but is a degree from these schools actually unmarketable? Do the people responding have any actual insights other than numbers reported from the school? I am still awaiting USC and UCLA but do not expect any chance at either school. I will not be re-taking, it is not an option.
Thanks

User avatar
cannonball89
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2015 2:41 pm

Re: CA Law Schools

Postby cannonball89 » Tue Jan 27, 2015 4:15 pm

Just a heads up, you're not going to get very friendly responses. Be prepared

User avatar
ymmv
Posts: 12972
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:36 pm

Re: CA Law Schools

Postby ymmv » Tue Jan 27, 2015 4:16 pm

JSara wrote:I understand that many on this forum are very pessimistic about non T14 law schools particularly in the LA area, but considering my stats (3.45, 163), how crazy is it to attend Pepp or LMU with a 30K scholly. I understand the initial placement into firms is not great unless one is top of their class, but is a degree from these schools actually unmarketable? Do the people responding have any actual insights other than numbers reported from the school? I am still awaiting USC and UCLA but do not expect any chance at either school. I will not be re-taking, it is not an option.
Thanks


Why is retaking not an option? Will someone kill your family if you sit out a year and get an LSAT tutor?
Why do you want to go to law school? What are you goals?

User avatar
lawschool1741
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 6:32 pm

Re: CA Law Schools

Postby lawschool1741 » Tue Jan 27, 2015 4:33 pm

.
Last edited by lawschool1741 on Sat Feb 28, 2015 11:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
twenty
Posts: 3153
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:17 pm

Re: CA Law Schools

Postby twenty » Tue Jan 27, 2015 4:40 pm

but is a degree from these schools actually unmarketable?


I mean, "unmarketable" is definitely not the word you're looking for here, and I get the feeling you're not understanding the concept.

Do the people responding have any actual insights other than numbers reported from the school?


While you should be paying attention to the numbers more than attention to "actual insights" from people attending, you'll find a lot more people from these schools telling you not to go than people telling you to go. You can play any number of mental games or reaffirm this in any variety of different ways, but at the end of the day, don't go to either school for less than a full ride, and only then if you want to practice in California.

User avatar
Poptorts
Posts: 230
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 8:26 pm

Re: CA Law Schools

Postby Poptorts » Tue Jan 27, 2015 8:39 pm

JSara wrote:I understand that many on this forum are very pessimistic about non T14 law schools particularly in the LA area, but considering my stats (3.45, 163), how crazy is it to attend Pepp or LMU with a 30K scholly. I understand the initial placement into firms is not great unless one is top of their class, but is a degree from these schools actually unmarketable? Do the people responding have any actual insights other than numbers reported from the school? I am still awaiting USC and UCLA but do not expect any chance at either school. I will not be re-taking, it is not an option.
Thanks


Instead of saying re-taking is not an option, just say you maxed out your tries if you have already made it up in your mind that you will not, for the life of you, take the LSAT again. At least that way people will judge your decision based on the numbers in front of you instead of a hypothetical increase in score, and you will save people the 5 seconds of their life that they take to type "retake" and click submit.

Either way, if you want to go into the profession of law, temper your expectations if you choose to attend a school in that ranking range. Realize that you will graduate with significant debt and will extremely realistically only make $50-60k/yr. The chances of getting a job where a JD is required is also diminished if you do not graduate near/at the top of your class from those schools.

I am not going to be another TSLer who says "choose another career path" since you did not get a 170 and graduate with a 4.0 UGPA, but make sure that you fully understand the most probable outcomes for your situation and completely accept the fact that you will most likely end up there. If that is what you want, then honestly go for it. Just try and do it for as cheaply as possible since the debt will be cumbersome.

User avatar
ymmv
Posts: 12972
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:36 pm

Re: CA Law Schools

Postby ymmv » Tue Jan 27, 2015 8:48 pm

Poptorts wrote:
JSara wrote:I understand that many on this forum are very pessimistic about non T14 law schools particularly in the LA area, but considering my stats (3.45, 163), how crazy is it to attend Pepp or LMU with a 30K scholly. I understand the initial placement into firms is not great unless one is top of their class, but is a degree from these schools actually unmarketable? Do the people responding have any actual insights other than numbers reported from the school? I am still awaiting USC and UCLA but do not expect any chance at either school. I will not be re-taking, it is not an option.
Thanks


Instead of saying re-taking is not an option, just say you maxed out your tries if you have already made it up in your mind that you will not, for the life of you, take the LSAT again. At least that way people will judge your decision based on the numbers in front of you instead of a hypothetical increase in score, and you will save people the 5 seconds of their life that they take to type "retake" and click submit.

Either way, if you want to go into the profession of law, temper your expectations if you choose to attend a school in that ranking range. Realize that you will graduate with significant debt and will extremely realistically only make $50-60k/yr. The chances of getting a job where a JD is required is also diminished if you do not graduate near/at the top of your class from those schools.

I am not going to be another TSLer who says "choose another career path" since you did not get a 170 and graduate with a 4.0 UGPA, but make sure that you fully understand the most probable outcomes for your situation and completely accept the fact that you will most likely end up there. If that is what you want, then honestly go for it. Just try and do it for as cheaply as possible since the debt will be cumbersome.


The last thing people coming here need is more enabling nonsense. Their friends and families already provide them with plenty of this horse shit.

User avatar
Rigo
Posts: 11948
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:19 pm

Re: CA Law Schools

Postby Rigo » Wed Jan 28, 2015 12:20 pm

What are your career goals, OP?

User avatar
Poptorts
Posts: 230
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 8:26 pm

Re: CA Law Schools

Postby Poptorts » Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:23 pm

ymmv wrote:
Poptorts wrote:
JSara wrote:I understand that many on this forum are very pessimistic about non T14 law schools particularly in the LA area, but considering my stats (3.45, 163), how crazy is it to attend Pepp or LMU with a 30K scholly. I understand the initial placement into firms is not great unless one is top of their class, but is a degree from these schools actually unmarketable? Do the people responding have any actual insights other than numbers reported from the school? I am still awaiting USC and UCLA but do not expect any chance at either school. I will not be re-taking, it is not an option.
Thanks


Instead of saying re-taking is not an option, just say you maxed out your tries if you have already made it up in your mind that you will not, for the life of you, take the LSAT again. At least that way people will judge your decision based on the numbers in front of you instead of a hypothetical increase in score, and you will save people the 5 seconds of their life that they take to type "retake" and click submit.

Either way, if you want to go into the profession of law, temper your expectations if you choose to attend a school in that ranking range. Realize that you will graduate with significant debt and will extremely realistically only make $50-60k/yr. The chances of getting a job where a JD is required is also diminished if you do not graduate near/at the top of your class from those schools.

I am not going to be another TSLer who says "choose another career path" since you did not get a 170 and graduate with a 4.0 UGPA, but make sure that you fully understand the most probable outcomes for your situation and completely accept the fact that you will most likely end up there. If that is what you want, then honestly go for it. Just try and do it for as cheaply as possible since the debt will be cumbersome.


The last thing people coming here need is more enabling nonsense. Their friends and families already provide them with plenty of this horse shit.


Dude, the last thing that could add any value to this discussion is someone who thinks the only good advice one can obtain from these forums is "don't go to lawl school."

Where in my response was I enabling? I do not think I missed telling them about the extremely large amount of debt or the poor job prospects. I also touched on the most likely salary outcome, as well as the likelihood of even obtaining a JD-required job while still having that massive debt to deal with. It looks like you stopped reading my reply after you saw that I was not going to blindly tell OP not to go without even seeing what his career goals are, so next time, please read my entire reply before replying to it. Based on the general information OP gave, I posted a general reply about the most likely outcomes, once again in a general fashion (large debt, poor job prospects, etc etc).

Let's act like the logical lawyers or future lawyers we are and use facts. No need for fear mongering "you will end up broke, homeless, single, ugly, and fat if you go to anything other than Yale" type of responses.

User avatar
Ron Don Volante
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 2:26 pm

Re: CA Law Schools

Postby Ron Don Volante » Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:32 pm

Most of what you said was reasonable, Torts, but the first graph was indeed enabling garbage.

I'm all for people with modest goals putting themselves into reasonable situations to have a career with a manageable debt load in a region where they want to practice, but these stats probably aren't going to make such a situation possible in California.

Encouraging people to try to avoid or ignore retake advice when it's their best option is bad.

BigZuck
Posts: 10870
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: CA Law Schools

Postby BigZuck » Wed Jan 28, 2015 4:01 pm

Poptorts wrote:
JSara wrote:I understand that many on this forum are very pessimistic about non T14 law schools particularly in the LA area, but considering my stats (3.45, 163), how crazy is it to attend Pepp or LMU with a 30K scholly. I understand the initial placement into firms is not great unless one is top of their class, but is a degree from these schools actually unmarketable? Do the people responding have any actual insights other than numbers reported from the school? I am still awaiting USC and UCLA but do not expect any chance at either school. I will not be re-taking, it is not an option.
Thanks


Instead of saying re-taking is not an option, just say you maxed out your tries if you have already made it up in your mind that you will not, for the life of you, take the LSAT again. At least that way people will judge your decision based on the numbers in front of you instead of a hypothetical increase in score, and you will save people the 5 seconds of their life that they take to type "retake" and click submit.

Either way, if you want to go into the profession of law, temper your expectations if you choose to attend a school in that ranking range. Realize that you will graduate with significant debt and will extremely realistically only make $50-60k/yr. The chances of getting a job where a JD is required is also diminished if you do not graduate near/at the top of your class from those schools.

I am not going to be another TSLer who says "choose another career path" since you did not get a 170 and graduate with a 4.0 UGPA, but make sure that you fully understand the most probable outcomes for your situation and completely accept the fact that you will most likely end up there. If that is what you want, then honestly go for it. Just try and do it for as cheaply as possible since the debt will be cumbersome.


Naw, if people lie and say they took it 3 times to get around retake advice when that is absolutely the correct response then they'll just get told to sit out until they can take it a 4th time. Come on bro

Also, where is the "choose another career path" if you don't have a 4.0/170 thing coming from? Can you link to some specific posts that say that? Come on bro

This is all so very stawmanly of you. Also, your butt hurt is weird. Come on bro

BigZuck
Posts: 10870
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: CA Law Schools

Postby BigZuck » Wed Jan 28, 2015 4:04 pm

Op- you're not in a good spot. 30K isn't enough of a scholarship to attend those schools, they should really only be attended for very cheap (or if you are outrageously wealthy and bored I guess) and with very modest career goals (which you may or may not have, I dunno). The low GPA will also be tough to overcome. It's just a tough spot to be because there aren't a whole lot of good, reasonably priced schools in CA.

I'd retake or pursue another career path.

User avatar
Poptorts
Posts: 230
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 8:26 pm

Re: CA Law Schools

Postby Poptorts » Wed Jan 28, 2015 5:45 pm

Ron Don Volante wrote:Most of what you said was reasonable, Torts, but the first graph was indeed enabling garbage.

I'm all for people with modest goals putting themselves into reasonable situations to have a career with a manageable debt load in a region where they want to practice, but these stats probably aren't going to make such a situation possible in California.

Encouraging people to try to avoid or ignore retake advice when it's their best option is bad.


Fair enough. We all know there is no reason not to retake unless you have maxed, so if someone with attempts left still is just flat out refusing to retake, (regardless of if it is logical or in their best interest) there's no need to beat a dead horse. Wouldn't it make sense to give them advice based on what will likely happen with their current numbers? Tell them what happens without the retake. If that outcome is okay for them, then they don't need to retake. If that outcome isn't, they will realize they need to retake if they want a better outcome. Maybe I give people too much credit though which is probably very likely.

BigZuck wrote: Naw, if people lie and say they took it 3 times to get around retake advice when that is absolutely the correct response then they'll just get told to sit out until they can take it a 4th time. Come on bro

Also, where is the "choose another career path" if you don't have a 4.0/170 thing coming from? Can you link to some specific posts that say that? Come on bro

This is all so very stawmanly of you. Also, your butt hurt is weird. Come on bro


The correct response is to tell them what will most likely happen with the options they've presented. We're all grown up enough to make our own decisions on if a retake is worth it if the likely outcome is already within the realm of what we can tolerate. Your second post is where the bolded comes from. OP does not have a 4.0 or a 170, therefore "pursue another career path."

Edited to reduce saltiness.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: CA Law Schools

Postby romothesavior » Wed Jan 28, 2015 5:49 pm

It's a bad idea.

Why make a thread when you already know the answer, especially when you plan to ignore the advice?

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

Re: CA Law Schools

Postby ManoftheHour » Wed Jan 28, 2015 5:56 pm

I had similar stats my first cycle. Bro, you're getting ripped off. Not saying you should go, but I'm pretty sure you could at least get 40k/year with those stats.

User avatar
JohannDeMann
Posts: 13831
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 4:25 pm

Re: CA Law Schools

Postby JohannDeMann » Wed Jan 28, 2015 6:27 pm

JSara wrote:I understand that many on this forum are very pessimistic about non T14 law schools particularly in the LA area, but considering my stats (3.45, 163), how crazy is it to attend Pepp or LMU with a 30K scholly. I understand the initial placement into firms is not great unless one is top of their class, but is a degree from these schools actually unmarketable? Do the people responding have any actual insights other than numbers reported from the school? I am still awaiting USC and UCLA but do not expect any chance at either school. I will not be re-taking, it is not an option.
Thanks


what are your alternatives to law school? if making 50-60k (and paying 3-4k after tax dollars a year on debt) a year working 50 hours a week is your ideal outcome for some small law partner jacking dick in his office all day, then ok. But i can't imagine this is your ideal outcome with a 3.5 gpa.

BigZuck
Posts: 10870
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: CA Law Schools

Postby BigZuck » Wed Jan 28, 2015 7:41 pm

Poptorts wrote:
Ron Don Volante wrote:Most of what you said was reasonable, Torts, but the first graph was indeed enabling garbage.

I'm all for people with modest goals putting themselves into reasonable situations to have a career with a manageable debt load in a region where they want to practice, but these stats probably aren't going to make such a situation possible in California.

Encouraging people to try to avoid or ignore retake advice when it's their best option is bad.


Fair enough. We all know there is no reason not to retake unless you have maxed, so if someone with attempts left still is just flat out refusing to retake, (regardless of if it is logical or in their best interest) there's no need to beat a dead horse. Wouldn't it make sense to give them advice based on what will likely happen with their current numbers? Tell them what happens without the retake. If that outcome is okay for them, then they don't need to retake. If that outcome isn't, they will realize they need to retake if they want a better outcome. Maybe I give people too much credit though which is probably very likely.

BigZuck wrote: Naw, if people lie and say they took it 3 times to get around retake advice when that is absolutely the correct response then they'll just get told to sit out until they can take it a 4th time. Come on bro

Also, where is the "choose another career path" if you don't have a 4.0/170 thing coming from? Can you link to some specific posts that say that? Come on bro

This is all so very stawmanly of you. Also, your butt hurt is weird. Come on bro


The correct response is to tell them what will most likely happen with the options they've presented. We're all grown up enough to make our own decisions on if a retake is worth it if the likely outcome is already within the realm of what we can tolerate. Your second post is where the bolded comes from. OP does not have a 4.0 or a 170, therefore "pursue another career path."

Edited to reduce saltiness.


I'm struggling to understand how what I said= "you don't have a 4.0 or a 170, therefore pursue another career path."

Help me out here

User avatar
ballcaps
Posts: 527
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:20 pm

Re: CA Law Schools

Postby ballcaps » Wed Jan 28, 2015 7:48 pm

JSara wrote:I understand the initial placement into firms is not great unless one is top of their class, but is a degree from these schools actually unmarketable? Do the people responding have any actual insights other than numbers reported from the school?


what else do you want besides numbers? i'm honestly not sure what else there is to say.

nearly 30% of pepperdine grads can't find legal jobs. what does that statistic mean to you?




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BobBoblaw, BuddyHoller, sanibella, SolRs and 1 guest