Minimum Stats Where Applying to Law School Makes Sense?

[Veyron]

Assume someone is a standard graduate of a standard university. Options are to apply to law school or join the workforce at 35k.

This is my attempt to harness the wisdom of crowds to determine a bottom threshold. It also seems like this is a very common question on this site.

[vanwinkle]

--LinkRemoved--

[Veyron]

So basically the minimum stats necessary to get into the school ranked 70th?

[vanwinkle]

So basically the minimum stats necessary to get into the school ranked 70th?

I think I misinterpreted what you were asking. They suggest in that article a minimum amount of money you should make to make law school make sense. They suggest a $65K salary post-graduation is the minimum that makes it a wise investment.

Given that, I would say you'd want to be a lot higher than 70th ITE. I've heard of people who've been top 25% at T25 schools getting shut out of BigLaw hiring entirely, and I can tell you personally that the competition for the more prestigious/higher-paying PI and government jobs fiercely competitive these days.

However, this changes substantially if you can get a scholarship to one of these schools. If you can get a full ride at a T1 school then you're in pretty damn good shape, you can graduate with a lot less debt and thus survive on a lot less salary.

I would say stats sufficient to get you a full ride at a T1, or that can get you into a T10 at sticker, are what make sense ITE if you have other stable employment lined up. If you actually have a $35k/yr job lined up ITE, that's nothing to scoff at.

[Veyron]

I agree with your assessment.

[TTTennis]

So basically the minimum stats necessary to get into the school ranked 70th?

No, and the median starting salaries reported by schools aren't entirely accurate. Look at Hofstra for example, $160,000 median... are you kidding me? Once you look at the fact that only around 35% of people reported you should start to recognize the value of a school's reported median starting salary. I'm not saying all schools are reporting false median starting salaries, but the data they obtain is self-reported by respondents and is likely, and least some of the time, to be inaccurate. To answer your question though, you shouldn't enter law based on how much money you think you are going to make; that would be a POOR decision. If you really want to practice law then go to law school. If you don't, then don't. I know lawyers (I live in a rural area and a town of around 35,000) that make hundreds of thousands of dollars each year (not biglaw I know!) and that went to schools ranked below 70th. I also know someone who went to McGeorge and got a biglaw job making well over $100,000. Your salary coming out of law school isn't entirely dependent on where you went to school (contrary to what many believe, shocking I know!) Maybe you should work for a year or more and find out if you really want to become a lawyer, then decide.

I also largely agree with vanwinkle's advice. Although I'm not sure paying full price to a T10 is the greatest thing either. Whether or not you get that great biglaw job is going to depend a lot on how well you do at the T10; however, I do agree that your best chance of obtaining a great salary is by attending a T10.

The real answer is that no one knows for sure. There are too many factors that come into play as far as finding a job that makes going to law school "worth it." Think about it, if you can go to Seattle U for free and graduate 1st in your class and get a job that pays you even $100k then all the sudden you are way ahead of all those that went to a top law school and paid sticker price. Yes, I realize this is HIGHLY unlikely, but not impossible and that's all that matters for the sake of this argument.

[Veyron]

Isn't there some logical fallacy about relying on extremes to build an argument?

I don't know, your advice might be credited for some people, but I'm trying to generalize here.

-

[APimpNamedSlickback]

...

[09042014]

165 LSAT.

Or getting into your local T1.

[TTTennis]

Isn't there some logical fallacy about relying on extremes to build an argument?

I don't know, your advice might be credited for some people, but I'm trying to generalize here.

-

My point is this: how are you supposed to determine a bottom end if you can't accurately rely on the data? There are too many variables to take into consideration even if you assumed the reported data was accurate, such as scholly info, COL in respective area, your class ranking upon graduation, etc. Ah screw it, this is a theoretical argument anyway. I'd say USNWR of 70 is about right...

[im_blue]

I wouldn't attend any lower than T14, so that would be roughly 3.7/167.

[BigA]

haha, well the standards are a lot lower for me since I don't have any 35k job offers I'm passing up

Do you mean strictly "economic sense"? Otherwise there are clearly other factors to consider, such as how much you want to practice law

[JollyGreenGiant]

I'd say anything outside of the T50 is a bad bargain. Most schools in the 15-50 range are generally very good regionally. You might be restricted as to where you can work, but it shouldn't be impossible to find a job.

[somewhatwayward]

i'm glad someone is asking this question. it seems like there are so many people who have decided to apply to law school with stats so low that it is unlikely to be an economically rational decision....not that it is my job to police them....