The Future elitist law schools?

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
olanderp
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: The Future elitist law schools?

Postby olanderp » Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:10 am

My predictions: UCLA/USC will drop, along with any non-Stanford/Berkeley law school in California. Vanderbilt will rise above its current peers because it has broader access to the big 3 markets, aka more biglaw firms are willing to recruit from Vanderbilt than its peers. Also, it's a hindrance to rely solely on one or two major markets ITE, unless its NYC (at least for now). I think ITE has shown this, given Berkeley and UCLA's comparably dismal OCI placement relative to its peers.

And no, I don't go to any of these.

Fark-o-vision
Posts: 590
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:41 pm

Re: The Future elitist law schools?

Postby Fark-o-vision » Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:29 am

No problem. Now, if you'll pardon my interruption, please continue debating whether Michigan is doomed to TTT oblivion thanks to a struggling "home market" (where it sends a whopping <10% of it's students).[/quote]]\

Thank you. Your input was meaningful and welcome.

olanderp wrote:The LA and SF markets are way too small to uphold so many law schools. The problem with the UC law schools is that a lot fewer NYC/DC/Chicago offices recruit from there, which are the major markets, and the top three financial/legal sectors in the U.S. It's a lot harder rising in the corporate world when you have a limited reach to these three markets.

I turned down UCLA/USC with $$ to go elsewhere because of their limited market reach, and I don't regret it one bit. I can't see those schools rising any time soon, especially given how the California markets are right now.

Stanford isn't in the same boat as the UCs, because it's essentially like HY, with wide international reach. A lot of offices from NYC/DC/Chicago that do not recruit at Berkeley/UCLA/USC, recruit at Stanford.


Lol at LA being a small market when it has fewer meaningful law schools competing than Chicago. La: Some Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, USC, Loyola, Pepperdine, Southwestern.

Chicago: Some Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Chicago, Northwestern, DePaul, Loyola, UIUC, Bloomington, et. al. You can keep Chicago. Thanks for your time.[/quote]

Chicago is a bigger market, and it's seen as a corporate city. I don't really count "bloomington," etc. as competition...

Are you going to UCLA/USC? No offense, but the "big three" markets' offices don't want to recruit from there.[/quote]

I'm glad you have the answers. No, I'm not going to UCLA or USC. I may, I don't know. If I do it would be hard to convince me to move to Chicago/New York/DC simply because the lifestyle afforded me there doesn't mesh with my personal feelings. I like to surf in the mornings or evenings and catch a live show at Rusty's on the pier. I'm a fan of laying out in the sun all day and drinking beers, not saying anything to the person next to you. I like doing shots with Charlie Day at the restaurant across from FX studios. I like LA. Not everyone does, and that's cool.

User avatar
senunit
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:19 pm

Re: The Future elitist law schools?

Postby senunit » Sat Jun 05, 2010 4:02 am

Fark-o-vision wrote:No problem. Now, if you'll pardon my interruption, please continue debating whether Michigan is doomed to TTT oblivion thanks to a struggling "home market" (where it sends a whopping <10% of it's students).
]\

Thank you. Your input was meaningful and welcome.

olanderp wrote:The LA and SF markets are way too small to uphold so many law schools. The problem with the UC law schools is that a lot fewer NYC/DC/Chicago offices recruit from there, which are the major markets, and the top three financial/legal sectors in the U.S. It's a lot harder rising in the corporate world when you have a limited reach to these three markets.

I turned down UCLA/USC with $$ to go elsewhere because of their limited market reach, and I don't regret it one bit. I can't see those schools rising any time soon, especially given how the California markets are right now.

Stanford isn't in the same boat as the UCs, because it's essentially like HY, with wide international reach. A lot of offices from NYC/DC/Chicago that do not recruit at Berkeley/UCLA/USC, recruit at Stanford.


Lol at LA being a small market when it has fewer meaningful law schools competing than Chicago. La: Some Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, USC, Loyola, Pepperdine, Southwestern.

Chicago: Some Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Chicago, Northwestern, DePaul, Loyola, UIUC, Bloomington, et. al. You can keep Chicago. Thanks for your time.[/quote]

Chicago is a bigger market, and it's seen as a corporate city. I don't really count "bloomington," etc. as competition...

Are you going to UCLA/USC? No offense, but the "big three" markets' offices don't want to recruit from there.[/quote]

I'm glad you have the answers. No, I'm not going to UCLA or USC. I may, I don't know. If I do it would be hard to convince me to move to Chicago/New York/DC simply because the lifestyle afforded me there doesn't mesh with my personal feelings. I like to surf in the mornings or evenings and catch a live show at Rusty's on the pier. I'm a fan of laying out in the sun all day and drinking beers, not saying anything to the person next to you. I like doing shots with Charlie Day at the restaurant across from FX studios. I like LA. Not everyone does, and that's cool.[/quote]


LA is awesome and I'm a New Yorker.

Fark-o-vision
Posts: 590
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:41 pm

Re: The Future elitist law schools?

Postby Fark-o-vision » Sat Jun 05, 2010 4:36 am

senunit wrote:
Fark-o-vision wrote:No problem. Now, if you'll pardon my interruption, please continue debating whether Michigan is doomed to TTT oblivion thanks to a struggling "home market" (where it sends a whopping <10% of it's students).
]\

Thank you. Your input was meaningful and welcome.

olanderp wrote:The LA and SF markets are way too small to uphold so many law schools. The problem with the UC law schools is that a lot fewer NYC/DC/Chicago offices recruit from there, which are the major markets, and the top three financial/legal sectors in the U.S. It's a lot harder rising in the corporate world when you have a limited reach to these three markets.

I turned down UCLA/USC with $$ to go elsewhere because of their limited market reach, and I don't regret it one bit. I can't see those schools rising any time soon, especially given how the California markets are right now.

Stanford isn't in the same boat as the UCs, because it's essentially like HY, with wide international reach. A lot of offices from NYC/DC/Chicago that do not recruit at Berkeley/UCLA/USC, recruit at Stanford.


Lol at LA being a small market when it has fewer meaningful law schools competing than Chicago. La: Some Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, USC, Loyola, Pepperdine, Southwestern.

Chicago: Some Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Chicago, Northwestern, DePaul, Loyola, UIUC, Bloomington, et. al. You can keep Chicago. Thanks for your time.


Chicago is a bigger market, and it's seen as a corporate city. I don't really count "bloomington," etc. as competition...

Are you going to UCLA/USC? No offense, but the "big three" markets' offices don't want to recruit from there.[/quote]

I'm glad you have the answers. No, I'm not going to UCLA or USC. I may, I don't know. If I do it would be hard to convince me to move to Chicago/New York/DC simply because the lifestyle afforded me there doesn't mesh with my personal feelings. I like to surf in the mornings or evenings and catch a live show at Rusty's on the pier. I'm a fan of laying out in the sun all day and drinking beers, not saying anything to the person next to you. I like doing shots with Charlie Day at the restaurant across from FX studios. I like LA. Not everyone does, and that's cool.[/quote]


LA is awesome and I'm a New Yorker.[/quote]


But I'm sure no one could convince you to leave NY for LA permanently, right?

User avatar
senunit
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:19 pm

Re: The Future elitist law schools?

Postby senunit » Sat Jun 05, 2010 12:57 pm

Honestly, I cant say. For a variety of personal reasons, itd be a difficult transition. But solely for what its worth, Im definitely with you on a particular lifestyle being more suitable for one's personality and I wouldnt say that I like the New York everyday life all that much. So although a difficult choice, at least for me I can see some promise in such a move.

olanderp
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: The Future elitist law schools?

Postby olanderp » Sat Jun 05, 2010 2:59 pm

Fark-o-vision wrote:I'm glad you have the answers. No, I'm not going to UCLA or USC. I may, I don't know. If I do it would be hard to convince me to move to Chicago/New York/DC simply because the lifestyle afforded me there doesn't mesh with my personal feelings. I like to surf in the mornings or evenings and catch a live show at Rusty's on the pier. I'm a fan of laying out in the sun all day and drinking beers, not saying anything to the person next to you. I like doing shots with Charlie Day at the restaurant across from FX studios. I like LA. Not everyone does, and that's cool.


What does this have to do with corporate hiring? Most businessmen and lawyers would not agree with you.

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

Re: The Future elitist law schools?

Postby romothesavior » Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:07 pm

Everyone needs to learn how to use the quote feature.

katjust
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:49 am

Re: The Future elitist law schools?

Postby katjust » Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:12 pm

holydonkey wrote:After the revolution:

1. People's College of Law
2. People's College of Law, Berkeley Campus
3. People's College of Law, Irvine Campus
4. CUNY - People's College of Law
5. Northeastern People's College of Law,
6. People's College of Lewis & Clark Law
7. American People's College of Law
8. People's New York University of Law
9. People's College of Law, Oregon Campus
10. People's College of Wisconsin Law
11. People's College of Environmental Law - Vermont
12. Thomas M. Cooley's People's College of Law
13. Cornell
14. Rutgers College of People Law

Fark-o-vision
Posts: 590
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:41 pm

Re: The Future elitist law schools?

Postby Fark-o-vision » Sat Jun 05, 2010 5:36 pm

romothesavior wrote:Everyone needs to learn how to use the quote feature.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18402
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: The Future elitist law schools?

Postby bk1 » Sat Jun 05, 2010 7:21 pm

[quote="romothesavior"]Everyone needs to learn how to use the quote feature./quote]/quote]

Huh?

User avatar
Stringer Bell
Posts: 1907
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:43 pm

Re: The Future elitist law schools?

Postby Stringer Bell » Sat Jun 05, 2010 7:22 pm

Everyone needs to learn how to use the quote feature.[/quote]

+1

J-tow10
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 11:24 pm

Re: The Future elitist law schools?

Postby J-tow10 » Sat Jun 05, 2010 7:53 pm

romothesavior wrote:
Fark-o-vision wrote:
The question isn't if UM is tied too heavily to the state. Everyone knows it places outside, that it finances independently, and that it has a national reputation. What is going to be a challenge for it is 1) keeping instructors who can't effectively or efficiently work in their industry or DO ANYTHING remotely interesting. Would you take 200K to work in Irvine, or 220K to work in a devastated, crime ridden urban wasteland with no hope of ever recovering in a meaningful way? If Biglaw melts down in the way everyone seems to think it has and never truly recovers, do you think biglaw firms will continue to deal with the additional expense of recruiting at UM, or will they go to the next best option in their local market?


You do know University of Michigan isn't in "a devastated, crime ridden urban wasteland with no hope of every recovering in a meaningful way?" Have you ever even been to Ann Arbor?



Thank you romo. You're now my favorite TLS poster.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: The Future elitist law schools?

Postby 09042014 » Sat Jun 05, 2010 7:54 pm

Ann Arbor is basically a detriot suburb.

J-tow10
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 11:24 pm

Re: The Future elitist law schools?

Postby J-tow10 » Sat Jun 05, 2010 8:00 pm

Fark-o-vision wrote:
romothesavior wrote:
Fark-o-vision wrote:Lol at your interpretation of "grift" as gift. An easy error to understand, but it's best not to call people out for errors when you're simply ignorant to a term.

You're right. I've never been there. Because the only place I'd less like to be than Michigan is Zombie Island, where Zombies rule and eat your brains and only drink Zombies (which are too sweet for me). Why are you arguing so passionately? I admitted originally that it was unlikely. Still, if you're dedicated to the defense of America's VD then I applaud you. Someone should be advocating for them.


You're right, I messed up on that word. I didn't recognize it and for some reason the Mozilla spell check didn't catch it, strange.

I don't care if you like the state of Michigan or not. If you don't like it, fine... bitch about it all you want. That's not what I'm arguing against. I'm arguing that your premise that Michigan's location in an crime-ridden wasteland is just absurdly stupid, and it undermines your argument about Michigan losing its status as a top school.


Fair. I'm not anti-Michigan. I'm just suggesting that if general decline continues I'm not sure how long the isolated world of Ann Arbor can hold up.

I'll admit to never having been there, but I can't imagine it's much more special than most college towns. Probably a couple nice bars, a decent indie music scene? I'm sure I would like Ann Arbor. How long can Ann Arbor keep the rest of Michigan out, is my question.

Of course, Michigan could recover. The state could work it's problems out. Or, Ann Arbor could remain insulated from the effects of the state forever. that's why I said it's collapse was more likely than Stanford's/Berkeley's/UCLA's/USC's, but still unlikely.


As a Michigan resident and UM alumnus, I can guarantee that UM is not in some wasteland. Ann Arbor is actually quite insulated from the economic problems of the state (along with Grand Rapids to some degree). There are a multitude of young professionals, entrepreneurs, and a significant high-technology sector helping Ann Arbor thrive. Yes, it is at heart a college town supported by the 'U' but the city as a whole does just fine for itself.

/UM and state of Michigan trolling

User avatar
Barolo
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 4:27 pm

Re: The Future elitist law schools?

Postby Barolo » Sun Jun 06, 2010 2:35 pm

Desert Fox wrote:Ann Arbor is basically a detriot suburb.


Facepalm.

Obviously, he's not a golfer.

motiontodismiss
Posts: 870
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:36 pm

Re: The Future elitist law schools?

Postby motiontodismiss » Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:32 pm

sumus romani wrote:Not sure if S belongs on the list with state schools, but I see the point of the overall question. I only question why S is on the list because B and presumbably UCLA are going to have skyrocketing tuition over the next 5 years (at least) while the California state budget returns to balance. Also, it would seem easier for California to correct itself than Michigan, given the nature of their state economies.


Assuming it ever does. The UC system is in decline. Berkeley undergrad is an overranked/overrated shithole. I suspect Boalt will follow it there.

CordeliusX
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:48 pm

Re: The Future elitist law schools?

Postby CordeliusX » Mon Jun 07, 2010 1:12 pm

I still dont see S going down. I could envision Y going down but Stanford seems like one of the most prosperous universities. this is a S hate thread imho. I dont love Stanford but damn you guys are rough to Cali and Stanford

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

Re: The Future elitist law schools?

Postby romothesavior » Mon Jun 07, 2010 1:14 pm

Barolo wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Ann Arbor is basically a detriot suburb.


Facepalm.

Obviously, he's not a golfer.


+1. I usually agree with DF on most things, but not this.

AA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Detroit

And they are two very separate places.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: The Future elitist law schools?

Postby 09042014 » Mon Jun 07, 2010 1:20 pm

romothesavior wrote:
Barolo wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Ann Arbor is basically a detriot suburb.


Facepalm.

Obviously, he's not a golfer.


+1. I usually agree with DF on most things, but not this.

AA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Detroit

And they are two very separate places.


I'm trolling. I know its not a suburb. I like college towns, I bet I'd like AA. But Ann Arbor is a whore, and Michigan grads are my mortal enemy. We are both fighting over the fluffer spots at Perkins Coie.

GermX
Posts: 562
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 5:24 pm

Re: The Future elitist law schools?

Postby GermX » Mon Jun 07, 2010 1:35 pm

Really, Fordham? The school has been dropping in the rankings consistently over the past decade, lol. Fordham is only good if you want NYC, period. IMO, I would see GW Law and Boston University as schools that might make it.

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

Re: The Future elitist law schools?

Postby romothesavior » Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:09 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
romothesavior wrote:
Barolo wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Ann Arbor is basically a detriot suburb.


Facepalm.

Obviously, he's not a golfer.


+1. I usually agree with DF on most things, but not this.

AA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Detroit

And they are two very separate places.


I'm trolling. I know its not a suburb. I like college towns, I bet I'd like AA. But Ann Arbor is a whore, and Michigan grads are my mortal enemy. We are both fighting over the fluffer spots at Perkins Coie.


Spoken like a true Illini. Oskee-wow-wow.

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

Re: The Future elitist law schools?

Postby romothesavior » Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:10 pm

GermX wrote:Really, Fordham? The school has been dropping in the rankings consistently over the past decade, lol. Fordham is only good if you want NYC, period. IMO, I would see GW Law and Boston University as schools that might make it.


Gee... I wonder if GermX passed up Fordham for GW?

motiontodismiss
Posts: 870
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:36 pm

Re: The Future elitist law schools?

Postby motiontodismiss » Mon Jun 07, 2010 5:05 pm

GermX wrote:Really, Fordham? The school has been dropping in the rankings consistently over the past decade, lol. Fordham is only good if you want NYC, period. IMO, I would see GW Law and Boston University as schools that might make it.


Nah, the school that's going to make it is the school most willing to spend their endowment like a drunken sailor to improve their image.

GermX
Posts: 562
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 5:24 pm

Re: The Future elitist law schools?

Postby GermX » Mon Jun 07, 2010 5:27 pm

Seems like GW is willing to do that, after all, they did cut their PT class in order to do that (good choice IMO, PT law students usually turn out to be noobs).

motiontodismiss
Posts: 870
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:36 pm

Re: The Future elitist law schools?

Postby motiontodismiss » Tue Jun 08, 2010 1:04 am

GermX wrote:Seems like GW is willing to do that, after all, they did cut their PT class in order to do that (good choice IMO, PT law students usually turn out to be noobs).


K fair enough....well they have to actually do it :D




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests