Cooley

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
Aqualibrium
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:57 am

Re: Cooley

Postby Aqualibrium » Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:21 pm

fundamentallybroken wrote:
Aqualibrium wrote:
fundamentallybroken wrote:
What are you trying to say? That people who graduate from Cooley don't get jobs?



With regards to biglaw jobs, yes.


And biglaw is, of course, the only reason someone may want to go to law school?


Not saying that at all. You said all is not lost ---> see there are some Cooley guys doing biglaw. My point was that it is foolish to take the incredibly small number of Cooley grads in biglaw as some indicator of anything.

gens1tb
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:36 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby gens1tb » Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:25 pm

So basically, Cooley is for mediocre to poor students (or test takers?) who really want to be lawyers, no matter where they end up. It's not like Cooley is even cheap...

User avatar
fundamentallybroken
Posts: 663
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:52 am

Re: Cooley

Postby fundamentallybroken » Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:27 pm

Aqualibrium wrote:
fundamentallybroken wrote:
Aqualibrium wrote:
fundamentallybroken wrote:
What are you trying to say? That people who graduate from Cooley don't get jobs?



With regards to biglaw jobs, yes.


And biglaw is, of course, the only reason someone may want to go to law school?


Not saying that at all. You said all is not lost ---> see there are some Cooley guys doing biglaw. My point was that it is foolish to take the incredibly small number of Cooley grads in biglaw as some indicator of ones own potential.


What I said was all is not lost ---> see some Cooley grads have jobs. I was looking through some firms' sites looking for something else, and it struck me to see Cooley (enough that I thought, "huh, look at that!"). What I also said was that they are outliers, and that other factors apply - such as connections, prior experience, etc.

I wouldn't be surprised to find more Cooley lawyers at smaller firms, particularly in the MI area. I would be even less surprised to find Cooley baristas in the same area. However, graduating from Cooley != no job (necessarily). And, like someone else said here, the world always needs DUI lawyers.

User avatar
TommyK
Posts: 1309
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 3:08 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby TommyK » Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:47 pm

taxguy wrote:I am NOT promoting Cooley's ranking system,but I don't think that the USNWR rankings are so great either. As for my point that most people regardless of the preparation won't get above a 160, just check out the LSAT averages on the exam. They themselves note that the average or median score for LSAT takers is 150.5, if I recollect correctly. Thus, roughly 50% of the takers will score less than this. In fact, I think you have to be in the top 20-25%(don't remember which) to score a 160.

As for whether 50% of the kids who are taking the LSAT should go to law school, I don't abide by those statements. Each person's reason for attending law school is personal. Maybe they have a good reason, maybe not.


No, you're not promoting Cooley's ranking system; you're essentially equating the quality of it to USNWR. That's a ridiculous statement. Look, USNWR is flawed. I get that, but it doesn't use "total JD enrollment" as one of its main factors and a dozen other factors that are completely derivitive of total JD enrollment. Cooley proposes because they have lower admissions standards that they are somehow better. They spin it that they are able to "attract more students"; therefore they must be great! Factors that are largely derivitive of this are: # of full time faculty, # of PT faculty, total teaching faculty, total minority enrollment, total volumes in library, library seating capacity, library total square footage, non-library total square footage, # of states in which graduates are employed.

C'mon... I know you don't like the LSAT (and the reasons you cite seem completely unbacked by anything except anecdotal evidence so I am less-than-persuaded), but let's be honest - Cooley's ranking systems is ridiculous. To suggest otherwise is foolish. When a school has to come up with its own way of justifying their importance, it speaks to their credibility or the rationality of their leadership. One of the who must be seriously questioned.

User avatar
nealric
Posts: 2398
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: Cooley

Postby nealric » Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:10 pm

Not saying that at all. You said all is not lost ---> see there are some Cooley guys doing biglaw. My point was that it is foolish to take the incredibly small number of Cooley grads in biglaw as some indicator of anything.


Right, and the only example given was a midlaw firm. I've yet to see or hear about a Cooley grad at a V100 firm.

User avatar
northwood
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby northwood » Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:02 pm

i still cant believe this thread is 3 pages long, and it is still pretty courteous. nice job posters!

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby ResolutePear » Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:54 pm

I really just don't understand how people can advocate for Cooley.

In fact, I cannot subscribe to the notion of a law school existing without a university before it. Law is supposed to be about scholarly application in a profession - not vocational training; albeit many argue that is the state of the profession at this time.

Now, if you *really* want to do law - then by all means, of course.

User avatar
androstan
Posts: 2698
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Cooley

Postby androstan » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:13 pm

I respect a school/institution that can do these two things simultaneously:

1) Give essentially everyone a chance to prove themselves at something they (at least claim) they truly want to do.

2) Winnow out the ones that don't truly want to be there and/or don't have the ability to succeed in that area.

If you do a little research on Cooley, this is supposed to be the fundamental principle, and I think most of us can respect that. Cooley is also relatively inexpensive. Assuming standards in "2" are such that persons actually entering the profession are reasonably competent, this is a good way to level the playing field and produce more capable professionals.

Unfortunately the ABA stepped in a while back and forbade Cooley from flunking out so many students. That forced them to lower the standards in number two. They now allow students to retake a lot of courses until they pass. You can actually look at Cooley's bar pass rate and watch it suddenly fall when these changes were put into place. Cooley had a solid bar passage rate because the school flunked kids who weren't capable. Now the school has to gear more courses to the bar and provide a lot more bar support in general because the ABA doesn't let them flunk out the incompetents.

With all that, I would have some respect for Cooley and what they're trying to accomplish. But those rankings. They are obnoxious. Many of the factors egregiously favor huge (both in students and land area) schools like Cooley. Many of them double count parameters Cooley is "strong" on. I don't get these rankings. If you're going to consider library size a relevant factor, it should be library size divided by student population. If you have a 50% larger library and 50% more students trying to use it, that's a wash. Doing otherwise is insane.

That is why Cooley is a laughing stock. Their rankings aren't remotely objective in any sense of the word. They shamelessly use numbers that obviously favor themselves. It's disgusting. Whatever they gain(ed) with their "give everyone a chance but hold high standards for everyone" system, they lose 100 times over with those sleazy, disingenuous rankings. Anyone with half a brain cell and an ounce of self respect will read those rankings and, as a result, refuse to go to such an institution. By publishing them they actively deter good candidates.

USNWR, on the other hand, is not a law school. It's a magazine and they do what they have to in order to sell mags. They've never sold me a mag.

Aqualibrium
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:57 am

Re: Cooley

Postby Aqualibrium » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:35 pm

Relatively inexpensive = 47k a year?

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby ResolutePear » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:37 pm

Aqualibrium wrote:Relatively inexpensive = 47k a year?


T4 at an Ivy League price. Love it.

sethc
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby sethc » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:41 pm

taxguy wrote:Admittedly, you are NOT going to have many, if any, national law firms recruiting at Cooley as they would do in Michigan or Harvard. However, If a kid is willing to market themselves well and/or has some connections due to networking, I think Cooley could be a good option for those kids who didn't score well on the LSAT.

For what it's worth: I am also very egalitarian. I believe that everyone should be given a chance to be a lawyer and that the LSAT should not be as conclusive for admission as it is.


First: +10000 to you - for this part.

I wanted to read through all of the replies to this thread, and I'll get to it (damn reading) but this struck a chord with me. I agree 100%. I do realize the market is saturated and the last thing the market needs is a heap of under or semi-qualified lawyers. I get that. But let's face reality: people have a drive and a mentality to become lawyers. I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm one of the few that did shitty on the LSAT (3x, sadly) and had to face the choice of (a) shitty law school (with some scholly $$) & TRY to transfer *or* (b) fuck being a lawyer. I honestly couldn't accept B even though I tried very hard to, for sake of money. I couldn't simply NOT try and just be happy with it -- and I turned down an amazing job offer of $60K starting out fresh out of graduate school (~1.5yr after finishing UG) for a very reputable industrial company. I know I'll get called out for "omg ya right bullshit" and that's fine, I'm not bothered about that.. but that was my reality. I got fucking LAUGHED AT (don't blame them) for turning that down for 3+ MORE years of MORE school & MORE debt for what's, in all likelihood, going to amount to a smaller salary starting out. The fucked up part is that I'm at peace with that. I have backup options and I feel secure about my financial future right now because, just recently, my ability to "get it" in law school finally clicked. It's late in the game, sure, but I feel like I passed my finals and SHOULD HAVE some OK or GOOD grades, even by low-tier-school standards. Having said that, I dunno what the future holds. I'm happy right now and have no doubt that (providing I pass) I will be a good attorney that will help a lot of people. At the end of the day, isn't that what being a lawyer is about so long as you're living comfortably? Or, at least comfortable enough? Everyone wants to be rich with a flashy job and be the "high-profile lawyer" that's associated with being an attorney.. but the reality is that this is the real-world and that's quite the exception to the norm, in terms of what the average law career is. Sure, some schools increase that potential far more than others.. but I'm fine. I'll bust my ass to transfer to a Tier-1 and if I don't get to, hey, I tried my 110% hardest. I'll make it work somehow. I honestly only care about graduating with a J.D. first, income second. That's insanity by TLS standards and/or total bullshit - but I couldn't give a fuck about that (no offense to anyone). I grew up and I know what I need in order to be happy and to live.. sorry for the sermon, but there's people out there that reads, yet doesn't post, when they are faced with the decision of (a) no lawyer or (b) give a shit-school a try.. I should know - I was one of them.


Second: Agree about the LSAT, in general. I get the point and understand what it tests & why it's tested in order for an applicant to get into any law school. I agree with that part, how everything is calculated etc. My problem is that I'm not convinced that it's the end-all-very-best way to do things. I don't have any alternative that will sound any better, but I just feel that the rankings-dick-measuring contest has given more weight to the LSAT score than what it should, in all reality. I'm not discounting you T14/T25 folks - props to you guys, man. It's not an easy test and I'd give anything if I could have done as well as 1/2 of you.. I'd be sitting much prettier if I would have prepared better & more. The majority of the fault for a poor score is on me, believe me - I know & accept that. All I'm saying is that a low LSAT score (versus COMPLETELY, and I mean TOTALLY bombing it) should not be taken as seriously as it is because people with low LSAT scores, I think, can make good lawyers. This is all just my take and many of you know I'm long-winded and have the whole "personal satisfaction" mantra going right now, so take this for what it is & with a grain of salt.

User avatar
TommyK
Posts: 1309
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 3:08 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby TommyK » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:44 pm

ResolutePear wrote:
Aqualibrium wrote:Relatively inexpensive = 47k a year?


T4 at an Ivy League price. Love it.


I think tuition is just a shade over $30k. Not sure what cost of attendance is (other than a lifetime of mocking from peers)

User avatar
Doritos
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:24 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby Doritos » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:44 pm

ResolutePear wrote:
Aqualibrium wrote:Relatively inexpensive = 47k a year?


T4 at an Ivy League price. Love it.


Sadly, there are several T4s that cost nearly this much...

Aqualibrium
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:57 am

Re: Cooley

Postby Aqualibrium » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:49 pm

TommyK wrote:
ResolutePear wrote:
Aqualibrium wrote:Relatively inexpensive = 47k a year?


T4 at an Ivy League price. Love it.


I think tuition is just a shade over $30k. Not sure what cost of attendance is (other than a lifetime of mocking from peers)



http://www.cooley.edu/prospective/expenses.html

Aqualibrium
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:57 am

Re: Cooley

Postby Aqualibrium » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:49 pm

Doritos wrote:
ResolutePear wrote:
Aqualibrium wrote:Relatively inexpensive = 47k a year?


T4 at an Ivy League price. Love it.


Sadly, there are several T1s that cost this much or more...


ftfy

User avatar
TommyK
Posts: 1309
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 3:08 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby TommyK » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:51 pm

Aqualibrium wrote:
TommyK wrote:
ResolutePear wrote:
Aqualibrium wrote:Relatively inexpensive = 47k a year?


T4 at an Ivy League price. Love it.


I think tuition is just a shade over $30k. Not sure what cost of attendance is (other than a lifetime of mocking from peers)



http://www.cooley.edu/prospective/expenses.html


Yeah, a bit over 30k, which is significantly less than a top school pricetag, but far from cheap.

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby ResolutePear » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:54 pm

Aqualibrium wrote:
TommyK wrote:
ResolutePear wrote:
Aqualibrium wrote:Relatively inexpensive = 47k a year?


T4 at an Ivy League price. Love it.


I think tuition is just a shade over $30k. Not sure what cost of attendance is (other than a lifetime of mocking from peers)



http://www.cooley.edu/prospective/expenses.html


The website. My eyes. They hurt. The goggles do nothing!

User avatar
androstan
Posts: 2698
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Cooley

Postby androstan » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:55 pm

Aqualibrium wrote:Relatively inexpensive = 47k a year?


For COA, yeah.

User avatar
androstan
Posts: 2698
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Cooley

Postby androstan » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:56 pm

ResolutePear wrote:
Aqualibrium wrote:Relatively inexpensive = 47k a year?


T4 at an Ivy League price. Love it.


Name an ivy with a COA of 47k/year.

Aqualibrium
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:57 am

Re: Cooley

Postby Aqualibrium » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:58 pm

androstan wrote:
Aqualibrium wrote:Relatively inexpensive = 47k a year?


For COA, yeah.



Sorry, but there is nothing inexpensive about 47k a year. Especially considering the availability of jobs that efficiently service that amount of debt.

User avatar
androstan
Posts: 2698
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Cooley

Postby androstan » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:58 pm

TommyK wrote:Yeah, a bit over 30k, which is significantly less than a top school pricetag, but far from cheap.


Which is why I said relatively inexpensive. Relative obviously meaning, relative to comparable options. Comparable options are obviously other private third and fourth tier law schools.

If you can muster a 148 on the LSAT you get a 25% tuition discount... Most kids won't be paying "sticker" at Cooley.

User avatar
androstan
Posts: 2698
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Cooley

Postby androstan » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:59 pm

Aqualibrium wrote:
androstan wrote:
Aqualibrium wrote:Relatively inexpensive = 47k a year?


For COA, yeah.



Sorry, but there is nothing inexpensive about 47k a year. Especially considering the availability of jobs that efficiently service that amount of debt.


Relative is a word you might underline on the LSAT in this context.

User avatar
northwood
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby northwood » Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:01 pm

androstan wrote:
TommyK wrote:Yeah, a bit over 30k, which is significantly less than a top school pricetag, but far from cheap.


Which is why I said relatively inexpensive. Relative obviously meaning, relative to comparable options. Comparable options are obviously other private third and fourth tier law schools.

If you can muster a 148 on the LSAT you get a 25% tuition discount... Most kids won't be paying "sticker" at Cooley.



but do those that are offered the scholarships get to keep them as long as they are enrolled in the school, or do they have some strings attached?

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby ResolutePear » Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:03 pm

androstan wrote:
ResolutePear wrote:
Aqualibrium wrote:Relatively inexpensive = 47k a year?


T4 at an Ivy League price. Love it.


Name an ivy with a COA of 47k/year.


Harvard is ~38k + COA, and you can't live with 10k/yr in school... you're doing it wrong.

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby ResolutePear » Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:04 pm

northwood wrote:
androstan wrote:
TommyK wrote:Yeah, a bit over 30k, which is significantly less than a top school pricetag, but far from cheap.


Which is why I said relatively inexpensive. Relative obviously meaning, relative to comparable options. Comparable options are obviously other private third and fourth tier law schools.

If you can muster a 148 on the LSAT you get a 25% tuition discount... Most kids won't be paying "sticker" at Cooley.



but do those that are offered the scholarships get to keep them as long as they are enrolled in the school, or do they have some strings attached?


I've heard that scholarship(call it what you will) is a stipulated one, which half of them fail to keep after the first year.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: arthrod and 3 guests