SoCal law schools with bad grades but good LSATs

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
drevo
Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:49 pm

Re: SoCal law schools with bad grades but good LSATs

Postby drevo » Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:22 am

Moneytrees wrote:I would argue that 47 percent is passable. It's not good, but it's not terrible. Have you checked out the employment date for schools like California Western and even Chapman? Compared to those schools, 47 is actually a fairly good score. Going to USD gives you a decent chance at getting a job as a lawyer- what else can you expect if you only have a 2.5 GPA?


That would be a horrible argument. 47% chance at ANY lawyer job is bad when you consider that law school costs money to attend. Just because other schools are worse doesn't make it any better.

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

Re: SoCal law schools with bad grades but good LSATs

Postby twenty » Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:30 am

Regardless of the law school predictor tool, your arguments are based on the premise that the user wants to RETAKE the LSAT and is CAPABLE of scoring in the 170's. While you did show me a handful of cases of 170's with low GPA's getting into Northwestern, you have to remember that the user scored a 167. If the user thinks he would be able to score in the 170's, then obviously he should retake and apply again next cycle.


If OP was scoring in the low 150s, it'd be a much stronger case for "don't go to law school." The fact that he already has a 167 means he needs to fine-tune his methods and retake it. If he doesn't want to, that's cool, then he realistically shouldn't go to law school.

Look, let's pretend OP got an 100k scholarship with no stipulation. That's pretty unlikely, seeing as OP's GPA is well below USD's 25th percentile, but okay, let's play with that number. That leaves OP with about 70k for the worse. Is 70k for the worse and three years spent in school really worth a slightly-less-than-coin-flip chance of becoming a lawyer?

Even if you still say yes, realize that the vast majority of those that end up as attorneys work in what TLS likes to call "shitlaw." These are small firms that do bottom-feeder work/document review/family law/etc. for an average starting salary of 40k a year. Assuming you don't want to end up here, that 47% number now becomes, at the very best, 17.4%. That's a 17.4% chance of getting a federal clerkship, biglaw, or public interest/government if you go to USD.

So yeah, USD is a terrible school.

Furthermore:

Not everyone asking for advice here wants to/can take a year off and retake the LSAT.


Anyone determined to go to law school this cycle (at the expense of a well-deserved retake) is making a horrible decision. This is like going to a car lot ABSOLUTELY DETERMINED to walk away with a car. Chances are, you're going to get hosed. You must be prepared to walk away, and if you can't do that, you're playing with fire.

Moneytrees
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:41 pm

Re: SoCal law schools with bad grades but good LSATs

Postby Moneytrees » Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:38 am

drevo wrote:
Moneytrees wrote:I would argue that 47 percent is passable. It's not good, but it's not terrible. Have you checked out the employment date for schools like California Western and even Chapman? Compared to those schools, 47 is actually a fairly good score. Going to USD gives you a decent chance at getting a job as a lawyer- what else can you expect if you only have a 2.5 GPA?


That would be a horrible argument. 47% chance at ANY lawyer job is bad when you consider that law school costs money to attend. Just because other schools are worse doesn't make it any better.


.
Last edited by Moneytrees on Fri Nov 21, 2014 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Moneytrees
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:41 pm

Re: SoCal law schools with bad grades but good LSATs

Postby Moneytrees » Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:46 am

twenty wrote:
Regardless of the law school predictor tool, your arguments are based on the premise that the user wants to RETAKE the LSAT and is CAPABLE of scoring in the 170's. While you did show me a handful of cases of 170's with low GPA's getting into Northwestern, you have to remember that the user scored a 167. If the user thinks he would be able to score in the 170's, then obviously he should retake and apply again next cycle.


If OP was scoring in the low 150s, it'd be a much stronger case for "don't go to law school." The fact that he already has a 167 means he needs to fine-tune his methods and retake it. If he doesn't want to, that's cool, then he realistically shouldn't go to law school.

Look, let's pretend OP got an 100k scholarship with no stipulation. That's pretty unlikely, seeing as OP's GPA is well below USD's 25th percentile, but okay, let's play with that number. That leaves OP with about 70k for the worse. Is 70k for the worse and three years spent in school really worth a slightly-less-than-coin-flip chance of becoming a lawyer?

Even if you still say yes, realize that the vast majority of those that end up as attorneys work in what TLS likes to call "shitlaw." These are small firms that do bottom-feeder work/document review/family law/etc. for an average starting salary of 40k a year. Assuming you don't want to end up here, that 47% number now becomes, at the very best, 17.4%. That's a 17.4% chance of getting a federal clerkship, biglaw, or public interest/government if you go to USD.

So yeah, USD is a terrible school.

Furthermore:

Not everyone asking for advice here wants to/can take a year off and retake the LSAT.


Anyone determined to go to law school this cycle (at the expense of a well-deserved retake) is making a horrible decision. This is like going to a car lot ABSOLUTELY DETERMINED to walk away with a car. Chances are, you're going to get hosed. You must be prepared to walk away, and if you can't do that, you're playing with fire.


You make some good points. I don't fundamentally disagree with anything you've said, but I do think there are different angles to consider. This is especially true in the OP's case, since he isn't actually paying for law school himself and thus isn't necessarily interested in the traditional cost benefit analysis that most potential lawyers have to consider. He just wants to go to law school, and there are in fact plenty of lower ranked schools that give you a credible chance to work in law. Anyways, I think we gave the OP some good feedback, it will be interesting to see what he ends up doing.

Ps. I would like to know more about what people consider to be "shitlaw" on this site.

sighsigh
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:47 pm

Re: SoCal law schools with bad grades but good LSATs

Postby sighsigh » Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:50 am

Retake, ED to UVA.

User avatar
Nova
Posts: 9116
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: SoCal law schools with bad grades but good LSATs

Postby Nova » Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:55 am

Moneytrees wrote:I would like to know more about what people consider to be "shitlaw" on this site.

almost anything that doesn't pay close to market besides prestigious gov jobs. almost all small firms. almost all family law, criminal law, personal injury law practices. most insurance mills. most firms with commercials or yellow page ads. most lawyers whose clients are poor or middle class people.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests