Pitt v. Penn State v. Rutgers v. John Marshall-Chicago

A forum for applicants and admitted students to ask law students and graduates about law school and the practice of law.
Joymin
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 9:38 am

Pitt v. Penn State v. Rutgers v. John Marshall-Chicago

Postby Joymin » Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:58 pm

Pitt v. Penn State v. Rutgers (almost no $$$)

v.

John Marshall-Chicago (full-ride)

This is probably the most confusing time of my life. Please help, someone!

User avatar
ndirish2010
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:41 pm

Re: Pitt v. Penn State v. Rutgers v. John Marshall-Chicago

Postby ndirish2010 » Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:08 pm

None of them are great, but hopefully you like Pittsburgh.

FYI, this is the wrong forum.

User avatar
mpj_3050
Posts: 372
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:59 pm

Re: Pitt v. Penn State v. Rutgers v. John Marshall-Chicago

Postby mpj_3050 » Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:12 pm

I would go with Pitt or Rutgers as long as you can get residency for 2L and 3L (assuming you aren't a resident of PA or NJ) and don't mind living there. But...Pitt and Rutgers would still leave you with a ton of debt.

John Marshall is the bottom of the Chicago schools. I know someone who went there and he regrets it. This kid can't get anything because there is just so much competition. Cost of living is insanely high too. Even with a full scholarship (remember to check on stipulations) you still could end up with a good bit of debt.

Joymin
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Pitt v. Penn State v. Rutgers v. John Marshall-Chicago

Postby Joymin » Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:42 pm

ndirish2010 wrote:None of them are great, but hopefully you like Pittsburgh.

FYI, this is the wrong forum.



Kindly explain.

cubswin
Posts: 618
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 4:40 pm

Re: Pitt v. Penn State v. Rutgers v. John Marshall-Chicago

Postby cubswin » Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:45 pm

JMU is notorious for putting absurd requirements (i.e. stay in top 20% or lose everything) on their scholarships. Does yours have that?

If so, don't go to JMU.
If not, still don't go to JMU.

HTH

Joymin
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Pitt v. Penn State v. Rutgers v. John Marshall-Chicago

Postby Joymin » Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:52 pm

cubswin wrote:JMU is notorious for putting absurd requirements (i.e. stay in top 20% or lose everything) on their scholarships. Does yours have that?

If so, don't go to JMU.
If not, still don't go to JMU.

HTH


The letter says I get to keep it if I stay in the top 1/3rd of the class.

I know most people will disagree if I decide to attend JMU. However, does anyone have a different opinion, by any chance?

User avatar
mpj_3050
Posts: 372
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:59 pm

Re: Pitt v. Penn State v. Rutgers v. John Marshall-Chicago

Postby mpj_3050 » Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:05 pm

I have a top 20% stipulation at a school for 2L and 3L. Thing is, if I lose the scholarship tuition is 11k a year and the area is cheap. Also, this school is the best one in the market. John Marshall is 40k, high cost of living, and dead or near dead last in the Chicago market.

Top 1/3 is way, way too risky when the tuition and cost of living is that high. Even if you can keep half the scholarship you still have a ton of debt.

cubswin
Posts: 618
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 4:40 pm

Re: Pitt v. Penn State v. Rutgers v. John Marshall-Chicago

Postby cubswin » Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:10 pm

Joymin wrote:
cubswin wrote:JMU is notorious for putting absurd requirements (i.e. stay in top 20% or lose everything) on their scholarships. Does yours have that?

If so, don't go to JMU.
If not, still don't go to JMU.

HTH


The letter says I get to keep it if I stay in the top 1/3rd of the class.

I know most people will disagree if I decide to attend JMU. However, does anyone have a different opinion, by any chance?


If someone does, you probably shouldn't listen to it. You really should be weighing JMU at sticker vs. those other schools if you want to think weigh this decision properly.

LogosEther
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:43 am

Re: Pitt v. Penn State v. Rutgers v. John Marshall-Chicago

Postby LogosEther » Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:57 am

Crucial information missing, though. Where do you want to work/live?

Joymin
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Pitt v. Penn State v. Rutgers v. John Marshall-Chicago

Postby Joymin » Sat Mar 26, 2011 1:27 pm

LogosEther wrote:Crucial information missing, though. Where do you want to work/live?


Thanks, LogosEther.

I won't mind any of Washington D.C., New York, or Chicago. All three are out-of-state for me, and all three have a good number of IP firms where I could get placed during or after J.D.

reverendt
Posts: 499
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:56 am

Re: Pitt v. Penn State v. Rutgers v. John Marshall-Chicago

Postby reverendt » Sun Mar 27, 2011 3:54 pm

OP...if you want to work in DC, NYC or Chicago don't even consider Pitt or Penn State unless you know people who own law firms in one of those cities!
I'm a 3L at Pitt right now....VERY....VERY few people get jobs in those markets. Maybe the Editor in Chief of the Pitt law Review. That's about it.

Go to school in DC, NYC or Chicago.

cubswin
Posts: 618
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 4:40 pm

Re: Pitt v. Penn State v. Rutgers v. John Marshall-Chicago

Postby cubswin » Sun Mar 27, 2011 5:54 pm

I really wish I could post a certain six letter word without getting banned right now.

User avatar
mrtoren
Posts: 733
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 9:43 pm

Re: Pitt v. Penn State v. Rutgers v. John Marshall-Chicago

Postby mrtoren » Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:20 pm

All three markets are going to be difficult to break into if those schools are you only options. If you want IP law in Chicago, you should really be looking at IIT Chicago-Kent. Its not that much of a reach. Its also much more manageable than trying to get into a top-ranked school in the NYC/DC area. Even then you would still be facing intense competition.

Rutgers offers in-state tuition to 1L's if they can provide a 12 month lease before the beginning of school. That should drop your COA by a few thousand overall. Still looking at $110k-$120k. Job prospects are fairly strong in the NJ area with 78.2% reporting employment at graduation. They also have the second highest placement in judicial clerkships behind Yale. Yes, they will be in NJ courts though. The school also has the 28th highest median starting salary for its graduates at $80,700. IMHO, Rutgers is a strong choice. JMU's 1/3 stipulation makes it a non-decision...don't go. Its extremely pricey in both tuition and COL with few prospects to show for it. Penn State is a pretty strong school, but you will have to plan on working in the Philadelphia area. Pittsburgh is similar for its city.

On a side note, you should look at Michigan State. Its law school is making sizable gains and a significant number of its graduates end up working in Illinois. Chicago? I'm not sure. But the requirements to get in are fairly low and it offers plenty of aid/scholarships to draw in students. COL is also cheap.

Unless you're willing to work on getting a higher LSAT, you will probably have to change your future plans. Chi/NYC/DC is just unrealistic with your options.

Joymin
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Pitt v. Penn State v. Rutgers v. John Marshall-Chicago

Postby Joymin » Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:25 am

Appreciate your comments, mrtorent and reverendt.

A motivating factor to accept Rutgers’ offer is the concentration in NJ and NY of firms doing patent law. I may not break in to an NY/DC/Chicago firm in the first go but maybe after a few years of a judicial clerkship. A search on a portal like LinkedIn shows a significant number of alumni from Rutgers involved in the patent area. However, I don’t see such high numbers of Pitt or Penn State alumni who have gone to patent firms (I know this method suffers from many limitations and is not a great way to look at the question, but at least gives some idea). So, I guess Rutgers it is, for now.




Return to “Ask a Law Student / Graduate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest