Top Law Schools

I'm a Virginian here and one of the closest law schools to me is Regent Univ. in Virginia Beach, VA. It's close enough to my apartment that I'd be able to literally attend and not pay any extra for cost of living (well, as in nothing higher than what I pay now already). I work near the school, but of course will be leaving my position if I attend law school.

The big plus is that basically I would know this area well, already have friends here, and wouldn't be going out of state paying extra costs.

I'm curious if anyone here is from Regent or know how it's job placements and reputation are? I saw that it was ranked quite low in the U.S. News WR rankings, but wonder if that would really hurt if I wanted to work in the state of Virginia? I don't necessarily want to work in a big city like NYC or Chicago. I like this area and wouldn't mind (in fact probably love) working in Washington, D.C., Maryland, Virginia...and possibly even North Carolina or Tennessee. So, essentially it would be my state and the bordering ones. I don't mind not being able to work in like Los Angeles, New York, etc.

What do people know about Regent University law? Especially job placements and opportuntieses? Thanks.

Don't go unless (a) you are set on attending a "Christian" law school, and (b) you don't have significantly better options (i.e. T14 school options), and (c) you are really set on practicing law as a career, and (d) preferably, you have a substantial scholarship there. Without all these conditions being met I would not recommend going to Regent.

Look at the data from Law School Transparency:
--LinkRemoved--

Long story short, they placed 0 students in biglaw. Indeed, no student was known to be working for a firm larger than 50 attorneys. 24% of graduates of the class of 2011 were known to be completely unemployed at the time of data collection (which I believe is 9 months after graduation, but I could be thinking of NALP data).

If you attend regents, you essentially plan on making $40k-$60k a year working for a small law firm (2-10 attorneys), and probably taking on non-prestigious clients (think DUIs, standard divorce cases, etc.).

There's nothing wrong with this lifestyle, and it's definitely attractive to some people, but keep in mind that this will be essentially your only option coming out of Regent, literally no one from Regent goes to work for biglaw.

Lawquacious wrote:Don't go unless (a) you are set on attending a "Christian" law school, and (b) you don't have significantly better options (i.e. T14 school options), and (c) you are really set on practicing law as a career, and (d) preferably, you have a substantial scholarship there. Without all these conditions being met I would not recommend going to Regent.

The tough thing here is that, if OP can get a full ride at Regent, he can almost certainly get into a better school. I just don't see how Regent is a good option for anyone.

OneMoreLawHopeful wrote:Look at the data from Law School Transparency:
--LinkRemoved--

Long story short, they placed 0 students in biglaw. Indeed, no student was known to be working for a firm larger than 50 attorneys. 24% of graduates of the class of 2011 were known to be completely unemployed at the time of data collection (which I believe is 9 months after graduation, but I could be thinking of NALP data).

If you attend regents, you essentially plan on making $40k-$60k a year working for a small law firm (2-10 attorneys), and probably taking on non-prestigious clients (think DUIs, standard divorce cases, etc.).

There's nothing wrong with this lifestyle, and it's definitely attractive to some people, but keep in mind that this will be essentially your only option coming out of Regent, literally no one from Regent goes to work for biglaw.

Hi. Thank you. I do see the numbers. But I'm wondering how you got the salary figures? The link provided no salaries for graduates. Just the law firm size they worked in.

The 24% unemployment rate does bother me, however. But also, $40K seems awfully low for a JD. That's why I asked about your source for salary figures. It wouldn't make sense to attend law school and borrow money if someone makes $40K!

Swimp wrote:

Lawquacious wrote:Don't go unless (a) you are set on attending a "Christian" law school, and (b) you don't have significantly better options (i.e. T14 school options), and (c) you are really set on practicing law as a career, and (d) preferably, you have a substantial scholarship there. Without all these conditions being met I would not recommend going to Regent.

The tough thing here is that, if OP can get a full ride at Regent, he can almost certainly get into a better school. I just don't see how Regent is a good option for anyone.

Again, I could save on cost of living with family in the area or living where I currently do. But honestly I'm a bit worried about employment now that I am reading up more on things.

Lawquacious - there are also non-Christians who attend Regent Law. It's not exclusive.

jwinaz wrote:Lawquacious - there are also non-Christians who attend Regent Law. It's not exclusive.

There may be non-Christians at Regent, but they're getting taught about how Thomas Jefferson was inspired by Jesus just the same. Here's a quote from the Dean of the school from their website:

However, training in legal skills alone is not enough. What makes Regent unique among law schools approved by the American Bar Association is that we thoroughly integrate a Christian perspective in the classroom. We are committed to the proposition that there are truths--eternal principles of justice--about the way we should practice law and about the law itself. We believe character matters. We talk openly about how an attorney can have integrity and humility in a profession that challenges both. And we discuss not only what the law is, but also its origin and what it ought to be.

As you consider attending a law school, I encourage you to think about a legal education that recognizes the critical role the Christian faith should play in our legal system and your professional life. I trust that in so doing, you will be drawn to Regent Law for your legal studies.

Swimp wrote:

Lawquacious wrote:Don't go unless (a) you are set on attending a "Christian" law school, and (b) you don't have significantly better options (i.e. T14 school options), and (c) you are really set on practicing law as a career, and (d) preferably, you have a substantial scholarship there. Without all these conditions being met I would not recommend going to Regent.

The tough thing here is that, if OP can get a full ride at Regent, he can almost certainly get into a better school. I just don't see how Regent is a good option for anyone.

To some extent this is true, but numbers that yield a full scholly result at Regent may yield full price at a T30 or T50 (or very small discount), in which case any TTT/TTTT (including Regent) can arguably be as good a choice if that is the region the person wants to end up in. T30 or T50 at full price is a very big risk, and in that case taking the full (or close) at Regent or similar level school wouldn't be stupid. But Regent at full scholly v. T14 level school at full price is a different outcome in my opinion-go to the National school unless very debt averse. Even then go to the T14 lol. But we recently had an Attorney General of the US who was a Regent grad (Ashcroft) so you can't say all these grads get shit. On the other hand, I would not want to attend there myself.

Lawquacious wrote:

Swimp wrote:

Lawquacious wrote:Don't go unless (a) you are set on attending a "Christian" law school, and (b) you don't have significantly better options (i.e. T14 school options), and (c) you are really set on practicing law as a career, and (d) preferably, you have a substantial scholarship there. Without all these conditions being met I would not recommend going to Regent.

The tough thing here is that, if OP can get a full ride at Regent, he can almost certainly get into a better school. I just don't see how Regent is a good option for anyone.

To some extent this is true, but numbers that yield a full scholly result at Regent may yield full price at a T30 or T50 (or very small discount), in which case any TTT/TTTT can arguably be as good a choice if that is the region the person wants to end up in. T30 or T50 at full price is a very big risk, and in that case taking the full (or close) at Regent or similar level school wouldn't be stupid. But Regent at full scholly v. T14 level school at full price is a different outcome in my opinion.

I'm operating under the assumption that literally any other law school would be better than Regent, but I'll admit that their religious zealotry really gets under my skin, so maybe my advice isn't as circumspect as it could be.

I would not go to this school, even on a full ride. You cannot get back 3 years of your life, and the upshot of a Regent JD will probably be unemployment, or else the same 40-50k salary you could earn with a BA.

jwinaz wrote:

OneMoreLawHopeful wrote:Look at the data from Law School Transparency:
--LinkRemoved--

Long story short, they placed 0 students in biglaw. Indeed, no student was known to be working for a firm larger than 50 attorneys. 24% of graduates of the class of 2011 were known to be completely unemployed at the time of data collection (which I believe is 9 months after graduation, but I could be thinking of NALP data).

If you attend regents, you essentially plan on making $40k-$60k a year working for a small law firm (2-10 attorneys), and probably taking on non-prestigious clients (think DUIs, standard divorce cases, etc.).

There's nothing wrong with this lifestyle, and it's definitely attractive to some people, but keep in mind that this will be essentially your only option coming out of Regent, literally no one from Regent goes to work for biglaw.

Hi. Thank you. I do see the numbers. But I'm wondering how you got the salary figures? The link provided no salaries for graduates. Just the law firm size they worked in.

The 24% unemployment rate does bother me, however. But also, $40K seems awfully low for a JD. That's why I asked about your source for salary figures. It wouldn't make sense to attend law school and borrow money if someone makes $40K!

Here's a good article to get you started on reading about law salaries:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/ ... wyer-jobs/

The gist of it is that the $160k salaries are only at the large firms, and at a handful of smaller boutiques. As for everyone else:

In 2009, salaries in the $40,000-to-$65,000 range collectively accounted for 42 percent of reported salaries; in 2010, 48 percent; and in 2011, 52 percent.

So if you go to a school where you expect to work at a firm in the 2-10 attorney range, this is basically the kind of salary you are looking at.

If you look at Law School Transparency, only 52% of Regent grads got long-term, JD-required jobs. As has been said, the vast majority of those worked at firms of 2-10 attorneys. These law firms almost certainly pay between $35,000 and $65,000 a year. http://www.nalp.org/salarycurve_classof2011.

OP, I get the sense that you started this thread after you were dissatisfied with the response in your other thread, "Missing Big Law = Poverty?" I understand that it's hard to give up on a dream, but you're really going to have to here unless you can increase your LSAT score. There's only one law school in Virginia that it's reasonably prudent to go to, and I think you know which one it is.

Swimp wrote: I'm operating under the assumption that literally any other law school would be better than Regent, but I'll admit that their religious zealotry really gets under my skin, so maybe my advice isn't as circumspect as it could be.

Those are very strong words.

What I'm curious about is how Regent Law's ABA moot court and negotation's competition teams won national championships (beating the likes of Harvard and Yale Law teams) in the past and have placed other high ranking law competition teams in subsequent years (e.g. 2nd overall 2011 beating the likes Virginia, UNC, and Duke Law teams in the Billings, Exum, and Frye National Moot Court Competition)?

Are these competitions reflective of the quality of teaching and/or student body? And of the quality of lawyers that will graduate? Regent seems to have gained some spotlight since the mid-2000's as its continually put forth good law competition teams (beating much higher and the best ranked schools in the nation).

Swimp wrote:

jwinaz wrote:Lawquacious - there are also non-Christians who attend Regent Law. It's not exclusive.

There may be non-Christians at Regent, but they're getting taught about how Thomas Jefferson was inspired by Jesus just the same. Here's a quote from the Dean of the school from their website:

However, training in legal skills alone is not enough. What makes Regent unique among law schools approved by the American Bar Association is that we thoroughly integrate a Christian perspective in the classroom. We are committed to the proposition that there are truths--eternal principles of justice--about the way we should practice law and about the law itself. We believe character matters. We talk openly about how an attorney can have integrity and humility in a profession that challenges both. And we discuss not only what the law is, but also its origin and what it ought to be.

As you consider attending a law school, I encourage you to think about a legal education that recognizes the critical role the Christian faith should play in our legal system and your professional life. I trust that in so doing, you will be drawn to Regent Law for your legal studies.

I'll have to look into that. I don't have an opinion yet, but do understand upfront that Regent is predominantly made up of a Christian student body.

I do know that one does not have to be a Christian to attend their school. As for grading policies and whether or not issues of faith factor in, that I'd be very curious about as well as the overall educational quality of the school.

This is a bit random, but I think I remember reading somewhere that theology has been a traditionally good pre-law program of study. I think it has to do with the fact that the Bible is filled with rules/laws (of sin and morality) and that a person who is good at understanding and interpreting those rules and knowing how to apply them to various situations (which may sometimes be discussed in Christian Bible studies or Sunday School too) will have skills that are helpful to the study of law.

But, I'm not sure. Would anyone know anything about this?

jwinaz wrote:I'll have to look into that. I don't have an opinion yet, but do understand upfront that Regent is predominantly made up of a Christian student body.

I do know that one does not have to be a Christian to attend their school. As for grading policies and whether or not issues of faith factor in, that I'd be very curious about as well as the overall educational quality of the school.

This is a bit random, but I think I remember reading somewhere that theology has been a traditionally good pre-law program of study. I think it has to do with the fact that the Bible is filled with rules/laws (of sin and morality) and that a person who is good at understanding and interpreting those rules and knowing how to apply them to various situations (which may sometimes be discussed in Christian Bible studies or Sunday School too) will have skills that are helpful to the study of law.

But, I'm not sure. Would anyone know anything about this?

Probably less to do with rules in the bible and more to do with required philosophy classes in formal logic. http://www.nmu.edu/sites/DrupalPhilosop ... _Major.pdf (And Regent's curriculum is going to lean a lot more toward 'this is what a good Christian thinks' than 'this is how you identify a logical fallacy'.)

As for Regent: avoid like the fucking plague. If what you want is a useless JD that won't get you a job, you can get that with a lot less jesus-praising elsewhere.

jwinaz wrote:What I'm curious about is how Regent Law's ABA moot court and negotation's competition teams won national championships (beating the likes of Harvard and Yale Law teams) in the past and have placed other high ranking law competition teams in subsequent years (e.g. 2nd overall 2011 beating the likes Virginia, UNC, and Duke Law teams in the Billings, Exum, and Frye National Moot Court Competition)?

Are these competitions reflective of the quality of teaching and/or student body? And of the quality of lawyers that will graduate? Regent seems to have gained some spotlight since the mid-2000's as its continually put forth good law competition teams (beating much higher and the best ranked schools in the nation).

Every law school can find some claim to fame--from winning moot court competitions to being ranked first for environmental law to having the largest library. These criteria should not matter to prospective law students in the current market. All that matters is the ability of the graduates of a given school to get jobs.

The problem with Regent is that its students encounter great difficulty getting jobs. Half of Regent's graduates do not become lawyers. The half that do become lawyers have a very narrow, undesirable, and low-paying set of job options. You--like many TLS posters before you that have sought affirmation of their decision to attend a low-ranked law school--are in denial.

Well, I suspect that Regent's MIGHT give you a shot at working in-house for Corporations that have consider themselves tools for advancement of far-right Christian values... (think food service companies such as Chick-fil-A, Domino's or Papa John's). I doubt the work would pay well or would be that interesting, unless using your law degree to help keep science out of schools, or to delay rights to people who do not have the sexual orientation that your employer prefers is up your alley.

But you have a chance at buying a t-shirt which trumpets the quality of the moot court team. It will remind you of the good times as you are working to convince the state of Virginia that all high schoolers need to know is that Noah but all the animals on the boat, don't worry their little heads about that silly evolution idea.

Bronte wrote:

jwinaz wrote:What I'm curious about is how Regent Law's ABA moot court and negotation's competition teams won national championships (beating the likes of Harvard and Yale Law teams) in the past and have placed other high ranking law competition teams in subsequent years (e.g. 2nd overall 2011 beating the likes Virginia, UNC, and Duke Law teams in the Billings, Exum, and Frye National Moot Court Competition)?

Are these competitions reflective of the quality of teaching and/or student body? And of the quality of lawyers that will graduate? Regent seems to have gained some spotlight since the mid-2000's as its continually put forth good law competition teams (beating much higher and the best ranked schools in the nation).

Every law school can find some claim to fame--from winning moot court competitions to being ranked first for environmental law to having the largest library. These criteria should not matter to prospective law students in the current market. All that matters is the ability of the graduates of a given school to get jobs.

The problem with Regent is that its students encounter great difficulty getting jobs. Half of Regent's graduates do not become lawyers. The half that do become lawyers have a very narrow, undesirable, and low-paying set of job options. You--like many TLS posters before you that have sought affirmation of their decision to attend a low-ranked law school--are in denial.

I forgot to mention from your earlier post that I wrote this post before the one on missing big law.

I can see where you would have thought I was ignoring people's opinions of Regent on that other thread if I wrote that one first. I was just responding to people's comments in this one after checking back here.

I want to look into this jobs and salary information. So I'll be doing some homework.

This school is bunk.

stillwater wrote:This school is bunk.

Hi.

I keep hearing many things like that on the internet, but they are usually tied to one of two things that I've personally seen: a low law school ranking and being a "crazy" religious school.

I guess I don't mind commenting on these. And I'm not saying you're suggesting these things. It's just that your comment is somewhat reflective of stuff I see frequently launched over the web and a lack of deeper discussion - besides these one line attacks - about why people have such a strong negative opinion of the school.

Well, so here goes...First, I'm not entirely sure how being an openly Christian school affects anything. Is Notre Dame not an openly Catholic institution and yet one of the nation's top academic and most highly respected institutions of higher learning? I'm not sure I see what religious affiliation has to do with anything. Bear in mind I'm not saying religious affiliation ought to help either.

For example, I don't think a Christian lawyer is inherently any better than an atheist lawyer. Or a Christian engineer any more skilled/better than a non-Christian engineer. And the same goes for teachers, athletes, medical doctors, bankers...you get the point. Your ability to do a job is not tied to your religion any more than I would think it's tied to your race, sex, weight, geographic location, etc.

A person's ability is based on that individual's ...ability! It's an individual thing and a person's religion really has nothing to do with their skills as a professional.

People are free to hold whatever religious beliefs or political beliefs they want in the United States.

Having said that, I still want to look into Regent's teaching. Because I'm curious about how and to what extent they may incorporate a religious perspective into their law school studies. But my point was that a person's religious affiliation has nothing to do with their professional abilities. Some of the world's greatest academics & thinkers have been Christians.

Secondly, with respect to a low law school ranking, I'm curious what implications that has on the competency of students that Regent Law School would graduate? Is there a suggestion possibly that a Regent Law School graduate would be incompetent to handle a DUI case or do whatever duties there are for a big law associate job? Is passing all the classes for a JD at a relatively lower ranked law school not enough to ensure professional competency?

What exactly is being inferred about these references to Regent Law's "lower" ranking?

Don't get me wrong, I do understand that sometimes the standards of an institution can be so low as to really call into serious question a graduate's competence (if based soley on the school name of the degree). I've heard people attack schools like The University of Phoenix for that reason, although I don't know much about their academics. I do know that some people say that the standards there are so low that a degree often doesn't mean much.

But that's why I ask if Regent's standards are so low as to call into question the competence of their graduates? I understand that that's possible with some schools, but is that the case with Regent?

One thing I do know is that Regent is a relatively new law school that was founded in 1978. So that might factor into their rankings as well. But, as I said, I'd love to hear more of the deeper reasoning that people have for attacking Regent so often.

Notre Dame is a Catholic university and Cardozo is Jewish, but they teach law like every other decent law school: this is a tort, this is negligence, these are the rules of evidence, and you'd better argue both sides of the exam question to get full points. Shitty religious whacknut schools like Regent and Ave Maria do not do this. They filter secular American law that governs ALL people through their narrow religious prism.

http://www.lawschoolpodcaster.com/2011/ ... different/

And in the end it wouldn't matter if the students at Regent were actually getting a great education while the kids at Yale doodled Care Bears on their notebooks...the Yalies are getting jobs and the Regent students ARE NOT. Employment stats are the single most important by which law schools are measured.

jwinaz wrote:Secondly, with respect to a low law school ranking, I'm curious what implications that has on the competency of students that Regent Law School would graduate? Is there a suggestion possibly that a Regent Law School graduate would be incompetent to handle a DUI case or do whatever duties there are for a big law associate job? Is passing all the classes for a JD at a relatively lower ranked law school not enough to ensure professional competency?

What exactly is being inferred about these references to Regent Law's "lower" ranking?

Don't get me wrong, I do understand that sometimes the standards of an institution can be so low as to really call into serious question a graduate's competence (if based soley on the school name of the degree). I've heard people attack schools like The University of Phoenix for that reason, although I don't know much about their academics. I do know that some people say that the standards there are so low that a degree often doesn't mean much.

When people talk about the low ranking of the institution they are talking about the ability of its graduates to get jobs, not the "competence" of its graduates. I'm trying to be relatively gentle with you here, but do you just not believe that 50% of Regent grads don't get jobs? You say you'll look into it. But I've provided links to the NYT, the WSJ, the NALP, etc. What more do you want?

jwinaz wrote:

stillwater wrote:This school is bunk.

Hi.

I keep hearing many things like that on the internet, but they are usually tied to one of two things that I've personally seen: a low law school ranking and being a "crazy" religious school.

I guess I don't mind commenting on these. And I'm not saying you're suggesting these things. It's just that your comment is somewhat reflective of stuff I see frequently launched over the web and a lack of deeper discussion - besides these one line attacks - about why people have such a strong negative opinion of the school.

Well, so here goes...First, I'm not entirely sure how being an openly Christian school affects anything. Is Notre Dame not an openly Catholic institution and yet one of the nation's top academic and most highly respected institutions of higher learning? I'm not sure I see what religious affiliation has to do with anything. Bear in mind I'm not saying religious affiliation ought to help either.

For example, I don't think a Christian lawyer is inherently any better than an atheist lawyer. Or a Christian engineer any more skilled/better than a non-Christian engineer. And the same goes for teachers, athletes, medical doctors, bankers...you get the point. Your ability to do a job is not tied to your religion any more than I would think it's tied to your race, sex, weight, geographic location, etc.

A person's ability is based on that individual's ...ability! It's an individual thing and a person's religion really has nothing to do with their skills as a professional.

People are free to hold whatever religious beliefs or political beliefs they want in the United States.

Having said that, I still want to look into Regent's teaching. Because I'm curious about how and to what extent they may incorporate a religious perspective into their law school studies. But my point was that a person's religious affiliation has nothing to do with their professional abilities. Some of the world's greatest academics & thinkers have been Christians.

Secondly, with respect to a low law school ranking, I'm curious what implications that has on the competency of students that Regent Law School would graduate? Is there a suggestion possibly that a Regent Law School graduate would be incompetent to handle a DUI case or do whatever duties there are for a big law associate job? Is passing all the classes for a JD at a relatively lower ranked law school not enough to ensure professional competency?

What exactly is being inferred about these references to Regent Law's "lower" ranking?

Don't get me wrong, I do understand that sometimes the standards of an institution can be so low as to really call into serious question a graduate's competence (if based soley on the school name of the degree). I've heard people attack schools like The University of Phoenix for that reason, although I don't know much about their academics. I do know that some people say that the standards there are so low that a degree often doesn't mean much.

But that's why I ask if Regent's standards are so low as to call into question the competence of their graduates? I understand that that's possible with some schools, but is that the case with Regent?

One thing I do know is that Regent is a relatively new law school that was founded in 1978. So that might factor into their rankings as well. But, as I said, I'd love to hear more of the deeper reasoning that people have for attacking Regent so often.

Placement, placement, placement. Even for free the opportunities this school affords you isn't worth the 3 years and the accrued cost of living.

OP, when you're talking about somebody claiming that Christianity ought to be the ultimate source of law in this country, you're not talking about someone who is just incidentally Christian. I really don't understand why you can't see that.

But maybe I shouldn't be surprised, because you also continually fail to grasp that the religion thing and the ranking thing are secondary reasons to reject Regent. As a variety of posters have suggested to you in two separate threads, the main reason not to go to Regent is because the majority of its graduates get bad/low-paying jobs once they graduate. And you don't need to spend three years of your life grinding through law school to get a bad/low-paying job.

Law school is 5% about receiving a legal education, and 95% about signaling your intelligence to employers. A Regent JD signals that you've got bottom of the barrel capabilities. I'm not going to debate whether or not this mindset is justified, but in my experience with the legal field it's exactly the mindset that people in charge of hiring have.

Bronte wrote: When people talk about the low ranking of the institution they are talking about the ability of its graduates to get jobs, not the "competence" of its graduates. I'm trying to be relatively gentle with you here, but do you just not believe that 50% of Regent grads don't get jobs? You say you'll look into it. But I've provided links to the NYT, the WSJ, the NALP, etc. What more do you want?

No, I am looking into it. It's just that I need to check around more. These were actually separate questions. Althoguh I see what you mean. You're judging a school by the ability of the graduates to get a job afterwards and not so much on the actual competence of its graduates to do a legal job.

I see that now. It seems that maybe if not for the lack of jobs that rankings may not matter as much? For example, I know that in medicine that the actual medical school you attend generally doesn't hurt or help much your ability to land a job afterwards. You can attend the Univ. of South Florida's med school, which is ranked #75, and still easily get a job with your MD as a doctor. In fact, I believe the medical employment rate of MD graduates is 95% in the United States.

But, yes, I see what you mean. I think I was looking at the issue differently and not so much from a jobs perspective, but from a competency one.

In that graph you sent me, it was for the class of 2011 and their starting salaries. Any idea about how much improvement in salaries lawyers can make who start at the 40-60K ranges in smaller firms from that graph? Is it possible to build a small firm and eventually make closer to the $100K range?

jwinaz wrote:Well, so here goes...First, I'm not entirely sure how being an openly Christian school affects anything. Is Notre Dame not an openly Catholic institution and yet one of the nation's top academic and most highly respected institutions of higher learning? I'm not sure I see what religious affiliation has to do with anything. Bear in mind I'm not saying religious affiliation ought to help either.

Even Harvard was originally founded as a Christian college. However, the issue isn't their overall faith denomination; instead, it's how it affects their teaching methods. If you go to a law school like the ones at Notre Dame or Boston College, you are still getting a reputable, balanced education, and they have long built reputations for such. However, Regent is a law school which was started far more recently than those, and with a more specific agenda: To produce "Christian lawyers", which is understood to actually mean lawyers dedicated to a specifically devout evangelical cause. It doesn't mean lawyers who are Christian; in the case of Regent, it means lawyers who are Christians first and lawyers second, and color everything they do in the practice of law with their faith.

jwinaz wrote:For example, I don't think a Christian lawyer is inherently any better than an atheist lawyer. Or a Christian engineer any more skilled/better than a non-Christian engineer. And the same goes for teachers, athletes, medical doctors, bankers...you get the point. Your ability to do a job is not tied to your religion any more than I would think it's tied to your race, sex, weight, geographic location, etc.

I agree with you, but what you are not understanding is that this is not the teaching ethic at a school like Regent. There, they teach people specifically to tie their practice of law to their faith. This is one of the reasons people are warning you away; they have an agenda with their teaching, which leads to a less balanced and honest discussion of the law than you would receive even at a place like Notre Dame.

jwinaz wrote:Secondly, with respect to a low law school ranking, I'm curious what implications that has on the competency of students that Regent Law School would graduate? Is there a suggestion possibly that a Regent Law School graduate would be incompetent to handle a DUI case or do whatever duties there are for a big law associate job? Is passing all the classes for a JD at a relatively lower ranked law school not enough to ensure professional competency?

The sad truth about law school is that you'll get roughly the same legal education at most law schools, no matter what their ranking. There is nothing you will learn in first-year torts or contracts class at HYS that you wouldn't learn from taking the same course at a T2 or even TTT; in fact, in both cases the courses will likely be taught by HYS grads and may even use the same textbooks. Prestige is used to differentiate job applicants because it's an easy and reliable way to do so, and even for a "normal" TTT, employers will prefer someone from a higher-ranked school almost by default. Keep in mind, that's for a "normal" TTT; Regent isn't one, because it has a reputation for an extreme religious bias which damages its reputation even further than if it were treated as a typical low-ranked school.

jwinaz wrote:Don't get me wrong, I do understand that sometimes the standards of an institution can be so low as to really call into serious question a graduate's competence (if based soley on the school name of the degree). I've heard people attack schools like The University of Phoenix for that reason, although I don't know much about their academics. I do know that some people say that the standards there are so low that a degree often doesn't mean much.

Many T2 and even T1 grads who graduated with good grades are struggling to find work now. I'm not even talking "BigLaw" or "prestigious" work, I'm talking not finding work at all. In the current economy, it's much harder to find work as a lawyer than it used to be, and given that tuition is the same at TTTs as it is at Ivies, it makes far less financial sense to go to a place that will give you such poor employment chances.

jwinaz wrote:One thing I do know is that Regent is a relatively new law school that was founded in 1978. So that might factor into their rankings as well. But, as I said, I'd love to hear more of the deeper reasoning that people have for attacking Regent so often.

As I said earlier, it's not just that they're new, it's that they were founded recently with a specific religious agenda, and people who graduate from there are often assumed to have that agenda also, whether they do or not.