All non tier 1 people, why are you going to law school? Forum

[too old for this sh*]

I don't think it's anger, but it reminds of the rich girl at school who drove a mercedes and just couldn't fathom having to drive a used honda or nissan. "OMG, I would DIE if I had to drive that car."

It's a very flawed analogy and I know it's not the real case. That's just how it sometimes is perceived.

It is perceived that way because 0Ls would rather view the 2Ls and 3Ls who warn them about the legal market and shitty schools they want to attend as elitists rather than actually listen to what they say. I've been around TLS long enough and seen enough crying and chastising by the low-post 0L posters to know it is willful, reckless ignorance that motivates their thinking. It is a "la la la can't hear you!" type of attitude.

can't ever be comments based on personal experiences in the real world that date back to before some posters here were even in high school (and in some cases, probably still in elementary school)

[holdencaulfield]

I don't think it's anger, but it reminds of the rich girl at school who drove a mercedes and just couldn't fathom having to drive a used honda or nissan. "OMG, I would DIE if I had to drive that car."

It's a very flawed analogy and I know it's not the real case. That's just how it sometimes is perceived.

It is perceived that way because 0Ls would rather view the 2Ls and 3Ls who warn them about the legal market and shitty schools they want to attend as elitists rather than actually listen to what they say. I've been around TLS long enough and seen enough crying and chastising by the low-post 0L posters to know it is willful, reckless ignorance that motivates their thinking. It is a "la la la can't hear you!" type of attitude.

Also, your analogy doesn't work because that isn't even close to how the majority of TLSers think. I'd go to school at a Tier 3 school in a second if it meant I could get a respectable job and pay off my debt, and I think most other posters on here would say the same. It isn't a BMW vs. Honda thing, its a "Maybe I'll Get a Good Job" vs. "Almost Certain Unemployment" thing.

I agree with most of what you're saying, and I initially stated that the analogy is flawed and not the case; but extreme phrases like "almost certain unemployment" are what drive the perception.

[romothesavior]

2. Bashing those who dont attend a T14 accusing them of being inferior, soon-to-be unemployed bastards

I certainly am not bashing those who don't attend T14s, since I don't attend one myself.

And I agree that if a person can't get into a top school (top 6-10 schools or so), they should go to a strong regional school where they want to practice. But my definition of strong regional is UIUC, GW, BU, Vanderbilt, UCLA, UNC, etc., not Case Western, Cardozo, Rutgers, Temple, etc.

Also, I just want to emphasize that I never in my entire posting history have said or suggested that a T2 or T3 is always a bad decision. Not all of these schools are created equal, and they can be okay if people go to them for free or close to it and pick a school with a decent niche market. Southern Illinois with a full ride =/= Seton Hall at sticker, and I am fully aware of that.

This thread is getting old and it is going in circles. Most people are going to do what they want to do, regardless of what they are told by current students who know what the market is like. But if one or two posters read this and have reconsidered their choice of law school because of it, then I consider it a win.

[holdencaulfield]

Most people are going to do what they want to do, regardless of what they are told by current students who know what the market is like. But if one or two posters read this and have reconsidered their choice of law school because of it, then I consider it a win.

+1

[mt1042]

But my definition of strong regional is UIUC, GW, BU, Vanderbilt, UCLA, UNC, etc., not Case Western, Cardozo, Rutgers, Temple, etc.

I hope this isn't off topic, but is your definition of "strong regional" synonymous with T1?

[romothesavior]

But my definition of strong regional is UIUC, GW, BU, Vanderbilt, UCLA, UNC, etc., not Case Western, Cardozo, Rutgers, Temple, etc.

I hope this isn't off topic, but is your definition of "strong regional" synonymous with T1?

No, it is pretty school-dependent. Depends on a lot on the market the school is in and the number of other schools (especially better schools) in the area.

I think that near the top, the rankings are helpful as a very rough guide. Beyond that, I think the rankings are very, very worthless.

[keg411]

Romo, your list is flawed. Someone who wants to work in Philadelphia is better off going to Temple in-state plus scholarship than GW or BU or WUSTTTL at sticker. Romo, I know you go to WUSTL, but seriously don't recommend people go there at sticker over a T2 state school in their region (I think Vandy/UCLA are a different story, but they're still pretty confined to the South/California).

My rules are: go T14, go in-state, or go cheap. But most importantly... go where you want to work after graduation.

[romothesavior]

Romo, I know you go to WUSTL, but seriously don't recommend people go there at sticker over a T2 state school in their region

I don't.

[kopper]

2. Bashing those who dont attend a T14 accusing them of being inferior, soon-to-be unemployed bastards

I certainly am not bashing those who don't attend T14s, since I don't attend one myself.

And I agree that if a person can't get into a top school (top 6-10 schools or so), they should go to a strong regional school where they want to practice. But my definition of strong regional is UIUC, GW, BU, Vanderbilt, UCLA, UNC, etc., not Case Western, Cardozo, Rutgers, Temple, etc.

Also, I just want to emphasize that I never in my entire posting history have said or suggested that a T2 or T3 is always a bad decision. Not all of these schools are created equal, and they can be okay if people go to them for free or close to it and pick a school with a decent niche market. Southern Illinois with a full ride =/= Seton Hall at sticker, and I am fully aware of that.

This thread is getting old and it is going in circles. Most people are going to do what they want to do, regardless of what they are told by current students who know what the market is like. But if one or two posters read this and have reconsidered their choice of law school because of it, then I consider it a win.

WUSTL < Temple, Nova in Philly. You don't know what you are talking about in the Philly market and likely in general. WUSTL may be ranked higher than Temple and Nova but you lose in the Philly market.

[cowgirl_bebop]

2. Bashing those who dont attend a T14 accusing them of being inferior, soon-to-be unemployed bastards

I certainly am not bashing those who don't attend T14s, since I don't attend one myself.

...

Most people are going to do what they want to do, regardless of what they are told by current students who know what the market is like. But if one or two posters read this and have reconsidered their choice of law school because of it, then I consider it a win.

I am not accusing you personally of doing so, its just that has become the overarching theme of this thread over the past few pages. I myself will not be attending a T14, but I do intend on attending a T1 school.

And you are right, few people are going to change their choice of school because of the opinions of strangers on an internet forum. That said, I think everyone has their own reasons for choosing the school they plan on attending, and as adults have to live with that choice. There are students who cant get into T50 schools but can still become successful in their area. I dont think T2 or below is a death sentence financially, but it will be harder to find a job. But thats the risk someone takes if they opt to attend those schools. And if they can go to school or free or near free and they have their heart set on law school, then hell, go for it. Let the dice fly high and see where they land.

[jayman6]

Okay, so I got into the University of Iowa, but since I'm out of state I'd pay about $170k. I also got into the University of Colorado-Boulder, and sticker there is about $150k. So why wouldn't I just go to the University of Denver where I'd pay about $60k with my scholarship? To me that seems reasonable. I don't want to pay sticker at a Tier 1. I also think it's comical that many people on TLS would have me believe that NOBODY that goes < T14 will get a job, or a job that pays more than $40k a year. Finding a job may be difficult, but most top 100s still are placing their students at decent firms. The difference is that if you have less debt you can afford to take a slightly lower paying job, as opposed to going T14 and NEEDING a job that pays $100k + in order to pay down your debt. I actually think paying sticker at a T1 is a lot worse than attending a T2 for COL only.

[mt1042]

Okay, so I got into the University of Iowa, but since I'm out of state I'd pay about $170k. I also got into the University of Colorado-Boulder, and sticker there is about $150k. So why wouldn't I just go to the University of Denver where I'd pay about $60k with my scholarship? To me that seems reasonable. I don't want to pay sticker at a Tier 1. ... The difference is that if you have less debt you can afford to take a slightly lower paying job, as opposed to going T14 and NEEDING a job that pays $100k + in order to pay down your debt. I actually think paying sticker at a T1 is a lot worse than attending a T2 for COL only.

The above sounds quite reasonable to me. I see the logic in going to the best school you can, but I do not believe "can" solely means acceptance at a school. Going into 100K of debt, even at a t14, is a questionable financial decision. In all the talk about the economy and law market I feel that is sometimes lost and maybe the larger cause of new JD's having significant financial struggles.

1.) Go to tier 2 in an area you would like to live with scholly
2.) Network
3.) Get job making $40-50K while others scramble for six figures
4.) Profit... Though not as much as your friend who went to a t14 and landed biglaw

[deltasigbn]

.

[gwuorbust]

Romo, I know you go to WUSTL, but seriously don't recommend people go there at sticker over a T2 state school in their region

I don't.

I just recommend to people that they not go to law school. if they don't take that advice, I try to minimize their losses. and if they won't take that advice, their own grave.

[adude]

I think people go to law school at non tier 1 for the same reasons that ppl go to T1. The only option that is out of the picture for non tier 1 is academia.

[r6_philly]

I think people go to law school at non tier 1 for the same reasons that ppl go to T1. The only option that is out of the picture for non tier 1 is academia.

It's not entirely out, it is just very very unlikely, and you will probably only have chances at TTTs. A quick glance at Drexel's faculty bios, for example, reveals several unlikely sources.

[LSATWIZ]

If you trust your social skills and ability to hustle, I have my doubts the lower t-14 is a better option than the guaranteed full ride to IU: Bloomington for all those with 170 and above.

[LSATWIZ]

Romo, I know you go to WUSTL, but seriously don't recommend people go there at sticker over a T2 state school in their region

I don't.

I just recommend to people that they not go to law school. if they don't take that advice, I try to minimize their losses. and if they won't take that advice, their own grave.

What if it's free?

[LSATWIZ]

2. Bashing those who dont attend a T14 accusing them of being inferior, soon-to-be unemployed bastards

I certainly am not bashing those who don't attend T14s, since I don't attend one myself.

And I agree that if a person can't get into a top school (top 6-10 schools or so), they should go to a strong regional school where they want to practice. But my definition of strong regional is UIUC, GW, BU, Vanderbilt, UCLA, UNC, etc., not Case Western, Cardozo, Rutgers, Temple, etc.

Also, I just want to emphasize that I never in my entire posting history have said or suggested that a T2 or T3 is always a bad decision. Not all of these schools are created equal, and they can be okay if people go to them for free or close to it and pick a school with a decent niche market. Southern Illinois with a full ride =/= Seton Hall at sticker, and I am fully aware of that.

This thread is getting old and it is going in circles. Most people are going to do what they want to do, regardless of what they are told by current students who know what the market is like. But if one or two posters read this and have reconsidered their choice of law school because of it, then I consider it a win.

WUSTL < Temple, Nova in Philly. You don't know what you are talking about in the Philly market and likely in general. WUSTL may be ranked higher than Temple and Nova but you lose in the Philly market.

It's like this in every market on average.

Once you leave the top of the top, even some of the lower t-14, regional schools are often better in a given city.

For a school like WUSTL, in Philly, outside of big law I would not be surprised if many people have no idea it's a top 20. I know a partner in a huge firm who was a Columbia Law grad who once remarked to me, "Washington in St. Louis... are they top 100?" He is not in hiring, but most lawyers 10 yrs out of school probably don't know the rankings outside of the top 10 and outside of their region.

[r6_philly]

If you trust your social skills and ability to hustle, I have my doubts the lower t-14 is a better option than the guaranteed full ride to IU: Bloomington for all those with 170 and above.

It's probably not if you want to practice near school. But remember full ride will still leave you with loans. the $90-130k debt ultimately translate to $1000-1500 a month. Considering the next car I will buy will run about $1000/month, it really isn't that big of a deal as a working professional.

[northwood]

r6- you are including cost of driving, right ( gas, wear and tear, insurance, and maintenance) and not just the payment??

[r6_philly]

r6- you are including cost of driving, right ( gas, wear and tear, insurance, and maintenance) and not just the payment??

No. $999 24 month lease. Insurance would be about $200/month (I am old lol). It's a MB CLS550 if you are wondering.

[northwood]

just wondering....

nice car, good luck!

[r6_philly]

just wondering....

nice car, good luck!

Thanks! Cars and bikes are in my blood, and is my only hobby lol I feel lost when I don't buy another toy every few years. I treat it like my only reward for working hard, although I understand some may think it is a waste of money.

[too old for this sh*]

r6- you are including cost of driving, right ( gas, wear and tear, insurance, and maintenance) and not just the payment??

No. $999 24 month lease. Insurance would be about $200/month (I am old lol). It's a MB CLS550 if you are wondering.

nice car...hate the idea of leasing though. I much prefer not having a note on any of the three vehicles I presently own. And *gag* at the $200/mo insurance for ONE vehicle...makes me glad I am in Texas.