A Perspective: $cholarship from a LS or no go to that LS. Forum

[whuts4lunch]

T14 still has much better job prospects than the rest of the T1. Personally I'd rather risk 200K for a 50-50 shot at big law, than risk 45k (cost of living) for only a 10% shot at it. And if you can't hit median at a T14, you aren't hitting top 10% at a T1.

I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but why are you so sure that top 10% at a T1 is necessarily more difficult to achieve than top 50% at a T14? Is there any hard evidence that supports your assertion? From what I can tell, based on available information, there is no way to tell which is more difficult. Wouldn't you be risking 155k more, marginally to the lower ranked school, on a hunch? Also, at some point in our careers and not too long after graduation, we are going to be judged primarily on our ability as lawyers and not the names on our resumes anyway, though those school names will still likely mean something. While that seems to discount the rank of the school, perhaps the legal education a student would receive at a T14 will be significantly superior to that received at a lower ranked school. Again, no real way to tell.

I wish I could take a set of median exams from schools ranked 10-26 and have UF/FSU/Miami professors grade them and see where they would rank relative to UF/FSU/Miami exams. I would also want to take median and top 10% exams from lower ranked schools and see where they would stack up at higher ranked schools. An important limitation is that professors may have particular ways they like exams written that students at different schools would not be responding to.

Hypothetically, if median exams at Gtown would rank top 10% had they been at FSU, median exams at FSU would rank bottom 10% had they been at Gtown, and top 10% FSU exams would rank median had they been at Gtown, then you would maximize your opportunities by attending FSU. If median exams at Gtown rank top 45% at FSU, and median exams at FSU rank at or just under median at Gtown, then Gtown would be the better choice.

[stratocophic]

T14 still has much better job prospects than the rest of the T1. Personally I'd rather risk 200K for a 50-50 shot at big law, than risk 45k (cost of living) for only a 10% shot at it. And if you can't hit median at a T14, you aren't hitting top 10% at a T1.

I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but why are you so sure that top 10% at a T1 is necessarily more difficult to achieve than top 50% at a T14? Is there any hard evidence that supports your assertion? From what I can tell, based on available information, there is no way to tell which is more difficult. Wouldn't you be risking 155k more, marginally to the lower ranked school, on a hunch? Also, at some point in our careers and not too long after graduation, we are going to be judged primarily on our ability as lawyers and not the names on our resumes anyway, though those school names will still likely mean something. While that seems to discount the rank of the school, perhaps the legal education a student would receive at a T14 will be significantly superior to that received at a lower ranked school. Again, no real way to tell.

I wish I could take a set of median exams from schools ranked 10-26 and have UF/FSU/Miami professors grade them and see where they would rank relative to UF/FSU/Miami exams. I would also want to take median and top 10% exams from lower ranked schools and see where they would stack up at higher ranked schools. An important limitation is that professors may have particular ways they like exams written that students at different schools would not be responding to.

Hypothetically, if median exams at Gtown would rank top 10% had they been at FSU, median exams at FSU would rank bottom 10% had they been at Gtown, and top 10% FSU exams would rank median had they been at Gtown, then you would maximize your opportunities by attending FSU. If median exams at Gtown rank top 45% at FSU, and median exams at FSU rank at or just under median at Gtown, then Gtown would be the better choice.

There have been plenty of debates about this. The reasoning is that that places like CCN take the top 10% as transfers, even from T2 schools, for a reason. That reason is because top 10% is bitchin' hard to get.

[dextermorgan]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Luckily I have plenty of other options to ride out the next few years. I am not going to decide to go in debt to attend a T10 or limit myself to a T30 with a full ride until I can actually see where the legal market is heading.

I think that outside of a very slight uptick in hiring this coming fall over last fall, the legal market as we see it now is here to stay!

Having talked to career services and some other folks at the law school....I think my answer is nobody has the slightest clue.

There is some feeling however, that this years 2Ls had it worst.

Which is precisely why I have decided to wait until I know for sure.

[awesomepossum]

I'll tell you why IN MY OPINION that doesn't make much sense.

You're looking into a looking glass of years into the future. Nobody will EVER know what's going to happen.

Getting a summer job is just the start. If the economy cracks when you're a 3L, a 1st year associate or further out, in any situation it sucks. I know midlevel associates who got laid off who had a terrible time because they were in the middle of their cushy lives and then were screwed because there was effectively nowhere to go.

I graduated college in 01. Of course that's college but who knew that the dot com bust was coming? Further out, who knew that 9/11 was coming?

When I was applying to law school things looked perfectly rosy. Things fell apart during my 1L year. There was no way to know that was coming. If I had known I would have done one of those tricks to short subprime and made a bajillion dollars.

You can wait.....but if you're set on going to law school. there's really no reason to delay unless you're doing something right now that you love...in which case...why go to law school at all?

[chadwick218]

Which is precisely why I have decided to wait until I know for sure.

You may be waiting for a long time. Also, by waiting, you are impliedly trying to time the market. By the time that the market has turned around (if that ever happens) and you then commit to attending law school, the market is just as likely to turn again by the time you graduate.

[reasonabledoubt]

Which is precisely why I have decided to wait until I know for sure.

You may be waiting for a long time. Also, by waiting, you are impliedly trying to time the market. By the time that the market has turned around (if that ever happens) and you then commit to attending law school, the market is just as likely to turn again by the time you graduate.

There seems to be an overwhelming ideology on these threads that the "legal market" is tied in some crucial respect to the economy. To this I'd also add, what are people referring to when they refer to the legal market? I wasn't aware that our system of law had a corresponding market.

For an interesting discussion.... what if, through increased integration of technology and more, our system of law become more efficient which would thereby reduce the need for lawyers. What are we basing our notions of future legal jobs on? Are we hopeful that people and corporations continue to break the law in increasing numbers?

Anyways, my main question is, what is this "legal market" we're referring to with such confidence here?

[DukeHopeful]

I think that "legal market" refers to the legal job market. Labor is a commodity, thus it has a market.

[wadeny]

There seems to be an overwhelming ideology on these threads that the "legal market" is tied in some crucial respect to the economy. To this I'd also add, what are people referring to when they refer to the legal market? I wasn't aware that our system of law had a corresponding market.

Someone needs to take more econ ...it just refers to the legal job market (i.e. supply and demand of labor - in this case lawyers).

[reasonabledoubt]

I think that "legal market" refers to the legal job market. Labor is a commodity, thus it has a market.

How very Marxist of you.

In any case, these notions are essentially useless because the system of law and it's supplicants don't quite follow the patterns of other commodities such as cattle, for instance.

Unless you're making a supply/demand statement correlated to the amount of laws projected to be broken in 2013 and beyond. We're talking about the profession of law here. For a more useful question, what reason would any of us have to think that the need for lawyers is increasing?

[reasonabledoubt]

There seems to be an overwhelming ideology on these threads that the "legal market" is tied in some crucial respect to the economy. To this I'd also add, what are people referring to when they refer to the legal market? I wasn't aware that our system of law had a corresponding market.

Someone needs to take more econ ...it just refers to the legal job market (i.e. supply and demand of labor - in this case lawyers).

Econ - lol. Oh yes, several of the world's most esteemed "economists" are just wrapping up their theories on what happened 10 years ago. Maybe, if we're lucky, one can adequately explain the latest financial crisis in 10-20 years.

How useful the theoretical practice of economic theory is! I'm living in the real world where actual dynamics apply. Every high-level executive I know has about 100 economist jokes ending in how spectacularly useless most econ theory is. Econ... lulz.

[DukeHopeful]

I think that "legal market" refers to the legal job market. Labor is a commodity, thus it has a market.

How very Marxist of you.

In any case, these notions are essentially useless because the system of law and it's supplicants don't quite follow the patterns of other commodities such as cattle, for instance.

Unless you're making a supply/demand statement correlated to the amount of laws projected to be broken in 2013 and beyond. We're talking about the profession of law here. For a more useful question, what reason would any of us have to think that the need for lawyers is increasing?

I'm not exactly sure how what I said what a Marxist comment. In referring to the legal job market, I was referring to supply and demand for labor. This does not explicitly mean the number of laws broken correlates to the demand for lawyers. It depends on what field of law you do. Obviously, for a real estate lawyer, a booming real estate market leads to more demand for real estate lawyers. Likewise, in a bullish economy where larger companies are snapping up smaller companies on a regular basis, there is more demand for law work in M&A than there would be in a bearish economy where many companies may just be trying to weather the storm. If there is more work to be done, then there is a more demand for lawyers who do that work. While it may not be a perfect correlation with the economy as a whole, I think that as the economy grows, so grows the demand for lawyers.

I'm not sure if I addressed what you were saying, but I think this should at least clarify a bit what it was I meant by the legal job market.

EDIT: Also, I realized I wasn't really clear about the commodity thing. Labor is a commodity. Those who can work exchange their product for money with those who need it and are willing to pay for it.

[reasonabledoubt]

I think that "legal market" refers to the legal job market. Labor is a commodity, thus it has a market.

How very Marxist of you.

In any case, these notions are essentially useless because the system of law and it's supplicants don't quite follow the patterns of other commodities such as cattle, for instance.

Unless you're making a supply/demand statement correlated to the amount of laws projected to be broken in 2013 and beyond. We're talking about the profession of law here. For a more useful question, what reason would any of us have to think that the need for lawyers is increasing?

I'm not exactly sure how what I said what a Marxist comment. In referring to the legal job market, I was referring to supply and demand for labor. This does not explicitly mean the number of laws broken correlates to the demand for lawyers. It depends on what field of law you do. Obviously, for a real estate lawyer, a booming real estate market leads to more demand for real estate lawyers. Likewise, in a bullish economy where larger companies are snapping up smaller companies on a regular basis, there is more demand for law work in M&A than there would be in a bearish economy where many companies may just be trying to weather the storm. If there is more work to be done, then there is a more demand for lawyers who do that work. While it may not be a perfect correlation with the economy as a whole, I think that as the economy grows, so grows the demand for lawyers.

I'm not sure if I addressed what you were saying, but I think this should at least clarify a bit what it was I meant by the legal job market.

EDIT: Also, I realized I wasn't really clear about the commodity thing. Labor is a commodity. Those who can work exchange their product for money with those who need it and are willing to pay for it.

I see your point/perspective now.

Here's what my Marx comment was about:

Marx says from beneath his beard: "In that sense a slave is also a capitalist, although he is sold by another once and for all as a commodity; for it is in the nature of this commodity, a labouring slave, that its buyer does not only make it work anew every day, but also provides it with the means of subsistence that enable it to work ever anew."

I always cringe a bit when I hear of labor as a commodity.... it's dangerous in many human-rights/dignity respects.

[DukeHopeful]

Haha, ok I see that. I thought you were interpreting my comments as anti-market, which is pretty far from where I stand. The way I see it, if there are people out there who are actually willing to pay money for the Snuggie, then by all means, someone should make it, and make money off of it.

P.S. If you havn't already, watch the YouTube snuggie parody (The WTF Blanket) and the Jesus Christ Sponge (Shamwow parody).

[badwithpseudonyms]

I want a scholarship that will cover COL...

Get yourself a sugar momma (or daddy) to cover CoL. That's what I'm doing. Well, she's my fiancée, so I'll pay for it in the long run, but yeah.

[badwithpseudonyms]

I want a scholarship that will cover COL...

Get yourself a sugar momma (or daddy) to cover CoL. That's what I'm doing. Well, she's my fiancée, so I'll pay for it in the long run, but yeah.

I wish you posted more.

It's the 'tar isn't it?

[sibley]

I want a scholarship that will cover COL...

Some schools offer stipends. http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 15&t=87332

Thanks =) Good to know two or three of the schools I applied to offer/may consider me (stupid splitting...)

also... anyone who's not getting the packages they want, is okay with a school that's not top 100, and wouldn't mind living in upstate NY, should consider applying to Syracuse. They're trying to up their rankings and have given several people I know (with gpas around 3.5 and lsats around 158) full rides + living expenses.

[09042014]

Engineers are prestige whores because we understand stats better than econ

Unless I'm terribly mistaken, future IP attorneys don't need to worry about school ranking to the same extent in order to land a big law IP job. If Desert Fox is an engineer, why take out $200k in loans when $45k elsewhere would also provide excellent odds of landing the same job? I talked with an IP attorney recently who went to a T50 for next to nothing. She has a job with a bigtime IP firm and was mentioning how she was working with Harvard grads who were buried in massive debt.

Will there be a T14 boost for IP big law? Yeah, but I have a hard time believing it would be significant. There just aren't that many law students with technical backgrounds in the pipeline. If I'm wrong and someone has the references to prove it then by all means post them, but from what I've gleaned from various sources indicates that IP big law is a different beast.

/ignore if Desert Fox is not planning on IP law.

There are a couple reasons. The first being that I couldn't get a fullride even at a T2 because of my GPA. Why throw money at me when they could give a full ride to a 3.5 162 would raise both their medians. Some guy with a 175/3.02 got 20K scholarship. Realistically I was looking at 30-45K scholarship at UIUC. Which would mean over 100K in debt.

The second reason is that I think I want patent litigation. And patent lit is basically big law.

I think(but this is massive speculation) I might be able to find a patent prosecution job if I finish dead last at Northwestern. I'm not sure if I could at UIUC.

[sibley]

I want a scholarship that will cover COL...

Get yourself a sugar momma (or daddy) to cover CoL. That's what I'm doing. Well, she's my fiancée, so I'll pay for it in the long run, but yeah.

Heh. If I went to NYC I could live with my boyfriend's parents... without him.

[Vincent Vega]

I could be way off-base, but I think this exact question and the huge debate and support of going to lower-ranked schools for money is going to make this an extremely strange cycle for some schools.

Some schools with tons of money to throw around are going to get some people they would have never had shots at in the past, and I think some other schools are going to be hurt a bit by this. The schools I think that should be the most concerned are those in the area of UCLA, Texas, Vandy, WUSTL, etc. Some schools are throwing serious cash around just below them, and people that would have normally snubbed Iowa, W&M, Indiana, etc. are going to end up there because of the cash. I think the 15-20's are going to have to go deep into their waitlists after they thought they were going to be very selective this cycle after having such an increase in applications.

The reason my reasoning might be flawed is that I am too close to the situation and might be considering my particular scenario too much. I am an example of the above ideology. Three years ago, I might have chosen WUSTL sticker over Iowa or Indiana full rides, but ITE those are the two finalists for me. 165/3.92

[dresden doll]

I could be way off-base, but I think this exact question and the huge debate and support of going to lower-ranked schools for money is going to make this an extremely strange cycle for some schools.

Some schools with tons of money to throw around are going to get some people they would have never had shots at in the past, and I think some other schools are going to be hurt a bit by this. The schools I think that should be the most concerned are those in the area of UCLA, Texas, Vandy, WUSTL, etc. Some schools are throwing serious cash around just below them, and people that would have normally snubbed Iowa, W&M, Indiana, etc. are going to end up there because of the cash. I think the 15-20's are going to have to go deep into their waitlists after they thought they were going to be very selective this cycle after having such an increase in applications.

The reason my reasoning might be flawed is that I am too close to the situation and might be considering my particular scenario too much. I am an example of the above ideology. Three years ago, I might have chosen WUSTL sticker over Iowa or Indiana full rides, but ITE those are the two finalists for me. 165/3.92

WUSTL throws some serious cash around, actually. They offered me (and not just me, by any means) a full ride. It's an incredibly wealthy school.

[Vincent Vega]

WUSTL throws some serious cash around, actually. They offered me (and not just me, by any means) a full ride. It's an incredibly wealthy school.

While, like I said, my theory might be wrong, your anecdote doesn't disprove it. If you had the kind of numbers to get a full ride there, you're not in the group I am talking about. It's the people who have the numbers to get in, but not enough to get a significant amount of money.

This will affect many schools, not just the few I mentioned.

[ggocat]

WUSTL throws some serious cash around, actually. They offered me (and not just me, by any means) a full ride. It's an incredibly wealthy school.

While, like I said, my theory might be wrong, your anecdote doesn't disprove it. If you had the kind of numbers to get a full ride there, you're not in the group I am talking about. It's the people who have the numbers to get in, but not enough to get a significant amount of money.

This will affect many schools, not just the few I mentioned.

A school's scholarship budget is likely to be relatively finite. To attract more students away from high ranking schools, a lower ranking school must increase revenues (e.g., tuition, fundraising) or decrease expenditures (e.g., faculty salary, payment to university) to increase the scholarship budget. I would be hesitant to speculate about a particular US News range of schools that will collectively increase scholarship budgets.

[JazzOne]

I could be way off-base, but I think this exact question and the huge debate and support of going to lower-ranked schools for money is going to make this an extremely strange cycle for some schools.

Some schools with tons of money to throw around are going to get some people they would have never had shots at in the past, and I think some other schools are going to be hurt a bit by this. The schools I think that should be the most concerned are those in the area of UCLA, Texas, Vandy, WUSTL, etc. Some schools are throwing serious cash around just below them, and people that would have normally snubbed Iowa, W&M, Indiana, etc. are going to end up there because of the cash. I think the 15-20's are going to have to go deep into their waitlists after they thought they were going to be very selective this cycle after having such an increase in applications.

The reason my reasoning might be flawed is that I am too close to the situation and might be considering my particular scenario too much. I am an example of the above ideology. Three years ago, I might have chosen WUSTL sticker over Iowa or Indiana full rides, but ITE those are the two finalists for me. 165/3.92

Texas had a record number of applications this year, and they've been throwing around a ton of scholarship money the last few years. I seriously doubt they'll go deep on the waitlist this year. There are people getting rejected from UT this year whose numbers would have been good enough last cycle. Texas is on the rise, and I fully believe we'd be in the T14 if we didn't have a cap on OOS matriculants.

[Vincent Vega]

The Texas example is precisely my point. They are rejecting people they might need to draw from. You are right in that they are throwing money around at the top end of their admitted pool, but people who are going to be looking at sticker are overwhelmingly going to go to lower schools. This has happened relatively frequently in the past, but my theory is that it will happen much, much more this cycle.

[beach_terror]

I want a scholarship that will cover COL...

Some schools offer stipends. http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 15&t=87332

also... anyone who's not getting the packages they want, is okay with a school that's not top 100, and wouldn't mind living in upstate NY, should consider applying to Syracuse. They're trying to up their rankings and have given several people I know (with gpas around 3.5 and lsats around 158) full rides + living expenses.

Really? I applied at 3.2/159 and only got 27,000. Should I contact them and ask for more now, or wait until I get some acceptances at schools in the low T2? Any advice on Syracuse specifics would be a huge help (I'm aiming to minimize debt rather than take the best school I get into... although I'd still take Temple sticker over Syracuse foooo freeeee).