? Forum

[de5igual]

Retake. No TX ties + AA-URM = horrible idea.

What does being an AA-URM have to do with it?

The Texas legal market isn't exactly the most welcoming place for AA's

[Kukimonsta]

For all the people suggesting retake: I have taken LSAT twice

So you can retake.

I can retake. But it would utterly useless. I scored around my PT average and my GPA is horrendous. I really can't imagine much better results than what I have at the moment.

whats your exact UT scholarship?

~60K for 3 years.

[Jarndyce&Jarndyce]

I've heard TX can be very insular. Can anyone else comment on if going to UT alone is sufficient ties to the area? If that is the case I would say UT. If your lack of TX ties would negatively affect your job prospects in TX, I'd say NU.

From what I've heard, a lack of TX ties won't hurt you if you have the grades to back it up. It's when you get closer to median and below that you have to bank on ties, networking, etc. Since he can't count on being top 10%, I'm leaning NU since he'll have good options (I think?) at median. HOWEVER, I don't know how his AA status might affect this (diversity hiring, etc). I imagine any boost would be the same at both schools, and that he'd still have a better grade cushion AND better nationally known school on his resume from NU.

This is a good point. Your academic history (i.e. GPA) indicates that for whatever reason, you're probably not going to be top 25% of your 1L class. If that's the case, I'd say go to NU. You'll be grateful for the prestige. Texas is only worth it if you know damn well you can make top 1/3.

[Jarndyce&Jarndyce]

Retake. No TX ties + AA-URM = horrible idea.

What does being an AA-URM have to do with it?

The Texas legal market isn't exactly the most welcoming place for AA's

That's a little inflammatory. I know of only 1 firm that has a slightly negative diversity reputation, and it's not against AA's. They're notorious for not promoting women to partner. That being said, I know a female partner there. So it still happens.

[rebexness]

This is a good point. Your academic history (i.e. GPA) indicates that for whatever reason, you're probably not going to be top 25% of your 1L class. If that's the case, I'd say go to NU. You'll be grateful for the prestige. Texas is only worth it if you know damn well you can make top 1/3.

WUT?

[Cobretti]

can you get in state at UT after 1 or 2 years?

[Nelson]

This is why people should include their numbers in their first post, it just wastes time otherwise.

Given the sub 3.0 GPA, this comes down to how adamant you are about TX. Are you willing to work at an NYC firm?

[shifty_eyed]

can you get in state at UT after 1 or 2 years?

Not unless he buys property or possibly marries a Texan.

[Kukimonsta]

This is why people should include their numbers in their first post, it just wastes time otherwise.

Given the sub 3.0 GPA, this comes down to how adamant you are about TX. Are you willing to work at an NYC firm?

I wouldn't mind it. But my aim is to pay off debt ASAP. I think market paying firms + no state taxes TX would be more beneficial in this regard. NU is more portable but to Texas with no ties? To the midwest, yes, but those firms do not pay market.

Still, It's hard to give up NU considering it's elite status and the possibility of getting BigLaw even with average grades.

[Kukimonsta]

can you get in state at UT after 1 or 2 years?

Not unless he buys property or possibly marries a Texan.

My SO is from Dallas. Marriage? Not for a 40K discount.

[shifty_eyed]

can you get in state at UT after 1 or 2 years?

Not unless he buys property or possibly marries a Texan.

My SO is from Dallas. Marriage? Not for a 40K discount.

[Nelson]

This is why people should include their numbers in their first post, it just wastes time otherwise.

Given the sub 3.0 GPA, this comes down to how adamant you are about TX. Are you willing to work at an NYC firm?

I wouldn't mind it. But my aim is to pay off debt ASAP. I think market paying firms + no state taxes TX would be more beneficial in this regard. NU is more portable but to Texas with no ties? To the midwest, yes, but those firms do not pay market.

The problem is if you strike out in TX at UT, you're screwed (given that your interest in TX is based on the big firm work there and the COL, and you don't seem to care about the state for any other reason). If you go to Northwestern and get a diversity 1L SA in TX, you can plausibly present TX ties for TX firms and still bid NYC as a backup market at OCI.

[Cobretti]

Here's an idea of the difference in cost assuming you get market paying biglaw and keep it for 5 years out of each school:


edit: i have it set up for IL taxes, so if TX doesn't have state taxes that's another 5% yearly income

Also getting biglaw is the biggest advantage of going to NU, so this comparison isn't exactly comprehensive. Just something to consider.

[Jarndyce&Jarndyce]

This is a good point. Your academic history (i.e. GPA) indicates that for whatever reason, you're probably not going to be top 25% of your 1L class. If that's the case, I'd say go to NU. You'll be grateful for the prestige. Texas is only worth it if you know damn well you can make top 1/3.

WUT?

Hey, I said probably haha. It's certainly possible. But with no ties to Texas, if I had to take a gamble on who was going to make top quarter, I wouldn't bet money on someone that did poorly in undergraduate, where the competition is far less fierce. I'm not saying that's a "for sure" thing. But if he doubts he can make top quarter, I'd take a t14 at around the 50% mark than, Texas at about the same.

[WokeUpInACar]

Northwestern but it's close.