USF or Pacific McGeorge?! Forum

[PepperJack]

Assuming it's a 2.7 median the 3.2 median is very difficult to make. In fact, I'd venture to say many people with 3.4's at t-14's wouldn't make it. The actual # itself is arbitrary. It could be a 4.0 requirement or a 1.0 requirement. Many schools raised their medians due to the economic climate, because even if they're really both the same, a 3.5 gives a better first impression than a 3.2.

Any school that will keep a low median (such as a 2.7) like USF might state it's just the way it's been from the beginning. However, if we assume law school is a business and all businesses are motivated by their own interests then we can assume that any law school will do what is best for its own interests. By having a 2.7 median and scholarships contingent on a 3.2 and tricking more kids to think they'll be above a 3.2 than actually will be, we will make more money than if we made our median a 3.3 to seduce more employers and made our scholarships contingent on a 3.8. Summarily, if we assume USF thinks rationally then we can assume than we can assume their rational analysis of their school concluded that they can make more money by dooping students than by boosting their reputation by getting more students jobs, thus leading to more applicants, and more alumni donations. When you enter any major financial decision - it's always just 2 parties, and anybody reading this should note it's always important to really ask yourself, "what does this other party I'm committing to hope to get from my commitment?" Some schools hope to get your Sallie Mae money, and that's their business model. Other schools hope to get your Sallie Mae money, get you elite jobs to sustain their respectability and then get more money from your alumni donations. The goal should be to go to option #2.

[sumz]

I'm in the same position with UoP, Hastings and USD.

Still waiting on a 7 more applications, but even with Mcgeorge being my only straight up acceptance so far, I don't really plan to make a deposit there.

To help leverage my options, I've been applying to real estate lending firms for summer internship positions. If I don't get into Hastings off the wait list, I'll try to stay on the job or seek other employment prospects in the industry for a year or two and study to retake to try to get into USC/UCLA/Davis/UCI. My long term goal is to work in transactional real estate law, so working at a real estate lending firm will help me get a better understanding of the laws and framework people in the field are currently working around. Although working for 2 years or so and retaking to get into a better school is ideal, I have a strong time premium, am from the bay area, and have a good idea what I want out of my law degree so I think I would be happy UC Hastings.

[Moonlight]

That 3.2 stipulation is not as easy as it sounds. A lot of people didn't meet it according to my housemate. Look at their scholarship retention data before you commit.

[rpupkin]

That 3.2 stipulation is not as easy as it sounds. A lot of people didn't meet it according to my housemate. Look at their scholarship retention data before you commit.

On the other hand, almost all USF students should drop out--regardless of their scholarship situation--if they are below a 3.2 at the end of 1L.

OP: USF is brutal right now. At the end of 1L, the top two or three students in the class transfer to Boalt. Of those that remain, maybe ten get big law. Almost everyone else is left scratching and clawing for jobs, spending their third year of law school (and the period during and after studying for the California bar) desperately trying to find some form of legal employment. Approximately one-third of the graduating class manages to find such employment, and most of those jobs are low-paying. Unless you have something lined up in advance (like, say, if the firm you worked at will guarantee you a job if you get a JD), the chances of a good outcome are exceedingly low.