The usual: Chapman, UCI, Loyola, Pepperdine Forum

[middleawkward123]

Thanks everyone for the advice! I think it took 2 years for me to get to 163 (so I guess "probability" of my score going up is very low?). I graduated in 2013. Yes, it makes more sense to retake and spend 1 or even 2 years to study, considering how long I will live (30+ years) LOL. But, I like the idea of attending law school NOW and joining the fellow 0Ls. Not looking for a fantastic Big law/Salary. I currently earn 40K before tax and after 3 years, I wish to earn somewhere around 75-80K with a JD. Just wishing that I can get more from UCI (I will deposit right away with 90K scholarship at UCI). Although I have not seen schools that offer 20K+ after negotiation...

[Clearly]

Thanks everyone for the advice! I think it took 2 years for me to get to 163 (so I guess "probability" of my score going up is very low?). I graduated in 2013. Yes, it makes more sense to retake and spend 1 or even 2 years to study, considering how long I will live (30+ years) LOL. But, I like the idea of attending law school NOW and joining the fellow 0Ls. Not looking for a fantastic Big law/Salary. I currently earn 40K before tax and after 3 years, I wish to earn somewhere around 75-80K with a JD. Just wishing that I can get more from UCI (I will deposit right away with 90K scholarship at UCI). Although I have not seen schools that offer 20K+ after negotiation...

75-80 starting salary?

[middleawkward123]

^Yes haha. No...?

[HellfirePeninsula]

Look up the bimodal distribution of lawyer salaries... The 70-80k starting doesn't appear to really exist.

[Nachoo2019]

Look up the bimodal distribution of lawyer salaries... The 70-80k starting doesn't appear to really exist.

I found a 70-80k starting salary! It is in the unicorn outcome thread....

[WheninLaw]

^Yes haha. No...?

No. Your most likely outcome is a 40-50K job, if any.

Edit: Don't mean to imply you should not go to law school. But you should be very comfortable with the above outcome if you do. If not, retake.

[Clearly]

^Yes haha. No...?

[NYC2012]

.

[middleawkward123]

^LOL I already earn 40K. Depressing to hear that after 3 years, I will be earning the same amount but with more stressful job and hours.
My firm (big law) offers 160K to first year associate! Isn't that great...

I think UCI will def. give me a job with good salary if I do my best. I am def. going to negotiate for more $$ so I can go!

[WheninLaw]

^LOL I already earn 40K. Depressing to hear that after 3 years, I will be earning the same amount but with more stressful job and hours.
My firm (big law) offers 160K to first year associate! Isn't that great...

I think UCI will def. give me a job with good salary if I do my best. I am def. going to negotiate for more $$ so I can go!

Why do you think this? You realize the employment statistics are online, right? UCI gives you a 25% shot of a "good outcome."

[Clearly]

So now you know the likely outcomes, but are going to turn a blind eye to them anyway? Pro tip everyone there will be gunning to be in the top 25%, and a substantial portion of that class will be there on better schollys and with better credentials than you. Law school grades are impossible to explain till you experience them, just trust that you have little ability to predict how they will actually turn out, because it isn't based on knowledge or effort in any way at all. Everyone will know the law, and everyone will work hard, there's this intangible skill in writing law school exams that you can't really self-assess. In all likelihood you will not get the outcome you want from UCI.

[NYC2012]

.

[unsweetened]

FWIW, it's vastly easier to improve your LSAT than it is to get in the top 25% of your class.

[timbs4339]

You have to deal in probabilities, not possibilities...

25ish% losing their scholarship is horrible...

I'm not denying that it's horrible. But if we're talking about probabilities not possibilities, it's twice as likely that someone in the 160's will retake the LSAT without improving (.34 probability) than lose a merit scholarship at Loyola (.17) or UCI (<.05). Besides, it's now clear that the OP already tried the retake route.

Sorry, I admit I'm not the expert here, and I apologize if my advice is misguided. Just trying to provide some balance.

Oh god the logic. Stop torturing the logic. Just put it out of its misery.

[longhornlaw]

I went to Chapman and can tell you that 1, MAYBE 2 people a year land any kind of big firm job. It's highly unlikely. Our valedictorian did some OCI with a few big firms, and during one interview, the interviewer had never even heard of Chapman. Unless you're really, really charismatic and then either 1-3 in the class, you aren't doing big firm out of Chapman.

Chapman has a pretty good connection with the OCDA...I think there were 4 folks out of the last class that were accepted in the fellowship program and then were all hired on. Two were related to people very high up in the DA though.

A few others went to county/city counsel in the area, but not many, and after a few months of searching after graduation.

I'd pass on Chapman right now. If the new dean figures a way to raise its ranking without sending bitchy letters to the other deans at CA schools, maybe it'd be an ok school.

[zot1]

UCI

[ReasonableNprudent]

Loyola is the clear winner here, for the following reasons:

1) I do not believe that Big Law is the prize people think it is. If you really want Big Law, UCI has a higher probability of that happening, but marginally. In the end, Big Law is the unlikely outcome at any of these schools (but don't feel bad about it). You are about as likely to grade well enough for Big Law at Loyola as you are at UCI (although the cutoff is probably not the same). It is possible to network your way into a firm from either school.

2) Pepperdine is offering you slightly more money, but with a shittier stip. Hedging your bet on the extra 30k with almost a full letter grade lower GPA stip is pretty much a no-brainer trade-off, knowing how much luck is actually involved in your 1L GPA. And the difference isn't static; being mid-range or well above mid-range involves some real work and a bit of luck, but not totally tanking is significantly easier.

3) The most likely reality from any of these schools is something small - mid-law range, involving a grind, networking, and luck (or stellar grades, in which case see 1). Loyola is downtown, has a loyal alumni base, is making a concerted effort to link up students with potential employers, and has shrunk class size considerably. Your value proposition is higher IMO.

If you can get UCI to up the scholly offer (or would rather pay the extra to just be in OC for the next three years), then indeed the offer may be worth taking. But if you want to be in L.A., Loyola at that price is not bad, and you might even wind up with a higher scholly if you wait close to the deadline to make your decision. (You should just scratch Chapman off the list.)

[ReasonableNprudent]

Also, the belly-aching that goes on repeatedly about bi-modal distribution and $50k a year being a horrible and unsustainable outcome is simply fallacy.
Earning $50k just out of college (even if a professional program) with virtually no real world experience is far from objectively horrible. Will someone raise a family and buy a home on that salary in SoCal? Of course not. But someone that starts their law career at $50k isn't going to stay at that earning level indefinitely.

People graduate, earn lousy pay, cut their teeth a bit, and lateral into better paying jobs once they know what the hell they are doing as a lawyer. Also, people graduate at the top of their class or from elite schools, get Big Law and then burn out/get laid off/whatever after adjusting to a lifestyle that is unsustainable on anything other than Big Law. Both things happen all the time. I'm all for the transparency, but a 40+ year legal career cannot possibly be defined by a 10 month post graduation statistic.

[Clearly]

He's gonna pay back his loans on 40k how? Good job attacking some evidence with no evidence btw, and ignoring the large chunks of grads that don't practice law at all.

[unsweetened]

I find it difficult to see how someone can even approach anything that resembles a middle class existence on $40K in LA/OC.

[cron1834]

Also, the belly-aching that goes on repeatedly about bi-modal distribution and $50k a year being a horrible and unsustainable outcome is simply fallacy.
Earning $50k just out of college (even if a professional program) with virtually no real world experience is far from objectively horrible. Will someone raise a family and buy a home on that salary in SoCal? Of course not. But someone that starts their law career at $50k isn't going to stay at that earning level indefinitely.

People graduate, earn lousy pay, cut their teeth a bit, and lateral into better paying jobs once they know what the hell they are doing as a lawyer. Also, people graduate at the top of their class or from elite schools, get Big Law and then burn out/get laid off/whatever after adjusting to a lifestyle that is unsustainable on anything other than Big Law. Both things happen all the time. I'm all for the transparency, but a 40+ year legal career cannot possibly be defined by a 10 month post graduation statistic.

A huge chunk of Loyola grads don't become lawyers AT ALL. Like HALF of them. They give up 3 years of income and take on 6 figures of debt so they can sell insurance to schlubs, or something else you don't need a JD for. Your advice is terrible.

[ReasonableNprudent]

Clearly: See my initial comments above. He is not going to pay back his loans on $40k. Also, I'm not attacking some evidence with no evidence. I'm pointing out the flaw in some evidence while also pointing out facts that aren't neatly compiled or compilable but are nevertheless the reality for most law students and lawyers.

Unsweetened: The "$40k" figure referenced in this thread is made up. Salaries are not so bimodal that they change the definition of "median" to "mean." The very bottom entry level earners make about $40k and there is another spike at $50k. The majority earn more. The median was $70k for class of 2014 and it has since gone up. $70k is still barely middle class in SoCal, but it beats the hell out of what most lib arts grads make post grad and is well above what the majority of job market entrants or 25 year olds earn generally.

Cron1834: Per LST, just over 40% of grads for 2014 did not have full time long term work 9 months after graduation, which is markedly different than not becoming a lawyer at all ever. Per LST the figure not employed in full time long term work at UCI was ~27% at UCI, the same as Yale (probably for different reasons, but so what?). The figure for plenty of other T14 schools floats in the neighborhood of 10%, which is largely because Big Law is T14 recruit-heavy. I don't know what the exit rate from Big Law to other industries is, but I'm pretty sure it's not negligible. The career attrition rate for lawyers in general is high. These last two facts substantially weaken the "go to a school that will get you Big Law" argument.

To reiterate my initial point, going to any of these schools at the scholarships indicated would be a fine choice save for Chapman, aside from one's own arbitrary comfort level and accord with the TLS common "wisdom." Chapman can be ruled out because the other options are objectively better. Pepperdine and Loyola are as good of choices as UCI because UCI does not provide sufficient added value. And it doesn't look like beating his head with the LSAT over and over again is going to pay off. I stand by my initial comment.

[Clearly]

Clearly: See my initial comments above. He is not going to pay back his loans on $40k. Also, I'm not attacking some evidence with no evidence. I'm pointing out the flaw in some evidence while also pointing out facts that aren't neatly compiled or compilable but are nevertheless the reality for most law students and lawyers.

Unsweetened: The "$40k" figure referenced in this thread is made up. Salaries are not so bimodal that they change the definition of "median" to "mean." The very bottom entry level earners make about $40k and there is another spike at $50k. The majority earn more. The median was $70k for class of 2014 and it has since gone up. $70k is still barely middle class in SoCal, but it beats the hell out of what most lib arts grads make post grad and is well above what the majority of job market entrants or 25 year olds earn generally.

Cron1834: Per LST, just over 40% of grads for 2014 did not have full time long term work 9 months after graduation, which is markedly different than not becoming a lawyer at all ever. Per LST the figure not employed in full time long term work at UCI was ~27% at UCI, the same as Yale (probably for different reasons, but so what?). The figure for plenty of other T14 schools floats in the neighborhood of 10%, which is largely because Big Law is T14 recruit-heavy. I don't know what the exit rate from Big Law to other industries is, but I'm pretty sure it's not negligible. The career attrition rate for lawyers in general is high. These last two facts substantially weaken the "go to a school that will get you Big Law" argument.

To reiterate my initial point, going to any of these schools at the scholarships indicated would be a fine choice save for Chapman, aside from one's own arbitrary comfort level and accord with the TLS common "wisdom." Chapman can be ruled out because the other options are objectively better. Pepperdine and Loyola are as good of choices as UCI because UCI does not provide sufficient added value. And it doesn't look like beating his head with the LSAT over and over again is going to pay off. I stand by my initial comment.

"Big law hopeful but would not mind for government/PI." What percentage of the mere ~60% of employed get biglaw? or even his backup options? Plus stating a median of 70k is just silly. The whole point of showing the bimodal distribution is to show the OP that you CANT treat a median as a representation of something you'll likely get, because you're far more likely to earn much less or much more. Then you come and post the median again!? Then you equate UCI with Yale and pretend that it doesn't make a difference? Are you serious? You think someone considering going to UCI "hey thats just how it works, even at yale!" like the people OPTING out of practicing law from Yale because they have even better options are even remotely similar to the unemployed grads from UCI? Have you gone through hiring yet? Have you browsed the veil of tears thread? The reason the 9 month out stat is important is a resume gap like that is a bad bad signal to employers and makes getting quality legal employment later pretty damn difficult. Yes he has some schollys but he's still going to have a LOT of debt. Given these options and no retakes, I would legit not attend law school. After that I'd prob take Chapman for free over anything else so at last I could have a JD without 6 figures of debt, or I'd reapply next cycle to many more schools and try to get a fully to a better school than chapman. Then MAYBE take loyola or pepperdine ONLY IF those scholarship stips are dropped, and he develops a realistic view of employment from these schools, the workload and salary of each position available to him and the likelihood of getting them. Without the stips dropped, no thanks.

You're of course welcome to reply and continue to encourage people to spend 100,000+ of their dollars for these opportunities, but I won't be replying anymore, its just too frustrating.

[Tls2016]

Clearly: See my initial comments above. He is not going to pay back his loans on $40k. Also, I'm not attacking some evidence with no evidence. I'm pointing out the flaw in some evidence while also pointing out facts that aren't neatly compiled or compilable but are nevertheless the reality for most law students and lawyers.

Unsweetened: The "$40k" figure referenced in this thread is made up. Salaries are not so bimodal that they change the definition of "median" to "mean." The very bottom entry level earners make about $40k and there is another spike at $50k. The majority earn more. The median was $70k for class of 2014 and it has since gone up. $70k is still barely middle class in SoCal, but it beats the hell out of what most lib arts grads make post grad and is well above what the majority of job market entrants or 25 year olds earn generally.

Cron1834: Per LST, just over 40% of grads for 2014 did not have full time long term work 9 months after graduation, which is markedly different than not becoming a lawyer at all ever. Per LST the figure not employed in full time long term work at UCI was ~27% at UCI, the same as Yale (probably for different reasons, but so what?). The figure for plenty of other T14 schools floats in the neighborhood of 10%, which is largely because Big Law is T14 recruit-heavy. I don't know what the exit rate from Big Law to other industries is, but I'm pretty sure it's not negligible. The career attrition rate for lawyers in general is high. These last two facts substantially weaken the "go to a school that will get you Big Law" argument.

To reiterate my initial point, going to any of these schools at the scholarships indicated would be a fine choice save for Chapman, aside from one's own arbitrary comfort level and accord with the TLS common "wisdom." Chapman can be ruled out because the other options are objectively better. Pepperdine and Loyola are as good of choices as UCI because UCI does not provide sufficient added value. And it doesn't look like beating his head with the LSAT over and over again is going to pay off. I stand by my initial comment.

You realize that bi modal curve omits all the grads making $0 as an attorney. The actual graph doesn't reflect the thousands of grads who never practice law.
I'm curious as to where you get your info that after a few years at $40k people just lateral into better paying jobs?
Where is your data that discounts what you mock
as TLS wisdom.
OP is most likely going to end up deeply in debt after 3 years with a small law firm job. He's not making $80k.

Edit: it's at best disingenuous and actually an outright lie to consider a law school grad in the same situation as a person " right out of college." Law grads are 3 years behind and hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in law school, whether by debt or cash.

[ReasonableNprudent]

It looks like there is a pretty even distribution above the median up until the spike at $160k. Basically the implication from pointing out bimodal distribution is that OP can count on $40k or $160k, and that's not the case. The distribution (and my reason for posting the median) is that he is more likely than not to earn $70k or above (within 9 months of graduation, not over his career, which is a fact often overlooked). I compared UCI's 27% figure with Yale's and then dismissed the comparison because both are irrelevant to OP's likely trajectory (which I conceded is not Big Law, in any event). Sure, if he's stuck on Big Law TCR is go for T13, or higher up in ranking as it is about static. My initial point is Big Law is not the prize. Nothing you are getting all wound up over contradicts or undermines any of my points. But don't post. Whatever.