Schools around Top ~100ish with Deep Pockets Forum

[RamTitan]

I never said you were. I get that you're curious and "why do you want to go to school now" is perfectly reasonable, again, I just don't think age is really relevant.

How is age not relevant? A 30 year old is in a different stage of their life than when they are 22 (or 45, or 60, or whatever), so different factors are going to influence their decision.

Of course, but asking "why do you want to go to law school now" or even just "why do you want to go to law school" serves the same purpose regardless of someone's age. Asking "why do you want to go to law school at 30" sounds more like there's something weird about going at 30.

I recognize I'm probably overreacting to your post, but people here do tend to hold older candidates to a higher standard for justifying going to school later in life, and it annoys me.

Last post, as I see that neither of us really want to get into it, but that's not necessarily true. For example, what if the 30 year old in question wanted to go to law school because of his children/family? Weird reason, but motivations can and do change, and can definitely be age dependent.

[TLSModBot]

I never said you were. I get that you're curious and "why do you want to go to school now" is perfectly reasonable, again, I just don't think age is really relevant.

How is age not relevant? A 30 year old is in a different stage of their life than when they are 22 (or 45, or 60, or whatever), so different factors are going to influence their decision.

Of course, but asking "why do you want to go to law school now" or even just "why do you want to go to law school" serves the same purpose regardless of someone's age. Asking "why do you want to go to law school at 30" sounds more like there's something weird about going at 30.

I recognize I'm probably overreacting to your post, but people here do tend to hold older candidates to a higher standard for justifying going to school later in life, and it annoys me.

Last post, as I see that neither of us really want to get into it, but that's not necessarily true. For example, what if the 30 year old in question wanted to go to law school because of his children/family? Weird reason, but motivations can and do change, and can definitely be age dependent.

There's also the serious question of "why are changing your career at this point?" K-JD's don't have an existing career path and no other established options against which to balance a career in law. But someone who's been earning income, learning and advancing in some field, that's different. It certainly helps with the larger issue of whether or not the degree will earn them more money than they would've made without it, which is not everyone's #1 but should certainly enter into the calculus.

[bmathers]

I never said you were. I get that you're curious and "why do you want to go to school now" is perfectly reasonable, again, I just don't think age is really relevant.

How is age not relevant? A 30 year old is in a different stage of their life than when they are 22 (or 45, or 60, or whatever), so different factors are going to influence their decision.

Of course, but asking "why do you want to go to law school now" or even just "why do you want to go to law school" serves the same purpose regardless of someone's age. Asking "why do you want to go to law school at 30" sounds more like there's something weird about going at 30.

I recognize I'm probably overreacting to your post, but people here do tend to hold older candidates to a higher standard for justifying going to school later in life, and it annoys me.

Last post, as I see that neither of us really want to get into it, but that's not necessarily true. For example, what if the 30 year old in question wanted to go to law school because of his children/family? Weird reason, but motivations can and do change, and can definitely be age dependent.

There's also the serious question of "why are changing your career at this point?" K-JD's don't have an existing career path and no other established options against which to balance a career in law. But someone who's been earning income, learning and advancing in some field, that's different. It certainly helps with the larger issue of whether or not the degree will earn them more money than they would've made without it, which is not everyone's #1 but should certainly enter into the calculus.

I have given serious consideration to attending DPT school and becoming a physical therapist, but there are a lot of things that have made me decide not to go that route (it would take another 1-2 years of taking pre-req UG courses at night before even applying for a 3-year doctoral program, along with 60-100 hrs shadowing a PT clinic. Lots of hoops to jump through, when the average PT usually moves into administration by the time they are 50ish.. that would be a ton of money for a 10 year stint at being a practicing PT. Additionally, DPT scholarships do not seem to be as plentiful as LS, and the pre-reqs I would have to pay out-of-pocket, since you can't get student loans when not working toward a degree). Believe me, I have given my decision a TON of thought.

This thread was not created asking others to try to talk me out of law school, or to question me about my decision. Let's please just either stay on topic, or simply pass over this thread and engage in other discussions. Thanks you.

[iskim88]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... i=1#gid=10

What's your GPA?

[albanach]

Obviously it's your choice as to when you go to school and where. As a non-trad (older than yourself) I waited until my LSAT was high enough, went to a T-14 and my outcome was immeasurably better for that decision. YMMV.

Do bear in mind that, if your current income is say $50,000, giving that up for three years is still costing you $150,000 in lost potential earnings. You then plan to attend a school where there's only a 60ish% chance of being employed as a lawyer after graduation. I think it would be remiss of folk here not to caution against that.

[albanach]

It's my 3rd take, I'm 30, I already put it off 1 cycle. I refuse to wait 2 additional years to retake (my earliest retake would be June 2018 - that's NOT happening, and I am not up for negotiating). Sometimes you just need to act instead of just waiting forever.

So skip September and take the December exam. You can still get applications in for admission fall of 2017. A 165 in December is a lot more valuable than a 160 in September.

[bmathers]

Obviously it's your choice as to when you go to school and where. As a non-trad (older than yourself) I waited until my LSAT was high enough, went to a T-14 and my outcome was immeasurably better for that decision. YMMV.

Do bear in mind that, if your current income is say $50,000, giving that up for three years is still costing you $150,000 in lost potential earnings. You then plan to attend a school where there's only a 60ish% chance of being employed as a lawyer after graduation. I think it would be remiss of folk here not to caution against that.

Thank you. What I do can still be done around a law school load (I am self employed and could pretty much maintain my business, just not grow it, with dedicating maybe a few hours a week), so I can probably generate $30k-ish/yr to help fund my COL. Accepting a full-ride at a T1/T2 could mean that costs are basically a wash, without the debt-load or big law dependency that a top 30 (or atleast T14) could cause.

All decision-making aside - I'm just ready to take the damn thing and have that part of my life in the past. I don't want to have LSAT prep looming over my head any longer. 9-10 months is long enough (and for anyone reading this, please don't come back with a "what about LS?" Or "I took so-and-so time prepping". The truth is that I really don't care )

[ponderingmeerkat]

Hey dude...I'm 33 here so I understand that things go differently than your typical K-JD might imagine in life/career. Totally understand the draw to law school and the need to balance school/life/responsibilities/opportunity costs/etc.

My personal take is this. Looking back at who I was at 23 and seeing who I am at 33, I've come to the realization that 23 year old me hadn't the foggiest fucking idea what 33 year old me would want/need out of life. Extrapolating into the future, I'm fairly certain 33 year old me has a similar lack of understanding concerning what 53 year old me will want.

Coming to that realization made me realize that applying to the best law school possible with the best scholarship possible would leave the most doors open for me to account for life's future variability. So, getting the best LSAT score, retaking and fighting for the best shot at an top school with top prospects is important.

Now, understand we are all different and you might "know thyself" better than I did/do...in which case, that's awesome and good luck. But, if you're like me, I'd seriously considering waiting to apply to schools until you have much better than a 158. This will help avoid closing anymore doors to yourself than you already have. There's not a huge "door closing effect" from being 32 as opposed to 30 (sitting out two cycles, if necessary). There IS a huge "door closing effect" from scoring 158 as opposed to 168. Would hate to see you self-select into that life outcome.

All the best man!

[bmathers]

Hey dude...I'm 33 here so I understand that things go differently than your typical K-JD might imagine in life/career. Totally understand the draw to law school and the need to balance school/life/responsibilities/opportunity costs/etc.

My personal take is this. Looking back at who I was at 23 and seeing who I am at 33, I've come to the realization that 23 year old me hadn't the foggiest fucking idea what 33 year old me would want/need out of life. Extrapolating into the future, I'm fairly certain 33 year old me has a similar lack of understanding concerning what 53 year old me will want.

Coming to that realization made me realize that applying to the best law school possible with the best scholarship possible would leave the most doors open for me to account for life's future variability. So, getting the best LSAT score, retaking and fighting for the best shot at an top school with top prospects is important.

Now, understand we are all different and you might "know thyself" better than I did/do...in which case, that's awesome and good luck. But, if you're like me, I'd seriously considering waiting to apply to schools until you have much better than a 158. This will help avoid closing anymore doors to yourself than you already have. There's not a huge "door closing effect" from being 32 as opposed to 30 (sitting out two cycles, if necessary). There IS a huge "door closing effect" from scoring 158 as opposed to 168. Would hate to see you self-select into that life outcome.

All the best man!

Thank you. But, in the same breath - job prospects for the 53 y/o you, or even the 43 y/o you, are going to have nothing to do with which law school you attended. Your LS gets you your first gig, past that it's your resume/experience and networking ability.

[bmathers]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... i=1#gid=10

What's your GPA?

Thank you. 158/3.3

Looking at those schools vs. medians, if I got a 165, I really don't think that would change the schools I am looking at (closer to a 170, on the other hand). Maybe I would get money at UNC, otherwise I would just be looking at more money (which isn't a bad thing) - such as a full-ride and maybe a stip to GSU, test my luck with Emory, and maybe a stip with Villanova/Temple. Otherwise, the difference in a 160-162 and a 165 does not seem worth allowing LAT prep to loom over my head for another 3 months.

[pancakes3]

bro, you don't even sound like you know what you want to practice or where you want to practice.

a refusal to retake is a sign of immaturity, no matter what your nominal age is. there's no rush for Sept. you can retake in Dec.

also, if you can run your 30-50k/yr business with only a few hrs/week, you should either pick up a second job or just focus on growing your business.

and as for Nony - i think Cap and Ram's questions are fair. if OP really did want to attend LS since he was in HS, why did it take so long to get to where we are today? there are valid reasons and there are not as valid reasons. i don't think it's fair for OP to say "i've been wanting this for a while and now that i'm 30 i finally have a shot at it" wrt a retake if it meant that he was just half-assing it for his 20's and now it's mid-life panic mode. this would go doubly so if he works very light hours and has problems cracking a 160. dude should be cranking down hard on the LSATs given his urgency.

[ponderingmeerkat]

Thank you. But, in the same breath - job prospects for the 53 y/o you, or even the 43 y/o you, are going to have nothing to do with which law school you attended. Your LS gets you your first gig, past that it's your resume/experience and networking ability.

Agree and disagree.

I agree the jobs available to you at 43 will depend on and be driven by your networking skills.

I disagree with your ultimate conclusion, because you seem to think, by extension, the jobs not available to you will also be driven by networking (or a lack thereof). This is false.

You aren't going to have the FedClerk door open to you with a top 10 percent finish at Cooley. You aren't going to have a shot a Cwavath with a JD from Florida Coastal. You're almost guaranteed never to get picked up for an impact litigation gig with the ACLU/SPLC/etc from Charlotte School of Law. Your odds of getting selected for Justice Dept honors is virtually nil from Arizona Summit. I could go on.

So, while you might be able to hustle and grab a job at Jimmy McGill's in Santa Fe, don't think for a second that doors aren't slamming shut behind you when you choose to go to some "100ish with deep pockets". Law is a weirdly incestuous and prestige-obsessed industry. So, while I wish you all the best, you're going to want to put some serious thought into things before you proceed given your current understanding.

[bmathers]

Thank you. But, in the same breath - job prospects for the 53 y/o you, or even the 43 y/o you, are going to have nothing to do with which law school you attended. Your LS gets you your first gig, past that it's your resume/experience and networking ability.

Agree and disagree.

I agree the jobs available to you at 43 will depend on and be driven by your networking skills.

I disagree with your ultimate conclusion, because you seem to think, by extension, the jobs not available to you will also be driven by networking (or a lack thereof). This is false.

You aren't going to have the FedClerk door open to you with a top 10 percent finish at Cooley. You aren't going to have a shot a Cwavath with a JD from Florida Coastal. You're almost guaranteed never to get picked up for an impact litigation gig with the ACLU/SPLC/etc from Charlotte School of Law. Your odds of getting selected for Justice Dept honors is virtually nil from Arizona Summit. I could go on.


So, while you might be able to hustle and grab a job at Jimmy McGill's in Santa Fe, don't think for a second that doors aren't slamming shut behind you when you choose to go to some "100ish with deep pockets". Law is a weirdly incestuous and prestige-obsessed industry. So, while I wish you all the best, you're going to want to put some serious thought into things before you proceed given your current understanding.

Ok, thanks. My current understanding comes from a senior/majority, highering partner at a small firm... along with county judges. That's not big, or even mid, law nor is it law in a big city so things may be very different. However, that understanding is coming from people in those positions.


BTW, Charlotte and AZ Summit are no where near the schools I am referring to -- they are more like "around 200." I'm thinking of schools like Villanova, UTK, Georgia State, Temple, Wake Forest, etc. Villanova had offered me nearly a full-ride last cycle, with an old PS and soon-to-be LSAT... I don't think that they are necessarily a bad school, especially when minimizing your debt like that (they are second among Philly schools in employment, only behind UPenn - rankings-wise, they are 3rd behind Temple, but the employment is roughly equal, or slightly better, than Temple's)

[bmathers]

bro, you don't even sound like you know what you want to practice or where you want to practice.

a refusal to retake is a sign of immaturity, no matter what your nominal age is. there's no rush for Sept. you can retake in Dec.

also, if you can run your 30-50k/yr business with only a few hrs/week, you should either pick up a second job or just focus on growing your business.

and as for Nony - i think Cap and Ram's questions are fair. if OP really did want to attend LS since he was in HS, why did it take so long to get to where we are today? there are valid reasons and there are not as valid reasons. i don't think it's fair for OP to say "i've been wanting this for a while and now that i'm 30 i finally have a shot at it" wrt a retake if it meant that he was just half-assing it for his 20's and now it's mid-life panic mode. this would go doubly so if he works very light hours and has problems cracking a 160. dude should be cranking down hard on the LSATs given his urgency.

I'm scoring around the 80th-percentile... I know that that is nothing for this forum, but in the grand-scheme of things, scoring better than 80% of those taking this exam is not horrible.

As for a "refusal to retake." This is my third take, with no refusal - I'm not sure where you are going with that comment?

As for what I want to practice in -- I'm keeping an open mind through law school, but am currently wanting to study disability law. I know that is a bit of a niche law, so I imagine that I may have to start with a broader focus after graduation.

As for where I want to practice - I am not picky about that, as long as it is on the east coast. The majority of my family is in PA and Atlanta, but also in South Carolina and up the east coast. I've lived all around PA, outside of Atlanta, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island in my life. I love Atlanta.

Because of those locations - I am definitely applying to Villanova, Georgia State, Temple, Drexel, PSU, UNC, and maybe Rutgers, Pitt, and Emory.

[ponderingmeerkat]

BTW, Charlotte and AZ Summit are no where near the schools I am referring to -- they are more like "around 200." I'm thinking of schools like Villanova, UTK, Georgia State, Temple, Wake Forest, etc.

Understand. No one is saying they are bad schools. They close doors.

Please understand, there is no outcome where you'll be able to hustle your way (even from Villanova/GSU/Wake, which aren't that much different from Coastal/Charlotte/Summit from a biglaw/bigfed/bigclerk perspective) into a traditionally "desirable" outcome. Which, to my point, is fine if you're cool with shutting off those options for yourself...for-ev-er. If all you want is local or regional PD/ADA/small firm, knock yourself out man.

But I'd be doing you a disservice if I didn't warn you ahead of time so you can make a decision based on complete info. (And you'd be doing a 53 year old version of yourself a disservice if you didn't at least contemplate the possibility you might value the geographic portability or upward mobility a T1/T14 JD will afford you as your career accelerates into retirement.)

[bmathers]

But I'd be doing you a disservice if I didn't warn you ahead of time so you can make a decision based on complete info. (And you'd be doing a 53 year old version of yourself a disservice if you didn't at least contemplate the possibility you might value the geographic portability or upward mobility a T1/T14 JD will afford you as your career accelerates into retirement.)

Understood. FWIW, I definitely do not want to do Biglaw -- that "lifestyle" is not for me. I guess this point is what we disagree on though -- I do not think, and am told, that when you are in your 50s, what law school you went to really does not matter. What's more important is what you have done with your JD since graduation.

I truly do not think that 20 years after graduation, a non-Biglaw attorney who has been practicing and creating would have a much different time finding an opportunity for geographic mobility if they graduated from Villanova, as opposed to UPenn. If you are sure that there is, please give me your sources of opinion.

The truth is, one of my recent friends went to a TTTT in Texas, opened up a firm in the area for some years... then had to relocate to the Northeast with his wife and was able to find work... The further you get from graduation and have experience, the less your law school really means

[bmathers]

As for a T14. With my 3.3 GPA, I would probably need to score upwards of 170 (as compared to 165) to hope for a desirable outcome from a T14. That is a huge jump, and I am very debt-averse, particularly because I do not want to set myself up with having to do Biglaw. Even if I wanted BigLaw, the top 10-20% of these schools go to large firms. I highly doubt that I'll be in the top 10-20%, bt saying these schools definitely close doors is a bit of a hyperbole... minus maybe the most elite positions (granted, on of the hiring partners in one of the big firms in Philly is an Akron Law alum... that's a TTT. It's anecdotal, but to say that these lower T1 schools definitely close doors is absolutely crazy).

[ponderingmeerkat]

As for a T14. With my 3.3 GPA, I would probably need to score upwards of 170 (as compared to 165) to hope for a desirable outcome from a T14. That is a huge jump, and I am very debt-averse, particularly because I do not want to set myself up with having to do Biglaw.

I find this interesting. You're convinced you have the energy, top-1% personality, and decades-long drive it takes to hustle your way into some sort of lottery-ticket outcome from GSU/Villanova but question your energy, work-ethic, capacity to study for a few months and get a top-3% score on a three-hour test.

In my opinion, mastering the LSAT is a much easier task than clawing and chewing your way up a mountain for the next decade trying to overcome your antecedents. Explain where I'm wrong here.

And, in response to your "I know this guy who had X outcome" example...dude, it's like that kid from the Baltimore mid-rise who knows a guy who cut a record or made it full-ride to UNC on a basketball scholarship and then onto the NBA. Just because someone "knows someone", doesn't mean this lottery-ticket outcome is something he should consider likely or even possible. Stay in school would be my hypothetical advice to him. Study for the LSAT is my advice to you.

If you want more info concerning what attending a TT/TTT is like read here: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/busin ... se-it.html

[ponderingmeerkat]

I highly doubt that I'll be in the top 10-20%, bt saying these schools definitely close doors is a bit of a hyperbole... minus maybe the most elite positions (granted, on of the hiring partners in one of the big firms in Philly is an Akron Law alum... that's a TTT. It's anecdotal, but to say that these lower T1 schools definitely close doors is absolutely crazy).

No dude, it's not hyperbole.

In case you missed it, we've had a monstrous collapse in the legal market over the last decade. The outcomes and opportunities afforded to boomers and GenXers who graudated T2 schools (Villanova and GSU are T2 btw, not T1) are massively different than the ones that will be afforded to you. Yea, you can find examples of hiring partners all over the place that graduated from TTT schools. That was the way things worked in the 70s/80s/90s. By virtue of being born in a different time, you have to work within a different reality. So, don't make the mistake of assuming anything remotely like their life experience will be yours.

I applaud your debt aversion. I think that's a smart way to approach this process. But, you should plan on getting the best possible LSAT and using that to help in the debt department. A 170+ will afford you a much better financial outcome regardless of where you end up attending.

[bmathers]

No, I did not edit that part. I will be the first to say that I do not see myself in the top 10-20% of the class. I'm probably median.

[ponderingmeerkat]

No, I did not edit that part. I will be the first to say that I do not see myself in the top 10-20% of the class. I'm probably median.

Edited my post accordingly.

Yea, that's the weird thing about law school. There's this belief that a top-10% dude at a T2 will finished top-33% at a T1 and median at a T14. This is often not the case. Because of the curve, most people should assume they will be median at whatever school they attend. It's not like the quality of student is THAT much different at Emory or Vandy than at GULC or NU. More importantly, they are all hustling and pushing and being forced onto a curve.

So, standard advice is plan on median and go to school where the outcome at median conforms to your career goals.

[bmathers]

You are disregarding much of what I am posting and twisting it to fit what you want to say. I said that everything was anecdotal - word for effing word. Please don't act like this is mind-blowing, new info to me -- it's not, considering I MENTIONED it in my post.

I said T1/T2 - I never said straight T1. Nova is in the 80s, GSU is 56, UTK is 65, Temple is 50. Once again, not any insight that I did not know. As for my anecdote of my T4 friend from Texas... that's anecdotal. but that is within the past 1-2 years... not decades ago.


Stop with the assumptions and let me take the risks that I've calculated and researched over many many many hours, NOTHING you say is going to be something that I have not considered.

Once again, please answer my original question in this thread or sit down and shut up. I didn't come here asking for unsolicited advice, so please keep that to yourself.

I know this post as rude, but I am just frustrated out of mind how how this damn forum gives so much unsolicited advice. I asked an effen question - I'm looking for those answers, nothing more. You trying to "help me" is certainly not appreciated, so please don't do it.

[ponderingmeerkat]

You are disregarding much of what I am posting and twisting i to fit what you want to say. I said that everything was anecdotal - word for effing word. Please don't act like this is mind-blowing, new info to me -- it's not, considering I MENTIONED it in my post.

I said T1/T2 - I never said straight T1. Nova is in the 80s, GSU is 56, UTK is 65, Temple is 50. Once again, not any insight that I did not know. As for my anecdote of my Tw friend from Texas... that's anecdotal. but that is within the past 1-2 years... not decades ago.


Stop with the assumptions and let me take the risks that I've calculated and researched over many many many hours, NOTHING you say is going to be something that I have not considered.

Once again, please answer my original question in this thread or sit down and shut up. I didn't come here asking for unsolicited advice, so please keep that to yourself.

I know this post as rude, but I am just frustrated out of mind how how this damn forum gives so much unsolicited advice. I asked an effen question - I'm looking for those answers, nothing more. You trying to "help me" is certainly not appreciated, so please don't do it.

Dude...this is an unnecessarily agro post. I'm trying to help you out and taking time out of my day to do it. We're sharing perspectives here...that shouldn't be a source of hostility from you. If I've inadvertently been rude to you, please show me where and I'll edit/apologize. But, I think I've done a decent job of staying professional.

Look, I understand having your perspective challenged sucks, especially when it comes to something important like careers. But, it's no skin off my ass what you do. You're a stranger on a board. I also have nothing to gain from sharing my perspective with you. So that should give you pause. If many people seem to be in agreement that you're making poor decisions, and if those people gain nothing from sharing this perspective with you, you'd be advised to at least seriously consider what they're saying.

I'll bugger off. Really hope you don't fuck this up dude. Take it easy.

[bmathers]

Ok, I just need to stop obsessing and to relax. You do have a point, and I am very strongly considering waiting until December now and trying for that 165. A 165 may not change the schools I am applying to, but would give me a stipend at alot of the schools that I am looking at. That would not be a bad thing. Thanks.

[ponderingmeerkat]

Ok, I just need to stop obsessing and to relax. You do have a point, and I am very strongly considering waiting until December now and trying for that 165. A 165 may not change the schools I am applying to, but would give me a stipend at alot of the schools that I am looking at. That would not be a bad thing. Thanks.

No problem man. I'm fairly confident you're going to end up doing great. Cheers!