Touro Law vs. Suffolk Law Forum

[HRomanus]

First of all, I have to clarify there is NO SIX FIGURE debt! Only 45K in total to go to Touro (15K / YR to pay) because of the scholarship offer. Yes, that is still a good amount of money to take out, but nothing to go to the extent of stupid mentaility over six figure in debt.
For those who have sincerely given me their feedback and not just nonsense argument I really do appreciate it. I do agree that retake is important--but I do not agree that the person who scores higher on the LSAT will be the better lawyer. I know of so many students that were lazy in college, decided randomly to take LSAT and managed to get a great score! However, how will they succeed? I have networked a lot, have great interpersonal skills, professional experience and have performed better than my peers based on hardwork. Sometimes those who think to have it all forget to still try. I believe in my capabilities and know I will be a great lawyer. You need to be well driven, and well rounded for law school. I must agree that if I retake a higher LSAT score would be stupendous!
On another note, I am aware that I asked feedback for a lower tier school on TLS Forum. Sorry if only Tier 1 schools are the topic here, I really was looking for sincere helpful tips and for those who gave them (whether contradictory) I am still grateful.
I have spoken with several well known Judges and attorneys in NYC from internship and volunteer work (no financial connection from them to be bias with law schools) and they do not share that going to a lower tier law school is suicide. You have to take into account to not go in debt, network, and know your capabilities can help you rank in school at the top. Is it more difficult than how we saw college? certainly!!! Impossible? no!

I have friends and coworkers who are network whores coming from undergrad. Unless I'm mistaken, networking doesn't give you a substantial boost from TTTT. It's like - gasp - having a 3.7 GPA only helps you so much when you have a 151 LSAT.

You may have the capabilities to be a great lawyer, but only 37% of Suffolk Law grads are lawyers.

Why can't you do better on the LSAT?

[bjsesq]

Are you factoring in cost of living, or just tuition costs? If you just took tuition into consideration and didn't compound interest, I should have graduated with 90k in debt. I have 200k. Further, your reciting a lot of special snowflake talking points about how you will network, have people skills, etc. Why do you act as though you will be doing these things and your classmates will not?

[cricketlove00]

Please let me know what your thoughts are. Greatly appreciate it!

Obviously you aren't going to listen. We said what our thoughts are. Go wherever you want.

[sallysitwell]

Not everyone on here is a prestige whore. I applied to Suffolk and was offered a full ride, but their employment numbers are so abysmal that I could not bring myself to attend, even with a full ride. OP, do not listen to Young Marino. If you retake and go up to the high 150s you can get a full ride to Suffolk (which is still a bad idea). Go up into the 160s and you will have better options and more $$$ on the table.

[bugsy33]

Well, someone has to give these prospective regional law students some insight when retaking isn't an option. I call you prestige whores out and you respond by dedicating an entire page to bash me? That's cool I can live with that but not everyone needs that TLS "prestige" and you all should know that. OP is in a much better position than a lot of current law students I know and shouldn't have to deal with "retake, retake, retake" when he or she is asking about the comparison between two schools. You guys are ridiculous.

Marino, I understand the desire to fight back against the TLS prestige whore mentality, some people here definitely are, and it's really annoying to hear a chorus of RETAKE RETAKE RETAKE every time someone asks for advice. But that's not the case in this situation. The reason people are telling OP not to go is because he will be committing near-certain financial seppuku by attending either of these schools. The employment odds at either of these schools are terrible, and there is a very real chance he could ruin a large part of his life by attending.

I'm assuming, since you're on this site, that you will become a lawyer at some point in time. Remember that you are called to be a counselor, and you have a duty to give honest, well-informed advice. Telling OP to go to either of these schools at the given prices is just straight-up bad advice and you know that, especially when there are other alternatives to remedy the situation.

OP if you are serious about becoming a lawyer then work for another year and put time into studying for the LSAT. I know you may have told all of your family, friends, and even employer that you're going to law school this fall. It will suck a bit telling them that you're taking another year to retake the LSAT, but imagine how proud they'll be when you tell them you're going to a school that they've actually heard of. I believe that you're a smart, independent thinker, and you are better than these schools.

[HRomanus]

I'm assuming, since you're on this site, that you will become a lawyer at some point in time. Remember that you are called to be a counselor, and you have a duty to give honest, well-informed advice. Telling OP to go to either of these schools at the given prices is just straight-up bad advice and you know that, especially when there are other alternatives to remedy the situation.

Perfect perspective on the issue. Is it okay if I steal this to use on other threads?

[bugsy33]

I'm assuming, since you're on this site, that you will become a lawyer at some point in time. Remember that you are called to be a counselor, and you have a duty to give honest, well-informed advice. Telling OP to go to either of these schools at the given prices is just straight-up bad advice and you know that, especially when there are other alternatives to remedy the situation.

Perfect perspective on the issue. Is it okay if I steal this to use on other threads?

Sure, hopefully it'll save someone from making a terrible decision.

[Nucky]

Funny how people like Young Marino tend to disappear from this site after a few years of LS. How many TTTT'ers who have been through the process do you see on this site telling people in this situation that they're making a good choice?

0% of last year's 230 person class at Touro got big law or fed clerkships. Guess they were all just bad networkers... Get real, man.

[yadiermolina]

OP: either 1) retake to 160+ minimum 2) don't become lawyer, 3) go to one of these schools or 4) kill self. (Trick to this scenario: options 3 and 4 are the same.)

Thank TLS later.

[BigZuck]

Can you numb nuts give some evidence of this "prestige whore mentality?" Perhaps a couple links to posters saying (in a non-joking way) "Retake and go to a higher ranked school for the prestige of it all."

As for the OP- I think ESL+bad law school+not insignificant debt is going to make some very, very tough sledding in the years ahead. I wouldn't go to law school if I was in that situation but as always, YOLO.

[Nucky]

Taking a year off and retaking sucks. No question. But you know what else sucks? Your options. Either route is going to be shitty. The difference is that one route will lead to a life of shit, and the other will lead to a few months of shit, and eventual elation and pride around November/December when you can brag about getting in to great schools with $$$.

Here's a step-by-step guide for you:

1) Diligently study for the LSAT and re-prepare/polish application materials until September. You have plenty of time.
2) Rock the September LSAT.
3) Apply early (October).
4) Enjoy your options, and subsequent successful law school and legal career.

(This goes for you as well Young Marino)

[jingosaur]

It's much less risky to put that "hardwork" into getting a good LSAT score and going to a school that gives you a strong chance of achieving your employment goals. The NYC market is very competitive, especially in PI. Many of my non-lawyer friends have been turned down to volunteer for various things in NYC because there are too many people ready to volunteer. For actual PI employment where they have to pay you a salary, it gets even more competitive. Even if you have the skills to be a good lawyer, if you don't go to the right school to achieve your employment goals, you may never get a chance to prove that you're a good lawyer or you'll have to work for no money while paying NYC cost of living for years on end to prove yourself. And if you end up not being a great lawyer (nobody, not even kids at the top 3 law schools, know whether or not they'll be a good lawyer), you'll end up unemployable for life.

There's a Touro Law grad who took out about $250k in loans to get his legal education there and his only job since law school has been painting houses. Even if he had the skills to be a crazy-good lawyer, nobody will ever know.

[TheSpanishMain]

For those who have sincerely given me their feedback and not just nonsense argument I really do appreciate it. I do agree that retake is important--but I do not agree that the person who scores higher on the LSAT will be the better lawyer.

Please understand that the people who said "retake or don't go" are giving you sincere feedback. I genuinely believe those are your only two realistic options. I'm not saying that to be mean to you. I have nothing against you. I'm sure you're a nice enough person, but you asked for advice and "retake or don't go" is obviously the right answer. I'm sorry that's not what you want to hear, but better you hear it now than after wasting three years of your life.

Can you numb nuts give some evidence of this "prestige whore mentality?" Perhaps a couple links to posters saying (in a non-joking way) "Retake and go to a higher ranked school for the prestige of it all."

Young Marino doesn't have any. Denouncing the "prestige whore mentality" is basically his standard defense before he runs off. I asked him in another thread to provide some evidence that I'm a prestige whore (and gave him some pretty solid evidence that I'm not) and his response was to call me a bigot. I'm convinced he's just a weird dude.

[ManoftheHour]

Doesn't make the person a flame. It's still a really common attitude for people who aren't on TLS/are relying on e.g. bad UG law school advisors.

Calling flame also doesn't really add anything to the conversation. (Not calling you out particularly, I just think "flame" posts are pointless. If they're flame they just want attention, ignore instead.)

This is credited. Before TLS, I bought into the big fish/small pond theory as well as "I'll just transfer because so and so was able to go from U of A to Stanford."

[BigZuck]

For those who have sincerely given me their feedback and not just nonsense argument I really do appreciate it. I do agree that retake is important--but I do not agree that the person who scores higher on the LSAT will be the better lawyer.

Please understand that the people who said "retake or don't go" are giving you sincere feedback. I genuinely believe those are your only two realistic options. I'm not saying that to be mean to you. I have nothing against you. I'm sure you're a nice enough person, but you asked for advice and "retake or don't go" is obviously the right answer. I'm sorry that's not what you want to hear, but better you hear it now than after wasting three years of your life.

Can you numb nuts give some evidence of this "prestige whore mentality?" Perhaps a couple links to posters saying (in a non-joking way) "Retake and go to a higher ranked school for the prestige of it all."

Young Marino doesn't have any. Denouncing the "prestige whore mentality" is basically his standard defense before he runs off. I asked him in another thread to provide some evidence that I'm a prestige whore (and gave him some pretty solid evidence that I'm not) and his response was to call me a bigot. I'm convinced he's just a weird dude.

Lol, I remember that. Awesome.

I have no doubt he's the numbest nut around and I think (hope?) he's more flame than anything. But there's a couple other posters who I believe are genuine, bona fide real people and they also don't like this prestige whore mentality and I'm hoping they can provide some evidence that it exists.

[TheSpanishMain]

To be fair, I've seen posters who I think made choices that were at least debatably due to prestige, although they didn't say so directly. I'm thinking of stuff like, "I've got the Rubenstein, but I think I'm going to go to Harvard because, you know, it's Harvard." It's not exactly an epidemic of prestige circle jerking, but you do see some of it from time to time.

[Ramius]

To be fair, I've seen posters who I think made choices that were at least debatably due to prestige, although they didn't say so directly. I'm thinking of stuff like, "I've got the Rubenstein, but I think I'm going to go to Harvard because, you know, it's Harvard." It's not exactly an epidemic of prestige circle jerking, but you do see some of it from time to time.

There is absolutely some prestige-seeking around here, but it isn't the kind most people imagine. The reason most around here are "T-14 or bust" or anything closely resembling that, it's typically because they understand the realities of legal hiring and the prospective cost of legal education.

People call out "prestige whores" for simple reasons. They don't want to identify the choice they're trying to make as a potentially bad one, so they chalk up others' advice as not applicable because then they can more readily discount it. Cognitive dissonance at its best.

[johnnyquest]

To be fair, I've seen posters who I think made choices that were at least debatably due to prestige, although they didn't say so directly. I'm thinking of stuff like, "I've got the Rubenstein, but I think I'm going to go to Harvard because, you know, it's Harvard." It's not exactly an epidemic of prestige circle jerking, but you do see some of it from time to time.

I don't see much prestige whoring, but one thing that does bother me is when people call state flagships (or strong regionals) with a 70%+ employment rates that are solid, and cheap(full-tuition under 20k in-state, and still generous with scholarships) "toilets" or "dumpster fires".

[TheSpanishMain]

To be fair, I've seen posters who I think made choices that were at least debatably due to prestige, although they didn't say so directly. I'm thinking of stuff like, "I've got the Rubenstein, but I think I'm going to go to Harvard because, you know, it's Harvard." It's not exactly an epidemic of prestige circle jerking, but you do see some of it from time to time.

There is absolutely some prestige-seeking around here, but it isn't the kind most people imagine. The reason most around here are "T-14 or bust" or anything closely resembling that, it's typically because they understand the realities of legal hiring and the prospective cost of legal education.

People call out "prestige whores" for simple reasons. They don't want to identify the choice they're trying to make as a potentially bad one, so they chalk up others' advice as not applicable because then they can more readily discount it. Cognitive dissonance at its best.

Agreed on all of the above. I'm just thinking of specific scenarios like the one I mentioned where you have two schools with awesome employment outcomes like Harvard and Chicago, with Chicago being much cheaper, but people talk themselves into Harvard because it has more lay prestige/drops panties.

When prestige actually just means "access to good jobs" then yeah, seek that prestige.

I don't see much prestige whoring, but one thing that does bother me is when people call state flagships (or strong regionals) with a 70%+ employment rates that are solid, and cheap(full-tuition under 20k in-state, and still generous with scholarships) "toilets" or "dumpster fires".

Yeah, I agree that South Carolina is a perfectly good choice for locals with the right goals and a generous scholarship. (We were talking about SC, right?)

[Ramius]

To be fair, I've seen posters who I think made choices that were at least debatably due to prestige, although they didn't say so directly. I'm thinking of stuff like, "I've got the Rubenstein, but I think I'm going to go to Harvard because, you know, it's Harvard." It's not exactly an epidemic of prestige circle jerking, but you do see some of it from time to time.

I don't see much prestige whoring, but one thing that does bother me is when people call state flagships (or strong regionals) with a 70%+ employment rates that are solid, and cheap(full-tuition under 20k in-state, and still generous with scholarships) "toilets" or "dumpster fires".

That's completely fair, and those shouldn't be seen as dumpster fires or anything like that. The only time I say a state flagship isn't worth it is if it makes no logical sense given the person's ties, experience, etc. and their career goals. U of Iowa is a solid school if you're looking for small firm work in Des Moines, but saying you're going there for big law in NYC or Chicago is equally dumb to considering one of those other "dumpster fires."

[Ramius]

To be fair, I've seen posters who I think made choices that were at least debatably due to prestige, although they didn't say so directly. I'm thinking of stuff like, "I've got the Rubenstein, but I think I'm going to go to Harvard because, you know, it's Harvard." It's not exactly an epidemic of prestige circle jerking, but you do see some of it from time to time.

There is absolutely some prestige-seeking around here, but it isn't the kind most people imagine. The reason most around here are "T-14 or bust" or anything closely resembling that, it's typically because they understand the realities of legal hiring and the prospective cost of legal education.

People call out "prestige whores" for simple reasons. They don't want to identify the choice they're trying to make as a potentially bad one, so they chalk up others' advice as not applicable because then they can more readily discount it. Cognitive dissonance at its best.

Agreed on all of the above. I'm just thinking of specific scenarios like the one I mentioned where you have two schools with awesome employment outcomes like Harvard and Chicago, with Chicago being much cheaper, but people talk themselves into Harvard because it has more lay prestige/drops panties.

When prestige actually just means "access to good jobs" then yeah, seek that prestige.

I don't see much prestige whoring, but one thing that does bother me is when people call state flagships (or strong regionals) with a 70%+ employment rates that are solid, and cheap(full-tuition under 20k in-state, and still generous with scholarships) "toilets" or "dumpster fires".

Yeah, I agree that South Carolina is a perfectly good choice for locals with the right goals and a generous scholarship. (We were talking about SC, right?)

You're right, there are a few delusional folks out there making the, "It's Harvard" argument.

[johnnyquest]

Yeah, I agree that South Carolina is a perfectly good choice for locals with the right goals and a generous scholarship. (We were talking about SC, right?)

I was thinking Kentucky and New Mexico as well.

[Young Marino]

Well, someone has to give these prospective regional law students some insight when retaking isn't an option. I call you prestige whores out and you respond by dedicating an entire page to bash me? That's cool I can live with that but not everyone needs that TLS "prestige" and you all should know that. OP is in a much better position than a lot of current law students I know and shouldn't have to deal with "retake, retake, retake" when he or she is asking about the comparison between two schools. You guys are ridiculous.

An expert of the NYC and Boston markets are we?

Nope just a bro from North Lauderdale

[InTheHouse]

First of all, I have to clarify there is NO SIX FIGURE debt! Only 45K in total to go to Touro (15K / YR to pay) because of the scholarship offer. Yes, that is still a good amount of money to take out, but nothing to go to the extent of stupid mentaility over six figure in debt.

Are you planning on working during law school pay your living expenses.

I do not agree that the person who scores higher on the LSAT will be the better lawyer.

Who said anything about a higher LSAT making your a better lawyer?

I know of so many students that were lazy in college, decided randomly to take LSAT and managed to get a great score! However, how will they succeed?

Why does this matter? Yes, plenty of slackers get great LSAT scores and don't succeed in law school. So?

I have networked a lot, have great interpersonal skills, professional experience and have performed better than my peers based on hardwork.

Hard work.... If only hard work helped people scored better on the LSAT.

Sometimes those who think to have it all forget to still try.

Why do you keep comparing yourself to slackers?

You need to be well driven, and well rounded for law school.

Again, no one said you didn't. Although, I don't know that you need the well rounded part.

I have spoken with several well known Judges and attorneys in NYC from internship and volunteer work (no financial connection from them to be bias with law schools) and they do not share that going to a lower tier law school is suicide.

I'd talk to recent Touro graduates given that they're the ones who most knowledgeable about what a Touro law degree can do. Not sure what you expect to learn from people who went to law school decades ago.

[Gooner91]

Do either of these schools have LRAP? From your goals it sounds like you want to work at a non-profit doing T-VISA. These jobs only pay like 30k-40k even with PAYE that $100 or so is going to be tough on that salary.