The usual: Chapman, UCI, Loyola, Pepperdine Forum

[BigZuck]

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.

...a Loyola grad is more likely than not to earn 70K or above 9 months after graduation?

[cron1834]

Yeah, I'm not understanding when these unemployed Loyola grads 9 months out of a crap school suddenly start balling? How long does it take? They're not making money years 1-3, while they rack up debt and interest in law school. They're not doing it in year 4 based on the data. They just magically get good jobs in year 5 or something? Bar-required ones?

Color me skeptical.

[Tls2016]

Yeah, I'm not understanding when these unemployed Loyola grads 9 months out of a crap school suddenly start balling? How long does it take? They're not making money years 1-3, while they rack up debt and interest in law school. They're not doing it in year 4 based on the data. They just magically get good jobs in year 5 or something? Bar-required ones?

Color me skeptical.

Skeptical is much nicer than my opinion which is OP should ignore people who have no clue what they are talking about,can't read a simple graph and make up facts as they desire.
I would go further but I'm not into name calling. This "reasonable"person is actively harmful.

[cron1834]

Agree.

[ReasonableNprudent]

Interesting advice, Tls2016.

Op, if you want to make your decisions based on extremely short-term data with no context then pay attention to the nay-sayers. They clearly consider themselves to be the better-educated and smarter than you and me. But I suspect the last few posters are on the trajectory of the well-paid but miserable BigLaw expendables (assuming they are as elite and statistically set for success as they purport themselves to be), and will eventually realize that their career will have peaks and valleys over the next several decades just as if they had gone to "lesser" schools.

OP, you would be better set at UCLA or USC for free (but if you were looking down that road folks might say you'd be better set at Berkeley or Stanford and are just a few points away on your next retake). I assure you, what I've described on page 2 is actually how things work for most new attorneys, even the ones that spend the first 9 months or so of their career in temporary or contract positions. Is there a windfall coming at 9 months and 1 day? No. You have to realize that you will be building your career over many years. Most attorneys have done that and others have moved onto other things; in any event, the overwhelming majority of attorneys did not go to top 14, top 20, or even top 50 schools and most don't work in BigLaw.

TLS, the "transparency" movement, the scambloggers, and LST have done wonders to mitigate pie-eyed optimism, and that isn't a bad thing. And the rhetoric has been instrumental in (necessarily) reducing applicants and enrollment and promoting accountability. These are good things for everyone in the industry. However, the constant drum beat of the TLS "wisdom" that I openly mock mostly just serves to alienate potential law students from this forum while exacerbating a pessimistic environment filled with self-defeat even amongst those in exceptionally good circumstances (I'm not making this up either; there are plenty of high six figure earners here that hate themselves and their jobs).

TCR is actually to mostly avoid TLS. You're in a good place, OP, even though I'm one of the few here that will tell you that and also understand why LST stats are not all-telling. I've seen many buy into the self-defeating mantra, sit in their own squishy warm shit for a while, and eventually come out the other side. Those outcomes aren't tracked, but I also don't make them up. Just know that the misery is optional.

[Tls2016]

Interesting advice, Tls2016.

Op, if you want to make your decisions based on extremely short-term data with no context then pay attention to the nay-sayers. They clearly consider themselves to be the better-educated and smarter than you and me. But I suspect the last few posters are on the trajectory of the well-paid but miserable BigLaw expendables (assuming they are as elite and statistically set for success as they purport themselves to be), and will eventually realize that their career will have peaks and valleys over the next several decades just as if they had gone to "lesser" schools.

OP, you would be better set at UCLA or USC for free (but if you were looking down that road folks might say you'd be better set at Berkeley or Stanford and are just a few points away on your next retake). I assure you, what I've described on page 2 is actually how things work for most new attorneys, even the ones that spend the first 9 months or so of their career in temporary or contract positions. Is there a windfall coming at 9 months and 1 day? No. You have to realize that you will be building your career over many years. Most attorneys have done that and others have moved onto other things; in any event, the overwhelming majority of attorneys did not go to top 14, top 20, or even top 50 schools and most don't work in BigLaw.

TLS, the "transparency" movement, the scambloggers, and LST have done wonders to mitigate pie-eyed optimism, and that isn't a bad thing. And the rhetoric has been instrumental in (necessarily) reducing applicants and enrollment and promoting accountability. These are good things for everyone in the industry. However, the constant drum beat of the TLS "wisdom" that I openly mock mostly just serves to alienate potential law students from this forum while exacerbating a pessimistic environment filled with self-defeat even amongst those in exceptionally good circumstances (I'm not making this up either; there are plenty of high six figure earners here that hate themselves and their jobs).

TCR is actually to mostly avoid TLS. You're in a good place, OP, even though I'm one of the few here that will tell you that and also understand why LST stats are not all-telling. I've seen many buy into the self-defeating mantra, sit in their own squishy warm shit for a while, and eventually come out the other side. Those outcomes aren't tracked, but I also don't make them up. Just know that the misery is optional.

All I asked for was any data to back up your claim.It is just your rhetoric and for some reason a chip on your shoulder about TLS.
Your post is almost unintelligible bs to me.

But, I'm only here trying to help OP avoid massive debt and joblessness. Certainly OP can't count on a $80,000 job after graduation.
Are you willing to support your own bs with any evidence or are you just going to keep writing nonsense. What is your purpose in your advice to OP?

[ReasonableNprudent]

I've said it like 5 times Tls2016: the data does not exist because outcomes are not tracked beyond 9 (now 10) months.

If my posting is unintelligible to you it is probably because you don't read very well.

Edit: Having skimmed my posts, I realize I might not have actually said that the data doesn't exist due to the tracking cutoff, but the implication is definitely there.

I'll pre-empt the next question, which is "if there isn't data then how do you know"?

The answer is from years of watching this forum in general, reading the Veil, lurking on JDU, watching recent grads, and from countless discussions with attorneys regarding their career paths. Most attorneys claw and grind before reaching a point of stability. BigLaw turnover is high and job satisfaction generally low. And even though BigLaw seems like the Holy Grail, it is often better to never have BigLaw then to have had BigLaw for a while only to wind up out on your ass. Is all of this anecdotal? Sure. But the sample isn't small.

[Clearly]

I've said it like 5 times Tls2016: the data does not exist because outcomes are not tracked beyond 9 (now 10) months.

If my posting is unintelligible to you it is probably because you don't read very well.

Edit: Having skimmed my posts, I realize I might not have actually said that the data doesn't exist due to the tracking cutoff, but the implication is definitely there.

I'll pre-empt the next question, which is "if there isn't data then how do you know"?

The answer is from years of watching this forum in general, reading the Veil, lurking on JDU, watching recent grads, and from countless discussions with attorneys regarding their career paths. Most attorneys claw and grind before reaching a point of stability. BigLaw turnover is high and job satisfaction generally low. And even though BigLaw seems like the Holy Grail, it is often better to never have BigLaw then to have had BigLaw for a while only to wind up out on your ass. Is all of this anecdotal? Sure. But the sample isn't small.

Did you turn down biglaw? Because I can assure you exit ops from big law are infinitely better than exit ops from unemployed at graduation from mediocre school. The point of biglaw isn't to stay, it's ignorant to preach to tls about how biglaw isn't great, when most of these posters have experienced it, and then to actually suggest that it's better off to not have biglaw at all, with its training, exit opportunities, salary, connections, simply because it doesn't last forever and people flame out. No shit, that's the point.

[Tls2016]

I've said it like 5 times Tls2016: the data does not exist because outcomes are not tracked beyond 9 (now 10) months.

If my posting is unintelligible to you it is probably because you don't read very well.

Edit: Having skimmed my posts, I realize I might not have actually said that the data doesn't exist due to the tracking cutoff, but the implication is definitely there.

I'll pre-empt the next question, which is "if there isn't data then how do you know"?

The answer is from years of watching this forum in general, reading the Veil, lurking on JDU, watching recent grads, and from countless discussions with attorneys regarding their career paths. Most attorneys claw and grind before reaching a point of stability. BigLaw turnover is high and job satisfaction generally low. And even though BigLaw seems like the Holy Grail, it is often better to never have BigLaw then to have had BigLaw for a while only to wind up out on your ass. Is all of this anecdotal? Sure. But the sample isn't small.

I have read the Vale too. I don't recall any posts from people who are getting jobs at 80k or getting raises to 70k after struggling at 40k. I would like to see those. Usually people who don't get jobs struggle for years. Most end up giving up law.

Here is another difference with biglaw: people have usually paid off a chunk of debt before they go.

No one is telling OP that biglaw is all that matters. OP is going into law school blind.

[Tls2016]

OP: I quoted one of your earlier posts here:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 5#p9133275

[A. Nony Mouse]

I actually have a little sympathy for the "we don't know what happens after 9 months after graduation argument," in that I went to a lower T1 (in the height of the recession) and the 9-months-after-graduation numbers really didn't capture my classmates' ultimate employment numbers.

That said, we don't have statistics about what happens after that magical point. We just have anecdotes. The people who don't make it after that point are the ones that vanish from sight, so there's going to be a bit of confirmation bias. And while I think a lot of people from my law school are decently happy, it seems pretty clear that in the aggregate, people who had jobs at graduation/by the 9-months mark got better jobs, which gives them more leverage to change jobs down the road.

Basically, I don't think we can assume that everyone who doesn't have a job at the magical 9-months mark fails out of law, ends up in JD-preferred or in the gutter, etc. etc. We can't assume all those outcomes are bad outcomes.

But when actually choosing a school, we have the statistics we have, showing that some schools offer a wider range of outcomes at graduation/9 months after than other schools. And whatever happens after 9 months, it makes sense that getting a job sooner rather than later is better.

I lean toward thinking people should take the risks they're willing to take, so if the OP is really willing to choose between the above schools, knowing that there are outcomes that will be much less likely (if not foreclosed altogether), that's on them. But just because there are unknown positive outcomes after the 9-months mark doesn't mean there aren't objectively better options.

[BigZuck]

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.

...a Loyola grad is more likely than not to earn 70K or above 9 months after graduation?

Please answer this, it's only one question and it's a pretty simple one at that

[Tiago Splitter]

1) The salary numbers are based only on reported salaries, and simple math from the numbers we do have suggests the missing salaries are mostly located on the left side of the graph.

2) Schools are more than welcome to provide employment statistics as of a date outside of the 10 month window. That they haven't suggests things really don't get a whole lot better.

[cron1834]

1) The salary numbers are based only on reported salaries, and simple math from the numbers we do have suggests the missing salaries are mostly located on the left side of the graph.

2) Schools are more than welcome to provide employment statistics as of a date outside of the 10 month window. That they haven't suggests things really don't get a whole lot better.

Def. Schools are getting sued by former students and are laying off professors. If the schools could positively demonstrate that their graduates magically start balling 10 months after graduating from a shit school, they'd demonstrate it.

[zot1]

I actually have a little sympathy for the "we don't know what happens after 9 months after graduation argument," in that I went to a lower T1 (in the height of the recession) and the 9-months-after-graduation numbers really didn't capture my classmates' ultimate employment numbers.

That said, we don't have statistics about what happens after that magical point. We just have anecdotes. The people who don't make it after that point are the ones that vanish from sight, so there's going to be a bit of confirmation bias. And while I think a lot of people from my law school are decently happy, it seems pretty clear that in the aggregate, people who had jobs at graduation/by the 9-months mark got better jobs, which gives them more leverage to change jobs down the road.

Basically, I don't think we can assume that everyone who doesn't have a job at the magical 9-months mark fails out of law, ends up in JD-preferred or in the gutter, etc. etc. We can't assume all those outcomes are bad outcomes.

But when actually choosing a school, we have the statistics we have, showing that some schools offer a wider range of outcomes at graduation/9 months after than other schools. And whatever happens after 9 months, it makes sense that getting a job sooner rather than later is better.

I lean toward thinking people should take the risks they're willing to take, so if the OP is really willing to choose between the above schools, knowing that there are outcomes that will be much less likely (if not foreclosed altogether), that's on them. But just because there are unknown positive outcomes after the 9-months mark doesn't mean there aren't objectively better options.

I really disagree that by picking UCI you're foreclosing certain outcomes for yourself.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Eh, I'm talking like clerking for SCOTUS or (barring really exceptional qualifications beyond law school performance) academia. They're foreclosed from almost all schools. I was also talking more generally for when people are looking at employment statistics and comparing schools, not really specifically the schools the OP named.

[zot1]

Fine, Nony. But you wait, we will have a SCOTUS clerk soon. I know it.

[middleawkward123]

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.

Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think I agree with the optimistic account in terms of witnessing those from Loyola doing fairly well after they graduated (whether that's right after or 9 months after). But I also agree that there is a high risk of attending Loyola/Pepperdine/UCI with their rigid stipulation and about 30,000-40,000 debt (Is this correct? I am not counting COL at all since I will be commuting and will not be paying for rent/car insurance/bills).

To be honest, my goal is really to get a JD without a handsome amount of debt (I mean, technically, if there was about 50,000 debt and I work at a 50K salaried job, I can pay that off in couple years, considering a very hypothetical/unrealistic scenario of me not paying rent/bills and putting all my income toward debt-payment). I know this does not sound ideal or smart when I can retake and save $$/my LIFE but I think it's a good risk to take as long as it's POSSIBLE that I can live with a JD and work in a position where salary and opportunities can increase. I mean a Loyola graduate with about 30-40K debt (basically me if I do decide to attend Loyola) will not live miserably forever, no? At least there is a room to move up if you are an attorney. Earning 50K and having a spouse (no child) who earns around the same is a good start in our 30s, I believe. Not that that's guaranteed. But trying to be optimistic here.

I also just got an offer from Hastings . I am for sure going to live and work in Socal (OC or LA) so I guess I can use this to negotiate UCI?

Thanks all!

[zot1]

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.

Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think I agree with the optimistic account in terms of witnessing those from Loyola doing fairly well after they graduated (whether that's right after or 9 months after). But I also agree that there is a high risk of attending Loyola/Pepperdine/UCI with their rigid stipulation and about 30,000-40,000 debt (Is this correct? I am not counting COL at all since I will be commuting and will not be paying for rent/car insurance/bills).

To be honest, my goal is really to get a JD without a handsome amount of debt (I mean, technically, if there was about 50,000 debt and I work at a 50K salaried job, I can pay that off in couple years, considering a very hypothetical/unrealistic scenario of me not paying rent/bills and putting all my income toward debt-payment). I know this does not sound ideal or smart when I can retake and save $$/my LIFE but I think it's a good risk to take as long as it's POSSIBLE that I can live with a JD and work in a position where salary and opportunities can increase. I mean a Loyola graduate with about 30-40K debt (basically me if I do decide to attend Loyola) will not live miserably forever, no? At least there is a room to move up if you are an attorney. Earning 50K and having a spouse (no child) who earns around the same is a good start in our 30s, I believe. Not that that's guaranteed. But trying to be optimistic here.

I also just got an offer from Hastings (good academic standing and $105,000 for all three years. Why can't this be UCI????? I am for sure going to live and work in Socal (OC or LA) so I guess I can use this to negotiate UCI?

Thanks all!

Use your Hastings scholarship to negotiate a bigger scholarship with UCI.

Also, I disagree that Loyola grads have a better chance than UCI grads to get a job after graduation.

[middleawkward123]

^ Should I just use Hastings and not Loyola to negotiate UCI? I am still waiting for UCLA/USC.

[philawsopher]

Earning 50K and having a spouse (no child) who earns around the same is a good start in our 30s, I believe. Not that that's guaranteed. But trying to be optimistic here.

I agree (speaking from experience). If you and your spouse both make $50k/year at age 30 with no kids and you can't afford to live comfortably in the LA area, then you're doing it wrong. Granted, a larger income would be nice, but you'll be fine.

[middleawkward123]

It's interesting to see Pepperdine getting so many votes. Unfortunately, I want to commute from home (closer to OC although it's in LA county). I thought Loyola > Pepperdine as to their ranking and etc.? No?

[General_Tso]

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

70-80k is actually a pretty common starting salary range at insurance defense mills in California. Your comment is without merit.

[philawsopher]

It's interesting to see Pepperdine getting so many votes. Unfortunately, I want to commute from home (closer to OC although it's in LA county). I thought Loyola > Pepperdine as to their ranking and etc.? No?

Pepperdine (#52) is ranked higher than Loyola (#75) by USN. Interestingly, though, Loyola hit a higher pass rate for the July '15 exam than Pepperdine. Maybe that's what you're thinking of?

[Nachoo2019]

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

70-80k is actually a pretty common starting salary range at insurance defense mills in California. Your comment is without merit.

That is due to COL in CA. Anytime you see 70-80k in CA, NYC, etc. just think of it as 60-65k everywhere else in the country