Top Law Schools

I'm on a few waitlists, but right now my choices are Widener and Touro. I would eventually like to practice in the northern NJ/NY area, though I'm not totally sure about what area of the law I'd like to practice. Touro gave me a scholarship for $10k a year, which makes it slightly less expensive than Widener overall. What are job prospects like for both schools, specifically in the area I want to be in? I am strongly considering transferring from either school after the first year. Which would be the better choice for me right now?

Retake. Reapply.

What's up with all the 'shit vs shit' threads as of late?

Man, even I must say it: you have to retake and get more money if you plan on going to one of these schools. If you ultimately decide you wanna attend, that's fine. But do not pay sticker (or anywhere close to it) for these schools. I don't think you can justify the costs here. There are some good T3/T4s out there, but these are not two of them.

merichard87 wrote:Retake. Reapply.

Neither school has even a decent prospect of employment, especially in NY/NJ which is already oversaturated and the target of many top
schools.

Don't count on transferring. You have no idea how your 1l grades will look.

fnm wrote:What's up with all the 'shit vs shit' threads as of late?

i've noticed this as well.

OP, the correct answer here is NEITHER

I would remove my thoughts from the NY market and aim for NJ, retake and reapply and aim for Rutgers.

Job prospects are bad.

Neither of these schools are worth the money.

Retake and reapply.

No.

I understand that neither of these schools is an ideal choice for me, and that retaking and reapplying might be the best option for most. However, this is how I look at it. My main issue on the LSAT was timing, therefore unless I take the gamble of applying for extended time, I don't see my score improving drastically beyond a few points. I come from a competitive undergrad institution with a very large workload, and I'm confident that if I put my mind to it I can achieve a spot in the top of my class at these schools. This is why I feel that getting into the game and trying to climb the ladder by showing what I can do, rather than trying to improve my scores might be the better option in the end, and it wouldn't leave me another year behind.

Another thing to consider is that at this point I intend to work in a prosecutors office or for a judge right out of school rather than trying to find a big firm position. Perhaps this slightly negates the issue with job prospects?

Widener is a good option in the Philadelphia / South NJ / Delaware region. I wouldn't go there if you're set on north Jersey or NYC. I don't know anyone from Widener who practices in that area.

As for everyone who is saying Widener is shit (none of whom are practicing attorneys in the Philadelphia region, I might add), it's fine in the southeastern PA region. It's not a guarantee into BIGLAW (hardly anything is right now), but I know many Widener grads who are doing well -- a few in BIGLAW, some in mid-sized firms, a few went JAG, and a lot at small firms or DA jobs. The major difference between Widener and the local T2s (other than the cost at Temple and Rutgers) is BIGLAW recruits more heavily from Villanova, Temple, and Rutgers. Beyond that, it makes little difference... our last two hires were from Widener (although our hiring partner is a Temple grad). There are a lot of Widener alums in the southeastern PA area.

Keep your grades up and try and get a scholarship. Also remember that Widener is extremely regional. If you hate the idea of practicing in the Philly / DE area, don't go there. The top 15% at Widener usually transfers to a T1 or T2 or just takes a big scholarship. FYI I graduated from Temple.

Not sure about Touro.

bleanza wrote:I come from a competitive undergrad institution with a very large workload, and I'm confident that if I put my mind to it I can achieve a spot in the top of my class at these schools. This is why I feel that getting into the game and trying to climb the ladder by showing what I can do, rather than trying to improve my scores might be the better option in the end, and it wouldn't leave me another year behind.

100% of people at these schools will want to be the top of the class. 90% will fail. Smart money says that you will fail.

Another thing to consider is that at this point I intend to work in a prosecutors office or for a judge right out of school rather than trying to find a big firm position. Perhaps this slightly negates the issue with job prospects?

You weren't competitive for big firms anyways. People from more prestigious schools will be gunning for clerkships and DA positions when they can't get biglaw. And budgets are generally being slashed in these offices. This does not look good for you.

Widener is at least not terrible, but at full boat it is. If you somehow do get a decent $50k-ish job, have fun living in poverty thanks to your non-dischargeable debt. Hope you don't want to have kids or buy a car or house.

Feds/Prosecutors/Judges are looking for students from the top schools just like biglaw is.

You do realize that the rest of your classmates are trying to be the top of the class as well? And 90% of you will fail that mission.

You are proposing that you chance it and study real real hard in law school and hope you fall into the higher end of the curve (if you truly understood a curve you would see the logic fail) rather than go back and study harder for a learn-able test.

A few points could make all the difference.

Yes, I understand that everyone tries to do as well as possible at law school.. I just think I can achieve it at these two schools that I know I could have surpassed had a couple of things had been different. I'm not saying its a guarantee, far from it, but I'm not going to let the fact that every is trying deter me.

I also understand that government positions still want people from better schools, but my network is rather strong in this area, to the point that I'm willing to bank on getting something in this area even if there are candidates from better schools. I'm not trying to sounds pretentious, the reality is just that one of these jobs will likely be available for me when I graduate, and I may not encounter the employment issues that most widener or touro grads might be expected to experience.

the answer comes down to: do you want to lose an arm or a leg?

bleanza wrote:...not willing to bank on getting something in this area even if there are candidates from better schools....the reality is just that one of these jobs will not likely be available for me when I graduate, and I may notencounter the employment issues that most widener or touro grads might be expected to experience.

ftfy.

bleanza wrote:Yes, I understand that everyone tries to do as well as possible at law school.. I just think I can achieve it at these two schools that I know I could have surpassed had a couple of things had been different. I'm not saying its a guarantee, far from it, but I'm not going to let the fact that every is trying deter me.

We're trying to deter you because there is a 90% rate of catastrophic failure for you.

I also understand that government positions still want people from better schools, but my network is rather strong in this area, to the point that I'm willing to bank on getting something in this area even if there are candidates from better schools. I'm not trying to sounds pretentious, the reality is just that one of these jobs will likely be available for me when I graduate, and I may not encounter the employment issues that most widener or touro grads might be expected to experience.[/quote]

Is the job 100% guaranteed? If not, Don't.

bleanza wrote:Yes, I understand that everyone tries to do as well as possible at law school.. I just think I can achieve it at these two schools that I know I could have surpassed had a couple of things had been different. I'm not saying its a guarantee, far from it, but I'm not going to let the fact that every is trying deter me.

I also understand that government positions still want people from better schools, but my network is rather strong in this area, to the point that I'm willing to bank on getting something in this area even if there are candidates from better schools. I'm not trying to sounds pretentious, the reality is just that one of these jobs will likely be available for me when I graduate, and I may not encounter the employment issues that most widener or touro grads might be expected to experience.

this post makes it official: flame.

i think that might be the first time i've ever leveled that charge. but there it is: flame flame flame flame flame.

Nothing in life is guaranteed. You cannot bank on something other people will do for you. YOU have to put YOURself in the best position possible to achieve your goals.

Honestly, if it was me I would choose my school as if I didnt know any lawyers at all and every opportunity I wanted would be a result of my efforts.

Summary: Good luck living below the poverty line.

Merichard, you're right. I know everything I'm proposing is somewhat dangerous. I'm just trying to looks down every possible path and find the best way to improve a bad situation.

bleanza wrote:Merichard, you're right. I know everything I'm proposing is somewhat dangerous. I'm just trying to looks down every possible path and find the best way to improve a bad situation.

Only somewhat?

L O L

Overwhelming consensus on TLS and pretty much anyone else is that LSAT is a teachable skill- in other words it takes hard work.

You weren't and still aren't willing to put in the hard work required for a good lsat score, but you will be able to put in the hard work required to excel at law school?

Am I missing something?


I'd reexamine your work ethic if you think you can't get above (im guessing) 150 on the lsat. You are giving up after getting a crappy score? Just work harder. And if you started with a diagnostic of 135 and this is the fruit of your labors.... well... law school might not be for you.

And don't give me any of that timed bullshit. I'm adhd, i got accomadations in college that gave me extra time on tests. I was fine on the lsat though. If you take 30 timed practice tests, you get a pretty good idea of the pace required. Oh, I'm also learning disabled- aka my brain processes things slower than other people. I over came this on the lsat though. Guess how? Hint: it wasn't crappy excuses. It was hard work.

Do Some.

You have already maxed out your ability to increase your LSAT speed?

bleanza wrote:I understand that neither of these schools is an ideal choice for me, and that retaking and reapplying might be the best option for most. However, this is how I look at it. My main issue on the LSAT was timing, therefore unless I take the gamble of applying for extended time, I don't see my score improving drastically beyond a few points. I come from a competitive undergrad institution with a very large workload, and I'm confident that if I put my mind to it I can achieve a spot in the top of my class at these schools. This is why I feel that getting into the game and trying to climb the ladder by showing what I can do, rather than trying to improve my scores might be the better option in the end, and it wouldn't leave me another year behind.

Another thing to consider is that at this point I intend to work in a prosecutors office or for a judge right out of school rather than trying to find a big firm position. Perhaps this slightly negates the issue with job prospects?

1. If you put your mind to the LSAT you can improve
2. Law school exams are TIMED! So if your LSAT is any indication of how you do under timed exams; you are going to fall into the TTT trap.

HTH

fnm wrote:What's up with all the 'shit vs shit' threads as of late?

They are infintely more interesting than the elitist "Harvard or Standford? I hate my life!" posts.