Top Law Schools

All I want to know is which school is better and why?

Thanks

Both are terrible, I guess I take Gonzaga if I had to choose but I wouldn't go to either of these unless I had AT LEAST a 3/4 scholly.

BarbellDreams wrote:Both are terrible, I guess I take Gonzaga if I had to choose but I wouldn't go to either of these unless I had AT LEAST a 3/4 scholly.

Why are they both terrible? Reasons?

I'd go with Gonzaga but personally would only go if I got a full-ride there.

WA market is rather weak right now, and the OK market is borderline non-existant. The minimum amount of jobs that are left in OK will go to UO students. Basically, going to a school thats in such a weak market is suicide, especially where its not even the best school in the region. Nothing short of a fullride would convince me.

As for Gonzaga, WA is a bit better than OK, but thats not saying much. Outside of Seattle there isn't much, and you'll have both UW and Seattle that are supreme to Gonzaga that you'll have to compete with. Outside of that Seattle is a popular enough city where T14 students will come out and have their choice over you. I wouldn't take Gonzaga with anything less than 3/4 scholly. Coming out with anything more than 40k in debt from Gonzaga is simply not smart.

BarbellDreams wrote:WA market is rather weak right now, and the OK market is borderline non-existant. The minimum amount of jobs that are left in OK will go to UO students. Basically, going to a school thats in such a weak market is suicide, especially where its not even the best school in the region. Nothing short of a fullride would convince me.

As for Gonzaga, WA is a bit better than OK, but thats not saying much. Outside of Seattle there isn't much, and you'll have both UW and Seattle that are supreme to Gonzaga that you'll have to compete with. Outside of that Seattle is a popular enough city where T14 students will come out and have their choice over you. I wouldn't take Gonzaga with anything less than 3/4 scholly. Coming out with anything more than 40k in debt from Gonzaga is simply not smart.

I understand that it is all about managing debt and getting a job but which school will provide a better education? Does that not matter at all?

One of our partners went to Tulsa. I've also run across Tulsa grads in the work we are involved with in the post-conviction realm. Most of the ones were associated with firms either in the D/FW or the Panhandle region (although Tech has quite the stranglehold on the Panhandle and West Texas area).

Much of the answer might rest in what OP seeks to do with the JD and where they intend to practice...

ratpack82 wrote:

BarbellDreams wrote:WA market is rather weak right now, and the OK market is borderline non-existant. The minimum amount of jobs that are left in OK will go to UO students. Basically, going to a school thats in such a weak market is suicide, especially where its not even the best school in the region. Nothing short of a fullride would convince me.

As for Gonzaga, WA is a bit better than OK, but thats not saying much. Outside of Seattle there isn't much, and you'll have both UW and Seattle that are supreme to Gonzaga that you'll have to compete with. Outside of that Seattle is a popular enough city where T14 students will come out and have their choice over you. I wouldn't take Gonzaga with anything less than 3/4 scholly. Coming out with anything more than 40k in debt from Gonzaga is simply not smart.

I understand that it is all about managing debt and getting a job but which school will provide a better education? Does that not matter at all?

Oklahoma has a horrible legal market, of which OU grads get the lion's share. If you can't get into OU, or just don't want to go there, go to Gonzaga.

ratpack82 wrote:
I understand that it is all about managing debt and getting a job but which school will provide a better education? Does that not matter at all?

much depends on how you define 'better education.' Valid arguments exist for the premise that what is put forth in the classroom would not vary significantly from a T14 to a TTTT. The question becomes one of how the individual student processes that information...and the student that is capable of self-betterment can also overcome shortcomings that might exist in the classroom setting...

"Quality of education" won't save you from 150k of debt.

If it was one or the other with NO other options (such as retaking, the smart option here) I would go to Gonzaga. With that said I have to STRESS that in reality I would never attend either without a very very significant scholarship.

too old for this sh* wrote:

ratpack82 wrote:
I understand that it is all about managing debt and getting a job but which school will provide a better education? Does that not matter at all?

much depends on how you define 'better education.' Valid arguments exist for the premise that what is put forth in the classroom would not vary significantly from a T14 to a TTTT. The question becomes one of how the individual student processes that information...and the student that is capable of self-betterment can also overcome shortcomings that might exist in the classroom setting...

So in reality then all law schools have an education quality that are very similar. It's how the person applies the law after graduation that makes the difference. I have to say its sad when we live in a society where prestige is more than ability.

ratpack82 wrote:

too old for this sh* wrote:

ratpack82 wrote:
I understand that it is all about managing debt and getting a job but which school will provide a better education? Does that not matter at all?

much depends on how you define 'better education.' Valid arguments exist for the premise that what is put forth in the classroom would not vary significantly from a T14 to a TTTT. The question becomes one of how the individual student processes that information...and the student that is capable of self-betterment can also overcome shortcomings that might exist in the classroom setting...

So in reality then all law schools have an education quality that are very similar. It's how the person applies the law after graduation that makes the difference. I have to say its sad when we live in a society where prestige is more than ability.

Ability matters...you need ability to get into good schools....

ratpack82 wrote:

too old for this sh* wrote:

ratpack82 wrote:
I understand that it is all about managing debt and getting a job but which school will provide a better education? Does that not matter at all?

much depends on how you define 'better education.' Valid arguments exist for the premise that what is put forth in the classroom would not vary significantly from a T14 to a TTTT. The question becomes one of how the individual student processes that information...and the student that is capable of self-betterment can also overcome shortcomings that might exist in the classroom setting...

So in reality then all law schools have an education quality that are very similar. It's how the person applies the law after graduation that makes the difference. I have to say its sad when we live in a society where prestige is more than ability.

What I'm getting from this post is that applying the law is an exercise in prestige, not an exercise in ability?

Also, what poster above said. I hate when people whine about elitism. Its not like people are born into harvard law (at least for 99% of Harvard kids). They work thier asses off to get there. Whats unfair about that?

Nicholasnickynic wrote:

ratpack82 wrote:

too old for this sh* wrote:

ratpack82 wrote:
I understand that it is all about managing debt and getting a job but which school will provide a better education? Does that not matter at all?

much depends on how you define 'better education.' Valid arguments exist for the premise that what is put forth in the classroom would not vary significantly from a T14 to a TTTT. The question becomes one of how the individual student processes that information...and the student that is capable of self-betterment can also overcome shortcomings that might exist in the classroom setting...

So in reality then all law schools have an education quality that are very similar. It's how the person applies the law after graduation that makes the difference. I have to say its sad when we live in a society where prestige is more than ability.

What I'm getting from this post is that applying the law is an exercise in prestige, not an exercise in ability?

Also, what poster above said. I hate when people whine about elitism. Its not like people are born into harvard law (at least for 99% of Harvard kids). They work thier asses off to get there. Whats unfair about that?

I was not complaining about elitism. There is no doubt that people work their asses off to get into great law schools. So here is a question which person has a better chance of getting a good job 1) a person at the bottom 10% of their class at a T14 or 2) Top 20% at a TTT?

Nicholasnickynic wrote:

ratpack82 wrote:

too old for this sh* wrote:
much depends on how you define 'better education.' Valid arguments exist for the premise that what is put forth in the classroom would not vary significantly from a T14 to a TTTT. The question becomes one of how the individual student processes that information...and the student that is capable of self-betterment can also overcome shortcomings that might exist in the classroom setting...

So in reality then all law schools have an education quality that are very similar. It's how the person applies the law after graduation that makes the difference. I have to say its sad when we live in a society where prestige is more than ability.

What I'm getting from this post is that applying the law is an exercise in prestige, not an exercise in ability?

Also, what poster above said. I hate when people whine about elitism. Its not like people are born into harvard law (at least for 99% of Harvard kids). They work thier asses off to get there. Whats unfair about that?

My fundamental complaint with the elitism espoused in some corners that it is T14 or bust. Reality says otherwise. Further, there are many who would do well at a T14 but perhaps had a bad semester in college before MOST of the posters on this board were even born, yet because schools perpetuate the problem of being more focused on GPA and LSAT above all else, it rules out people who have demonstrate the ability in the real world of law practice.

Numbers driven admission processes do not ensure the admission of applicants who will ultimately be the best attorneys. Pedeigree does not ensure competence to practice...

There are many 20-somethings that will be in for a rude awakening when they finally enter the real world.

You said that very well. That was the point I was trying to make. Some people did not decide to go to law school until 3rd or 4th year and are penalized for their horrible freshman year. Not everyone made the decision right out of high school that their next four years would be dedicated to getting into a T14 law school. My personal opinion is that law schools say they take life experiences into account but that is simply not true. I am not complaining, I am just stating a fact.

1. I go to a t40 program. I'm very happy with where I am. I never said t14 or bust. Id rather go where I am than a t14 at sticker (and i've only got 1/2). There are plenty of fullfilling options outside the t14. HOWEVER, that does not means that every option outside the t14 is good.

2. A top 10% at ttt > bottom 10% at t14. Thats probably true. Although should it be> Look who each person had to compete with?

3. I don't think a single person has come in here and said t-14 or bust. The posters came in here and told you what was wrong with your plan. They gave you realistic reasons- job market in your particular area, and school prestige (which EMPLOYERS care A LOT about).

BarbellDreams wrote:WA market is rather weak right now, and the OK market is borderline non-existant. The minimum amount of jobs that are left in OK will go to UO students. Basically, going to a school thats in such a weak market is suicide, especially where its not even the best school in the region. Nothing short of a fullride would convince me.

As for Gonzaga, WA is a bit better than OK, but thats not saying much. Outside of Seattle there isn't much, and you'll have both UW and Seattle that are supreme to Gonzaga that you'll have to compete with. Outside of that Seattle is a popular enough city where T14 students will come out and have their choice over you. I wouldn't take Gonzaga with anything less than 3/4 scholly. Coming out with anything more than 40k in debt from Gonzaga is simply not smart.

This might seem like T-14 or bust language, but its not. Pick a market where t-14 students won't go. problem solved.

ratpack82 wrote:You said that very well. That was the point I was trying to make. Some people did not decide to go to law school until 3rd or 4th year and are penalized for their horrible freshman year. Not everyone made the decision right out of high school that their next four years would be dedicated to getting into a T14 law school. My personal opinion is that law schools say they take life experiences into account but that is simply not true. I am not complaining, I am just stating a fact.

NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT IT BEING MANDATORY TO GET INTO A t14. NO ONE HAS SAID ANYTHING ABOUT T14 BEING NECESSARY IN THIS THREAD. I screwed up the first two years, and I went to a crappy college. So I worked my ass off the second two years, and studied for 40 hours/week for three months for the lsat. I ended up at top 40 program.

You guys are making this out to be a lot worse than it is.

too old for this sh* wrote:

Nicholasnickynic wrote:

ratpack82 wrote:

too old for this sh* wrote:
much depends on how you define 'better education.' Valid arguments exist for the premise that what is put forth in the classroom would not vary significantly from a T14 to a TTTT. The question becomes one of how the individual student processes that information...and the student that is capable of self-betterment can also overcome shortcomings that might exist in the classroom setting...

So in reality then all law schools have an education quality that are very similar. It's how the person applies the law after graduation that makes the difference. I have to say its sad when we live in a society where prestige is more than ability.

What I'm getting from this post is that applying the law is an exercise in prestige, not an exercise in ability?

Also, what poster above said. I hate when people whine about elitism. Its not like people are born into harvard law (at least for 99% of Harvard kids). They work thier asses off to get there. Whats unfair about that?

My fundamental complaint with the elitism espoused in some corners that it is T14 or bust. Reality says otherwise. Further, there are many who would do well at a T14 but perhaps had a bad semester in college before MOST of the posters on this board were even born, yet because schools perpetuate the problem of being more focused on GPA and LSAT above all else, it rules out people who have demonstrate the ability in the real world of law practice.

Numbers driven admission processes do not ensure the admission of applicants who will ultimately be the best attorneys. Pedeigree does not ensure competence to practice...

There are many 20-somethings that will be in for a rude awakening when they finally enter the real world.

You are right, pedigree does not ensure competence to practice. However it gives you a chance. Bad/non-existant pedigree ensures you will never even have a chance to work at a good law firm.

Unless you are planning to go solo. In which case, good luck. But theres no such thing as working your way through the firm world. If you don't get a big law job out of law school, which requires a prestgeios school, u never will get a job there.

retake

Nicholasnickynic wrote: You are right, pedigree does not ensure competence to practice. However it gives you a chance. Bad/non-existant pedigree ensures you will never even have a chance to work at a good law firm.

Unless you are planning to go solo. In which case, good luck. But theres no such thing as working your way through the firm world. If you don't get a big law job out of law school, which requires a prestgeios school, u never will get a job there.

Not everyone has ANY desire to go BigLaw or to ANY firm with more than a few attorneys. As to solo, I could probably do that from the get go based on the reputation I already possess...one of the perks that comes with real world experience that includes work as a consultant, expert witness and oh yeah, the occasional request to conduct sessions at CLE events. But interestingly enough, that real world experience gets overlooked by schools because of their tunnel-vision focus on numbers.

As I have noted on more than one occasion during my time on the boards, at least in the area of post-conviction work, prospective clients rarely care (much less ask) about pedigree. They want results. They want someone competent. They tend NOT to want pretentious.

BarbellDreams wrote:WA market is rather weak right now, and the OK market is borderline non-existant. The minimum amount of jobs that are left in OK will go to UO students. Basically, going to a school thats in such a weak market is suicide, especially where its not even the best school in the region. Nothing short of a fullride would convince me.

As for Gonzaga, WA is a bit better than OK, but thats not saying much. Outside of Seattle there isn't much, and you'll have both UW and Seattle that are supreme to Gonzaga that you'll have to compete with. Outside of that Seattle is a popular enough city where T14 students will come out and have their choice over you. I wouldn't take Gonzaga with anything less than 3/4 scholly. Coming out with anything more than 40k in debt from Gonzaga is simply not smart.

Tulsa native here. I think the University of Tulsa is actually quite respected in Tulsa (easily the best city in the state). If you have connections AND can get great scholarship, Tulsa is a good choice for one who wants to stay in Tulsa. OU (not UO) is still the best school in the state, but I feel that it is more orientated towards the OKC/west OK/Dallas region. However, just talk to the posters in the OU thread, they know what they're talking about more so than me.

There is no t14 or bust. Its more like "School I can reasonably get a job from or bust". There are plenty of T3 and T4 schools that I would take over Tulsa by sheer employment statistics alone as long as you're fine with saying in the region (Dusquene, Cleveland State, Michigan State, etc.)

Gonzaga is best (of the two options) if you want to practice in Spokane. Tulsa is best (of the two options) if you want to practice in Tulsa. It's really that simple.