Loyola vs WUSTL Forum

[bk1]

Whether it is a questionable proposition depends on (1) what your other options are , and (2) your level of confidence.

I transferred to Loyola, made law review, and published an article in the area I hope to practice. I am happy to pay full boat to go to Loyola.

I agree with you that other options need to be considered but "level of confidence" is meaningless. You are competing against equally competent people working equally hard. Maybe a section of the class at the bottom is actually just stupid or lazy, but the majority of students will be as smart/hardworking if not more so than any given matriculant.

As for other options, from a financial perspective I think that there are much better options than 3 years and $200,000 at a bad law school for the average college graduate. It may not be exactly what they want or hope for, but I highly doubt law and law school are either.

[adt231]

don't let these extremely pessimistic people make you move your life to a corn field.
TLS = Talk lots of shit

Oh, I thought it meant "Talk lots of sense"

[gbpackerbacker]

Employment stats do not lie, sorry.

Yes, we all know that law schools only report accurate data.

If that data is fudged to make it look better, then prospective Loyola students should be terrified

[predent/prelaw]

nobody has shit on Loyola

[crit_racer]

nobody has shit on Loyola

/thread

[Danteshek]

Whether it is a questionable proposition depends on (1) what your other options are , and (2) your level of confidence.

I transferred to Loyola, made law review, and published an article in the area I hope to practice. I am happy to pay full boat to go to Loyola.

I agree with you that other options need to be considered but "level of confidence" is meaningless . . . 3 years and $200,000 at a bad law school for the average college graduate.

Agree that new college grads should work before law school (ideally for 3-5 years). If a prospective student has this experience, I think the student has reason to be cautiously optimistic. In my experience, the majority of students who do really well are on the older side. Finally, the average LLS graduate does not have 200k in debt. I will have about 120k.

[Attorney]

Never, ever pay sticker for Loyola.

Says a 0L from Sidney, Australia.

The fact that you can't spell Sydney correctly tells me that you attend Loyola?

My "Quantitative Philosophy" major, Canadian citizenship, and random undergrad school in England should have tipped you off that my profile is not quite accurate. Do you believe everything you see on the Interwebs?

As for your bragging that Skadden came to see you at Loyola, have you ever looked at Loyola's placement stats? Loyola-Chicago breaks into the Top 50 big law schools sometimes with a whopping 13% of the class. But Loyola Law School in Los Angeles has never even had 1/10th of its class go into Big Law.

Good luck with Skadden. I hope you're top 5% or you are wasting your time at Loyola.

[Attorney]

the average LLS graduate does not have 200k in debt. I will have about 120k.

It's because most people are not dumb enough to pay sticker for Loyola.

[bk1]

Finally, the average LLS graduate does not have 200k in debt. I will have about 120k.

How much debt the average grad has is irrelevant when considering whether or not one should pay sticker. It doesn't matter if the rest of the class has full rides and you don't because you are paying sticker and they are not.

[Danteshek]

the average LLS graduate does not have 200k in debt. I will have about 120k.

It's because most people are not dumb enough to pay sticker for Loyola.

Well, I am dumb enough to pay sticker, yet, amazingly, I will have about 120k in debt. If you don't have any money to spend on law school, you should probably get a job.

[Attorney]

the average LLS graduate does not have 200k in debt. I will have about 120k.

It's because most people are not dumb enough to pay sticker for Loyola.

Well, I am dumb enough to pay sticker, yet, amazingly, I will have about 120k in debt.

I'm glad your parents could help you out, but how much you will have in debt is a bit irrelevant.

What is relevant to someone considering sticker for Loyola is the annual Cost of Attendance x 3 years, and Loyola costs more like 210k.

Ouch!

[Danteshek]

Never, ever pay sticker for Loyola.

Says a 0L from Sidney, Australia.

The fact that you can't spell Sydney correctly tells me that you attend Loyola?

Touche. I lived in France for six years and Moscow for one. Fluent in both languages. I wonder who, between us, is more provincial.

[Attorney]

Never, ever pay sticker for Loyola.

Says a 0L from Sidney, Australia.

The fact that you can't spell Sydney correctly tells me that you attend Loyola?

Touche. I lived in France for six years and Moscow for one. Fluent in both languages. I wonder who, between us, is more provincial.

This is really quite impressive. (I wasn't implying you were provincial though, so again I question the relevance.)

[Danteshek]

As I said earlier, get a job before going to law school. Save some money. A 24 year old is not mature enough to practice law in the vast majority of cases.

[nelaw2010]

OP:

Your question is Loyola at sticker vs. WUSTL with 70k scholly, correct? Also, you know that you want to live in LA, correct?

1. Have you visited WUSTL? Would you be ok living there? Can you handle the weather for three years?

2. Most attorneys will tell you to go to school where you want to live (not including HYS - or probably any top 10 school). Why do they say this? Because that's where you will build your contacts which will lead to employment. Also, that's where your school has contacts.

3. What type of law do you want to practice? Loyola is awesome for litigation. Loyola is a top choice for me b/c I want to live in LA and be a litigator. I don't want BIG LAW. My goal is to be a PD then set-up my own shop.

Overall, I guess it boils down to this. Is 70k worth: A. Living where you don't want to live, B. Not going to a school in the area you want to practice, C. The LA based networking opportunities you will not have b/c you didn't go to school here, D. The fact that where you want to practice has three law schools with STRONG alum networks which you will NEVER be a part of (UCLA, USC, LOYOLA).

Some will say that for a STRONG school like WUSTL, and 70k in savings, it's worth it to miss out on the things mentioned above.

Have you tried looking at 70k in debt paid out over 30 years? Add that to the remaining debt you will have, then ask if you want to be saddled with that much more debt to stay in Los Angeles.

I don't say this lightly, I'm struggling with this decision myself.

[seriously????]

top 10% at WUSTL pretty much means you can get biglaw at Chi, DC, NYC and if you are from CA, then biglaw in your home market. can you get back to CA outside top 10%, yeah, in fact you won't have many other choices. can you get LA biglaw if in top 30%? it might be possible. All I know is that at least 90% of the WUSTL grads working in CA are from CA to begin with. Also, People make the wrong assumption that ST. Louis and other midwestern markets just open up for you if you are an outsider.
that sucks that Loyola didn't give you money. really am beginning to see a trend that non LSAT hungry schools show no love for splitters at all.
any chance you could get a free ride from Southwestern?
i know, a festering toilet, but no debt.

[crit_racer]

OP:

Your question is Loyola at sticker vs. WUSTL with 70k scholly, correct? Also, you know that you want to live in LA, correct?

1. Have you visited WUSTL? Would you be ok living there? Can you handle the weather for three years?

2. Most attorneys will tell you to go to school where you want to live (not including HYS - or probably any top 10 school). Why do they say this? Because that's where you will build your contacts which will lead to employment. Also, that's where your school has contacts.

3. What type of law do you want to practice? Loyola is awesome for litigation. Loyola is a top choice for me b/c I want to live in LA and be a litigator. I don't want BIG LAW. My goal is to be a PD then set-up my own shop.

Overall, I guess it boils down to this. Is 70k worth: A. Living where you don't want to live, B. Not going to a school in the area you want to practice, C. The LA based networking opportunities you will not have b/c you didn't go to school here, D. The fact that where you want to practice has three law schools with STRONG alum networks which you will NEVER be a part of (UCLA, USC, LOYOLA).

Some will say that for a STRONG school like WUSTL, and 70k in savings, it's worth it to miss out on the things mentioned above.

Have you tried looking at 70k in debt paid out over 30 years? Add that to the remaining debt you will have, then ask if you want to be saddled with that much more debt to stay in Los Angeles.

I don't say this lightly, I'm struggling with this decision myself.

What are you thinking? I see you have GW, UIUC...but I presume you want LA?

So many of us want West coast having to settle for 2nd tier schools or go to good schools in other regions.

[FF55]

So many of us want West coast having to settle for 2nd tier schools or go to good schools in other regions.

Word.

[Danteshek]

So, basically, schools ranked 20-30 (national pretenders) are throwing money at applicants to maintain their position vis-a-vis strong regionals like Loyola. That says a lot about schools like WUSTL.

[Attorney]

So, basically, schools ranked 20-30 (national pretenders) are throwing money at applicants to maintain their position vis-a-vis strong regionals like Loyola. That says a lot about schools like WUSTL.

Yeah, it's Loyola Law School they're worried about. For sure, bro.

In all seriousness, they are gaming the rankings to get ahead of places like Boston College/University, Notre Dame, etc. They would be well ahead of the Loyolas of the world if they never gave another scholarship.

[Danteshek]

WUSTL, not Loyola, thought it was necessary to offer OP a scholarship. Draw your own conclusion.

[Attorney]

WUSTL, not Loyola, thought it was necessary to offer OP a scholarship. Draw your own conclusion.

My conclusion is that WUSTL has billions of dollars and that Loyola has less than 1/10th of WUSTL's $$$$$$$.

[seriously????]

WUSTL, not Loyola, thought it was necessary to offer OP a scholarship. Draw your own conclusion.

for 10-20% of its students, WUSTL is a national school. They give out the scholarships to entice students from outside to go there and give it a shot. and they also like maintaining a high ranking, because students who get accepted without scholarships may still be willing to pay sticker there, because they will pay anything to go to a T20 school.
Loyola and other CA schools prolly are more stingy with scholarships because they know that they will find enough kids who will pay anything to live in CA to fill up their roster.
all in all, both schools are making mad bank.

[bk1]

So, basically, schools ranked 20-30 (national pretenders) are throwing money at applicants to maintain their position vis-a-vis strong regionals like Loyola. That says a lot about schools like WUSTL.

If Loyola is a strong regional then USC/UCLA are what... godlike regionals?

[crit_racer]

So, basically, schools ranked 20-30 (national pretenders) are throwing money at applicants to maintain their position vis-a-vis strong regionals like Loyola. That says a lot about schools like WUSTL.

If Loyola is a strong regional then USC/UCLA are what... godlike regionals?

Seriously...from what I gather from attys practicing in LA (I have talked to many about this), Loyola is a decent, well respected regional.

A strong regional is SMU in Dallas where UT is still dominant but SMU is more or less guaranteed a job. Problem w/ LA is that it has UCLA and USC. If one of those didn't exist, Loyola would be golden.

Anyways, at least LA has jobs. Another school I'm considering b/c it's in a place I want to live is L&C, but that job situation looks bleak bleak bleak to me.