Temple Law or Villanova Law Forum

[03121202698008]

I remember reading somewhere that Temple places in Philly second only to Penn. Villanova also played shenanigans with their LSAT data and may drop significantly next year.

[beach_terror]

Temple's campus is the second safest police district in Philadelphia. Safer than Center city. I've heard some horror stories about villanova.

You completely missed my point. I repeatedly said that while Temple's campus is fine, I could understand why people aren't thrilled with its location (and the horror stories I was referring to had to do with the subway, not the campus. What horror stories could you possibly have heard about Villanova?)

The only possible horror stories about the Villanova campus is that ... right, got nothing.

[beach_terror]

I remember reading somewhere that Temple places in Philly second only to Penn. Villanova also played shenanigans with their LSAT data and may drop significantly next year.

Our current rank is accurate as it's based on accurately reported medians. Temple has more alumni in the city because it graduates a much larger class, and Villanova traditionally has better mobility post-grad (at least according to some chart I found around this time last year).

The differences are negligible, for the love of god. One small advantage here or there is negated by an advantage at the other school.

[PennStateBoy]

Wow this thread blew up pretty quickly. Thanks for the advice, even though it has kind of strayed a bit off topic. Oh and just to clarify to the douce with the 170 and a 2.7, the average LSAT scores between the two schools are three points apart (T:163, V:160). You act like any school that is not T14 is mediocre, but that is far from true. Temple and Villanova place better then many T1 schools in top positions and getting in a T14 school is unrealistic for 98% of applicants. Also I am sure you would have been top of the class at Temple if you got in with that excellent work ethic that got you a 2.7. Have fun at DREXEL. Also just to get this off my chest I hate the rankings and I think that after the T14 US news should do regional rankings. For instance UT or Minnesota are good schools but they are not going to get you a job easily in Philly.

[Cosmo Kramer]

Current 1L at Temple here, and I'd say it depends whether you want to live in the city or not. I don't know much about Nova, but I will say that employers do say they like Temple grads because they tend to be more level-headed and are better prepared for actual practice (through the integrated programs offered and whatnot).

[Wholigan]

.

[seriously????]

Wow this thread blew up pretty quickly. Thanks for the advice, even though it has kind of strayed a bit off topic. Oh and just to clarify to the douce with the 170 and a 2.7, the average LSAT scores between the two schools are three points apart (T:163, V:160). You act like any school that is not T14 is mediocre, but that is far from true. Temple and Villanova place better then many T1 schools in top positions and getting in a T14 school is unrealistic for 98% of applicants. Also I am sure you would have been top of the class at Temple if you got in with that excellent work ethic that got you a 2.7. Have fun at DREXEL. Also just to get this off my chest I hate the rankings and I think that after the T14 US news should do regional rankings. For instance UT or Minnesota are good schools but they are not going to get you a job easily in Philly.

first off, i apologize for my comment, somewhat funny to those it pissed off, but it was primarily an immature comment to show my contempt towards temple. way to put the drexel jibe in me, not even going to comment, but seriously, best of luck, or have fun paying back instate (which is still a lot) debt.

and I don't think Temples median LSAT is 163, pretty sure lower. And yeah, is the difference between a 160/161 and 170 significantly different, it is. Was it only one test? Yes. Does it imply future LS grades, not too much, but a betting person would bet for me on the statement I made that I could get better grades in LS than most kids who scored a 160 (if all things such as work ethic are equal). I wouldn't take that much offense if a guy who scored a 180 said he would school me, one would just have to wait and see. And I think it applies to most tests. Is a guy with a 1500 SAT smarter than a guy with a 1150? Not necessarily, but in a majority of cases he is. Deal with it.

[Wholigan]

Wow this thread blew up pretty quickly. Thanks for the advice, even though it has kind of strayed a bit off topic. Oh and just to clarify to the douce with the 170 and a 2.7, the average LSAT scores between the two schools are three points apart (T:163, V:160). You act like any school that is not T14 is mediocre, but that is far from true. Temple and Villanova place better then many T1 schools in top positions and getting in a T14 school is unrealistic for 98% of applicants. Also I am sure you would have been top of the class at Temple if you got in with that excellent work ethic that got you a 2.7. Have fun at DREXEL. Also just to get this off my chest I hate the rankings and I think that after the T14 US news should do regional rankings. For instance UT or Minnesota are good schools but they are not going to get you a job easily in Philly.

first off, i apologize for my comment, somewhat funny to those it pissed off, but it was primarily an immature comment to show my contempt towards temple. way to put the drexel jibe in me, not even going to comment, but seriously, best of luck, or have fun paying back instate (which is still a lot) debt.

and I don't think Temples median LSAT is 163, pretty sure lower. And yeah, is the difference between a 160/161 and 170 significantly different, it is. Was it only one test? Yes. Does it imply future LS grades, not too much, but a betting person would bet for me on the statement I made that I could get better grades in LS than most kids who scored a 160 (if all things such as work ethic are equal). I wouldn't take that much offense if a guy who scored a 180 said he would school me, one would just have to wait and see. And I think it applies to most tests. Is a guy with a 1500 SAT smarter than a guy with a 1150? Not necessarily, but in a majority of cases he is. Deal with it.

*facepalm*

If someone scored a 160 or 161 without a significant amount of study and someone else read LSAT books for six months and scored a 170, my money is going on the 160/161 if their GPA is a full point higher.

[seriously????]

Wow this thread blew up pretty quickly. Thanks for the advice, even though it has kind of strayed a bit off topic. Oh and just to clarify to the douce with the 170 and a 2.7, the average LSAT scores between the two schools are three points apart (T:163, V:160). You act like any school that is not T14 is mediocre, but that is far from true. Temple and Villanova place better then many T1 schools in top positions and getting in a T14 school is unrealistic for 98% of applicants. Also I am sure you would have been top of the class at Temple if you got in with that excellent work ethic that got you a 2.7. Have fun at DREXEL. Also just to get this off my chest I hate the rankings and I think that after the T14 US news should do regional rankings. For instance UT or Minnesota are good schools but they are not going to get you a job easily in Philly.

first off, i apologize for my comment, somewhat funny to those it pissed off, but it was primarily an immature comment to show my contempt towards temple. way to put the drexel jibe in me, not even going to comment, but seriously, best of luck, or have fun paying back instate (which is still a lot) debt.

and I don't think Temples median LSAT is 163, pretty sure lower. And yeah, is the difference between a 160/161 and 170 significantly different, it is. Was it only one test? Yes. Does it imply future LS grades, not too much, but a betting person would bet for me on the statement I made that I could get better grades in LS than most kids who scored a 160 (if all things such as work ethic are equal). I wouldn't take that much offense if a guy who scored a 180 said he would school me, one would just have to wait and see. And I think it applies to most tests. Is a guy with a 1500 SAT smarter than a guy with a 1150? Not necessarily, but in a majority of cases he is. Deal with it.

*facepalm*

If someone scored a 160 or 161 without a significant amount of study and someone else read LSAT books for six months and scored a 170, my money is going on the 160/161 if their GPA is a full point higher.

this is my last comment. first, UG is a complete joke 90% of the time. So I only have real academic respect for the 10% of people who took tough majors, and the others who had a GPA of a 3.7+ in easier majors.
and yes, that prediction is rational. However, I just told you my rationale was based on a majority of cases. Are you assuming that the reason kids who got 160 only got it because they didn't study? For those who didn't study, that is somewhat stupid, because it is the most important factor getting into school. That is also a sign that the kid who got a 160 does not know what is important, so will probably spend his LS time asking silly questions in class instead of learning what will be on the exam.
Further, I assume that most of the kids who got 160 studied the same amount of time as the kids who got 170. If each group were to be broken down, each group would have kids who didn't study, kids who studied over a year and retook three times, and kids who moderately studied. Again, it is only one test, and I do believe work ethic has a lot to do with good results, but if work ethic is equal, I'd pick the kid with a 170 over the kid with a 160. Its not a sure thing, but if this bet were to take place 100 times, the one who constantly bet on the kid with 170 would be winning. Anything can happen though, the giants did beat the phils.

[HeavenWood]

I've given up on this thread.

But just for the record, Temple's median LSAT is a 163. Don't believe me? Check their website? Don't believe them? God help you.

[seriously????]

I've given up on this thread.

But just for the record, Temple's median LSAT is a 163. Don't believe me? Check their website? Don't believe them? God help you.

damn dude, their website quotes:In 2010, the median LSAT score for admitted students was a 163.

keyword, admitted. Which means they count lsats from people like yourself actually, who was accepted but got into a better school. There are a lot more students with LSATs of 163 and above who applied, got accepted and went elsewhere, because either the school was better, or temple could not match a scholarship offer. There are a lot fewer people who got under a 163 lsat who did not get into better schools, nor have better scholarship offers.
Thus, its not a 163.

[HeavenWood]

I've given up on this thread.

But just for the record, Temple's median LSAT is a 163. Don't believe me? Check their website? Don't believe them? God help you.

damn dude, their website quotes:In 2010, the median LSAT score for admitted students was a 163.

keyword, admitted. Which means they count lsats from people like yourself actually, who was accepted but got into a better school. There are a lot more students with LSATs of 163 and above who applied, got accepted and went elsewhere, because either the school was better, or temple could not match a scholarship offer. There are a lot fewer people who got under a 163 lsat who did not get into better schools, nor have better scholarship offers.
Thus, its not a 163.

The middle fifty percent of the entering class presented LSAT scores ranging from 161-165.

Given that statement (which appears right afterwards), I'm fairly sure they were referring to the entering class, tried to get cute with their language and ended up with ambiguous phrasing.

And I was never accepted to Temple (I withdrew my application before they handed out decisions).

[seriously????]

I've given up on this thread.

But just for the record, Temple's median LSAT is a 163. Don't believe me? Check their website? Don't believe them? God help you.

damn dude, their website quotes:In 2010, the median LSAT score for admitted students was a 163.

keyword, admitted. Which means they count lsats from people like yourself actually, who was accepted but got into a better school. There are a lot more students with LSATs of 163 and above who applied, got accepted and went elsewhere, because either the school was better, or temple could not match a scholarship offer. There are a lot fewer people who got under a 163 lsat who did not get into better schools, nor have better scholarship offers.
Thus, its not a 163.

The middle fifty percent of the entering class presented LSAT scores ranging from 161-165.

Given that statement (which appears right afterwards), I'm fairly sure they were referring to the entering class, tried to get cute with their language and ended up with ambiguous phrasing.

And I was never accepted to Temple (I withdrew my application before they handed out decisions).

They weren't being cute, they were being misleading. Trust me, any chance a LS gets an opportunity to phrase a sentence to favor them, they do it. Which is why they only showed the median lsat for admitted students (but, technically it is the proper term to use, for the question it was answering was "what lsat score do I need to be admitted", so they gave the one for admitted students, not the entering class). O, and there certainly is reason to disbelieve supposed facts from these websites. A year ago, would you have said believe everything Villanova tells you, or god help you?

[HeavenWood]

They weren't being cute, they were being misleading. Trust me, any chance a LS gets an opportunity to phrase a sentence to favor them, they do it. Which is why they only showed the median lsat for admitted students (but, technically it is the proper term to use, for the question it was answering was "what lsat score do I need to be admitted", so they gave the one for admitted students, not the entering class). O, and there certainly is reason to disbelieve supposed facts from these websites. A year ago, would you have said believe everything Villanova tells you, or god help you?

E-mail Temple and ask them point blank. If they confirm your suspicions or refuse to answer, I'll admit I'm wrong. Deal?

[beach_terror]

Who the fuck cares about LSAT scores, it has no bearing on your success as a 1L. Zero, zilch, none, not-a-fucking-bit. Why is this even being discussed? 163, 170, 155, it doesn't matter.

[HeavenWood]

Who the fuck cares about LSAT scores, it has no bearing on your success as a 1L. Zero, zilch, none, not-a-fucking-bit. Why is this even being discussed? 163, 170, 155, it doesn't matter.

I don't disagree with you, but I like knowing I have my facts straight.

[BarbellDreams]

Who the fuck cares about LSAT scores, it has no bearing on your success as a 1L. Zero, zilch, none, not-a-fucking-bit. Why is this even being discussed? 163, 170, 155, it doesn't matter.

While I generally agree with you, apparently stats say different. Check out the thread discussing this in the FAQs forum. DF strongly believes they are an indicator of success.

[NothingRlyMattress]

They weren't being cute, they were being misleading. Trust me, any chance a LS gets an opportunity to phrase a sentence to favor them, they do it. Which is why they only showed the median lsat for admitted students (but, technically it is the proper term to use, for the question it was answering was "what lsat score do I need to be admitted", so they gave the one for admitted students, not the entering class). O, and there certainly is reason to disbelieve supposed facts from these websites. A year ago, would you have said believe everything Villanova tells you, or god help you?

E-mail Temple and ask them point blank. If they confirm your suspicions or refuse to answer, I'll admit I'm wrong. Deal?

Yap. The actual median LSAT of entering class is 161.

"Median LSAT: 161
Median GPA: 3.44"
Source: Temple Esq. Fall 2010 Law School and Alumni News

[beach_terror]

Who the fuck cares about LSAT scores, it has no bearing on your success as a 1L. Zero, zilch, none, not-a-fucking-bit. Why is this even being discussed? 163, 170, 155, it doesn't matter.

While I generally agree with you, apparently stats say different. Check out the thread discussing this in the FAQs forum. DF strongly believes they are an indicator of success.

Point me to it and I'll read it. I'll agree it predicts long term success because better LSATs get into better schools which place into jobs better. However, within law school I don't believe that there's any connection between the two. If there was, I should be bottom 10%, below median, etc. Somewhere not towards the top of my class.

[BarbellDreams]

Who the fuck cares about LSAT scores, it has no bearing on your success as a 1L. Zero, zilch, none, not-a-fucking-bit. Why is this even being discussed? 163, 170, 155, it doesn't matter.

While I generally agree with you, apparently stats say different. Check out the thread discussing this in the FAQs forum. DF strongly believes they are an indicator of success.

Point me to it and I'll read it. I'll agree it predicts long term success because better LSATs get into better schools which place into jobs better. However, within law school I don't believe that there's any connection between the two. If there was, I should be bottom 10%, below median, etc. Somewhere not towards the top of my class.

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 5&t=151534

I'd like to point out that, I personally dont believe in LSAT score being representative of performance, but thats mostly because of my own personal experience. With that said apparently the stats say different.

[beach_terror]

Eh, I didn't see much data there. Sure, there's some correlation but that doesn't mean the higher LSAT caused the high LS GPA. There are so many other factors at play during 1L that any marginal "correlation" between LSAT and finals is overshadowed. Burn out, type of test, type of professor, subjectivity in grading, practice exams, performance of peers, etc. I could probably go on for days. I don't buy into all of that statistics shit, law school doesn't exist in a vacuum.

[reverendt]

And yeah, I am pretty confident that I could dust most of the class with a 161 lsat.

Hahaha!!!
10 bucks says this joker flunks out after the first semester!

[Lawlskool]

First of all, to the kid that said LSAT = success in LS, and you could "dust" the kids at either school ... /facepalm. The fact that you are going to any length to actually defend that totally off base statement is laughable and just shows that, as a 0L, you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. For the sake of argument though, I'd say your U GPA, as a 4/5 year body of work, is more indicative of how you will do in LS as a 3 year body of work. Judging by your GPA, you're shit out of luck . Either way, you're wrong.

Back to topic, the difference in placement in Philly between Nova/Temple really is negligible. For every partner that says "we really like Temple students because of X" you will find just as many who say "we really like Nova students because of Y." If you are a resident, it should come down to cost. If the two are comparable after scholarships in cost, or the difference is of no concern to you, visit both schools. The facilities/environment are the only other real differences IMO.

Personally, I chose Nova because I liked the facilities and the surrounding area much better, and, not being from the East Coast, perceived Nova as being a 'bigger name' school/traveling better to other parts of the country. That may not necessarily be true (and I'm sure many won't agree), but that is the general perception where I am from, at least in my personal experience. However if you plan on staying in Philly that will obviously be of no concern to you. It is true the Mainline is...weak, to say the least, in terms of nightlife, but in retrospect that might not have been a bad thing as it may be more conducive to studying. Keep in mind Center City is a short train ride away, and Manayunk is $20-30 cab.

edit: 1 major plus to Mainline 'nightlife' is the abundance of smokin' hot, rich cougars everywhere. I don't know if you're in to that kind of thing...but I ain't complainin'.

[geekrocker37]

honestly, it comes down to where you feel the best.

'Nova 1L here, and we have the same footing as Temple. All that posturing of Temple>Nova or Nova<Temple is just that, posturing.

Go to where you feel most comfortable, and where you will work the best. For me, I knew living in the city would provide too many distractions, and thus I live in the suburbs. Boring? yes. Great for my particular work needs? Yes

Truthfully, both are regional schools for the Philly market. As long as you want to work in Philly, these schools are basically even.

[seriously????]

another point that proves my comment. you guys that are trying to diss me are doing a horrible job at it. my arguments are clear and make sense, and yours are just "that's stupid". If I posed the same comment in a T14 thread, they would make me look silly, you guys are actually proving my point.