Top Law Schools

Hey guys,

So I got into Santa Clara with $9,500/year (top 25%), U San Diego with $15,000/year, Loyola, and Pepperdine (and waitlisted at Cardozo). I have a Biochemistry-Molecular Biology background and want to practice biotech IP law. I'm thinking Santa Clara? I don't care where I work. I like all of the locations. What do you think?

All of these schools have sticker prices of around 40k/year in tuition alone. Add on cost of living and other fees/expenses and you're looking at 200k+ in debt by the time you graduate. Even the scholarships aren't really going to save you considering at SCU you have a 75% chance of losing your scholarship. Not to mention that employment at these schools looks atrocious. Check out lawschooltransparency, only 25% of SCU grads actually found full time work as lawyers within 9 months of graduation.

Your best course of action is likely to be retaking/reapplying so you can get into a decent school or get a full tuition scholarship without such stringent stipulations. Failing that I guess SCU with the caveat that if you don't make top 25% you drop out after 1L.

Agreed with bk. You are looking at 150-200k+ in debt from all of these schools, and a "good" employment outcome from any of them is a 40-60k job. That is a poor investment by any standard.

I understand, but aren't my chances of getting a job much higher if I have a technical degree and plan to go into IP law?

Also the only money I need to borrow is tuition and books. I have enough money to pay for everything else. So I would only be ~$90k in debt at SCU.

bmouler wrote:I understand, but aren't my chances of getting a job much higher if I have a technical degree and plan to go into IP law?

No, getting IP law out of any of these schools is extremely difficult. Santa Clara in particular is a mess.

bmouler wrote:I understand, but aren't my chances of getting a job much higher if I have a technical degree and plan to go into IP law?

They are higher, but it's no guarantee. Even so, if you could get into a better school then you would be better off. Tech degree+Hastings is better than tech degree+SCU.

While a tech degree will help you since it opens up IP, there are plenty of people with tech degrees going to much better schools (e.g. GW) that struggle. If schools far superior to SCU have it rough, it makes sense that SCU will be rough as well. Would you be better off than an SCU kid without a tech degree? Of course, but it's not high enough to make it worth a 200k+ gamble.

I wouldn't go to law school in CA unless it was at least Loyola or Pepperdine with a large scholarship and favorable stips. The schools you listed probably aren't worth it at those prices barring some special circumstances. Santa Clara would probably make the most sense for you given your background. However, they're super stingy with scholly money and their stips are brutal.

bk187 wrote:Check out lawschooltransparency, only 25% of SCU grads actually found full time work as lawyers within 9 months of graduation.

lol...what? i dont know what stats u were looking at....

kokorozukai wrote:

bk187 wrote:Check out lawschooltransparency, only 25% of SCU grads actually found full time work as lawyers within 9 months of graduation.

lol...what? i dont know what stats u were looking at....

Sure looks like it says 23.3% full time, bar required to me.

lol. Your language was—maybe unintentionally—deceptive. With 30% unknown, it’s a bit of stretch to make the claim that only 25% of the class has full-time jobs as lawyers.

kokorozukai wrote:lol. Your language was—maybe unintentionally—deceptive. With 30% unknown, it’s a bit of stretch to make the claim that only 25% of the class has full-time jobs as lawyers.

Why do those people respond to the employment survey yet choose not to list whether they are full time or part time? It's a pretty logical assumption to make that the vast majority don't want to disclose it because they are part time. This is reinforced by the fact that USF has similar percentages and that UCD/UCH place a larger chunk of their class into part time jobs than T1's in other markets. Especially when the response rate for FT/PT at places that don't have a ton of PT jobs is almost 100%.

TL;DR: It's not a stretch at all.

bk187 wrote:

kokorozukai wrote:lol. Your language was—maybe unintentionally—deceptive. With 30% unknown, it’s a bit of stretch to make the claim that only 25% of the class has full-time jobs as lawyers.

Why do those people respond to the employment survey yet choose not to list whether they are full time or part time? It's a pretty logical assumption to make that the vast majority don't want to disclose it because they are part time. This is reinforced by the fact that USF has similar percentages and that UCD/UCH place a larger chunk of their class into part time jobs than T1's in other markets. Especially when the response rate for FT/PT at places that don't have a ton of PT jobs is almost 100%.

TL;DR: It's not a stretch at all.

Fair enough, but IMO, the data just simply doesn't support a definitive claim like that

kokorozukai wrote:Fair enough, but IMO, the data just simply doesn't support a definitive claim like that

The data for all schools at least in some areas (whether it be salary, employment type, etc) is based on very limited info. The only info we have for SCU is that it placed 25% of its class into full time lawyer jobs. We don't have info that says it is any better than that so I can definitively say that until there is any more information, SCU full time lawyer jobs is 25%.

It would be foolish to assume those 30% not responding are anything but part time. Furthermore it's not a random 1 year thing. Their 2010 data is even worse (http://law.scu.edu/careers/employment-data-2010.cfm). In 2010 only 20% of their class actually reported whether their positions were FT/PT or perm/temp. Assuming that all those who reported FT/PT and perm/temp required a JD and that all the FT positions overlapped with perm positions (which is a generous assumption), only about 1/6 of their grads are in perm, full time, lawyer jobs.

bk187 wrote: The only info we have for SCU is that it placed 25% of its class into full time lawyer jobs.

Umm, no, the info we have is that of the ~70% that is known, 25% had full time lawyer jobs. That's very different....lol

bk187 wrote: We don't have info that says it is any better than that so I can definitively say that until there is any more information, SCU full time lawyer jobs is 25%.

...this should be a logical flaw question on the LSAT

Interpreting employment data isn't an LSAT question. It requires assumptions. SCU is clearly a bad bet. If you feel like believing that because some data is nonexistent that SCU is not as bad as it seems then you go right ahead deluding yourself.

bk187 wrote:Interpreting employment data isn't an LSAT question. It requires assumptions. SCU is clearly a bad bet. If you feel like believing that because some data is nonexistent that SCU is not as bad as it seems then you go right ahead deluding yourself.

Easy, panther. I agree that SCU employment stats are depressing and never wanted to argue or dispute that. You are entitled to your assumptions, and I think they are pretty fair ones. I was referring to your ridiculous conclusion that a lack of better data = definitive conclusion that 23.3% have FT law jobs. I see no need to prolong this discussion. Go ahead and dish out some more assumption-dependent DEFINITIVE stats.

,

rad lulz wrote:

kokorozukai wrote:Easy, panther. I agree that SCU employment stats are depressing and never wanted to argue or dispute that. You are entitled to your assumptions, and I think they are pretty fair ones. I was referring to your ridiculous conclusion that a lack of better data = definitive conclusion that 23.3% have FT law jobs. I see no need to prolong this discussion. Go ahead and dish out some more assumption-dependent DEFINITIVE stats.

lol

...? i'm guessing you have somethn you wanna say...