Top Law Schools

Free tuition at a Tier 2 better than a school ranked in the 30s or 40s you'd have to pay close to sticker?

These are my problems

Edit: by Tier 2 I mean a school ranked between 75 and 80

"Tier 2" covers a lot of ground. Is the full-scholly school in question a strong regional player in an area where you'd want to end up living?

Depends on your numbers, which school, where you want to work, where you have ties, and scholarship stipulations whether the T2 is worth it.

But a school in the 30s or 40s is very likely not worth sticker.

I'm a 163/3.1 applicant.

School is St. John's. I really respected their undergrad when I was considering colleges back in High School. I'm from the Midwest, so the prospect of living in Queens, New York is appealing.

The others schools I got into are in the mid-Atlantic, South, and DC area. They are great schools ranked from the 30s to 50. However, I don't think I should be expecting any substantial scholarships from them. So, is St. John's the better play?

nolongermissing wrote:I'm a 163/3.1 applicant.

School is St. John's. I really respected their undergrad when I was considering colleges back in High School. I'm from the Midwest, so the prospect of living in Queens, New York is appealing.

The others schools I go into are in the mid-Atlantic, South, and DC area. They are great schools ranked from the 30s to 50. However, I don't think I should be expecting any substantial scholarships from them. So, is St. John's the better play?

Oof

polkij333 wrote: Oof

What?

After this post, I'll bow out to the more-knowledgable folks, but I can't see any situation where going to a low T2 in the NYC area is a good idea, even on a full ride. There are just too many gradates from higher-ranked schools in the immediate area who will be sucking up all the decent jobs.

Are these your stttips?

St. John's: top 40% to keep full; top 55% to keep 75%; top 65% to keep 55%. Bottom third loses scholly.

If so, dont go unless you have them removed. Theres a 1/3 chance youll be paying sticker for years 2 and 3, and that would REALLY suck.

The only reasonable play here is to retake the LSAT and try for next cycle. Sorry, dude.

On lawschooltranscreancy, 33% of their graduates are reporting with a salary. If I go to school without paying tuition, and can manage to be in the top 33% of my class, shouldn't I be in good shape? At the very least, isn't it a better situation than most people trying to figure their life out right now?

Nova wrote:Are these your stttips?

St. John's: top 40% to keep full; top 55% to keep 75%; top 65% to keep 55%. Bottom third loses scholly.

If so, dont go unless you have them removed. Theres a 1/3 chance youll be paying sticker for years 2 and 3, and that would REALLY suck.

Yeah, but I am confident that I can satisfy the stipulations

The only reasonable play here is to retake the LSAT and try for next cycle. Sorry, dude.

SOME argument could possibly be made for St. John's IF and only if you can get the scholarship stipulations removed entirely (or reduced to "good academic standing"), but I still wouldn't do it.

St. John's gives you less than a 50% chance of getting a long-term legal job, and about a 16% chance of making enough money to live somewhat comfortably in New York (let alone pay off your cost-of-attendance loans).

nolongermissing wrote:

Nova wrote:Are these your stttips?

St. John's: top 40% to keep full; top 55% to keep 75%; top 65% to keep 55%. Bottom third loses scholly.

If so, dont go unless you have them removed. Theres a 1/3 chance youll be paying sticker for years 2 and 3, and that would REALLY suck.

Yeah, but I am confident that I can satisfy the stipulations

So is everyone else. The math says some of you are wrong.

nolongermissing wrote:Yeah, but I am confident that I can satisfy the stipulations

so is everyone else

nolongermissing wrote:On lawschooltranscreancy, 33% of their graduates are reporting with a salary. If I go to school without paying tuition, and can manage to be in the top 33% of my class, shouldn't I be in good shape? At the very least, isn't it a better situation than most people trying to figure their life out right now?

Don't assume you'll be in the top 33% of your class. Assume that you'll be right in the middle, which is a very scary place to be at St. John's, and that's after you've given up three years of your life, plus the expenses that your scholarship doesn't cover. And you've made yourself less marketable to employers in other fields if you have to find a job outside of practicing law (which is pretty common from St. John's).

Hijacking this thread.

With a decent scholarship to Rutgers, would you guys look at it the same way you are looking at St. Johns?

Their is definitely an argument to be made about Rutgers regional NJ pull and coming out with little debt? (commuting/instate/scholly)

Yes, no, maybe-so?

nolongermissing wrote:On lawschooltranscreancy, 33% of their graduates are reporting with a salary. If I go to school without paying tuition, and can manage to be in the top 33% of my class, shouldn't I be in good shape?

You are not looking at these stats right.

Of that 33% of the class who reported salary, half are still making less than $70k.
And it's likely that the 67% who didn't report are making crap, because people making good money tend to report it (look at the LST reports from good schools.)

nolongermissing wrote: At the very least, isn't it a better situation than most people trying to figure their life out right now?

lol, no. If the JD isn't from a school that's going to get you a job, it's just a very expensive wall-hanging. The person who takes a year off working at Starbucks isn't taking out $30k/year in living expense loans while they figure their life out.

Coveted wrote:Hijacking this thread.

With a decent scholarship to Rutgers, would you guys look at it the same way you are looking at St. Johns?

Their is definitely an argument to be made about Rutgers regional NJ pull and coming out with little debt? (commuting/instate/scholly)

Yes, no, maybe-so?

There is a better argument to be made for Rutgers. Less expensive, somewhat better job prospects. It's still not ideal, but with a hefty scholarship you are less likely to end up financially ruined.

moonman157 wrote:

nolongermissing wrote:On lawschooltranscreancy, 33% of their graduates are reporting with a salary. If I go to school without paying tuition, and can manage to be in the top 33% of my class, shouldn't I be in good shape? At the very least, isn't it a better situation than most people trying to figure their life out right now?

Don't assume you'll be in the top 33% of your class. Assume that you'll be right in the middle, which is a very scary place to be at St. John's, and that's after you've given up three years of your life, plus the expenses that your scholarship doesn't cover. And you've made yourself less marketable to employers in other fields if you have to find a job outside of practicing law (which is pretty common from St. John's).

This doesn't really answer my question. If I do manage to be in the top 33%, am I in a good place?

rinkrat19: how do you figure 30k/year for living expenses?

rinkrat19 wrote:

Coveted wrote:Hijacking this thread.

With a decent scholarship to Rutgers, would you guys look at it the same way you are looking at St. Johns?

Their is definitely an argument to be made about Rutgers regional NJ pull and coming out with little debt? (commuting/instate/scholly)

Yes, no, maybe-so?

There is a better argument to be made for Rutgers. Less expensive, somewhat better job prospects. It's still not ideal, but with a hefty scholarship you are less likely to end up financially ruined.

Why is Rutgers less expensive? In terms of living expenses?

nolongermissing wrote:

moonman157 wrote:

nolongermissing wrote:On lawschooltranscreancy, 33% of their graduates are reporting with a salary. If I go to school without paying tuition, and can manage to be in the top 33% of my class, shouldn't I be in good shape? At the very least, isn't it a better situation than most people trying to figure their life out right now?

Don't assume you'll be in the top 33% of your class. Assume that you'll be right in the middle, which is a very scary place to be at St. John's, and that's after you've given up three years of your life, plus the expenses that your scholarship doesn't cover. And you've made yourself less marketable to employers in other fields if you have to find a job outside of practicing law (which is pretty common from St. John's).

This doesn't really answer my question. If I do manage to be in the top 33%, am I in a good place?

rinkrat19: how do you figure 30k/year for living expenses?

I didn't feel like looking up what St. John's estimates for living expenses, so I took mine at NU and rounded up. It could be somewhat high, but you're in NY. It ain't cheap. $25k/year, then (and that doesn't cover summer).

I wouldn't feel good about being anything less than top 5-10% at a school that bad, in terms of job prospects, considering that only 16% make more than $70k and that 16% isn't going to coincide exactly with the top 16% of the class.

nolongermissing wrote:

rinkrat19 wrote:

Coveted wrote:Hijacking this thread.

With a decent scholarship to Rutgers, would you guys look at it the same way you are looking at St. Johns?

Their is definitely an argument to be made about Rutgers regional NJ pull and coming out with little debt? (commuting/instate/scholly)

Yes, no, maybe-so?

There is a better argument to be made for Rutgers. Less expensive, somewhat better job prospects. It's still not ideal, but with a hefty scholarship you are less likely to end up financially ruined.

Why is Rutgers less expensive? In terms of living expenses?

Instate tuition only 22k, plus you could definitely find cheaper living.

Coveted wrote:

nolongermissing wrote:

rinkrat19 wrote:

Coveted wrote:Hijacking this thread.

With a decent scholarship to Rutgers, would you guys look at it the same way you are looking at St. Johns?

Their is definitely an argument to be made about Rutgers regional NJ pull and coming out with little debt? (commuting/instate/scholly)

Yes, no, maybe-so?

There is a better argument to be made for Rutgers. Less expensive, somewhat better job prospects. It's still not ideal, but with a hefty scholarship you are less likely to end up financially ruined.

Why is Rutgers less expensive? In terms of living expenses?

Instate tuition only 22k, plus you could definitely find cheaper living.

Yeah, but St. John's would be free for me. So that doesn't make sense

nolongermissing wrote:Yeah, but St. John's would be free for me. So that doesn't make sense

Not after you lose your scholarship after first year.

rinkrat19 wrote:

nolongermissing wrote:

moonman157 wrote:

nolongermissing wrote:On lawschooltranscreancy, 33% of their graduates are reporting with a salary. If I go to school without paying tuition, and can manage to be in the top 33% of my class, shouldn't I be in good shape? At the very least, isn't it a better situation than most people trying to figure their life out right now?

Don't assume you'll be in the top 33% of your class. Assume that you'll be right in the middle, which is a very scary place to be at St. John's, and that's after you've given up three years of your life, plus the expenses that your scholarship doesn't cover. And you've made yourself less marketable to employers in other fields if you have to find a job outside of practicing law (which is pretty common from St. John's).

This doesn't really answer my question. If I do manage to be in the top 33%, am I in a good place?

rinkrat19: how do you figure 30k/year for living expenses?

I didn't feel like looking up what St. John's estimates for living expenses, so I took mine at NU and rounded up. It could be somewhat high, but you're in NY. It ain't cheap. $25k/year, then (and that doesn't cover summer).

I wouldn't feel good about being anything less than top 5-10% at a school that bad, in terms of job prospects, considering that only 16% make more than $70k and that 16% isn't going to coincide exactly with the top 16% of the class.

Fair