Top Law Schools

ajax adonis wrote:Sorry man, neither one is very good at all. I wouldn't go to either one.

bergdd wrote:Thanks for the quick responses! What makes them such bad choices? Also is there any harm in going to one of them for a year and transfering to a higher ranked school in the area?

potterpirate04 wrote:I can't emphasize this more: do NOT go to American at sticker. Do not. Do not. Do not.

bergdd wrote:I appreciate your responses. Would they still be the same if you heard my situation? I live right outside of DC in Alexandria VA. I just want to get a law degree here so that I could be a lawyer. I have a lot of family and friends that have helped me assemble an extensive network of lawyers in the area. I am good friends with the managing partner of a large law firm and have many friends who promise me I already have a foot in the door when the time comes that I need to find a job. The 34% employment rate in 2011 doesnt scare me as much for that reason...

Knowing this, which school should I try for? My application to George Mason is held for additional review, I was waitlisted at GW, and havent heard anything from GULC.

bergdd wrote:$60k max? Really? Where did you get that figure from?

bergdd wrote:$60k max? Really? Where did you get that figure from?

bergdd wrote:I got into American university and catholic university of america. Catholic is giving me $18,500/yr for my scholarship. Which option is better?

cahwc12 wrote: I realize this is slightly off topic, but have any of you seen this thread in the 'Choosing a Law School' subforum? And have any of you seen this website? Or this one?

I'm sure you've all seen this one by now though.
This pdf from the school's website boasts a 91% employment rate for its 2010 graduates 9 months out of graduation. But it's 2012, and that means that the data for c/0 2011 is and has been available for months. So why haven't they updated their pdf?

If you go to this website for ABA employment data, you can select Catholic University and 2010 to generate a report. Go ahead and do it. (Here's an image link of the report if you are having trouble.)

That data doesn't look too bad, right? If you had a calculator nearby or decided to do the math yourself, you'll notice that 244 "Employed" divided by 286 total graduates comes out to 85.3%, not 91% as is touted on the school's website. They actually don't count graduates pursuing graduate degrees full-time, graduates who neglected to offer any information about their employment, and graduates who responded as unemployed, but "not seeking". That doesn't seem too unreasonable though, right?

But have a closer look at that data. 53 graduates are in business & industry. What does that mean? Are they general counsel of a business, or are they customer service employees at a call center? These are very different job outcomes, but are reported in the same category.

And how about government jobs? Do they work for the CIA or the post office? What about academia? Does this mean that 8 graduates went on to be law professors or work as law school admissions officers or work as secretaries in a university administrative office? These are a lot of questions and the data doesn't help very much. Maybe if we look at the newest data, we can see a clearer picture.

Now, take a look at the data from 2011, which Catholic neglected to post on its website (go here, select Catholic University and 2011 then click 'generate report'--again, here's an image link just in case). Probably just an oversight, right? It's tough to go through admissions applications and determine tuition increases and something as minor as updated employment information for the previous year's graduates isn't the highest priority in the world. After all, you guys can look this up yourself!

But the 2011 ABA data paints a much different picture. Instead of lumping all jobs into a category labeled as "employed," the 2011 report does a better job of showing how many graduates got jobs as lawyers--you know, presumably the reason all of you want to go to law school and all of them went to law school to become.

In fact, just 114 out of 261 graduates found full-time, long-term work requiring bar passage--that means just 43% of law school graduates in 2011 actually went on to presumably become lawyers. Now, compare that to what's on the school's website--91% employment. While that 91% employment is technically true, depending how you crop the data, it does nothing to dissociate those employed from those employed as lawyers. (The presumably is because 44 of those 114 jobs were in private practices consisting of 10 or fewer attorneys, including 7 who identified as "solo practitioners.")


Now, here's a hypothetical question for you, and stay with me--what if I told you that you could spend just three years of your life and $260,000 (LinkRemoved) of your future earnings(well, possible future earnings) for a 43% chance at getting any job at all in the profession you are investing your time and (hopefully) future money to get, would you do it?

I guess that doesn't sound like a great deal, does it? But wait, there's more!

I'll give you $12,250 per year if you maintain good academic standing. That brings the cost of attendance down to just around $223,000! And remember, that's not even real money, yet. It's coming out of your future earnings! You don't have to pay a dime until six months after you graduate!

Still not good enough? How about $13,000 per year? (COA ~$221,000)

Still no? You drive a hard bargain! I'll up it to the best scholarship I can.

What do you say? How about $18,500 per year? That's $55,000!

That's just $204,000 of your possible future earnings (and three years of your life) and then you, too, can have a 43% chance of presumably becoming a lawyer. 43% is better than 0%!

bergdd wrote:I appreciate your responses. Would they still be the same if you heard my situation? I live right outside of DC in Alexandria VA. I just want to get a law degree here so that I could be a lawyer. I have a lot of family and friends that have helped me assemble an extensive network of lawyers in the area. I am good friends with the managing partner of a large law firm and have many friends who promise me I already have a foot in the door when the time comes that I need to find a job. The 34% employment rate in 2011 doesnt scare me as much for that reason...

Knowing this, which school should I try for? My application to George Mason is held for additional review, I was waitlisted at GW, and havent heard anything from GULC.

bergdd wrote:$60k max? Really? Where did you get that figure from?

bergdd wrote:I appreciate your responses. Would they still be the same if you heard my situation? I live right outside of DC in Alexandria VA. I just want to get a law degree here so that I could be a lawyer. I have a lot of family and friends that have helped me assemble an extensive network of lawyers in the area. I am good friends with the managing partner of a large law firm and have many friends who promise me I already have a foot in the door when the time comes that I need to find a job. The 34% employment rate in 2011 doesnt scare me as much for that reason...

Knowing this, which school should I try for? My application to George Mason is held for additional review, I was waitlisted at GW, and havent heard anything from GULC.

timbs4339 wrote:

bergdd wrote:I appreciate your responses. Would they still be the same if you heard my situation? I live right outside of DC in Alexandria VA. I just want to get a law degree here so that I could be a lawyer. I have a lot of family and friends that have helped me assemble an extensive network of lawyers in the area. I am good friends with the managing partner of a large law firm and have many friends who promise me I already have a foot in the door when the time comes that I need to find a job. The 34% employment rate in 2011 doesnt scare me as much for that reason...

Knowing this, which school should I try for? My application to George Mason is held for additional review, I was waitlisted at GW, and havent heard anything from GULC.

Most people get law degrees to become lawyers. At American, most will not actually become lawyers since they wont get lawyer jobs.

A promise is just that, a promise. I've met many a former paralegal who went off to law school with a wink and a nod from powerful people at large firms, only to find that those firms are uninterested in hiring them as an associate because of their school/grades. Every partner at that firm has some kid or relative who wants an SA position. Especially in DC, they'll be inundated with HYS and T14 resumes.

I guess the only bright side is if your connections can come through for you, it won't really matter whether you go to Catholic or American since they aren't hiring you on "prestige". So go to whichever is cheapest. But if they can't, you don't want to be stuck in debt you can't pay off, so I would only go to one of those schools for free or close to it. Negotiate and then come back when you have a lower expected COA.

cahwc12 wrote:

bergdd wrote:I got into American university and catholic university of america. Catholic is giving me $18,500/yr for my scholarship. Which option is better?

cahwc12 wrote: I realize this is slightly off topic, but have any of you seen this thread in the 'Choosing a Law School' subforum? And have any of you seen this website? Or this one?

I'm sure you've all seen this one by now though.
This pdf from the school's website boasts a 91% employment rate for its 2010 graduates 9 months out of graduation. But it's 2012, and that means that the data for c/0 2011 is and has been available for months. So why haven't they updated their pdf?

If you go to this website for ABA employment data, you can select Catholic University and 2010 to generate a report. Go ahead and do it. (Here's an image link of the report if you are having trouble.)

That data doesn't look too bad, right? If you had a calculator nearby or decided to do the math yourself, you'll notice that 244 "Employed" divided by 286 total graduates comes out to 85.3%, not 91% as is touted on the school's website. They actually don't count graduates pursuing graduate degrees full-time, graduates who neglected to offer any information about their employment, and graduates who responded as unemployed, but "not seeking". That doesn't seem too unreasonable though, right?

But have a closer look at that data. 53 graduates are in business & industry. What does that mean? Are they general counsel of a business, or are they customer service employees at a call center? These are very different job outcomes, but are reported in the same category.

And how about government jobs? Do they work for the CIA or the post office? What about academia? Does this mean that 8 graduates went on to be law professors or work as law school admissions officers or work as secretaries in a university administrative office? These are a lot of questions and the data doesn't help very much. Maybe if we look at the newest data, we can see a clearer picture.

Now, take a look at the data from 2011, which Catholic neglected to post on its website (go here, select Catholic University and 2011 then click 'generate report'--again, here's an image link just in case). Probably just an oversight, right? It's tough to go through admissions applications and determine tuition increases and something as minor as updated employment information for the previous year's graduates isn't the highest priority in the world. After all, you guys can look this up yourself!

But the 2011 ABA data paints a much different picture. Instead of lumping all jobs into a category labeled as "employed," the 2011 report does a better job of showing how many graduates got jobs as lawyers--you know, presumably the reason all of you want to go to law school and all of them went to law school to become.

In fact, just 114 out of 261 graduates found full-time, long-term work requiring bar passage--that means just 43% of law school graduates in 2011 actually went on to presumably become lawyers. Now, compare that to what's on the school's website--91% employment. While that 91% employment is technically true, depending how you crop the data, it does nothing to dissociate those employed from those employed as lawyers. (The presumably is because 44 of those 114 jobs were in private practices consisting of 10 or fewer attorneys, including 7 who identified as "solo practitioners.")


Now, here's a hypothetical question for you, and stay with me--what if I told you that you could spend just three years of your life and $260,000 (LinkRemoved) of your future earnings(well, possible future earnings) for a 43% chance at getting any job at all in the profession you are investing your time and (hopefully) future money to get, would you do it?

I guess that doesn't sound like a great deal, does it? But wait, there's more!

I'll give you $12,250 per year if you maintain good academic standing. That brings the cost of attendance down to just around $223,000! And remember, that's not even real money, yet. It's coming out of your future earnings! You don't have to pay a dime until six months after you graduate!

Still not good enough? How about $13,000 per year? (COA ~$221,000)

Still no? You drive a hard bargain! I'll up it to the best scholarship I can.

What do you say? How about $18,500 per year? That's $55,000!

That's just $204,000 of your possible future earnings (and three years of your life) and then you, too, can have a 43% chance of presumably becoming a lawyer. 43% is better than 0%!

ajax adonis wrote:Sorry man, neither one is very good at all. I wouldn't go to either one.

stillwater wrote:Isn't CUA the famous backdoor to biglaw?