Top Law Schools

I'm deposited at the following:

UC Hastings 120k COA
Santa Clara 45k COA (3.0 stip)
McGeorge 0 COA (top 33% stip)

Would like to do Criminal/Public Interest work.

3.11; 162 (first time--will not take again)

I'm 33, and from NorCal. Will be paying COL with family assistance.

Very torn and would like as many opinions as possible. I am considering not attending but would appreciate it if responders limited themselves to these three options.

Thanks in advance.

You're not going to like the answer...

NoodleyOne wrote:You're not going to like the answer...

inb4 the bomb drops

See if SCU or McGeorge will drop the stips down to top 75% or so.

untar614 wrote:

NoodleyOne wrote:You're not going to like the answer...

inb4 the bomb drops

If you have nothing meaningful to contribute (don't go/retake) I politely request that you don't comment.

At 33, you're pushing it for waiting so I understand the aversion to retaking/reapplying. There's a significant opportunity cost for each year you are in school in your mid 30's; prime earning years. I'd probably just say don't go at this point and focus on whatever career you've invested in up to this far. Really not trying to be a dick, I just actually wouldn't go to law school in your position, but everyone is entitled to their choices.

Then again, you aren't pushing for biglaw, so the age issue won't have as much of an impact. Please excuse me for partially ignoring your suggestion, but as you are a one-time LSAT taker, I cannot stress strongly enough how much retaking could help you.

Now, I would go to Santa Clara between your 3 options above. Hastings isn't worth that $$ and the 33% stip is a bitch, too easy to lose the scholarship.

alawstudentsometime wrote:I'm deposited at the following:

UC Hastings 120k COA
Santa Clara 45k COA (3.0 stip)
McGeorge 0 COA (top 33% stip)

Would like to do Criminal/Public Interest work.

3.11; 162 (first time--will not take again)

I'm 33, and from NorCal. Will be paying COL with family assistance.

Very torn and would like as many opinions as possible. I am considering not attending but would appreciate it if responders limited themselves to these three options.

Thanks in advance.

Only 46% of Hastings grads become lawyers. It's not worth $120,000 of non-dischargeable debt plus years of interest and three years lost wages for less than a coin-flip's chance at becoming a lawyer.

Only 46% of Santa Clara grads become lawyers. It's not worth $45,000 of non-dischargeable debt plus years of interest and three years lost wages for less than a coin-flip's chance at becoming a lawyer. You also have about a 50% chance of losing your scholarship.

Only 40% of McGeorge grads become lawyers. That's not worth three years of lost wages. You also have a 67% chance of losing your scholarship.

Not attending is far and away your best option here, dude.

Here's what you want to hear:

Go to Santa Clara and drop out if you lose the stip.

jbagelboy wrote:At 33, you're pushing it for waiting so I understand the aversion to retaking/reapplying. There's a significant opportunity cost for each year you are in school in your mid 30's; prime earning years. I'd probably just say don't go at this point and focus on whatever career you've invested in up to this far. Really not trying to be a dick, I just actually wouldn't go to law school in your position, but everyone is entitled to their choices.

Then again, you aren't pushing for biglaw, so the age issue won't have as much of an impact. Please excuse me for partially ignoring your suggestion, but as you are a one-time LSAT taker, I cannot stress strongly enough how much retaking could help you.

Now, I would go to Santa Clara between your 3 options above. Hastings isn't worth that $$ and the 33% stip is a bitch, too easy to lose the scholarship.

Might not help him much if he needs to stay in the Bay Area. Hastings is incredibly stingy even with high LSAT scorers.

I'd probably choose Santa Clara here.

jbagelboy wrote:At 33, you're pushing it for waiting so I understand the aversion to retaking/reapplying. There's a significant opportunity cost for each year you are in school in your mid 30's; prime earning years. I'd probably just say don't go at this point and focus on whatever career you've invested in up to this far. Really not trying to be a dick, I just actually wouldn't go to law school in your position, but everyone is entitled to their choices.

Then again, you aren't pushing for biglaw, so the age issue won't have as much of an impact. Please excuse me for partially ignoring your suggestion, but as you are a one-time LSAT taker, I cannot stress strongly enough how much retaking could help you.

Now, I would go to Santa Clara between your 3 options above. Hastings isn't worth that $$ and the 33% stip is a bitch, too easy to lose the scholarship.

Is it tougher to get BigLaw if you are 30+? Does age really matter at firms?

alawstudentsometime wrote:I am considering not attending

This is TCR. As previous poster said, you're in your prime earning years and the opportunity cost is huge right now when weighted with risk. Unless someone in your family has a family practice you can join, or you somehow have another guaranteed job, I would not attend - especially if you don't have close to full ride. But to each their own.

ChampagnePapi wrote:
Might not help him much if he needs to stay in the Bay Area. Hastings is incredibly stingy even with high LSAT scorers.

I'd probably choose Santa Clara here.

Yea, I mean, I guess that's true. I just thought the advice was worth putting out there. We agree w/ santa clara

NanaP wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:At 33, you're pushing it for waiting so I understand the aversion to retaking/reapplying. There's a significant opportunity cost for each year you are in school in your mid 30's; prime earning years. I'd probably just say don't go at this point and focus on whatever career you've invested in up to this far. Really not trying to be a dick, I just actually wouldn't go to law school in your position, but everyone is entitled to their choices.

Then again, you aren't pushing for biglaw, so the age issue won't have as much of an impact. Please excuse me for partially ignoring your suggestion, but as you are a one-time LSAT taker, I cannot stress strongly enough how much retaking could help you.

Now, I would go to Santa Clara between your 3 options above. Hastings isn't worth that $$ and the 33% stip is a bitch, too easy to lose the scholarship.

Is it tougher to get BigLaw if you are 30+? Does age really matter at firms?

Ya 30+ is already old and flabby. Especially if you're a woman, just give up if you have wrinkles. Your life is over at that point.

NanaP wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:At 33, you're pushing it for waiting so I understand the aversion to retaking/reapplying. There's a significant opportunity cost for each year you are in school in your mid 30's; prime earning years. I'd probably just say don't go at this point and focus on whatever career you've invested in up to this far. Really not trying to be a dick, I just actually wouldn't go to law school in your position, but everyone is entitled to their choices.

Then again, you aren't pushing for biglaw, so the age issue won't have as much of an impact. Please excuse me for partially ignoring your suggestion, but as you are a one-time LSAT taker, I cannot stress strongly enough how much retaking could help you.

Now, I would go to Santa Clara between your 3 options above. Hastings isn't worth that $$ and the 33% stip is a bitch, too easy to lose the scholarship.

Is it tougher to get BigLaw if you are 30+? Does age really matter at firms?

My impression is that graduating at 30 is fine, but like any professional career track (finance, consulting, law, management, ect.), the work is grinding and youth is an asset so its decreasing returns for a big firm as age increases over 30. This is mitigated if the individual had an impressive career in one of these industries (or military exp.) prior to attending, but often this is not the case. OP will be 36 or 37 when he graduates from law school. People in that stage just usually aren't in a position to give 70 hours a week to a firm for 2-3 years, physically, mentally, and practically - they have families, responsibilities, and often just literally can't commit in the same way as someone in their mid-20s. Firms know this..

This is not to say it can't happen, and there will be plenty of successful 37 year old law grads, but the exceptions will prove the rule, so to speak.

edit: and I'm only referring to biglaw here, not OP's goals

jbagelboy wrote:

ChampagnePapi wrote:
Might not help him much if he needs to stay in the Bay Area. Hastings is incredibly stingy even with high LSAT scorers.

I'd probably choose Santa Clara here.

Yea, I mean, I guess that's true. I just thought the advice was worth putting out there. We agree w/ santa clara

I disagree. As you said, pushing mid-30's, there is even more opportunity cost regarding career outlook. So even if debt weren't a concern, unless he has some other compelling reason for needing a JD other than working as a lawyer, none of these give even a 50% shot at attaining that. So 3 years of lost income and work experience is even more damaging at that age. If he finishes in his late 30s and isnt one of the lucky 40% to land a full-time lawyer job, what are his career prospects like then with a 3 year gap on his resume? Is this family assistance being allotted for CoL something that could be better spent elsewhere?

jbagelboy wrote:

NanaP wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:At 33, you're pushing it for waiting so I understand the aversion to retaking/reapplying. There's a significant opportunity cost for each year you are in school in your mid 30's; prime earning years. I'd probably just say don't go at this point and focus on whatever career you've invested in up to this far. Really not trying to be a dick, I just actually wouldn't go to law school in your position, but everyone is entitled to their choices.

Then again, you aren't pushing for biglaw, so the age issue won't have as much of an impact. Please excuse me for partially ignoring your suggestion, but as you are a one-time LSAT taker, I cannot stress strongly enough how much retaking could help you.

Now, I would go to Santa Clara between your 3 options above. Hastings isn't worth that $$ and the 33% stip is a bitch, too easy to lose the scholarship.

Is it tougher to get BigLaw if you are 30+? Does age really matter at firms?

My impression is that graduating at 30 is fine, but like any professional career track (finance, consulting, law, management, ect.), the work is grinding and youth is an asset so its decreasing returns for a big firm as age increases over 30. This is mitigated if the individual had an impressive career in one of these industries (or military exp.) prior to attending, but often this is not the case. OP will be 36 or 37 when he graduates from law school. People in that stage just usually aren't in a position to give 70 hours a week to a firm for 2-3 years, physically, mentally, and practically - they have families, responsibilities, and often just literally can't commit in the same way as someone in their mid-20s. Firms know this..

This is not to say it can't happen, and there will be plenty of successful 37 year old law grads, but the exceptions will prove the rule, so to speak.

edit: and I'm only referring to biglaw here, not OP's goals

So having good wok experience or even a graduate degree would be ideal?

untar614 wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:

ChampagnePapi wrote:
Might not help him much if he needs to stay in the Bay Area. Hastings is incredibly stingy even with high LSAT scorers.

I'd probably choose Santa Clara here.

Yea, I mean, I guess that's true. I just thought the advice was worth putting out there. We agree w/ santa clara

I disagree. As you said, pushing mid-30's, there is even more opportunity cost regarding career outlook. So even if debt weren't a concern, unless he has some other compelling reason for needing a JD other than working as a lawyer, none of these give even a 50% shot at attaining that. So 3 years of lost income and work experience is even more damaging at that age. If he finishes in his late 30s and isnt one of the lucky 40% to land a full-time lawyer job, what are his career prospects like then with a 3 year gap on his resume? Is this family assistance being allotted for CoL something that could be better spent elsewhere?

Well it sounds like he needs to be in the Bay Area. Hastings and SCU are as good as it gets with that GPA (locked out of Boalt and Stanford). He either goes now or he never goes. Retaking makes little sense with his location preference.

untar614 wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:

ChampagnePapi wrote:
Might not help him much if he needs to stay in the Bay Area. Hastings is incredibly stingy even with high LSAT scorers.

I'd probably choose Santa Clara here.

Yea, I mean, I guess that's true. I just thought the advice was worth putting out there. We agree w/ santa clara

I disagree. As you said, pushing mid-30's, there is even more opportunity cost regarding career outlook. So even if debt weren't a concern, unless he has some other compelling reason for needing a JD other than working as a lawyer, none of these give even a 50% shot at attaining that. So 3 years of lost income and work experience is even more damaging at that age. If he finishes in his late 30s and isnt one of the lucky 40% to land a full-time lawyer job, what are his career prospects like then with a 3 year gap on his resume? Is this family assistance being allotted for CoL something that could be better spent elsewhere?

I think we can all easily agree not going is TCR, I'm just referring to the options on the table

ChampagnePapi wrote:

untar614 wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:

ChampagnePapi wrote:
Might not help him much if he needs to stay in the Bay Area. Hastings is incredibly stingy even with high LSAT scorers.

I'd probably choose Santa Clara here.

Yea, I mean, I guess that's true. I just thought the advice was worth putting out there. We agree w/ santa clara

I disagree. As you said, pushing mid-30's, there is even more opportunity cost regarding career outlook. So even if debt weren't a concern, unless he has some other compelling reason for needing a JD other than working as a lawyer, none of these give even a 50% shot at attaining that. So 3 years of lost income and work experience is even more damaging at that age. If he finishes in his late 30s and isnt one of the lucky 40% to land a full-time lawyer job, what are his career prospects like then with a 3 year gap on his resume? Is this family assistance being allotted for CoL something that could be better spent elsewhere?

Well it sounds like he needs to be in the Bay Area. Hastings and SCU are as good as it gets with that GPA (locked out of Boalt and Stanford). He either goes now or he never goes. Retaking makes little sense with his location preference.

Yeah, so how is not going to law school not far and away the best answer?

edit:

jbagelboy wrote:
I think we can all easily agree not going is TCR, I'm just referring to the options on the table

ok, fair enough

.

NanaP wrote:

jbagelboy wrote: My impression is that graduating at 30 is fine, but like any professional career track (finance, consulting, law, management, ect.), the work is grinding and youth is an asset so its decreasing returns for a big firm as age increases over 30. This is mitigated if the individual had an impressive career in one of these industries (or military exp.) prior to attending, but often this is not the case. OP will be 36 or 37 when he graduates from law school. People in that stage just usually aren't in a position to give 70 hours a week to a firm for 2-3 years, physically, mentally, and practically - they have families, responsibilities, and often just literally can't commit in the same way as someone in their mid-20s. Firms know this..

This is not to say it can't happen, and there will be plenty of successful 37 year old law grads, but the exceptions will prove the rule, so to speak.

edit: and I'm only referring to biglaw here, not OP's goals

So having good wok experience or even a graduate degree would be ideal?

It's a cultural thing. I'd love to hear some other perspectives on this btw. It's an issue both for supply and demand. If I was a 37 year old graduating with 10+ years serious WE or a Ph.D, I would feel remiss going back to a junior associate level, even if its higher paying. I work right now (started directly out of college) at an entry level consultant position, and I imagine starting at a big law firm will feel similarly as far as office culture and composition is concerned. I couldn't imagine making it up to senior consultant or manager, then going to LS and coming out at an entry level position again. I know due to our market cycle, this type of retraining and re-entering is more common now than in the past, but its still frightening. On the firms side, while I'm sure they would like to have associates with strong WE or technical background, companies routinely turn down "overeducated" applicants ITE. Even if the firm trusted the individual to perform the heavy work burden, live the lifestyle, and commit for 2+ years to avoid retraining overhead (a lot of hoops to jump through for someone pushing 40 soon), they still might question the office culture relationship and more fundamental positionality of the individual in the workforce.

If I'm way off base here someone can feel free to correct me. I know there are plenty of anecdotal examples of this phenomenon, and I've seen it play out in my parents/family friends lives, but I don't have data on me

jbagelboy wrote:

NanaP wrote:

jbagelboy wrote: My impression is that graduating at 30 is fine, but like any professional career track (finance, consulting, law, management, ect.), the work is grinding and youth is an asset so its decreasing returns for a big firm as age increases over 30. This is mitigated if the individual had an impressive career in one of these industries (or military exp.) prior to attending, but often this is not the case. OP will be 36 or 37 when he graduates from law school. People in that stage just usually aren't in a position to give 70 hours a week to a firm for 2-3 years, physically, mentally, and practically - they have families, responsibilities, and often just literally can't commit in the same way as someone in their mid-20s. Firms know this..

This is not to say it can't happen, and there will be plenty of successful 37 year old law grads, but the exceptions will prove the rule, so to speak.

edit: and I'm only referring to biglaw here, not OP's goals

So having good wok experience or even a graduate degree would be ideal?

It's a cultural thing. I'd love to hear some other perspectives on this btw. It's an issue both for supply and demand. If I was a 37 year old graduating with 10+ years serious WE or a Ph.D, I would feel remiss going back to a junior associate level, even if its higher paying. I work right now (started directly out of college) at an entry level consultant position, and I imagine starting at a big law firm will feel similarly as far as office culture and composition is concerned. I couldn't imagine making it up to senior consultant or manager, then going to LS and coming out at an entry level position again. I know due to our market cycle, this type of retraining and re-entering is more common now than in the past, but its still frightening. On the firms side, while I'm sure they would like to have associates with strong WE or technical background, companies routinely turn down "overeducated" applicants ITE. Even if the firm trusted the individual to perform the heavy work burden, live the lifestyle, and commit for 2+ years to avoid retraining overhead (a lot of hoops to jump through for someone pushing 40 soon), they still might question the office culture relationship and more fundamental positionality of the individual in the workforce.

If I'm way off base here someone can feel free to correct me. I know there are plenty of anecdotal examples of this phenomenon, and I've seen it play out in my parents/family friends lives, but I don't have data on me

This is def an interesting topic.....Would you say it would be easier to get an in house gig coming out at an older age? Assuming it's a T14 type school??

jbagelboy wrote:

NanaP wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:At 33, you're pushing it for waiting so I understand the aversion to retaking/reapplying. There's a significant opportunity cost for each year you are in school in your mid 30's; prime earning years. I'd probably just say don't go at this point and focus on whatever career you've invested in up to this far. Really not trying to be a dick, I just actually wouldn't go to law school in your position, but everyone is entitled to their choices.

Then again, you aren't pushing for biglaw, so the age issue won't have as much of an impact. Please excuse me for partially ignoring your suggestion, but as you are a one-time LSAT taker, I cannot stress strongly enough how much retaking could help you.

Now, I would go to Santa Clara between your 3 options above. Hastings isn't worth that $$ and the 33% stip is a bitch, too easy to lose the scholarship.

Is it tougher to get BigLaw if you are 30+? Does age really matter at firms?

My impression is that graduating at 30 is fine, but like any professional career track (finance, consulting, law, management, ect.), the work is grinding and youth is an asset so its decreasing returns for a big firm as age increases over 30. This is mitigated if the individual had an impressive career in one of these industries (or military exp.) prior to attending, but often this is not the case. OP will be 36 or 37 when he graduates from law school. People in that stage just usually aren't in a position to give 70 hours a week to a firm for 2-3 years, physically, mentally, and practically - they have families, responsibilities, and often just literally can't commit in the same way as someone in their mid-20s. Firms know this..

Do you have any source that is backing that up or is it just flatulence?

jbagelboy wrote:
It's a cultural thing. I'd love to hear some other perspectives on this btw. It's an issue both for supply and demand. If I was a 37 year old graduating with 10+ years serious WE or a Ph.D, I would feel remiss going back to a junior associate level, even if its higher paying. I work right now (started directly out of college) at an entry level consultant position, and I imagine starting at a big law firm will feel similarly as far as office culture and composition is concerned. I couldn't imagine making it up to senior consultant or manager, then going to LS and coming out at an entry level position again. I know due to our market cycle, this type of retraining and re-entering is more common now than in the past, but its still frightening. On the firms side, while I'm sure they would like to have associates with strong WE or technical background, companies routinely turn down "overeducated" applicants ITE. Even if the firm trusted the individual to perform the heavy work burden, live the lifestyle, and commit for 2+ years to avoid retraining overhead (a lot of hoops to jump through for someone pushing 40 soon), they still might question the office culture relationship and more fundamental positionality of the individual in the workforce.

If I'm way off base here someone can feel free to correct me. I know there are plenty of anecdotal examples of this phenomenon, and I've seen it play out in my parents/family friends lives, but I don't have data on me

Old fart 0L here (I'm 34). I think everyone has brought up many of the most salient concerns for an >30 law applicant. Ageism concerns me a lot on the hiring market and beyond that, I know that going back to low-man on the totem pole will be a huge adjustment especially because I'll be older than a good many of my superiors. I don't profess to have it figured out, but I see it as a challenge and something you just have to suck up. I don't know how to be a good lawyer or really a lawyer at all so everyone I work with at a firm can help me get better. I'm happy to eat sh*t for a little while if the payoff (not just financial) is good.

An angle to consider is that one of the first things you learn when you ascend to the top of a given field (I'm not at the top, but I've been very successful in my current field) is the limiting factors on that field and your accumulated education/training. I can see clearly how a law degree will open new doors and give me more leverage/opportunity. So my opportunity costs are high, yes, but thankfully, I don't have the same downside risk (I can easily use my law degree to go back where I came from and will still get some expanded opportunities).

The hours don't worry me so much. I don't think you can get far in many careers if you don't know how to bust your ass. I work between 65-80 hours a week now and have grown quite accustomed to the workaholic lifestyle.

dawyzest1 wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:
It's a cultural thing. I'd love to hear some other perspectives on this btw. It's an issue both for supply and demand. If I was a 37 year old graduating with 10+ years serious WE or a Ph.D, I would feel remiss going back to a junior associate level, even if its higher paying. I work right now (started directly out of college) at an entry level consultant position, and I imagine starting at a big law firm will feel similarly as far as office culture and composition is concerned. I couldn't imagine making it up to senior consultant or manager, then going to LS and coming out at an entry level position again. I know due to our market cycle, this type of retraining and re-entering is more common now than in the past, but its still frightening. On the firms side, while I'm sure they would like to have associates with strong WE or technical background, companies routinely turn down "overeducated" applicants ITE. Even if the firm trusted the individual to perform the heavy work burden, live the lifestyle, and commit for 2+ years to avoid retraining overhead (a lot of hoops to jump through for someone pushing 40 soon), they still might question the office culture relationship and more fundamental positionality of the individual in the workforce.

If I'm way off base here someone can feel free to correct me. I know there are plenty of anecdotal examples of this phenomenon, and I've seen it play out in my parents/family friends lives, but I don't have data on me

Old fart 0L here (I'm 34). I think everyone has brought up many of the most salient concerns for an >30 law applicant. Ageism concerns me a lot on the hiring market and beyond that, I know that going back to low-man on the totem pole will be a huge adjustment especially because I'll be older than a good many of my superiors. I don't profess to have it figured out, but I see it as a challenge and something you just have to suck up. I don't know how to be a good lawyer or really a lawyer at all so everyone I work with at a firm can help me get better. I'm happy to eat sh*t for a little while if the payoff (not just financial) is good.

An angle to consider is that one of the first things you learn when you ascend to the top of a given field (I'm not at the top, but I've been very successful in my current field) is the limiting factors on that field and your accumulated education/training. I can see clearly how a law degree will open new doors and give me more leverage/opportunity. So my opportunity costs are high, yes, but thankfully, I don't have the same downside risk (I can easily use my law degree to go back where I came from and will still get some expanded opportunities).

The hours don't worry me so much. I don't think you can get far in many careers if you don't know how to bust your ass. I work between 65-80 hours a week now and have grown quite accustomed to the workaholic lifestyle.

Yes, I'll also be an older applicant and this scares me too, but I think my work history and graduate degree can help, I wont be as old as you when I complete, but I still worry about ageism. I actually think being older with some work history can be an asset.