Top Law Schools

The University of Iowa seems to be pretty frowned upon on this website, as are most schools that are not T-14 unless there's significant scholarship and U of Iowa strikes me as one that should not seem so bad so I'd like clarification from anyone willing.

It's employment figures are at 70% according to LST which, comparatively, is not so bad. It also has a median of 162, so the chances of getting scholarship money from the school would theoretically be easier to attain for the people who stumbled into the 90th percentile but can't seem to move up from there.

What is the big beef with Iowa?

RLowry23 wrote:The University of Iowa seems to be pretty frowned upon on this website, as are most schools that are not T-14 unless there's significant scholarship and U of Iowa strikes me as one that should not seem so bad so I'd like clarification from anyone willing.

It's employment figures are at 70% according to LST which, comparatively, is not so bad. It also has a median of 162, so the chances of getting scholarship money from the school would theoretically be easier to attain for the people who stumbled into the 90th percentile but can't seem to move up from there.

What is the big beef with Iowa?

This is not impressive.

but...

This is impressive.

RLowry23 wrote:What is the big beef with Iowa?

Lots of people move across the country to Iowa/Minnesota/Alabama cause its the best school they got into. Yet they have no ties to the state and don't really want to practice there long term. BAD IDEA

TLS is generally very accepting of people with ties going to a state school at a low enough tuition to pay back their debt without biglaw.

Oh, and 2 cycles ago and before, Iowa had a TTT scholarship stipulation that you needed to be in the top 1/3 to maintain your full scholarship. It was the worst stipulation of any T1. They wised up and adopted the good standing requirement last cycle.

If you're from Iowa and want to work in Iowa, it is a perfectly acceptable choice. It might even be your best option.

shaynislegend wrote: This is impressive.

The sunglasses make her look super cute but all the other pics of her are grim.

RLowry23 wrote:What is the big beef with Iowa?

The craziest (not in a good way) person to ever post on this site is currently a 1L at Iowa, assuming she hasn't flamed out in spectacular fashion yet. I guess you can decide if that's a positive or a negative.

Iowa is not a bad school for an education, but most people on this website view getting a biglaw job as the goal of law school. There are much better schools in the 15-30 range that offer significantly better options at an AMLaw 100 or Vault 100 associate position. UCLA/USC, BC/BU, Texas, Vandy, GW, ND and Fordham are all better options at gaining meaningful employment, particularly in large law firms, than Iowa. If you want to work in Iowa, however, UofIowa is a good law school.

Here's something worrisome:

LST's summary of Iowa looks great on the surface. However, when I crunched the numbers from the 2012 ABA-required employment stats on UI's website, I found some possible discrepancies.

Long term, full time bar-passage required positions was listed at 132 out of 172 graduates, or 76.22%.

BUT

Firm jobs (-solo) + clerkships= 91 or 52.30%
Even if all the "public interest" workers were DAs or PDs and all those listed under "education" became law professors that's still only 101 or 58.05%

ALSO

Average debt: $95,574
Number of students whose scholarships have been reduced/removed from last year: 23/57 or 40.35%
Sure enough, FT/LT employed in Iowa + Illinois + California + foreign countries = 57.9% ≃ 58.05%

Infer what you will.

IpleadtheFiF wrote:Here's something worrisome:

LST's summary of Iowa looks great on the surface. However, when I crunched the numbers from the 2012 ABA-required employment stats on UI's website, I found some possible discrepancies.

Long term, full time bar-passage required positions was listed at 132 out of 172 graduates, or 76.22%.

BUT

Firm jobs (-solo) + clerkships= 91 or 52.30%
Even if all the "public interest" workers were DAs or PDs and all those listed under "education" became law professors that's still only 101 or 58.05%

ALSO

Average debt: $95,574
Number of students whose scholarships have been reduced/removed from last year: 23/57 or 40.35%
Sure enough, FT/LT employed in Iowa + Illinois + California + foreign countries = 57.9% ≃ 58.05%

Infer what you will.

I don't know what I'm supposed to be inferring..

Here is the data: http://www.law.uiowa.edu/documents/cso_ ... y_2012.pdf

There are 152 LTFT, 132 of which require bar passage. Why are you leaving out people who work for the government or business? And what does the fact that their top 3 locales+international have roughly the same number of people as firm jobs+clerkships+PI have to do with anything?

You're being very vague.

LST uses this exact same data gathered by the ABA. No discrepancy.

I was always under the impression that LST only counted firm jobs and clerkships in their employment score considering that fast food workers could be counted under "business and industry" and mail carriers under "government". I see now that they took UI's statistics at face value.

On the surface, it appears that <60% of Iowa's graduates get jobs as lawyers within the school's target region (that's including the California and foreign outliers). The rest scatter. Granted, this isn't taking into account a million factors including people who graduate and think "I need to get the hell out of Iowa NOW".

IpleadtheFiF wrote:I was always under the impression that LST only counted firm jobs and clerkships in their employment score considering that fast food workers could be counted under "business and industry" and mail carriers under "government". I see now that they took UI's statistics at face value.

On the surface, it appears that <60% of Iowa's graduates get jobs as lawyers within the school's target region (that's including the California and foreign outliers). The rest scatter. Granted, this isn't taking into account a million factors including people who graduate and think "I need to get the hell out of Iowa NOW".

You're still slightly off. The LST Employment Score is the percentage of grads who get long-term full-time employment that requires bar passage, not including solo practitioners. This differs from the numbers listed on USNWR, which do count solos and also include so-called "JD advantage" jobs.

The hypothetical barista or mail carrier would not count towards either the LST or USNWR employment scores. You are correct, though, that they would be tallied under "Business and Industry" and "Government," respectively. Which, incidentally, is the proper classification of those jobs.

Both of those jobs, however, would also be counted as "Non-professional," and barista would be listed as part-time employment. Both barista and mail carriers would contribute to LST's Underemployment Score, which includes unemployed, non-professional, and short-term or part-time workers.

If you have further questions about the meaning of the numbers you see on LST, you can refer to here: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?r=guides&show=10

As to your last point, it is actually more difficult to find a legal job outside of a school's home region. The fact that a significant number of grads leave the region does not imply weakness on the part of the school.

Nova wrote:

RLowry23 wrote:What is the big beef with Iowa?

Lots of people move across the country to Iowa/Minnesota/Alabama cause its the best school they got into. Yet they have no ties to the state and don't really want to practice there long term. BAD IDEA

TLS is generally very accepting of people with ties going to a state school at a low enough tuition to pay back their debt without biglaw.

I would, hypothetically, be going from out of state. No problem working in Iowa and big law is not my goal. Would it still make sense?

RLowry23 wrote:

Nova wrote:

RLowry23 wrote:What is the big beef with Iowa?

Lots of people move across the country to Iowa/Minnesota/Alabama cause its the best school they got into. Yet they have no ties to the state and don't really want to practice there long term. BAD IDEA

TLS is generally very accepting of people with ties going to a state school at a low enough tuition to pay back their debt without biglaw.

I would, hypothetically, be going from out of state. No problem working in Iowa and big law is not my goal. Would it still make sense?

I would be nervous about not having ties. You'll be at a disadvantage in obtaining local employment. You'll probably have a difficult time persuading employers that you don't want to leave Iowa. Employers don't want to waste resources on people they believe might be flight risks. There will be plenty of similarly qualified graduates with ties, which saves the employer that concern.

Where do you live? Are there any strong regionals nearby? If so, why not go there? And by "strong" I mean schools with good employment placement. Ignore the USNWR rankings. They're utterly meaningless for regional schools.

Ti Malice wrote: Where do you live? Are there any strong regionals nearby? If so, why not go there? And by "strong" I mean schools with good employment placement. Ignore the USNWR rankings. They're utterly meaningless for regional schools.

@OP Is your goal to practice in Iowa? According to your profile, you are 3.5/163 at Temple. If you're just aiming for schools which have medians lower than your own numbers, stop. Retake the LSAT. You could get into UPenn if you score above 170.

Ti Malice wrote:

RLowry23 wrote:

Nova wrote:

RLowry23 wrote:What is the big beef with Iowa?

Lots of people move across the country to Iowa/Minnesota/Alabama cause its the best school they got into. Yet they have no ties to the state and don't really want to practice there long term. BAD IDEA

TLS is generally very accepting of people with ties going to a state school at a low enough tuition to pay back their debt without biglaw.

I would, hypothetically, be going from out of state. No problem working in Iowa and big law is not my goal. Would it still make sense?

I would be nervous about not having ties. You'll be at a disadvantage in obtaining local employment. You'll probably have a difficult time persuading employers that you don't want to leave Iowa. Employers don't want to waste resources on people they believe might be flight risks. There will be plenty of similarly qualified graduates with ties, which saves the employer that concern.

Where do you live? Are there any strong regionals nearby? If so, why not go there? And by "strong" I mean schools with good employment placement. Ignore the USNWR rankings. They're utterly meaningless for regional schools.

I am from Philadelphia, making Temple (my alma matter) the closest regional school (not the best option).

IpleadtheFiF wrote: @OP Is your goal to practice in Iowa? According to your profile, you are 3.5/163 at Temple. If you're just aiming for schools which have medians lower than your own numbers, stop. Retake the LSAT. You could get into UPenn if you score above 170.

I retook in Oct and did worse than previously (161). I have never PT'd over a 165 on the more recent practice tests. My first PT ever was a 150 and I took TestMasters, got my score up to a 163 and then studied pretty hard for Oct... Not sure what happened, felt super confident during test day.

My goal is not necessarily to practice law in Iowa, but I would not be opposed to it I enjoy the state and wouldn't mind practicing there at all. This thread was also more of just me being curious about schools like Iowa (decent employment stats but not a high ranking) to see what the consensus was.

Thank you guys for all the responses too.

..

Nova wrote:

RLowry23 wrote:What is the big beef with Iowa?

Lots of people move across the country to Iowa/Minnesota/Alabama cause its the best school they got into. Yet they have no ties to the state and don't really want to practice there long term. BAD IDEA

TLS is generally very accepting of people with ties going to a state school at a low enough tuition to pay back their debt without biglaw.

This is an excellent point. Schools like Iowa benefited heavily from usnwr & the "go to the highest ranked school" mentality initially, but then Im guessing when the market dried up and kids without ties were turned away in both home market and their arbitrary temporary midwestern one, the show was over. Now with added knowledge Iowa will have to largely return to a region-based class with lower numbers, or shrink itself to oblivion by trying to retain a particular average quality of student it can only gather nationwide

RLowry23 wrote:

Ti Malice wrote:

RLowry23 wrote:I would, hypothetically, be going from out of state. No problem working in Iowa and big law is not my goal. Would it still make sense?

I would be nervous about not having ties. You'll be at a disadvantage in obtaining local employment. You'll probably have a difficult time persuading employers that you don't want to leave Iowa. Employers don't want to waste resources on people they believe might be flight risks. There will be plenty of similarly qualified graduates with ties, which saves the employer that concern.

Where do you live? Are there any strong regionals nearby? If so, why not go there? And by "strong" I mean schools with good employment placement. Ignore the USNWR rankings. They're utterly meaningless for regional schools.

I am from Philadelphia, making Temple (my alma matter) the closest regional school (not the best option).

No, Temple is not the best option. But it's definitely a better option for you than Iowa, since Philadelphia is where you have ties.

Employers in Philly either don't know or don't care that Iowa (26th) ranks substantially higher than Temple (56th) and Villanova (98th) in USNWR. Someone from Temple or Nova (which are viewed similarly in Philly, despite the difference in ranking) is going to have a much easier time getting a job in Philly than someone of equivalent class ranking out of Iowa. Essentially the same (small) percentages of people will have BigLaw/FedClerk options out of all three schools each year as well. Again, ignore the USNWR rankings.

That doesn't mean Temple or Nova are good options, however. You should only consider attending if you can keep your total cost of attendance at or under ~$60K, whether through living rent-free with family, large scholarships, or some combination of both.

Ti Malice wrote:

RLowry23 wrote:

Ti Malice wrote:

RLowry23 wrote:I would, hypothetically, be going from out of state. No problem working in Iowa and big law is not my goal. Would it still make sense?

I would be nervous about not having ties. You'll be at a disadvantage in obtaining local employment. You'll probably have a difficult time persuading employers that you don't want to leave Iowa. Employers don't want to waste resources on people they believe might be flight risks. There will be plenty of similarly qualified graduates with ties, which saves the employer that concern.

Where do you live? Are there any strong regionals nearby? If so, why not go there? And by "strong" I mean schools with good employment placement. Ignore the USNWR rankings. They're utterly meaningless for regional schools.

I am from Philadelphia, making Temple (my alma matter) the closest regional school (not the best option).

No, Temple is not the best option. But it's definitely a better option for you than Iowa, since Philadelphia is where you have ties.

Employers in Philly either don't know or don't care that Iowa (26th) ranks substantially higher than Temple (56th) and Villanova (98th) in USNWR. Someone from Temple or Nova (which are viewed similarly in Philly, despite the difference in ranking) is going to have a much easier time getting a job in Philly than someone of equivalent class ranking out of Iowa. Essentially the same (small) percentages of people will have BigLaw/FedClerk options out of all three schools each year as well. Again, ignore the USNWR rankings.

That doesn't mean Temple or Nova are good options, however. You should only consider attending if you can keep your total cost of attendance at or under ~$60K, whether through living rent-free with family, large scholarships, or some combination of both.

I guess I should have put this, but I am not looking to work in Philly. What you said makes a lot of sense though and I'll probably throw an app at Temple since they gave me a fee waiver.

Iowa is not a school I am super looking into, I applied because of the fee waiver. I totally understand that for ME it is not a great option, but was just curious as to what approach to take with schools similar to Iowa. You answered that question though, in clarifying that the ranking means essentially nothing. Thanks a lot.

You won't get a job even with ties. There are lots of 3Ls at Iowa with ties to the state that are top 25% that are striking out everywhere for jobs.

Flat out, legal jobs are hard as hell to get in this economy and Iowa gives you no boost for employment even in Des Moines.

Also, the reported employment numbers are a flame and are greatly inflated from what I know first hand of last years class and what career services even tells their students. I know one student who was top in their engineering class as in #1/300 and top 5 in our class struggled to find employment in secondary markets.

TLDR: Skip Iowa. The JD from there isn't worth the paper that it's written on.

typ3 wrote: Also, the reported employment numbers are a flame and are greatly inflated

How so? Do you think that Iowa is lying to the ABA?

cotiger wrote:

typ3 wrote: Also, the reported employment numbers are a flame and are greatly inflated

How so? Do you think that Iowa is lying to the ABA?

It certainly would not be the first time a law school has done it. I don't think Iowa is lying, but they may be fudging a bit e.g. labeling doc reviewers as FT/LT firm workers.

I'm not going to say that I know with absolute certainty that the numbers are greatly inflated and the administration is fudging them. It is my opinion that is has been implied directly to staff in the CSO that they need to hit 85% employment this year or heads are going to roll in the office and there may be some misreporting on their part- I'll let an ABA audit whenever it happens be the final say.

It is also my opinion that the foundation board and and state legislature has talked directly to the administration about their abysmal numbers. It is also my opinion that the dean and administration claimed they planned for 94 students to matriculate this year despite the school running a huge budget deficit and the numbers being lower than the class sizes in the 1930's/40's. It is also my opinion that the law school has hired outside consultants that have visited the school on numerous occasions to fix the application problem. It is also my opinion that the law school is overhauling the interior of the school at the suggestion of the consultants to get more students to attend. It is also my opinion that these consultants were at the school last week. It is also my opinion that the law school has now resorted to soliciting scholarship students to panhandle to get money for the school to meet their $50mm campaign. It is also my opinion that the law school administration and faculty has recruited IP students to go to engineering and science career fairs to recruit on behalf of the law school to fill their seats.

All of this is my opinion simply because I know the school trolls this forum and I would hate for any of my comments to be taken as anything more than hearsay for fear of a defamation suit. (It is my opinion that the school is struggling for revenue whether by crook or hook.)

That being said, there are a lot easier ways to make $ as an MBA practically any other profession in Nebraska/ South Dakota /North Dakota that are having huge investment / construction booms.

Nova wrote:Oh, and 2 cycles ago and before, Iowa had a TTT scholarship stipulation that you needed to be in the top 1/3 to maintain your full scholarship. It was the worst stipulation of any T1. They wised up and adopted the good standing requirement last cycle.

Right--This was I think a major reason for the disapproval on this site. I think they only started throwing out that stipulation partway through last cycle when it became clear that their enrollment was in trouble.