Top Law Schools

Better school between Kent and Loyola? Why?

Strongfaithgirl wrote:Better school between Kent and Loyola? Why?

Neither, retake

Isn't this your third thread? Stop making threads. No one is going to endorse those options.

Winston1984 wrote:Isn't this your third thread? Stop making threads. No one is going to endorse those options.

Dude you need a life seriously

BigZuck wrote:

Strongfaithgirl wrote:Better school between Kent and Loyola? Why?

Neither, retake

That's not what I asked. If you can't contribute to the question in appropriate fashion then keep your two cents to your self.

Thanks

BigZuck wrote:

Strongfaithgirl wrote:Better school between Kent and Loyola? Why?

Neither, retake

Personally, I find it more helpful to discuss WHY the answer is "Neither, retake". Let's look at the employment numbers:

Kent
Loyola

Neither school provides much better than a coin flip's chance at becoming a lawyer. Since it is statistically likely that you will be a median (or below) student, neither provides you with a high likelihood of servicing your loans. This is particularly true because ~34.1% of Kent's students end up at firms having 1-50 attorneys, and because ~28% of Loyola's students end up at firms having 1-50 attorneys.

You may be thinking "That's fine, biglaw is not for me!" But you should also note that salaries for firms generally have a bimodal distribution, with peaks at 40-60k and 160k (See, e.g., http://www.nalp.org/salarydistrib). While there are a number of exceptions (namely, specialty boutiques), most firms of 1-50 typically fall on the lower end of that distribution.

I might also add that the non-discounted cost to attend is:

$229,245 for Kent
$224,862 for Loyola

If you want to be a gainfully employed attorney, neither school provides you with a great option. Retaking the LSAT is the best option.

Retake or don't go. Job prospects suck out of both. You can make ten threads, but that's not going to change the right answer.

Unless you get the full ride plus stipend, Kent is not a good option.

0913djp wrote:Unless you get the full ride plus stipend Kent is not a good option.

FTFY

Strongfaithgirl wrote:

BigZuck wrote:

Strongfaithgirl wrote:Better school between Kent and Loyola? Why?

Neither, retake

That's not what I asked. If you can't contribute to the question in appropriate fashion then keep your two cents to your self.

Thanks

The quality of education at both will be remarkably similar. The employment prospects are approximately equal (sub-par) and both cost way too much. They are both objectively bad choices, but they are equally bad choices.

Stop looking at law school admissions like the end-game. Admissions is only the beginning to the rest of your career. If your dream career was to be an international rocker, would you take a minimum wage job cleaning toilets at a rock club because some rocker somewhere made it once by doing that? I seriously hope not.

Look at employment opportunities, assume you will have the average outcome from that school, look at how much you're going to pay for that opportunity, and then decide if it's a sound investment of your time and money.

Or, in summary...neither, retake.

Bedsole wrote:

BigZuck wrote:

Strongfaithgirl wrote:Better school between Kent and Loyola? Why?

Neither, retake

Personally, I find it more helpful to discuss WHY the answer is "Neither, retake". Let's look at the employment numbers:

Kent
Loyola

Neither school provides much better than a coin flip's chance at becoming a lawyer. Since it is statistically likely that you will be a median (or below) student, neither provides you with a high likelihood of servicing your loans. This is particularly true because ~34.1% of Kent's students end up at firms having 1-50 attorneys, and because ~28% of Loyola's students end up at firms having 1-50 attorneys.

You may be thinking "That's fine, biglaw is not for me!" But you should also note that salaries for firms generally have a bimodal distribution, with peaks at 40-60k and 160k (See, e.g., http://www.nalp.org/salarydistrib). While there are a number of exceptions (namely, specialty boutiques), most firms of 1-50 typically fall on the lower end of that distribution.

I might also add that the non-discounted cost to attend is:

$229,245 for Kent
$224,862 for Loyola

If you want to be a gainfully employed attorney, neither school provides you with a great option. Retaking the LSAT is the best option.

I assume this will be the response:

Strongfaithgirl wrote:As a double minority the statistics that you all have referenced does not apply

I preferred my answer in that it's elegant and really gets to the heart of the matter, but if you want to type all that out for this poster in their third thread of this nature you're more than welcome to do that.

If these were my only options, I'd rather just become a paralegal. You'll still get to do substantive legal work without the huge debt and poor job prospects. However, I'm sure you can still get an excellent education from each school. Regardless, the job prospects render these schools pretty ineffecient if one's goal is to become a lawyer.

Don't go, brah. Both suck shit. Just don't.

I am a graduate of Kent, class of 2011. Although I wouldn't go as far as some of the posters here basically claiming that Kent is absolutely worthless, I would agree that it is certainly not worth full freight.

Things may have changed a bit since I left, but this is what I can remember. At Kent, if you were in the top 7% after 1L you were automatically invited to law review. They released these results prior to the results of the writing competition, so you knew who was in the top 7%. Not surprisingly, this group did pretty well. Most ended up with Biglaw who wanted it.

Those that wrote on, faired, on average, worse. At these schools there really is a pretty marked demarcation between top 10% and everyone else. Sure, there were some outside of the top 10% who did allright including our infamous law review editor who ultimately got hired by Kirkland.

Kent and I imagine Loyola give a solid education. You will have little problems passing the bar, but all that means nothing if you have a $200k debt and a $40k job. Kent used to be very generous with scholarships, but that was back when you had to be in the top 25% to keep it. Now, they got rid of the stips, but they know they will have to renew the scholarships so they are not as generous. If you can get a full ride, it may be worth it, particularly if you are willing to drop out at the end of 1L if you do not end up in top X%.

Like OP said in a previous thread, she's a double minority (I guess gay and AA?) so the statistics you cite don't apply. She can also turn water into wine. It's common knowledge that minorities have a 100% big law hiring rate so law school doesn't matter.

Maybe this is more OP's style:

OP:

Don't go to law school. You are going to ruin your life. If you think being a minority will help you, there are far more minorities at better ranked schools who are going to get good jobs before you.

Yep. It's true every firm wants a diverse summer class. It's also true that every firm wants a prestigious class with prestige correlated to school rank, law review, etc. Supply and demand being what it is, they can easily have both.

If you finish your 1L year in the top 5% and finish on both LR and Moot Court, you will have a decent shot at a Big Law SA. The next 5-10% of the class will do alright if they network and have some basic social/interviewing skills.

If you want to pay a few hundred thousand dollars to take that chance, that's up to you.

Okay, I have a full ride offer to Kent along with a 32k a year scholarship to Loyola. Since I will not be paying near sticker price for either of these schools, what would be the general decision consensus?

Kent has slightly better job prospects and is cheaper

So Kent

palbatron wrote:Okay, I have a full ride offer to Kent along with a 32k a year scholarship to Loyola. Since I will not be paying near sticker price for either of these schools, what would be the general decision consensus?

It's market specific. Neither is great but I'd imagine Kent if you're okay with Chicago. I also don't know if being a URM is really very valuable (OP mentioned this changing the equation) at these particular schools, because firms aren't really recruiting from them in a meaningful way. You actually do see a lot of firms going to Howard specifically seeking top performing AA students. If you have a coherent plan then these schools can be okay, but just banking on going and getting a great job is dumb.