Page 1 of 1
Seton Hall v Rutgers v Temple v St. John's v Syracuse
Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 7:53 pm
by zienhal
The schools you are considering: Temple, Rutgers, Seton Hall, St. John's, Syracuse
Temple: 20k scholly Rutgers:12k scholly St. John's: 35K scholly Syracuse: 33K scholly
These are all per year.
Dont remember the exact numbers but COA would in order from cheapest to most expensive be:
Syracuse, Temple, St. John's, Rutgers then Seton Hall. The range is about 95k at 'Cuse to about 130K at Seton Hall.
-How you will be financing your COA, i.e. loans, family, or savings
Loans!
-Where you are from and where you want to work, and other places where you have significant ties (if any)
Would LOVE to work in New York City, don't mind working in Philly and California.
-Your general career goals
Employment (FT long term Bar passage required) and ability to pay loans.
-Your LSAT/GPA numbers
2.96/161
I live in Southern California. I also got accepted to Loyola but they want sticker. I'm waiting for UC Hastings, GW (long shot), William and Mary (long shot) and George Mason.
Re: Seton Hall v Rutgers v Temple v St. John's v Syracuse
Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 8:10 pm
by mach9zero
I wish the GPa wouldn't drag you down, because you have strong LSAT numbers for a full ride from Rutgers, Seton Hall, and 'Cuse. Temple has been stingy with scholarships, so I'm surprised it's that high.
That said, if you want New York, you need to stay New York. Rutgers-Newark has strong placement in the nNJ region, and dips into NYC. I'd never pay the cost at Seton Hall, that's nuts, I'd also never pay 95k at Syracuse.
At this stage, I'd personally pick Rutgers-Newark if your goal is the New York metro-region. It's not landing you a Big Law spot unless you're top 5%, but St. Johns and 'Cuse have abysmal employment prospects.
As far as Philly, Temple has a strong alumni network, but their numbers haven't been as impressive in the past year. If I'm not mistaken, Rutgers Camden and Nova have placed stronger than Temple. You might want to even look into Drexels program, because with your higher LSAT you'd be closer towards getting a full ride. At the cost, Temple would be expensive since you're out of state and won't be elgible for in-state any year. Rutgers will go in-state after your first year (with most actually getting it before they start if they move to NJ early enough).
Re: Seton Hall v Rutgers v Temple v St. John's v Syracuse
Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:58 am
by BigZuck
You're going to have an incredibly hard time paying off your loans if you go to any of those schools. Its tough for splitters. Honestly, if I were in your shoes I probably just wouldn't go to law school. If I did go to law school, I would retake until I got into a T14 like Northwestern.
Re: Seton Hall v Rutgers v Temple v St. John's v Syracuse
Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 2:03 am
by 052220151
Dude, you gotta retake. The only other option to retaking is not going.
Re: Seton Hall v Rutgers v Temple v St. John's v Syracuse
Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 11:03 am
by timbs4339
It's going to be very tough to get enough money from the schools to make it worth it.
Re: Seton Hall v Rutgers v Temple v St. John's v Syracuse
Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 11:08 am
by Otunga
You have to conquer LS from these schools listed to have a chance at NYC biglaw, if that's something you'd like, meaning you have to beat almost everyone in your class. A retake is a must. Then if you score 170+, you can ED UVA/RD NW or get a full ride at lower-ranked schools if you don't want to take all those loans.
Re: Seton Hall v Rutgers v Temple v St. John's v Syracuse
Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 11:10 am
by deadpanic
So, you live in California and are moving across the country to attend a regional school in New Jersey/NY/Philly and taking out about 6 figures in loans to possibly never become a lawyer? Please don't do this to yourself.
You should really retake or not go. I'm not trying to rain on your parade...just being candid.
Re: Seton Hall v Rutgers v Temple v St. John's v Syracuse
Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 11:25 am
by northwood
what are the requirements that you must meet in order to keep your scholarship? IIRC, Cuse and St.Johns have pretty strenuous stipulations, and the COA for both of these schools is pretty steep if you lose your scholarship. As for the others, I am not sure, but I think Temple and Seton Hall are private ( which may cost more than out of state tuition at a state school). Likewise, for Rutgers, is there a way for you to be considered a resident of New Jersey? Are you willing to wait a year and become a resident before law school if you cant be eligible to be considered a resident once you start?( this may have the added advantage of allowing you a chance to live and work there to see if you really would be amiable in living across the country from your family). Also, what is the cost of living at these schools? You need to figure this out to help you get better idea of what the actual costs will be. All of these schools are super regional, and as NYC is your goal, none of them would be in your best interest to attend in order to get a decent NYC job. IF you do strike out of NYC, you are faced with another problem: how to convince employers in your school's local market that you are not a flight risk.
TLDR, before you make a final decision, recalculate the total cost of attendance, and take into consideration the possibility of losing the scholarship (so you have a best case scenario and a worst case scenario- you only keep it for one year- will you drop and leave, or will you stay and pay?)
Re: Seton Hall v Rutgers v Temple v St. John's v Syracuse
Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 4:40 pm
by Skump
The schools you are considering: Temple, Rutgers, Seton Hall, St. John's, Syracuse
Temple: 20k scholly Rutgers:12k scholly St. John's: 35K scholly Syracuse: 33K scholly
How you will be financing your COA, i.e. loans, family, or savings
Loans!
I live in Southern California.
Here's the deal. You're signing up for six figures of debt to attend a school which, under the countenance of a smiling God, might offer an entree into shitlaw - assuming regional ties. Which you lack.
nopenopenope.gif
Re: Seton Hall v Rutgers v Temple v St. John's v Syracuse
Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 9:23 pm
by RLowry23
northwood wrote:, I am not sure, but I think Temple and Seton Hall are private ( which may cost more than out of state tuition at a state school).
Temple isn't a state school, but it's a state sponsored school. It is 42k per year (estimated total COA) in-state vs. 56k (again, estimated total COA).
Re: Seton Hall v Rutgers v Temple v St. John's v Syracuse
Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 10:33 pm
by JCougar
deadpanic wrote:Please don't do this to yourself.
Re: Seton Hall v Rutgers v Temple v St. John's v Syracuse
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2014 9:54 am
by TheSpanishMain
This is a horrible idea.
Re: Seton Hall v Rutgers v Temple v St. John's v Syracuse
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2014 4:03 pm
by MrAnon
Your current prospects, whatever they are, are better than where you'll be in 3 years with any of these schools.
Re: Seton Hall v Rutgers v Temple v St. John's v Syracuse
Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2014 9:58 am
by OutCold
None of these schools are worth paying money for, let alone that much money. None of these schools will get you NYC, Temple might get you a local gov job in Philly if you are at the top of the class and extremely lucky. You are from California, which will be another huge strike against you when you are applying for the highly regional jobs that these schools place into (when their grads are even able to find legal jobs at all). All in all, you are probably throwing your life away if you go 100k in debt to attend one of these schools.
Re: Seton Hall v Rutgers v Temple v St. John's v Syracuse
Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:42 pm
by FutureSuperLawyer
Don't listen to the losers. Seton Hall has a great program to teach you PRACTICAL SKILLS, the kind that will enable you to practice right out of law schools. Law firms and gov't agencies can't afford to train lawyers anymore so they'll be hiring Seton Hall grads once they see how well this program works.
Also, dude, I understand your position on waiting a year and retaking; I was there last year. Everyone told me to retake and wait a year but they just did'nt get it. When I told a babe I worked at starbucks, she dropped me right away; now, when I tell her I'm in law school I get her every time. Law School is a three year party, and I can pay for all of it with gov't loans.
Losers on TLS will tell you you'll have a problem after you graduate since you'll have no money and won't be able to pay the loans back. But the first thing you'll learn in law school, is that bank's don't waste money going after people who have no money. I had no money before I went to law school, and, with my 3.0 GPA in political science, no prospects for getting any. So, I won't be any worse
after law school. Again, in case you missed it last time, the first thing you learn in law school is that banks don't waste time going after people who have no money. Everytime someone gives you BS about "non-dischargable debt" explain to them, THERE'S NO DEBTORS PRISON ANYMORE. IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY, BANKS WILL LEAVE YOU ALONE.
Re: Seton Hall v Rutgers v Temple v St. John's v Syracuse
Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:54 pm
by Synch
^^ what in the hell. So much crazy.
Re: Seton Hall v Rutgers v Temple v St. John's v Syracuse
Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2014 5:06 pm
by Turtledove
FutureSuperLawyer wrote:Don't listen to the losers. Seton Hall has a great program to teach you PRACTICAL SKILLS, the kind that will enable you to practice right out of law schools. Law firms and gov't agencies can't afford to train lawyers anymore so they'll be hiring Seton Hall grads once they see how well this program works.
Also, dude, I understand your position on waiting a year and retaking; I was there last year. Everyone told me to retake and wait a year but they just did'nt get it. When I told a babe I worked at starbucks, she dropped me right away; now, when I tell her I'm in law school I get her every time. Law School is a three year party, and I can pay for all of it with gov't loans.
Losers on TLS will tell you you'll have a problem after you graduate since you'll have no money and won't be able to pay the loans back. But the first thing you'll learn in law school, is that bank's don't waste money going after people who have no money. I had no money before I went to law school, and, with my 3.0 GPA in political science, no prospects for getting any. So, I won't be any worse after law school. Again, in case you missed it last time, the first thing you learn in law school is that banks don't waste time going after people who have no money. Everytime someone gives you BS about "non-dischargable debt" explain to them, THERE'S NO DEBTORS PRISON ANYMORE. IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY, BANKS WILL LEAVE YOU ALONE.
Obvious flame is obvious.
Re: Seton Hall v Rutgers v Temple v St. John's v Syracuse
Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:03 pm
by A. Nony Mouse
FutureSuperLawyer wrote:Don't listen to the losers. Seton Hall has a great program to teach you PRACTICAL SKILLS, the kind that will enable you to practice right out of law schools. Law firms and gov't agencies can't afford to train lawyers anymore so they'll be hiring Seton Hall grads once they see how well this program works.
Also, dude, I understand your position on waiting a year and retaking; I was there last year. Everyone told me to retake and wait a year but they just did'nt get it. When I told a babe I worked at starbucks, she dropped me right away; now, when I tell her I'm in law school I get her every time. Law School is a three year party, and I can pay for all of it with gov't loans.
Losers on TLS will tell you you'll have a problem after you graduate since you'll have no money and won't be able to pay the loans back. But the first thing you'll learn in law school, is that bank's don't waste money going after people who have no money. I had no money before I went to law school, and, with my 3.0 GPA in political science, no prospects for getting any. So, I won't be any worse after law school. Again, in case you missed it last time, the first thing you learn in law school is that banks don't waste time going after people who have no money. Everytime someone gives you BS about "non-dischargable debt" explain to them, THERE'S NO DEBTORS PRISON ANYMORE. IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY, BANKS WILL LEAVE YOU ALONE.
Yeah, so you need to take some time off and think about why you shouldn't troll the on-topics.