Top Law Schools

deleted text

Give up the big law dreams- ain't happening from either.

I would maybe be ok with Davis on a full ride but not at that cost of attendance. BU makes no sense for cost/location reasons

What exactly do you want to do as a lawyer? Litigation is vague, transaction is vague but if you mean corporate that means big law (almost assuredly won't happen) and international law doesn't really exist (and certainly not for a Davis grad).

I think this is a classic retake/reapply or don't go scenario. If you want to go to law school, set your sights on UCLA/USC with a big scholarship.

BigZuck wrote:Give up the big law dreams- ain't happening from either.

I would maybe be ok with Davis on a full ride but not at that cost of attendance. BU makes no sense for cost/location reasons

What exactly do you want to do as a lawyer? Litigation is vague, transaction is vague but if you mean corporate that means big law (almost assuredly won't happen) and international law doesn't really exist (and certainly not for a Davis grad).

I think this is a classic retake/reapply or don't go scenario. If you want to go to law school, set your sights on UCLA/USC with a big scholarship.

Going to BU with the desire for California firms, even for free, is untenable. More or less, loaning over 100k for BU is a bad move for anybody, since only a quarter of the class is obtaining biglaw, something that has the ability to reduce the debt. And for just any JD job, one third of the class won't have it. BU is unquestionably out of the picture here.

I would pick Davis over BU. However, 90k debt at Davis with a kid isn't a good idea. But at minimum you have a better chance at a California firm, and a lot less debt, if you go to Davis. Retake for California schools with better numbers if you are willing to do that.

soko wrote: BU - nationwide recognition, Davis - not so much

Faulty premise. BU is a regional school. Do not go to BU if you want to practice law in California.

Why not retake and reapply? I understand it's not your preferred option, but it may be your best option. If income loss is your concern, you'd likely make up for it easily via increased scholarships and increased employment options from better schools. If you haven't noticed already, TLS is full of success stories of people who reluctantly studied for the LSAT a second or third time and sought admission a year or two later.

I don't think I can give competent advice without seeing total COA at each school - and you've got so many variables going on that I can't even guess at COA. Use one of the calculators or go to LSN.

That said, going to BU with plans to head back to CA is probably not a good choice. And I wouldn't encourage sticker at Columbia, thought it may be defensible. I would definitely discourage sticker at Northwestern.

Retake or go with the cheaper option.

.

rpupkin wrote:

soko wrote: BU - nationwide recognition, Davis - not so much

Faulty premise. BU is a regional school. Do not go to BU if you want to practice law in California.

Thanks.

soko wrote: P.S. No desire to live in LA. Do not want to retake/reapply. I'm getting old.

How old? Six years ago, I took the LSAT at the age of 35 and scored in the low 160s. I sat out a cycle, re-took the LSAT, and scored over 10 points higher. Because of that decision, I have options (in both the public and private sector) that I never would have had otherwise. If I had not retaken and applied because I was "getting old," there's a substantial chance I would've ended up unemployed. I now have 30 years of an exciting career ahead of me. Believe me, it was worth one extra year of "getting old."

Please, retake.

If you want to end up in California, Davis for sure. BU is not worth it. I think the question is do you go to UC Davis or don't go to law school?

rpupkin wrote:

soko wrote: P.S. No desire to live in LA. Do not want to retake/reapply. I'm getting old.

How old? Six years ago, I took the LSAT at the age of 35 and scored in the low 160s. I sat out a cycle, re-took the LSAT, and scored over 10 points higher. Because of that decision, I have options (in both the public and private sector) that I never would have had otherwise. If I had not retaken and applied because I was "getting old," there's a substantial chance I would've ended up unemployed. I now have 30 years of an exciting career ahead of me. Believe me, it was worth one extra year of "getting old."

Please, retake.

31 yo. I already postponed a year when I decided not to take the LSAT in 2012 and apply in 2013 instead. My current job is not intellectually challenging anymore. I am so ready for the next step.

soko wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

soko wrote: P.S. No desire to live in LA. Do not want to retake/reapply. I'm getting old.

How old? Six years ago, I took the LSAT at the age of 35 and scored in the low 160s. I sat out a cycle, re-took the LSAT, and scored over 10 points higher. Because of that decision, I have options (in both the public and private sector) that I never would have had otherwise. If I had not retaken and applied because I was "getting old," there's a substantial chance I would've ended up unemployed. I now have 30 years of an exciting career ahead of me. Believe me, it was worth one extra year of "getting old."

Please, retake.

31 yo. I already postponed a year when I decided not to take the LSAT in 2012 and apply in 2013 instead. My current job is not intellectually challenging anymore. I am so ready for the next step.

If you don't retake and take the time to do this the right way then your next step will almost certainly be closer to defending DUIs in Roseville than prosecuting white collar foreign criminals but whatever floats your boat.

Good luck OP.

BigZuck wrote:

soko wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

soko wrote: P.S. No desire to live in LA. Do not want to retake/reapply. I'm getting old.

How old? Six years ago, I took the LSAT at the age of 35 and scored in the low 160s. I sat out a cycle, re-took the LSAT, and scored over 10 points higher. Because of that decision, I have options (in both the public and private sector) that I never would have had otherwise. If I had not retaken and applied because I was "getting old," there's a substantial chance I would've ended up unemployed. I now have 30 years of an exciting career ahead of me. Believe me, it was worth one extra year of "getting old."

Please, retake.

31 yo. I already postponed a year when I decided not to take the LSAT in 2012 and apply in 2013 instead. My current job is not intellectually challenging anymore. I am so ready for the next step.

If you don't retake and take the time to do this the right way then your next step will almost certainly be closer to defending DUIs in Roseville than prosecuting white collar foreign criminals but whatever floats your boat.

Good luck OP.

+ 1.
OP what is your LSAT and GPA number ?

soko wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

soko wrote: P.S. No desire to live in LA. Do not want to retake/reapply. I'm getting old.

How old? Six years ago, I took the LSAT at the age of 35 and scored in the low 160s. I sat out a cycle, re-took the LSAT, and scored over 10 points higher. Because of that decision, I have options (in both the public and private sector) that I never would have had otherwise. If I had not retaken and applied because I was "getting old," there's a substantial chance I would've ended up unemployed. I now have 30 years of an exciting career ahead of me. Believe me, it was worth one extra year of "getting old."

Please, retake.

31 yo. I already postponed a year when I decided not to take the LSAT in 2012 and apply in 2013 instead. My current job is not intellectually challenging anymore. I am so ready for the next step.

Between retakes and a deferral, I postponed three years. I agree it's really tempting to just enroll now, but the good news is you could be applying again just 5 months from now... GL with your decision.

soko wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

soko wrote: P.S. No desire to live in LA. Do not want to retake/reapply. I'm getting old.

How old? Six years ago, I took the LSAT at the age of 35 and scored in the low 160s. I sat out a cycle, re-took the LSAT, and scored over 10 points higher. Because of that decision, I have options (in both the public and private sector) that I never would have had otherwise. If I had not retaken and applied because I was "getting old," there's a substantial chance I would've ended up unemployed. I now have 30 years of an exciting career ahead of me. Believe me, it was worth one extra year of "getting old."

Please, retake.

31 yo. I already postponed a year when I decided not to take the LSAT in 2012 and apply in 2013 instead. My current job is not intellectually challenging anymore. I am so ready for the next step.

Understood. That's also why I went to law school. But do realize that, by going to UCD or BU instead of retaking and giving yourself a chance at a top law school, you significantly increase the risk that you'll spend decades doing non-intellectually challenging work in the law. As BigZuck intimated, a graduate of either of those law schools these days has almost no chance of prosecuting white collar criminals. Like, ever. You can't go to UC Davis, work in "commercial real estate transactions" for a local firm in Northern California for a few years, and then get hired as an AUSA. It doesn't work like that.

rpupkin wrote:

soko wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

soko wrote: P.S. No desire to live in LA. Do not want to retake/reapply. I'm getting old.

How old? Six years ago, I took the LSAT at the age of 35 and scored in the low 160s. I sat out a cycle, re-took the LSAT, and scored over 10 points higher. Because of that decision, I have options (in both the public and private sector) that I never would have had otherwise. If I had not retaken and applied because I was "getting old," there's a substantial chance I would've ended up unemployed. I now have 30 years of an exciting career ahead of me. Believe me, it was worth one extra year of "getting old."

Please, retake.

31 yo. I already postponed a year when I decided not to take the LSAT in 2012 and apply in 2013 instead. My current job is not intellectually challenging anymore. I am so ready for the next step.

Understood. That's also why I went to law school. But do realize that, by going to UCD or BU instead of retaking and giving yourself a chance at a top law school, you significantly increase the risk that you'll spend decades doing non-intellectually challenging work in the law. As BigZuck intimated, a graduate of either of those law schools these days has almost no chance of prosecuting white collar criminals. Like, ever. You can't go to UC Davis, work in "commercial real estate transactions" for a local firm in Northern California for a few years, and then get hired as an AUSA. It doesn't work like that.

Right. It's like saying "My plan is to become an NBA player" but instead of practicing jump shots you sit on your couch all day and eat nachos. It's a lofty goal that you're unlikely to ever achieve but one path at least gives you some semblance of a chance while the other pretty much just shuts the door altogether.

I assume you want to practice law in Northern California, OP? You should know that the market here is flooded, even moreso than the rest of California. UCD has better numbers than it would otherwise because it sends lots of grads to Sacramento and various Central Valley cities as well as Nevada. Also, last year may have been an outlier year, as most schools in CA saw their numbers drop while UCD's numbers jumped. Don't rely on a "70% chance of getting the job you want" based on UCD's present 70% placement figures.

If there is any possibility you could push your LSAT score higher and hit Berkeley or a full ride at UCD, I would do that. Otherwise, be prepared for a very rough ride.

soko wrote: Thanks for your input.

No big law dreams here. Not sure where you read that.

Short-term: commercial real estate transactions and/or civil litigation involving real estate.

Long-term career goal is to work at a fed. agency as a litigator in white crime cases that have to do with individuals from abroad (esp. from country X) committing crimes in the U.S. (I am an immigrant and would like to use that as an asset) money laundering, fraudulent transactions involving real estate. Hence my interest in international law and litigation.

That can change while I am in law school.

P.S. No desire to live in LA. Do not want to retake/reapply. I'm getting old.

Sorry, I'm going to be a downer here...

The type of job you're describing here, an AUSA or other main justice gig, is one of the most sought after jobs in the industry. Most BigLaw associates would jump at the opportunity. People who get these jobs almost always have credentials that could easily get them BigLaw, and most have done several years at a firm before landing in the USAO. Also, they almost always have clerked in federal district or circuit. The two schools you've listed don't give you a very good shot at the job. Also, there aren't that many USAOs that do significant amounts of white collar crime, and even fewer that do a lot of international cases (and most of those are narcotics cases). So you'll basically be gunning for SDNY, or a couple other premier offices, against people who went to Yale or Harvard Law and clerked in the 2d Circuit. I know all this because I'm trying to get that type of job, and getting big law is WAY easier. I went to a top school, worked in big law, and am clerking in one of the most competitive districts, and I'd still put my odds at somewhere near 5% at ever getting into a major USAO.

Here's a guide that talks about obtaining these types of positions, and it's definitely worth a read before you decided what school to choose: http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/C ... o_2012.pdf .

One other thing, you mentioned litigating for federal agencies. DOJ does most of the litigating on behalf of agencies. Lawyers for the agencies, for example I have a friend at CIS, act as sort of in house counsel (essentially they refer cases to the USAO for litigation). These jobs are also highly sought after (I think mostly filled through the honors programs or experienced BigLaw laterals).

If you go to one of the schools you've mentioned you should go in knowing that it is likely that you'll be doing much less interesting law than you want for less money than can service the debt.

Do NOT go to BU if you want to work on the west coast after graduation. You are much better off at a lower ranked west coast school.

soko wrote:international law

lol


With that said, if you want CA and are okay with a small gig, Davis and it's not even close. BU has no national reputation.