PSA: forget about specialties or professors--take the money Forum

[rayiner]

If you're a prospective applicant, and are seriously weighing things like whether a particular school has certain classes, or a particular joint degree, or a certain concentration, or a certain famous professor: just stop. You're ruining law school for everyone. You're making law school administrators think that any of this shit matters. No employer cares about the classes you take in law school beyond the basics available at every school. Unless you're gunning for SCOTUS or academia, professors are fungible. That little note on your degree saying you did the concentration in IP Law isn't going to change the fact that you have bad grades and no technical background. So just forget about all that, and compare law schools based on placement, scholarship $$, and location.

Justice Scalia recently noted:

Harvard Law School, in the year I graduated, had a faculty of 56 professors, 9 teaching fellows, and 4 lecturers; it now has a faculty of 119 professors, 53 visiting professors, and 115 lecturers in law. A total of 69 then and 287 now.

Harvard Law's class size has been about the same since the 1950's if not earlier. The teaching of law has been the same since the 1850's if not earlier. This explosion in law faculty is unnecessary. The expensive catered events are unnecessary. The fancy new buildings are unnecessary. The outrageous tuition is not necessary to accomplish the function of educating lawyers.

Whose fault is it? Yours. Every goddamn 0L that inquires into a school's "animal law concentration" or its breadth of coursework in "law & baking" is part of the problem.

Don't be part of the problem.

Instead, let schools know that all you care about is placement and tuition. Call up Michigan and say "fuck you, I'm going to Cornell because they offered me marginally more money." Be part of the solution.

[prezidentv8]

"law & baking"

On the other hand, nobody actually cares what you take as a 3L (or 2L actually). So I totally would have taken "Law and Baking" if the opportunity arose.

[worldtraveler]

"law & baking"

On the other hand, nobody actually cares what you take as a 3L (or 2L actually). So I totally would have taken "Law and Baking" if the opportunity arose.

Berkeley has a law & wine class. It's apparently really difficult though and is a ton of work. Also not much wine.

[DELG]

y u so mad tho

[Johann]

Correct - don't even think about specializing until your ocean law LLM

[timbs4339]

Sticky plz.

[ymmv]

Sticky plz.

+1

[Pragmatic Gun]

There was a Business Insider article that argued that all the services that students demand (career services, international law/ocean law/environmental clinics, study abroads, and awesome faculty) are driving up the price of tuition. Guys, we must stop being such spoiled lemmings!

[kaiser]

Huge agreement with all of this. Its just marketing that plays into what schools think prospective students want to hear. I once heard my school dean lamenting that the school had to add in so many stupid electives (she specifically mentioned "space law") for marketing purposes, while arguably useful courses such as franchising law were not added since its not as marketable a topic. Thus, even deans acknowledge this garbage is all about marketing.

[worldtraveler]

Clinics are useful though. I agree they don't need a billion courses, but offering stuff like a death penalty or a human rights clinic can help people get jobs in the future.

[Pragmatic Gun]

Huge agreement with all of this. Its just marketing that plays into what schools think prospective students want to hear. I once heard my school dean lamenting that the school had to add in so many stupid electives (she specifically mentioned "space law") for marketing purposes, while arguably useful courses such as franchising law were not added since its not as marketable a topic. Thus, even deans acknowledge this garbage is all about marketing.

But WHAT IF THE ASTRONAUT GETS SUED BY COSMONAUT WHILE OVER CHINESE MAINLAND AND A MARTIAN COLLIDED WITH THE SPACE POD IN WHICH THE PLAINTIFF WAS IN? So many questions and so much at stake!

[quijotesca1011]

The question I'll ask here is the same I've asked before.

I get your point, but ALL of higher education tuition is absurdly inflated...Undergrad (only slightly less so than law school if you are talking private), most professional/terminal masters' programs, med school). Law school tuition is, sadly, pretty inline with its peers. Do you think admissions offices are going to take a bitter-sounding phone call and be like, 'oh okay, law school is too expensive, let's change things.' … Maybe if the enormous majority of students started doing that, but no individual can count on the fact that anyone else is going to do the same.

I'm just having a hard time believing that a few more individuals deciding to take a scholarship over full tuition is going to enough of a difference that you should be blaming people for not making that decision (as if higher tuition is their 'fault' -- "You're ruining law school for everyone."). The problem is much more structural than that. And given that the change isn't going to be coming for a while yet not matter what, I think you can hardly critique people so aggressively for doing what they decide is the best choice for them personally (and again, just to emphasize because it seems to always be forgotten, not everyone who chooses to attend at or near sticker has full ride options…and even if the whole world retakes, there is no way that law schools are going to start offering full rides to everyone).

Also according to a recent post by OP he took out some pretty major debt. Yet another 'do as I say, not as I do' TLS special.

[worldtraveler]

The question I'll ask here is the same I've asked before.

I get your point, but ALL of higher education tuition is absurdly inflated...Undergrad (only slightly less so than law school if you are talking private), most professional/terminal masters' programs, med school). Law school tuition is, sadly, pretty inline with its peers. Do you think admissions offices are going to take a bitter-sounding phone call and be like, 'oh okay, law school is too expensive, let's change things.' … Maybe if the enormous majority of students started doing that, but no individual can count on the fact that anyone else is going to do the same.

I'm just having a hard time believing that a few more individuals deciding to take a scholarship over full tuition is going to enough of a difference that you should be blaming people for not making that decision (as if higher tuition is their 'fault' -- "You're ruining law school for everyone."). The problem is much more structural than that. And given that the change isn't going to be coming for a while yet not matter what, I think you can hardly critique people so aggressively for doing what they decide is the best choice for them personally (and again, just to emphasize because it seems to always be forgotten, not everyone who chooses to attend at or near sticker has full ride options…and even if the whole world retakes, there is no way that law schools are going to start offering full rides to everyone).

Also according to a recent post by OP he took out some pretty major debt. Yet another 'do as I say, not as I do' TLS special.

You didn't understand the post. He's not saying don't go to Northwestern at sticker. He's saying don't go at sticker over a peer school with a scholarship because they have some bullshit class/professor/clinic/center/journal you think is awesome. It doesn't matter. Placement and cost are what matter.

[quijotesca1011]

I went on a rant a little, but I don't think I misunderstood the post. My point is that that puts undue burden on people who do receive scholarships to "fix the system." That's not their job. They get to make the decision of what they want to do and what they think is best for their career, the same as those who don't get scholarships do. You can disagree with them, you can think that's a stupid choice, but you can hardly blame them for high tuition ("Whose fault is it? Yours." "You're ruining law school for everyone. ")

Also, he isn't just talking about people with scholarships the whole time, he's talking about "Every 0L that inquires into a school's "animal law concentration" or its breadth of coursework in "law & baking" is part of the problem."

Frankly, once you get into particular segments of the T14, you are splitting hairs at employment numbers (or particular segments of any part of the rankings -- this was set up as someone comparing "peer schools"). And if you are paying that kind of tuition, I think you have every right to inquire about whatever you want to. Again, you might not agree with the decision to pay tuition, but it's not your decision to make for another person. Of course it's ridiculous to think about someone going to law school because of one class, one journal, one clinic. But I highly doubt that's most people.

Basically, if we take the few 0Ls who turn down a full scholarship to attend another school SOLELY because they want to go to a peer school with a "class/professor/clinic/center/journal they think is awesome", it's not going to make a dent in yield. And to guilt those people about how they are "ruining things for everyone" is a waste of time. The problem is a lot bigger than law school (i.e. same deal at other grad schools).

And frankly, if someone turns down a scholarship, they are going to offer it to someone else (who might have been going full tuition elsewhere, and might pull out of that full tuition seat to accept the scholarship, essentially sending this proposed "message" to admissions office). I highly doubt schools have trouble filling their scholarship programs every year, which means they are pulling students away from peer schools, but tuition is still where it is.

[NYSprague]

The point is admissions learns that they are losing students if their placement stats are too low and their cost is too high because they refuse to negotiate.
I think LST rankings will start surpassing USNews eventually in 0L decision making. But it will take a while.

[TTRansfer]

The point is admissions learns that they are losing students if their placement stats are too low and their cost is too high because they refuse to negotiate.
I think LST rankings will start surpassing USNews eventually in 0L decision making. But it will take a while.

Will never happen.

[NYSprague]

The point is admissions learns that they are losing students if their placement stats are too low and their cost is too high because they refuse to negotiate.
I think LST rankings will start surpassing USNews eventually in 0L decision making. But it will take a while.

Will never happen.

I have faith. uSNews took time to catch on. The pressure to reform employment reporting has moved quickly over the past two years. LST needs more money and publicity. Maybe they could get the list of LSAT takers and email everyone.

[riverwater]

What if he's the only professor in the country teaching hip hop law

[rayiner]

I'm just having a hard time believing that a few more individuals deciding to take a scholarship over full tuition is going to enough of a difference that you should be blaming people for not making that decision (as if higher tuition is their 'fault' -- "You're ruining law school for everyone."). The problem is much more structural than that.

To keep raising tuition, law school administrators depend on maintaining a pretense. There are several elements to that pretense, but they include:

1) The pretense that the quality of education is materially different at any of the top 50 law schools;
2) The pretense that law schools are a major value-add to students beyond pedigree and sorting;
3) The pretense that legal scholarship has a materially positive impact on training lawyers for practice.

Law school administrators are not bad people. But they embrace this pretense and use it to justify raising tuition. The more people push back on these ideas, the harder it gets to maintain this pretense. The more people are willing to peel the veneer off the industry, the harder it gets to justify bigger faculty, more programs, etc.

Also according to a recent post by OP he took out some pretty major debt. Yet another 'do as I say, not as I do' TLS special.

I did go to NU at sticker, but: 1) I went when cycles were much more competitive and didn't have scholarship money anywhere; 2) I went at a time when my total debt amounted to about $240k, versus $300k for sticker today; 3) I went back before we had detailed and reliable placement data.

Also, I was wildly overoptimistic about how hard it would be to grind through big law while paying most of your disposable income in loans. That's perspective you can't get until you've actually done it.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Also according to a recent post by OP he took out some pretty major debt. Yet another 'do as I say, not as I do' TLS special.

This is a fairly dumb criticism, because the whole point of so many of these posts is to say, "Yes, I did this thing you're considering, and now that I've done it, here are the reasons why I now think it's a bad idea." You can disagree with the advice but the point is that it comes from experience.

[Princetonlaw68]

Please don't kill me, but just in case any prospectives take the op too seriously, don't actually make it clear to the law schools you're applying to that all you care about is placement and scholly money. That's great once you get in, but having that attitude shine through in an application is not going to get you into any reach schools. Law schools like applicants that take a particular interest in their school for reasons that go beyond placement percentages.

[timbs4339]

I went on a rant a little, but I don't think I misunderstood the post. My point is that that puts undue burden on people who do receive scholarships to "fix the system." That's not their job. They get to make the decision of what they want to do and what they think is best for their career, the same as those who don't get scholarships do. You can disagree with them, you can think that's a stupid choice, but you can hardly blame them for high tuition ("Whose fault is it? Yours." "You're ruining law school for everyone. ")

Also, he isn't just talking about people with scholarships the whole time, he's talking about "Every 0L that inquires into a school's "animal law concentration" or its breadth of coursework in "law & baking" is part of the problem."

Frankly, once you get into particular segments of the T14, you are splitting hairs at employment numbers (or particular segments of any part of the rankings -- this was set up as someone comparing "peer schools"). And if you are paying that kind of tuition, I think you have every right to inquire about whatever you want to. Again, you might not agree with the decision to pay tuition, but it's not your decision to make for another person. Of course it's ridiculous to think about someone going to law school because of one class, one journal, one clinic. But I highly doubt that's most people.

Basically, if we take the few 0Ls who turn down a full scholarship to attend another school SOLELY because they want to go to a peer school with a "class/professor/clinic/center/journal they think is awesome", it's not going to make a dent in yield. And to guilt those people about how they are "ruining things for everyone" is a waste of time. The problem is a lot bigger than law school (i.e. same deal at other grad schools).

And frankly, if someone turns down a scholarship, they are going to offer it to someone else (who might have been going full tuition elsewhere, and might pull out of that full tuition seat to accept the scholarship, essentially sending this proposed "message" to admissions office). I highly doubt schools have trouble filling their scholarship programs every year, which means they are pulling students away from peer schools, but tuition is still where it is.

I don't think that was the OP's point at all. The point is that taking the scholly money is almost always a better idea than taking the animal law concentration. That if enough people followed the "TLS method" of picking law schools it would go a long way to fixing the system is just an added bonus. Nobody's demanding 0L sacrifice themselves on the altar of the profession.

And this is the first year that real tuition is actually going to decrease, thanks in part to the fact that students are being way more savvy with schollies. A few schools have posted large effective tuition cuts. There's still a long way to go but we've already come so far in the few years I've been around these parts. The word needs to get out to more people but we've reached a tipping point.

[09042014]

Also according to a recent post by OP he took out some pretty major debt. Yet another 'do as I say, not as I do' TLS special.

This is a fairly dumb criticism, because the whole point of so many of these posts is to say, "Yes, I did this thing you're considering, and now that I've done it, here are the reasons why I now think it's a bad idea." You can disagree with the advice but the point is that it comes from experience.

If anyone questions why I start so many threads, its because 0Ls like this still exist.

LOL at this shit tier reasoning. Good post nony.

[anyriotgirl]

Please don't kill me, but just in case any prospectives take the op too seriously, don't actually make it clear to the law schools you're applying to that all you care about is placement and scholly money. That's great once you get in, but having that attitude shine through in an application is not going to get you into any reach schools. Law schools like applicants that take a particular interest in their school for reasons that go beyond placement percentages.

this is approx what I did. Did a "Why School" that mentioned specific things, and then asked for more money later in a way that made it clear that the money was basically the only thing I was interested in the other school for, but that the money was VERY IMPORTANT. It worked.

[rayiner]

Please don't kill me, but just in case any prospectives take the op too seriously, don't actually make it clear to the law schools you're applying to that all you care about is placement and scholly money. That's great once you get in, but having that attitude shine through in an application is not going to get you into any reach schools. Law schools like applicants that take a particular interest in their school for reasons that go beyond placement percentages.

this is approx what I did. Did a "Why School" that mentioned specific things, and then asked for more money later in a way that made it clear that the money was basically the only thing I was interested in the other school for, but that the money was VERY IMPORTANT. It worked.

Oh yeah, definitely suck up while applying. It just gives you more leverage when it comes time to make decisions.