University of Tulsa has risen from 150+ to 72 in 5 years Forum

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

Average indebtedness from Tulsa is 100k+ with 70% taking debt. Only 69 out of 112 people were employed as lawyers 9 mos after graduation. That's a fucking terrible deal. No matter what McDuff says.

Not sticking up for school. That's not my purpose. I hopped in here cuz some guy started talking about Oklahoma and how backward and "insular" all the people were.

But I doubt Tulsa is really any worse than all schools ranked 35-200. I guess you and I disagree about the level of value provided at these schools, and that's fine. Not going to get into it with you.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

MG isn't an idiot and he doesn't necessarily believe "BigLaw or Bust." His native state's flagship is almost a TTT, but he understands that it dominates the state market and is a great choice for certain people. In fact, in percentage of employed graduates it is comparable with lower-half T1 schools. But nearly all graduates remain in-state, meaning low medan salary and little flexibility. Likewise for Tulsa. The point is why invest in law school (3 years + lost income + tuition) for a median salary of $60k?

Because, uh, you want to be a lawyer?

Entering any profession only to make money is a bad recipe for happiness. Why are you going to LS Romanus?

EDIT: also, considering the average debt load from TU may not be much higher than 60k, your hypo might receiving the blessing from many economists too, considering salaries go up, not down.

EDIT 2: I bet the actual median from TU is like 45k.

For a summer and winter during my undergrad, I worked as a NPS ranger at a unique historic site and absolutely loved it. My flat hat hangs on my apartment wall, and I am certain it was the best job I'll ever have. But I would never make it a career. The costs associated with it (5+ years of unstable seasonal work to become permanent) totally outweighed the return: a great job at a pitifully low salary.

I have to view law school primarily as an investment. Yes, I want to practice law as a career and, in my limited 0L experience, enjoy law. But a career is primarily about making money to support yourself and a family. And especially because law school entails such significant cost, I can't view it apart from its financial ROI.

I would say you are too young to write off having a career that both supports you and satisfies you. I wish you the best of luck, though. I haven't met anyone who went to LS for money who did not later regret it, but that doesn't mean those people do not exist.

[MistakenGenius]

Post removed.

[HRomanus]

I would say you are too young to write off having a career that both supports you and satisfies you. I wish you the best of luck, though. I haven't met anyone who went to LS for money who did not later regret it, but that doesn't mean those people do not exist.

I think you missed my point. I want to become a lawyer because it supports me and satisfies me. I want to go to law school for money and a meaningful, fulfilling career. But because the legal profession has such a high cost of entry, I need to seriously consider the financial returns.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

You're wrong here on pretty much every count, from the school I attended to your assumption that someone who gets into a higher-ranked school can reasonably be expected to do well at a lower-ranked school. I didn't "kill it" at the school I did attend, and you have no basis to say I'd "kill it" at Tulsa. And this is hardly limited to my own experience. This is probably, above all others, the most harmful myth students at the lower end of the law school rankings often buy into.

I respect that you disagree with me here. Truth is, neither one of us can prove we are correct on this contention. My views come from moving in and out of "driven" circles from ages 18-25. Also, I'm hardly the first to suggest "big fish little pond" stuff, but ignore all that if you wish. You have your opinion, I've mine. Sounds like neither one of us have first hand experience at both local schools and elite schools.

But for a moment, let's entertain the idea that work ethic and intelligence means you'll have a statistically significant chance of out-doing most of your classmates at a school like Tulsa. Even then, you're not in the clear. Work ethic and "killing it" in law school only gets you so far when there are not enough employers in your school's main feeder city to interview you. It also doesn't mean a lot to have great work ethic and fantastic grades and other resume boosters if all of the other employers outside of that main feeder city won't even read your resume once they see the school name.

TU grads are only going to apply to jobs within a three hour drive of their campus, and all of those employers are going to read their resumes, even if one or two (Crowe, McAfee) only to see if they were top 5%.

Since you keep ignoring the actual empirical evidence from LST, maybe some anecdotes will help illustrate my point. As an example, I have friends that are smarter and more hard-working than me who go to the non-flagship law schools in my over-saturated home state. They're top 5%. One of them has a moot court national championship title under his belt and got interviews at the capital city's biglaw firms. He's entering 3L this August without even one offer -- from anything. No small firm, no DA office, no PD office, and no biglaw office was ultimately interested enough to take him. He is the textbook example of someone who went to a lower-ranked school on a very reasonable scholarship and "killed it" better in law school than I ever could. His results so far are nill because of the inflexibility of his law degree; he cannot find work in the city area, and he also cannot leave the city area and expect to find work anywhere else in the country. He may have gone to law school practically for free -- and that certainly helps! -- but in the end it's gotten him nothing. Three years of his life and earning potential, gone. Statistically speaking, that is the fate that awaits the majority of students -- even the majority of students near the top of their class -- at Tulsa Law.

Lol dude, you show your ignorance here. The above 3/4 jobs you mentioned do not hire in law school, and only small firms might hire pre bar results.

Your friend is fine. Check back in next year and tell us how he is doing.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

I would say you are too young to write off having a career that both supports you and satisfies you. I wish you the best of luck, though. I haven't met anyone who went to LS for money who did not later regret it, but that doesn't mean those people do not exist.

I think you missed my point. I want to become a lawyer because it supports me and satisfies me. I want to go to law school for money and a meaningful, fulfilling career. But because the legal profession has such a high cost of entry, I need to seriously consider the financial returns.

You have no idea whether law satisfies you because you are an 0L, right? I hope it does. It sounded to me that you were basing your decision on finances only. If that is not the case, great.

Also be sure to consider costs in your analysis. I'd say costs are more important than returns, because you are so young and are likely to change your mind about what you want to do with your life. This means, 275k at Cornell not as good as 40k at U of Kansas, despite a massive difference in returns. But I'm sure you've considered all this.

[Tanicius]

Since you keep ignoring the actual empirical evidence from LST, maybe some anecdotes will help illustrate my point. As an example, I have friends that are smarter and more hard-working than me who go to the non-flagship law schools in my over-saturated home state. They're top 5%. One of them has a moot court national championship title under his belt and got interviews at the capital city's biglaw firms. He's entering 3L this August without even one offer -- from anything. No small firm, no DA office, no PD office, and no biglaw office was ultimately interested enough to take him. He is the textbook example of someone who went to a lower-ranked school on a very reasonable scholarship and "killed it" better in law school than I ever could. His results so far are nill because of the inflexibility of his law degree; he cannot find work in the city area, and he also cannot leave the city area and expect to find work anywhere else in the country. He may have gone to law school practically for free -- and that certainly helps! -- but in the end it's gotten him nothing. Three years of his life and earning potential, gone. Statistically speaking, that is the fate that awaits the majority of students -- even the majority of students near the top of their class -- at Tulsa Law.

Lol dude, you show your ignorance here. The above 3/4 jobs you mentioned do not hire in law school, and only small firms might hire pre bar results.

In that state, the DA and PD offices hire pre-bar. I should know -- I'm working at one of them come August.

[HRomanus]

I would say you are too young to write off having a career that both supports you and satisfies you. I wish you the best of luck, though. I haven't met anyone who went to LS for money who did not later regret it, but that doesn't mean those people do not exist.

I think you missed my point. I want to become a lawyer because it supports me and satisfies me. I want to go to law school for money and a meaningful, fulfilling career. But because the legal profession has such a high cost of entry, I need to seriously consider the financial returns.

You have no idea whether law satisfies you because you are an 0L, right? I hope it does. It sounded to me that you were basing your decision on finances only. If that is not the case, great.

Also be sure to consider costs in your analysis. I'd say costs are more important than returns, because you are so young and are likely to change your mind about what you want to do with your life. This means, 275k at Cornell not as good as 40k at U of Kansas, despite a massive difference in returns. But I'm sure you've considered all this.

This is implicit in the ROI analysis and fundamental to the TLS analysis. Minimize cost, minimize risk.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

MG isn't an idiot and he doesn't necessarily believe "BigLaw or Bust." His native state's flagship is almost a TTT, but he understands that it dominates the state market and is a great choice for certain people. In fact, in percentage of employed graduates it is comparable with lower-half T1 schools. But nearly all graduates remain in-state, meaning low medan salary and little flexibility. Likewise for Tulsa. The point is why invest in law school (3 years + lost income + tuition) for a median salary of $60k?

Thank you HR. I'm glad some people get the point. I know Tattered Dignity is an idiot but LRM is generally a pretty good poster who just seems to be purposefully missing the point in this thread. I am by no means Biglaw or bust. Biglaw is a last resort myself. I have never once said Tulsa is a bad school. What I said was that Tulsa was a good option if this criteria were met.

1.) They have a full scholarship
2.) They are FROM Oklahoma
3.) They are okay spending the next 10-15 years or more in Oklahoma
4.) They are okay making a small salary

This discussion of whether or not they have a 0% chance of a 6 figure salary vs 1% chance is absolutely irrelevant. It's naive to think the graduates have a high chance of a 6 figure salary, since so few of their students manage that. They need to accept that Tulsa will limit their options because of the job market, and they need to be okay being paid a lower salary (which will do far more in Oklahoma than in other parts of the country). That is common sense. The South values ties, and even though LRM is ignoring that, it's a fact. And a Tulsa degree is not going to travel, so they have to plan to start their career in Oklahoma. Finally, they need a full scholarship to keep COA low since their starting salary will be low. If they don't have a full scholarship, then retake is their best option. If a kid wants biglaw, they shouldn't go to Tulsa. If they want Academics, they shouldn't go to Tulsa. If they want to be a clerk for Scotus, they definitely shouldn't go to Tulsa. However, if they meet all those criterion, I'd say Tulsa is a fantastic school. Disputing that criteria though makes no sense.

Also, I cannot begin to describe how flawed your logic is with your latest post to Tanicius, LRM. There is nothing like law in the entire world. Just because someone was admitted to higher ranked school does not mean they'd do well at a lower ranked school. There are going to be students with great work ethics at every school, even Cooley. You can also get students who have never done exceptionally well in academics, but find they are naturals at taking law school exams. Same, you might get students who have always excelled, but are horrible at law school exams. Where someone gets in is unrelated to how well they would have done at other schools. I mean, let's use me as an example. According to you, I'm an idiot. Yet I got into all the T14. Would I be the valedictorian of Tulsa or South Carolina? Hell no. As you said, I'm an idiot. Be careful before using that advice. To suggest someone will do well at a lower ranked school due to their GPA or LSAT is misleading and potentially life threatening.

I never once said Oklahomans are backward. I'm from the South myself. Our states are insular. it's just how it is.

Just because my momma always taught me to agree where I could, I'll highlight our common ground.

I obviously don't think Oklahoma is in the South, though I would agree that southern and eastern Oklahoma feel very southern. See for coloring : http://thislandpress.com/11/14/2012/sou ... -oklahoma/

Edit: also I never said you were an idiot. Why would I think that? I think you are wrong on ties, but I disagree with a bunch of people on this site about ties. There are a lot of smart people on this site that I disagree with.

And yeah if you got into a T14 you would kill it at TU. Sorry I absolutely think that.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

Since you keep ignoring the actual empirical evidence from LST, maybe some anecdotes will help illustrate my point. As an example, I have friends that are smarter and more hard-working than me who go to the non-flagship law schools in my over-saturated home state. They're top 5%. One of them has a moot court national championship title under his belt and got interviews at the capital city's biglaw firms. He's entering 3L this August without even one offer -- from anything. No small firm, no DA office, no PD office, and no biglaw office was ultimately interested enough to take him. He is the textbook example of someone who went to a lower-ranked school on a very reasonable scholarship and "killed it" better in law school than I ever could. His results so far are nill because of the inflexibility of his law degree; he cannot find work in the city area, and he also cannot leave the city area and expect to find work anywhere else in the country. He may have gone to law school practically for free -- and that certainly helps! -- but in the end it's gotten him nothing. Three years of his life and earning potential, gone. Statistically speaking, that is the fate that awaits the majority of students -- even the majority of students near the top of their class -- at Tulsa Law.

Lol dude, you show your ignorance here. The above 3/4 jobs you mentioned do not hire in law school, and only small firms might hire pre bar results.

In that state, the DA and PD offices hire pre-bar. I should know -- I'm working at one of them come August.

That like Cali, Florida, New York…. Even still, do they hire after 2L summer? Pretty sure even then they hire mid 3L, right Tanicius? Please educate if I'm wrong.

[MistakenGenius]

Post removed.

[rickgrimes69]

ITT: MG points out valid stats and LRM gets butthurt about something as per usual

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

Just because my momma always taught me to agree where I could, I'll highlight our common ground.

I obviously don't think Oklahoma is in the South, though I would agree that southern and eastern Oklahoma feel very southern. See for coloring : http://thislandpress.com/11/14/2012/sou ... -oklahoma/

Edit: also I never said you were an idiot. Why would I think that? I think you are wrong on ties, but I disagree with a bunch of people on this site about ties. There are a lot of smart people on this site that I disagree with.

And yeah if you got into a T14 you would kill it at TU. Sorry I absolutely think that.

I apologize for the idiot thing, it must have been tattered dignity.

I am curious, since you don't think a full scholarship is necessary, what do you think is the largest debt a student at Tulsa should take on?

Yeah I don't know. The amount you are comfortable with knowing you will probably be making like 45k, 48k, 54k your first three years out of LS? Depends on the person. For me, 70 or 80k.

But in 10 or 15 years most of these folks will be making 90 or 100k a year, even if they are still in small law. I take it you might disagree here, too? I believe there will always be those students who graduate and do not make it in law.. perhaps in 10 or 15 years they are not making those salaries outside of law, perhaps they are. But the average TLS poster who is considering UTulsa, who logs onto a website like this one before enrolling in law school, who has a decent LSAT that gets him a discounted tuition rate… this person has a higher than 50% chance of "making it" out of TU. Again, sounds like you disagree with me here, too.

Where did Nelson get those debt figures, do you know? There used to be a list on LSAC.org with all the schools average debt load.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

ITT: MG points out valid stats and LRM gets butthurt about something as per usual

I'm just raging against the machine, bro. As someone once said, its my "schtick."

But for realz I think you're all wrong.

[rickgrimes69]

ITT: MG points out valid stats and LRM gets butthurt about something as per usual

I'm just raging against the machine, bro. As someone once said, its my "schtick."

But for realz I think you're all wrong.

Hey at least it keeps things entertaining. It's a nice change from the recent influx of rich 0L trust fund babies

[BigZuck]

It's a good thing Randy likes to argue so much. Being a lawyer seems like his just right job.

OP- Tulsa is fine with small law/local government aspirations, ties to and desire to work in the area, minimal debt, and a willingness to hustle. If all those things don't apply to you, look for a different school.

[MistakenGenius]

Post removed.

[MistakenGenius]

Post removed.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

A lot can happen in 10 or 15 years. They might make 100k, or they might have left law. So I can't agree or disagree with you on that. I follow LST, so I absolutely agree with you that they have a +50% chance of making it out of Tulsa. They have a 58% chance of getting a legal job. That's another reason for the full ride. Even with my criteria (full ride, etc...), 42% of those students would leave Tulsa 50k in debt with nothing to show for it. Many others will be working those lower paying jobs we mentioned. That's why they need to go with as low a debt as possible and have realistic expectations.

Tulsa is such a small school. Just think, if just ten of your classmates at TU had <148 <3.0 gpa, would you be competing with these ten students? What if just five of your classmates went to law school because they wanted to impress their dad or ex girlfriend, but then realized that the law completely sucked and none of them even signed up for the bar exam. Would you be competing with these five students? What about the ones that actually sign up for the bar exam but because of a lack of motivation they don't study and fail? They have a zero percent chance of contributing to the employment score because they failed the bar… you competing with those kiddos too? Also, what about students that transfer out of TU because they had top grades, there goes four or five you aren't competing with.

Genius, if only some of this takes place, and I submit to you I'm only talking about real life taking place here, then your chances of employment at TU, by your own (LST) calculus, go from 58% to what? 80%? I mean, the class size is 80 something… so ten students who are objectively dumb, ten students who could give zero shits and have no plan, and three transfers gets you to -23 students.

That would really change the calculus, wouldn't it? ( To be completely fair, there would be some play in the other direction too. Students that are so well connected they could have a 148 LSAT and still get a job. However, I submit to you that those students, those who would otherwise be unqualified but found employment based on connections, would not come close to making up for all the students who transferred, didn't take bar, were dumb w/o connections, etc. )

My own school's LST number swung from 50% to 70% in one year. Did the school radically change in quality in one year, or did the individual make up of the student bodies from the class of 2012 to the class of 2013 have the variety you would expect from human beings living on planet earth?

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

Also, BigZ's post made me thing of something. Perhaps someone can tell me, how hard is it to get into Oklahoma compared to Tulsa and the financial situation? It seems it would probably be the best option for OK politics.

My take as an Okie is that TU for Tulsa and OU for OKC, with OU having the better overall law school.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

Also, BigZ's post made me thing of something. Perhaps someone can tell me, how hard is it to get into Oklahoma compared to Tulsa and the financial situation? It seems it would probably be the best option for OK politics.

My take as an Okie is that TU for Tulsa and OU for OKC, with OU having the better overall law school.

[TatteredDignity]

I know Tattered Dignity is an idiot

I have no idea who you are, but I'm sorry I offended you so deeply.

The only reason I even waded into this mess was to correct your factually wrong assertion about starting salaries at Tulsa firms. You never know when innocent bystanders will believe your uninformed bullshit.

I agree with all four of your criteria for attending TU. It's not gonna be a good value proposition for most people. We agree on 99% of the content in this thread. Let's all calm down.

[BigZuck]

A lot can happen in 10 or 15 years. They might make 100k, or they might have left law. So I can't agree or disagree with you on that. I follow LST, so I absolutely agree with you that they have a +50% chance of making it out of Tulsa. They have a 58% chance of getting a legal job. That's another reason for the full ride. Even with my criteria (full ride, etc...), 42% of those students would leave Tulsa 50k in debt with nothing to show for it. Many others will be working those lower paying jobs we mentioned. That's why they need to go with as low a debt as possible and have realistic expectations.

Tulsa is such a small school. Just think, if just ten of your classmates at TU had <148 <3.0 gpa, would you be competing with these ten students? What if just five of your classmates went to law school because they wanted to impress their dad or ex girlfriend, but then realized that the law completely sucked and none of them even signed up for the bar exam. Would you be competing with these five students? What about the ones that actually sign up for the bar exam but because of a lack of motivation they don't study and fail? They have a zero percent chance of contributing to the employment score because they failed the bar… you competing with those kiddos too? Also, what about students that transfer out of TU because they had top grades, there goes four or five you aren't competing with.

Genius, if only some of this takes place, and I submit to you I'm only talking about real life taking place here, then your chances of employment at TU, by your own (LST) calculus, go from 58% to what? 80%? I mean, the class size is 80 something… so ten students who are objectively dumb, ten students who could give zero shits and have no plan, and three transfers gets you to -23 students.

That would really change the calculus, wouldn't it? ( To be completely fair, there would be some play in the other direction too. Students that are so well connected they could have a 148 LSAT and still get a job. However, I submit to you that those students, those who would otherwise be unqualified but found employment based on connections, would not come close to making up for all the students who transferred, didn't take bar, were dumb w/o connections, etc. )

My own school's LST number swung from 50% to 70% in one year. Did the school radically change in quality in one year, or did the individual make up of the student bodies from the class of 2012 to the class of 2013 have the variety you would expect from human beings living on planet earth?

I agree that some non-zero percentage of the class won't be motivated or whatever, but this is a really dangerous game to play and this advice could be really damaging for kids attending regionals or TTTs. Just completely write off 1/4 of your class from being in competition for jobs? No.

Shame on you Randy.

[bizzike]

A lot can happen in 10 or 15 years. They might make 100k, or they might have left law. So I can't agree or disagree with you on that. I follow LST, so I absolutely agree with you that they have a +50% chance of making it out of Tulsa. They have a 58% chance of getting a legal job. That's another reason for the full ride. Even with my criteria (full ride, etc...), 42% of those students would leave Tulsa 50k in debt with nothing to show for it. Many others will be working those lower paying jobs we mentioned. That's why they need to go with as low a debt as possible and have realistic expectations.

Tulsa is such a small school. Just think, if just ten of your classmates at TU had <148 <3.0 gpa, would you be competing with these ten students? What if just five of your classmates went to law school because they wanted to impress their dad or ex girlfriend, but then realized that the law completely sucked and none of them even signed up for the bar exam. Would you be competing with these five students? What about the ones that actually sign up for the bar exam but because of a lack of motivation they don't study and fail? They have a zero percent chance of contributing to the employment score because they failed the bar… you competing with those kiddos too? Also, what about students that transfer out of TU because they had top grades, there goes four or five you aren't competing with.

Genius, if only some of this takes place, and I submit to you I'm only talking about real life taking place here, then your chances of employment at TU, by your own (LST) calculus, go from 58% to what? 80%? I mean, the class size is 80 something… so ten students who are objectively dumb, ten students who could give zero shits and have no plan, and three transfers gets you to -23 students.

That would really change the calculus, wouldn't it? ( To be completely fair, there would be some play in the other direction too. Students that are so well connected they could have a 148 LSAT and still get a job. However, I submit to you that those students, those who would otherwise be unqualified but found employment based on connections, would not come close to making up for all the students who transferred, didn't take bar, were dumb w/o connections, etc. )

My own school's LST number swung from 50% to 70% in one year. Did the school radically change in quality in one year, or did the individual make up of the student bodies from the class of 2012 to the class of 2013 have the variety you would expect from human beings living on planet earth?

Holy optimism bias, Batman.

[transferror]

Genius, if only some of this takes place, and I submit to you I'm only talking about real life taking place here, then your chances of employment at TU, by your own (LST) calculus, go from 58% to what? 80%? I mean, the class size is 80 something… so ten students who are objectively dumb, ten students who could give zero shits and have no plan, and three transfers gets you to -23 students.

That would really change the calculus, wouldn't it? ( To be completely fair, there would be some play in the other direction too. Students that are so well connected they could have a 148 LSAT and still get a job. However, I submit to you that those students, those who would otherwise be unqualified but found employment based on connections, would not come close to making up for all the students who transferred, didn't take bar, were dumb w/o connections, etc. )

I submit to you that you should stop submitting to people.....