Top Law Schools

I do not want big law.
I scored a 165 (3.49 gpa, 4.0 last 3 semesters) and am looking to work in Illinois.

Notre Dame and UIUC both seem like very good options where I can get 1/2 off tuition.

My parents are going to help me pay some of my tuition, I dont know how much yet and won't know until i can show them the scholarships I've been offered and etc.

And what they dont pay they will loan me.

i just want to hear why someone would want t14 besides prestige and big law when the employment difference is 80% to 70% at ND or 60% at UIUC. I'm not saying there aren't other good reasons, but i just haven't heard them.

Thanks! (sorry for sloppy text, used phone to post)

Pablo wrote:I do not want big law.
I scored a 165 (3.49 gpa, 4.0 last 3 semesters) and am looking to work in Illinois.

Notre Dame and UIUC both seem like very good options where I can get 1/2 off tuition.

My parents are going to help me pay some of my tuition, I dont know how much yet and won't know until i can show them the scholarships I've been offered and etc.

And what they dont pay they will loan me.

i just want to hear why someone would want t14 besides prestige and big law when the employment difference is 80% to 70% at ND or 60% at UIUC. I'm not saying there aren't other good reasons, but i just haven't heard them.

Thanks! (sorry for sloppy text, used phone to post)

You should retake because it is unwise to go to ND or UIUC at anything less than a full scholarship. "1/2 off" - and not even taking into account COL - is not nearly enough.

To be honest, these aren't horrible options, they are by no means good, but it's better than a lot of threads you'll run into.

In this case though, you should re-take because if there is any doubt in your mind about this decision, it will haunt you the rest of your life. What if the decision could have been Northwestern with 20k vs ND for free? Would you regret knowing that you and your family could have had a better life, in both material and psychological terms, if you had spent just one more year working towards it?

A retake (assuming you score higher, which you should) nets you: a) admission to a better school or b) a better scholarship at your current schools. Even if you attend UIUC or ND, the potential increase in scholarship means your study hours are literally worth hundreds of dollars. It sucks - I'm doing it now - but the numbers reveal it is overwhelmingly worth it. Save your parents' money. Save your money. Retake.

Do you really want to spend the next three years of your life in Champaign or South Bend?

You know I dropped out of high school and took community college route to transfer into small little undergrad. I am an ex fu*k up and none of my friends go to college. I am a bit worried about being overwhelmed by the students at a t14. My sister goes to an ivy league and her friends seem so much more educated than me. And as far as scholarship money to ND or UIUC, I am worried about messing up on the lsat and getting a lower score.

Current UIUC student here. I always advise a retake but I just wanted to inform you that you could probably get a full ride to UIUC with your current numbers. That being said, don't worry about getting a lower score on the LSAT, almost all schools will just take the highest score.

HRomanus wrote:A retake (assuming you score higher, which you should) nets you: a) admission to a better school or b) a better scholarship at your current schools.

Here is something to be mindful about. Once you are above your school's 75th percentile any further increase is of no benefit to the school, how much you are above is NOT reportable for any US News rankings purposes. So the schools really have no incentive to throw more money at the 96% LSAT than they do for going after the 76%-er. Remember, that average LSAT in an admitted class is not computed. So I would say the a) scenario makes much more sense to me than b). Remember also, if you retake, what do you lose?

Sounds like rich parents so hitting up the regional wouldn't be devastating. Still, the real issue here isn't whether or not you retake, the underlying question remains what you want to practice and how you've determined you'll get there. Getting a higher LSAT is a means to an end. Im most concerned about what you would do with a notre dame degree if you didnt want to work for a firm. Why law school? Depending on your goal, you may want to adjust your options by retaking, or maybe ND w/o federal loans is okay.

If you don't really know why you're going to get a law degree and you just don't want "biglaw" because then you know you'll have to reapply, then, well, my suggestion is to forego the degree altogether until you figure that out.

I want to litigate. Civil, criminal, or business I won't be able I figure out until I study law. But I spend every night watching YouTube videos of trials and want to end up litigating for a small or mid size firm one day or the government. I dont know what else I can do to fugue out exactly what I want to do. Every person in law school I've talked to says you won't know what you want to do until you get to law school because whatever you think you want to do will surely change. But I want to spend my career researching, writing, and arguing cases. That I am sure of.

But I still haven't gotten an answer to the question of whether a t14 leads to better opportunities in terms of good jobs that aren't big law. Is t14 all about big law?

You applying this coming cycle?

Think of it this way: you have plenty of time and schools exclusively use your highest score. So why NOT retake? Besides effort, there's nothing to lose by retaking, and you could get more $$$ and better acceptances. Better to have an overkill LSAT score for scholarship purposes than a borderline one. Just give it a shot.

To answer your recent Q, look at the LST employment reports. The T14 schools have less unemployment and underemployment than the rest. Yes, Northwestern is better for getting a non-big law job than ND. Better employment rates overall, and even in non-biglaw I would imagine prestige still matters.

But cost (at a decent school - not an awful risky dump) should be your main consideration for your situation since the stuff in the above paragraph is marginal and less absolute than dat cash. Fully to UIUC > than 1/3 scholly at NU.

Study hard and apply to UIUC, ND, WUSTL, Northwestern, etc. to shoot for Illinois.

A full scholly at UIUC is a reasonable goal and probably the best fit for ya. But the others for equal cost would be intriguing.

Good luck!

Pablo wrote:But I still haven't gotten an answer to the question of whether a t14 leads to better opportunities in terms of good jobs that aren't big law. Is t14 all about big law?

The common wisdom seems to be that the highest ranked school you can possibly attend in the area you want to practice in gives you the best chance to land any job, biglaw, small law, or government, or else. Unless of course you go to one of the top 6 schools. They are good for any area. This of course only addresses chances to land a job, but in each case you should not forget about the debt you accrue as well as zillion other personal factors.
(My advice is worth what you paid for it.)

Moabit wrote:

Pablo wrote:But I still haven't gotten an answer to the question of whether a t14 leads to better opportunities in terms of good jobs that aren't big law. Is t14 all about big law?

The common wisdom seems to be that the highest ranked school you can possibly attend in the area you want to practice in gives you the best chance to land any job, biglaw, small law, or government, or else.

This applies more closely to T1 schools than to T14. HYS places better than local T14s in almost any market (possible exceptions are certain paranoid/protective/prideful regional areas with their own respected flagship).
HYS aside, if you want to practice in DC, for instance, you are most likely better off going to CCNMVPDCN than to GULC. On the flip side, you might have a better shot at LA from UCLA/USC than you do from, idk, Cornell. It's all very situational and rank/geography is not always the easy answer.

Moabit wrote: Unless of course you go to one of the top 6 schools. They are good for any area. This of course only addresses chances to land a job, but in each case you should not forget about the debt you accrue as well as zillion other personal factors.
(My advice is worth what you paid for it.)

This isn't necessarily true. I very much doubt Columbia, Chicago, or NYU place better in SF or the Bay Area than Boalt does. Penn certainly gives you a better shot at Philly than those three. NU almost certainly beats Columbia or NYU for the Chicago market. And so on.

Anyway, I guess my only real point is that the "best" school is a highly situation, applicant-specific determination and isn't always tied to rank or geography in obvious ways.
Except Yale. You can probably do whatever the fuck you want from Yale.

ymmv wrote:

Moabit wrote:

Pablo wrote:But I still haven't gotten an answer to the question of whether a t14 leads to better opportunities in terms of good jobs that aren't big law. Is t14 all about big law?

The common wisdom seems to be that the highest ranked school you can possibly attend in the area you want to practice in gives you the best chance to land any job, biglaw, small law, or government, or else.

This applies more closely to T1 schools than to T14. HYS places better than local T14s in almost any market (possible exceptions are certain paranoid/protective/prideful regional areas with their own respected flagship).
HYS aside, if you want to practice in DC, for instance, you are most likely better off going to CCNMVPDCN than to GULC. On the flip side, you might have a better shot at LA from UCLA/USC than you do from, idk, Cornell. It's all very situational and rank/geography is not always the easy answer.

Moabit wrote: Unless of course you go to one of the top 6 schools. They are good for any area. This of course only addresses chances to land a job, but in each case you should not forget about the debt you accrue as well as zillion other personal factors.
(My advice is worth what you paid for it.)

This isn't necessarily true. I very much doubt Columbia, Chicago, or NYU place better in SF or the Bay Area than Boalt does. Penn certainly gives you a better shot at Philly than those three. NU almost certainly beats Columbia or NYU for the Chicago market. And so on.

Anyway, I guess my only real point is that the "best" school is a highly situation, applicant-specific determination and isn't always tied to rank or geography in obvious ways.
Except Yale. You can probably do whatever the fuck you want from Yale.

Well yeah Berkeley is better in California than CCN(same with Penn and Philly). I believe the point is that CCN are much better than the tier below them for a neutral area(say, Seattle).

The Dark Shepard wrote:

ymmv wrote:

Moabit wrote:

Pablo wrote:But I still haven't gotten an answer to the question of whether a t14 leads to better opportunities in terms of good jobs that aren't big law. Is t14 all about big law?

The common wisdom seems to be that the highest ranked school you can possibly attend in the area you want to practice in gives you the best chance to land any job, biglaw, small law, or government, or else.

This applies more closely to T1 schools than to T14. HYS places better than local T14s in almost any market (possible exceptions are certain paranoid/protective/prideful regional areas with their own respected flagship).
HYS aside, if you want to practice in DC, for instance, you are most likely better off going to CCNMVPDCN than to GULC. On the flip side, you might have a better shot at LA from UCLA/USC than you do from, idk, Cornell. It's all very situational and rank/geography is not always the easy answer.

Moabit wrote: Unless of course you go to one of the top 6 schools. They are good for any area. This of course only addresses chances to land a job, but in each case you should not forget about the debt you accrue as well as zillion other personal factors.
(My advice is worth what you paid for it.)

This isn't necessarily true. I very much doubt Columbia, Chicago, or NYU place better in SF or the Bay Area than Boalt does. Penn certainly gives you a better shot at Philly than those three. NU almost certainly beats Columbia or NYU for the Chicago market. And so on.

Anyway, I guess my only real point is that the "best" school is a highly situation, applicant-specific determination and isn't always tied to rank or geography in obvious ways.
Except Yale. You can probably do whatever the fuck you want from Yale.

Well yeah Berkeley is better in California than CCN(same with Penn and Philly). I believe the point is that CCN are much better than the tier below them for a neutral area(say, Seattle).

Well, yeah, I pointed out that the exception applies primarily to places which have their own flagship. Unless that flagship is a comparatively shitty one like GULC.
But determining what a "neutral" area is is a difficult one. I think you're going to have much closer matches between a good UT student and a decent Columbia student fighting over the Texas markets, for instance, despite UT being the uncontested regional for miles.

A good enough retake could give you more money at Illinois and Notre Dame and if you improve enough, you can get some money at Northwestern and then you can decide if it's worth an extra bit of money to go there.

Even if you can get 20k to 30k more, which isn't even that big of a scholarship increase, because of a retake (which someone in your situation can do), it's worth it to retake. If you don't do Biglaw, 20k to 30k is essentially 2 or 3 fewer years of not having to pay down loans. Well worth it for taking a 3 hour multiple choice test if you ask me.

ymmv wrote:

The Dark Shepard wrote: Well yeah Berkeley is better in California than CCN(same with Penn and Philly). I believe the point is that CCN are much better than the tier below them for a neutral area(say, Seattle).

Well, yeah, I pointed out that the exception applies primarily to places which have their own flagship. Unless that flagship is a comparatively shitty one like GULC.
But determining what a "neutral" area is is a difficult one. I think you're going to have much closer matches between a good UT student and a decent Columbia student fighting over the Texas markets, for instance, despite UT being the uncontested regional for miles.

It's not really "matches"; this is a weird way to think about law firm recruiting. When you are getting screeners at OCI you are being compared at most to other students at your school, not the state flagship.

Moreover, define "good" and "decent," those sound the same to me. A median CLS or chicago student, or even a tad below median, who has made it to CB & has requisite ties is definitely in a better position for 'texas' than a UT student hovering at top third. And this is for the same firm - a large part of the advantage stems from the reality that students from elite schools will only be targeting the top firms in that market out of OCI (although they may mass-mail others), and not all biglaw is created equal. The cutoffs at V&E or, as an extreme example, Susman, are not comparable to some of the other local 100+ firms that come to UT to recruit.

jbagelboy wrote:

ymmv wrote:

The Dark Shepard wrote: Well yeah Berkeley is better in California than CCN(same with Penn and Philly). I believe the point is that CCN are much better than the tier below them for a neutral area(say, Seattle).

Well, yeah, I pointed out that the exception applies primarily to places which have their own flagship. Unless that flagship is a comparatively shitty one like GULC.
But determining what a "neutral" area is is a difficult one. I think you're going to have much closer matches between a good UT student and a decent Columbia student fighting over the Texas markets, for instance, despite UT being the uncontested regional for miles.

It's not really "matches"; this is a weird way to think about law firm recruiting. When you are getting screeners at OCI you are being compared at most to other students at your school, not the state flagship.

Moreover, define "good" and "decent," those sound the same to me. A median CLS or chicago student, or even a tad below median, who has made it to CB & has requisite ties is definitely in a better position for 'texas' than a UT student hovering at top third. And this is for the same firm - a large part of the advantage stems from the reality that students from elite schools will only be targeting the top firms in that market out of OCI (although they may mass-mail others), and not all biglaw is created equal. The cutoffs at V&E or, as an extreme example, Susman, are not comparable to some of the other local 100+ firms that come to UT to recruit.

I don't disagree with any of this, and I wasn't saying "matches" are a good way to think about job placement. I only meant to describe the difficulty of defining "neutral" areas for purposes of T6 vs. regional flagship calculation, as DS mentioned.

ymmv wrote:

Moabit wrote: Unless of course you go to one of the top 6 schools. They are good for any area. This of course only addresses chances to land a job, but in each case you should not forget about the debt you accrue as well as zillion other personal factors.
(My advice is worth what you paid for it.)

This isn't necessarily true. I very much doubt Columbia, Chicago, or NYU place better in SF or the Bay Area than Boalt does. Penn certainly gives you a better shot at Philly than those three. NU almost certainly beats Columbia or NYU for the Chicago market. And so on.

Doubting is fine, but how do you know it with "almost certainty"? The point is not whether Berkeley places more in the Bay area than Columbia, this statistics would be irrelevant because of the obvious selection bias. The real question would be how the success rate of those Columbia graduates who want to work in the Bay area compares with the similar rate for Berkeley graduates. And I very much doubt you can know this with any degree of certainty.

Moabit wrote:

ymmv wrote:

Moabit wrote: Unless of course you go to one of the top 6 schools. They are good for any area. This of course only addresses chances to land a job, but in each case you should not forget about the debt you accrue as well as zillion other personal factors.
(My advice is worth what you paid for it.)

This isn't necessarily true. I very much doubt Columbia, Chicago, or NYU place better in SF or the Bay Area than Boalt does. Penn certainly gives you a better shot at Philly than those three. NU almost certainly beats Columbia or NYU for the Chicago market. And so on.

Doubting is fine, but how do you know it with "almost certainty"? The point is not whether Berkeley places more in the Bay area than Columbia, this statistics would be irrelevant because of the obvious selection bias. The real question would be how the success rate of those Columbia graduates who want to work in the Bay area compares with the similar rate for Berkeley graduates. And I very much doubt you can know this with any degree of certainty.

You're right, there isn't enough good evidence or data to support NU grads having a better shot at Chicago market than NYU grads. We just don't know. But my suspicion and belief that such is the case is strong enough to be near certainty in my mind. If I were an applicant aiming Chicago biglaw or bust, I would personally take NU over NYU.

I perhaps should have been clearer before that there is a dearth of data available from which to make these kinds of judgments. So my opinion should be taken as very much just an opinion.

Pablo wrote:I do not want big law.
I scored a 165 (3.49 gpa, 4.0 last 3 semesters) and am looking to work in Illinois.

Notre Dame and UIUC both seem like very good options where I can get 1/2 off tuition.

My parents are going to help me pay some of my tuition, I dont know how much yet and won't know until i can show them the scholarships I've been offered and etc.

And what they dont pay they will loan me.

i just want to hear why someone would want t14 besides prestige and big law when the employment difference is 80% to 70% at ND or 60% at UIUC. I'm not saying there aren't other good reasons, but i just haven't heard them.

Thanks! (sorry for sloppy text, used phone to post)

What kind of jobs are we talking about? Law or whatever JD preferred and the business thing.
What else are you going to do that could potentially save you so much money?

ymmv wrote: You're right, there isn't enough good evidence or data to support NU grads having a better shot at Chicago market than NYU grads. We just don't know. But my suspicion and belief that such is the case is strong enough to be near certainty in my mind. If I were an applicant aiming Chicago biglaw or bust, I would personally take NU over NYU.

I perhaps should have been clearer before that there is a dearth of data available from which to make these kinds of judgments. So my opinion should be taken as very much just an opinion.

We are likely splitting hairs here. You probably would agree that if the OP gets offers from both Northwestern and Columbia that would not be too daunting a choice either way.

So it really sounds like the reason to go to a t14 is for 10 or 20% bump in chance of employment after 9 months. BigLaw opportunities. And the ability to say you went to a prestigious school. There is an assumption you will have more options when it comes to other law jobs but only one person made that assumption on this thread and they didn't seem to sure about it.

If I retake I know I can't hit a 170, but a 168 or 169 I think is doable if I ace logic games and score a couple questions better on logical reasoning which I think I can do since I wasn't able to finish either of my logical reasoning sections on test day.

Would a 168 get me more money at the better non-t14 midwest schools?

Would it get me into Michigan or Northwestern because I feel like it probobly wouldn't (People with a 168 are missing t14 all over, even in this climate, unless they have high GPA).

Pablo wrote:So it really sounds like the reason to go to a t14 is for 10 or 20% bump in chance of employment after 9 months. BigLaw opportunities. And the ability to say you went to a prestigious school. There is an assumption you will have more options when it comes to other law jobs but only one person made that assumption on this thread and they didn't seem to sure about it.

If I retake I know I can't hit a 170, but a 168 or 169 I think is doable if I ace logic games and score a couple questions better on logical reasoning which I think I can do since I wasn't able to finish to logical reasoning section on actual test day.

Would a 168 get me more money at the better non-t14 midwest schools?

Would it get me into Michigan or Northwestern because I feel like it probobly wouldn't (People with a 168 are missing t14 all over even in this climate unless they have high GPA).

1) It's right there in the under-employment and employment numbers my dude: Northwestern and other T14s are marginally better for getting any job than UIUC/ND/WUSTL. That's not really an assumption. T14s place better in general in the legal field than non-T14s. BUT for general employment the difference between these groups for your target region is likely much too marginal to consider over cost. Aim to get big scholarship and low costs first before that benefit.

Head to Head comparison by LST of UIUC/NU/WUSTL/ND:

http://www.lstscorereports.com/compare/ ... notredame/

2) Don't sell yourself short with arbitrary LSAT scores...170 is 1 or two questions more correct out of the whole test than 169. ANYONE who can score a 169 can score a 170, that's not some special hurdle. Also, I just don't get the whole picking a goal score thing...your goal should be to get all the questions right. From there you will almost certainly miss some, but aim high and have some confidence in yourself. Try your best and wait for the results.

Just by finishing all the sections if you didn't previously you're likely to see a 1 or 2 point bump. Train your reading speed and pace at which you attack the sections. A lil time management and test endurance training goes a long way.

3) Hell yes 168 would get you more money at UIUC/ND/WUSTL. Like a lot more. Check out mylsn.info and LSN profiles.

4) That's pretty hard to say because you'd be on the border. But what exactly do you get out of NOT trying? wtf is at risk?

Study hard, retake and profit. The UIUC/ND/WUSTL group is still probably your best bet (in order). but you def are capable of improving and should try it because you have a lot to gain

Good luck