School cutoff LST Forum

[should-i-do-it]

Based on LST scores, under what percentage (full time bar passage required jobs) would you not go. I used to think 70% was good but even a 30% chance of not getting a real job is pretty scary.

[03152016]

it depends on the circumstances – personal preferences as to geography, costs, goals, etc.
not to mention underemployment scores, school-funded, nature of jobs, etc
for example, given all of the above, i would be much more likely to consider wustl (67% employment) than emory (83.6% "employment")

[whitespider]

it depends on the circumstances – personal preferences as to geography, costs, goals, etc.
not to mention underemployment scores, school-funded, nature of jobs, etc
for example, given all of the above, i would be much more likely to consider wustl (67% employment) than emory (83.6% "employment")

To piggyback off this, I would also make sure to take into account more than just a year of data.

Emory was in the 60%s two years ago, the 70%s last year and now the 80%s this year. Who knows where it'll land next year (not the 90%s, thats for sure)

[ManoftheHour]

I wouldn't go to a school unless it was at least 60% full time bar passage (excluding bs school funded) period. Even on a full ride at such a school, 40% chance of not becoming a lawyer is pretty scary.

[Attax]

Gonna be median pwned most likely, so I'd go somewhere >50% but preferably higher than that. Somewhere around 60%

[03152016]

I wouldn't go to a school unless it was at least 60% full time bar passage (excluding bs school funded) period. Even on a full ride at such a school, 40% chance of not becoming a lawyer is pretty scary.

no more tar?

[shifty_eyed]

Gonna be median pwned most likely, so I'd go somewhere >50% but preferably higher than that. Somewhere around 60%

The thing is that once you miss the biglaw boat, being top 40% vs. top 60% isn't really going to make much of a difference as far as I can tell. I don't think you can say, ok, 60% of people at my school get LTFT legal jobs, so as long as I'm above median, I'm fine.

[ManoftheHour]

I wouldn't go to a school unless it was at least 60% full time bar passage (excluding bs school funded) period. Even on a full ride at such a school, 40% chance of not becoming a lawyer is pretty scary.

no more tar?

Yeah, even though in the tar I had a mask on, I didn't want to out myself to my school.

[sesto elemento]

I wouldn't go to a school unless it was at least 60% full time bar passage (excluding bs school funded) period. Even on a full ride at such a school, 40% chance of not becoming a lawyer is pretty scary.

no more tar?

Yeah, even though in the tar I had a mask on, I didn't want to out myself to my school.

[sublime]

..

[DoveBodyWash]

this was a more complicated issue for me...because debt came into play. I was okay going to school with lower placement if it was cheaper. How you find that balance is a matter of personal preference. But as a general principle I personally would like to know that my school at least gives me 50-50 odds

[AT9]

I approached it like so:

LST score/money needed to consider
Less than 50%: never
50-59%: full ride or very close
60-69: minimal debt, no more than what I could expect to earn starting
70-80: 1/2 off
80+: depends on school, but 1/3 off would maybe do it

*these are not counting school funded jobs
** I also averaged out the scores as far back as I could (5 years?)
*** my SO is working so COL isn't as much of a factor

This helped me narrow down my list considerably.

[Attax]

Gonna be median pwned most likely, so I'd go somewhere >50% but preferably higher than that. Somewhere around 60%

The thing is that once you miss the biglaw boat, being top 40% vs. top 60% isn't really going to make much of a difference as far as I can tell. I don't think you can say, ok, 60% of people at my school get LTFT legal jobs, so as long as I'm above median, I'm fine.

True, I should add that this is considering little to no debt. If debt were a factor it would be a substantially higher requirement for biglaw. I'd go to a place with 60% LTFT employment where all are biglaw versus 95% where only 10% were biglaw.

[eriedoctrine]

Should also take biglaw+fedclerk into consideration.
Sure, Fordham and Albany are both around 60%, but yeah...

http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/fordham/2013/
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/albany/2013/

[twenty]

I'm becoming increasingly reluctant to make blanket statements about how people should evaluate LST scores. If you're just looking at the people employed in legal positions, then Yale and GWU are tied and Emory outpaces them both. If you're just looking at biglaw+A3 scores, Stanford and Columbia outpace Harvard pretty easily. Want to get rid of the school-funded jobs? That's probably not fair; some of the T14s fellowships are significantly more competitive than biglaw.

The bigger question is, how fucked are you if law doesn't work out for you -- either because you didn't get biglaw, or because you want to blow your brains out every night because you did? With many schools (and these aren't all TTTs, either), even if you can attend for COA + whatever lost income you would have made in three years, that still wouldn't warrant attendance.

I get the feeling a lot of folks at my law school kind of just defaulted into law, and I'm not entirely sure yet I'm not one of them. It's almost difficult to articulate this, but I hope future readers can just kind of bear with me when I say there is a huge difference in what law school is to me compared to what law school is to everyone else at my school. I have a decent resume and I'm attending for 0 COA. Worst case scenario, I can't practice law and I go back to my old job with a new diploma hanging on my office wall. I don't even think about the best case scenario because I really don't care that much. Sure, it would be nice if I ended up getting straight As, but it wouldn't actually be that much worse for me to get straight C+s. I can't even begin to explain how emotionally freeing that is.

tl;dr, I don't care if you think you want biglaw, if you think you want an A3 clerkship, or even if you think you want to practice law. Having a 60% chance of practicing law when you graduate with an 100% chance of not being financially screwed is better than having an 100% chance of getting biglaw with an 0% chance of not being financially screwed.

[ManoftheHour]

I'm becoming increasingly reluctant to make blanket statements about how people should evaluate LST scores. If you're just looking at the people employed in legal positions, then Yale and GWU are tied and Emory outpaces them both. If you're just looking at biglaw+A3 scores, Stanford and Columbia outpace Harvard pretty easily. Want to get rid of the school-funded jobs? That's probably not fair; some of the T14s fellowships are significantly more competitive than biglaw.

The bigger question is, how fucked are you if law doesn't work out for you -- either because you didn't get biglaw, or because you want to blow your brains out every night because you did? With many schools (and these aren't all TTTs, either), even if you can attend for COA + whatever lost income you would have made in three years, that still wouldn't warrant attendance.

I get the feeling a lot of folks at my law school kind of just defaulted into law, and I'm not entirely sure yet I'm not one of them. It's almost difficult to articulate this, but I hope future readers can just kind of bear with me when I say there is a huge difference in what law school is to me compared to what law school is to everyone else at my school. I have a decent resume and I'm attending for 0 COA. Worst case scenario, I can't practice law and I go back to my old job with a new diploma hanging on my office wall. I don't even think about the best case scenario because I really don't care that much. Sure, it would be nice if I ended up getting straight As, but it wouldn't actually be that much worse for me to get straight C+s. I can't even begin to explain how emotionally freeing that is.

tl;dr, I don't care if you think you want biglaw, if you think you want an A3 clerkship, or even if you think you want to practice law. Having a 60% chance of practicing law when you graduate with an 100% chance of not being financially screwed is better than having an 100% chance of getting biglaw with an 0% chance of not being financially screwed.

I feel like we're in almost the exact same position...

0 COA and HR at my old company personally told me I will always have a job at my old company. The people and I are are really close. It really is liberating. Plus, if we enjoy the 3 years here, then maybe it's not such a "waste" in that sense (I mean, it's a waste because of lost income, but it could be worse).

You going for PI too, right? I remember you writing a pretty detailed guide about the hiring process.

[TheSpanishMain]

I'm becoming increasingly reluctant to make blanket statements about how people should evaluate LST scores. If you're just looking at the people employed in legal positions, then Yale and GWU are tied and Emory outpaces them both. If you're just looking at biglaw+A3 scores, Stanford and Columbia outpace Harvard pretty easily. Want to get rid of the school-funded jobs? That's probably not fair; some of the T14s fellowships are significantly more competitive than biglaw.

The bigger question is, how fucked are you if law doesn't work out for you -- either because you didn't get biglaw, or because you want to blow your brains out every night because you did? With many schools (and these aren't all TTTs, either), even if you can attend for COA + whatever lost income you would have made in three years, that still wouldn't warrant attendance.

I get the feeling a lot of folks at my law school kind of just defaulted into law, and I'm not entirely sure yet I'm not one of them. It's almost difficult to articulate this, but I hope future readers can just kind of bear with me when I say there is a huge difference in what law school is to me compared to what law school is to everyone else at my school. I have a decent resume and I'm attending for 0 COA. Worst case scenario, I can't practice law and I go back to my old job with a new diploma hanging on my office wall. I don't even think about the best case scenario because I really don't care that much. Sure, it would be nice if I ended up getting straight As, but it wouldn't actually be that much worse for me to get straight C+s. I can't even begin to explain how emotionally freeing that is.

tl;dr, I don't care if you think you want biglaw, if you think you want an A3 clerkship, or even if you think you want to practice law. Having a 60% chance of practicing law when you graduate with an 100% chance of not being financially screwed is better than having an 100% chance of getting biglaw with an 0% chance of not being financially screwed.

This is a solid post, especially the bolded.

[03152016]

it's great you can rationalize your decision, but everyone has their own calculus
i would never attend a law school with 60% placement, period
even with a full ride and stipend, i would not consider it
i'm going to law school to practice law and i made my admissions decisions accordingly

now that doesn't mean i would pay sticker
if those were my two options i would simply not attend

[ScottRiqui]

i would never attend a law school with 60% placement, period
even with a full ride and stipend, i would not consider it

I know that "assume you'll end up at median" is the conventional TLS wisdom, and it's certainly the safest viewpoint, but is it ever justified to think you'll end up higher (as in your example where your numbers are good enough to warrant a full ride + stipend? I think the truth of where you'll end up lies somewhere between "I'm a special snowflake and will out-work everyone else, so I'm confident I'll be to 10%" and "Roll a 100-sided die on your first day of class; that's where you'll end up on the curve."

[A. Nony Mouse]

it's great you can rationalize your decision, but everyone has their own calculus
i would never attend a law school with 60% placement, period
even with a full ride and stipend, i would not consider it
i'm going to law school to practice law and i made my admissions decisions accordingly

now that doesn't mean i would pay sticker
if those were my two options i would simply not attend

Depending on my personal circumstances (where the school was/where I was from/my goals), full ride? sure. I get why people wouldn't, but I don't think it's unreasonable under those circumstances, if someone wants to take that risk.

[03152016]

right, that's my argument
everyone has their own calculus

i was pushing back against twenty's argument: "Having a 60% chance of practicing law when you graduate with an 100% chance of not being financially screwed is better than having an 100% chance of getting biglaw with an 0% chance of not being financially screwed."

by saying, great if that works for you, but it's not a one-size-fits-all thing
for example, i would never attend a law school with 60% placement, etc

[03152016]

i would never attend a law school with 60% placement, period
even with a full ride and stipend, i would not consider it

I know that "assume you'll end up at median" is the conventional TLS wisdom, and it's certainly the safest viewpoint, but is it ever justified to think you'll end up higher (as in your example where your numbers are good enough to warrant a full ride + stipend? I think the truth of where you'll end up lies somewhere between "I'm a special snowflake and will out-work everyone else, so I'm confident I'll be to 10%" and "Roll a 100-sided die on your first day of class; that's where you'll end up on the curve."

that's true, it's definitely somewhere in-between
worth noting, though, that it's not necessarily the people at the top of the class who get the jobs
and people with $$$ do poorly all the time (in fact, some schools count on it)

different strokes for different folks

[Zero99]

I'm becoming increasingly reluctant to make blanket statements about how people should evaluate LST scores. If you're just looking at the people employed in legal positions, then Yale and GWU are tied and Emory outpaces them both. If you're just looking at biglaw+A3 scores, Stanford and Columbia outpace Harvard pretty easily. Want to get rid of the school-funded jobs? That's probably not fair; some of the T14s fellowships are significantly more competitive than biglaw.

The bigger question is, how fucked are you if law doesn't work out for you -- either because you didn't get biglaw, or because you want to blow your brains out every night because you did? With many schools (and these aren't all TTTs, either), even if you can attend for COA + whatever lost income you would have made in three years, that still wouldn't warrant attendance.

I get the feeling a lot of folks at my law school kind of just defaulted into law, and I'm not entirely sure yet I'm not one of them. It's almost difficult to articulate this, but I hope future readers can just kind of bear with me when I say there is a huge difference in what law school is to me compared to what law school is to everyone else at my school. I have a decent resume and I'm attending for 0 COA. Worst case scenario, I can't practice law and I go back to my old job with a new diploma hanging on my office wall. I don't even think about the best case scenario because I really don't care that much. Sure, it would be nice if I ended up getting straight As, but it wouldn't actually be that much worse for me to get straight C+s. I can't even begin to explain how emotionally freeing that is.

tl;dr, I don't care if you think you want biglaw, if you think you want an A3 clerkship, or even if you think you want to practice law. Having a 60% chance of practicing law when you graduate with an 100% chance of not being financially screwed is better than having an 100% chance of getting biglaw with an 0% chance of not being financially screwed.

I agree with this. And everyone has different calculus, but if you are at all unsure about trading job prospects for debt, I would err on the side of low CoA.