Top Law Schools

So far, I have yet to find any helpful discussions regarding USF. I'm curious to hear what people think about USF (location, students, professors, workload, curriculum, job prospects, etc...). I know it's not a top ranked school, and is actually T4, however I'm still interested in hearing about the good, bad, and everything in between. I'd especially like to hear from current students and/or alumni about their experience at USF.

Note: Only give your opinion if you have a specific example or actual experience to reference. Please don't bash this school by puling out the classic TLS T3/T4 haterade (i.e, "retake or don't go to law school at all," "T4 = failure in life," etc...), I've heard it all before

Thank you in advance, TLS!

This is what I think about USF: http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... isco/2013/

Only 34% of the class gets a job as a lawyer. Only 5% of the class gets the sort of job that can service the enormous six-figure debt most students incur. Not worth it under any circumstances whatsoever. Not even worth the opportunity cost with a full tuition scholarship.

The school is in the process of being sued for fraud by former students. The results of this suit are TBD, but a similar suit in New York was dismissed on the grounds that the employment numbers the school was providing were so obviously phony that no rational consumer would have taken them seriously.

I'm not sure why but something about a Jesuit school existing to simply swindle people out of money seems wrong to me

But yeah, I think it's one of the very worst law schools in the country and should be shut down

CA has a number of good law schools, I would focus on one of those instead of this scam

You absolutely must retake the LSAT and at the very least snag yourself Davis (if you're interested in the Bay Area).

ESPECIALLY if you truly are a URM (AA?), you will have much better options.

Thanks, everyone!

I currently have very limited options with my depressing 148 LSAT & 3.29 UGPA , but I registered for the June LSAT & TestMasters IMMEDIATELY after receiving my score. USF is one of the few schools that I applied to/have a chance at, in CA, but this feedback (though not what I'm looking for) encourages my decision to retake in June for better prospects.

However, although I do appreciate the encouragement to retake for better prospects, as I stated in my original post, that is not what I am looking for here. At this point, I'm mostly curious to hear current/old students' point of view. First hand knowledge/experience trumps basic opinions on the facts that are easily accessible on the web.

Dirigo wrote:You absolutely must retake the LSAT and at the very least snag yourself Davis (if you're interested in the Bay Area).

ESPECIALLY if you truly are a URM (AA?), you will have much better options.

I am an AA URM

You truly do need to retake. There are countless resources in the LSAT Prep forum and June is enough time to make significant improvements if you diligently study.
Your future self will be so thankful you didn't apply with such a sub-par score.

If you have any questions or need any advice, feel free to ask me and other users in the June Study Thread:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=230875

Fortunately your first score really doesn't matter, as schools only care about the highest one. And as an AA URM you've got a nice boost coming your way, so study for this test like you've never studied for anything before in your life and you'll be in good shape. Applicant numbers continue to drop rapidly so waiting until next fall to apply is probably better anyway.

Tiago Splitter wrote:Fortunately your first score really doesn't matter, as schools only care about the highest one. And as an AA URM you've got a nice boost coming your way, so study for this test like you've never studied for anything before in your life and you'll be in good shape. Applicant numbers continue to drop rapidly so waiting until next fall to apply is probably better anyway.

I did this for the December test (4hrs/day for nearly 4 months & 20+ full, previously released PTs), so pray for me and the TestMasters course this June . I've never done well teaching myself ANYTHING, don't ask me why I thought the LSAT would be any different lol.

Dirigo wrote:You truly do need to retake. There are countless resources in the LSAT Prep forum and June is enough time to make significant improvements if you diligently study.
Your future self will be so thankful you didn't apply with such a sub-par score.

If you have any questions or need any advice, feel free to ask me and other users in the June Study Thread:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=230875

Thank you so much, Dirigo! Very supportive response

trippymickey wrote:Thanks, everyone!

I currently have very limited options with my depressing 148 LSAT & 3.29 UGPA , but I registered for the June LSAT & TestMasters IMMEDIATELY after receiving my score. USF is one of the few schools that I applied to/have a chance at, in CA, but this feedback (though not what I'm looking for) encourages my decision to retake in June for better prospects.

However, although I do appreciate the encouragement to retake for better prospects, as I stated in my original post, that is not what I am looking for here. At this point, I'm mostly curious to hear current/old students' point of view. First hand knowledge/experience trumps basic opinions on the facts that are easily accessible on the web.

Dirigo wrote:You absolutely must retake the LSAT and at the very least snag yourself Davis (if you're interested in the Bay Area).

ESPECIALLY if you truly are a URM (AA?), you will have much better options.

I am an AA URM

Yes, your LSAT and GPA are low, but if you can get to the 160 range you'll be doing yourself a huge favor. I recommend checking out the URM thread, and more specifically this: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=195443. Your GPA doesn't sink you as much as you think it might, and a good LSAT could make it mostly negligible.

Check out Sage7 for the logic games if they stump you during or after your class. You can beat this test and have much better options.

Pumpkin-Duke of Pie wrote:

trippymickey wrote:Thanks, everyone!

I currently have very limited options with my depressing 148 LSAT & 3.29 UGPA , but I registered for the June LSAT & TestMasters IMMEDIATELY after receiving my score. USF is one of the few schools that I applied to/have a chance at, in CA, but this feedback (though not what I'm looking for) encourages my decision to retake in June for better prospects.

However, although I do appreciate the encouragement to retake for better prospects, as I stated in my original post, that is not what I am looking for here. At this point, I'm mostly curious to hear current/old students' point of view. First hand knowledge/experience trumps basic opinions on the facts that are easily accessible on the web.

Dirigo wrote:You absolutely must retake the LSAT and at the very least snag yourself Davis (if you're interested in the Bay Area).

ESPECIALLY if you truly are a URM (AA?), you will have much better options.

I am an AA URM

Yes, your LSAT and GPA are low, but if you can get to the 160 range you'll be doing yourself a huge favor. I recommend checking out the URM thread, and more specifically this: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=195443. Your GPA doesn't sink you as much as you think it might, and a good LSAT could make it mostly negligible.

Check out Sage7 for the logic games if they stump you during or after your class. You can beat this test and have much better options.

Yes, 7Sage was a GODSEND for the games that stumped me! 160+ is the goal .

I'll check that thread out, thank you for the encouraging words!

Retaking the LSAT or not going to law school are really the only two options here. Don't let your current numbers make you think you're bound for a 4th tier school because they're not. You GPA isn't the best, but with a solid boost to the LSAT and your URM status, a 160+ will give you a great chance at getting into one of the top California schools. Don't throw your future away.

jingosaur wrote:Retaking the LSAT or not going to law school are really the only two options here. Don't let your current numbers make you think you're bound for a 4th tier school because they're not. You GPA isn't the best, but with a solid boost to the LSAT and your URM status, a 160+ will give you a great chance at getting into one of the top California schools. Don't throw your future away.

Again, thank you so much for your encouraging words!

I've seen plenty of douchebags on this site, however I truly appreciate the positive, constructive feedback I've received so far. Although my question was never answered, this is exactly what I needed to hear.

On that note, I wish everyone an amazing law school admissions cycle, may you all get into your top choice!

trippymickey wrote:

jingosaur wrote:Retaking the LSAT or not going to law school are really the only two options here. Don't let your current numbers make you think you're bound for a 4th tier school because they're not. You GPA isn't the best, but with a solid boost to the LSAT and your URM status, a 160+ will give you a great chance at getting into one of the top California schools. Don't throw your future away.

Again, thank you so much for your encouraging words!

I've seen plenty of douchebags on this site, however I truly appreciate the positive, constructive feedback I've received so far. Although my question was never answered, this is exactly what I needed to hear.

On that note, I wish everyone an amazing law school admissions cycle, may you all get into your top choice!

I applied to USF a few years ago. Was admitted. Then discovered TLS/law school transparency and was disturbed by their job placement. A current student (3L) called me and asked if I had any questions. I asked how the job outlook was for her class. She said "Yeah, um, I know some people who will get jobs. It's getting better."

That's all I've got man. Sorry your question didn't get answered. But as a general rule curriculum will be pretty much the same at all schools and most schools are full of law students and taught in a law schooly way so that's something you get to navigate everywhere.

Job placement and cost is what really differentiates schools. Oh, and some are in different cities I guess.

I can't think of any posters on http://www.toplawschools.com who go to USF but maybe you can dig up an old thread and see if anyone can say anything more about the school than the people ITT?

If you can't find anyone here, it's because we've succeeded in convincing them all not to go!

BigZuck wrote:But as a general rule curriculum will be pretty much the same at all schools and most schools are full of law students and taught in a law schooly way so that's something you get to navigate everywhere.

Job placement and cost is what really differentiates schools. Oh, and some are in different cities I guess.

This tends to be my reaction to the posts asking for information about what a given school is like. There are likely going to be differences in culture/atmosphere/student body, and I'm not saying no one should ever consider those kinds of things at some point in the process (one school I visited had a student body with a very young [I'm non-trad], very wealthy vibe that really rubbed me the wrong way). But I can't think of anything related to the content of the degree, the study program, or the opportunities offered that would outweigh placement/cost in choosing a school (I didn't go to the school with the bad vibe, but because it didn't make economic sense).

Mayyyyyyyyybe if you are absolutely deadset on some kind of niche field and have serious pre-LS work experience and connections to back that up (a Native American who has worked extensively in tribal government and who's guaranteed a job as counsel for her tribe once she gets a JD could do worse than going to Michigan State for free and doing their Indian law program - although doing such a program would likely not be necessary). But most people have fairly broad ideas of what they want to do as a lawyer ("criminal law" "family law" "biglaw"). For the most part, beyond job placement and costs, law schools are almost entirely fungible.

In terms of content/courses/programs, every single law school in the country can prepare someone for the kinds of goals most prospective students have. The curricula are all basically the same, especially since the ABA requires a set 1L curriculum. There are good professors (and bad) at every law school in the country. There are even profs with very fancy credentials at every law school in the country. The workload is pretty much the same because the curricula are the same, and how much work you put in varies by student and by prof anyway.

On the margins there are differences - Baylor is notoriously different (and hard). I'm sure that as you get down the food chain, TTTs and TTTTs often have less money/fewer resources than more highly ranked schools (rankings and money often go hand in hand), and so there are fewer options compared to, say, a T14. For instance, Yale has a GAZILLION clinics, probably more than USF - but USF still offers 7 clinics and it's not like any given student can do more than one or two. But the thing is that any given student is unlikely to be comparing admissions to USF and to Yale. Generally speaking, apart from costs, placement, and location, any set of schools a given student is considering will be similar enough to be fungible. And location isn't so much "I like this location better" as "I have a better shot at getting the job I want in location X than in location Y."

tl;dr - All else being equal, atmosphere/culture/specific programs are fine to consider, but the differences are so insignificant that they shouldn't outweigh placement and costs.

trippymickey wrote:

jingosaur wrote:Retaking the LSAT or not going to law school are really the only two options here. Don't let your current numbers make you think you're bound for a 4th tier school because they're not. You GPA isn't the best, but with a solid boost to the LSAT and your URM status, a 160+ will give you a great chance at getting into one of the top California schools. Don't throw your future away.

Again, thank you so much for your encouraging words!

I've seen plenty of douchebags on this site, however I truly appreciate the positive, constructive feedback I've received so far. Although my question was never answered, this is exactly what I needed to hear.

On that note, I wish everyone an amazing law school admissions cycle, may you all get into your top choice!

You're one of the first people I've seen asking for information about a school and willing to accept that it isn't a good choice. We tend to go piranha on those who don't see the writing on the wall, but you came into the conversation with an open mind. I'd say this thread's productivity has a lot more to do with you being open minded and chill and less about us being dipshits, because we still are. I wish you good luck on the retake. If your personality here is indicative of your ability elsewhere, you could do very well.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

BigZuck wrote:But as a general rule curriculum will be pretty much the same at all schools and most schools are full of law students and taught in a law schooly way so that's something you get to navigate everywhere.

Job placement and cost is what really differentiates schools. Oh, and some are in different cities I guess.

This tends to be my reaction to the posts asking for information about what a given school is like. There are likely going to be differences in culture/atmosphere/student body, and I'm not saying no one should ever consider those kinds of things at some point in the process (one school I visited had a student body with a very young [I'm non-trad], very wealthy vibe that really rubbed me the wrong way). But I can't think of anything related to the content of the degree, the study program, or the opportunities offered that would outweigh placement/cost in choosing a school (I didn't go to the school with the bad vibe, but because it didn't make economic sense).

Mayyyyyyyyybe if you are absolutely deadset on some kind of niche field and have serious pre-LS work experience and connections to back that up (a Native American who has worked extensively in tribal government and who's guaranteed a job as counsel for her tribe once she gets a JD could do worse than going to Michigan State for free and doing their Indian law program - although doing such a program would likely not be necessary). But most people have fairly broad ideas of what they want to do as a lawyer ("criminal law" "family law" "biglaw"). For the most part, beyond job placement and costs, law schools are almost entirely fungible.

In terms of content/courses/programs, every single law school in the country can prepare someone for the kinds of goals most prospective students have. The curricula are all basically the same, especially since the ABA requires a set 1L curriculum. There are good professors (and bad) at every law school in the country. There are even profs with very fancy credentials at every law school in the country. The workload is pretty much the same because the curricula are the same, and how much work you put in varies by student and by prof anyway.

On the margins there are differences - Baylor is notoriously different (and hard). I'm sure that as you get down the food chain, TTTs and TTTTs often have less money/fewer resources than more highly ranked schools (rankings and money often go hand in hand), and so there are fewer options compared to, say, a T14. For instance, Yale has a GAZILLION clinics, probably more than USF - but USF still offers 7 clinics and it's not like any given student can do more than one or two. But the thing is that any given student is unlikely to be comparing admissions to USF and to Yale. Generally speaking, apart from costs, placement, and location, any set of schools a given student is considering will be similar enough to be fungible. And location isn't so much "I like this location better" as "I have a better shot at getting the job I want in location X than in location Y."

tl;dr - All else being equal, atmosphere/culture/specific programs are fine to consider, but the differences are so insignificant that they shouldn't outweigh placement and costs.

Good perspective and very helpful! I actually have very little experience (2yrs FT experience in IT, post graduation), and I'm looking to get into Intellectual Property Law. I'm also really interested in public interest, but IP/Patent Law is really what brought me back to the idea of law school, given the huge risk.

bjsesq wrote:

trippymickey wrote:

jingosaur wrote:Retaking the LSAT or not going to law school are really the only two options here. Don't let your current numbers make you think you're bound for a 4th tier school because they're not. You GPA isn't the best, but with a solid boost to the LSAT and your URM status, a 160+ will give you a great chance at getting into one of the top California schools. Don't throw your future away.

Again, thank you so much for your encouraging words!

I've seen plenty of douchebags on this site, however I truly appreciate the positive, constructive feedback I've received so far. Although my question was never answered, this is exactly what I needed to hear.

On that note, I wish everyone an amazing law school admissions cycle, may you all get into your top choice!

You're one of the first people I've seen asking for information about a school and willing to accept that it isn't a good choice. We tend to go piranha on those who don't see the writing on the wall, but you came into the conversation with an open mind. I'd say this thread's productivity has a lot more to do with you being open minded and chill and less about us being dipshits, because we still are. I wish you good luck on the retake. If your personality here is indicative of your ability elsewhere, you could do very well.

Well I've been lurking on TLS for some time now, and in their defense, most TLS'ers come off a little strong in their approach. I can see how it can be misinterpreted, I just tend to recognize and appreciate the good in any advice I'm given.

Thank you so much for your kind words and positivity!

trippymickey wrote:
I've seen plenty of douchebags on this site, however I truly appreciate the positive, constructive feedback I've received so far. Although my question was never answered, this is exactly what I needed to hear.

On that note, I wish everyone an amazing law school admissions cycle, may you all get into your top choice!

To echo what boo said, people aren't being dipshits because you seem like you're willing to listen to reason. Good luck on your retake. As an AA male, you'll have some great options if you can get into the 160s.

Don't sweat the GPA at all! It may seem especially low for this website because many on here are going to T14 schools. I only had a 2.3 GPA, but with valuable work experience and a 162 LSAT I have already been accepted to 3 Tier 1 schools and waitlisted at a T20 this cycle. With applications down so much, an improved LSAT score will be a golden ticket for you!

TheSpanishMain wrote:

trippymickey wrote:
I've seen plenty of douchebags on this site, however I truly appreciate the positive, constructive feedback I've received so far. Although my question was never answered, this is exactly what I needed to hear.

On that note, I wish everyone an amazing law school admissions cycle, may you all get into your top choice!

To echo what boo said, people aren't being dipshits because you seem like you're willing to listen to reason. Good luck on your retake. As an AA male, you'll have some great options if you can get into the 160s.

AA Female*

NonTradLawHopeful wrote:Don't sweat the GPA at all! It may seem especially low for this website because many on here are going to T14 schools. I only had a 2.3 GPA, but with valuable work experience and a 162 LSAT I have already been accepted to 3 Tier 1 schools and waitlisted at a T20 this cycle. With applications down so much, an improved LSAT score will be a golden ticket for you!

Wow, congrats on your acceptances this cycle, very inspiring and encouraging! I'm sure there are plenty more to come
Thank you for sharing, @NonTradLawHopeful!