WashU vs Joint Degree at UPitt Forum

[francescalegge]

Hi guys,

I have a question. I've been accepted at WashU with a pretty nice scholarship (105,000 guaranteed over three years - not dependent on ranking) and at UPitt to a joint degree JD/MPIA Security & Intelligence Studies - no word on scholarship yet.

Assuming I get a more attractive scholarship from Pitt, do you guys believe that going to Pitt (where I currently live) would be a better option than WashU? WashU is much more highly rated but Pitt has other benefits - the joint degree, the fact that I am in touch with faculty who will work with me to get a job/internship abroad for the summers, the FLAS fellowship, and a low COL.

I am primarily interested in human rights law and public international law. No real plans to be an attorney. I'm planning to use my law degree as an advantage in more policy or analyst type positions. So the debt is really important to me.

I also applied to Notre Dame (waitlisted), UPenn, UCLA, Georgetown, Minnesota, and Penn State (no word yet)

Obviously if I got into UPenn I would go 100%. But otherwise I'm leaning towards either WashU, Pitt, or Notre Dame (if they accept me)

[zombie mcavoy]

do not go to law school.

[CanadianWolf]

Tell Pitt about your offer from WashU.

[Rigo]

Only go to law school if you want to be a lawyer.

[Winston1984]

Only go to law school if you want to be a lawyer.

+1

[buckiguy_sucks]

Post removed.

[francescalegge]

You know, I hear that often and my answer is: why?

I have a Master's degree that had a strong focus on European Union law and I took many courses from the law department. I enjoyed it immensely, don't mind putting in significant amounts of study time, and am interested in an international legal policy/analyst career. I imagine that a law degree would be very helpful for me and would set me up to be competent in my job. I've never understood why people think a law degree is valuable only if you're trying to go into a law firm.

Any insight on why people don't find value in a JD outside of being an attorney would be very helpful!

[queerqueg]

Any insight on why people don't find value in a JD outside of being an attorney would be very helpful!

That's not what they said

[middlebear]

. I imagine that a law degree would be very helpful for me and would set me up to be competent in my job. I've never understood why people think a law degree is valuable only if you're trying to go into a law firm.

Any insight on why people don't find value in a JD outside of being an attorney would be very helpful!

It's not valuable only if you're going into a firm, but it's very difficult to defend an investment of three years and a lot of money (even just in opportunity cost) for a degree you are never actually going to use. Won't you be set up to be competent in your job if you just take some cross-listed courses? If you're wanting to do policy work, a lot of what you learn in law school is going to be absolutely inapplicable and useless, which is why your typical analyst has something like an MA or MPP or whatever and not a JD. You're essentially saying in your posts that you want to chase a degree you are never going to use.

Additionally - when you're saying policy work, are you picturing DC/fed-level? I'm also thinking it might be difficult to get those jobs out of Pitt or WUSTL.

Finally, if you want more helpful input, you should probably list total COA figures.

[francescalegge]

Any insight on why people don't find value in a JD outside of being an attorney would be very helpful!

That's not what they said

Well they said "Don't go to law school if you don't want to be a lawyer", which implies that they see a law degree as having value for lawyers only. I am assuming they mean "attorney" when they say "lawyer" since I originally posted that I don't want to be an attorney, to which they responded using the word "lawyer". I never said that I don't want to be a lawyer, if we're being technical (although it's true that I don't)

[Clemenceau]

I am assuming they mean "attorney" when they say "lawyer" since I originally posted that I don't want to be an attorney, to which they responded using the word "lawyer". I never said that I don't want to be a lawyer, if we're being technical (although it's true that I don't)

Alllllrighty then.

[zombie mcavoy]

Any insight on why people don't find value in a JD outside of being an attorney would be very helpful!

That's not what they said

Well they said "Don't go to law school if you don't want to be a lawyer", which implies that they see a law degree as having value for lawyers only.

no, it doesn't. retake.

and if you're using the technical definition of lawyer then your statement is silly. anyone who goes to law school is a lawyer and nobody can be a lawyer if they don't go to law school. So obviously it would have direct value exclusively for lawyers.

[Dr. Review]

This thread hurts my head, and it will hurt it even more if we can one day claim the same alma mater. Don't go to Pitt, whatever you do. I say this more for me than for you.

[francescalegge]

. I imagine that a law degree would be very helpful for me and would set me up to be competent in my job. I've never understood why people think a law degree is valuable only if you're trying to go into a law firm.

Any insight on why people don't find value in a JD outside of being an attorney would be very helpful!

It's not valuable only if you're going into a firm, but it's very difficult to defend an investment of three years and a lot of money (even just in opportunity cost) for a degree you are never actually going to use. Won't you be set up to be competent in your job if you just take some cross-listed courses? If you're wanting to do policy work, a lot of what you learn in law school is going to be absolutely inapplicable and useless, which is why your typical analyst has something like an MA or MPP or whatever and not a JD. You're essentially saying in your posts that you want to chase a degree you are never going to use.

Additionally - when you're saying policy work, are you picturing DC/fed-level? I'm also thinking it might be difficult to get those jobs out of Pitt or WUSTL.

Finally, if you want more helpful input, you should probably list total COA figures.

That is why I'm considering Pitt, for the joint degree. That way I would have an MA, an MPIA, and a JD.

I am not looking towards DC or Fed, I am looking towards international organizations or INGOs. Preferably on the EU level.

It would be very difficult to list total COA for Pitt since I don't know about the scholarship but full-price tuition is about 30K per year, plus about 15-18K per year in COL. WashU is about 15K per year after the scholarship, plus about 20K per year in COL.

[francescalegge]

My original question still stands, opinions on my life choices aside.

Obviously I would never go to Pitt for just a law degree, since it's not a very good law school by itself and clearly I can do better.

BUT, do the other considerations make Pitt a better choice ultimately?

[Rigo]

I'd go WUSTL if you're deadset on law school. I wouldn't risk my future on lousy regional like Pitt.

[francescalegge]

Any insight on why people don't find value in a JD outside of being an attorney would be very helpful!

That's not what they said

Well they said "Don't go to law school if you don't want to be a lawyer", which implies that they see a law degree as having value for lawyers only.

no, it doesn't. retake.

and if you're using the technical definition of lawyer then your statement is silly. anyone who goes to law school is a lawyer and nobody can be a lawyer if they don't go to law school. So obviously it would have direct value exclusively for lawyers.

I feel like that's not true. I've met deans of universities who have law degrees, financial consultants who have law degrees, and people in executive sales who have law degrees. Some of them have practiced law in the past, but some of them have never used their degree. I mean, I wouldn't personally consider them lawyers. But I guess it's just a matter of preference on how the term is used.

[zombie mcavoy]

I feel like that's not true. I've met deans of universities who have law degrees, financial consultants who have law degrees, and people in executive sales who have law degrees. Some of them have practiced law in the past, but some of them have never used their degree. I mean, I wouldn't personally consider them lawyers. But I guess it's just a matter of preference on how the term is used.

Lawyer = you went to law school. Has nothing to do with your work. maybe learn that before whipping out "well technically lawyer not attorney lol!!"

not going to try to reason with your completely moronic plan because I don't really like you. But if you're going to waste three years of your life at least pick the option that requires less debt.

[francescalegge]

I'd go WUSTL if you're deadset on law school. I wouldn't risk my future on lousy regional like Pitt.

Thanks

[francescalegge]

I feel like that's not true. I've met deans of universities who have law degrees, financial consultants who have law degrees, and people in executive sales who have law degrees. Some of them have practiced law in the past, but some of them have never used their degree. I mean, I wouldn't personally consider them lawyers. But I guess it's just a matter of preference on how the term is used.

Lawyer = you went to law school. Has nothing to do with your work. maybe learn that before whipping out "well technically lawyer not attorney lol!!"

not going to try to reason with your completely moronic plan because I don't really like you. But if you're going to waste three years of your life at least pick the option that requires less debt.

Jeez, I heard "lawyers" were mean but you're just brutal
Lawyer = A person who practices or studies law; an attorney or a counselor.

Try learning the meanings of words before using them. I'm guessing you prefer your "definition" because either you're not a very good law student and are afraid you won't get a job or you have a JD and don't have a JD-required job but you still like telling people you're a lawyer

Thanks for the advice, though

[Rigo]

Law school is a professional school. You wouldn't go to culinary school if you didn't want to be a chef or beauty school if you didn't want to do makeup and hair.

Without goals that require a JD, going to law school is just a waste of time and money.

[francescalegge]

Law school is a professional school. You wouldn't go to culinary school if you didn't want to be a chef or beauty school if you didn't want to do makeup and hair.

Without goals that require a JD, going to law school is just a waste of time and money.

I would have agreed with you ten years ago. Now I think there are more and more positions, particularly in the field I'm looking at, for which a law degree is highly useful and also considered a distinct advantage.

[zombie mcavoy]

dude you can't even get a half ride at WUSTL.

[francescalegge]

dude you can't even get a half ride at WUSTL.

105,000 is over 60% tuition.
Tuition: $51,216
Scholarship: $35,000

So I take it you didn't do so well in math, either?
I guess that's why you chose law, then.. no math on the LSAT

[francescalegge]

dude you can't even get a half ride at WUSTL.

Sorry, when I said "over 60%", I meant 68%, specifically.
I should have said that first, so you didn't have to try to work it out yourself