Top Law Schools

I've always wanted to go to UT, but Houston is making it hard to pass up. The amount of debt for UT is making me nervous, but it seems like it'll open so many more doors for me than UH would especially considering I plan on staying in Texas. At this point I'm leaning towards UT. Looking for any thoughts/perspective/advice.

The schools you are considering:
University of Houston and University of Texas

-The total Cost of Attendance (COA) of each. COA = cost of tuition + fees + books + cost of living (COL) + accumulated interest - scholarships. Here is a helpful calculator.

Houston would be ~$20,000 debt at graduation for all three years due to a combination of scholarships and outside assistance.

Texas would be ~$160,000 debt at graduation for all three years. Got little scholarship money from them and outside assistance wouldn't be as large as it would be at Texas.

I used the LST financial worksheets to calculate these numbers.

-How you will be financing your COA, i.e. loans, family, or savings

Savings and loans.

If I went to Houston I have some family there that would assist with meals and housing. Tuition/fees would be free @ UH with a mix of school and outside scholarships, so I'd have to cover books and other expenses. I have enough in savings to cover a good bit of the COL minus room/board.

-Where you are from and where you want to work, and other places where you have significant ties (if any)

From Houston, want to work in Houston but open to other major Texas markets.

-Your general career goals

Big law doesn't sound bad for a few years to pay down loans, but it doesn't sound like something I'd be able to do long term. Ideally I'm interested in government work, or maybe oil and gas.

-Your LSAT/GPA numbers: 167, 3.4
-How many times you have taken the LSAT: once

Have you negotiated?

choosethrowaway wrote:The amount of debt for UT is making me nervous
. . .
-Your LSAT/GPA numbers: 167, 3.4
-How many times you have taken the LSAT: once

I'm not a big fan of the reflexive chorus of TLS, but your situation screams retake. UT will be a lot cheaper with a 170 or 171, which are very attainable from where you are.

If you insist on going this year, UH makes a lot more sense based on your goals.

Considered retaking, but I feel like I've hit my ceiling - I've used all the material and worked my way up to this score. It's the highest I PTed.

I've negotiated with both. Unless another school throws something in the mix this late, I don't have anything left to leverage.

Retake. If not, then UH. UT is too much right now. If you could get it down to around $100k, it would be defensible.

UHouston is the better choice in your case due to very low COA & the fact that it is located in your target market.

Stick with Houston, UT doesn't make sense, what could you possibly get out of UT that would make it worth 160k? Thats the question you have to ask yourself.

$160k for a school arguably outside the top echelon in terms of career outcomes seems insane. Whether or not Houston makes sense at $20k is up to you. It will depend on your goals, background, and where you want to practice. You'll probably be stuck in Houston, for example. You'll also have only a 1 in 6 shot at biglaw, so don't hang your dreams on that outcome.

Graduates at UH, whether it's undergrad or grad usually have good job prospects in Houston. You still will be competing with UT Law grads, but I don't think it's worth it unless you know you might go out of state somewhere in your lifetime

UH can get you what you are looking for but just know that if you are biglaw or bust you will need to be inside the top 15% to have a chance and really need to be in the top 10% to feel comfortable. Bigger room for error at UT but if thats worth the additional 140K is debatable. The fact that you want to live in Houston makes it tough, and makes me lean the UH route but if you have doubts about wanting to stay in Houston I would head to UT even at cost.

.

Current UT student, I'd say go with UH.

I think outsiders really underestimate how well UH places in Houston Big Law for its rank.

Current UT student, too. Neither are appealing.

I have a hard time calling UH low risk, even though it is will require almost no debt. We're talking about 20% of the class getting a sexy outcome, but we're also talking about 40% of the class not becoming lawyers. http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/houston/2014/.

UT at that debt level is very risky, but you've got almost a coin flip's chance at a top-line outcome. And if you are planning to practice in Texas for the next 40 years, being a part of the UT network over UH's is definitely worth some consideration.

Retake for $ at UT/saving up $ for COL is the correct answer. But if you're not going to do that, which is the wrong choice, I might be inclined to advise UT so long as you drop out if you don't do well the first year/if you strike out at OCI. I have a hard time advising anyone to attend a school where two fifths of the graduates can't find any legal job--UH is a medium risk, low reward choice. I guess I'd say to swing for the fences, if you're going to do this.

Traynor Brah wrote:Current UT student, too. Neither are appealing.

I have a hard time calling UH low risk, even though it is will require almost no debt. We're talking about 20% of the class getting a sexy outcome, but we're also talking about 40% of the class not becoming lawyers. http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/houston/2014/.

UT at that debt level is very risky, but you've got almost a coin flip's chance at a top-line outcome. And if you are planning to practice in Texas for the next 40 years, being a part of the UT network over UH's is definitely worth some consideration.

Retake for $ at UT/saving up $ for COL is the correct answer. But if you're not going to do that, which is the wrong choice, I might be inclined to advise UT so long as you drop out if you don't do well the first year/if you strike out at OCI. I have a hard time advising anyone to attend a school where two fifths of the graduates can't find any legal job--UH is a medium risk, low reward choice. I guess I'd say to swing for the fences, if you're going to do this.

His scholly at UH reveals from the staff that they don't believe him to be an "average" admit. (unless he's an URM or getting it based upon need). So his actual probabilities of success at UH are greater than the average outcome. Although we're treating it as if it's a stochastic process, the revealed preference has to count for something.

Also retake really isn't an option 167 was his highest PT score ever after multiple practice tests. (OP admitted as much).

Ken Kesey wrote:

Traynor Brah wrote:Current UT student, too. Neither are appealing.

I have a hard time calling UH low risk, even though it is will require almost no debt. We're talking about 20% of the class getting a sexy outcome, but we're also talking about 40% of the class not becoming lawyers. http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/houston/2014/.

UT at that debt level is very risky, but you've got almost a coin flip's chance at a top-line outcome. And if you are planning to practice in Texas for the next 40 years, being a part of the UT network over UH's is definitely worth some consideration.

Retake for $ at UT/saving up $ for COL is the correct answer. But if you're not going to do that, which is the wrong choice, I might be inclined to advise UT so long as you drop out if you don't do well the first year/if you strike out at OCI. I have a hard time advising anyone to attend a school where two fifths of the graduates can't find any legal job--UH is a medium risk, low reward choice. I guess I'd say to swing for the fences, if you're going to do this.

His scholly at UH reveals from the staff that they don't believe him to be an "average" admit. (unless he's an URM or getting it based upon need). So his actual probabilities of success at UH are greater than the average outcome. Although we're treating it as if it's a stochastic process, the revealed preference has to count for something.

This is all wrong mr potato head

Traynor Brah wrote:Current UT student, too. Neither are appealing.

I have a hard time calling UH low risk, even though it is will require almost no debt. We're talking about 20% of the class getting a sexy outcome, but we're also talking about 40% of the class not becoming lawyers. http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/houston/2014/.

UT at that debt level is very risky, but you've got almost a coin flip's chance at a top-line outcome. And if you are planning to practice in Texas for the next 40 years, being a part of the UT network over UH's is definitely worth some consideration.

Retake for $ at UT/saving up $ for COL is the correct answer. But if you're not going to do that, which is the wrong choice, I might be inclined to advise UT so long as you drop out if you don't do well the first year/if you strike out at OCI. I have a hard time advising anyone to attend a school where two fifths of the graduates can't find any legal job--UH is a medium risk, low reward choice. I guess I'd say to swing for the fences, if you're going to do this.

Wouldn't he be "ahead of the curve" by going to UH because he got into a T20 school and would be going up against T60 students at UH, so shouldn't it be more likely for him to have success at UH than other UH students, because he's essentially going to be going up against "weaker" competition?

No, because you're all put on a curve, and just because you scored a few points higher on one multiple choice test doesn't mean that you'll do better on a set of race horse issue spotters.

ETA: 0Ls seriously need to sit down.

Ken Kesey wrote:

Traynor Brah wrote:Current UT student, too. Neither are appealing.

I have a hard time calling UH low risk, even though it is will require almost no debt. We're talking about 20% of the class getting a sexy outcome, but we're also talking about 40% of the class not becoming lawyers. http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/houston/2014/.

UT at that debt level is very risky, but you've got almost a coin flip's chance at a top-line outcome. And if you are planning to practice in Texas for the next 40 years, being a part of the UT network over UH's is definitely worth some consideration.

Retake for $ at UT/saving up $ for COL is the correct answer. But if you're not going to do that, which is the wrong choice, I might be inclined to advise UT so long as you drop out if you don't do well the first year/if you strike out at OCI. I have a hard time advising anyone to attend a school where two fifths of the graduates can't find any legal job--UH is a medium risk, low reward choice. I guess I'd say to swing for the fences, if you're going to do this.

His scholly at UH reveals from the staff that they don't believe him to be an "average" admit. (unless he's an URM or getting it based upon need). So his actual probabilities of success at UH are greater than the average outcome. Although we're treating it as if it's a stochastic process, the revealed preference has to count for something.

Also retake really isn't an option 167 was his highest PT score ever after multiple practice tests. (OP admitted as much).

Friend, I need to school you on tls dogma

I underperformed my "entering numbers" (gpa+lsat+I'm old and some say that's a benefit because you'll be more serious with school or whatever) relative to my peers by a solid clip.

Going to any school with an expectation that you'll do better than the other kids is really, really foolish IMO.

scottidsntknow wrote:

Ken Kesey wrote:

Traynor Brah wrote:Current UT student, too. Neither are appealing.

I have a hard time calling UH low risk, even though it is will require almost no debt. We're talking about 20% of the class getting a sexy outcome, but we're also talking about 40% of the class not becoming lawyers. http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/houston/2014/.

UT at that debt level is very risky, but you've got almost a coin flip's chance at a top-line outcome. And if you are planning to practice in Texas for the next 40 years, being a part of the UT network over UH's is definitely worth some consideration.

Retake for $ at UT/saving up $ for COL is the correct answer. But if you're not going to do that, which is the wrong choice, I might be inclined to advise UT so long as you drop out if you don't do well the first year/if you strike out at OCI. I have a hard time advising anyone to attend a school where two fifths of the graduates can't find any legal job--UH is a medium risk, low reward choice. I guess I'd say to swing for the fences, if you're going to do this.

His scholly at UH reveals from the staff that they don't believe him to be an "average" admit. (unless he's an URM or getting it based upon need). So his actual probabilities of success at UH are greater than the average outcome. Although we're treating it as if it's a stochastic process, the revealed preference has to count for something.

This is all wrong mr potato head

You really think someone with a full scholarship has the same inherent probabilities of someone who scraped in off the waitlist? (an URM off the wait-list at that). You're easily the potato-head.

At the 167 LSAT level there are multiple question differences between the scores. It's not like trying to differentiate between a 171 and a 174, at that level I'd agree with you.

BigZuck wrote:I underperformed my "entering numbers" (gpa+lsat+I'm old and some say that's a benefit because you'll be more serious with school or whatever) relative to my peers by a solid clip.

Going to any school with an expectation that you'll do better than the other kids is really, really foolish IMO.

Not a school like Houston. At higher ranked schools I'd agree with you. But at a school like Houston you could more easily control your own destiny.
The median Houston LSAT is a 159. That's what like the 65th percentile? 167 is like the 93rd?

OP has inherent brain power advantage.

You're a complete idiot

scottidsntknow wrote:You're a complete idiot

Just so everyone knows, here's some actual data. I think it should be more convincing than personal attacks.


http://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source/research-(lsac-resources)/tr-13-03.pdf

The p. value on the predictability of LSAT scores is <.0001, which is amazing.

Edit: link messed up. so you'll have to manually copy and paste.


Who's the idiot now?

You'd have to be really lucky to get big law from UH, banking that you'll be one of the lucky few who is really good at law school exams just because you scored higher on a standardized test is not a good way to live your life.

The difference between a 159 and a 167 is really just a few hours of watching 7sages game section videos, reading the trainer, and doing some extra practice tests. For most people those different scores just reflect how much time they put into the LSAT, so I guess it shows up on 1l grades because the 167 is probably going to study more.

But if a 159 and 167 go into a law exam with the exact same amount of effort put towards studying an exam, I doubt the 167 is going to blow out the 159.