Why do people love to hate GULC? Forum

[nealric]

nealric, do YOU think it's a meaningful category?
and if it is, do YOU think gulc deserves to be in that category?

before you answer, look at this

It's a lazy heuristic, but perhaps a reasonable place to start before one knows anything about picking law schools. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't disagree with your data or that it's highly relevant. I did post a mild critique as to why that data may not tell the whole story. But I recognize that it's not a testable hypothesis.

I do not use my personal experience as any sort of meaningful data. Rather, it was for background purposes and to let people know I have some inside knowledge of the school. For those that feel my very attendance is an indictment of my judgment, keep in mind that I applied in 2006 when firms were raising salaries and giving out offers like candy. It was assumed anybody who went could get big law.

[whitespider]

If anyone needs a tl:dr...

"Georgetown sucks"
"No, it doesn't"
"Yes, it does"
"No it doesn't, but you guys suck."
"Nuh uh"

[Mal Reynolds]

If anyone needs a tl:dr...

"Georgetown sucks"
"No, it doesn't"
"Yes, it does"
"No it doesn't, but you guys suck."
"Nuh uh"

Nope sorry.

[nealric]

What was your critique of the data. Be specific.

It does not count government jobs and self selected PI well. Due to its location, GULC may attract an unusually high number of people with those ambitions. While that hypothesis is consistent with my personal observations, it's obviously not provable.

[nealric]

If anyone needs a tl:dr...

"Georgetown sucks"
"No, it doesn't"
"Yes, it does"
"No it doesn't, but you guys suck."
"Nuh uh"

I don't think people here suck. I was just a bit bemused by what the had to say. Georgetown may or may not suck- it's not really an objective fact one way or another.

[03152016]

nealric, i've heard that argument before but there a couple problems with it

gulc used to have solid biglaw placement, 60-70% in SAs
if gulc's numbers are low because of pi self selection, are we to believe that for some reason, gulc has been suddenly been inundated with more pi gunners than in the past

and even if that is the case, what about other schools with heavy pi self selection
nyu is known for pi, yet its numbers are fine
doesn't that suggest the issue is somewhere else

[20141023]

.

[chuckbass]

I don't think people here suck. I was just a bit bemused by what the had to say. Georgetown may or may not suck- it's not really an objective fact one way or another.

Let's say you're going to compete in a three-legged race, and you have to convince someone to be your teammate. Let's say that each candidate weighs as many pounds as the number of people in any given law school's class. Let's say that each of these people can run at a percentage of your speed equivalent to the biglaw + fedclerk numbers of that law school. Let's say that you have to pay each person a similar amount of money to join your team, but some of them are willing to give you discounts based on your LSAT and GPA score. Your goal is to win - or at least do well in - this race.

Would you pick GULC to be on your team?

Lololol
Also loling at me joking a few pages ago that people hate on GULC because of its shitty location and this dude took it seriously

[McAvoy]

Lol. So am I. But most people hanging out in the admissions forum aren't. Or at least that used to be the case back in the day.

So you were looking to poison the minds of unsuspecting 0Ls?

[gnomgnomuch]

GULC - A good school whose employment numbers are under performing relative to its peer schools. It's better than UCLA/USC/UT, and worse than the lower t-14's.

Taking it at sticker - terrible idea, but basically taking EVERY school at sticker (except maybe HYS) is a terrible idea.
Taking it at a decent scholarship - still a bad idea, if you have the grades to get a scholarship at GULC, you've got a scholarship at comparable schools - which have better employment options. Unless you have very specific reasons for wanting to be at GULC - work on the hill, etc - it doesn't make sense.
Taking it at a really good scholarship/full ride - Still not a good idea, again you're going to have similar offers at peer schools, schools where employment numbers are much better.

Basically, if you're a borderline GULC student, don't go, otherwise if you're getting money from them and have specific reasons to attend, and it wont be financial suicide, its still not a great idea, but understandable.

[cotiger]

Jesus. This is still a topic? I'm pretty sure I participated in like 5 threads on this last year when I was on this board. It's called the search function.

Simple answer: Its stats suck compared to those schools ranked above it. Sure, there's lots of apologizing that can be done (PI! DC!), but even if all of those factors are valid for GULC and none are valid for the schools above it (absurdly unlikely), that still only brings it to parity. And with such a large investment, you don't want to hang your decision on a big, unlikely "what if".

The dislike for GULC tends to be pretty visceral because, unlike its statistical peers USC/UCLA/UT/Vandy, they keep a huge class size. If the admin wanted to, it could cut the class size and dramatically improve life for their grads. They choose not to. Also, unlike USC/UCLA/UT/Vandy (and NU, and Cornell, and Duke, etc), they're stingy with scholarships. Which for obvious reasons is always going to get a big fuck you from the TLS crowd.

[JCougar]

That's the amazing part is that it doesn't go behind rational data. But your outcome worked out so gulc must be a great school.

Fallacy of composition.

[Mal Reynolds]

That's the amazing part is that it doesn't go behind rational data. But your outcome worked out so gulc must be a great school.

Fallacy of composition.

He knows some people in PI positions! So GULC's PI numbers must all be solid.

[JCougar]

There's no reason for a law school to admit so many students in this legal economy. Especially when you consider how many transfers they let in after 1L. And the stingy price discounting.

Basically tells you that the school is desperate for cash to the point that it becomes a detriment to the students it admits--as well as a detriment to all other schools in the area because it's flooding the market with unemployed attorneys driving up labor supply when there's no demand.

It barely places better than Texas (which is not only much cheaper tuition-wise, but is also far less COL) and Vandy (same cheap COL and good scholarships).

[nealric]

That's the amazing part is that it doesn't go behind rational data. But your outcome worked out so gulc must be a great school.

Fallacy of composition.

He knows some people in PI positions! So GULC's PI numbers must all be solid.

If you had bothered to read and understand what I wrote, you would see that I made no such conclusion. I simply stated that the data does not account for PI/government and that this MIGHT be part of the disparity, but freely admitted that I don't have data available to test those assumptions. The conclusion that (biglaw + clerskships= low, ergo GULC sucks) is a also making an assumption without hard evidence, since the set of generally accepted "good" outcomes includes more than biglaw + clerkships. Of course, I fully agree that biglaw + clerkships is a strong indicator.

With regards to NYU mentioned earlier, that school is traditionally thought of as belonging in the next tier up, so it's no surprise it's employment numbers would be better. NYU also has a lot of PI, but doesn't have the government connection.

There's no reason for a law school to admit so many students in this legal economy. Especially when you consider how many transfers they let in after 1L. And the stingy price discounting.

Basically tells you that the school is desperate for cash to the point that it becomes a detriment to the students it admits--as well as a detriment to all other schools in the area because it's flooding the market with unemployed attorneys driving up labor supply when there's no demand.

It barely places better than Texas (which is not only much cheaper tuition-wise, but is also far less COL) and Vandy (same cheap COL and good scholarships).

I agree that they need to reduce class size and that it's holding the school back. Cutting to 500 students/class would be very helpful. However, if you aren't a Texas resident, the tuition is pretty comparable to UT ($50k vs $53k). Vandy is a hair cheaper at sticker ($48k), but you are still looking at $200k in debt at any of these schools at full sticker. You are hosed at almost any law school paying sticker if you don't get biglaw or a LRAP-qualified job.

[nealric]

GULC - A good school whose employment numbers are under performing relative to its peer schools. It's better than UCLA/USC/UT, and worse than the lower t-14's.

Taking it at sticker - terrible idea, but basically taking EVERY school at sticker (except maybe HYS) is a terrible idea.
Taking it at a decent scholarship - still a bad idea, if you have the grades to get a scholarship at GULC, you've got a scholarship at comparable schools - which have better employment options. Unless you have very specific reasons for wanting to be at GULC - work on the hill, etc - it doesn't make sense.
Taking it at a really good scholarship/full ride - Still not a good idea, again you're going to have similar offers at peer schools, schools where employment numbers are much better.

Basically, if you're a borderline GULC student, don't go, otherwise if you're getting money from them and have specific reasons to attend, and it wont be financial suicide, its still not a great idea, but understandable.

I actually pretty much agree with this. But financial aid can be a wildcard. It's possible for someone to get a really good scholarship at GULC and a lackluster one else where, even if it's not a common situation.

Really, law school tuition has so jumped the shark that very few schools can be considered a good bet. Used to be law school was for the risk adverse. Now, it's for the type that puts their life savings on black and spins the wheel.

[McAvoy]

GULC - A good school whose employment numbers are under performing relative to its peer schools. It's better than UCLA/USC/UT, and worse than the lower t-14's.

Taking it at sticker - terrible idea, but basically taking EVERY school at sticker (except maybe HYS) is a terrible idea.
Taking it at a decent scholarship - still a bad idea, if you have the grades to get a scholarship at GULC, you've got a scholarship at comparable schools - which have better employment options. Unless you have very specific reasons for wanting to be at GULC - work on the hill, etc - it doesn't make sense.
Taking it at a really good scholarship/full ride - Still not a good idea, again you're going to have similar offers at peer schools, schools where employment numbers are much better.

Basically, if you're a borderline GULC student, don't go, otherwise if you're getting money from them and have specific reasons to attend, and it wont be financial suicide, its still not a great idea, but understandable.

I actually pretty much agree with this. But financial aid can be a wildcard. It's possible for someone to get a really good scholarship at GULC and a lackluster one else where, even if it's not a common situation.

Well by the magic of http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com, you can do some legwork and show us somebody who got a "really good" scholarship from GULC and lackluster offers from Cornell, Northwestern, UT and Vandy. I'm excited!

Really, law school tuition has so jumped the shark that very few schools can be considered a good bet. Used to be law school was for the risk adverse. Now, it's for the type that puts their life savings on black and spins the wheel.

No. GULC sucks as it actually expects rational people to pay its insane tuition for its comparatively crappy value.

[BigZuck]

That's the amazing part is that it doesn't go behind rational data. But your outcome worked out so gulc must be a great school.

Fallacy of composition.

He knows some people in PI positions! So GULC's PI numbers must all be solid.

If you had bothered to read and understand what I wrote, you would see that I made no such conclusion. I simply stated that the data does not account for PI/government and that this MIGHT be part of the disparity, but freely admitted that I don't have data available to test those assumptions. The conclusion that (biglaw + clerskships= low, ergo GULC sucks) is a also making an assumption without hard evidence, since the set of generally accepted "good" outcomes includes more than biglaw + clerkships. Of course, I fully agree that biglaw + clerkships is a strong indicator.

With regards to NYU mentioned earlier, that school is traditionally thought of as belonging in the next tier up, so it's no surprise it's employment numbers would be better. NYU also has a lot of PI, but doesn't have the government connection.

There's no reason for a law school to admit so many students in this legal economy. Especially when you consider how many transfers they let in after 1L. And the stingy price discounting.

Basically tells you that the school is desperate for cash to the point that it becomes a detriment to the students it admits--as well as a detriment to all other schools in the area because it's flooding the market with unemployed attorneys driving up labor supply when there's no demand.

It barely places better than Texas (which is not only much cheaper tuition-wise, but is also far less COL) and Vandy (same cheap COL and good scholarships).

I agree that they need to reduce class size and that it's holding the school back. Cutting to 500 students/class would be very helpful. However, if you aren't a Texas resident, the tuition is pretty comparable to UT ($50k vs $53k). Vandy is a hair cheaper at sticker ($48k), but you are still looking at $200k in debt at any of these schools at full sticker. You are hosed at almost any law school paying sticker if you don't get biglaw or a LRAP-qualified job.

Come on bud. You know 509 forms exist right?

GULC- 33% of people get grant aid, median is 18k
UT- 83% get grant aid, median is 9.5k (also keep in mind that at least 65% is starting with instate tuition, although it seems like a lot more out of state students do as well and I don't think the 9.5k is accounted in that.)
Vandy- 86% get grant aid, median is 20K
For funsies, GWU-50% of people get grant aid, median is 16K

GULC is the only one where it is literally impossible to cop a fully

I don't get what you're trying to do here brother

[nealric]

Come on bud. You know 509 forms exist right?

GULC- 33% of people get grant aid, median is 18k
UT- 83% get grant aid, median is 9.5k (also keep in mind that at least 65% is starting with instate tuition, although it seems like a lot more out of state students do as well and I don't think the 9.5k is accounted in that.)
Vandy- 86% get grant aid, median is 20K
For funsies, GWU-50% of people get grant aid, median is 16K

GULC is the only one where it is literally impossible to cop a fully

I don't get what you're trying to do here brother

It is less likely that you will get significant aid at GULC. I said as much. But it's hypothetically possible to get more aid at GULC than a comparable school.

What am I trying to do? Originally, I was just trying to share my experience, then it became answering the army of haters. Really didn't think my first post in this thread should have been THAT controversial. I'm not going around telling people to attend GULC over a T6 (or even any other T14 absent special circumstances).

[McAvoy]

It is less likely that you will get significant aid at GULC. I said as much. But it's hypothetically possible to get more aid at GULC than a comparable school.

Well by the magic of http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com, you can do some legwork and show us somebody who got a "really good" scholarship from GULC and lackluster offers from Cornell, Northwestern, UT and Vandy. I'm excited!

[gnomgnomuch]

GULC - A good school whose employment numbers are under performing relative to its peer schools. It's better than UCLA/USC/UT, and worse than the lower t-14's.

Taking it at sticker - terrible idea, but basically taking EVERY school at sticker (except maybe HYS) is a terrible idea.
Taking it at a decent scholarship - still a bad idea, if you have the grades to get a scholarship at GULC, you've got a scholarship at comparable schools - which have better employment options. Unless you have very specific reasons for wanting to be at GULC - work on the hill, etc - it doesn't make sense.
Taking it at a really good scholarship/full ride - Still not a good idea, again you're going to have similar offers at peer schools, schools where employment numbers are much better.

Basically, if you're a borderline GULC student, don't go, otherwise if you're getting money from them and have specific reasons to attend, and it wont be financial suicide, its still not a great idea, but understandable.

I actually pretty much agree with this. But financial aid can be a wildcard. It's possible for someone to get a really good scholarship at GULC and a lackluster one else where, even if it's not a common situation.

Well by the magic of http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com, you can do some legwork and show us somebody who got a "really good" scholarship from GULC and lackluster offers from Cornell, Northwestern, UT and Vandy. I'm excited!

Really, law school tuition has so jumped the shark that very few schools can be considered a good bet. Used to be law school was for the risk adverse. Now, it's for the type that puts their life savings on black and spins the wheel.

No. GULC sucks as it actually expects rational people to pay its insane tuition for its comparatively crappy value.

I'm just saying that there are other reasons for wanting GULC then just because it's the only T-14 to take you. For example, you might have equal scholarships at all the schools you mentioned, but have friends/family/SO/and apartment or whatever that would make a GULC a better decision for you, personally for you.

Also, keep in mind, that while GULC is a worse school than its peers, it still does place 42 % of its class into big-law, a higher number than Vanderbilt at 36, though not by much, and Texas with 33 percent, so at comparable offers it would be a BETTER decision to choose GULC over those schools - unless you're in state at Texas.

It's all down to personal preference, and I cant exactly blame someone for choosing GULC over Cornell if COA is say 120k overall, and they want to stay in DC, and not move to Ithaca.

[03152016]

I simply stated that the data does not account for PI/government and that this MIGHT be part of the disparity, but freely admitted that I don't have data available to test those assumptions.

gulc used to have solid biglaw placement, 60-70% in SAs
if gulc's numbers are low because of pi self selection, are we to believe that for some reason, gulc has been suddenly been inundated with more pi gunners than in the past

or is it, as i suspect, gulc's post-recession placement problems

[cotiger]

If you had bothered to read and understand what I wrote, you would see that I made no such conclusion. I simply stated that the data does not account for PI/government and that this MIGHT be part of the disparity, but freely admitted that I don't have data available to test those assumptions. The conclusion that (biglaw + clerskships= low, ergo GULC sucks) is a also making an assumption without hard evidence, since the set of generally accepted "good" outcomes includes more than biglaw + clerkships. Of course, I fully agree that biglaw + clerkships is a strong indicator.

We actually do have the data to test those assumptions.

If you add in all the real PI/Gov jobs, then over the past four years: NU 67>UVA 65>GULC 59>Vandy 51

But NU has all those business jobs, and UVA has significantly cut class size since then. The point is that even when you're nice to GULC but don't make the same allowances for other schools, GULC still is clearly worse than those ahead of it.

No one is saying that it's a bad school, it's just that the combination of extreme stinginess with scholarships and refusal to cut its gigantic class size alongside the middling employment numbers hiding behind "T14" designation just gives you SCAM goosebumps all over.

[nealric]

I'm just saying that there are other reasons for wanting GULC then just because it's the only T-14 to take you. For example, you might have equal scholarships at all the schools you mentioned, but have friends/family/SO/and apartment or whatever that would make a GULC a better decision for you, personally for you.

Also, keep in mind, that while GULC is a worse school than its peers, it still does place 42 % of its class into big-law, a higher number than Vanderbilt at 36, though not by much, and Texas with 33 percent, so at comparable offers it would be a BETTER decision to choose GULC over those schools - unless you're in state at Texas.

It's all down to personal preference, and I cant exactly blame someone for choosing GULC over Cornell if COA is say 120k overall, and they want to stay in DC, and not move to Ithaca.

Right. Someone from the area or with a working spouse locally might get free room/board in DC, which would make moving away effectively another 15-20k/yr more expensive. Another reason is that you need to keep working in DC and want to take advantage of the part time program. I knew a few patent bar eligible people that had their way paid by biglaw firms to go part time (full tuition + livable salary). It's a pretty phenomenal deal for those who can get it.

[baal hadad]

I'm just saying that there are other reasons for wanting GULC then just because it's the only T-14 to take you. For example, you might have equal scholarships at all the schools you mentioned, but have friends/family/SO/and apartment or whatever that would make a GULC a better decision for you, personally for you.

Also, keep in mind, that while GULC is a worse school than its peers, it still does place 42 % of its class into big-law, a higher number than Vanderbilt at 36, though not by much, and Texas with 33 percent, so at comparable offers it would be a BETTER decision to choose GULC over those schools - unless you're in state at Texas.

It's all down to personal preference, and I cant exactly blame someone for choosing GULC over Cornell if COA is say 120k overall, and they want to stay in DC, and not move to Ithaca.

Right. Someone from the area or with a working spouse locally might get free room/board in DC, which would make moving away effectively another 15-20k/yr more expensive. Another reason is that you need to keep working in DC and want to take advantage of the part time program. I knew a few patent bar eligible people that had their way paid by biglaw firms to go part time (full tuition + livable salary). It's a pretty phenomenal deal for those who can get it.

I don't see how saying that GULC is good for a couple people counters the point that GULC is generally doo doo