Top Law Schools

My choice is mostly between it and Temple (I'm anticipating admission to both with a 164 and 3.5). Didn't see any threads about it.

careful. You may be more fortunate than me, but i was a 3.4/165 that applied last year and I never got off the waitlist.

Sean Bateman wrote:careful. You may be more fortunate than me, but i was a 3.4/165 that applied last year and I never got off the waitlist.

seriously? did you apply late in the cycle?

ilovesf wrote:

Sean Bateman wrote:careful. You may be more fortunate than me, but i was a 3.4/165 that applied last year and I never got off the waitlist.

seriously? did you apply late in the cycle?

Applied shortly after new years...

Sean Bateman wrote:

ilovesf wrote:

Sean Bateman wrote:careful. You may be more fortunate than me, but i was a 3.4/165 that applied last year and I never got off the waitlist.

seriously? did you apply late in the cycle?

Applied shortly after new years...

In other words, yes.

I am a 2L at Tulane if you have any questions.

Aberzombie1892 wrote:I am a 2L at Tulane if you have any questions.

Are you planning on staying in New Orleans or LA after graduation? I like a lot of things about the school but I am not sure where I want to end up after graduation and I don't want to limit myself to that area. Thanks.

I haven't really decided. However, most people I know (and most of the class) are not planning on staying.

Where do you have ties to? Employers will be looking for ties to areas (outside NY), especially during this economy.

Aberzombie1892 wrote:I haven't really decided. However, most people I know (and most of the class) are not planning on staying.

Where do you have ties to? Employers will be looking for ties to areas (outside NY), especially during this economy.

San Francisco, New York and the DC area mostly. I'm applying to schools in those areas as well, but my numbers are a little iffy so I am trying to keep my options open.

While looking at schools, be aware of their curves. A lot of employers have 3.0 or 3.2 floors. I am assuming you know that Tulane recently changed its curve to 3.2-3.3. That way, you could end up below median and be competitive for many positions. Be aware that many of Tulane's "peers" curve below this.

Also, Tulane is well-recognized enough that no employer would question why you would want to work in DC/CA/NY. If you went to say, a lower ranked CA school, I don't think DC employers (outside the government) would give you a fair shake (and vice versa). Tulane won't necessary close this off for you. Your grades will - but now that we have the shiny new curve, you should be fine.

Tulane student here. If you want to work in NYC or DC, go to schools in those cities.

Aberzombie1892 wrote:While looking at schools, be aware of their curves. A lot of employers have 3.0 or 3.2 floors. I am assuming you know that Tulane recently changed its curve to 3.2-3.3. That way, you could end up below median and be competitive for many positions. Be aware that many of Tulane's "peers" curve below this.

Also, Tulane is well-recognized enough that no employer would question why you would want to work in DC/CA/NY. If you went to say, a lower ranked CA school, I don't think DC employers (outside the government) would give you a fair shake (and vice versa). Tulane won't necessary close this off for you. Your grades will - but now that we have the shiny new curve, you should be fine.

I'm curious about the curve. I was under the impression that a higher curve was bad? Can someone lay this out for me. Do employers look at your GPA or your class rank more?

Barbie wrote:

Aberzombie1892 wrote:While looking at schools, be aware of their curves. A lot of employers have 3.0 or 3.2 floors. I am assuming you know that Tulane recently changed its curve to 3.2-3.3. That way, you could end up below median and be competitive for many positions. Be aware that many of Tulane's "peers" curve below this.

Also, Tulane is well-recognized enough that no employer would question why you would want to work in DC/CA/NY. If you went to say, a lower ranked CA school, I don't think DC employers (outside the government) would give you a fair shake (and vice versa). Tulane won't necessary close this off for you. Your grades will - but now that we have the shiny new curve, you should be fine.

I'm curious about the curve. I was under the impression that a higher curve was bad? Can someone lay this out for me. Do employers look at your GPA or your class rank more?

What? Why do you think Harvard/Yale/Stanford/Berkeley use High pass/pass? High curves are good!!! Why do you think no T20 school curves below a 3.2 (I don't think) and tier 3 schools curve to around 2.6 or less?

EDIT: GPA usually. Major employers are aware of your rank range from your GPA if they usually hire from the school. It's why T3/T4 have such poor job prospects. True, they attend a T3 (and that alone is enough), but only say the Top 10% have above a 3.0 (roughly). So, employers that require a 3.5 would only hire the top 5% (if that). I know of a certain T3 school (that's not in a crowded market) in which employers only interview the top 10 people. PEOPLE!

I'm a Tulane 3L. PM me if you have questions.

I usually agree with Aberzombie, but not so much in this case. From my experience, gpa floors are really only hard floors when it comes to government stuff. While I'll agree that having a higher curve just makes your gpa look better, I still think that when it comes to firm jobs, class rank is far more important than gpa.

Aqualibrium wrote:I usually agree with Aberzombie, but not so much in this case. From my experience, gpa floors are really only hard floors when it comes to government stuff. While I'll agree that having a higher curve just makes your gpa look better, I still think that when it comes to firm jobs, class rank is far more important than gpa.

I sort of agree until you reach to the point between the latin honors cut off and the 3.0 mark.

For example, let's say a T3 school has latin honors that stops at 2.7, leaving no opportunity for someone below honors to have above a 3.0. Then, everyone is essentially screwed below latin honors.

For example, let's say a T14 has latin honors that stops at 3.6, and this leaves 3.59-3.0 (which is likely 50% or so of the class).

The group below 2.7 in example 1 are screwed while the group between 3.59-3.0 in example 2 are in pretty good shape.

Aqualibrium wrote:I usually agree with Aberzombie, but not so much in this case. From my experience, gpa floors are really only hard floors when it comes to government stuff. While I'll agree that having a higher curve just makes your gpa look better, I still think that when it comes to firm jobs, class rank is far more important than gpa.

I sort of agree until you reach to the point between the latin honors cut off and the 3.0 mark.

For example, let's say a T3 school has latin honors that stops at 2.7, leaving no opportunity for someone below honors to have above a 3.0. Then, everyone is essentially screwed below latin honors.

For example, let's say a T14 has latin honors that stops at 3.6, and this leaves 3.59-3.0 (which is likely 50% or so of the class).

The group below 2.7 in example 1 are screwed while the group between 3.59-3.0 in example 2 are in pretty good shape.

Aberzombie1892 wrote: EDIT: GPA usually. Major employers are aware of your rank range from your GPA if they usually hire from the school.

Let me get this straight. A poster asked if GPA or class rank was of greater importance to employers. And in response, you've claimed that GPA is more important, because GPA allows employers to calculate class ranking.

You see how circular your logic is, don't you?

*sigh.

If an employer hires frequently from your school, they will know what your rank is based on gpa. However, many employers do not hire enough from any given school to know what your rank is strictly by gpa. So they look at your gpa and consider whether you are latin honors.

This makes sense if you think about it.

Aberzombie1892 wrote: This makes sense if you think about it.

No, this makes no sense at all.

What you've said is that an employer who is familiar with a given school will have an easier time calculating a class ranking from a student's GPA than an employer who is unfamiliar with the school. In both instances, class ranking in the metric which the employer is using to compare students.

I'm pretty sure that Jones Walker or whoever isn't going to suddenly start interviewing median students at Tulane simply because those students now have a 3.x rather than a 3.y. It's ludicrous to suggest that employers aren't savvy enough to pick up on grade inflation.

Anonymous Loser wrote:

Aberzombie1892 wrote: This makes sense if you think about it.

No, this makes no sense at all.

What you've said is that an employer who is familiar with a given school will have an easier time calculating a class ranking from a student's GPA than an employer who is unfamiliar with the school. In both instances, class ranking in the metric which the employer is using to compare students.

I'm pretty sure that Jones Walker or whoever isn't going to suddenly start interviewing median students at Tulane simply because those students now have a 3.x rather than a 3.y. It's ludicrous to suggest that employers aren't savvy enough to pick up on grade inflation.

I think the point was that being in the top 10% at a teir 2 or 3 isn't going to mean much if the curve makes your GPA lower than the median at a school that curves more.

If anyone knows, how hard it is to break into the NO legal market from outside? I have limited ties (some second cousins). Is it possible or is a New Orleans school necessary?

There is a mental barrier that limits anyone under 3.0 regardless of their rank, but I still think it makes very little sense to say that gpa is more important than class rank. If one student has a 3.3 on a 3.3 curve, and another student at a peer school has a 3.0 on a 2.67 curve, the kid with the 3.0 is going to look better because his class rank is higher.

To answer AreJay's question: I don't think going to school in New Orleans or Louisiana is a prerequisite to working there. I know several people who don't go to school there who will be working in New Orleans next summer. Some of them are originally from Louisiana, so they have what some would consider strong ties, but I really believe ties are what you make of them. I was personally able to break into some pretty xenophobic markets this hiring season, many of which I really had no tie to at all. It's more about your ability to sell employers on your commitment to a place than about running down some checklist of the hierarchy of regional ties.

I'm sorry, but can you explain what an "x.x curve" means? Does that mean the median or mean is at x.x?

Also, how is the legal market in NOLA? And for that matter, how is NOLA generally?

I am a 1L at Tulane. I agree with other posters who suggest that if you know for sure that you want to work in the NY or DC markets, then go to school there. However, my experience at Tulane has been unparalleled. I love my class (there seem to be a much lower percentage of douchebags here than at other law schools), the school, and New Orleans is amazing. If you are taking your happiness into account at all, I would say go here. If you want to practice in the South, Tulane does very well in the market - some say even better than higher-ranked Bama. However, it comes with a hefty price tag. Not sure what kind of scholarships they are giving out this year, but I am on $10k/yr provided I keep a 3.0, and seeing as the new curve averages between 3.2 and 3.3, that shouldn't be too difficult to maintain.

Let me know if you have any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

peachmonkey wrote:I am a 1L at Tulane. I agree with other posters who suggest that if you know for sure that you want to work in the NY or DC markets, then go to school there. However, my experience at Tulane has been unparalleled. I love my class (there seem to be a much lower percentage of douchebags here than at other law schools), the school, and New Orleans is amazing. If you are taking your happiness into account at all, I would say go here. If you want to practice in the South, Tulane does very well in the market - some say even better than higher-ranked Bama. However, it comes with a hefty price tag. Not sure what kind of scholarships they are giving out this year, but I am on $10k/yr provided I keep a 3.0, and seeing as the new curve averages between 3.2 and 3.3, that shouldn't be too difficult to maintain.

Let me know if you have any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

A few things:

1. You being happy /= to OP or anyone else being happy at Tulane. OP, and anyone else seriously considering Tulane or any other school should visit. You don't want to end up being stuck in a place you don't like for three years or more of your life.

2. I don't think 1L's really have the best perspective with regards to what really matters when choosing a school (job prospects). I'd suggest OP try hard to get into contact with some 2/3L's with different rankings to get a better picture of this.

3. I'm not really sure it's true that Tulane does much better than Bama in the South. At the most, I'd say Tulane may be marginally better...anecdotal evidence I have access to says it's probably the other way around though (i.e. Bama may be a bit better than Tulane when it comes to job placement in the South these days).

4. This is actually a question: Did Tulane not change the scholarship requirements when the curve changed?

New Orleans is a great city, it isn't for everyone though. Tulane is a good school, it's really expensive though. Look before you leap, acquire all the information you can and visit your top choices before you make a decision.