Santa Clara Law 2L Taking Questions Forum

[darkphoenix323]

Ask away... I will answer questions about student life, job prospects, grades, the curve, summer employment, financial aid, student services, etc.

[doomed123]

http://www.taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_ ... hools.html

what are your thoughts on being the #1 school in the country?

[Davidbentley]

Do you have a job? Grades?

[darkphoenix323]

http://www.taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_ ... hools.html

what are your thoughts on being the #1 school in the country?

It's great being number 1...at failing.

Actually, this has caused somewhat of a ruckus, even though I am not even slightly surprised. We received an email from the school today, telling us they were contesting the ranking with LST (which has subsequently been pulled from LST's website pending discussion with the school). However, even with the numbers SCU thinks it should have, we're still among the schools with the lowest employment scores...

So, it's sad to see it in print, but from my own (admittedly anecdotal) experience, SCU grads are struggling. Big time.

[darkphoenix323]

Do you have a job? Grades?

Top 1/3. I do have an unpaid summer internship in PI (not to be confused with the oh-so-evasive IP jobs). I only know about 3 or 4 people that actually got paid summer jobs. And I don't mean summer associates in biglaw. I mean people who are getting paid at all.

[SaintsTheMetal]

Do you have a job? Grades?

Top 1/3. I do have an unpaid summer internship in PI (not to be confused with the oh-so-evasive IP jobs). I only know about 3 or 4 people that actually got paid summer jobs. And I don't mean summer associates in biglaw. I mean people who are getting paid at all.

Would you say people that have passed the Patent Bar are doing any better? I've heard more than once that SCU is supposedly a go to IP school, being right in the middle of the Silicon Valley and all...

[Mr. Somebody]

http://www.taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_ ... hools.html

what are your thoughts on being the #1 school in the country?

It's great being number 1...at failing.

Actually, this has caused somewhat of a ruckus, even though I am not even slightly surprised. We received an email from the school today, telling us they were contesting the ranking with LST (which has subsequently been pulled from LST's website pending discussion with the school). However, even with the numbers SCU thinks it should have, we're still among the schools with the lowest employment scores...

So, it's sad to see it in print, but from my own (admittedly anecdotal) experience, SCU grads are struggling. Big time.

Given LST's claim of a huge underemployment problem at SCU, what kind of jobs are those grads getting post-grad? Specifically what kinds of firms, etc

[fashiongirl]

How are the professors?
How are the students? Do you feel like the caliber of students are equally hard-working and competitive?

[timbs4339]

How many of your classmates were aware of the scamblogs, TLS, etc before going? How many are aware or follow the movement now?

[darkphoenix323]

Would you say people that have passed the Patent Bar are doing any better? I've heard more than once that SCU is supposedly a go to IP school, being right in the middle of the Silicon Valley and all...

Although I am not going for IP, I do know 2 people who took and passed the patent bar. One is working at a biglaw firm and the other at a huge household name computer company. So, anecdotally, I would say if you come in with a science/technical background, you might fare a little better than the rest. But, don't be fooled into thinking you can come into law school with your BA in Anthropology and suddenly do patent prosecution. It doesn't work like that.

[darkphoenix323]

Given LST's claim of a huge underemployment problem at SCU, what kind of jobs are those grads getting post-grad? Specifically what kinds of firms, etc

So, obviously, I can't make blanket statements about every grad, but here is what I have observed:

According to emails I got from the school, the unemployment and underemployment numbers aren't as bad as LST is reporting. BUT, they are still really, really, bad. People in my class have had huge problems finding summer jobs, even people at the top of the class. And finding a paying job is almost unheard of. The economy has wreaked havoc on the legal market here in the Silicon Valley, so the law career services office pretty much can't help you. There are no jobs. And if there are, they are probably going to Boalt, Stanford, and Hastings kids before us.

I know a number of people who graduated in 2011 who are still unemployed. In fact, the majority of folks who graduated in 2011 and have jobs are working in small IP firms. I know a few who went to work at the county counsel or, DA, or PD's office. I know one student who is working in policy for the government, and another who went to work for a state politician. I don't know anyone from 2011 that went to work in Biglaw.

I don't know anyone from the class of 2012 who is going into Biglaw either. None of my close friends who are graduating this year (non IP) have jobs lined up. And these people were Moot Court, Law Review, fantastic summer internships, etc.

There are rumors that the school has temporarily hired some 2011 grads to boost their numbers...

Even jobs in public interest are very tough to get.

So, those are my thoughts. Again, I can't blame this all on SCU. There just aren't any jobs. But it sure does hurt to pay $40K in tuition every year knowing how bleak the prospects are. Especially when the SCU made it seem like the Silicon Valley was immune to ITE and there were jobs aplenty.

Oh well, such is life.

Edited to add that I know a number of 2011 grads that are doing contract work for small firms that couldn't hire them as full-time employees, so they are basically independent contractors.

[darkphoenix323]

How are the professors?
How are the students? Do you feel like the caliber of students are equally hard-working and competitive?

Professors. It's such a mixed bag really. There are some professors at SCU that need to be fired. 1L it's really the luck of the draw. Because the 1L class is divided into sections and the school picks all your classes, you don't what you are going to get. I had a few fabulous teachers 1L. I mean professors who I really learned from and bonded with. I also had two professors who were shockingly bad. One of my professors in one of my doctrinal classes was so inexperienced and incompetent, several students went to the dean about them.

In my section there was a huge issue during exams that was just shocking. I don't want to get into it here, but if you want more info, you can PM me.

After 1L, you get to pick your professors, so it's better. In all, though, I would say the majority of the professors I have had have been super qualified (most are from T6), approachable, and just awesome.

The students at SCU work their butts off. You really will find very few slackers. I can only think of 3 or 4 I've encountered. Just because SCU is not a T1 school, doesn't mean we work any less hard. In fact most people are coming from the best universities and Ivys in the country and are working their butts off because they have to in order to get any chance at a job.

This makes the curve especially brutal. I cannot overstate this: the curve is BRUTAL. Everyone thinks they are going to come into law school and ace every class and beat the curve. About 90% of the time you will be dead wrong. Everyone works hard and everyone knows their stuff. The curve just kicks butts and takes names every semester. You will get a C in at least one class. And you will probably cry. You might never ever get an A in a bar class. Get over it. I mean, get over all these preconceptions before you walk in the door. Now I don't mean that you should have a defeatist attitude, but realize that law school exams and grades are like NOTHING you've experienced before. If you come in with realistic goals and expectations, I think you will fare much better. Seeing the "I'm gonna be #1 in my section" folks looking like deflated balloons dragging down the hallways in January after grades have come out was a sobering reminder of that.

Anyway, work hard, work EFFICIENTLY, outline from the beginning the semester (not at the end), and take every practice exam you can get your hands on, and you should be just fine.

[darkphoenix323]

How many of your classmates were aware of the scamblogs, TLS, etc before going? How many are aware or follow the movement now?

I will say this. I was obsessed with TLS before I went to law school. But I have never, ever, ever heard a single person talk about TLS or any other blog (with the exception of ATL) in law school. Never. And if you stated quoting TLS or any of these other scamblogs, you would, at least at my school, probably not have any friends.

Btw, I know a bunch of snarky T-14's are thinking: "You were obssessed with TLS and you still went to SCU ITE?"

Yes, yes I did. Don't let this happen to you

[timbs4339]

How many of your classmates were aware of the scamblogs, TLS, etc before going? How many are aware or follow the movement now?

I will say this. I was obsessed with TLS before I went to law school. But I have never, ever, ever heard a single person talk about TLS or any other blog (with the exception of ATL) in law school. Never. And if you stated quoting TLS or any of these other scamblogs, you would, at least at my school, probably not have any friends.

Btw, I know a bunch of snarky T-14's are thinking: "You were obssessed with TLS and you still went to SCU ITE?"

Yes, yes I did. Don't let this happen to you

This has been my experience. I would say 5-10% of law students are even familiar with this site. But I would think students agree with tighter controls on law school enrollment, better employment stats, lower tuition, all the tenets of the scamblog movement.

[Mr. Somebody]

Any chance you could share the emails you're getting from scu regarding lst's stats, or at least relay any stats or criticisms scu is making to defend themselves?

[doomed123]

How many of your classmates were aware of the scamblogs, TLS, etc before going? How many are aware or follow the movement now?

I will say this. I was obsessed with TLS before I went to law school. But I have never, ever, ever heard a single person talk about TLS or any other blog (with the exception of ATL) in law school. Never. And if you stated quoting TLS or any of these other scamblogs, you would, at least at my school, probably not have any friends.

Btw, I know a bunch of snarky T-14's are thinking: "You were obssessed with TLS and you still went to SCU ITE?"

Yes, yes I did. Don't let this happen to you

This has been my experience. I would say 5-10% of law students are even familiar with this site. But I would think students agree with tighter controls on law school enrollment, better employment stats, lower tuition, all the tenets of the scamblog movement.

It always boggles my mind that so few law students seem to be familiar with TLS. You'd think that for such a big life (and financial) decision, people would want to do some basic research - and pretty much any google search on the subject would yield this site as a top result.

[darkphoenix323]

Any chance you could share the emails you're getting from scu regarding lst's stats, or at least relay any stats or criticisms scu is making to defend themselves?

From Julia Yaffey at SCU:

"Law School Transparency used incomplete data when they initially applied their algorithm to determine an "Unemployment Score" for Santa Clara. We are providing them additional employment data for the class of 2010 and expect them to post a revised - and more accurate score early next week"

Current students have received SCU's version of the employment data (for Class of 2010 and 2011), and while it isn't as bad as LST's, SCU's numbers will likely still qualify them to be among top 15 worst schools....

Instead of spending time fighting LST, SCU needs to admit it has a SERIOUS problem employing its graduates and address it.

Btw, I pulled that quote from the comment section in the Constitution Daily article. It's pretty similar (although much shorter) to the email we got.

[darkphoenix323]

How many of your classmates were aware of the scamblogs, TLS, etc before going? How many are aware or follow the movement now?

I will say this. I was obsessed with TLS before I went to law school. But I have never, ever, ever heard a single person talk about TLS or any other blog (with the exception of ATL) in law school. Never. And if you stated quoting TLS or any of these other scamblogs, you would, at least at my school, probably not have any friends.

Btw, I know a bunch of snarky T-14's are thinking: "You were obssessed with TLS and you still went to SCU ITE?"

Yes, yes I did. Don't let this happen to you

This has been my experience. I would say 5-10% of law students are even familiar with this site. But I would think students agree with tighter controls on law school enrollment, better employment stats, lower tuition, all the tenets of the scamblog movement.

It always boggles my mind that so few law students seem to be familiar with TLS. You'd think that for such a big life (and financial) decision, people would want to do some basic research - and pretty much any google search on the subject would yield this site as a top result.

In theory, I agree. But, if someone is really determined to go to law school, even if it's a TTTT, TLS probably won't be able to dissuade them. People will rationalize whatever it is they want to do. Even if it's making a potentially life-ruining decision like paying $180,000 to go to law school...

Sad, but true.

[jenesaislaw]

As has been said in this thread, we did pull the data pending joint review between us and the Santa Clara administration. We did this after Santa Clara's explanation for why the data appear as they do. We should be receiving the updated data today, and will have the page back up soon after.

However, it should be noted that the data are incomplete because of Santa Clara's doing, not ours. Our algorithm is sound and will not be changed. The source of the problem is the data reported to U.S. News.

Santa Clara reported that 78.4% of its class of 2010 graduates were employed as of February 15th, 2011 (240 graduates). It then reported that 71% of those graduates were employed in jobs requiring bar passage (170). It then reported that 24.6% of those 170 graduates, or 42 graduates, were known to be employed in full-time jobs requiring bar passage.

This leaves us with 128 graduates in jobs requiring bar passage, but for whom we do not know whether they are employed full or part time.

A decision had to be made about what to do with these 128 graduates because so many law schools (well over 100, closer to 140) do not provide transparent data on their websites or in repeated requests from LST. We had to either put them all in the part-time bin, or put them all in an unknown bin.

Our default idea was to put them all in the unknown bin because we did not know. However, we tested the algorithm against the schools for which we did have transparent data. The result was that schools do a really good job accounting for whether jobs are full or part time. There were very few unknowns.

On the national level, according to the data reported to NALP http://www.nalp.org/uploads/NationalSum ... ls2010.pdf, schools knew that 555 graduates (out of 28,167, or 2%) were in jobs requiring bar passage, but did not know whether they were full- or part-time jobs. An amazing "know" rate.

So we overrided the default plan of treating the non-FT positions as unknowns. With 98% certainty, we knew these were part-time jobs. In fact, if we remove Santa Clara's 128 grads from the 555, we are 98.5% certain. We made the right call.

[diegoforlan10]

As has been said in this thread, we did pull the data pending joint review between us and the Santa Clara administration. We did this after Santa Clara's explanation for why the data appear as they do. We should be receiving the updated data today, and will have the page back up soon after.

However, it should be noted that the data are incomplete because of Santa Clara's doing, not ours. Our algorithm is sound and will not be changed. The source of the problem is the data reported to U.S. News.

Santa Clara reported that 78.4% of its class of 2010 graduates were employed as of February 15th, 2011 (240 graduates). It then reported that 71% of those graduates were employed in jobs requiring bar passage (170). It then reported that 24.6% of those 170 graduates, or 42 graduates, were known to be employed in full-time jobs requiring bar passage.

This leaves us with 128 graduates in jobs requiring bar passage, but for whom we do not know whether they are employed full or part time.

A decision had to be made about what to do with these 128 graduates because so many law schools (well over 100, closer to 140) do not provide transparent data on their websites or in repeated requests from LST. We had to either put them all in the part-time bin, or put them all in an unknown bin.

Our default idea was to put them all in the unknown bin because we did not know. However, we tested the algorithm against the schools for which we did have transparent data. The result was that schools do a really good job accounting for whether jobs are full or part time. There were very few unknowns.

On the national level, according to the data reported to NALP http://www.nalp.org/uploads/NationalSum ... ls2010.pdf, schools knew that 555 graduates (out of 28,167, or 2%) were in jobs requiring bar passage, but did not know whether they were full- or part-time jobs. An amazing "know" rate.

So we overrided the default plan of treating the non-FT positions as unknowns. With 98% certainty, we knew these were part-time jobs. In fact, if we remove Santa Clara's 128 grads from the 555, we are 98.5% certain. We made the right call.

Talk about CYA...you guys totally shut down this argument.

[darkphoenix323]

As has been said in this thread, we did pull the data pending joint review between us and the Santa Clara administration. We did this after Santa Clara's explanation for why the data appear as they do. We should be receiving the updated data today, and will have the page back up soon after.

However, it should be noted that the data are incomplete because of Santa Clara's doing, not ours. Our algorithm is sound and will not be changed. The source of the problem is the data reported to U.S. News.

Santa Clara reported that 78.4% of its class of 2010 graduates were employed as of February 15th, 2011 (240 graduates). It then reported that 71% of those graduates were employed in jobs requiring bar passage (170). It then reported that 24.6% of those 170 graduates, or 42 graduates, were known to be employed in full-time jobs requiring bar passage.

This leaves us with 128 graduates in jobs requiring bar passage, but for whom we do not know whether they are employed full or part time.

A decision had to be made about what to do with these 128 graduates because so many law schools (well over 100, closer to 140) do not provide transparent data on their websites or in repeated requests from LST. We had to either put them all in the part-time bin, or put them all in an unknown bin.

Our default idea was to put them all in the unknown bin because we did not know. However, we tested the algorithm against the schools for which we did have transparent data. The result was that schools do a really good job accounting for whether jobs are full or part time. There were very few unknowns.

On the national level, according to the data reported to NALP http://www.nalp.org/uploads/NationalSum ... ls2010.pdf, schools knew that 555 graduates (out of 28,167, or 2%) were in jobs requiring bar passage, but did not know whether they were full- or part-time jobs. An amazing "know" rate.

So we overrided the default plan of treating the non-FT positions as unknowns. With 98% certainty, we knew these were part-time jobs. In fact, if we remove Santa Clara's 128 grads from the 555, we are 98.5% certain. We made the right call.

Talk about CYA...you guys totally shut down this argument.

What argument? I don't trust SCU Law admin as far as I can throw them. SCU's actions sound to me like a bunch of sore losers who are contesting the fact that they came in dead last... Sad.

[jenesaislaw]

We've updated the data and posted a short news item on it: --LinkRemoved--

The tl;dr:

The school had policies and procedures in place that led to under-reporting what the school actually knew about its graduates.We were able to work with the school to identify the source of the problem and have corrected the errors with data supplied by Santa Clara.

We also added the following note to Santa Clara’s class of 2010 profile:

After joint review with Santa Clara, we have restored the school’s profile using data provided by Santa Clara following its internal review of each 2010 graduate’s student file. Rather than relying on student-supplied data, which is what the school reported to U.S. News and reported on its website (the original data in the school’s profile), Santa Clara added data the administration culled from conversations and basic investigation.

Note: One major change is with the 28 jobs Santa Clara originally reported as non-professional. Santa Clara tells us “[t]his was done in error.” While these graduates were still employed, Santa Clara does not know what sort of credentials (e.g. bar passage required) those graduates’ jobs required. However, Santa Clara does know 12 of these 28 graduates’ employer types (e.g. law firm) and expected working hours (i.e. FT or PT).

[greenwave10]

Does anyone know good places to live around campus?

[margrett]

To the Santa Clara students,

Are there other law schools in the Bay Area that seem to be doing better as far as job placement--aside from Berkeley? Do you get the sense that things are tough all-around or that this is happening to differing degrees on a school-by-school basis?

[jenesaislaw]

To the Santa Clara students,

Are there other law schools in the Bay Area that seem to be doing better as far as job placement--aside from Berkeley? Do you get the sense that things are tough all-around or that this is happening to differing degrees on a school-by-school basis?

--LinkRemoved--