Top Law Schools

3.7 GPA, 165 on the LSAT, where should I apply?

Since you can't get into any truly national schools, where do you want to work?

How do you figure he cant get into any "truly national" schools? You are aware that his numbers are covered in Wash U's range, GW's range, Fordham, Emory, even a chance at Cornelle..

Why do people believe that LSAT is the only thing these schools look at? People get rejected with higher consistently.

Tullstone wrote:How do you figure he cant get into any "truly national" schools? You are aware that his numbers are covered in Wash U's range, GW's range, Fordham, Emory, even a chance at Cornelle..

Why do people believe that LSAT is the only thing these schools look at? People get rejected with higher consistently.

He's looking at WL/rejects from all of those schools; look at LSN if you don't believe me. Plus none of those are national anyway. The question remains.

Tullstone wrote:How do you figure he cant get into any "truly national" schools? You are aware that his numbers are covered in Wash U's range, GW's range, Fordham, Emory, even a chance at Cornelle..

Why do people believe that LSAT is the only thing these schools look at? People get rejected with higher consistently.

Cornell is the only, albeit just slightly, national school out of any of those. And OP has no chance at Cornell.

I must be misunderstanding what a "national school" is... I dont see how a school in D.C. could be more "national", especially GW.

Tullstone wrote:I must be misunderstanding what a "national school" is... I dont see how a school in D.C. could be more "national", especially GW.

Well, it would seem the common understanding of what a "national school" is, would be a school that has good national reach. Meaning that from that school you have a good shot of getting a good job anywhere in the country. Outside of the t14 schools in the country, and arguably the t12, you are likely combined to the region that you went to school in. Therefore, when deciding on schools, someone with numbers like the OP should really be considering where he/she wants to work before deciding on what school to go to. Put it this way, WUSTL may have better job placement than Florida, but if you want to work in Florida you would be foolish to take WUSTL over Florida. But, if you can get into one of the top schools in the country, then it is usually worth taking the highest ranked school depending on the OP's career aspirations.

Patriot1208 wrote:

Tullstone wrote:I must be misunderstanding what a "national school" is... I dont see how a school in D.C. could be more "national", especially GW.

Well, it would seem the common understanding of what a "national school" is, would be a school that has good national reach. Meaning that from that school you have a good shot of getting a good job anywhere in the country. Outside of the t14 schools in the country, and arguably the t12, you are likely combined to the region that you went to school in. Therefore, when deciding on schools, someone with numbers like the OP should really be considering where he/she wants to work before deciding on what school to go to. Put it this way, WUSTL may have better job placement than Florida, but if you want to work in Florida you would be foolish to take WUSTL over Florida.

Hell, even T12 is regional to varying degrees.

This is such an arbitrary category... everything is regional, and national to a certain extent. I don't see why someone would seek a "national school" and then move to a part of the country where they could have gone to "regional" school to get the same job. Why do people think that one is locked in to working at a certain place for the rest of their life simply because of where they go to school? Havent' you seen how many government officials who went to, for example, Oklahoma Law?

Tullstone wrote:This is such an arbitrary category... everything is regional, and national to a certain extent. I don't see why someone would seek a "national school" and then move to a part of the country where they could have gone to "regional" school to get the same job. Why do people think that one is locked in to working at a certain place for the rest of their life simply because of where they go to school? Havent' you seen how many government officials who went to, for example, Oklahoma Law?

*facepalm*

Im just saying...
If you're good, you're good. The school you go to is only part of the equation isn't it?

Tullstone wrote:This is such an arbitrary category... everything is regional, and national to a certain extent. I don't see why someone would seek a "national school" and then move to a part of the country where they could have gone to "regional" school to get the same job. Why do people think that one is locked in to working at a certain place for the rest of their life simply because of where they go to school? Havent' you seen how many government officials who went to, for example, Oklahoma Law?

You don't get it.

rad law wrote:

Tullstone wrote:This is such an arbitrary category... everything is regional, and national to a certain extent. I don't see why someone would seek a "national school" and then move to a part of the country where they could have gone to "regional" school to get the same job. Why do people think that one is locked in to working at a certain place for the rest of their life simply because of where they go to school? Havent' you seen how many government officials who went to, for example, Oklahoma Law?

You don't get it.

You aren't convincing me.

Tullstone wrote:

rad law wrote:

Tullstone wrote:This is such an arbitrary category... everything is regional, and national to a certain extent. I don't see why someone would seek a "national school" and then move to a part of the country where they could have gone to "regional" school to get the same job. Why do people think that one is locked in to working at a certain place for the rest of their life simply because of where they go to school? Havent' you seen how many government officials who went to, for example, Oklahoma Law?

You don't get it.

You aren't convincing me.

National schools have enough prestige to trump regional schools. For example, Pitt is the top law school in SW PA. But a Harvard grad would have an easier time getting a good job in Pittsburgh than a Pitt grad. Make sense?

HeavenWood wrote:

Tullstone wrote:

rad law wrote:

Tullstone wrote:This is such an arbitrary category... everything is regional, and national to a certain extent. I don't see why someone would seek a "national school" and then move to a part of the country where they could have gone to "regional" school to get the same job. Why do people think that one is locked in to working at a certain place for the rest of their life simply because of where they go to school? Havent' you seen how many government officials who went to, for example, Oklahoma Law?

You don't get it.

You aren't convincing me.

National schools have enough prestige to trump regional schools. For example, Pitt is the top law school in SW PA. But a Harvard grad would have an easier time getting a good job in Pittsburgh than a Pitt grad. Make sense?

And to add on to that, it's not that you can't go to GW and get to cali. It's that it is unlikely. Even if you are a top grad you will find it hard to get an interview with a cali firm because there just aren't the sheer number of cali firms hiring from there because they have no reason to. Nothing is set in stone, but outside of the the top schools you have to be prepared to live where you went to school.

Tullstone wrote:

rad law wrote:

Tullstone wrote:This is such an arbitrary category... everything is regional, and national to a certain extent. I don't see why someone would seek a "national school" and then move to a part of the country where they could have gone to "regional" school to get the same job. Why do people think that one is locked in to working at a certain place for the rest of their life simply because of where they go to school? Havent' you seen how many government officials who went to, for example, Oklahoma Law?

You don't get it.

You aren't convincing me.

Here is a scenario.

Go to Yale - get a job basically anywhere in the country. Get prestigious jobs.

Go to GW - don't count on it being easy to get a job outside the eastern seaboard. Chances for prestigious jobs decidedly less than Yale.

Which one sounds better to you?

As to the bolded, by the time you are well established, you probably won't want to give up your clients by moving.

rad law wrote:

Tullstone wrote:

rad law wrote:

Tullstone wrote:This is such an arbitrary category... everything is regional, and national to a certain extent. I don't see why someone would seek a "national school" and then move to a part of the country where they could have gone to "regional" school to get the same job. Why do people think that one is locked in to working at a certain place for the rest of their life simply because of where they go to school? Havent' you seen how many government officials who went to, for example, Oklahoma Law?

You don't get it.

You aren't convincing me.

Here is a scenario.

Go to Yale - get a job basically anywhere in the country. Get prestigious jobs.

Go to GW - don't count on it being easy to get a job outside the eastern seaboard. Chances for prestigious jobs decidedly less than Yale.

Which one sounds better to you?

As to the bolded, by the time you are well established, you probably won't want to give up your clients by moving.

Thats more clear, thanks.

I had very similar numbers to you when I applied to law school. I had a 3.7/166. People with numbers like ours typically have very predictable cycles. We are usually out of the top 14, we have an outside chance at 15-18, we have a decent chance at 19-25, and are likely in everywhere else.

kams wrote:I had very similar numbers to you when I applied to law school. I had a 3.7/166. People with numbers like ours typically have very predictable cycles. We are usually out of the top 14, we have an outside chance at 15-18, we have a decent chance at 19-25, and are likely in everywhere else.

166 is way better that a 165. 165 is like a dead zone. Waaaay not as competitive for 15-18 and barely competitive for 19-25. 165 is barely better than the 164 that's needed to get into strong state schools like UGA/UNC.