Top Law Schools

I live in Florida, so I'm of course applying to most of the in-state schools (FSU, FIU, Miami) and some others scattered around (American, Catholic, South Carolina, UTK, Maryland) I have minimal chance at most of them now, I feel.

I don't know what other information would be needed to determine an estimation of chances, this being almost an entirely numbers-based game. My majors are Biology and Russian. The 3.1 is because of Biology entirely.

I'm aware retaking is an option.

Many thanks in advance.

Retake is more of an imperative than an option. Seriously.

Chances: http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com

What should I be aiming for regarding the schools I'm applying to?

I know "as high as possible" is of course the best, but how much does my score need to improve?

(I have access to the self-reported LSAT scores of the schools, I just wanted some TLS opinions.)

Generally people will say retake until you get a 170 or better. At that point you can pay sticker at a T14 which is still risky but can be worth it.

That being said, if you don't get that you should be aiming for a respectable lower school with a large scholarship (which means get as high an LSAT as you can). What is respectable? Well that depends. Some T2/T3/T4 schools are decent (e.g. SMU, UNLV, UConn, etc) generally they are schools who don't have a lot of competition or are a cheap state school, but some T2/T3/T4 schools are absolutely atrocious (e.g. Hofstra, NYLS, Santa Clara, San Francisco, etc). And ideally the scholarship stipulations will be either minimal or nonexistent.

Why is santa clara so bad? What if you specialize in IP in a school that's centrally located in one of the most litigious areas of technology?

deebo12 wrote:Why is santa clara so bad? What if you specialize in IP in a school that's centrally located in one of the most litigious areas of technology?

How about because like less than a quarter of their grads get full time legal jobs? Is that enough? Check out LST.

ndirish2010 wrote:

deebo12 wrote:Why is santa clara so bad? What if you specialize in IP in a school that's centrally located in one of the most litigious areas of technology?

How about because like less than a quarter of their grads get full time legal jobs? Is that enough? Check out LST.

How definitive are those statistics? Isn't there a good amount of data missing?

deebo12 wrote:

ndirish2010 wrote:

deebo12 wrote:Why is santa clara so bad? What if you specialize in IP in a school that's centrally located in one of the most litigious areas of technology?

How about because like less than a quarter of their grads get full time legal jobs? Is that enough? Check out LST.

How definitive are those statistics? Isn't there a good amount of data missing?

Hence my point. If it's missing, where is it? People would report if they had something worth reporting.

LST data is definitive in my book even if it's lacking data (I'll explain why). If you look on SCU's website they have the more recent 2010 data (which isn't available yet via USNWR so LST hasn't published it yet) and it is pretty striking (source: http://law.scu.edu/careers/employment-data-2010.cfm). With a graduating class of 300 they have:

200 who reported geographical info.
180 who reported whether their job required a JD or not.
60 who reported whether their job was permanent/temporary.
60 who reported whether their job was fulltime/parttime.

It is pretty safe to assume that those who don't report do so because their job sucks (or they don't have a job... this is also the same reason why people with low salaries tend to not report their salaries whereas people with high salaries tend to report their salaries). People don't like to admit that they are only working part time, that their job is temporary, that their job doesn't even require a JD, etc after paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for a degree. There is a reason that 2/3 of them report geographical info whereas only 1/5 of them report whether it is fulltime/parttime or permanent/temporary, the geographical info isn't embarrassing while the other info is.

If you look at better schools, there is a reason that better schools have much higher reporting rates, because the poor outcomes at those schools are much less common.

bk187 wrote:LST data is definitive in my book even if it's lacking data (I'll explain why). If you look on SCU's website they have the more recent 2010 data (which isn't available yet via USNWR so LST hasn't published it yet) and it is pretty striking (source: http://law.scu.edu/careers/employment-data-2010.cfm). With a graduating class of 300 they have:

200 who reported geographical info.
180 who reported whether their job required a JD or not.
60 who reported whether their job was permanent/temporary.
60 who reported whether their job was fulltime/parttime.

It is pretty safe to assume that those who don't report do so because their job sucks (or they don't have a job... this is also the same reason why people with low salaries tend to not report their salaries whereas people with high salaries tend to report their salaries). People don't like to admit that they are only working part time, that their job is temporary, that their job doesn't even require a JD, etc after paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for a degree. There is a reason that 2/3 of them report geographical info whereas only 1/5 of them report whether it is fulltime/parttime or permanent/temporary, the geographical info isn't embarrassing while the other info is.

If you look at better schools, there is a reason that better schools have much higher reporting rates, because the poor outcomes at those schools are much less common.

I just find that it requires a bit of a leap of faith to make the assumption that no report = no job / bad or unrelated job. It's just frustrating that no reliable and clear measurement exists for this process.

Way more of a leap of faith to assume these people have jobs and are keeping them secret.

deebo12 wrote:I just find that it requires a bit of a leap of faith to make the assumption that no report = no job / bad or unrelated job. It's just frustrating that no reliable and clear measurement exists for this process.

ndirish2010 wrote:Way more of a leap of faith to assume these people have jobs and are keeping them secret.

This.

Also, how else would you explain why the better schools have much higher reporting rates than the worse schools? There are 30,000 law jobs created every year and 45,000 JD grads every year. 1/3 of grads are going to get shafted hard so it isn't surprising when some schools struggle to place more than 1/4 or 1/2 of their grads into jobs.

Maybe people from "low ranked" schools don't their report jobs because they're off living their lives not thinking about how elite they are like everyone on here.

sharklasers wrote:Maybe people from "low ranked" schools don't their report jobs because they're off living their lives not thinking about how elite they are like everyone on here.

Nice try troll.

bk187 wrote:

sharklasers wrote:Maybe people from "low ranked" schools don't their report jobs because they're off living their lives not thinking about how elite they are like everyone on here.

Nice try troll.

He was putting it in an undiplomatic way, but it is true in a sense - what if the people who report are a bit self-selecting? That is possible. The better your job, or the more prestigious you feel you are, the more you may want to flaunt it.


An easy example are the posts here about scores - even though 160s and up are in the 70/80/90th percentile, you see them predominantly. Whereas, the other 70 percent post far less.

deebo12 wrote:

bk187 wrote:

sharklasers wrote:Maybe people from "low ranked" schools don't their report jobs because they're off living their lives not thinking about how elite they are like everyone on here.

Nice try troll.

He was putting it in an undiplomatic way, but it is true in a sense - what if the people who report are a bit self-selecting? That is possible. The better your job, or the more prestigious you feel you are, the more you may want to flaunt it.


An easy example are the posts here about scores - even though 160s and up are in the 70/80/90th percentile, you see them predominantly. Whereas, the other 70 percent post far less.

This forum is called "top-law-schools.com." (emphasis added).

ndirish2010 wrote:

deebo12 wrote:

bk187 wrote:

sharklasers wrote:Maybe people from "low ranked" schools don't their report jobs because they're off living their lives not thinking about how elite they are like everyone on here.

Nice try troll.

He was putting it in an undiplomatic way, but it is true in a sense - what if the people who report are a bit self-selecting? That is possible. The better your job, or the more prestigious you feel you are, the more you may want to flaunt it.


An easy example are the posts here about scores - even though 160s and up are in the 70/80/90th percentile, you see them predominantly. Whereas, the other 70 percent post far less.

This forum is called "top-law-schools.com." (emphasis added).

No argument there, but that doesn't address the issue of self-selection determining a blanket judgment about all law schools, and employment prospects for those schools.

I'm going to agree with the posters who are skeptical about the data reported. Besides, in this job market if you did go into debt by going to law school only to find that you aren't employable afterwards wouldn't that prompt you to report it? The reporting is anonymous correct? If so, then the too-embarrassed-to-report argument is moot, no?

deebo12 wrote:He was putting it in an undiplomatic way, but it is true in a sense - what if the people who report are a bit self-selecting? That is possible. The better your job, or the more prestigious you feel you are, the more you may want to flaunt it.

An easy example are the posts here about scores - even though 160s and up are in the 70/80/90th percentile, you see them predominantly. Whereas, the other 70 percent post far less.

Are you really trying to say that there is something so "prestigious" about working full time or being in a permanent position that 2/3 of the people responding to the survey won't admit whether they are working fulltime/parttime or permanent/temporary?

LockBox wrote:I'm going to agree with the posters who are skeptical about the data reported. Besides, in this job market if you did go into debt by going to law school only to find that you aren't employable afterwards wouldn't that prompt you to report it? The reporting is anonymous correct? If so, then the too-embarrassed-to-report argument is moot, no?

Why would you want to admit that you are unemployed or underemployed? There are the scambloggers of course but considering how scarce the scambloggers are (when you consider that 1/3 of graduates each year fail to find a legal job), it makes more sense that the people who are vocally upset are the minority rather than the majority.

I got into the Florida schools with a 3.0 and a 163. I got a little bit of money from FSU with no stipulations. It's definitely possible to improve a 157 to at least a 163 (I went from a 158 to a 163 with a little bit more effort). Maybe try aiming for an LSAT at least around there or better.

ndirish2010 wrote:

deebo12 wrote:

bk187 wrote:

sharklasers wrote:Maybe people from "low ranked" schools don't their report jobs because they're off living their lives not thinking about how elite they are like everyone on here.

Nice try troll.

He was putting it in an undiplomatic way, but it is true in a sense - what if the people who report are a bit self-selecting? That is possible. The better your job, or the more prestigious you feel you are, the more you may want to flaunt it.


An easy example are the posts here about scores - even though 160s and up are in the 70/80/90th percentile, you see them predominantly. Whereas, the other 70 percent post far less.

This forum is called "top-law-schools.com." (emphasis added).

LOL