Top Law Schools

.

if youre URM, then a bit higher. If your aim is big law, do Cornell.

People actually refer to their schools as "public ivies?" In reality, the only school that is even close to being a public ivy is Rutgers.

Anyway, you should have a shot at the lower T14.

ndirish2010 wrote:People actually refer to their schools as "public ivies?" In reality, the only school that is even close to being a public ivy is Rutgers.

Anyway, you should have a shot at the lower T14.

WTF? Yes, public ivy is a stupid term but that doesn't mean that it literally takes on the meaning of the ivy league. Public ivies are schools like Berkeley, UVA, and Michigan. Rutgers is not even close to being a "public ivy" as the term is generally used.

OP: You applied far too late and most of the schools had probably filled their URM quotas (sounds bad but it's sort of how things work). If you apply again next cycle you should get a T14, but I would retake to see if you can do better on the LSAT.

ndirish2010 wrote:People actually refer to their schools as "public ivies?" In reality, the only school that is even close to being a public ivy is Rutgers.

Anyway, you should have a shot at the lower T14.

wut?

LOL. The Ivy League is an athletic conference. It has no bearing on whether schools are good or not. Michigan is happy to be in the Big Ten, and UVA happy in the ACC. Rutgers is the only public school ever offered an invitation to join the Ivy League. It is more of a "Public Ivy" than UVA and Michigan. This says nothing about the relative quality of the schools.

ndirish2010 wrote:LOL. The Ivy League is an athletic conference. It has no bearing on whether schools are good or not. Michigan is happy to be in the Big Ten, and UVA happy in the ACC. Rutgers is the only public school ever offered an invitation to join the Ivy League. It is more of a "Public Ivy" than UVA and Michigan. This says nothing about the relative quality of the schools.

It's fun to live in your own world right? Public Ivy is term used to express...wait for it...the quality of the school, hence Mich, UVA and Berkeley. It has nothing to do with sports, at all. Your little history lesson about Rutgers and and the sports conference has no bearing on what is a very simple and widely understood concept.

ndirish2010 wrote:LOL. The Ivy League is an athletic conference. It has no bearing on whether schools are good or not. Michigan is happy to be in the Big Ten, and UVA happy in the ACC. Rutgers is the only public school ever offered an invitation to join the Ivy League. It is more of a "Public Ivy" than UVA and Michigan. This says nothing about the relative quality of the schools.

The term "public Ivy" does refer to quality of school. Rutgers may be the only public school offered admission to the Ivy League, but the term does not refer to the league as much as it does to a standard of excellence.

kwais wrote:

ndirish2010 wrote:LOL. The Ivy League is an athletic conference. It has no bearing on whether schools are good or not. Michigan is happy to be in the Big Ten, and UVA happy in the ACC. Rutgers is the only public school ever offered an invitation to join the Ivy League. It is more of a "Public Ivy" than UVA and Michigan. This says nothing about the relative quality of the schools.

It's fun to live in your own world right? Public Ivy is term used to express...wait for it...the quality of the school, hence Mich, UVA and Berkeley. It has nothing to do with sports, at all. Your little history lesson about Rutgers and and the sports conference has no bearing on what is a very simple and widely understood concept.

My point is that Michigan and UVA are great schools. Why do we need to attach "Ivy" to them to prove that point? Stanford, MIT, Caltech, UChicago, Johns Hopkins, Amherst, Williams, etc.... are all great schools, better than some Ivies, and yet nobody feels the need to call them "Ivies."

ndirish2010 wrote:

kwais wrote:

ndirish2010 wrote:LOL. The Ivy League is an athletic conference. It has no bearing on whether schools are good or not. Michigan is happy to be in the Big Ten, and UVA happy in the ACC. Rutgers is the only public school ever offered an invitation to join the Ivy League. It is more of a "Public Ivy" than UVA and Michigan. This says nothing about the relative quality of the schools.

It's fun to live in your own world right? Public Ivy is term used to express...wait for it...the quality of the school, hence Mich, UVA and Berkeley. It has nothing to do with sports, at all. Your little history lesson about Rutgers and and the sports conference has no bearing on what is a very simple and widely understood concept.

My point is that Michigan and UVA are great schools. Why do we need to attach "Ivy" to them to prove that point? Stanford, MIT, Caltech, UChicago, Johns Hopkins, Amherst, Williams, etc.... are all great schools, better than some Ivies, and yet nobody feels the need to call them "Ivies."

It's a descriptive term. It's just a shortcut. who cares? Everyone knows Stanford and MIT are excellent. better question, why do people take it personally like this? The use of the word "ivy" has the strange ability to butt hurt at random.

ndirish2010 wrote:

kwais wrote:

ndirish2010 wrote:LOL. The Ivy League is an athletic conference. It has no bearing on whether schools are good or not. Michigan is happy to be in the Big Ten, and UVA happy in the ACC. Rutgers is the only public school ever offered an invitation to join the Ivy League. It is more of a "Public Ivy" than UVA and Michigan. This says nothing about the relative quality of the schools.

It's fun to live in your own world right? Public Ivy is term used to express...wait for it...the quality of the school, hence Mich, UVA and Berkeley. It has nothing to do with sports, at all. Your little history lesson about Rutgers and and the sports conference has no bearing on what is a very simple and widely understood concept.

My point is that Michigan and UVA are great schools. Why do we need to attach "Ivy" to them to prove that point? Stanford, MIT, Caltech, UChicago, Johns Hopkins, Amherst, Williams, etc.... are all great schools, better than some Ivies, and yet nobody feels the need to call them "Ivies."

Most people refer to Stanford as an Ivy even though it is not actually an Ivy League school. It has more to do with competition for admission and prestige of the degree than the athletic conference to which the school belongs.

Your average person probably doesn't realize that Brown is an Ivy either.

ndirish2010 wrote:

kwais wrote:

ndirish2010 wrote:LOL. The Ivy League is an athletic conference. It has no bearing on whether schools are good or not. Michigan is happy to be in the Big Ten, and UVA happy in the ACC. Rutgers is the only public school ever offered an invitation to join the Ivy League. It is more of a "Public Ivy" than UVA and Michigan. This says nothing about the relative quality of the schools.

It's fun to live in your own world right? Public Ivy is term used to express...wait for it...the quality of the school, hence Mich, UVA and Berkeley. It has nothing to do with sports, at all. Your little history lesson about Rutgers and and the sports conference has no bearing on what is a very simple and widely understood concept.

My point is that Michigan and UVA are great schools. Why do we need to attach "Ivy" to them to prove that point? Stanford, MIT, Caltech, UChicago, Johns Hopkins, Amherst, Williams, etc.... are all great schools, better than some Ivies, and yet nobody feels the need to call them "Ivies."

This point has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads. You are clearly missing the point of what the discussion is in reference to. It doesn't matter whether schools should be called "public ivy's" or whatever distinction of excellence you want to ascribe them. It is in reference to the fact that a certain group of schools IS referred to as the public ivy's, and that Rutgers is not among that list.

How about answering the dude's question instead of debating the merits of the term "Ivy League"?

I'm URM hispanic too, I would apply much earlier and ED to a school you want to go to.

You should get into most of those, but as other posters have said I would re-take the LSAT (especially if that's your first score) If you were to score a high 160 or low 170 with a high GPA and URM Mexican you would be an in at t14 if not t6 especially with a master's and a published thesis.

Moomoo2u wrote:How about answering the dude's question instead of debating the merits of the term "Ivy League"?

I'm URM hispanic too, I would apply much earlier and ED to a school you want to go to.

You should get into most of those, but as other posters have said I would re-take the LSAT (especially if that's your first score) If you were to score a high 160 or low 170 with a high GPA and URM Mexican you would be an in at t14 if not t6 especially with a master's and a published thesis.

Because flexity already gave him the answer. Everything after that point was just typical TLS bickering