Content Deleted
Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:18 pm
Content Deleted
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=217620
Only about half of law school graduates are doomed in the sense that they will not be employed as a full time, long term lawyer after graduation, based on the most recently available data through the ABA and BLS. The reason people on here stress the importance of maximizing quality/prestige or minimizing debt is because they see law school for what it is for a lot of people: a gamble. They see the recessed legal market today, the astronomical cost of attendance, the patterns of hiring at jobs where one can reasonably facilitate paying off their student loans, and it all starts to weigh pretty heavily. Would you put down $200k+ for a 60% chance of a job that pays approximately $50k? I sure as hell wouldn't. That is the calculus you need to be performing.Moonlight wrote:I'm curious, we have so many people in law school and clearly most of them are not at T-14 and not on full rides. Yet I doubt they're all doomed. Where do we all get the idea that it has to be full ride at a T-14? Like I've read this everywhere too, but are we all just getting it from the same sources or is anyone here a primary source?
Depends on where your score starts though for LSAT. I know a good amount of people who have retaken and gotten the same score or a mere 2-3 point increase.
Santa Clara will NOT give a lot of money with LSAT 159Moonlight wrote:@Matthew - That's fair to say.
@Twentypercentmore - Oh gotcha gotcha. What do you think of Santa Clara then? I know it's not a major nation school, but as a regional school? I think I have a good chance at a good amount of scholarship with them (maybe a full ride if I'm lucky).
Like I've always wanted to go to law school. But at the same time while we're chatting about this, the job market is really bad for Bachelors too isn't it? I haven't compared the two but I imagine the job market is worse for college grads (maybe minus the accounting and engineer majors)
Lol what do you mean you mis-bubbled? Like on test day? That's just rough. Feel for ya. I had a 167 practice score leading up to the exam but I guess it didn't translate over onto the actual test? *shrug* And wow I'm impressed. What is your first language if you don't mind me asking? I'm curious.
And yea I appreciate the honesty. It's better than sugar-coated stuff. If I wanted sugar-coated stuff, I'd go to facebook lol. So are you applying this year or what's your story?
And between Santa Clara and UC Hastings, if I were to get similar scholarships then I imagine I'd take Hastings, but what if I got a full ride for Santa Clara and something less at UC Hastings? And by something less, I mean let's say half tuition and under? What's your opinion then on which of those 2 schools to choose?
twentypercentmore wrote:First, you don't have to be a full ride at a T-14, you either have to be at a T14 OR on a full ride at a decent regional. I'd call UC Hastings a decent regional.
There's plenty of data out there for why law school is a really bad decision right now, barring a few exceptions. But for an overwhelming majority of the population that doesn't have a 167+ LSAT score and a decent GPA, there's no way it makes sense.
Also, it doesn't really depend at all where your score starts. I'd imagine it's just as hard to go from a 130 to a 150 as it would be to go from a 150 to a 170. I started with a sub-150 score, and I worked my ass off for a 176, which I then proceeded to lose by mis-bubbling a bunch of stuff... oh well. Long story short, if a guy who doesn't even speak English as a first language can go from PTing in the 140s to PTing at 177-180, there's no excuse for not retaking a 159.
Sorry to be so brutal, but you seem like you're a big boy that wants it straight.
matthewsean85 wrote:To help yourself with becoming better informed about the state of the legal market and the relative performance of the schools you're interested in, check out http://www.lawschooltransparency.com.Moonlight wrote:I'm curious, we have so many people in law school and clearly most of them are not at T-14 and not on full rides. Yet I doubt they're all doomed. Where do we all get the idea that it has to be full ride at a T-14? Like I've read this everywhere too, but are we all just getting it from the same sources or is anyone here a primary source?
Depends on where your score starts though for LSAT. I know a good amount of people who have retaken and gotten the same score or a mere 2-3 point increase.
Yes. You'd be crazy not to retake as there is no downside.Moonlight wrote:So for everyone who says retake, are you all in law school? Or no?
not any more. schools now just take the highest. HYS MIGHT have more of a "holistic" look, but I have seen people with terrible first scores and good last scores get into H and S.Moonlight wrote:They say they see all scores and isn't the general consensus that its frowned upon to take it multiple times?Tiago Splitter wrote:Yes. You'd be crazy not to retake as there is no downside.Moonlight wrote:So for everyone who says retake, are you all in law school? Or no?
Even with $20k scholly, Santa Clara would be too expensiveMoonlight wrote: I heard they give out like 20,000 for scores like that in the past year
You've already taken it once. Your current score is not likely going to be good enough to make law school worthwhile. Law schools don't average scores, but even if they did you'd have nothing to lose by retaking.Moonlight wrote:They say they see all scores and isn't the general consensus that its frowned upon to take it multiple times?Tiago Splitter wrote:Yes. You'd be crazy not to retake as there is no downside.Moonlight wrote:So for everyone who says retake, are you all in law school? Or no?