Choosing a free education at a 4th tier law school? Forum

[guynourmin]

Why won't you respond o questions about what you want to do more directly? Like, do you want to work in Chicago?

[rzzza]

Why won't you respond o questions about what you want to do more directly? Like, do you want to work in Chicago?

I'm alright with working in north chicago or somewhere in the north suburbs, I'd like to stay nearer to my parents as they grow older. Anywhere within metra distance is fine.

I can envision myself in a small firm or as an in-house counsel for some small company, maybe working compliance. I'm open to JD advantaged positions as well, it all just depends its hard for me to envision right now these hypotheticals. I'd have to see the job offers in front of me and do some interviews before I could say for sure where I'd be most and least comfortable. It's not Big Law or bust for me although obviously I'd prefer the higher paying jobs all things being equal. If I end up going to Loyola I'd prefer a job that would allow me to pay off my loans in a reasonable amount of time. I'd even be willing to live at home for a few years after law school to take some of the pressure off the loan payments. But again, who knows what the situation will be like in 3 years. Hard to predict.

[guynourmin]

Why won't you respond o questions about what you want to do more directly? Like, do you want to work in Chicago?

I'm alright with working in north chicago or somewhere in the north suburbs, I'd like to stay nearer to my parents as they grow older. Anywhere within metra distance is fine.

I can envision myself in a small firm or as an in-house counsel for some small company, maybe working compliance. I'm open to JD advantaged positions as well, it all just depends its hard for me to envision right now these hypotheticals. I'd have to see the job offers in front of me and do some interviews before I could say for sure where I'd be most and least comfortable. It's not Big Law or bust for me although obviously I'd prefer the higher paying jobs all things being equal. If I end up going to Loyola I'd prefer a job that would allow me to pay off my loans in a reasonable amount of time. I'd even be willing to live at home for a few years after law school to take some of the pressure off the loan payments. But again, who knows what the situation will be like in 3 years. Hard to predict.

North Chicago is oddly specific and I'm not sure there's much of a legal market in that little town, do you mean Waukegan/Lake Co generally? or do you mean the north side of Chicago, because then that just means, yes, you want to work in Chicago, so don't say "alright with working in north Chicago" just say yes, you want to work in or around the city. Where are your parents?

I am asking because I think NIU -> Chicago is going to be tough. I think its a bad idea if that is your goal. There are 1000+ people graduating from the 4 TT(TT)'s in Chicago + UIUC, ND, Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota who do not have jobs and want the same jobs you could see yourself in. idk. I can't imagine why you would want to put yourself in a position like that. I'm going to check out of this thread now because i don't think I can be of any help to you. good luck.

[btruj777]

I do not think we should be calling OP stupid. It does nothing but to insult him. He/She has a question and wanted to see if people would provide some guidance here. Are there factors that were not considered? It seems that way. But the question he/she posed really boils down to this (for one reason or another).

Barring the possibility of a retake (whether this is justified, we cannot answer for him/her) AND taking as granted the fact that he/she MUST absolutely go to law school this cycle,

Which option is better (not to be taken as meaning "objectively good" - we were not asked to talk about this), NIU for free or Loyola with a lot of debt?


We can spend days questioning all of the restrictions that force his/her question into being what it is, and we can focus on who he/she is as a person but that was not the question posed.

I know we all mean well, some have even expressed that we are trying to avoid any possible financial catastrophes that he/she may have to shoulder in the future.

But I can imagine a law professor asking a hypothetical questions wherein he/she asks a question that is as restricted as this, with many assumptions limiting the available options, simply asking which is a better option A or option B (fully aware that neither is objectively good). I imagine that as students we will answer the question, even if we briefly mention our knowledge that his is a false dilemma.

The thing that I may be failing to see is that sometimes we may feel obligated to tell the person of all the other things he/she should be taking into account when they are making as big of a choice as this. I guess this obligation comes because we actually care about OP's well being, but unfortunately it does not seem like this is important to OP. Simply stated, for whatever reason, he/she has asked us to pick option A or B.

This is probably a false analogy but I am sure the frustration is just the same, what if when I typed into the Google search bar "How to build a computer?" Google stopped to ask me, even before searching anything, "Why do you want to build a computer? Have you considered the fact that X...". Most times being told of what I have failed to consider is valuable, but it seems like OP has already made up his/her mind, the computer will be built, "how do I do it?"


In short and perhaps just for fun (although it may be useless to OP), what would we answer to OP's questions if we take into account these bizarre parameters:

1. No retakes
2. Absolutely has to go to law school this cycle
3. Option A is NIU debt free
4. Option B is Loyola with about $150k in debt
5. We do not know what type of law OP wants to practice (this may be his/her biggest problem in this exercise).

[guynourmin]

But I can imagine a law professor asking a hypothetical questions wherein he/she asks a question that is as restricted as this, with many assumptions limiting the available options, simply asking which is a better option A or option B (fully aware that neither is objectively good). I imagine that as students we will answer the question, even if we briefly mention our knowledge that his is a false dilemma.

The thing that I may be failing to see is that sometimes we may feel obligated to tell the person of all the other things he/she should be taking into account when they are making as big of a choice as this. I guess this obligation comes because we actually care about OP's well being, but unfortunately it does not seem like this is important to OP. Simply stated, for whatever reason, he/she has asked us to pick option A or B.

This is probably a false analogy but I am sure the frustration is just the same, what if when I typed into the Google search bar "How to build a computer?" Google stopped to ask me, even before searching anything, "Why do you want to build a computer? Have you considered the fact that X...". Most times being told of what I have failed to consider is valuable, but it seems like OP has already made up his/her mind, the computer will be built, "how do I do it?"


In short and perhaps just for fun (although it may be useless to OP), what would we answer to OP's questions if we take into account these bizarre parameters:

1. No retakes
2. Absolutely has to go to law school this cycle
3. Option A is NIU debt free
4. Option B is Loyola with about $150k in debt
5. We do not know what type of law OP wants to practice (this may be his/her biggest problem in this exercise).

Except our relationship with professors is such that we submit to taking the class however they would like to teach it, and our relationship with a search engine is such that if it is not responsive to our questions in the way we want it to be then we will use different a search engine that is. We have no obligation to be responsive to OPs questions as they are given, so all of your examples miss the mark to some great extent. This is the exact same like of reasoning Ferris uses when he says we should answer the questions that are asked of us, but its a pretty poor argument imo.

If a poster doesn't like the way this board is responding to their questions, they can go elsewhere. r/lawschooladmissions would be a great place for OP to have people tell him how lucky he is to have received a full ride+stipend to the worst law school in the state and that having received such a scholarship is evidence that he will be successful and he should go to NIU and kill it!

[btruj777]

But I can imagine a law professor asking a hypothetical questions wherein he/she asks a question that is as restricted as this, with many assumptions limiting the available options, simply asking which is a better option A or option B (fully aware that neither is objectively good). I imagine that as students we will answer the question, even if we briefly mention our knowledge that his is a false dilemma.

The thing that I may be failing to see is that sometimes we may feel obligated to tell the person of all the other things he/she should be taking into account when they are making as big of a choice as this. I guess this obligation comes because we actually care about OP's well being, but unfortunately it does not seem like this is important to OP. Simply stated, for whatever reason, he/she has asked us to pick option A or B.

This is probably a false analogy but I am sure the frustration is just the same, what if when I typed into the Google search bar "How to build a computer?" Google stopped to ask me, even before searching anything, "Why do you want to build a computer? Have you considered the fact that X...". Most times being told of what I have failed to consider is valuable, but it seems like OP has already made up his/her mind, the computer will be built, "how do I do it?"


In short and perhaps just for fun (although it may be useless to OP), what would we answer to OP's questions if we take into account these bizarre parameters:

1. No retakes
2. Absolutely has to go to law school this cycle
3. Option A is NIU debt free
4. Option B is Loyola with about $150k in debt
5. We do not know what type of law OP wants to practice (this may be his/her biggest problem in this exercise).

Except our relationship with professors is such that we submit to taking the class however they would like to teach it, and our relationship with a search engine is such that if it is not responsive to our questions in the way we want it to be then we will use different a search engine that is. We have no obligation to be responsive to OPs questions as they are given, so all of your examples miss the mark to some great extent. This is the exact same like of reasoning Ferris uses when he says we should answer the questions that are asked of us, but its a pretty poor argument imo.

If a poster doesn't like the way this board is responding to their questions, they can go elsewhere. r/lawschooladmissions would be a great place for OP to have people tell him how lucky he is to have received a full ride+stipend to the worst law school in the state and that having received such a scholarship is evidence that he will be successful and he should go to NIU and kill it!

I read your response and I wonder if people on TLS feel they have license to treat people poorly. The argument you made works against you. If you do not like the way OP is taking your response, go elsewhere.

What you have said Is academic at best.

[guynourmin]

The argument you made works against you. If you do not like the way OP is taking your response, go elsewhere.

Sure, the argument works both ways, and you'll see I've already told OP I am going to stop engaging them itt, so I don't disagree with that.

What you have said Is academic at best.

I highlighted how OPs relationship is sufficiently different than the relationships in both of the examples you've offered such that they are bad examples. If that is just academic, what does that make your post? irrelevant, right? especially considering the very first response itt does exactly what you've said we should do. There's nothing else to say except for the first half of UVA2B's first post. Did you not see that?

[btruj777]

The argument you made works against you. If you do not like the way OP is taking your response, go elsewhere.

Sure, the argument works both ways, and you'll see I've already told OP I am going to stop engaging them itt, so I don't disagree with that.

What you have said Is academic at best.

I highlighted how OPs relationship is sufficiently different than the relationships in both of the examples you've offered such that they are bad examples. If that is just academic, what does that make your post? irrelevant, right? especially considering the very first response itt does exactly what you've said we should do. There's nothing else to say except for the first half of UVA2B's first post. Did you not see that?

I think you would agree that the majority of the posts here are not aimed at answering OP's question. Even if some of the posts here do exactly as I suggested, it does not mean that people on TLS cannot use a reminder to remain faithful to OP's posts. Read my post and my reply to you, and ask yourself what my intentions are. It seems like you are being combative and taking things personally. I read OP's post and the replies and I wonder how I would react if I saw this in person. Someone asking a question, and being called stupid and people jumping in and using it as an opportunity to further grow their egos. Sure, sometimes people ask silly questions, but maybe it matters to them - and if you must absolutely put them on notice of how wrong they are, why not do it gracefully?

I understand some replies are intended to be humorous and that is fine, but when it goes beyond that, we may lose sight that the other person reading this is a person with value and interests.

Look Guy, I am not going to respond to you any further, we are so far beyond what this thread was meant to be.

As per usual, OP asks a question and people come on here to crucify him/her.

[cavalier1138]

I think you would agree that the majority of the posts here are not aimed at answering OP's question. Even if some of the posts here do exactly as I suggested, it does not mean that people on TLS cannot use a reminder to remain faithful to OP's posts. Read my post and my reply to you, and ask yourself what my intentions are. It seems like you are being combative and taking things personally. I read OP's post and the replies and I wonder how I would react if I saw this in person. Someone asking a question, and being called stupid and people jumping in and using it as an opportunity to further grow their egos. Sure, sometimes people ask silly questions, but maybe it matters to them - and if you must absolutely put them on notice of how wrong they are, why not do it gracefully?

I understand some replies are intended to be humorous and that is fine, but when it goes beyond that, we may lose sight that the other person reading this is a person with value and interests.

Look Guy, I am not going to respond to you any further, we are so far beyond what this thread was meant to be.

As per usual, OP asks a question and people come on here to crucify him/her.

Wow, thank goodness we have our very own Jiminy Cricket to be the conscience of the forums. And he's so original!

[rpupkin]

The question for me is if I feel more comfortable taking the lower risk option with no debt, but knowing that my earning potential will be capped at $50,000....

The risk is not that your earning potential will be capped at $50K. The risk is that you won't get a job as a lawyer.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I think you would agree that the majority of the posts here are not aimed at answering OP's question. Even if some of the posts here do exactly as I suggested, it does not mean that people on TLS cannot use a reminder to remain faithful to OP's posts. Read my post and my reply to you, and ask yourself what my intentions are. It seems like you are being combative and taking things personally. I read OP's post and the replies and I wonder how I would react if I saw this in person. Someone asking a question, and being called stupid and people jumping in and using it as an opportunity to further grow their egos. Sure, sometimes people ask silly questions, but maybe it matters to them - and if you must absolutely put them on notice of how wrong they are, why not do it gracefully?

I understand some replies are intended to be humorous and that is fine, but when it goes beyond that, we may lose sight that the other person reading this is a person with value and interests.

Look Guy, I am not going to respond to you any further, we are so far beyond what this thread was meant to be.

As per usual, OP asks a question and people come on here to crucify him/her.

Wow, thank goodness we have our very own Jiminy Cricket to be the conscience of the forums. And he's so original!

TBF, answers like this only confirm the poster's opinion.

[snowball2]

With all this focus on "what happens when I graduate?" there's a bigger picture that no one is looking at. What happens in 10 years? 20 years? Things don't always work out as planned and you can't assume that accepting a low-paying job in law post graduation from a 4th tier school is going to lead to a lifelong career. It certainly can, but what happens when someone decides you're expendable? Getting the next job, or the one after that may prove to be equally problematic. The institution you graduate from stays with you for the rest of your life. A "better" school doesn't only mean a better chance at employment after graduation but also a better network for the future and "better" credentials.

Going to a school that places no one in biglaw means you won't have friends who are well placed and may be in a position to help you out in 10 years when they go in house and have some input on hiring. You have one shot at doing law school right, making drastic concessions this early in the game is not the best approach. If a retake gets you into UIUC with money or NU with no money, then the year wait will likely pay off for decades to come.

I actually know a NIU law alum pretty well (in his late 40's) and his employment options have always been limited. He's worked more or less steadily but has also endured some long (12-18 month) demoralizing stretches of unemployment that no doubt were influenced by his resume which in turn was limited by his NIU degree.

[rpupkin]

With all this focus on "what happens when I graduate?" there's a bigger picture that no one is looking at. What happens in 10 years? 20 years?

We discussed this upthread. For the reasons I explained, I think your instincts here are backwards.

[pancakes3]

nonsense

your analogy is shitty bc the purpose of a LS hypo and the purposes of a solicitation of advice are completely different.

your motivation to answer the OP as a LS hypo without trying to provide him "objectively good" advice is stupid and/or evil.

[btruj777]

nonsense

your analogy is shitty bc the purpose of a LS hypo and the purposes of a solicitation of advice are completely different.

your motivation to answer the OP as a LS hypo without trying to provide him "objectively good" advice is stupid and/or evil.

I believe the point is missed, and you misquoted how I used "objectively good". In fact, I think you misread my entire post.

[snowball2]

With all this focus on "what happens when I graduate?" there's a bigger picture that no one is looking at. What happens in 10 years? 20 years?

We discussed this upthread. For the reasons I explained, I think your instincts here are backwards.

Not speaking from instinct but from experience. I have more friends in successful solo practice or in-house jobs who got there from biglaw/top school networks than from TTT or TTTT networks (exactly none from the latter). I also have friends who went to T14 schools who have contacts across the country as a result of school networks. I went to a T1 and landed well, but I have a much more limited set of school contacts.

My NIU friend will easily admit that a better school would have facilitated easier re-employment.

[rpupkin]

With all this focus on "what happens when I graduate?" there's a bigger picture that no one is looking at. What happens in 10 years? 20 years?

We discussed this upthread. For the reasons I explained, I think your instincts here are backwards.

Not speaking from instinct but from experience.

Law-school network can help some, particularly early on in one's career. But 10 or 20 years out? Your professional network will be far more important.

[snowball2]

With all this focus on "what happens when I graduate?" there's a bigger picture that no one is looking at. What happens in 10 years? 20 years?

We discussed this upthread. For the reasons I explained, I think your instincts here are backwards.

Not speaking from instinct but from experience.

Law-school network can help some, particularly early on in one's career. But 10 or 20 years out? Your professional network will be far more important.

That's sort of my point; they're somewhat intertwined. Go to s better law school >> end up in biglaw (even if it's just for a few years) >> have classmates who go to various biglaw firms - lifelong network. Go to TTTT >> get a "legal job" >> have classmates in other "legal jobs" >> not a ton of upward mobility options. If you can put yourself in a position where even your friends will have their choice of options, you'll be in a better place overall.

I'm not trying to sh#t on someone's choices but I am pointing out that if there's a chance at landing in a better spot with a retake, it will pay off in spades across a lifetime. I have a good friend at one of the snootiest firms in NY who earned his way in from a TT. He's billing at an insane rate and enjoying great success, but his clients can still look up his bio page and see that he's not from a top school and he still has regrets about not transferring when he could have.

[Ferrisjso]

Rzza its Ferris, the Comptroller General of Cloudcuckoo land. I'm quite similar to you in a lot of ways. Im also debt adverse and chose to go to a TTT(for almost a free ride). I also faced a ton of ridicule(like record breaking amounts of it in terms of pages)for not wanting to retake(although i had retook three times previously) and find it infuriating when TLSers refuse to answer questions.

Its important to know how to treat the information the elitist crowd gives you. While they are totally in a bubble and their behavior is unacceptable they do raise valid points. They are on the other extreme as the oblivious people who are convinced a law degree from anywhere is a ticket to a middle ckass life. You shoukd think carefully about this. For me the lower ranked school I picked was good for a variety of reasons not just cost. Does the school place/have local respect where you want to work/live, do you want to work long term and require that network a larger school provided(for me I planned on running for office after a few years if work so that mattered a little less for me)?

The school you are considering free or not does have objectively awful employment stats and will likely not have a large network of successful alumni. It will close alot of doors for you. Just because the TLS gilded club are fucking assholes to the TTTT/TTT and even TT communitys at times doesnt mean their isnt merit tonwhat their saying to a degree.

You should not make your decision solely based on what people on here tell you the same way you shouldnt rely on the TTTT's cloud and sunshine propaganda. Look at your situation and determine if the cost of going to a shitty school is worth the ends of less debt/other positives. TTTT for free can be a defensable decision(if its not Infi Law or one of the scam TTTT which third tier reality just labeled TTTTT's) but you need to decide that.

FYI I rejected a free ride at a TTTT, it was attached to a mall.

[lavarman84]

just another thread where efforts are wasted because the OP is too stupid to understand the "retake" advice.

I'm not retaking, I don't know how many times I have to say this.

There's a difference between not understanding advice and not taking it. You can stop giving me advice that I've explicitly rejected 12 times now. If it was up to some of you I'd spend the next 5 years of my life studying for the LSAT and re-taking it. I'm done with that. I'm moving on with my life. Thanks

Based on your post below, you should consider retaking. NIU is fine if you're okay with a $50,000 per year professional job coming out that may or may not be in the legal field and likely won't be in Chicago. Loyola isn't remotely defensible with that amount of debt. If you want to have a decent shot at better paying jobs, retake the LSAT and try to get into Illinois.

Now, you say you aren't retaking. That's fine. That's your choice. But if that's your choice, don't take out six figure debt for a mediocre law school. A top law school is worth six figures of debt. Other law schools are not. The last option is to not go to law school.

Thanks for your help everyone. You've helped clear up the picture a bit more for me. It seems like my choice is between a low risk/low reward option and a high risk/higher reward one. Some of you may take issue with me describing NIU as 'low risk' but relatively speaking compared to my other option, it is the lower risk choice.

I've checked into the NALP reports for both schools and it seems like those that do find jobs out of law school from NIU get jobs in the $45,000-$55,000 range. Anything higher than that is rare and the school simply doesn't place anyone into big firms. The NALP data from Loyola is a bit different, those that do find jobs graduating from Loyola tend to get hired in positions that pay $50,000-80,000 with about 15% of each graduating class finding their way into larger firms and getting salaries in the $90,000 range. The 75th percentile of salaries from Loyola is much higher than the 75th percentile of salaries from NIU.

One other thing that really stuck in my mind here is what IExistedOnceBefore said about Loyola being in the heart of the city and having a lot of alumni connections, which NIU seems to lack.

The question for me is if I feel more comfortable taking the lower risk option with no debt, but knowing that my earning potential will be capped at $50,000...or if I feel brave enough to gamble on the higher risk option for the potential to gain employment at a job that pays $60,000-$90,000 (with a small chance of making it to Big Law). For all that's been said about Loyola's reputation (or lack thereof), these NALP reports speak for themselves. Those that get hired from this school tend to earn more.

I see the pro's and con's of either choice, I'm very indecisive and I know whichever choice I end up making...I'll be thinking about the other choice I didn't make for 3 long years and wondering if I didn't make a mistake. I don't know whether I should err on the side of no debt or err on the side of a risky gamble for the small chance of being in that 75th percentile at Loyola.

[Ilovemydogxo]

It's just a waste of another year and I don't think I could do much better than my 158 score. Even assuming I study my ass off and get a 162 or something, that doesn't really put me into a much better position as far as options go in this state.

You do realize you're on a forum called "top-law-schools" right? What kind of responses did you expect? Maybe you should start a forum called "shit-law-schools" if you want to make dumb threads like this and have TTT shitters come flocking to you telling you how great your (not so bright) future is going to be.

[dm1683]

OP got a full ride+ to a regional school, will graduate with no debt, has no delusions of biglaw and scored at the top of his/her PT range on his/her retake after taking a not-insubstantial number of PTs. If there is ever someone who is justified in attending NIU, OP is that person.

As for the retake crowd: the idea that someone who took a legit prep course and more than 20 PTs and never scored above 160 can improve enough to get a 170+ for NU or Chicago seems very far fetched. Some people have an intellectual ceiling below what this site considers a "decent score." It might still be a good decision to retake (and OP should consider it), but not retaking isn't the mortal sin here that it is in so many other choosing threads.

[guynourmin]

regional school.

Outside of his desired region

[dm1683]

regional school.

Outside of his desired region

NIU should feed into the northern and western suburbs decently well. Isn't it in dupage county?

[Ferrisjso]

It's just a waste of another year and I don't think I could do much better than my 158 score. Even assuming I study my ass off and get a 162 or something, that doesn't really put me into a much better position as far as options go in this state.

You do realize you're on a forum called "top-law-schools" right? What kind of responses did you expect? Maybe you should start a forum called "shit-law-schools" if you want to make dumb threads like this and have TTT shitters come flocking to you telling you how great your (not so bright) future is going to be.

Tbf "top" is ambigious as fuck and the site made profiles for not only top 100 schools but also TTT/TTTT schools.