Seat deposit is due April 15th and choosing between schools....HELP PLEASE! Forum

[weshazen]

Hi everyone,

I'm fairly new to TLS and the forums, I'm currently in the middle of deciding on which of the six law schools I would like to attend based on the offers I've received as of today (with six applications still pending). I'm going to leave my personal feelings and thoughts mute for now in a way of crowdsourcing info from you all. First things first though, a little about me.

I graduated with my bachelors degree in Criminal Justice with a minor in Public Admin and Policy in December 2012 before going on to do a master's degree in Criminology overseas in the United Kingdom. Since finishing my master's, I've been working in the courts and private investigative work and currently for a state legislature. Around working two jobs to help make ends meet and enable myself to save a little money, I dedicated a substantial amount of time toward studying but did not score as I would hope for on either of my LSAT exams (both falling in low and mid 150's). Below are the schools I've been admitted to (in no particular order) alongside the scholarship amount they are offering me. Any advice and thoughts are more than welcome. Also just to put it out there, since i've taken the LSAT twice, I'm not looking to retake, I'm going with my scores and just going to work my ass off to do my best in whatever school I decide on. A side note, I'm currently interested in International Law as well as Sports and Entertainment Law possibly, although I'm trying to keep an open mind in case some random class strikes my fancy.

1. Creighton Law School - $63,000 scholarship
2. Southwestern Law School - $80,000 tuition with additional $4,000 for first year housing
3. Marquette Law School - $30,000 Scholarship
4. University of Oklahoma Law School - $36,000 scholarship which lowers tuition to roughly in state rates.
5. University of New Mexico Law School - No scholarship but I qualify for in state tuition which makes the cost very low
6. University of Richmond Law School - No scholarship offer as of today, however I am writing a letter to the Scholarship Committee.


Any and all constructive feedback is welcome. Thank you!

[AdieuCali]

Below are the schools I've been admitted to (in no particular order) alongside the scholarship amount they are offering me.
1. Creighton Law School - $63,000 scholarship
2. Southwestern Law School - $80,000 tuition with additional $4,000 for first year housing
3. Marquette Law School - $30,000 Scholarship
4. University of Oklahoma Law School - $36,000 scholarship which lowers tuition to roughly in state rates.
5. University of New Mexico Law School - No scholarship but I qualify for in state tuition which makes the cost very low
6. University of Richmond Law School - No scholarship offer as of today, however I am writing a letter to the Scholarship Committee.

You need to look at total cost of attendance, not just scholarships. You can use LST to do most of the basic research. https://www.lstreports.com/compare/crei ... marquette/

For the first three, for example, you're looking at total COA of:
1. Creighton: $148k
2. SWLS: $237k
3. Marquette: $216

I didn't do all of them, but all of these schools will put you in six figures of debt.

A side note, I'm currently interested in International Law as well as Sports and Entertainment Law possibly, although I'm trying to keep an open mind in case some random class strikes my fancy.

None of the schools you've listed will allow you to go into Sports Law or International Law. Those are challenging fields to enter even for T6 graduates. None of the schools you've listed will give you more than a 5-15% chance of landing Biglaw, which is the only practical way to service that kind of debt if you're not interested in public service. All of the schools you've listed will give you less than a 4-in-5 chance of even getting a legal job after graduation.

You've also listed schools all over the country. These are regional/local schools that will keep you in their respective markets for your career. Are you truly agnostic to practicing in Omaha, Milwaukee, LA, New Mexico, Richmond, or OK?

Also just to put it out there, since i've taken the LSAT twice, I'm not looking to retake, I'm going with my scores and just going to work my ass off to do my best in whatever school I decide on.

The difficulty of LSAT prep pales in comparison to the rigor of the law school curriculum, especially 1L. Everyone will be working their asses off to get the top grades. This is even more true at the schools you've listed because you may need top grades to get any kind of legal work after graduation. You can take the LSAT as many times as you'd like, but you can only take your finals once.

Retaking is the easiest way to increase your chances of getting the legal job you want. There are plenty of resources on this site to help you break out of the 150s. Law school admissions are also pretty mechanical. If we knew your GPA, then we could predict what LSAT you'd need to land a school that would help you reach your goals at a reasonable cost.

Long story short, don't go to any of these schools.

[cavalier1138]

None of the above.

To the extent that "international law" is a practice area, you're not going to get access to it from these schools. You clearly aren't willing to "work your ass off" at something as simple as a learnable test, so you're not in a position to tell everyone how well you're going to do in school.

The schools you're considering range from decent regional choices (UNM) to flat-out scams (Southwestern). They're also all over the country, indicating that you've put very little thought into this process beyond a generic desire to go to law school right this minute in order to enter one of two unicorn legal fields.

[objctnyrhnr]

OP, which aspect of studying for the LSAT do you not feeling like doing: the working really hard part, or the spending a ton of time part?

You can see why one might be a little skeptical about your chances of success in law school just by asserting that you will “work your ass off.”

If you’re actually that ambitious/hardworking, maybe you should...I dunno...actually act ambitious/hardworking.

If you take this advice (which you probably won’t), I promise you’ll be thanking your lucky stars in a few years. Now I’m not saying it’ll take a few years to study for the Lsat; rather that you won’t appreciate how truly bad the outcomes for these schools are for a few years from now, if you attend one of them.

[weshazen]

Well since none of you really know anything about me other than the information I've provided in my post I would appreciate a little less douchebaggery in putting down my intellect or willingness to work hard or anything that is theoretical. I simply asked for opinions on my current choices and aside from the first person who actually dug down into my post and posted a well thought out critique and actual information that is helpful all I got was criticism with little to no depth. All I meant by bringing up my LSAT scores in the first place is that I am not retaking it and I'm preparing to enter law school in the fall. I've done the "ivy league" graduate school path and have been working for a few years so i'm not in it for big law but i'm also not in it for becoming a public defender either. I'm not able to see the first guys username but I definitely appreciate your thought out and candid answer, as for the other two below him, if you don't have actual advice other than "don't be cocky and say you're going to work hard" or "none of the above" then kindly hit the back button and look for someone else to troll. Thanks.

[Mullens]

Law school, as a professional school, should only be looked at as a means to an end. That is to say, you need to fully consider (1) what job you want out of law school and the likelihood of obtaining that job from the school you attend and (2) how much it will cost you.

All of these schools will put you into over $100,000 in debt.

Do any of them offer a practical path to international law (which isn’t really a thing?) or sports/entertainment law (almost exclusively practiced in biglaw or midlaw firms that are as/more difficult to get jobs in as biglaw)? You need to seriously consider the answer to this question. You may not like the tone of the answers, but people are only trying to give you practical advice and prevent you from ruining your life by spending $250,000 on a degree that will not allow you to achieve your goals.

[LSATWiz.com]

I think you also have to consider that there is no such thing as "sports law". This is a common aspiration of younger applicants, but common sensibly, do you think that professional athletes are thinking, "I need a good sports lawyer!" During O.J. Simpson's police chase, was he calling his sports lawyer? When A-Rod was suing major league baseball over his suspension, did he hire a sports lawyer? When a baseball player goes for arbitration, do the parties hire a top sports lawyer?

The answer is no - you have people who specialize in a certain type of law, whether it's contract law or criminal law whose practices sometimes incidentally cross into the world of sports. In addition, it sounds like the kinds of cases that appeal to you would be high profile ones for high profile clients and this already limits you to the type of law firms that do not hire from any of these skills.

In addition, international law is also not really a thing in the sense that it's not an actual specialty you can do in practice. If you work for a global law firm, your practice will sometimes encompass elements of international law. Although the UN may staff attorneys who sit on a tribunal, these are among the most decorated lawyers in the world and it's exceedingly unlikely that any lawyer would have that opportunity, much less one that is not coming out of a top law school.

You need more tangible goals, and then figure it out from there. Unless your goal is I want to practice slower level commercial law, work in criminal or insurance defense, small town estate planning or matrimonial law, these schools will not get you your desired outcome. All of these schools are blue collar institutions. They are for people who really want to practice law and want to represent everyday people with everyday issues in a hands on capacity. You are highly unlikely to make six-figures for at least a few years coming out but after a few years, you may get there by developing connections in a local, small town community. This is realistically the best case scenario. Based on your aspirations, it sounds like you really want the most sought after white shoe work, which simply won't happen coming out of any of these schools.

This is constructive feedback.

[cavalier1138]

You're not being trolled. You're being informed that you have a warped view of legal education and practice. And no one has insulted your intellect, so stop projecting.

I'm preparing to enter law school in the fall.

Why? Why do you have to go this fall?

I've done the "ivy league" graduate school path and have been working for a few years so i'm not in it for big law but i'm also not in it for becoming a public defender either.

Ok, but you clearly don't understand that you're interested in two unicorn fields that, to the extent they exist, only exist in large firms (or in the case of international law, in the State Department). So let's try a different tack: What do you think your ideal job would be right after graduation? What salary do you envision making? Where would you be working?

[weshazen]

Mullens, I don't mind criticism if it's constructive. As I've said in my post, I have my own thoughts on which schools I'm going to try and go for and there is quite a big difference between me going to a school like UNM and racking up $101k and Southwestern with $250K. I'm asking for guidance on a selection, pure and simple just as I wrote it in the post, not comments of "don't go because it's a waste" and "take the LSAT again". I'm fully aware of the debt factor and it's an aspect that scares the crap out of me (probably eerily similar to everyone who's buckling up for law school, medical school, business school, or some other professional school). Also, I really don't understand the point you're trying to make about international law not being a real area of the law... It intertwines with various areas of the law as well as having its own practice out there. I'm not saying I will practice these, just that they are current interests as someone who is currently not in law school yet and subject to change. Regardless of the feedback, I'm going to law school, I've had several years to think it over, try to prepare myself as best as possible, and contemplate my choices. Thank you for your feedback though.

[weshazen]

LSATwiz.com, Thank you for your feedback. I am fully aware of the reality of the ranking and types of law schools I am looking at, I'm not seeking big law necessarily or even entertainment law or anything glamorous the day I get my Bar Exam results. These are aspirations that I hope to work toward throughout my career. I definitely appreciate your feedback though. Thank you.

[Hordfest]

Well since none of you really know anything about me other than the information I've provided in my post I would appreciate a little less douchebaggery in putting down my intellect or willingness to work hard or anything that is theoretical. I simply asked for opinions on my current choices and aside from the first person who actually dug down into my post and posted a well thought out critique and actual information that is helpful all I got was criticism with little to no depth. All I meant by bringing up my LSAT scores in the first place is that I am not retaking it and I'm preparing to enter law school in the fall. I've done the "ivy league" graduate school path and have been working for a few years so i'm not in it for big law but i'm also not in it for becoming a public defender either. I'm not able to see the first guys username but I definitely appreciate your thought out and candid answer, as for the other two below him, if you don't have actual advice other than "don't be cocky and say you're going to work hard" or "none of the above" then kindly hit the back button and look for someone else to troll. Thanks.

Hey man, I encourage you to really give these guys a serious listen. I thought they were all dicks at first too, (no offense!) but they really aren't. They are just matter of fact because they have seen too many students come in here willing to take on a lot of debt that will not get them to where they want to go. I think they make a fair point. The LSAT can make hundreds of thousands of dollars of difference in law school alone PLUS potentially millions more across your career as well as more prestige. I know you are probably feeling discouraged right now because you have been working hard and not feeling like you are progressing enough on the LSAT, but at your LSAT scores there are a ton of low hanging fruit (points) still on the board. You probably also are in a job situation that sucks and are eager to just take the jump into the next step of your life, and that's fair.

However, you REALLY need to go out and get those points if you can just get yourself into a mind set to grind it out and suck it up, because it's going to make your path to a career that makes you happy so much easier while saving you potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars!

Either way, good luck!

[LSATWiz.com]

I'd also add that "working your ass off" in law school is not really a way of ensuring success. There's not a 1:1 correlation between hours studied and class rank. The most important thing is being good at law school exams, which is a very specific skill. It's not necessarily linked to effort or intelligence but is a combination of certain skills - ability to test well, disciplined thinking, the ability to think quickly on your feet while still writing decently well, abstract reasoning, the ability to come up with multiple arguments and recognize the assumptions those arguments rely on, and typing speed.

My observation is you have individuals who would probably crack the top 15 or 20% if they studied an average amount, crack the top 1% by working their tail off and many of these individuals would be in the middle of the class even if they didn't try at all. Conversely, you have people that will always have a lower rank regardless of how much they study. Hard work is necessary to being at the top of your class, but certainly not sufficient.

I do also agree it's worth asking if you'd be able to study 12 hours a day from these schools if you couldn't properly study for the LSAT. My earlier post would navigate towards the right decision if you're willing to alter your clothes to practicing any kind of law you could find work in at a lower level and salary, and grind it out for a few years to hopefully make a good livelihood for yourself. You should pick the city you'll like to spend the next few decades in as none of them will place well out of their immediate vicinity.

For your present goals, we're speaking about whether a school gives you a .01% or .012 percent chance of hitting your current goal. It's just not a material difference. Go where you feel most comfortable so maybe a .01% chance becomes a 1% chance, or just go where you'll think you'll have the most fun for 3 years and stress about the future after you've had fun.

[LSATWiz.com]

LSATwiz.com, Thank you for your feedback. I am fully aware of the reality of the ranking and types of law schools I am looking at, I'm not seeking big law necessarily or even entertainment law or anything glamorous the day I get my Bar Exam results. These are aspirations that I hope to work toward throughout my career. I definitely appreciate your feedback though. Thank you.

The issue is that if you're not working at one of these places the moment you start working, you will never work for them. A large firm isn't going to care that you did great work when you worked for a solo or small practice, because it's not relevant to their business model. The only time this happens is if your firm happens to get bought or acquired by a much larger firm, or if you develop a book of business doing something like trusts and estates and then are hired for your book of business. Even then, you're going to be limited to your practice area.

And to explain what we're speaking about when we speak about a sports lawyer, we're speaking about a partner in the corporate or litigation group of a vault ranked law firm who has maybe 100 clients, one of which is a professional athlete. Again, the type of job you seem to be thinking of simply does not exist. In theory, perhaps you can create this field on your own but there is a reason why lawyers who are very skilled businessmen and businesswomen and would much rather do something sports related haven't been able to monetize a sports law practice group.

[cavalier1138]

Regardless of the feedback, I'm going to law school, I've had several years to think it over, try to prepare myself as best as possible, and contemplate my choices.

Have you talked with practicing lawyers about your specific career goals? Were they lawyers working in the fields you're interested in?

I'm still curious about what you actually envision your practice looking like. You've named two very specific (and many would argue non-existent) areas of law. But I want to know where you think you'd be able to practice in those fields. This isn't an insult; no one is claiming that a non-lawyer should be aware of specific practice areas. But you seem to think that you've done your research, and people here are trying to explain that you have some serious gaps in your understanding.

[Auxilio]

LSATwiz.com, Thank you for your feedback. I am fully aware of the reality of the ranking and types of law schools I am looking at, I'm not seeking big law necessarily or even entertainment law or anything glamorous the day I get my Bar Exam results. These are aspirations that I hope to work toward throughout my career. I definitely appreciate your feedback though. Thank you.

To follow up on the others, it's important to note that this isn't really how it works. It doesn't matter how good of a small firm lawyer you are, you won't ever get the opportunity to bump into doing the type of jobs you described above. The school and first job you get out of it significantly limit what comes after.

[LSATWiz.com]

You also have to understand that the way attorneys practice international law is probably very different from what you are expecting. Nobody in a corporate office is drafting briefs about the legality of the wall around the Gaza Strip or whether bombing North Korea would be necessary and proportional to a legitimate threat.

You may have to read a treaty that affects the viability of a commercial deal or make sure a company doesn't do business with Iran if you're negotiating on behalf of a state entity. It's literally just reading another law and is generally no more or less interesting than reading an SEC code. I promise you that you will still be yearning to just crank it out so you can go back to browsing ESPN or CNN.

[Sls17]

I can think of exactly one person from my class at Stanford who does something I’d (questionably) call “sports law” and exactly one person who does something I’d (reasonably) call “international law.” I don’t think either of those two classmates could be doing the unusually cool things they’re doing if they’d graduated outside HYS.

I would look to the internet and see if you can find alum from any of these schools who are currently working in careers anything like the one you envision for yourself. If you find any, make every effort to make friendly contact and ask a lot of questions about how they got there and what they recommend for you in your situation. If you don’t, you’ve learned something important about the viability of your goals relative to your current options and can reevaluate from there.

[beinghuman]

Everyone here has given you excellent advice that you should take seriously, so I will not repeat what they said but I will be candid and tell you that if you cannot get at least 160 on the LSAT, you should not go to law school because law school work is far more demanding and challenging than the LSAT.

[sev]

if you cannot get at least 160 on the LSAT, you should not go to law school because law school work is far more demanding and challenging than the LSAT.

This is wrong and elitist. A 160 is the 80th percentile.

The LSAT is very useful but there are many excellent lawyers who didn't or couldn't break 160. Not everyone needs to be arguing before SCOTUS to be successful.

[Sls17]

if you cannot get at least 160 on the LSAT, you should not go to law school because law school work is far more demanding and challenging than the LSAT.

This is wrong and elitist. A 160 is the 80th percentile.

The LSAT is very useful but there are many excellent lawyers who didn't or couldn't break 160. Not everyone needs to be arguing before SCOTUS to be successful.

I agree with this in principle. But OP has unicorn goals not too far off from SCOTUS litigation in terms of frequency/likelihood, and his LSAT / current options are unfortunately just not going to get him there.

[QContinuum]

if you cannot get at least 160 on the LSAT, you should not go to law school because law school work is far more demanding and challenging than the LSAT.

This is wrong and elitist. A 160 is the 80th percentile.

The LSAT is very useful but there are many excellent lawyers who didn't or couldn't break 160. Not everyone needs to be arguing before SCOTUS to be successful.

I agree with this in principle. But OP has unicorn goals not too far off from SCOTUS litigation in terms of frequency/likelihood, and his LSAT / current options are unfortunately just not going to get him there.

Sls is right on the spot. If OP was interested in hanging their own shingle, or working as a local prosecutor or public defender, or in state government, then our advice would be very different. But OP wants "international law" or "entertainment law," outcomes that are difficult to achieve and not guaranteed even from a T13.

[beinghuman]

Success is indeed subjective and there are certainly good lawyers who did not break 160 - but they are not the majority. However, to be successful in the pursuit of OP's goals, 160 is pretty low. The LSAT will largely define where one can attend law school and what opportunities will be available.

if you cannot get at least 160 on the LSAT, you should not go to law school because law school work is far more demanding and challenging than the LSAT.

This is wrong and elitist. A 160 is the 80th percentile.

The LSAT is very useful but there are many excellent lawyers who didn't or couldn't break 160. Not everyone needs to be arguing before SCOTUS to be successful.

[LSATWiz.com]

if you cannot get at least 160 on the LSAT, you should not go to law school because law school work is far more demanding and challenging than the LSAT.

This is wrong and elitist. A 160 is the 80th percentile.

The LSAT is very useful but there are many excellent lawyers who didn't or couldn't break 160. Not everyone needs to be arguing before SCOTUS to be successful.

You're interpreting him to be speaking about whether a >160 has the capacity to be a good lawyer. I can't speak for BeingHuman, but he seems to be speaking about the opportunity to be a good lawyer. By attending a school where less than half of graduates find gainful employment within 9 months of graduation when OP can attend a school where most grads find such employment, OP is knowingly and intently limit their chances of finding gainful employment. We're not speaking solely about finding a job as a lawyer, but finding a job as a lawyer in a place that will foster OP's development and lead to more lucrative opportunities down the road. This is not working in insurance defense or doc review. They are not saying that OP can't be a good lawyer, but that the statistical probability they will have the chance to be one does not justify going to law school.

The purpose of the LSAT is not to predict your success as a lawyer, but to predict your success in law school. While 1 or 2 points only matter when you apply, in 5 point increments, the LSAT actually does a very good job of predicting 1L grades: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_xHsce57c. In extremes, it is also an indicator of bar passage insofar as a majority of those with sub-150 LSAT's do not pass the bar on their first attempt. At the same time, success in law school is not that indicative of success as a lawyer because your performance isn't based on a 3-hour exam and having business sense can go a long way.

While OP can be successful coming from these schools, assuming he is willing to work for low starting salary at first and has a lot of business sense, there's no denying they can be successful. However, they'd be successful in a more blue-collar field of law very different than what they seem to want to practice. Would OP consider themselves lucky if in 10 years, they were making $200,000 representing people going through divorce or doing tax law for a small town in the midwest? Well, that's the realistic best-case scenario.

And while this would make many people very happy, OP seems to want to do top end work. Even assuming we remove sports and international law, which OP has literally a one in a million chance at getting, they have less than a <5% chance of getting more prestigious jobs they'd have a >60% chance of getting at other schools. OP seems to be prestige-driven.

[objctnyrhnr]

if you cannot get at least 160 on the LSAT, you should not go to law school because law school work is far more demanding and challenging than the LSAT.

This is wrong and elitist. A 160 is the 80th percentile.

The LSAT is very useful but there are many excellent lawyers who didn't or couldn't break 160. Not everyone needs to be arguing before SCOTUS to be successful.

Equating breaking 160 with arguing in front of scotus (by implication I suppose) made me chuckle.

Nobody is trolling OP. The LSAT is much easier than law school exams because you have theoretically unlimited time to learn how to take the test. By contrast, the scariest thing about law school exams is it’s more or less a one and done thing.

But Op if you’re begging for an answer about which tttt school to go to, the answer is some combo of whichever gave you more money and where you want to practice. They’re both bad decisions, but it’s importat to remember that you shouldn’t really be thinking about relative prestige when considering schools this low on the proverbial totem pole. They are both sufficiently weak schools such that they’ll be a drain on your career for its entirety and your chances of becoming a lawyer aren’t ideal from either one.

[jsnow212]

if you cannot get at least 160 on the LSAT, you should not go to law school because law school work is far more demanding and challenging than the LSAT.

This is wrong and elitist. A 160 is the 80th percentile.

The LSAT is very useful but there are many excellent lawyers who didn't or couldn't break 160. Not everyone needs to be arguing before SCOTUS to be successful.

What? How well did you do on the LSAT based on this reasoning? Just because you are better than x percent of a subgroup of people who took a test for a field does not mean you are objectively likely or capable of practicing successfully within that field. This is especially the case when the absolute number of meaningful/livable opportunities within that field are small and not growing in pace with the increasing test-taker pool

What isn't much of a debate is that those scoring <160 on the LSAT will, in the vast majority of cases, see a greater ROI by going to trade school for 12 months despite the fact they may be beating out 60-80% of other LSAT takers.