Hello all. I just joined this website, and since my roughneck neighbor can barely spell "law" or "school (though he is a great asset to the neighborhood BBQ), this forum seemed like the best place to inquire after what will surely be a decision I'll regret for the rest of my life. Here goes:

I have been accepted to Texas Tech, U of Miami, Kentucky and waitlisted at U of Houston. I'm white and come from a solidly middle class background, so no scholarships were awarded - everything will be sticker price. I won't get into how a litigation adjuster from a major insurance carrier with three years experience, a solid LSAT and excellent undergrad GPA received no scholarship consideration - but yes, my butt does hurt a bit. Moving on.

Tech is clearly the cheapest route, Miami is ranked higher (yes, I know that rankings are arbitrary, but perception matters in hiring), and I simply refuse to live in Kentucky without some financial consideration. Houston probably won't happen, or if it does I'll get an acceptance letter one week before class starts, so I'm saying "no" to Houston at this point. So my issue becomes whether or not Miami represents a bright enough legal future to justify it's $20k/year price jump over Tech, COL not withstanding.

I have also been offered a job with a rival company just outside of Philadelphia, PA with a start date of 07/01/2012. I currently live debt free and enjoy working, but given my extensive conversations with and several instances of being deposed by attorneys - I thought I'd give it a try. I certainly can't do worse than what the current legal market is offering.

So, given the options of Texas Tech, Bankruptcy in Miami, or working in the frigid Northeast - what's a prospective 1L to do?

- Ron

What do you consider a solid LSAT score and an excellent GPA?

163 LSAT and a 3.8 GPA. Graduated undergrad in 3 years, out in 2008. Got my SCLA last year.

I intentionally applied to Tech and Miami due to their lower admissions standards in the hopes of garnering money. That, and I know that higher tier law schools outside of the top 20 are cash grabs that provide no better opportunities than their lesser ranked cousins.

It seems that you should have gotten scholarships. You have higher numbers than this guy on LSN.

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/Titleist/jd

I'll say it before anyone else - work in Philadelphia, study very hard for the LSAT, and retake. You have a great GPA and getting a few more questions right on the test can get you into T-14 or huge scholarships at the schools you listed. With a 3.8 and 167, you could probably get into Texas as opposed to Texas Tech.

This is the best option.

Have you tried negotiating? Tech might not think you were too serious in actually attending (given your attitude about applying to schools across the country just trying to see how much money you can get). Send them a letter telling them exactly how much it would take for you to attend. If you don't get them to budge, oh well. Then retake and apply earlier next cycle. If you had to pick between these two, I would say Tech wins out, but just know that you will most likely be working in Texas for the foreseeable future.

If you decide to work in Philadelphia and if you like it here Temple is worth a look ($19,000 for PA residents, $32,000 for out of state). And as long as there aren't any freak snowstorms the winters aren't that bad. But with your GPA I'd retake the LSAT and try and get in the 170s, then you could go pretty much wherever you wanted.

Work in Philly for awhile first. Then reapply.

With your numbers, there is either something wrong with your app or you applied really late. I say retake and apply earlier next cycle, if you can't negotiate a decent scholarship. At the very least, you'll get $$$ money from these schools and possibly get UT.

I applied for early decision to all schools except Houston. Tech accepted me within 2 weeks of receiving my application - Miami within 3. No money.

I took my LSAT in 2009 without studying so that I would have a back-up plan to working in case the market ever took another nose-dive (as it did in 2009). I suppose with studying I could pull an LSAT in the 170's, since the only sections on which I missed questions were the logic games. Still, with score averaging, I can't see huge improvements happening.

I have spoken to Tech - they're tapped out for scholarship money until they can determine final attendance. Based on my own unscientific research (I wasn't wearing my lab coat), a lot of my potential classmates are URM and/or straight from undergrad. I'm 25, have been an adjuster since 2006, have worked lit since 2009, and have a greater substantive knowledge of tort law than most PI attorneys - still no money. I even told them I was giving up a career to start this process - didn't sway them.

I guess the better question is whether or not law school itself would even be worth giving up my comfortably middle-class salary. I know I'd make a great ID/contract specialist, and there is plenty of money to be made in that field, but $100k in debt and 3 years of opportunity cost is a tough sale. I just really don't want to wait another year and do all of this again.

Work. Only go to law school if you lose your job or don't have other options. This isn't 1989. You don't walk away from a good thing for law school anymore.

1) You need someone to look over your application package to make there aren't red flags scaring schools away. Consider posting your personal statement in a separate thread and getting feedback.
2) How many schools did you apply to? Scholarships can be a bot random and you really should cast a wide net (doing this also helps with using scholarships at other schools as leverage).
3) I'm usually the last person to to call flame on a poster, but are you saying you scored perfect in logical reading and reading comprehension and then all your misses were in logic games? With 0 studying? That seems a little too unbelievable of a distribution to be true. If it was an exaggeration: you really need to retake if you decide to go to law school. It's not uncommon to improve your initial diagnostic score 10-15 pouts if you put in a lot of time and effort. And most all schools do not average scores anymore.
4) Law school might be a waste of time and money for you if you are making decent money and you enjoy your job--especially the schools you are currently considering. If you want to do biglaw than you really should retake, score a 170+, and then apply to a mix (like 10+) of T14 schools and regionals schools where you would want to work.

Many people can relate to this. Including myself.

Maybe you should put a seat deposit down and retake in June. If you do well, reapply next cycle. If you do not improve, go where you put the deposit.

Not sure if you are trolling now with "only missing logic games", but keeping your job, retaking, and getting a huge scholarship to better schools is worth well over 100k - not to mention if you go to a better school your career earning potential will be much, much higher.

I stand corrected. I looked at LSAC - I missed two non-logic game questions. Basically, had I done a study course to learn the tactics and strategies needed for the logic games, I would've been in the 170's. Just the same, you could say I kind of owned and zoned on the non-logic games sections. That's really not the point though.

I'll have to think seriously about this decision. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little offended by the lack of any scholarship money given what I bring to the table. Thanks for the input guys and gals. I'm not sure what I'll do, but I may end up applying next year and saying that I'm of African descent. I figure, modern genealogy being what it is and race being an unscientific notion, it wouldn't be a lie, and then money would definitely start pouring in.

1) Maybe.
2) I applied to four schools - TTU, Miami (app fee waiver), Houston and Kentucky. I made it very clear to TTU that I intended on attending if accepted.
3) I checked my LSAC account - two questions not logic games were missed. Hyperbole, but not by much. Given that I am well above my desired law school's admission standards, I don't know that a higher LSAT score is needed. If anything, I suspect that a higher score might make financial aid even less likely.
4) Noted.

Absolutely do not go to any of these schools, especially at sticker if you're capable of doing that on the LSAT with little to no studying. Logic Games is by far the easiest section to improve on. (I went from missing over half initially to missing, on average, around 1-2 questions on that section.) I was an LSAT teacher for a year, and Logic Games was by far the section people would improve most on.

If you really want to be a laywer, wait a year and reapply. Aim for a 172+ for the sept/Oct LSAT, apply to UT/Vandy/UCLA and the lower half of the t14 at minimum. If you want to work in Texas, you should have the choice between UT with a lot of money (or full ride) versus T14s with some money. (That's assuming there's no red flags in your application, which you should make sure of after your current cycle, which was a little odd.)

"Red flags" keep being referenced. My statement didn't include any pie-in-the-sky dreams of Perry Mason-style trial litigation, jaded tirades against the ills of the corporate machine or any statements indicating that I thought I was above the legal profession. I wrote that I got tired of being taken out of the loop once a claim went to trial, that I enjoy providing authoritative advice based on sound judgement, and that I while I was open to other fields - I would likely end up in ID based on my resume and interest.

I graduated with my BA in three years, have a stable work history, and my last criminal conviction was for this tiny misunderstanding concerning the importation of illicit firearms. Kidding, no criminal history. I'm guessing being a normal guy with no terrible obstacles to overcome didn't help me, and I know being white didn't help either.

We'll see what happens. I appreciate all of the input.

OP:

Check your PM's.

If you had a 3.5, I'd say have fun doing insurance work indefinitely. A 3.8 makes you T14 material, and with a good LSAT and work experience, you could be looking at good money from much better schools. UTexas is a far cry over Texas Tech, and with a 170+, you could be looking at pretty good scholarship money. With a better LSAT, you also have a good shot at the lower T14 with money.

Sit it out, retake in October. You're cutting it too close in June at this point.

EDIT> Saw this:



DEAR GOD DO NOT DO THIS. People have been disqualified from taking the bar for pretending to be Mexican-American when in fact their step-father was Mexican-American. Wasting three years of your life and being blacklisted in every state is probably not the best use of your life.

Although if the practical implications don't convince you, this probably won't either, but consider the reality that by "creatively interpreting" your race, you keep a more-qualified/legitimately URM student out of that school. If you don't care about that element, whatevs, but at least consider the (dismal) implications doing this could have on your future as an attorney.

Pretty sure the "red flags" being referenced is basically how many thinly veiled (or completely unveiled) racist shots were fired off in your application. You've already managed to fire quite a few in this thread.

Agreed. Calm down with the bitter white guy crap. Law schools are better places for boosting URMs.

Dude, retake the LSAT. Everything about this post is screaming retake:

1. You already have a high GPA and WE.
2. Logic Games are what hurt your score and it's SO easy to improve that.
3. You got into way worse schools than you could with just a few more points on the test.

In the present legal market, the schools you got into are not worth the postage they spent on your acceptance letter.

Retake.

Wow, so in re-reading my last post, that sounded a littler harsher than I wanted it to. Sorry about that.

I still think it's a bad idea to attend any of those schools (especially Tech), but I say this to you specifically because you can CLEARLY do way better. I've been an LSAT instructor for over two years and I know for sure you can score high enough to get into much better schools, even with minimal studying.

Take a year to retake and re-apply. And please for the love of God do not complain about being white and privileged.

With a 3.8 you would be doing yourself a huge disservice in attending these schools. With the fact that you got a 163 on your LSAT without studying it shows that with some proper studying you can easily improve your score a lot more. If you can improve that score it would be more than enough to get you into almost anywhere you wanted to go. Please, please, please, please, please do not deposit at any of those places. Study hard and retake the LSAT, you'll have an infinitely brighter future by merely taking one year off and studying for one test. The 4 hours spent on the test are a much better time and money investment compared to a lifetime of diminished potential.

Work...please just work friend. Please...PLEASEEEEE