law school?

[Anonymous]

+1 on GMU law. Their employment stats are impressive and those kids hustle. They don't have a chip on their shoulder like some other DC area law school kids do and are earnest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:T14 might be worth it

If you think the economy is going to crash, then the upper half of the T14 is safer than the lower half. Not safe, but safer if we have a recession.

This is nonsense. First its to 25ish not top 14. Top 25 plus the major schools where the firm has offices. So for example - -Boston is not all Harvard -- also Boston College.

But stick with the T14 -- anywhere in there is fine. Even in bad economic times.

NP. I was at Georgetown in the early 2000s, after the dot com crash. Forty percent of my class was unemployed at graduation. All the career service office knew how to do was shove people into top 100 vault firms. Those job offers tanked. Top fifteen percent were ok. But I knew people who were in top third, on journal, etc, who had trouble getting jobs.

It didn't help that Georgetown over accepted for my class year, and then let something like seventy transfers in, when they knew the economy sucked. WHy? Because they wanted the tuition revenue to pay for the new building.

In 2010 and 2011 Georgetown Law wasn't even sharing the stats to my knowledge. They were not good. Tons of pulled offers or no offers. Because of the chaos, who got offers and who didn't was super spotty. Those in the top 10-15% were mostly fine, but lower than that and you started running across people who'd struck out. It got worse as you moved down the class. Many never did get legal jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:T14 might be worth it

If you think the economy is going to crash, then the upper half of the T14 is safer than the lower half. Not safe, but safer if we have a recession.

This is nonsense. First its to 25ish not top 14. Top 25 plus the major schools where the firm has offices. So for example - -Boston is not all Harvard -- also Boston College.

But stick with the T14 -- anywhere in there is fine. Even in bad economic times.

NP. I was at Georgetown in the early 2000s, after the dot com crash. Forty percent of my class was unemployed at graduation. All the career service office knew how to do was shove people into top 100 vault firms. Those job offers tanked. Top fifteen percent were ok. But I knew people who were in top third, on journal, etc, who had trouble getting jobs.

It didn't help that Georgetown over accepted for my class year, and then let something like seventy transfers in, when they knew the economy sucked. WHy? Because they wanted the tuition revenue to pay for the new building.

In 2010 and 2011 Georgetown Law wasn't even sharing the stats to my knowledge. They were not good. Tons of pulled offers or no offers. Because of the chaos, who got offers and who didn't was super spotty. Those in the top 10-15% were mostly fine, but lower than that and you started running across people who'd struck out. It got worse as you moved down the class. Many never did get legal jobs.

Actually, they still had to submit those to the ABA. 2011 was the year they started breaking out between long-term and short-term, part-time and full-time, etc. I didn't find a link directly to their stats from 2011, but found this article: https://www.thefacultylounge.org/2012/07/abas-class-of-2011-employment-outcomes-data-show-how-rough-it-is-out-there.html.

Every law school is required to publish their ABA employment data summaries on their website in their "disclosures" section. If you don't review and dissect them, you are doing yourself a disservice. Kudos to schools who also list their "NALP Summaries" because those have salaries in them as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:T14 might be worth it

If you think the economy is going to crash, then the upper half of the T14 is safer than the lower half. Not safe, but safer if we have a recession.

This is nonsense. First its to 25ish not top 14. Top 25 plus the major schools where the firm has offices. So for example - -Boston is not all Harvard -- also Boston College.

But stick with the T14 -- anywhere in there is fine. Even in bad economic times.

NP. I was at Georgetown in the early 2000s, after the dot com crash. Forty percent of my class was unemployed at graduation. All the career service office knew how to do was shove people into top 100 vault firms. Those job offers tanked. Top fifteen percent were ok. But I knew people who were in top third, on journal, etc, who had trouble getting jobs.

It didn't help that Georgetown over accepted for my class year, and then let something like seventy transfers in, when they knew the economy sucked. WHy? Because they wanted the tuition revenue to pay for the new building.

In 2010 and 2011 Georgetown Law wasn't even sharing the stats to my knowledge. They were not good. Tons of pulled offers or no offers. Because of the chaos, who got offers and who didn't was super spotty. Those in the top 10-15% were mostly fine, but lower than that and you started running across people who'd struck out. It got worse as you moved down the class. Many never did get legal jobs.

Actually, they still had to submit those to the ABA. 2011 was the year they started breaking out between long-term and short-term, part-time and full-time, etc. I didn't find a link directly to their stats from 2011, but found this article: https://www.thefacultylounge.org/2012/07/abas-class-of-2011-employment-outcomes-data-show-how-rough-it-is-out-there.html.

Every law school is required to publish their ABA employment data summaries on their website in their "disclosures" section. If you don't review and dissect them, you are doing yourself a disservice. Kudos to schools who also list their "NALP Summaries" because those have salaries in them as well.

For those at Georgetown Law in the midst of the employment crisis, there was no transparency during the process. It was handled terribly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:T14 might be worth it

If you think the economy is going to crash, then the upper half of the T14 is safer than the lower half. Not safe, but safer if we have a recession.

This is nonsense. First its to 25ish not top 14. Top 25 plus the major schools where the firm has offices. So for example - -Boston is not all Harvard -- also Boston College.

But stick with the T14 -- anywhere in there is fine. Even in bad economic times.

NP. I was at Georgetown in the early 2000s, after the dot com crash. Forty percent of my class was unemployed at graduation. All the career service office knew how to do was shove people into top 100 vault firms. Those job offers tanked. Top fifteen percent were ok. But I knew people who were in top third, on journal, etc, who had trouble getting jobs.

It didn't help that Georgetown over accepted for my class year, and then let something like seventy transfers in, when they knew the economy sucked. WHy? Because they wanted the tuition revenue to pay for the new building.

In 2010 and 2011 Georgetown Law wasn't even sharing the stats to my knowledge. They were not good. Tons of pulled offers or no offers. Because of the chaos, who got offers and who didn't was super spotty. Those in the top 10-15% were mostly fine, but lower than that and you started running across people who'd struck out. It got worse as you moved down the class. Many never did get legal jobs.

Actually, they still had to submit those to the ABA. 2011 was the year they started breaking out between long-term and short-term, part-time and full-time, etc. I didn't find a link directly to their stats from 2011, but found this article: https://www.thefacultylounge.org/2012/07/abas-class-of-2011-employment-outcomes-data-show-how-rough-it-is-out-there.html.

Every law school is required to publish their ABA employment data summaries on their website in their "disclosures" section. If you don't review and dissect them, you are doing yourself a disservice. Kudos to schools who also list their "NALP Summaries" because those have salaries in them as well.

For those at Georgetown Law in the midst of the employment crisis, there was no transparency during the process. It was handled terribly.

A lot of stats at the time were being doctored with schools hiring their own students for short periods to fake employment. You can't trust those numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a UCLA law grad from 30 years ago. It was top 14 then, it is apparently number 15 now. I paid peanuts for that degree and it was completely worth it. But tuition is significant now, even instate.

A legal education is incredibly useful and I wish it were an undergraduate option here the way it is in other countries. As a long time very senior fed I have found the biggest law school snobs in the federal government to be in general counsel offices, and sometimes in the offices of agency heads.

Most of the truly stellar attorneys I have worked with (and I have been lucky enough to have worked with a who’s who of lawyers in my niche area) are from top law schools, with a few notable exceptions who worked extremely hard and were very self motivated post law school. Some subject areas have specialty schools outside the top 30 even and students that do well in those a programs can do very well in those areas.

I cannot agree more that minimizing debt is key and the ranking of the program meaning so much more than undergrad.

But the high ranked law schools are a lot more expensive, meaning your debt would be much larger.

Go to USN and read the top 30 and their tuition rates. University of FL, UNC Chapel Hill, University of GA, George Mason are significantly less than many, tuition between 19-30K/year instead of 56-70K/year. Do what it takes to be in state, maybe go part time so you minimize your debt by working while in law school. UCLA and Berkeley are on the lower end of ridiculously high and if you have to borrow the sticker price that may be too much for many. Look at niche programs where it is a reasonably priced state law school or there are merit scholarships available.

I loved law school and I have had a very rewarding career and frankly a big part of it was dumb luck.

Let’s say the choice is between GMU in state vs GWU. Which goal should a prospective lawyer pursue between minimizing the debt vs getting into the highly ranked law school?

[Anonymous]

This is OP and this is exactly my question. ^ let's say my DS gets into UVA Law at $65+K tuition and also GMU or W&M at a much lower in state rate, what is the best move?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is OP and this is exactly my question. ^ let's say my DS gets into UVA Law at $65+K tuition and also GMU or W&M at a much lower in state rate, what is the best move?

The best school they can get into and let the forgiveness plans sort out the debt. My “do gooder” friends are paying a tiny student loan payment a month and are about to have it all forgiven now that we are almost 10 years out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is OP and this is exactly my question. ^ let's say my DS gets into UVA Law at $65+K tuition and also GMU or W&M at a much lower in state rate, what is the best move?

The best school they can get into and let the forgiveness plans sort out the debt. My “do gooder” friends are paying a tiny student loan payment a month and are about to have it all forgiven now that we are almost 10 years out.

-1

If he does not have interest in BigLaw or clerkships I would argue that GMU would be the way to go. It is well respected in the DC area and it is significantly less debt. If he wants to do environmental law I would suggest he find a job in an area he is interested in in the DC area, live in VA for the in state tuition and go to GMU part time. Also, if it turns out that he is a legal superstar and wants all those things, he can transfer to UVA his second year. I transferred from a lessor school (much lessor than either GMU or W&M) to a T14. I was a superstar at my lessor school and only received one grade below an A at my T14 law school, graduating with honors there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is OP and this is exactly my question. ^ let's say my DS gets into UVA Law at $65+K tuition and also GMU or W&M at a much lower in state rate, what is the best move?

The best school they can get into and let the forgiveness plans sort out the debt. My “do gooder” friends are paying a tiny student loan payment a month and are about to have it all forgiven now that we are almost 10 years out.

-1

If he does not have interest in BigLaw or clerkships I would argue that GMU would be the way to go. It is well respected in the DC area and it is significantly less debt. If he wants to do environmental law I would suggest he find a job in an area he is interested in in the DC area, live in VA for the in state tuition and go to GMU part time. Also, if it turns out that he is a legal superstar and wants all those things, he can transfer to UVA his second year. I transferred from a lessor school (much lessor than either GMU or W&M) to a T14. I was a superstar at my lessor school and only received one grade below an A at my T14 law school, graduating with honors there.

I think you’re wildly underestimating how snobby “good guy” enviro law employers are. You really have to have it all: great grades, great school, great work experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is OP and this is exactly my question. ^ let's say my DS gets into UVA Law at $65+K tuition and also GMU or W&M at a much lower in state rate, what is the best move?

UVA hands down. Not even a question.

[Anonymous]

Why so much love for GMU? It’s a right wing law school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a lawyer and no have no idea if my college freshman will want to become a lawyer, but isn't this similar to what any graduate can expect when seeking a job? Some will immediately become gainfully employed, while it may take longer for others. Those who graduate from elite schools may have their first choice of jobs, while those who graduates from a school ranked 500 may take longer to find their place.

Either way, the likelihood is that no recent graduate, and I'd include those from undergrad and graduate schools, is going to remain in their first job for a long time. More likely, they'll bounce around from job to job during their 20s until they find something that sticks for them. So, why does it matter so much where you go to school unless you're aiming for a very niche career path like Wall Street, Big Law, etc.

I just think our kids should go to schools that won't put them or us in debt, where they can mature and START to figure out who and what they want to become in life. I just feel like DCUM especially makes this more complicated than it needs to be because there is so much focus on brand names.

Again, not a lawyer so what do I know.

Google bimodal lawyer salaries to see why that’s not entirely accurate. Law is unusually feast and famine.

Add to this that law can shut you out of other jobs as well. The real issue is that law schools will pump out another crop of law students before the recent graduates all secured jobs.

Employers that hire entry level attorneys only hire the current (or upcoming) graduating class. They won't hire the dregs of the prior class. So if you don't get an offer as you are graduating or shortly after, you likely will never get a job as a lawyer. You end up shut out of entry level employment with a JD that hurts you in applying for non-lawyer jobs. It's not really an option to bounce around for a few years before finding a career like it is after a BA or BS.

Non-lawyer here and sorry if I'm derailing the discussion, but I always thought that having a law degree gives you more options than an MBA or other Masters degree, for example. With a JD, you could become a lawyer but if that doesn't work out for whatever reason, your JD is still valuable in non-lawyer careers, whereas an MBA or other Masters can never be a lawyer. I understand a Masters is usually a 2-year commitment whereas a JD is 3-years, so more time and money, but if you set aside the time and money factor, is it still bad to get a JD if you don't end up becoming a lawyer?

Absolutely incorrect. Possibly the most inaccurate post in this thread.

Not really. I know lots and lots of my classmates left law to do other non-law work. Some have LLMs or went back for other certificates but many did not.

But, did your classmates practice law before switching careers as opposed to never working as an attorneyand seeking employment in other fields as a first full time job after finishing law school ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is OP and this is exactly my question. ^ let's say my DS gets into UVA Law at $65+K tuition and also GMU or W&M at a much lower in state rate, what is the best move?

UVA hands down. Not even a question.

Don’t the wealthier (read T14) schools have special funds for people that go into public interest jobs to help offset the coast of student loans? If so, UVA hands down. If not, still UVA…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If your kid is super smart, it doesn't matter where they go as long as they are at the top of their class. People get too caught up in prestige. I am working with people who went to Harvard and people who went to Catholic University. We are all in the same place.

I found law school grading to have enough of a margin of error that I wouldn’t rely on being the top of your class at a lower school. It only takes one class to knock you out of the top. Writing professor does t like your writing? Sorry. Civ Pro professor read your exam after a fight with the spouse? You just slipped from an A to a B.