no, at the OP.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - TheMaddRapper
« on: March 03, 2008, 08:00:47 PM »
Any firm, Chicago or elsewhere, is going to respect Case more than Kent. But neither is very prestigious or places much outside its home market. People from Case get jobs in Chicago but it's few and far between. Meanwhile Kent grads are totally screwed unless they're IP or at the top of the class. So they "work" in Chicago (family law, insurance defense, etc).
For most purposes, if you're outside the top 5-10% at Kent or top 10-20% at Case, you're pretty much in the same place.
If you're IP though, and you want Chicago, Kent is probably a better choice If you have unimpeachable IP credentials (PhD in EE or something of the sort) try to take $$ from John Marshall.
If you think you might have to rely on the name of your law school to get a job, and you must be in a big city, apply to GW (part time if you can't get in full time). It will be expensive but IP + GW = good big city job. If you go PT, they don't have to report your statistics so they'll just accept you to take your money. Actually, since you're foreign, they might not have to report your statistics anyway (but I'm not sure of that).
« on: March 03, 2008, 05:59:15 PM »
Listen, this is a Chinese person who barely speaks English we're talking about. She probably just wants to do IP and she won't have any problem getting hired because she probably has a hard science background. So school prestige won't matter for her, unlike the rest of us stiffs.
Case is obviously the better school but people get IP jobs out of Kent. In fact, that might be the only way to get a good-paying job out of Kent.
Well first of all, what makes you think you're better at LS exams than 95% of the other people at Pepperdine? Are you willing to bet $150,000 on that? I'd rather take the money to Vegas.
In your situation I'd go to Georgia State. Georgia's in-state tuition is incredibly cheap and I think if you work the system you can get it in your second year. Better yet, just move to Georgia for a year, work as a paralegal or something to make some connections, and then go to GSU and shoot for a small firm job. You'll be making around $50-60k but you'll have low debt too.
The truth is, you're not going to get biglaw. If you want biglaw, take the LSAT again and get a 170. That's a lot easier than getting to the top 5-10% of any law school.
Biglaw goes about 10% into the class at either Pepperdine or GSU, FWIW.
And if you want to stay in Ohio (doesn't sound like it), take in-state tuition at OSU or Cincinnati over Case. Maybe even take in-state tuition at Cleveland State over Case. Case is a good school but it is not worth anything close to full price.
« on: March 01, 2008, 02:57:21 PM »
That's definitely true. People with low LSATs and those who can't spell are less likely to win. But law exam grading isn't exactly predictable.
« on: February 29, 2008, 07:51:57 PM »
I would really think hard about this whole situation before going to either school if I were you. It doesn't sound like you're very prepared to deal with not making top quarter at either place, and there's a 75% chance that will happen.
It's good to hear good things about Richmond. I'm seriously considering W&L and if I go there I may very well end up living in Richmond. I have no ties to Richmond, so that might never happen. I know a guy who's from there who loves it, and I have also spoken to people who absolutely hate it.
To the OP, your numbers aren't that much different than mine. Realize that you'll probably not get huge money from T2s. Why? Schools only give major $$ to people who both help their GPA and LSAT 25th/75th boundaries. So you could have a 2.0 and a 180 (actually, I'm not far off) and you'd have the exact same effect most any T1/T2 law school's numbers as a 3.0/169. They'd actually rather you had a 3.6/164, because then you'd either help both GPA and LSAT or at least not hurt one side and help the other.
Also, there's just something about a very low GPA that turns law schools off, whether it affects their numbers or not. They want to know you're not totally flaky. So if you can at least get your GPA above 3 it's a very good thing.
If I were you, I'd work as I could to get all As this semester and clear 3.0. Then I'd study all summer for the LSAT again and try to clear 172-173 or so. If you already got a 169, this is very doable.
Then you'd be set for a T14 (or at least WUSTL+mad cash), and you'd look back on how silly it was that you even thought about going to Richmond.
I'm not flaming! Your school doesn't have any money and its city got hit by a hurricane! Plus it's been a 40s school for the past few years despite its reputation and it's now tied for the lowest ranking in the entire first tier!
And basically, my point is that it's still not that much different than WUSTL, placement-wise.
This is a no-brainer, go to Tulane.
Tulane and WUSTL are very similar schools. They both don't have much of a home market. They place in biglaw about the same, with WUSTL maybe 10% better depending on the firm. They both have a lot of students who want to go to big markets (Chicago, NYC, DC) but probably won't get the chance once they see their grades. So a lot of these students go to the big cities anyway and do ID/doc review.
They both have some regional pull in midwest or south respectively. I'd say for smaller firms within their region, the reputation is about the same.
Yes, WUSTL is on the way up and Tulane is on the way down. This won't matter within the next 3 years though.
There are a few things WUSTL will allow you to do that Tulane won't. It's easier to transfer up from WUSTL (although good luck with that). It's easier to get a very prestigious firm if you're near the top of the class there. It *might* be easier to get an okay-paying insurance defense job if you strike out at OCI.
Tulane has its advantages too, though. The competition is much weaker. WUSTL is a very rich school that gives out money to high LSATs like candy, so if you go to WUSTL you're not only competing with T14-quality LSATs, but unlike at a T14 they're GUNNING against you to save their lives! Bad combination. Your average Tulane student has a low 160s score and is more likely to be distracted by partying, and Tulane doesn't seem to get too many (if any) high 170s scorers.
Another advantage for Tulane is proximity to Texas. This might be irrelevant if you have no Texas ties, but Texas has the best salary/COL balance in the nation with two huge biglaw markets.
The most important thing WUSTL and Tulane have in common: neither is worth full price.