Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!

[caffedelmar]

Very useful thread!

[jjason]

C'mon! I mean, I expected this on the Pre-Law board... but on the Student/Grad board? Ridiculous. This is why I hate people. ha

[hotdiggity]

jjason, you take yourself a little too seriously calm down it's the summmer time

[cuteprincess]

People who go to T4 school go there because they can't afford the tuition of the higher ranking school.  It's not because they are stupid.  Maybe they go there knowing they will open their own practice.  Whatever the reason, I'm proud of them just for going to law school.  Law school is damn hard and I don't think you should be getting down on different ranking law schools.  People have their reasons.  I have realized that t4 school are mostly for working adults.

[GC]

People who go to T4 school go there because they can't afford the tuition of the higher ranking school.

Did ya take a look at this list?

In alphabetic order:

Capital - $25,000
Cooley - $23,000
Florida Coastal - $25,000
Golden Gate - $30,000
John Marshall (Atlanta) - $24,000
John Marshall (Chicago) - $30,000
New England - $25,000
Northern Kentucky - Chase - $22,000
Nova SE - $26,000
Regent - $24,000
Roger Williams - $27,000
Southern - $11,000 :: DOES IT REALLY HAVE TO BE LISTED HERE, THEN?!
St. Thomas (Miami) - $26,000
Thomas Jefferson - $29,000
Thurgud Marshall - $14,000 :: THIS ONE TOO!
Whittier - $30,000
Widener - $29,000

[penn]

The guy who compiled this list probably lost his girlfriend to a T4 student [...]

Do T4 students actually date?

I realize that this is sarcasm, but I wanted to say that it's not strange for law students not to date at all during their law school studies. Especially T4 students that are under an enermous amount of pressure in the cutthroat environments of their schools.

[sasha3]

I consistently test in the 95th percentile on the IQ test, but that only translated into me landing in the top 95th percentile of a 4th tier law school (did you see what I did there? That was a joke). So, there's gotta be something else going on with me...

Anyway, what I really feel is anger toward myself (I'll get to that) but especially toward the school. After being shown the door I had nothing but time to do a bit of research and came to realize that my fourth-tier law school had a bit of a ponsi scheme going on .. What I suspect is that lower tier schools accept people who don't necessarily demonstrate true aptitude for legal study, nor passage of the bar, in the interest of generating revenue. That revenue is then used toward rank-improving initiatives, such as a new coat of paint, the odd computer, rat-traps or a halfway decent booze-cruise.


These lower tier schools actually set their curves lower than the upper tiers meaning that while a 2.5 may be a C+ at Michigan, a 2.5 is a D+ at Lionel Hutz School of Law. Since Law School is a sum-zero game it is inevitable that, say, 10-20% of the 1L's at a fourth tier school will fall below a certain line and receive a waive good-bye from the dean while he lights a cigar with your money. See, once they have your money they are then concerned with your ability to pass the bar, which is also used in assessing the school's ranking. An academic review committee gets together and makes a simple, cold business decision as to whether or not you are worth their kid's braces. From all I've read and heard, the practice is nowhere near as common in the upper tiers. Once you're there, you're there.

I can't @ # ! * i n g believe I didn't figure this out before it was too late because I've always had an aptitude for that sort of reasoning (I'm applying to business school now, by the way). Everyone told me to not even bother applying if I got below a 160 on the LSAT, and moreover not to let that particular 4th tier law school fleece me the way they did. But of course, every prospective JD candidate has an ego the size of the Atlantic and is not so easily dissuaded by, y'know, reason. What an arrogant little SOB I was.

I'm also angry at myself because, at 28 I've just learned that I'm ADD and Dyslexic. Had I taken the odd pill here or there half of my problems would likely have been ameliorated. The other half of my problems is caused by the fact that I'm a tremendous not so nice person, but Merk has yet to develop medication for that ...

I have a strong feeling that you are referring to Roger Williams Law School.  If I am correct, then you hit the nail on the head.  Roger Williams is nothing but a ponsi scheme.  Most of the bar in this state know it also.  That is why they want nothing to do with us.

[kmpnj]

I consistently test in the 95th percentile on the IQ test, but that only translated into me landing in the top 95th percentile of a 4th tier law school (did you see what I did there? That was a joke). So, there's gotta be something else going on with me...

Anyway, what I really feel is anger toward myself (I'll get to that) but especially toward the school. After being shown the door I had nothing but time to do a bit of research and came to realize that my fourth-tier law school had a bit of a ponsi scheme going on .. What I suspect is that lower tier schools accept people who don't necessarily demonstrate true aptitude for legal study, nor passage of the bar, in the interest of generating revenue. That revenue is then used toward rank-improving initiatives, such as a new coat of paint, the odd computer, rat-traps or a halfway decent booze-cruise.


These lower tier schools actually set their curves lower than the upper tiers meaning that while a 2.5 may be a C+ at Michigan, a 2.5 is a D+ at Lionel Hutz School of Law. Since Law School is a sum-zero game it is inevitable that, say, 10-20% of the 1L's at a fourth tier school will fall below a certain line and receive a waive good-bye from the dean while he lights a cigar with your money. See, once they have your money they are then concerned with your ability to pass the bar, which is also used in assessing the school's ranking. An academic review committee gets together and makes a simple, cold business decision as to whether or not you are worth their kid's braces. From all I've read and heard, the practice is nowhere near as common in the upper tiers. Once you're there, you're there.

I can't @ # ! * i n g believe I didn't figure this out before it was too late because I've always had an aptitude for that sort of reasoning (I'm applying to business school now, by the way). Everyone told me to not even bother applying if I got below a 160 on the LSAT, and moreover not to let that particular 4th tier law school fleece me the way they did. But of course, every prospective JD candidate has an ego the size of the Atlantic and is not so easily dissuaded by, y'know, reason. What an arrogant little SOB I was.

I'm also angry at myself because, at 28 I've just learned that I'm ADD and Dyslexic. Had I taken the odd pill here or there half of my problems would likely have been ameliorated. The other half of my problems is caused by the fact that I'm a tremendous not so nice person, but Merk has yet to develop medication for that ...

I have a strong feeling that you are referring to Roger Williams Law School.  If I am correct, then you hit the nail on the head.  Roger Williams is nothing but a ponsi scheme.  Most of the bar in this state know it also.  That is why they want nothing to do with us.

Funny, my pre-law advisor pushes this fraud school on everyone who takes the LSAT.  I still must dispute Widener being on this list.  Every single lawyer I talk to (and I talk to many in the course of my current job) has nothing but posititve things to say about the school (Delaware campus, anyway) and the lawyers they produce.  Anyone can find the odd school and use it as the example, but it is an isolated case.  I realize that you feel you got jobbed, but an IQ test in no way measures your work ethic, research or writing skills.  Interestingly, the last two skills are not measured on the LSAT either. 

In my own case, I didn't decide to take the LSAT until last September.  I took it with no prep and got a 152.  Not great, but with no prep I'll take it.  Anyway, I decided I'd rather spend the rest of the semester concentrating on getting through my 5 class course load instead of taking a prep course to achieve a higher LSAT score.  As a result the only neighborhood school I got into was Widener and I'm ok with that.  Bottom line is people score what they score for a variety of reasons.  That being said, it seems to me that succeeding in law school is not as much a talent or gift as much as it is a skill that CAN be learned.  Therefore, to say that someone can't learn how to succeed in law school because of a result they achieved on a test that doesn't even measure key components of the requisite work of law school is, in a word, stupid.  While I can certainly appreciate the need of some to inflate their own egos by attempting to damage the confidence of those who attend lower ranked law schools, that doesn't necessitate my agreeing with this infantile pablum.  It is akin to someone who drives a corvette telling someone that drives a corrolla that if they can't drive a more luxurious car, they may as well not even attempt to rise above their station and drive and should, instead, deal with their relegation to a lifetime of riding public transportation.  So, my advice to the above is to either try again or stop crying and find something else to do with your time.  Your cloak of self-pity is flat out depressing and sad.

[bikinilaw]

Why Nova and St. Thomas? Is it because of the tuition?

Why not?! A lousy law school (read a 4th tier one) should never ever be allowed to charhe more than, say, $15,000 a year in tuition. After all, they're not real law school and should take into account that their graduates may or may not find employment as attorneys.

Write to this ass,

http://www.abanet.org/legaled/section/consultant/consultant.html

Dean Sebert served as Dean and Professor of Law at the University of Baltimore School of Law from 1993 to 2000. During his tenure as dean he led the school in a substantial curriculum revision and in identifying and then making significant progress on a number of major strategic objectives for the school. Dean Sebert’s fundraising efforts also resulted in more than doubling the school’s endowment and securing a number of significant additional pledges to the endowment.

[aca]

Dean Sebert served as Dean and Professor of Law at the University of Baltimore School of Law from 1993 to 2000. During his tenure as dean he led the school in a substantial curriculum revision and in identifying and then making significant progress on a number of major strategic objectives for the school. Dean Sebert’s fundraising efforts also resulted in more than doubling the school's endowment and securing a number of significant additional pledges to the endowment.

Are you plagerizing?

http://www.abanet.org/legaled/section/consultant/consultantsebertbio.html