Contrasting Temple, Drexel and Villanova

[MichaelNKat]

I would be interested in hearing from students who attend or have recently visited any of the above schools, or from others who know the schools well. My son, who wants to attend law school in Philadelphia and thereafter have a criminal defense practice, is fortunate to have a choice between the three. Cost is not a distinguishing factor since he qualifies for in state tuition at Temple and has received merit scholarships at Drexel and Villanova which make their net tuition even less than Temple's.

He has scoured their websites and is pretty familiar with the info contained there. So far, here's how he distinguishes the schools:

Temple- Number 2 ranked Trial Advocacy Program in the country. He would attend the Evening Division which is a 4 year program thereby enabling him to continue to work a couple of days a week as a law clerk for a well established criminal defense attorney for whom he presently works. Clinical placements in the area of criminal law are available to 4th year Evening students. In addition to FT faculty, has many Philadelphia practitioners and judges as adjuncts.

Drexel -Young school, provisional accreditation (but that is not a major concern, the school has the full resources of Drexel behind it and is attracting well credentialed faculty including area judges and practitioners). Major focus on clinical/field work with a 6 month co-op program, required pro bono hours and 4 quarters of courses in Criminal defense Field Work available.

Villanova - Seems to be a very solid program. An emphasis on a "values" based approach to the study of law, many opportunities for clinicals and externships in the area of criminal law. Also appears to have a strong academic support services system for students. In addition to full time faculty, has many Philadelphia practitioners as adjuncts.

So, for those who currently attend these schools, recently attended them or otherwise know them well, what have your experiences been. Going beyond the facade of the websites, what are your thoughts about the reality of the educational experiences, training, opportunities and student life at these schools? Any thoughts on how these schools would serve the needs and desires of someone who wants to do criminal defense trial work and related litigation.

[SASS]

Don't attend Drexel. I am sure there will be people who disagree with this but I know from first hand experience that attending a T4 is a horrible idea and I transferred out.

Also, I attended part-time my first year and I can say that was a mistake as well. The PT students still carry a pretty heavy schedule and if he is going to work it is pretty stressful. It is not impossible or anything, I just think part-time programs should be attended only if your situation mandates it.

I have friends as Villanova and they seem to like it. I have heard good things about their programs. They are also opening a new facility (maybe they opening it already but I don't think so) which will probably help their rank. Their old facility left much to be desired. I think it is opening in 2010, but I don't know.

Temple is also a good school and I have heard good things about it as well though I don't know anyone who goes there. I think your son should just go and check out both Temple and Villanova and see which one he likes better.

[BikePilot]

I don't know a lot about them but Temple sounds like a winner from what you said and what little I do know. I'm currently in a seminar with a visiting professor from Temple and he is truly exceptional. To be fair our visiting professors tend to be the best from their respective schools, but even so he is very, very good and that bodes well for Temple imho.

[UnbiasedObserver]

Being a former Pennsylvanian who applied to Temple and Villanova last cycle, I'd go with Temple or Villanova if costs are equal.

While I've heard good things about Drexel, one of the most important things about higher-ranked schools isn't the education; it's the networking opportunities.  Higher-ranked and older schools have larger and more prestigious networks.  Drexel, despite its improvements, simply can't match that (yet). 

Also, an attorney once advised me not to go to "Tier 4" local school.  He said, "The first thing they look at is where you go to school." And it seems to be true.   

With that being said, Temple and Villanova are both good schools for Philly.  Temple is in the city, though, in a "rough" area whereas Villanova is more off the beaten path.  Location might be important for some people, since the opportunities are very similar at both schools.

However, is your son's scholarship contingent on maintaining a certain GPA?  If so, I'd consider Temple, because the tuition will be dirt-cheap and there's less pressure to do well. 

Also, as you mentioned, the trial advocacy at Temple rocks.  Since he's considering criminal law practice, this would be a big plus.  And perhaps most importantly, he would be able to continue his networking through his job, and this will look good to employers.   

Good luck!

[NeverTrustKlingons]

If you are a PA Resident admitted to Nova and Temple, Temple should be your clear choice unless you want to pay much more for a similarly-ranked school. 

[futurelawyergal]

If he wants to practice in Philly people tend to say Temple. Other parts of the state believe Villanova is better(in terms of rep). I know several older lawyers who find Nova the clear winner(probably because it is private and has a strong old-boys network) where as Temple offers a more diverse experience.

[nealric]

Most scholarships are conditional; instate tuition is not.

Weigh the risk of loss of scholarship against the price differential. My guess is you will find that Temple makes the most sense.

[uh huh.]

My son, who wants to attend law school in Philadelphia and thereafter have a criminal defense practice, is fortunate to have a choice between the three.

I'm curious why it is that you are here asking these questions, and not your son.

[MichaelNKat]

To those who posted replies 1 through 6, thank you for taking the time to respond. You have provided helpful perspectives and information.

As to the poster in reply 7, your curiosity is itself indeed curious and adds nothing of substance to the dialogue in this thread. 

[dashrashi]

To those who posted replies 1 through 6, thank you for taking the time to respond. You have provided helpful perspectives and information.

As to the poster in reply 7, your curiosity is itself indeed curious and adds nothing of substance to the dialogue in this thread. 

You really don't need to be rude about it. It's a valid question. You can choose not to answer it, but it's certainly not inappropriate to wonder about it.

That said: temple. All the way.