Cooley or Whittier?

[What law school is harder? Cooley or Whittier? They both accept law students without a bachelors degree.]

What law school is harder? Cooley or Whittier? They both accept law students without a bachelors degree.

Cooley

 5 (45.5%)

Whittier

 6 (54.5%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: June 06, 2009, 08:21:39 PM

[calvinexpress]

hello allaboutlydia, I have to correct you due to the fact that you are wrong. You said below that Whittier does not accept students without a bachelors degree. You are wrong. Whittier does in fact accept students withouta  bachelors degree. Here is the link to the facts taken from whittier's website itself. http://www.law.whittier.edu/pstudents/admissions/admissions.html#special
Also, I am going to repost what you posted below. You said "Please research your facts before posting inaccurate information." There you go, maybe you should do your own research before you post inaccurate information. 

I don't anything about Cooley but it's untrue that Whittier accepts students without degrees. You must have a degree and have taken the LSAT to apply and get accepted to Whittier.  There was no scandal involving dismissing most of the student body.  Please research your facts before posting inaccurate information.  Now for some facts:

1.  Whittier is the oldest fully accredited ABA law schools in Orange County
2.  More than 80% of Whittier Grads have passed the bar in 2008
3.  Whittier Grads have the highest starting salary of OC law schools
4.  Here's a list of firms that have hired Whittier graduates:

[Good Teacher]

3. If you want to become an attorney, choose an ABA approved school (such as Cooley or Whitter if you like), do your best and go practice law.

It is an unfortunate fact that fewer than half of those who matriculate at Cooley ever practice law.

So here is my advice as an immature and inexperienced snob. Hard work goes a long way, but it's best to apply that hard work where it will be most effective. It's far easier to spend a year prepping for the LSAT than it is to spend years post graduation trying to overcome having gone to a school of dubious reputation.

1.  Where are you getting your stats from?
2.  How do those numbers compare to Harvard, Yale, or Emory? (Many people go to law school with not real intention of ever practicing law.)
3.  Why are you assuming he's choosing these schools because his LSAT score?  He mentioned something about not having completed undergrad yet; we know nothing about his LSAT score.  Besides, Whittier and Cooley have applicants with LSAT scores above the 90th percentile.  (That stat can easily be found on the LSAC site.)  They likely chose these schools for reasons other than a lack of options so let's not assume that everyone at such schools chose them because of a lack of proper LSAT preparation.
4.  Do you hold these schools in ill repute because of your prejudice related to LSAT scores?  If so, you honestly fit my earlier description (i.e. immature and inexperienced).

[nealric]

1. Stat is simply removing those who fail out and those who fail the bar. I know, people can pass the bar after multiple tries, but many don't. This is not even making an allowance for those who actually graduate and pass the bar but can't find legal employment.
2. Harvard graduates essentially 100% of matriculants (no academic attrition) and substantially all graduates pass the bar.
3. Because it's very unlikely someone would chose between those schools with a good LSAT score. Sure, people above the 90th percentile matriculate. Most of them are probably making a mistake.
4. No, I hold these schools in ill repute because they are ex-ante very poor options for prospective law students. I don't really care if someone's LSAT is 140 or 180, but it will be to their benefit if their LSAT score is the best it can be. It's far easier to spend a year working on the LSAT than many years into a career overcoming the disadvantages of a school with poor prospects. Is it fair? No, but it behooves you to play the game.

[CTL]

I like how Ultra Magnus pretty much generalizes that anyone who would advise against Cooley/Whittier is immature/inexperienced. 

I mean, come on...that's like saying that you're an elitist snob if you think choosing a rickshaw over a car is a good idea.   

I think you would have to be pretty naive or inexperienced to believe that Cooley/Whittier represent sound options for individuals interested in practicing law.   

[CTL]

1. Stat is simply removing those who fail out and those who fail the bar. I know, people can pass the bar after multiple tries, but many don't. This is not even making an allowance for those who actually graduate and pass the bar but can't find legal employment.
2. Harvard graduates essentially 100% of matriculants (no academic attrition) and substantially all graduates pass the bar.
3. Because it's very unlikely someone would chose between those schools with a good LSAT score. Sure, people above the 90th percentile matriculate. Most of them are probably making a mistake.
4. No, I hold these schools in ill repute because they are ex-ante very poor options for prospective law students. I don't really care if someone's LSAT is 140 or 180, but it will be to their benefit if their LSAT score is the best it can be. It's far easier to spend a year working on the LSAT than many years into a career overcoming the disadvantages of a school with poor prospects. Is it fair? No, but it behooves you to play the game.

Wow!!! You make a lot of assumptions there buddy.  You speak as if they must be true simply because you assume them.  Good luck "lawyering".

What are you talking about? 

[CTL]

I'm referring to your implication that nealric is somehow going to fail as a lawyer because he makes assumptions. 

[dashrashi]

Not to defend ultra magnus, who is acting like a dillweed, like, to the MAX, but nealric still hasn't addressed the fact that the OP could have a 180 and still have to go to one of these two schools, presumably because OP doesn't have a bachelor's. The LSAT (and taking a year to prep for it or not) does seem wholly irrelevant to me. As far as substantive advice, of course it's good to finish your bachelor's and hugely widen your range of options. But I'm not going to pretend I haven't heard of situations on this board where that wasn't a viable option for the person in question, for legitimate reasons, forcing them to choose between less than ideal options, but not making the "huge mistake" these choices are sometimes cast as.

[CTL]

I think it's safe to assume that anyone who is interested in practicing law in the US (not out of the back of a rv) needs a bachelor's degree.  Maybe nealric didn't explicate his entire chain of reasoning, but I think it's fair to assume that it's not worth going to law school without a bachelor's degree.

[CTL]

Oh yea, I forgot to add that once you establish that a bachelor's degree is a good idea (a pretty warranted premise), it's not irrelevant to suggest that one work on a good LSAT score so that their options are not limited to 'schools' like Cooley/Whittier.  If you want a piece of paper that says you're a lawyer, forget all that advice and shell out the money to Cooley/Whittier.   

[Matthies]

Also there are other schools, Tulane being one of them, that admit people without degrees.

Additionally its only relatively recently in the history of American legal education that a degree was necessary for most professional schools. Hell law school was not even necessary for most of the history of the legal profession in the US, you read for the law under a practicing lawyer.  Is it the standard way now, no of course not, but there are other options out there than just standard BA + JD at a school everyone thinks is cool.

I dunno call me a LSD weirdo but I’m not confidant enough in my own abilities or achievements to go telling other people how they should live their lives. Once I pass the bar than I’ll tell all of you to suck it, but until then I’m being cautious about how much a disparage people I don’t know in, situations I’m not in, going to schools I’ve never attended.