Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Poll

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

Author Topic: Cooley or Whittier?  (Read 8820 times)

Good Teacher

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 30
  • Karl Marx was misguided but he meant well.
    • View Profile
Re: Cooley or Whittier?
« Reply #10 on: May 19, 2009, 06:45:01 AM »
Quote
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).
"A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone." Henry David Thoreau

nealric

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2261
  • a.k.a. Miguel Sanchez
    • View Profile
Re: Cooley or Whittier?
« Reply #11 on: May 19, 2009, 10:56:13 AM »
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.
Georgetown Law Graduate

Chief justice Earl Warren wasn't a stripper!
Now who's being naive?

CTL

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3553
    • View Profile
Re: Cooley or Whittier?
« Reply #12 on: May 19, 2009, 12:29:06 PM »
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.   
If looks could kill, you would be an uzi.

CTL

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3553
    • View Profile
Re: Cooley or Whittier?
« Reply #13 on: May 19, 2009, 12:42:50 PM »
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? 
If looks could kill, you would be an uzi.

CTL

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3553
    • View Profile
Re: Cooley or Whittier?
« Reply #14 on: May 19, 2009, 01:02:29 PM »
I'm referring to your implication that nealric is somehow going to fail as a lawyer because he makes assumptions. 

If looks could kill, you would be an uzi.

dashrashi

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3601
    • View Profile
    • LSN
Re: Cooley or Whittier?
« Reply #15 on: May 19, 2009, 01:28:29 PM »
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.
This sig kills fascists.

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=dashrashi

Saw dashrashi's LSN site. Since she seems to use profanity, one could say that HYP does not necessarily mean class or refinement.

CTL

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3553
    • View Profile
Re: Cooley or Whittier?
« Reply #16 on: May 19, 2009, 01:33:54 PM »
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.
If looks could kill, you would be an uzi.

CTL

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3553
    • View Profile
Re: Cooley or Whittier?
« Reply #17 on: May 19, 2009, 01:37:30 PM »
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.   
If looks could kill, you would be an uzi.

Matthies

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5988
    • View Profile
    • Tell me where you are going to school and you get a cat!
Re: Cooley or Whittier?
« Reply #18 on: May 19, 2009, 01:41:11 PM »
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 Iím 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 Iíll tell all of you to suck it, but until then Iím being cautious about how much a disparage people I donít know in, situations Iím not in, going to schools Iíve never attended.
*In clinical studies, Matthies was well tolerated, but women who are pregnant, nursing or might become pregnant should not take or handle Matthies due to a rare, but serious side effect called him having to make child support payments.

CTL

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3553
    • View Profile
Re: Cooley or Whittier?
« Reply #19 on: May 19, 2009, 01:47:13 PM »
I don't think we need to fall victim to relativism though.  There are some suggestions that are wise.  GENERALLY, I believe that having more options is much more valuable than having fewer options, which is why I think it is sage advice to tell someone to aim high when applying to law schools.
If looks could kill, you would be an uzi.