Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Tier 4 Law Schools  (Read 32343 times)

tryinLawSchool

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Tier 4 Law Schools
« Reply #120 on: July 29, 2010, 11:33:57 AM »
sonofapickles' dad must be rich...

So lets break down how much sonofapickle invests....

Retail store mangers can make in excess of $110,000 at an average store, but because this person was being factious lets say the manager was at a high end store on 5th Avenue. That means the person is making about $200,000.

So lets say that this upperclassman from a regional undergrad (I have talked to a group of people are Massachusetts now, and none of heard of Carelton (it may be a great school, just saying it doesn't really impress anyone if your the 8th best liberal arts).

To to say that you make more in dividends than anybody in retail, lets see. The highest paying dividend I could find in 2010 was Best Buy at 1.28/stock. To make 200,000 in dividends you would need a minimum of 156,000 shares of BBY. So simply multiply 156,000 times the market value of about 35.00 per stock for a grand total of 5.46 million.

Are you telling me that you have 5.46 million in stock allocated? But lets just say you thought it would be 10,700 a year (minimum wage). That means that you would need at minimum 8,359 shares. That would equal out to a total of $292,000 dollars worth of stock.

But it would have to be more than that, because a financial wiz such as yourself would understand that dividends is a minor factor due to the realitivly low payout. Would it be safe to say that you would have upwards to 500,000 dollars put into the stock system? Or were you exaggerating?

Either your a silverspoon playing with daddy's money or your lying. More likely the latter. The facts are, the higher tier law schools do open more doors right out of law school. In the end, it comes down to who the person is. People like yourself, end up struggling if not out of Harvard or Yale since you have an idea that you are better than others. While out of the other two, it might play into the character that you would want to build, and who knows, may work a bit in some situations, but if you don't graduate one of those two, it will work against you and you will have a very hard time making it in anything you do.

To say that a job is "beneath you", shows a true lack of understanding of how things work. You will NOT graduate law school (even Harvard or Yale) and do the most prestigious work in the office, you will do the grunt work (70-80 hours+) for at least two or three years. Also, especially out of undergrad, you will not find the fun jobs for at least 10-15 years. I digress a bit, but the fact is, even "menial" jobs such as KFC/McDonalds, shows a lot to the character of the person. While sure, some are not hard workers that work there, and sure, some do it because they have no skills, the vast majority are high school kids working to help pay thier bills or help out the family. They build skills such as customer relations, time managment, and to those that get promoted to managers, they learn other pertinant skills. I am not saying that KFC is the best job ever, but to think anyone other than punks that never had jobs looks negitivly at that expirience is flat out wrong.

Not everybody's daddy can be rich, so some of us need to pay bills. For myself, I have been working since 14. Whether it be at Stop and Shop, Fuddruckers, or at a prestigous internship, I have worked for the money I have, not just given to me. That is why I laugh at people like you, because you really do not have any idea. When you are missing deadlines or yelling at the customer screaming at you on the phone, your 8th best in liberal arts is not going to mean all that much as you are getting fired.

Good luck, you'll need it.

It was an overextended use of the hyperbole. I think it is good that you showed initiative in your post though.

At the rest of your post, I highly doubt I will be chugging along grunt work as much as newly graduates. That I why I love and hate my life. People don't understand that. I didn't choose to be great, I was born above those who consider themselves equal to everyone. You believe, by your post and my up-most ignorant of an assumption, that you think or believe people are equal. That is not the case. Like I have stated previously to bigs., there are people who are not great, there are those who are moderates (most people), and then there are people who are great. That "great" person may be the person working in a deli aisle for the sake of being regular or that brilliant scientist making breakthroughs in his/her respective field. I have been considered great by many people, a perfect student, a perfect son, and by the kids I tutored, a perfect teacher. Placing, always, in the top percentile of anything I do and actually getting what I want. My whole life I never have been disheartened over something I did not get because I got what I wanted mainly due to me working for it.

People who do not get what they want simply don't work as hard to get it. It doesn't matter if you are rich or poor because you are the product of how you view yourself and your actual ability. If you cannot be a lawyer, it will show. I can surely attest to not many people here being cut out to be a lawyer. I know a lot of lawyers and my Uncle is a lawyer so I know what it takes and I know how things are run. You don't get that and I doubt you will as you believe working penniless jobs actually builds character. I have never flipped a burger, mailed a piece of paper, or worked any position I felt was less of my actual ability. I did an internship where I was considered successful or great in and I took that as a testament to my actual ability.

 I will have a better job than most graduates, and that is if I actually want to work as a lawyer. I am thinking of just obtaining a J.D. and become a broker, who knows? My opportunities and what I can do whilst landing a 6-figure salary and living primarily off interest is great. I don't know about you, but you seem rather taken-aback that you had to work meager jobs with little to show for them.  Working some idiotic job is not good for anyone and I will be the first to tell people not to work and go to school at the same time. People waste too much time thinking about where that next dollar bill is going to come from and they think less about what they need to do to obtain it. That is the major difference between those like me (more educated in respective works) and other people (less educated in their field and lack a certain tact that is imposingly, distinguishably different from those people consider "proletariats").

I am fairly certain that you hit the nail on the head when you said "because I got what I wanted mainly due to me working for it". That is how everyone obtains a level of success above others. Work ethic is the determining factor in everything we do- I agree

SemiMBA

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Tier 4 Law Schools
« Reply #121 on: September 17, 2010, 10:48:15 PM »
Can anyone provide a definition of a Tier 4 law school?  What is the difference between a Tier 2, 3, or 4?  (Tier 1 is easy - Stanford, Harvard, Yale, etc)


Cicero

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 201
  • UF 2012
    • View Profile
Re: Tier 4 Law Schools
« Reply #122 on: September 17, 2010, 11:20:59 PM »
T14= top 14 schools, T1= 1-50, T2= 51-100, T3/4 above 100 and designated as T3 or T4 (not as clearly defined) by US News & World Report

bigs5068

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Tier 4 Law Schools
« Reply #123 on: September 18, 2010, 12:50:07 PM »


The rankings make absolutely no sense if you look at the formula. They also change significantly every year if you are a tier 2,3, or 4 school. University of San Francisco is the last 3 years has gone from 72 to tier 3 which means in the 100's, then back now to 88 I think and nothing at all changed at the school. Harvard is a great school, but the U.S. News Rankings are not regulated by anyone and the ABA specifically says do not pay attention to them. It is a for-profit magazine giving their subjective opinion. It is really dangerous to consider them unless you are going to a TOP SCHOOL. Use your common sense, but I was just out with a bunch of friends from college than transferred from a tier 4 to a low tier 1 and they regret their decision, because they could have maintained a huge scholarship had they stayed at their tier 4 and now they are having trouble finding work and just have more debt and are in the same boat. I blatantly despite the rankings and maybe I am being over biased, but I think it is scary and messed up that U.S. News gives these rankings, which has an atrocious formula look it up and you will see it makes very little sense particularly because employment at graduation can mean working at Starbucks. I am still baffled that an unapproved magazine decided to take it upon themselves to make rankings and somehow they developed on this power that tricks students into thinking their is a huge difference between going to the 78th or 98th best school.

Hamilton

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
    • View Profile
Re: Tier 4 Law Schools
« Reply #124 on: September 19, 2010, 09:22:56 AM »
What about Cooley's ranking system? (sarc off)

T14= top 14 schools, T1= 1-50, T2= 51-100, T3/4 above 100 and designated as T3 or T4 (not as clearly defined) by US News & World Report

bigs5068

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Tier 4 Law Schools
« Reply #125 on: September 19, 2010, 11:36:32 AM »
Honestly Cooley's ranking system makes as much sense to me at U.S. News. Cooley's system might even make more sense, because they use objective facts. Granted the number of chairs might not make that big of a difference, but U.S. News not only does the tier 1-4 rank, but they go on to say you are a top 30 public interest school, or best diversity, etc U.S. News is as much of a scam as Cooley's system.

MeganEW

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
Re: Tier 4 Law Schools
« Reply #126 on: September 20, 2010, 05:40:03 AM »
wrt rankings: I largely agree with the [outgoing] dean of Northwestern Law based on my observations in the Northeast and Midwest. They're imperfect but useful.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/difference/statementOnRank.html

Like them or not, people pay attention to them.
Acceptances: UIUC, IUB, Fordham, W&L, OSU
WL: Notre Dame
Rejections: NYU, Northwestern

bigs5068

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Tier 4 Law Schools
« Reply #127 on: September 20, 2010, 11:45:07 AM »
I agree with a lot of what the article said.  I don't really mind rankings and as I said a million times I would have no problem ranking the top 25 or so schools. I can see measuring Penn to NYU just like I can see how the NCAA determines Duke is better than North Carolina.  However, what is the difference between Florida International and Gonzaga they are regional schools that are ABA approved. This honestly blows my mind from the article in that how they get 60% of their ranking is based on this formula "The way U.S. News measures law school reputations through the surveys filled out by academics, practitioners and judges could be enhanced. Each respondent is asked to evaluate each of the more than 200 ABA-approved law schools as “excellent,” “very good,” “good,” “satisfactory” or “marginal.”  There is a “don’t know” option. But overall too many responders are providing ratings with limited knowledge on a very broad scale. Even with my extensive experience in legal education, I have little if any knowledge of the quality of most of the schools on the list. Besides, the survey response rate of practitioners and judges has been extremely low and most likely not statistically significant." These judges and lawyers are from a certain region they have probably never interacted with over half the schools and they can have no basis for an opinion yet they are giving one.  What is a judge in L.A. supposed to rank Stetson or a Miami judge supposed to rank Gonzaga. They have no exposure to the schools at all and yet they are making these claims that as you said people take very seriously. If they had a formula that made sense I would say go for it, but even then I really don't see how you can determine between the 78th and 92nd best school. The NCAA does not rank pass the top 25, because you are either an ELITE program or your not.

Morten Lund

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 259
    • View Profile
Re: Tier 4 Law Schools
« Reply #128 on: September 20, 2010, 12:38:41 PM »
I agree with a lot of what the article said.  I don't really mind rankings and as I said a million times I would have no problem ranking the top 25 or so schools. I can see measuring Penn to NYU just like I can see how the NCAA determines Duke is better than North Carolina.  ...

What is a judge in L.A. supposed to rank Stetson or a Miami judge supposed to rank Gonzaga.... The NCAA does not rank pass the top 25, because you are either an ELITE program or your not.

Hard to disagree with that.  As a practitioner I am familiar with the schools that you would expect me to be familiar with.  I could probably name the top 10ish, more or less in order, and recognize the top 25ish maybe.  After that it gets fuzzy, but I do also have a grasp on the relative value of local/regional schools.  For me to opine on any other school than those would be silly.

But - given the regional value of education, unlike basketball - there would be (IMO) value to a regional ranking system.  So, in a perfect ranking universe, perhaps a national ranking of top 25 or so, with individual regional rankings as well.  There is a good argument for going to law school at Texas rather than Stanford, assuming you plan on staying in Texas.

This is also how law firms are ranked, more or less, and it certainly provides some value in that arena.

(Side note - reference Onion squib from a few years back: "Harvard-educated Texan unsure which to mention first in conversation")

bigs5068

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Tier 4 Law Schools
« Reply #129 on: September 20, 2010, 02:06:20 PM »
I am interested that Texas article I put in 30 seconds of google searching, but have given up.

Even regarding the ranking the regional schools does not seem to be of that much value I have heard from so many people that transferred from GGU to Hastings, Santa Clara, and USF and expect some unbelievable doors to open up, but they are unsatisfied and in more debt because honestly all four of those schools are just mediocre although U.S. News determine Hastings I think is 53 USF 98 now, but might be tier 3 that school bounces all over the rankings, which only goes to show how inaccurate and unpredictable they are. Having worked with students from all of these schools this summer we no joke have the same professors who teach from the same textbooks, so nobody is getting a better or worse education they are literally getting the same one, but some judge in Miami decided to check the very good box for Santa Clara and the good box for USF, it just really blows my mind that something as poorly done as the U.S. News Rankings has no much influence on naive students who are making terrible decisions in my opinion based on it

In regards to the Bay Area the only schools that would actually open more doors for you would be Stanford and maybe Berkley, which are in the national top 25 and are well known. Even if yo go to those schools, I would think you would need to rank highly to get anything handed to you through OCI. I wouldn't think firms going to Berkley etc would want to interview the bottom 25% and 25% of students at Stanford are going to finish in the bottom 25%.  I am literally convinced with my 1+ year of law school experience, which is not much the burden will always be on you to find work. If you get something through your school's OCI etc then awesome, but don't count on it doing anything for you. You should expect them to teach you the law well enough to pass the bar and hopefully teach you enough to know some basic things a lawyer in the real world needs to know. The reality is a school can only teach you so much and do so much for you. In anything in life you need to figure most things out yourself.

Just to go off another regional ranking tanget L.A. it is the same as the Bay Area I mean there is UCLA & USC. Those are bad-ass schools, but really is a Loyola Marymount graduate going to have more employers than someone from Southwestern begging them to work for the firm. That is the same logic in New York as well I am sure Columbia and NYU will open doors, but will Brooklyn do anymore for you than Fordham or Cardozo? I could be wrong, but when I worked in New York there were a ton of lawyers who worked together from school's of varyign rank and the ones that were most satisfied with their schools were the ones that went to CUNY and that is because they all almost no debt based on CUNY's in-state tuition. Some people got to pay 90K more for a prestigious tier 2 degree from Rutgers, but they ended in the same spot. Now the person in charge of everyone on my team went to Penn, which again is a baller school and it probably helped her obtain promotions etc. However, Rutgers, CUNY, New York Law School, Hofstra, Seton Hall, etc are not going to put you on the fast track to anything they will get you to the same spot and you will have to prove you are a good attorney. I am sure all of those schools provide you with the basis to become competent, , but you will need to put the work in.  So  unless you are going to an elite school go to the one that will get out with the least debt.