DO NOT GO TO LAW SCHOOL!!!

[EatYourVeggies]

I think his point was that he wanted to go to BigLaw, but couldn't and was suggesting that there's a good chance that you too will change your mind, want to go to BigLaw from a lower-tiered school and won't have the option available.  It's a fair criticism, but worthy of a "Don't go to law school!"

Go to the best law school you can and between similarly-situated law schools, minimize your debt.  Also, have a job before graduating and you won't have to worry as much for five months while you wait for bar results.

[EatYourVeggies]

I don't "sincerely want to be a lawyer".  I sincerely want to make lots of money.  I don't think I should be warned against law school any more than the person who saw "To Kill a Mockingbird" and can't sleep at night for all the anticipation of law school.

[EatYourVeggies]

I wouldn't go to law school if I couldn't get into a top school because that defeats the whole "money-making" idea...

I'm already in law school though.  So this one was pure "argument's sake". 

[General2010]

I think it is a generally accepted truth that many people who go to law school do so simply because they see it as a way to earn a respectable graduate degree, and not because they sincerely want to be lawyers.  This bunch--which is usually considered to be a large demographic in the LS population--are the people who should be warned against law school.

From another direction, unless you are in the very small minority that wants to go to law school because your lifelong dream is to become a lawyer, law school should be viewed as an investment.  Great numbers of students matriculate at law school without this conception, and learn, after they take on great amounts of debt, that they have a very small chance of getting a biglaw job (which might have been the reason they attended law school in the first place, many of them) and that the investment they've made is unwise.

So, insofar as a lot of folks attend law school burdened by illusions about the profession, the career prospects, and its nature as an investment, yes, people should be admonished to carefully consider the decision to attend law school.

I've got no beef with a 161.  But if being a lawyer is just an option you're considering--not a dream or a personal goal--and if your goal in becoming a lawyer is to make biglaw money, a 161 is problematic.  Since these two conditions describe many--probably most--law school students, the criticism is applicable.

A 161 isn't as problematic as you think. I go to school with many 2L transfers who scored between 153-160, went to 4th tier schools, worked their asses off and transferred here. Many of them have secured BigLaw Summer Associate positions for this summer (for my friends, NYC, DC, Baltimore, Houston and San Diego).

Additionally, a 161 will get you a good scholarship at a 40-80th ranked school. I would describe a lot of these schools as "Good for their market" schools. As much as I've bashed it on this site, SMU is ranked 46th I believe, has a median LSAT around 161, and does great for Dallas. Don't believe me? Look at the "Big 3" law firm websites in Dallas (Fulbright & Jaworski, Baker Botts, Vinson and Elkins) and look for how many SMU Law Grads there are there. Look at University of Richmond, which I believe is ranked 75th. If you want to go outside of Virginia, good luck, but they are very respected in the Richmond BigLaw firms (McGuire Woods, Hunton and Williams, Troutman Sanders). So, if you get a 161, get a good scholarship and know you want to practice in a certain market, I certainly wouldn't describe this as "problematic."

[EatYourVeggies]

"I think it is a generally accepted truth that many people who go to law school do so simply because they see it as a way to earn a respectable graduate degree, and not because they sincerely want to be lawyers.  This bunch--which is usually considered to be a large demographic in the LS population--are the people who should be warned against law school."

That's what I was referring to.

[General2010]

I think it is a generally accepted truth that many people who go to law school do so simply because they see it as a way to earn a respectable graduate degree, and not because they sincerely want to be lawyers.  This bunch--which is usually considered to be a large demographic in the LS population--are the people who should be warned against law school.

From another direction, unless you are in the very small minority that wants to go to law school because your lifelong dream is to become a lawyer, law school should be viewed as an investment.  Great numbers of students matriculate at law school without this conception, and learn, after they take on great amounts of debt, that they have a very small chance of getting a biglaw job (which might have been the reason they attended law school in the first place, many of them) and that the investment they've made is unwise.

So, insofar as a lot of folks attend law school burdened by illusions about the profession, the career prospects, and its nature as an investment, yes, people should be admonished to carefully consider the decision to attend law school.

I've got no beef with a 161.  But if being a lawyer is just an option you're considering--not a dream or a personal goal--and if your goal in becoming a lawyer is to make biglaw money, a 161 is problematic.  Since these two conditions describe many--probably most--law school students, the criticism is applicable.

A 161 isn't as problematic as you think. I go to school with many 2L transfers who scored between 153-160, went to 4th tier schools, worked their asses off and transferred here. Many of them have secured BigLaw Summer Associate positions for this summer (for my friends, NYC, DC, Baltimore, Houston and San Diego).

Additionally, a 161 will get you a good scholarship at a 40-80th ranked school. I would describe a lot of these schools as "Good for their market" schools. As much as I've bashed it on this site, SMU is ranked 46th I believe, has a median LSAT around 161, and does great for Dallas. Don't believe me? Look at the "Big 3" law firm websites in Dallas (Fulbright & Jaworski, Baker Botts, Vinson and Elkins) and look for how many SMU Law Grads there are there. Look at University of Richmond, which I believe is ranked 75th. If you want to go outside of Virginia, good luck, but they are very respected in the Richmond BigLaw firms (McGuire Woods, Hunton and Williams, Troutman Sanders). So, if you get a 161, get a good scholarship and know you want to practice in a certain market, I certainly wouldn't describe this as "problematic."

Well I'm not gonna argue with this guy.  Point stands, though, that you've got to know why you're going to law school.  Some guy off the street who thinks 161 is a golden ticket is not necessarily correct, although he may have different goals for his JD.


But seriously, what do I know?  I just spend too much time on the internet.  Am embarrassed that G2010 has found me in my one obnoxious argument thread.

I agree with the bolded text.

That's what happens when you out yourself.

[General2010]

Don't mean to harp on this, but it doesn't even need to be Top 40 to be a good regional school. South Texas College of Law is a 4th tier in Houston and they have a lot of alums in the Houston BigLaw offices (I checked the firms' websites because I'm creepy like that).

[Julie Fern]

Fist yourself.

you fist.

[General2010]

243 million Americans beg to differ.

[vap]

yeah, but most of those people will have to work their tails off to get to NYC, which is where everyone wants to be.

Can we get any worse than PBJ?