<p>OK- I'm beginning to do my "prep work" in anticipation of next year's admission cycle. D has a shot at a T-14, but with a 167 LSAT, it is not a sure thing.<br>
So going to the next level of law schools (T-15 to 20 or thereabouts), is there any hierarchy of schools which will help career wise--I'm talking Vanderbilt, UCLA, GW, BU, WUSTL etc. or other schools on YOUR radar.<br>
As we are from NY, I'm sure d will apply to Fordham and maybe Cordoza/Brooklyn too. </p>
<p>As d has a somewhat adventurous side, I can see her leaving NYC for a good career opportunity in another part of the country, - so I wonder if she would be better with a
T-15-20 with a national reputation as opposed to going to Fordham, which I think can be considered a safety school for her.
All insight regarding reputations of T-15-20 is appreciated!!</p>
<p>It's hard to say anything without a GPA, but as long as it's on the higher side (above 3.5), I don't think you need anything like Brooklyn or Cardozo. The ones you listed sound good for her LSAT, and Cornell is probably the most likely of the T-14.</p>
<p>I would say that of the schools you mentioned only UCLA, Vanderbilt and GW have anything approaching a national reputation. They all (I'm not sure about BU, though) have fine local and regional reputations, so if she decides she wants to (at least initially) practice law in one of those geographic areas, she could choose the school in your list in that area.</p>
<p>Even if she decides to relocate elsewhere after attending one of those fine schools all certainly is not lost. All of those schools probably have alumni connections nationally or pretty nearly so, and law firms and corporations in one part of the country certainly have many applicants who received their education in good schools in another locality.</p>
<p>Interesting question - things tend to get a little murkier once you depart from the comfortably confines of the T14. So most importantly - if your D has T-14 aspirations, tell her to get all A's the rest of her time in school, and really put together a great application!</p>
<p>Anyway, to address the question, I tend to see the T-14 - then vandy, ucla, and texas - then everyone else. Those three schools are always on everyone's list to break up the T14. Dunno if it will happen any time soon, but three very good (and more national) options than the rest of the schools you mention.</p>
<p>Outside of that, D may want to consider location to be a deciding factor - and I know it might seem difficult, but once you get away from the T14, the area of your school goes a long way to determining where you will practice. Taking a quick look at the 15-25 range, it might break down pretty easily:</p>
<p>Cali - USC
Midwest - Wash U in St Louis or Notre Dame
DC/Midatlantic - George Washington
Northeast - Boston U, except if she is certaint about NYC, then I'd do Fordham
South - Emory</p>
<p>That is the easiest way for me - and again - that is for me - to make a decision between those schools, all other things being equal of course.</p>
<p>In the end, with a 167, I think D would have a good shot at Vandy or UCLA - two really terrific schools...</p>
<p>Thanks for your input. D graduated in May and is now working. (Boy am I grateful she got a job before this economic meltdown occured.) Her gpa is 3.7+ so I'm pretty confident she'll do fine in the T 10-20 range.
I always assumed as a NY kid, my d would stay in this area and if a T-14 admission was not meant to be, Fordham would be a terrific choice.
But in this economic climate, I think it may be more difficult to assume job opportunities will pop up in NYC or in any specific place. I think the "new normal" for everyone is to be flexible and go to where the job opportunities are- even if they are far from home.
So I'm thinking it may be wise for d to have some T-15/20 back-ups with a national reputation. My gut feeling is that d would be very happy at UCLA, Vanderbilt or GW.
And if those schools play well throughout the USA, it make them even stronger contenders.
Any additional input is appreciated.</p>
<p>Marny1,
This might be a useful link to show the pure placement power of various law schools around the country into the nation's "elite" law firms.</p>
<p>The survey shows that the T14 places well as expected. But, it also indicates that schools in the 15-20 are clearly national in placement. For example, UCLA placed 116 grads in the 15 firms surveyed even though only 8 of them have offices in LA and none of them have headquarters there. Vanderbilt placed 64 grads even though none of the firms surveyed are even from the South. </p>
<p>Obviously, a student who does poorly at a 15-20 probably can't go everywhere nationally, but the schools in that range do place well nationally. </p>
<p>One caveat to keep in mind is that the sample size of firms was heavily NY and DC centric. Of the 15 firms sampled, 12 of them had headquarters in DC or NYC and also those headquarters were usually the biggest offices or only offices of those firms. Therefore, Fordham appears to do better on a pure numbers basis than schools like Berkeley or UCLA. What is not mentioned in the survey is there were at least 3 LA firms (ranked 7, 16, and 21) left out of the survey in favor of lower prestige firms (due to lack of information on their websites). I know for a fact these "Big 3" LA firms have about 200 UCLA grads and hundreds of Berkeley, Stanford and USC grads. If you substitute some of the lower ranked NYC, DC firms in favor of the LA firms, you get a vastly different picture I think.</p>
<p>Bottom line, I think you are right that UCLA, Vanderbilt, GW and Fordham would give your D great opportunities. However, I would hesitate to recommend Fordham over UCLA, Vandy, Texas or USC unless your D knows for sure she is an NYC girl.</p>
<p>thanks tranandy- the info was helpful. I thought my d would always by a NYC girl, but in this economy, I'm beginning to think the "key" to success is to be flexible and follow job and life opportunities. So I too am wondering if Fordham would be a wise choice in the event she decided to leave the NYC area.
with a bit of luck kid gets into Cornell or Georgetown (there is always the PT program) and she doesn't have to choose between UCLA, Vanderbilt or Fordham.<br>
We should all have such problems!!</p>
<p>It really depends on what region she wants to work in as schools ranked 15-20 aren't completely mobile. UCLA, for So Cal, Vandy for the South, etc. Out of those schools, I prefer Vandy and UCLA.</p>
<p>But to be honest, if your daughter does not want to retake the LSAT but still wants the T-14, I would recommend that she choose a T-10 school to ED at. (Consider Penn or Michigan.) Also, I think she has a decent shot at Cornell Law School. (167 is Cornell's median.)</p>
<p>she should plan on working a couple more years, IMO
there are a lot of smart people, both those that have work experience and those coming out of college, that will be applying this cycle and next. Once this wave passes by, hopefully economy will be faring better, which means both less competition for LS spots and more opportunities for good jobs.
Law school is expensive. And doing well in law school is no sure thing by any means.
Unless she wouldn't mind doing some of the "less prestigious" work in a secondary market, she should aim at least for T14. I'm attending a T10, and even I'm scared. I wish I had studied harder and gone to a T6.</p>
<p>thanks guys- all info will be shared with d. Trust me, she is alot more laid back about the process and probably won't give too much thought to law school applications until the spring.<br>
I think of my role for both my kids as "the coach/manager" . I try to get as much info as I can and then pass "the need to know " info on to my kids. They think I'm nuts, but they have been impressed with those bits of helpful knowledge that I pick up along the way
- as of now, d does not want to take LSAT again- that might change- but somehow I don't think so.
- as she is not applying until next cycle, she will have 2 years work experience. She really lucked out and got a very good job in her UG field of labor studies.
- LS Bound: I also agree that an ED to a T10-14 may help. Following lots of posts on LSD and top law school, I see a pattern for the 166-168 LSAT score that an ED application may be the ticket into the school. I've heard success stories at Penn-UVA- and Mich of acceptances with 166 LSAT. So that may be a topic of discussion in the spring with my d.<br>
I do think my kid has a better than even shot at Cornell or Georgetown PT if necessary. BUT- if that doesn't work out, just trying to figure out the next best option for a kid who is flexible enough to resettle (almost) anywhere in the country where opportunity takes her.<br>
so that may be why I"m trying to get a feel for the next best schools that have somewhat of a national reputation if a T-14 acceptance isn't in the cards.
Thanks for all your thoughts.
my gut tells me Vandy, UCLA and GW would work for my kid</p>
<p>please convince ur D again. an extra 2 points in her LSAT could vault her safely into T10. Would give her significant money at at least one of the schools that she'd be "willing to settle" for</p>
<p>Just curious, what kind of GPA should I be targeting for if I wanted the lower end of top15 and perhaps UCLA (I'm instate for the UC system-like that matters)? 3.6? Of course, assuming 160-170 range for LSAT. Probably in the mid-160's.</p>
<p>IMO- there really does seem to be a big difference between a LSAT of 166
and a 168 with a 3.6 GPA. Even the 3.8 with a 166 is dicey re: T14 admission.<br>
d's friend with a 3.9 and a 166 did not get into Georgetown, got waitlisted at Harvard and is now attending GW. That 166-168 range is tricky. You need everything going in your favor, including high GPA, interesting EC's/background or just something extra which will get you an acceptance.</p>
<p>I'm making big generalizations- but you probably need a 168 and a 3.6 to have a really good shot at a T-14 and even then you should apply from the bottom of the T-14 "list" up.</p>
<p>I would think instate helps for UCLA- so that should work in your favor assuming you get in the mid 160's.</p>
<p>and KM, I agree with you--the 169 LSAT with her GPA would make her a shoo in- for a top school but retaking the test is something for d to decide. She is a Cornell UG and her stats are at their median so she feels pretty good about getting an acceptance from Cornell-</p>
<p>somehow, I think she would prefer 3 more winters in Ithaca rather than take the LSAT's again. She really did love her time at Cornell.</p>
<p>Let's say god forbid I end up getting a 170 or higher on the LSAT (ha, right). Does that change things?</p>
<p>I've been thinking about doing a year off to get the LSAT out of the way. Probably just sit at home and just do test after test after test after test after....well you get the idea. Right now, Penn or Georgetown would be a dream. NYU would be even more of a dream. UCLA is probably more or less realistic though slightly on the reach side. Safeties....well, if it comes to that, I'm just going to say **** law school and find another career. Maybe go into consulting. Maybe I sound like a pretentious twat, but I'm being realistic. A degree from any law school outside the top 20 isn't going to do me any good. </p>
<p>I was planning on everything assuming I graduate a year early, so I guess technically I'll have 2 tries. Try it third year of college, if it doesn't work, get an internship and then try fourth year, and if it doesn't work then, I'm giving up. Worst case scenario I'll have turned down a job offer only to find out I got rejected from every school I applied to and then scramble to get my resume together for a job. If it works third year of college, I'll proceed to graduate that year. I found that for every plan I undertake I need to have a contingency or two.</p>
<p>Then again, I got into NYU undergrad with a 3.5 GPA and 1940 SAT, so miracles do happen.</p>
<p>my guess is that a 170 and a 3.6 would get you into a bunch of the T-14's, but I'd still concentrate on the bottom half of the list. IMO- you probably still need to score in the 98% (172 LSAT) for the top schools including NYU.<br>
Again- that shouldn't prevent anyone from applying to HYS- but you better throw some applications to Mich, UVA, Duke and a few others too.
Future at this stage of the game- get a game plan for studying for the LSAT and do as well as you can. Every point counts.
good luck.</p>
<p>i think you edited your post after my response. From what I hear, you can only study so much for the Lsat. I hear 2 to 6 months is about the right time span. And going into her fifth month of studying, my kid said ENOUGH!! She studied from August to December and took the Dec. exam</p>
<p>so if you can find a "quiet" time of year to get a few months worth of studying in- that should do the trick. Maybe May to october can work for you and then take the test in October. Anyway. I think too much studying may do more harm than good- at least that is what I hear.</p>
<p>LSAT prep does not take a year of dedicated studies. Take a prep course through testmasters or blueprint (I don't know much about the latter, but a lot of ppl around me seem to have used it) and work with PowerScore bibles. Work through old LSATs. There must be around 50 of them. Of course, the olderones will be of little use as the problems will be used in the prep courses/materials. Get a hold of a few newer ones and do them in weeks leading up to the test. If you're a relatively smart kid scoring in the low 160s, the prep courses generally should get you to the high 160s and even 170s. </p>
<p>Marny--that's definitely an impressive GPA from any school, much more so from a school like Cornell with their grade deflation. I would surmise a guess that their adcoms will look favorably on GPAs from Cornell, especially given the opportunity to breed a Cornell-Cornell pedigree and increased likelihood of consistent giving to the institution. No empirical evidence for this, you'll have to snoop around LSN for hard facts.</p>
<p>I really think that Michigan ED will probably be her best shot. It may not dominate any single market, but is most well distributed among the top schools. Although this is something that I'm actually not happy about (as I am only really interested in one market), it might fit your D's interests more if she's all about mobility. </p>
<p>And (as un-PC as this comment may be, it's the cold hard truth) with Michigan not using AA anymore (I rarely see students of color here, another one of my disappointments), its stated median of 168 is the real median, whereas at schools with AA, the "real median" for students not falling into the AA category (her direct competition, I assume) would be slightly higher.</p>
<p>futurenyustudent--also, how young are you? here's something that kids seem to miss out on. You're not getting any LSAT-smarts as you grow older, so there's really no reason to wait. Your freshmen or sophomore summer, do something low intensity-low pressure (as opposed to junior summer where you might want to take on a serious internship in case you decide to get a real job instead of law school) and prep for LSAT during then. Then just keep up through the year. The Feb test should theoretically be the easiest. June, you have all these supersmart, on-top-of-it kids taking it at the end of junior year to get a jump on things over the summer and get apps in ASAP. In October, you'll have all these seniors who crammed all summer and are probably the most prepared. In December, you'll have these seniors who crammed all summer, bombed the October one, and is gunning for that one last chance. February is probably your easiest bet.</p>
<p>My biggest regret, though not to my own fault, was my inability to take a prep course because of my job during that time. Oh well.</p>
<p>february is a "non-disclosure" test. (or something like that- I'm a mom so what do I know). But I hear some kids don't like it because they don't get any feedback as to how they did on the exam. This may be a detriment, if you need to take the lsat a second time.
I don't think mich ed is gonna do it for my kid. Trust me, she's not applying to any cold climate ED. May send in an RD appplication- but that's as far as it would go.</p>
<p>I'm a sophomore right now, but I have enough credits for junior standing. I'll have the option of graduating a year early which means basically junior year becomes my practice round (or my real round if I get into a school I like). Once I finish with law school apps which I should theoretically be done with by december, I can start worrying about internships, so the timing works out. If I'm admitted to a school that I like and can get the financing worked out I'll graduate then. Best case is my bid for law school AND an internship are both successful and then I can graduate a year early, do an internship between college and law school, and go into law school. Worst case, I try junior year and fail, I fail to get an internship, and I try senior year and also fail, and I'm scrambling for a job come graduation time, though I'm speculating that the economy will have improved by then. Upside's great, downside, as always, sucks.</p>
<p>The only reason I'm considering taking a year off to study for the LSAT is my parents are having money problems.</p>
<p>That's not how the LSAT works. You aren't competing against the kids who take it on the same test date. It is true that the same raw score can yield a different LSAT score on different dates, but the score is not dependent on how well the people who take it on the same date do vs. how you do. So, how tough the competition is should not be a factor in choosing the test date.</p>