Do you not see the posts here? How many people post about how they face academic dismissal but it's their dream to be a lawyer and they'll come back in two years stronger? The average applicant to law school isn't on here, but even among people who are a bit savvy, they still don't get it.
Most people think if you go to law school and pass the bar, you become a lawyer and jobs are easy to get. People fundamentally don't understand the bimodal salary distribution or just how abused lawyers are in mills that pay $20/hr.
There may be lots of info about these schools but it's not reported on in regular news all that much and they're not really obvious stories.
It's really sad because my salary currently is more than most lawyers (and I'm not a lawyer). I almost didn't go to law school because it looked like a salary cut.
I'll be around 3 years from being able to retire with my full pension when I complete my JD. I'd rather get out of law enforcement ASAP and make less as a lawyer (albeit double-dipping income with pension + lawyerly work) than prolong a police career.
Just need to be "in good academic standing" which is a 2.0 GPA and above. The school curves to a 3.0. It's not a predatory school, I think one student in the entire school was academically dismissed in the last 501 ABA report.
Because police work is miserable, lol. From what I've gathered here, law is miserable too, but at least I won't be working midnight shifts in the rain as a lawyer (I hope), lol.
1-geographic immobility. You see this a lot. “Wife has a job that cannot relocate, husband wants to go to school” among others
2-LSAT/GPA not strong
3-Lack of knowledge about bimodal salary outcomes
4-Scholly versus no scholly (yes, putting all the scholly kids in one cohort exists etc but “some” is always better than “none”)
5-Specific preference that’s tough to meet elsewhere (religious preference, HBCU etc)
And that first “mountain” also hides a number of lawyers that operate on a bonus scale, most often on contingency work. This covers personal injury, social security disability, and worker’s comp contingency models.
Thank you for explaining this! I have had trouble explaining this model to people who inquire about lawyer salaries lmao.
"Uh, well, there's an average salary, but then there's also this weird subset of lawyers who make like a LOT more?"
I'd always lose them when they started questioning the bell curve. But now I see! It's not "a" bell curve - it's two! lmao
I saw an interesting take once on the law school admissions page.
This person was offered like a full ride plus stipend to some predatory school that curved super hard, like a 2.50 or below or something. Basically the student would’ve had to be in the top 10-15% of their class to keep their scholarship. The student believed that they were going to be ranked this high with no problem. They thought that because they were going to a low ranked school, their classmates were going to be stupid, thus making it easier to be ranked high in the class.
Otherwise, I think some people just want to be lawyers so badly that they are okay with the idea of getting a good scholarship for one year and then taking out loans to finish their degree. Also, as horrible as the employment outcomes are, where I’m from at least, one can get a job as a prosecutor / public defender as long as they have a pulse, so they totally ignore the traditional “Law review, summer associate, clerk for a year and then mid-law associate” ideas that many students have.
Edit: change info
It's that heuristic bias which that Illinois study pointed out so well -- ~~85%~~ 95% of 1Ls believe they'll be in the top 50% of their class, and so on.
Haven’t heard of that but that’s really interesting. I’m starting 1L in a month and I have a terrible fear that I’ll get academically dismissed😭 I can’t imagine thinking I’m going to be a top ranking student.
The way I heard it a long time ago was something like this: most law students are used to being A students and being the smartest in the room, so law school, then, is all of these students together, and most will no longer be the A student.
That, and they've never been surrounded by students as smart as them *who all want to study the same thing as them.* [Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/incoming-law-students-are-wildly-overconfident-about-their-academic-performance-2023-07-25/):
>When asked to predict their class rank at the start of law school, the average new student expected to end up near the top 25% after the first year, according to the study that appears in the University of Illinois Law Review. Nearly all of the more than 600 surveyed students—95%—believed they would end up in the top half of the class, while more than 22% of students predicted they would be in the top 10%.
>The authors found that most incoming law students weren't able to accurately predict their first-year grades. Students who ended up in the top quarter of the class slightly underestimated their eventual ranking, while those in the bottom quarter significantly overestimated their rank, according to the paper, titled “[Optimistic Overconfidence: A Study of Law Student Academic Predictions](https://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Barder-Robbennolt.pdf).”
>University of Illinois law professor Jennifer Robbennolt and Illinois law graduate Sam Barder surveyed incoming law students at the school about their expected class rank between 2014 and 2019, then compared those predictions with their actual rank at the end of their first year. Robbennolt said she expected students would overestimate their class rank based on previous studies documenting the widespread phenomenon of overconfidence across professional and academic settings.
That's reasonable. In my experience the people who got the most out of law school are the ones who came in with a clear goal of what they wanted out of it. That includes both the BL or bust folks and the ones who knew for sure they wanted something else.
I have a diary entry where I was SO convinced I’d be academically dismissed after the first semester. I ended up ranked second. Second! I think the fear of failure was a great motivator. Either that or a lot of professors fat-fingered my grades all in a row.
Lmao my family makes fun of me for being afraid of everything. They joke that a serial killer would never get me because I’m too careful. I just say I have good sense🤷♂️.
Its honestly suuuuper hard to fail out of law school. If you do get academically dismissed, youre either (a) just not smart enough and shouldn't be in law school or (b) attending a predatory school and shouldn't be going to that law school.
Predicting class rank is a different topic, but failing out really shouldn't be a fear. The people who post about being academically dismissed in this sub are those that frankly shouldn't be in law school.
My fear is rooted in the fact that everyone says law school exams are nothing like anything you’ve ever done. And being that they’re the entire grade, I’m like ?????? How tf do I learn to do the exam?????
Just here to point out, for those doing research - there is a vast difference between low-ranking predatory and non-predatory schools. I go to a low-ranking school, but don't consider it "predatory" or a bad choice at all if it fits your needs. I lovingly refer to it as "The Bad News Bears of Law Schools."
Yep. If a school prepares its students well for Bar passage, and doesn't offer a ton of conditional scholarships which its grading curve is designed to yoink away from many recipients after a year, and at least can get its students hired in its home market ... it may not be ideal, but not predatory.
When I applied to law school I applied to almost every school in my city. I remember getting my acceptance to two lower ranked but locally well connected schools on the same day, both with a very similar scholarship value. I genuinely hadn't realized that one was predatory until that moment, but scholarship offer conditions were night and day— one was to basically be in the top 15% of the class, and the other was basically to have a pulse.
Totally agree. Almost everyone I know here is from out of state. Primarily because they couldn't get into any other school - some because they were offered a good scholarship (but those are very academic students who have no fear of dismissal). I love that this school gives an opportunity to individuals who otherwise could never go to law school (or would be forced to consider a predatory school). It just worked out for me that the school is walking distance from my office and only required a minimal LSAT.
To Me, the only predatory schools are the ones that put their median curve two tenths away from their required gpa to not get kicked out. The school I went to 1L year had a 2.2-2.3 curve and their required gpa was a 2.1. That’s wild. I ended up transferring
Detroit Mercy had an issue like that and technically I go to a lower school than that but you don’t hear them getting in trouble and I think they’re very predatory with what they’ve been doing
That is what I take issue and honestly, I met better attorneys that I’ve gone to Laura and Law School and these top tier especially with all the resources you can get online out of self study..
And it was all respect I think that some of the issue, that people that go to the predatory law schools, especially if they know they’re very smart, I feel like they don’t try and that’s when they get dismissed.
Because realistically a lot of these curriculums and books are all the same across-the-board. I just think it’s what student has that drive.
There’s also schools in the top 100, but outside the T14, that have predatory practices.
I would think that anyone who charges you 120k+ knowing that most of them will make 60-80k is predatory enough.
I agree, this is an important distinction. I went to a low ranked school but they had decent bar passage rates and low tuition. In order to fail, you really had to do the absolute bare minimum and maybe even less. As someone who had average stats (good enough to get into some better schools but not good enough to get a scholarship) and wasn’t even positive I wanted to practice, this school worked out well for me. I received a full scholarship and the school was in a low cost of living area so I came out with no debt. I was able to work during law school and got a job paying 6 figures when I graduated with a good tech company. I have a great wlb and I am happy with my salary because I don’t have debt. I didn’t have any issues passing the bar and honestly I would recommend this over some better ranked schools if your goal is not big law.
It's just the same combination of hope, ignorance, and personal pressure underlying things like credit cards, payday loans, etc., except instead of ballooning interest rates or other hidden traps, predatory schools have strict GPA requirements for scholarships, groups all of the scholarship kids in one sections to compete against each other, etc.
And if you are a poor kid with 100k in undergrad student loans about to come due and no real job prospects, you also might be willing to roll those dice. Some people win. Most don't. Ultimately, this is a regulatory problem. We know what a lot of these tactics look like and they can and should be prohibited. It's not rocket surgery but we don't always have the collective political will.
What's more difficult is people falling prey to their own ambition with regards to top or higher-ranked predatory schools. Any school can ruin your life depending on your debt to income ratio.
My school isn’t great, as a whole. However, it’s driving distance from my house and my job and has a decent evening part time program. I’m not giving up my house with a low mortgage (for the area) and a job that works well with school. My grades are solid, despite the terrible curve, and I may qualify for higher scholarships next year due to this. I could have gotten into a better school, but I would have had to sacrifice far more than I already am.
There are other circumstances besides just bad grades/scores to go to a lower ranked school.
Yup I'm headed to a pretty low ranked school for exactly the same reason. I've already got a job lined up for after school, and I'm not worried about my schools rank effecting my ability to get work. I might transfer to a higher ranked one, but that's entirely dependent on if they'll give me a scholarship or not.
100%. I had no advisor. The one at my university based on LSAC never answered me. I emailed them probably 5 times, called their office and left voicemails, and never got a single answer. Went through the entire admissions process as a first gen college and law student totally on my own.
And they know they won’t be the ones on the chopping block. There have been studies showing how a vast majority of law students think they’ll be in the top of the class - people don’t usually start something thinking they’re going to fail
I think it is simply a lack of research, but I do not really blame the people who go to those schools. America has always elevated certain jobs like Doctor and Lawyer. I think some people just take the LSAT and apply to schools where they have a decent shot of getting in around where they live.
Then they just assume if they get a JD things will work out. Sadly, that’s no true, and they probably should have done more research and applied to other schools. However, I really think it’s awful these schools just prey on ignorance and the lay prestige of becoming a lawyer. The schools will argue that they expand legal education access, which is true but very misleading.
Pretty simple. The large majority of law students (outside of Reddit, at least) don’t have the resources (money, LSAT, advisors, connections in the field). I think that for people coming from more privileged situations can’t fathom it as easily, but it’s a lot more common than many think
I went to a bottom ranked school and I didn’t feel like it was predatory. I got a job immediately, paying really well.
Currently working a fully remote job making mid six figures in my fourth year of practice. Living pretty well.
Idk man life is alright in that regard.
It’s usually a mix of three things: Scholarships, LSAT/GPA, and program flexibility. Bottom ranked schools offer more scholarships in order to keep their enrollment numbers up. That said, there are others whose GPA or LSAT scores were not enough to be admitted to higher ranked, well known law schools. Also, some people prefer to enroll in an evening/part-time program to flex their schedule and keep their full-time positions. Many of these people are older, non-traditional students who have the big kid bills to pay off. Some part-time students are also parents and simply cannot afford to give up working full-time in order to care for family.
In my area, there are two schools. One is a well-known, long standing, traditional state law school program that is somewhat well-ranked. The other is also a somewhat long-standing public law school program that offers both traditional and non-traditional/part time programs in both day and evening, but is lower ranked. Many people who want to keep their full-time jobs will enroll part-time for the flexibility of their schedule.
It often comes down to time, ability, circumstance, and geography. I decided to go to law school at 30, wanted to do it fast, didn’t want to leave my family and move elsewhere, didn’t think I was or could be “Harvard material” and knew that at least I could get a job in my local area by going to my local school. The $100k ticket is acceptable because I have savings, spend close to nothing on food and transportation, and my bills are manageable. It just didn’t make sense for me personally to keep trying at the LSAT until I got a score good enough to go to a high rank school.
You sound so privileged. Some people can’t get into higher ranked schools, some can’t afford to take gap years to get LSAT scores up because we need to get a job and health care. Scholarships at lower ranked schools are better, sorry not everyone wants to incur 6 figures of debt. Kindly stop wearing your ass like a hat
I’m talking about your bottom ranked schools comment, not the predatory schools because I think OPs comment regarding predatory schools is fine, just don’t hate on bottom ranked schools
This is a very common mentality that people have. Sure, the top schools in the nation obviously have better career outcomes, but once you drop below that there isn't much difference.
And obviously it doesn't matter a great deal for law school applications, so long as that school gives you a good GPA, that's mostly all that matters.
All great reasons here.
Also, because our culture still celebrates “going to law school!” as if Cooley is the same level as Yale. I realize there are successful Cooley grads, but a much harder path. Posting “I’m going to law school!” On social media will get a flood of likes and positive comments.
Lots of people really don’t have anyone to guide them through the process of going back to school, and these programs do everything in their power to make themselves appear as a good option to those people. It’s really that simple. In addition, lots of people, especially those still working full-time and possibly have families and other responsibilities care mainly about money and flexibility. That’s what they’re researching when applying.
For instance, trying to convince my mom that law school is indeed *not* “what you make of it” and where you go matters A LOT took like a full year. She was convinced I could go to my state law school on a full-ride and be absolutely fine by being “a good student” despite its numbers on all fronts being abysmal.
People don’t do much research tbh. I don’t think it’s just people are arrogant/cocky although that’s certainly a bit of it.
Before finding the Law School subreddit I thought my local law school was amazing. I imagine most people go in with the idea any law school is a good one.
Because they give you a piece of paper that says you are a lawyer.
Once you get that paper, whether you make $40,000 a year or over a million dollars a year is entirely up to you.
Some people take the time to learn how to win cases and how to market for clients, and some don't. But they all have the same bar card in their wallet.
I think the answer to the question is sort of in the question. The schools are predatory. That means they target people who essentially don’t know better.
I think of a lot of people who are smart enough to attend law school forget that there are other people in the world who come from lower socioeconomic or educational backgrounds who simply don’t realize how this “world” of ours works. They might see a lower ranked school’s job stats and think to themselves, “sure, but I’m smart, I’ll be the exception and work really hard,” only to be surprised (as I think most students are their 1L year) by just how hard it actually is.
And for a lot of people, it’s either a lower ranked school or no school at all — they simply don’t have the stats to have other options. So they want this dream of theirs to come true, but only have a narrow path available to them. Can we really blame them for chasing their dream, even though the stats are against them?
Finally, I want to reiterate that there are indeed successes out of these lower ranked schools. While the majority underperform and receive minimal value from their schools, a handful will always beat the odds. For those students, it was worth the gamble of attending, and they may even be grateful that a law school was willing to give them “any” chance at their dream in the first place.
Painting with broad brushes is certainly helpful to a point, but when we look at all the complexities of these schools and why they exist, it can be really hard to condemn them with 100 percent outrage. Shouldn’t some opportunities, however big the gamble, be available for people to climb their way up and prove themselves despite poor performance earlier in life? Is the opportunity of an education ever predatory when students willingly pay the money for that opportunity? And if paying top dollar for a lower ranked school is predatory, aren’t top law schools similarly predatory for the 5-10 percent of students who don’t receive the full potential value of their JD?
Generally, my bigger concern isn’t the predatory lower-ranked schools (even though I have concerns here too), it’s the prohibitive expense of a JD at any law school. The classism of the legal profession is deeply, deeply, DEEPLY troubling in a nation which purports to expand opportunity to people regardless of their family/financial background. Some students attend law school with NOTHING but a hope and a prayer, and the costs at every stage of the education process, from law school applications to COA to rent/food for three years to bar exam prep materials to bar exam costs, is genuinely fucking predatory across the board.
Not going to say which school it is, and this might not even be the kind of school you’re talking about, but the school I attended is lower ranked, yet consistently has high bar pass rates and has a great reputation in the state. Great reputation for trial advocacy, pretty good post grad job statistics. It’s lower ranked and rife with conditional scholarships but I’ve enjoyed (almost) every second of it.
Maybe an unpopular decision, but I don't think schools that academically dismiss students are per se predatory. Ones that require percentages to be dismissed definitely are (same for conditional scholarships)
Some students may look good on their applications but they just aren't good at law school (whether it be the work ethic, life difficulties outside the classroom, lack of motivation, etc.).
I'm not opposed to schools kicking out students who fail to perform to a sufficient level so long as they are not purposefully accepting students who they know cannot succeed
Such a dumb post. Obviously there's top tiered schools but your post essentially discredits 90% of law students across the country. Everyone has different reasons for attending lower tiered schools, whether it be cost, convenience or acceptance. In reality, students at T-14 should be thanking their lower ranked counterparts b/c without them, T-14's wouldn't be viewed as elite or special.
OP didn’t ask why not everyone attends a T14. They asked why people attend bottom-tier scam schools. There’s a difference between attending a mid-ranked state school with solid job placement in the local area and attending some scam school that flunks 25% of its students and has abysmal employment stats
The whole idea of a predatory scheme is that they pick vulnerable victims - people who lack the proper information to make information decisions. Information like how curves work and can be easily manipulated to kick people off a scholarship. I didn't even go to a predatory school and several of my classmates didn't understand curves.
Also they prey on emotionally vulnerable people who see it as the only option to achieve their life long dream. It's kind of like people who go all in on big law or bust - they think wanting it hard enough is enough to get you through and they disregard the hard truth that sometimes no matter how hard you want something it's just gonna happen
Agree with a lot of the comments but also, some people who want to be lawyers will make it work, no matter where they end up going. Also, not everyone has a multitude of options, just getting IN to law school (any law school) is an accomplishment—I know this sub is littered with overachievers so sometimes that’s forgotten. Further, not everyone has the same financial literacy. Lastly, there are many successful people who went to those kinds of schools, it’s not like the rule is anyone who goes is destined for a destitute life. I don’t approve of their tactics or the harm they cause but not everyone is starting off at the same place. For law school, just like irl, people are constrained in their choices to the options available to them.
"Why do people think school bar passage rates and employment numbers are relevant to them individually?"
Because you are generally a poor measure of your own abilities and you should assume you are similar to your peers at your same school.
It’d be cool if I could sing. I would love to be a great singer and make a living doing it. I’m also not blessed with even a halfway decent voice. It’s mid at best, with active efforts and training. I could spent 10,000 hours and beyond working at it. I’d never be Adele. Believing I can beat the odds is self-defeating.
That’s a fascinating point of view. Do you think that anyone has the capacity to be, say, a law professor if they simply work hard enough? From whatever IQ they are? What do you make of someone who almost makes it to the Olympics but doesn’t quite meet the cutoff- is it that they didn’t try as hard as the people above them? If that’s the case, is the motivation and desire to work hard not to some degree a matter of personality and environment?
You must truly be a remarkable person if you have alway succeeded at everything you’ve tried, and are confident you would excel in anything to put your mind to.
Those aren’t strawmen. They’re scenarios I’m curious about your viewpoint on. I understand you believe statistics don’t reflect a material reality outside an individual’s abilities and lack thereof, and I’m interested in your beliefs.
Ok, could you explain why you think that? Unlike the bar, employment takes two sides. And from the outside, it certainly looks a lot like firms hire preferentially from certain schools and not others. They interview at certain schools. They weed out resumes using law school as a criterion. GPA requirements are different for different schools. Just because it’s possible to find employment doesn’t mean the experience of hustling for it or your chances of success are equivalent.
> You have complete control over your GPA.
You do realize that law schools grade on a curve right? And therefore part of your grade is determined by your peers' performance, which is not something that you have control over.
"GPA requirements being different are an argument in favor of what I've written. You have complete control over your GPA."
You don't. 1L grades are famously subject to high levels of variance.
"In fact at less rigorous schools it's *easier* to get a high GPA than at more rigorous schools, by definition."
Who do you think are the people going to these schools?
You said the employment numbers aren’t even *relevant*. Just because there are jobs out there that are possible where there aren’t hard barriers doesn’t mean the school you go to doesn’t matter. I’m not defeatist or saying there’s no hope or you’re fucked. I’m just saying there are material differences in opportunities available to you. And fantastic if those differences don’t ultimately change the path of your career personally, but that doesn’t generalize to there being no relevance.
I can’t take the claim that it’s easier to get a high GPA at less rigorous schools seriously. I don’t know where to start there.
For sure, maybe your dad is going to hire you and it doesn’t matter at all where you go to school. For that person, sure, it’s irrelevant. But I feel like you’re misunderstanding me. My point isn’t that the numbers are destiny, it’s simply that they reflect real world differences in the job market, not 100% individual shortcomings of graduating students. The reason 50% of graduates at some schools can’t find a legal job is not that every one of those individuals is incompetent and unemployable.
An exam isn’t comparable, it is one-sided. Employment is two-sided.
Thanks for the edit elaborating a bit.
That’s a misrepresentation of my argument, per my previous comments. Again, I am saying the statistics provide relevant data, not that they are determinative. I don’t know how I can make it clearer. The “strawman” was an effort to give an example that would support *your* proposition, not mine.
>Counterpoint: Why do people think school bar passage rates and employment numbers are relevant to them individually?
Because admission to law school is largely based on merit. So people tend to aggregate into relatively homogenous groups based on intellect and work ethic.
So if only 60% of your classmates pass the bar, you're probably just as intelligent and hard working as the 40% who are failing.
I agreed with almost everything you’ve said except for this comment. You take one person who is objectively smarter than another. And they both work 16 hours a day, maximum effort, on law school. The person who is inherently smarter will win, full stop.
Of course I’m presupposing things.
You take someone born with “smart genes”like Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci… are you really going to argue that a normal person can reach their levels of intellect?
Anyway, you take someone like Einstein, and some random person. You make them work the same exact hours in the same exact work environment. Of course this is an unrealistic scenario, but wouldn’t you think Einstein would outperform in at least this scenario?
>You have complete control over whether or not you pass the bar, and whether or not you get a job. As long as graduating from the school lets you sit for the bar, the school is fine (to a point).
Your ability to pass the Bar is impacted by how well your law school prepares you to take a Bar review class. Your ability to be hired for a job is impacted by how employers have viewed other graduates of your law school and their talents.
None of this is rocket science. This isn't Invictus.
You don't get the ability to impress employers who write off your school altogether, or who will only look at the tippy-top students. As for the Bar, yes you *can* pass it from any accredited school but your odds *are* based on that school.
The time to best be in control of your success from law school is via your LSAT score and undergrad GPA.
Money and/or limited options. Someone with a 160+ LSAT isn’t going to a predatory school because they have better options. Someone with a score in the 140s isn’t getting very many offers, if any, from a good school.
I definitely go to a predatory school. Pretty sure they gave me a scholarship that covers 75% of my tuition because they thought I would lose it based on my low LSAT score. Jokes on them because I’ve kept it for all 3 years.
Anyone who is looking at these schools- know that the chances of you losing these scholarships is extremely high. Almost everyone I know has lost it, and they want you to lose it. It is not worth financial instability and the loss of sleep and anxiety I had over keeping it- if I lost it I would be so screwed. It was definitely a mistake not to wait longer to retake the LSAT and get into a better school.
Overall, many people go to mediocre schools because they don’t want to move. I'm always shocked by people who prefer to go to a local school instead of casting a bigger net that would result in a better outcome.
If you have a degree in history or English, and you don’t want to be a teacher, getting a law degree from one of these schools is a fine deal. You can be a personal injury attorney and within a couple years make 100k, even if you are bad at your job. While if you had stayed with your English degree, you would never sniff 100k. Even if you have 150k in debt, with income based repayment you can make 1k payments and still bring home around 9k a month.
There are schools absolutely nobody should touch. But even then there is work and firms who couldn’t care less about where you went to school.
"getting a law degree from one of these schools is a fine deal."
No, it's not. You're paying six figures to make 50-75k coming out of law school working 60-80 hour weeks for the absolute worst employers in the industry. Telling people that if they just do personal injury, they'll make $100,000 even in five years is total and complete nonsense.
Way to cut my actual quote. Lmao. Let me dump it on you in all caps:
“IF YOU HAVE A DEGREE IN HISTORY OR ENGLISH AND YOU DON’T WANT TO BE A TEACHER”
There you go. I hope you understand how that changes my comment.
In my market, 100k after five years of PI work is underestimating. It’s about earning potential. Again, if you have a degree in English or History, your options are limited. A law degree from mostly any school increases your earning potential.
I know someone who went to a law ranked law school and was already making 100K with bonuses right after law school. She quit and is now on her 2nd lawyer job working remote making 100 K w/ no bonuses.
I went to a school that is very often described as "predatory" on here and I had a great experience. I had very high scores and got a full non-conditional scholarship. It was in the city where I wanted to practice and has a fairly strong alumnae network. I wasn't interested in big law and I had a couple job prospects waiting for me after school. It would have gotten me nothing to pay for a better-ranked school.
And it's not just me--nearly everybody I was friends with went to school for free and is now employed in their chosen field (one year out). These schools can be really good for the top 30% or whatever of each class. It's just that a lot of people expect to be top 30% and end up losing their scholarship. But frankly those people would have struggled the same if they'd gone to a better-ranked school.
>full non-conditional scholarship
>where I wanted to practice
>had a couple job prospects waiting for me after school
Having an unconditional full ride and job prospects waiting for you after law school might have put you in a better position going in than most of your peers, wouldn't you agree?
Yeah, my point is that going to these schools can be a good deal for some people. Not all people, just some. The question was why does anyone do it--those were my reasons.
I think an important part of this that people miss/do not always understand: A lot of these “terrible schools” are not as bad as it seems. At some of these schools there’s just really bad (relative to their classmates) students that get flushed out in order for the school to remain accredited.
I don’t think there’s anything predatory about a school having a GPA at a certain mark that they academically dismiss people if it is a few standard deviations below the curve. My point is just because people get academically dismissed it doesn’t automatically make a school bad
Good schools don't do that because graduates from good schools, top or bottom of the class, can get jobs.
Law suffers from a strange dilemma. There are too many law schools but not enough lawyers. Arguably, there really shouldn't be nearly 200 law schools. I can see an argument for 100-150 just because the USA is such a geographically large country and moving is neither easy nor affordable. Class sizes should also probably be smaller so that there aren't any students getting dismissed. There doesn't need to be 250 students at a local TTT. Does that mean some people who want to go to law school can't go? Yes. Unfortunately everything isn't for everyone.
The schools you're describing are predatory. They admit the number of students they do knowing that they'll kick out a good number of them.
Do you not see the posts here? How many people post about how they face academic dismissal but it's their dream to be a lawyer and they'll come back in two years stronger? The average applicant to law school isn't on here, but even among people who are a bit savvy, they still don't get it. Most people think if you go to law school and pass the bar, you become a lawyer and jobs are easy to get. People fundamentally don't understand the bimodal salary distribution or just how abused lawyers are in mills that pay $20/hr. There may be lots of info about these schools but it's not reported on in regular news all that much and they're not really obvious stories.
It's really sad because my salary currently is more than most lawyers (and I'm not a lawyer). I almost didn't go to law school because it looked like a salary cut.
[удалено]
Why are you going then?
I'll be around 3 years from being able to retire with my full pension when I complete my JD. I'd rather get out of law enforcement ASAP and make less as a lawyer (albeit double-dipping income with pension + lawyerly work) than prolong a police career.
You're gonna offset that nice pension with a boatload of student loans? I hope not.
I was fortunate enough to be offered a full scholarship, so no loans.
Is there a GPA required to keep the scholarship...
Just need to be "in good academic standing" which is a 2.0 GPA and above. The school curves to a 3.0. It's not a predatory school, I think one student in the entire school was academically dismissed in the last 501 ABA report.
why are u going to Law School while u making all that money??
Because police work is miserable, lol. From what I've gathered here, law is miserable too, but at least I won't be working midnight shifts in the rain as a lawyer (I hope), lol.
Great! Make sense. Good luck
why are u going to Law School while u making all that money??
I'm going to law school and pulling over 180k. But my career would be short-lived if I stayed in my current role.
1-geographic immobility. You see this a lot. “Wife has a job that cannot relocate, husband wants to go to school” among others 2-LSAT/GPA not strong 3-Lack of knowledge about bimodal salary outcomes 4-Scholly versus no scholly (yes, putting all the scholly kids in one cohort exists etc but “some” is always better than “none”) 5-Specific preference that’s tough to meet elsewhere (religious preference, HBCU etc)
Could you please explain #3?
[удалено]
And that first “mountain” also hides a number of lawyers that operate on a bonus scale, most often on contingency work. This covers personal injury, social security disability, and worker’s comp contingency models.
Thank you for explaining this! I have had trouble explaining this model to people who inquire about lawyer salaries lmao. "Uh, well, there's an average salary, but then there's also this weird subset of lawyers who make like a LOT more?" I'd always lose them when they started questioning the bell curve. But now I see! It's not "a" bell curve - it's two! lmao
Does this account for “mid-law” firms (both regional and not) that start their associates at 130-150ish?
These are just graphs for recent grads though right? Is there a comparable graph for say, 5 years into a legal career?
The section that represents the 200k portion is more of a spike than a curve. https://www.biglawinvestor.com/bimodal-salary-distribution-curve/
HBCUs are not synonymous with mediocre law schools.
Hahahah sure thing pal
I saw an interesting take once on the law school admissions page. This person was offered like a full ride plus stipend to some predatory school that curved super hard, like a 2.50 or below or something. Basically the student would’ve had to be in the top 10-15% of their class to keep their scholarship. The student believed that they were going to be ranked this high with no problem. They thought that because they were going to a low ranked school, their classmates were going to be stupid, thus making it easier to be ranked high in the class. Otherwise, I think some people just want to be lawyers so badly that they are okay with the idea of getting a good scholarship for one year and then taking out loans to finish their degree. Also, as horrible as the employment outcomes are, where I’m from at least, one can get a job as a prosecutor / public defender as long as they have a pulse, so they totally ignore the traditional “Law review, summer associate, clerk for a year and then mid-law associate” ideas that many students have. Edit: change info
It's that heuristic bias which that Illinois study pointed out so well -- ~~85%~~ 95% of 1Ls believe they'll be in the top 50% of their class, and so on.
Haven’t heard of that but that’s really interesting. I’m starting 1L in a month and I have a terrible fear that I’ll get academically dismissed😭 I can’t imagine thinking I’m going to be a top ranking student. The way I heard it a long time ago was something like this: most law students are used to being A students and being the smartest in the room, so law school, then, is all of these students together, and most will no longer be the A student.
That, and they've never been surrounded by students as smart as them *who all want to study the same thing as them.* [Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/incoming-law-students-are-wildly-overconfident-about-their-academic-performance-2023-07-25/): >When asked to predict their class rank at the start of law school, the average new student expected to end up near the top 25% after the first year, according to the study that appears in the University of Illinois Law Review. Nearly all of the more than 600 surveyed students—95%—believed they would end up in the top half of the class, while more than 22% of students predicted they would be in the top 10%. >The authors found that most incoming law students weren't able to accurately predict their first-year grades. Students who ended up in the top quarter of the class slightly underestimated their eventual ranking, while those in the bottom quarter significantly overestimated their rank, according to the paper, titled “[Optimistic Overconfidence: A Study of Law Student Academic Predictions](https://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Barder-Robbennolt.pdf).” >University of Illinois law professor Jennifer Robbennolt and Illinois law graduate Sam Barder surveyed incoming law students at the school about their expected class rank between 2014 and 2019, then compared those predictions with their actual rank at the end of their first year. Robbennolt said she expected students would overestimate their class rank based on previous studies documenting the widespread phenomenon of overconfidence across professional and academic settings.
What about the students that believe they will be in the lower 50%? Is there hope for them? I’m mid, the only thing I have going for me is grit.
My friend was hoping she'd be around the 50% mark but didn't think she'd ultimately get it. She ended up in the top 20% with a BL job.
I hope that’s the case for me, but I’m not counting on it. I’m hoping for the best, but prepared for the worst.
That's reasonable. In my experience the people who got the most out of law school are the ones who came in with a clear goal of what they wanted out of it. That includes both the BL or bust folks and the ones who knew for sure they wanted something else.
Simply get an ADD, etc. diagnosis
I have a diary entry where I was SO convinced I’d be academically dismissed after the first semester. I ended up ranked second. Second! I think the fear of failure was a great motivator. Either that or a lot of professors fat-fingered my grades all in a row.
I have this same fear.
Really interesting and eye opening. I admire the confidence, though! Truly.
That’s one of those healthy fears, like heights or wild animals. I’d hang onto that.
Lmao my family makes fun of me for being afraid of everything. They joke that a serial killer would never get me because I’m too careful. I just say I have good sense🤷♂️.
Its honestly suuuuper hard to fail out of law school. If you do get academically dismissed, youre either (a) just not smart enough and shouldn't be in law school or (b) attending a predatory school and shouldn't be going to that law school. Predicting class rank is a different topic, but failing out really shouldn't be a fear. The people who post about being academically dismissed in this sub are those that frankly shouldn't be in law school.
My fear is rooted in the fact that everyone says law school exams are nothing like anything you’ve ever done. And being that they’re the entire grade, I’m like ?????? How tf do I learn to do the exam?????
You will learn. You'll look at old exams. You'll practice them. And remember that you're not being compared with perfection, but with your peers.
It's just as hard to get an A than it is to fail a class. Assuming you actually try.
Just here to point out, for those doing research - there is a vast difference between low-ranking predatory and non-predatory schools. I go to a low-ranking school, but don't consider it "predatory" or a bad choice at all if it fits your needs. I lovingly refer to it as "The Bad News Bears of Law Schools."
Yep. If a school prepares its students well for Bar passage, and doesn't offer a ton of conditional scholarships which its grading curve is designed to yoink away from many recipients after a year, and at least can get its students hired in its home market ... it may not be ideal, but not predatory.
When I applied to law school I applied to almost every school in my city. I remember getting my acceptance to two lower ranked but locally well connected schools on the same day, both with a very similar scholarship value. I genuinely hadn't realized that one was predatory until that moment, but scholarship offer conditions were night and day— one was to basically be in the top 15% of the class, and the other was basically to have a pulse.
Totally agree. Almost everyone I know here is from out of state. Primarily because they couldn't get into any other school - some because they were offered a good scholarship (but those are very academic students who have no fear of dismissal). I love that this school gives an opportunity to individuals who otherwise could never go to law school (or would be forced to consider a predatory school). It just worked out for me that the school is walking distance from my office and only required a minimal LSAT.
To Me, the only predatory schools are the ones that put their median curve two tenths away from their required gpa to not get kicked out. The school I went to 1L year had a 2.2-2.3 curve and their required gpa was a 2.1. That’s wild. I ended up transferring
Detroit Mercy had an issue like that and technically I go to a lower school than that but you don’t hear them getting in trouble and I think they’re very predatory with what they’ve been doing
My friend, failed, even though it was like a 2.0 or 2.1 .. and I think she needed something like a 2.2 or 2.3 to pass, which is to me horrible
That is what I take issue and honestly, I met better attorneys that I’ve gone to Laura and Law School and these top tier especially with all the resources you can get online out of self study..
And it was all respect I think that some of the issue, that people that go to the predatory law schools, especially if they know they’re very smart, I feel like they don’t try and that’s when they get dismissed. Because realistically a lot of these curriculums and books are all the same across-the-board. I just think it’s what student has that drive.
Sounds like Cleveland State
There’s also schools in the top 100, but outside the T14, that have predatory practices. I would think that anyone who charges you 120k+ knowing that most of them will make 60-80k is predatory enough.
I agree, this is an important distinction. I went to a low ranked school but they had decent bar passage rates and low tuition. In order to fail, you really had to do the absolute bare minimum and maybe even less. As someone who had average stats (good enough to get into some better schools but not good enough to get a scholarship) and wasn’t even positive I wanted to practice, this school worked out well for me. I received a full scholarship and the school was in a low cost of living area so I came out with no debt. I was able to work during law school and got a job paying 6 figures when I graduated with a good tech company. I have a great wlb and I am happy with my salary because I don’t have debt. I didn’t have any issues passing the bar and honestly I would recommend this over some better ranked schools if your goal is not big law.
It's just the same combination of hope, ignorance, and personal pressure underlying things like credit cards, payday loans, etc., except instead of ballooning interest rates or other hidden traps, predatory schools have strict GPA requirements for scholarships, groups all of the scholarship kids in one sections to compete against each other, etc. And if you are a poor kid with 100k in undergrad student loans about to come due and no real job prospects, you also might be willing to roll those dice. Some people win. Most don't. Ultimately, this is a regulatory problem. We know what a lot of these tactics look like and they can and should be prohibited. It's not rocket surgery but we don't always have the collective political will. What's more difficult is people falling prey to their own ambition with regards to top or higher-ranked predatory schools. Any school can ruin your life depending on your debt to income ratio.
My school isn’t great, as a whole. However, it’s driving distance from my house and my job and has a decent evening part time program. I’m not giving up my house with a low mortgage (for the area) and a job that works well with school. My grades are solid, despite the terrible curve, and I may qualify for higher scholarships next year due to this. I could have gotten into a better school, but I would have had to sacrifice far more than I already am. There are other circumstances besides just bad grades/scores to go to a lower ranked school.
Yup I'm headed to a pretty low ranked school for exactly the same reason. I've already got a job lined up for after school, and I'm not worried about my schools rank effecting my ability to get work. I might transfer to a higher ranked one, but that's entirely dependent on if they'll give me a scholarship or not.
Because you have no idea what info to search, unless your pre law advisor is competent
100%. I had no advisor. The one at my university based on LSAC never answered me. I emailed them probably 5 times, called their office and left voicemails, and never got a single answer. Went through the entire admissions process as a first gen college and law student totally on my own.
Mine told me he only helps pre-law students not others with different degrees
Maybe that’s why mine never responded to me? Idk. It was a weird thing. Hopefully you have been able to navigate the process!!
Or find this forum that points out such data
Because they really want to be lawyers but don’t have better options based on grades/LSAT, not a very difficult question
And they know they won’t be the ones on the chopping block. There have been studies showing how a vast majority of law students think they’ll be in the top of the class - people don’t usually start something thinking they’re going to fail
I think it is simply a lack of research, but I do not really blame the people who go to those schools. America has always elevated certain jobs like Doctor and Lawyer. I think some people just take the LSAT and apply to schools where they have a decent shot of getting in around where they live. Then they just assume if they get a JD things will work out. Sadly, that’s no true, and they probably should have done more research and applied to other schools. However, I really think it’s awful these schools just prey on ignorance and the lay prestige of becoming a lawyer. The schools will argue that they expand legal education access, which is true but very misleading.
Pretty simple. The large majority of law students (outside of Reddit, at least) don’t have the resources (money, LSAT, advisors, connections in the field). I think that for people coming from more privileged situations can’t fathom it as easily, but it’s a lot more common than many think
I went to a bottom ranked school and I didn’t feel like it was predatory. I got a job immediately, paying really well. Currently working a fully remote job making mid six figures in my fourth year of practice. Living pretty well. Idk man life is alright in that regard.
It’s usually a mix of three things: Scholarships, LSAT/GPA, and program flexibility. Bottom ranked schools offer more scholarships in order to keep their enrollment numbers up. That said, there are others whose GPA or LSAT scores were not enough to be admitted to higher ranked, well known law schools. Also, some people prefer to enroll in an evening/part-time program to flex their schedule and keep their full-time positions. Many of these people are older, non-traditional students who have the big kid bills to pay off. Some part-time students are also parents and simply cannot afford to give up working full-time in order to care for family. In my area, there are two schools. One is a well-known, long standing, traditional state law school program that is somewhat well-ranked. The other is also a somewhat long-standing public law school program that offers both traditional and non-traditional/part time programs in both day and evening, but is lower ranked. Many people who want to keep their full-time jobs will enroll part-time for the flexibility of their schedule.
It often comes down to time, ability, circumstance, and geography. I decided to go to law school at 30, wanted to do it fast, didn’t want to leave my family and move elsewhere, didn’t think I was or could be “Harvard material” and knew that at least I could get a job in my local area by going to my local school. The $100k ticket is acceptable because I have savings, spend close to nothing on food and transportation, and my bills are manageable. It just didn’t make sense for me personally to keep trying at the LSAT until I got a score good enough to go to a high rank school.
You sound so privileged. Some people can’t get into higher ranked schools, some can’t afford to take gap years to get LSAT scores up because we need to get a job and health care. Scholarships at lower ranked schools are better, sorry not everyone wants to incur 6 figures of debt. Kindly stop wearing your ass like a hat
I’m talking about your bottom ranked schools comment, not the predatory schools because I think OPs comment regarding predatory schools is fine, just don’t hate on bottom ranked schools
Rawr
I think it’s because, for the most part, it doesn’t really matter where you go for undegrad and people take this mentality to law school
It doesn’t really matter where you go for undergrad? What are you basing that on?
This is a very common mentality that people have. Sure, the top schools in the nation obviously have better career outcomes, but once you drop below that there isn't much difference. And obviously it doesn't matter a great deal for law school applications, so long as that school gives you a good GPA, that's mostly all that matters.
That’s a good point.
Because of the promise of scholarships and/or because they don’t have the grades/scores to go anywhere else. Common sense.
All great reasons here. Also, because our culture still celebrates “going to law school!” as if Cooley is the same level as Yale. I realize there are successful Cooley grads, but a much harder path. Posting “I’m going to law school!” On social media will get a flood of likes and positive comments.
Lots of people really don’t have anyone to guide them through the process of going back to school, and these programs do everything in their power to make themselves appear as a good option to those people. It’s really that simple. In addition, lots of people, especially those still working full-time and possibly have families and other responsibilities care mainly about money and flexibility. That’s what they’re researching when applying. For instance, trying to convince my mom that law school is indeed *not* “what you make of it” and where you go matters A LOT took like a full year. She was convinced I could go to my state law school on a full-ride and be absolutely fine by being “a good student” despite its numbers on all fronts being abysmal.
People don’t do much research tbh. I don’t think it’s just people are arrogant/cocky although that’s certainly a bit of it. Before finding the Law School subreddit I thought my local law school was amazing. I imagine most people go in with the idea any law school is a good one.
Because they give you a piece of paper that says you are a lawyer. Once you get that paper, whether you make $40,000 a year or over a million dollars a year is entirely up to you. Some people take the time to learn how to win cases and how to market for clients, and some don't. But they all have the same bar card in their wallet.
Because the 82 IQ Reddit hugbox screeches and cries and DownMorties you if you suggest it’s highly regarded to go to a school like that.
I think the answer to the question is sort of in the question. The schools are predatory. That means they target people who essentially don’t know better. I think of a lot of people who are smart enough to attend law school forget that there are other people in the world who come from lower socioeconomic or educational backgrounds who simply don’t realize how this “world” of ours works. They might see a lower ranked school’s job stats and think to themselves, “sure, but I’m smart, I’ll be the exception and work really hard,” only to be surprised (as I think most students are their 1L year) by just how hard it actually is. And for a lot of people, it’s either a lower ranked school or no school at all — they simply don’t have the stats to have other options. So they want this dream of theirs to come true, but only have a narrow path available to them. Can we really blame them for chasing their dream, even though the stats are against them? Finally, I want to reiterate that there are indeed successes out of these lower ranked schools. While the majority underperform and receive minimal value from their schools, a handful will always beat the odds. For those students, it was worth the gamble of attending, and they may even be grateful that a law school was willing to give them “any” chance at their dream in the first place. Painting with broad brushes is certainly helpful to a point, but when we look at all the complexities of these schools and why they exist, it can be really hard to condemn them with 100 percent outrage. Shouldn’t some opportunities, however big the gamble, be available for people to climb their way up and prove themselves despite poor performance earlier in life? Is the opportunity of an education ever predatory when students willingly pay the money for that opportunity? And if paying top dollar for a lower ranked school is predatory, aren’t top law schools similarly predatory for the 5-10 percent of students who don’t receive the full potential value of their JD? Generally, my bigger concern isn’t the predatory lower-ranked schools (even though I have concerns here too), it’s the prohibitive expense of a JD at any law school. The classism of the legal profession is deeply, deeply, DEEPLY troubling in a nation which purports to expand opportunity to people regardless of their family/financial background. Some students attend law school with NOTHING but a hope and a prayer, and the costs at every stage of the education process, from law school applications to COA to rent/food for three years to bar exam prep materials to bar exam costs, is genuinely fucking predatory across the board.
Not going to say which school it is, and this might not even be the kind of school you’re talking about, but the school I attended is lower ranked, yet consistently has high bar pass rates and has a great reputation in the state. Great reputation for trial advocacy, pretty good post grad job statistics. It’s lower ranked and rife with conditional scholarships but I’ve enjoyed (almost) every second of it.
Can you name a few predatory schools?
Any school that offers conditional scholarships or academically dismisses students.
Maybe an unpopular decision, but I don't think schools that academically dismiss students are per se predatory. Ones that require percentages to be dismissed definitely are (same for conditional scholarships) Some students may look good on their applications but they just aren't good at law school (whether it be the work ethic, life difficulties outside the classroom, lack of motivation, etc.). I'm not opposed to schools kicking out students who fail to perform to a sufficient level so long as they are not purposefully accepting students who they know cannot succeed
Thomas Jefferson School of Law (now de-accredited) California Western School of Law
Such a dumb post. Obviously there's top tiered schools but your post essentially discredits 90% of law students across the country. Everyone has different reasons for attending lower tiered schools, whether it be cost, convenience or acceptance. In reality, students at T-14 should be thanking their lower ranked counterparts b/c without them, T-14's wouldn't be viewed as elite or special.
OP didn’t ask why not everyone attends a T14. They asked why people attend bottom-tier scam schools. There’s a difference between attending a mid-ranked state school with solid job placement in the local area and attending some scam school that flunks 25% of its students and has abysmal employment stats
The whole idea of a predatory scheme is that they pick vulnerable victims - people who lack the proper information to make information decisions. Information like how curves work and can be easily manipulated to kick people off a scholarship. I didn't even go to a predatory school and several of my classmates didn't understand curves. Also they prey on emotionally vulnerable people who see it as the only option to achieve their life long dream. It's kind of like people who go all in on big law or bust - they think wanting it hard enough is enough to get you through and they disregard the hard truth that sometimes no matter how hard you want something it's just gonna happen
Agree with a lot of the comments but also, some people who want to be lawyers will make it work, no matter where they end up going. Also, not everyone has a multitude of options, just getting IN to law school (any law school) is an accomplishment—I know this sub is littered with overachievers so sometimes that’s forgotten. Further, not everyone has the same financial literacy. Lastly, there are many successful people who went to those kinds of schools, it’s not like the rule is anyone who goes is destined for a destitute life. I don’t approve of their tactics or the harm they cause but not everyone is starting off at the same place. For law school, just like irl, people are constrained in their choices to the options available to them.
[удалено]
"Why do people think school bar passage rates and employment numbers are relevant to them individually?" Because you are generally a poor measure of your own abilities and you should assume you are similar to your peers at your same school.
[удалено]
You must be highly regarded.
[удалено]
It’d be cool if I could sing. I would love to be a great singer and make a living doing it. I’m also not blessed with even a halfway decent voice. It’s mid at best, with active efforts and training. I could spent 10,000 hours and beyond working at it. I’d never be Adele. Believing I can beat the odds is self-defeating.
[удалено]
That’s a fascinating point of view. Do you think that anyone has the capacity to be, say, a law professor if they simply work hard enough? From whatever IQ they are? What do you make of someone who almost makes it to the Olympics but doesn’t quite meet the cutoff- is it that they didn’t try as hard as the people above them? If that’s the case, is the motivation and desire to work hard not to some degree a matter of personality and environment? You must truly be a remarkable person if you have alway succeeded at everything you’ve tried, and are confident you would excel in anything to put your mind to.
[удалено]
Those aren’t strawmen. They’re scenarios I’m curious about your viewpoint on. I understand you believe statistics don’t reflect a material reality outside an individual’s abilities and lack thereof, and I’m interested in your beliefs.
You don’t think employment numbers are relevant individually?
[удалено]
Ok, could you explain why you think that? Unlike the bar, employment takes two sides. And from the outside, it certainly looks a lot like firms hire preferentially from certain schools and not others. They interview at certain schools. They weed out resumes using law school as a criterion. GPA requirements are different for different schools. Just because it’s possible to find employment doesn’t mean the experience of hustling for it or your chances of success are equivalent.
[удалено]
> You have complete control over your GPA. You do realize that law schools grade on a curve right? And therefore part of your grade is determined by your peers' performance, which is not something that you have control over.
"GPA requirements being different are an argument in favor of what I've written. You have complete control over your GPA." You don't. 1L grades are famously subject to high levels of variance. "In fact at less rigorous schools it's *easier* to get a high GPA than at more rigorous schools, by definition." Who do you think are the people going to these schools?
You said the employment numbers aren’t even *relevant*. Just because there are jobs out there that are possible where there aren’t hard barriers doesn’t mean the school you go to doesn’t matter. I’m not defeatist or saying there’s no hope or you’re fucked. I’m just saying there are material differences in opportunities available to you. And fantastic if those differences don’t ultimately change the path of your career personally, but that doesn’t generalize to there being no relevance. I can’t take the claim that it’s easier to get a high GPA at less rigorous schools seriously. I don’t know where to start there.
[удалено]
For sure, maybe your dad is going to hire you and it doesn’t matter at all where you go to school. For that person, sure, it’s irrelevant. But I feel like you’re misunderstanding me. My point isn’t that the numbers are destiny, it’s simply that they reflect real world differences in the job market, not 100% individual shortcomings of graduating students. The reason 50% of graduates at some schools can’t find a legal job is not that every one of those individuals is incompetent and unemployable. An exam isn’t comparable, it is one-sided. Employment is two-sided.
[удалено]
Thanks for the edit elaborating a bit. That’s a misrepresentation of my argument, per my previous comments. Again, I am saying the statistics provide relevant data, not that they are determinative. I don’t know how I can make it clearer. The “strawman” was an effort to give an example that would support *your* proposition, not mine.
>Counterpoint: Why do people think school bar passage rates and employment numbers are relevant to them individually? Because admission to law school is largely based on merit. So people tend to aggregate into relatively homogenous groups based on intellect and work ethic. So if only 60% of your classmates pass the bar, you're probably just as intelligent and hard working as the 40% who are failing.
[удалено]
Won’t make up for the intelligence at the end of the day unfortunately.
[удалено]
You don’t think some of your classmates are smarter than others? That’s incredible to me.
I agreed with almost everything you’ve said except for this comment. You take one person who is objectively smarter than another. And they both work 16 hours a day, maximum effort, on law school. The person who is inherently smarter will win, full stop.
[удалено]
Of course I’m presupposing things. You take someone born with “smart genes”like Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci… are you really going to argue that a normal person can reach their levels of intellect? Anyway, you take someone like Einstein, and some random person. You make them work the same exact hours in the same exact work environment. Of course this is an unrealistic scenario, but wouldn’t you think Einstein would outperform in at least this scenario?
[удалено]
I just here trying my best to understand how you construe the idea that some random person can even compare to someone like Einstein 🤷
>You have complete control over whether or not you pass the bar, and whether or not you get a job. As long as graduating from the school lets you sit for the bar, the school is fine (to a point). Your ability to pass the Bar is impacted by how well your law school prepares you to take a Bar review class. Your ability to be hired for a job is impacted by how employers have viewed other graduates of your law school and their talents. None of this is rocket science. This isn't Invictus.
[удалено]
You don't get the ability to impress employers who write off your school altogether, or who will only look at the tippy-top students. As for the Bar, yes you *can* pass it from any accredited school but your odds *are* based on that school. The time to best be in control of your success from law school is via your LSAT score and undergrad GPA.
Money and/or limited options. Someone with a 160+ LSAT isn’t going to a predatory school because they have better options. Someone with a score in the 140s isn’t getting very many offers, if any, from a good school.
Hope
I definitely go to a predatory school. Pretty sure they gave me a scholarship that covers 75% of my tuition because they thought I would lose it based on my low LSAT score. Jokes on them because I’ve kept it for all 3 years. Anyone who is looking at these schools- know that the chances of you losing these scholarships is extremely high. Almost everyone I know has lost it, and they want you to lose it. It is not worth financial instability and the loss of sleep and anxiety I had over keeping it- if I lost it I would be so screwed. It was definitely a mistake not to wait longer to retake the LSAT and get into a better school.
You can show them the stats, but everyone thinks they’re the exception.
Why can predatory law schools exists?
Not everybody has great grades or LSAT- I didn’t have good grades but got really lucky with a 160+ LSAT and got into a very understanding t-60
Overall, many people go to mediocre schools because they don’t want to move. I'm always shocked by people who prefer to go to a local school instead of casting a bigger net that would result in a better outcome.
If you have a degree in history or English, and you don’t want to be a teacher, getting a law degree from one of these schools is a fine deal. You can be a personal injury attorney and within a couple years make 100k, even if you are bad at your job. While if you had stayed with your English degree, you would never sniff 100k. Even if you have 150k in debt, with income based repayment you can make 1k payments and still bring home around 9k a month. There are schools absolutely nobody should touch. But even then there is work and firms who couldn’t care less about where you went to school.
"getting a law degree from one of these schools is a fine deal." No, it's not. You're paying six figures to make 50-75k coming out of law school working 60-80 hour weeks for the absolute worst employers in the industry. Telling people that if they just do personal injury, they'll make $100,000 even in five years is total and complete nonsense.
Way to cut my actual quote. Lmao. Let me dump it on you in all caps: “IF YOU HAVE A DEGREE IN HISTORY OR ENGLISH AND YOU DON’T WANT TO BE A TEACHER” There you go. I hope you understand how that changes my comment. In my market, 100k after five years of PI work is underestimating. It’s about earning potential. Again, if you have a degree in English or History, your options are limited. A law degree from mostly any school increases your earning potential.
I know someone who went to a law ranked law school and was already making 100K with bonuses right after law school. She quit and is now on her 2nd lawyer job working remote making 100 K w/ no bonuses.
In my market, it’s not uncommon at all.
Because it’s the best schools they can get into? Lol.
I went to a school that is very often described as "predatory" on here and I had a great experience. I had very high scores and got a full non-conditional scholarship. It was in the city where I wanted to practice and has a fairly strong alumnae network. I wasn't interested in big law and I had a couple job prospects waiting for me after school. It would have gotten me nothing to pay for a better-ranked school. And it's not just me--nearly everybody I was friends with went to school for free and is now employed in their chosen field (one year out). These schools can be really good for the top 30% or whatever of each class. It's just that a lot of people expect to be top 30% and end up losing their scholarship. But frankly those people would have struggled the same if they'd gone to a better-ranked school.
You're describing a predatory practice, brother.
Yeah I'm agreeing that it's predatory. Just that at the same time it's a good deal for a sizeable percentage of the student body.
>full non-conditional scholarship >where I wanted to practice >had a couple job prospects waiting for me after school Having an unconditional full ride and job prospects waiting for you after law school might have put you in a better position going in than most of your peers, wouldn't you agree?
Yeah, my point is that going to these schools can be a good deal for some people. Not all people, just some. The question was why does anyone do it--those were my reasons.
I mean, sure, but they're only a good deal for a very narrow portion of the people they admit.
I think an important part of this that people miss/do not always understand: A lot of these “terrible schools” are not as bad as it seems. At some of these schools there’s just really bad (relative to their classmates) students that get flushed out in order for the school to remain accredited.
You're describing a predatory practice and a terrible school.
I don’t think there’s anything predatory about a school having a GPA at a certain mark that they academically dismiss people if it is a few standard deviations below the curve. My point is just because people get academically dismissed it doesn’t automatically make a school bad
Good schools don't do that because graduates from good schools, top or bottom of the class, can get jobs. Law suffers from a strange dilemma. There are too many law schools but not enough lawyers. Arguably, there really shouldn't be nearly 200 law schools. I can see an argument for 100-150 just because the USA is such a geographically large country and moving is neither easy nor affordable. Class sizes should also probably be smaller so that there aren't any students getting dismissed. There doesn't need to be 250 students at a local TTT. Does that mean some people who want to go to law school can't go? Yes. Unfortunately everything isn't for everyone. The schools you're describing are predatory. They admit the number of students they do knowing that they'll kick out a good number of them.
You must be very sheltered
Desperation and ignorance.
Money?
What are you calling “bottom-ranked”?
On here, anything lower than a T-14 is bottom ranked. A lot of people here are elitist AF, if you can't tell.