Is Law School a Ponzi Scheme?

Call the Plumber: Seton Hall University School of Law

Due to popular demand, TTR shines the bathroom light on the Seton Hall Sewer of Law and its Valvoline Dean/Athletic Director/butt pirate, Pat Hobbs.

Tuition: For a full-time student entering this commode in Fall 2009, tuition was $21,000 per semester! Surely a stellar “legal education” from this prominent school is well worth $42K in tuition per year, right?! For part-time students, tuition is a mere $15,825 per semester. For $ome rea$on, the school does not provide an estimated cost on housing and living expenses. A mere oversight, I'm sure.

Ranking: The school is currently ranked - by US News & World Report - as the 77th most prestigious, amazing, phenomenal, and wonderful law school in the United States. It happens to share this sacred honor with 7 other toilets of law.

http://thirdtierreality.blogspot.com/2010/04/call-plumber-seton-hall-university.html

ouch, and the hits keep on comming:

Grads taking law schools to task for poor job market

Law schools, once viewed as a guaranteed path to a high-paying career, are coming under fire as disillusioned graduates find a tighter job market than they say they were led to expect.
A small but growing coalition of graduates, on blogs with names like "Scammed Hard" and "Shilling Me Softly," blame their alma maters for luring them into expensive programs by overstating their employment prospects.

One recent grad even went on a hunger strike on Aug. 5. "We have a new crop starting, and no one's telling them anything about this," says Zenovia Evans, 28, of Denver, who uses the name "Ethan Haines" on her blog, UnemployedJD.com.

Ohio University economist Richard Vedder says the question goes beyond law. "We are entering the age of the overeducated American, the person with college degrees who cuts hair, trims trees, drives trucks," he says.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-08-24-1Alawschool24_ST_N.htm

I think maybe you and the person quoted in the article don't know what Ponzi schemes are. It's unsurprising to me that someone who can't correctly characterize the type of fraud that was supposedly perpetrated upon him should be unable to find employment as a lawyer. In general, it seems like Mr. Bullock isn't capable of doing basic background research since he also ended up paying a lot of money for what he now believes to be a crappy law school. Given a chart like this:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/rankings.html

it seems like this shouldn't have been too hard to figure out in advance.

Not everyone has the stats to get into a T14.

Mr. Bullock's name is ... Bullock! And he expected a job in an industry that's known for truth and honesty?

Although I'd agree that the law is overly hierarchical when it comes to pedigree and prospects, isn't it also possible that the top law schools are selecting for many of the same qualities that employers will look for?

Regardless, assuming you don't have the stats to get into a top law school, it's still your job to do some due diligence and make sure the expenditure of time and money is going to prove to be worthwhile. Of course the law school tells you it's going to pay off! To bring this on topic, real estate agents are constantly telling people that it's worthwhile to buy a particular property, but only a fool simply takes them at their word--a reasonable buyer is going to engage in some due diligence to make sure the claims are reasonable, because it's not particularly productive to blame the agent after the fact if it turns out you didn't get a good deal.

What happens is that they all think they'll be the exception - the top of their class who will break into big law. They'll rationalize away the low stats: LSAT "I don't test well", Low Grades "I partied too much in college, but I'll be dedicated in law school", etc.

Having that debt is such an albatross.

uhm duhh, so are property taxes and marriage..

one funds another's excessive lifetime pension while the other funds another's excessive lifetime tension.

since WHEN did a lowyer have meager job prospects. He can sue the school he went to for a start. represent himself.

And WHAT exactly makes the Harvards so great? the students entering those schools can read maybe 100 terse pages of material a night, 700 a week, week in week out. but so what? the world aint gettin better despite them! and what do they "absorb"? and how much is connections? stop calling schools toilets. most everyone is SELF taught eventually. no matter what.

For the purpose of this discussion, Harvard is great and Seton Hall is not because people that graduate from Harvard are more likely to get jobs when they graduate.

"isn't it also possible that the top law schools are selecting for many of the same qualities that employers will look for"

No, employers are selecting for the name of the school written on the degree, regardless of skills. You're obviously not familiar with the legal hiring process.

2/3 of law schools should be shut down. Young people should try to be entrepreneurs, not paper pushers.

Law schools are just higher class versions of trade school. And they have the same problem which has pervaded our country - well intentioned but naive students take on loads of gov't subsidized debt which they aren't able to pay off adequately when the jobs they were told of aren't there.

The issues is these kids know when looking at a law school what kind of job they can get when they walk through the door, whether they are at the top of the class or at the bottom. My cousin is going to Hofstra and is a third year and knows that no big firm will look at her even though she is at the top of her class.

It is such a cop out to try and blame the school for overpromising. I highly doubt that the people complaining were at the top of their class. There is no argument that starting salaries vary and that the environment that used to say a legal profession was secure has now been proven false as all of the top law firms laid off many lawyers.

The issue is that the same could be said for any type of school not just law schools. An MBA now is even overated and won't get you the huge pay increase that was expected years ago.

When an individual goes to a tier 2 or tier 3 law school they know what they are doing and have no right to cry about it later on when they have taken on debt.

"Young people should try to be entrepreneurs, not paper pushers."

I don't believe that young people have the background needed to be entrepreneurs. Most successful entrepreneurs learn something valuable by working for someone else first. And you can't get a job where you will learn anything useful without a degree.

"No, employers are selecting for the name of the school written on the degree, regardless of skills. You're obviously not familiar with the legal hiring process"

Come on bob. firms do actually interview and assess people. In addition to attending the right school, you also have to show a willingness to hand over your first born, or a vital organ, or hmmm, your soul.

it's a pretty easy game to figure out. poor sad sack Bullock.

bob_d: Way to ignore the first half of the sentence of mine that you quoted.

However, even if it were entirely true that law firms *only* care about what school you went to, it's still possible that they care about the same "admission criteria" that the schools do and are just using the schools as a proxy for this selection process.

(In reality, the top person from a second or third tier school still has better prospects than the bottom person from a T14 school, or probably even the average person from those schools, but the drop off seems pretty steep.)

Alpo, you clearly don't understand what a Ponzi scheme is. Law school is not one.

"(In reality, the top person from a second or third tier school still has better prospects than the bottom person from a T14 school, or probably even the average person from those schools, but the drop off seems pretty steep.)"

i'm not sure this is true. do top firms send recruiters to 2nd and 3rd tier schools? i didn't think they did, but i could be wrong.

uwsmom: Yes they do. Also depends on your definition of "top firm." I'm assuming you mean a firm paying the "standard" class-year salaries.

I know someone who graduated (I think) top of her class from Tulane, and the set of firms she interviewed at and got offers from didn't seem meaningfully different from people with solid but unexceptional records from T14 schools. It's possible that the application process is different, but the opportunities didn't seem to be.

Its supply and demand like anything else. Seton Hall grads did ok locally during the boom times. Now those same NJ firms are getting resumes from people from top schools.

Frankly I'm surprised this backlash has happened sooner. No reason for law school to be three years other than to raise revenues for universities.

Jordyn I am not sure that is even close to accurate. You would need to define the top firms and I can tell you that the "top" firms do not interview from all schools whether you are top or not. The application processes are not different, the top firms do on campus recruiting at the top schools. So for instance if you go to Hofstra as my cousin does and she wants to apply for a job at a top NYC law firm she is on her own.

But i do agree that Law schools do not even come close to what the definition of what a ponzi scheme is. The school is not passing on money to earlier people who went. They are simply collecting a fee that they deem fair. The fact that there are so many people out there fighting to get in says that it is only after they graduate do they have buyers remorse.

It would be interesting to know whether the blogger who outed himself did well or not at Seton Hall. I really believe that is what is missing from this conversation.

"No reason for law school to be three years other than to raise revenues for universities."

Actually, law school is technically 7 years since you obvivously need a BS to get admitted. In Europe on the other hand, law students can enroll in a 3-4 year LLB (their version of a JD) right out of high school. So not only do they have lower debt, but they can start working much sooner.

"Its supply and demand like anything else. Seton Hall grads did ok locally during the boom times. Now those same NJ firms are getting resumes from people from top schools. "

Exactly.

Also look at a cravath. You can be #1 in class, but they're only looking at a handful of schools.

"Jordyn I am not sure that is even close to accurate. You would need to define the top firms and I can tell you that the "top" firms do not interview from all schools whether you are top or not. The application processes are not different, the top firms do on campus recruiting at the top schools. So for instance if you go to Hofstra as my cousin does and she wants to apply for a job at a top NYC law firm she is on her own."

Exactly. If you're not on their radar, it doesn't matter how well you do.

Mikev--I agree the application process is different and firms don't go on-site everywhere, but my understanding is that they do take a look at some candidates from schools they don't go on-site to.

To continue to pick on Seton Hall, how else would we explain this guy, who just graduated from there in '08 and now works at Skadden:

http://www.skadden.com/index.cfm?contentID=45&bioID=7396

Oh, and looking at the drop down for schools at Cravath in their lawyer search provides ample evidence of my point. Many of those people may be lateral transfers, but this guy seems to have come straight out of law school (not from Seton Hall this time, but from Tulane, my other example school):

http://www.cravath.com/lawyers/list.aspx?Schools=329a6d18-92f7-4c25-91ca-20f3928eb6cc

FYI, the top-top firms "discriminate" even more than just the top firms. I've heard stories about "average" Columbia law students who showed up to an interview with Wachtell only to be told bluntly during the interview that Wachtell wouldn't hire anybody not at the top of the class.

(FYI, top schools, like Columbia, (1) use a lottery system for interviews that doesn't allow firms to only interview the top students, and (2) students at top schools do not necessarily know their rank within the class, but supposedly the top students are told who they are. I don't know any of this first hand, but have been told by people in the know.)

jordyn - yes, the tippy top firms do hire from 2nd & 3rd tier schools, but it's just not as common or as easy. From my very limited experience/understanding, it really is about where you went to school, so the top person from a 2nd & 3rd tier school doesn't actually have better prospects than the bottom person from a T14 school. top firms actively recruit from top schools. a top person from a 2nd & 3rd tier school would have to work harder to get into a top firm. it's such a simple equation i'm not sure how dear Bullock got blindsided.

ephraim2 - My husband interviewed at Wachtell and was not disappointed (or surprised) when he didn't receive an offer. He knew going in that they look for a VERY specific type of person.

uwsmom - So you're saying that Skadden and Cravath would hire the worst person from, say, Columbia? Since we've proven that they'll hire the #1 person from lesser schools, in order for your assertion that those peoples prospects are worse, you'd have to agree that elite firms will hire *anyone* from a top school, with complete disregard for how they did there. I know for a fact this isn't the case, and the stories about top firms not even interviewing folks from elite law schools only proves my point.

jordyn - what i'm saying is that you have better chances with a better school. look, NYC law firms interview potential associates (law students) during the fall of their 2nd year of law school and make summer associate offers based on the interview and 1st year grades alone. most top law schools don't even rank and yale only gives out pass/fail grades the first year.

No one disagrees that you have a *much* easier time getting a job going to a top law school (that was actually the initial point I made above). The question on the table is whether the top ranked person at a second or third tier school has the same or better opportunities than the worst person at a top tier school. Regardless of whether or not Columbia or Yale explicitly ranks folks, there's going to be a statistically worst person, and it's not hard to imagine that firms are going to be turned off by that person's poor grades.

"The question on the table is whether the top ranked person at a second or third tier school has the same or better opportunities than the worst person at a top tier school."

I understand that this is a hard reality to accept, but the "poorest performer" at Yale absolutely has better job opportunities than the top performer at Ohio State. No question.

That's awesome how you've substantiated your position like that.

I'm open to the idea that Yale may be an exception due to their extreme selectiveness and unique grading system, but I suspect not: at the edge of the bell curve, there's going to be someone that has a pretty awful year or two for personal reasons or whatever and the name of the school by itself isn't going to cover up for failing a bunch of classes.

Oh, wait: there's proof of this. About 1% of Yale graduates don't find employment at the end of school. Yes, this is a low number, but it means some of those vaunted degrees don't translate into automatic jobs. For Columbia, it's about 2%.

FWIW, 98.6% of Ohio State law school graduates in 2009 got jobs. Those in private practice earned an average of $110K. That's quite a bit lower than the average starting salaries from top tier law schools (which seem to only report medians, which is kind of lame since it ends up being the "standard" base of $160K), but that's the average for all students. Is it really a stretch to think the top person from each class is likely to be able to earn $50K more than his average peer?

jordyn: careful with that $160k number. It applies to attorneys in their first year in NEW YORK and maybe a few other expensive cities. Attorneys at top firms outside New York will earn less (but probably take home more after expenses) than their counterparts in New York.

Sure--I was actually going to make a similar point about cost of living and salaries outside the Northeast/California with regards to the Ohio State salaries, but didn't want to further complicate the general point.

"Mikev--I agree the application process is different and firms don't go on-site everywhere, but my understanding is that they do take a look at some candidates from schools they don't go on-site to.

To continue to pick on Seton Hall, how else would we explain this guy, who just graduated from there in '08 and now works at Skadden:"

They'll make exceptions for kids of clients, etc.

"They'll make exception for kids of clients, etc."

That must be it. From:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/fashion/weddings/30corea.html

"The bridegroom’s father and mother, Leslie A. Wilson, run the Big Haus, a boarding house for Christian college students in Moscow, Idaho."

Sounds like they must be huge Skadden clients.

I guess this is just another religious or political debate; people are bound to believe whatever they want to believe regardless of all evidence to the contrary.

Very few law school graduates end up employed by top law firms and anyone who's attended law school should be well aware of this. Law school isn't a guaranty of easy and early success, but what really is? Some law school graduates work their way up the economic ladder starting at smaller firms or even working for an agency such as the Securities and Exchange Commission. IMO, the key to success in this field is either developing a particular marketable expertise or having the ability to bring in a fair amount of business to your firm. Personally, I'm tired of reading about recent graduates who work ar large law firms - someone should write about the vast majority of lawyers who work anywhere else.

I would much rahter graduate dead last in my class at Yale or Harvard then in the top at Brooklyn Law or Seton Hall. No question about it.

Given your understanding of what a Ponzi scheme is, it's likely you would have graduated dead last.

somewhereelse said: "They'll make exceptions for kids of clients, etc."

Doing well in law school is all about issue spotting on exams. If you can spot more issues than everybody else, then you're most of the way to the best grade in your class.

Law firms like hiring law students capable of spotting issues because that's how law works -- the attorney who notices all the issues and possible resolutions will do a better job at predicting outcomes for the client and managing the client's risk.

Anybody who thinks for a moment that law firms hire the kids of clients on a regular basis is completely incapable of spotting the potential legal, ethical, and business issues that could cause major problems for a firm and for its clients. I'm not saying that it never happens; I'm just saying that in order to make a claim like that, you must know absolutely nothing about the practice of law.

The_President:

The top student at Brooklyn Law or Seton Hall has a reasonable shot at becoming a clerk to a judge on one of the Federal Circuit courts. There's even a chance (albeit a very tiny one) that the student may be able to obtain a clerkship to a United States Supreme Court justice. People with those types of credentials are able to get some of the top jobs in law.

There is no chance that the student who is "dead last" at Yale or Harvard will get either of those clerkship opportunities.

"There is no chance that the student who is "dead last" at Yale or Harvard will get either of those clerkship opportunities."

OMG, this discussion is so absurd! I don't know how Harvard works exactly but "dead last" just doesn't even exist at Yale.
This is like trying to choose a bad dish at Le Bernardin. The monkfish may not be as tasty as the rest but it's still pretty damn good.

uwsmom -- Of course someone is dead last. Yale just doesn't tell people who it is. But *someone* has the worst grades of all their peers.

you're right, and they get a big red stamp on their forehead when interviewing with potential employers. silly me.

come on you guys. give it up.

The employer doesn't have to know they are last. They just need to see the transcript. You really think someone with nothing but "Fail" and "Low Pass" on their transcript is really going to waltz into a federal clerkship or an elite law firm? If so, start by explaining away the 1% of Yale graduates who don't manage to get *any job at all* by the time they graduate.

This conversation is dumb--you call the conversation "absurd" but don't actually address any of the evidence presented that contradicts your point of view. To put this in terms of real estate, this is roughly like insisting your apartment is worth five million despite the fact that the identical unit two floors up just sold for two. You're entitled to think whatever you want; it just turns out that you're wrong.

jordyn - i missed the part of your stat where the 1% was attributed to poor performance.

Right. Clearly the logical explanation is that 1% were some of the best students who were passed over due to being too awesome.

i also missed the part where they were "passed over"

i have to go care for my children now so i apologize if i fail to respond to any more of your challenges.

The failure of the school to rank its students or even to provide real grades has no effect on the ability of prospective employers to do so. We have a system for every school. We translate "Pass" and "High Pass" or whatever other nonsensical gradng system is employed into a numerical grade point average, plot them, and establish a grade curve and grade cut-off. For a school like Yale, from which we might get resumes from 70% or more of the students in any given year, year after year, we pretty much can rank the students from first to last, or at least in very narrow clusters. Other schools that don't provide traditional grades make it even easier by giving some prize or "scholar" designation to those at the top x or y percent of the class. We have a hard grade cut off for all schools. A student ranked outside the top 20% or 25% at some "elite" school has no better chance of a job here than someone ranked outside the top 5% or 10% at some lesser school. The chance is zero.

While there are many problems with the legal education system, including cost, access, nepotism, duration, etc., the legal profession is far less elitist than many others. The students in the top 15% or 20% at Fordham law can expect to land at a reputable big firm if they wish. The same students in Fordham's MBA program have little or no hope of a job in a major wall street firm.

nyc_sport: Very interesting. If I may make one minor quibble with your otherwise useful comment, I think that there is unnecessary elitism in the profession of law. I don't have a problem with putting a finger slightly on the side of the scale with a T-14 law school. I do have a problem with weighting that side of the scale with a heavy brick, as occurs in hiring for some firms.

I know law professors who have taught at the "top" schools in NYC, and have also taught at schools ranked in the 50s-60s. These professors would sometimes teach the same course at a top school and a lower-ranked school. One of them felt that there was no difference whatsoever in the quality of the best 50% of students from the schools. The other only saw a real difference at the very bottom of the class.

as lobster noted, this is all very boring, and i really need to step away from this thread, but...

look, if being in the "bottom" 75% at an elite school puts you at such a "disadvantage" and being in the top 5-10% at a T2&3 school is in one's favor, why aren't more bright students declining top schools to be big fish in small ponds? why aren't they trying to increase their odds? Why risk it at a top school if your job prospects aren't going to be any better? do you want my answer?

nyc_sport - are you representing an elite firm? if so, how in the world do you have time to post on SE?

Some bright students do decline top schools (often lured by a scholarship or due to geographic considerations) and go to lower-ranked schools. And guess what, those are often the people who become the top students at those schools!

As has been expressed countless times on this thread, in general it's *much* better to go to a top school. No one disputes that. But that doesn't mean that people that do really well at lesser schools don't have equally good or better prospects than those that do poorly at good schools. I'm baffled that this is a hard concept to understand or accept.

"As has been expressed countless times on this thread, in general it's *much* better to go to a top school. No one disputes that."

JORDYN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You disputed it when you said this:

"In reality, the top person from a second or third tier school still has better prospects than the bottom person from a T14 school, or probably even the average person from those schools".

and this:

"The question on the table is whether the top ranked person at a second or third tier school has the same or BETTER opportunities than the worst person at a top tier school".

and this:

"But that doesn't mean that people that do really well at lesser schools don't have equally good or BETTER prospects than those that do poorly at good schools."

i'm the one who's f'ing baffled!

and i'm not referring to law school decisions based on FA or location. I am referring to decisions being made based on odds.

Here's what I agree with: People who do well at lesser schools have decent prospects.

uwsmom - It seems you do not understand the difference between "in general" and "top person from X versus bottom person from Y". I'm not sure what to do with that. It's pretty basic logic and reading comprehension.

Analogy: In general, people from New York have higher incomes than people from Mobile, Alabama. However, the richest person in Mobile is richer than the poorest person in New York. There's no contradiction between these two ideas.

i would love to respond but my head just exploded. good luck to you.

"There is no chance that the student who is "dead last" at Yale or Harvard will get either of those clerkship opportunities."

Actually, Yale is small enough that the folks at the bottom do get these types of opportunity.

The guy who doesn't show up and fails out, of course... but you can be way low at Yale and have some very impressive opportunities, many that noone at certain schools will get.

The biggest part you're forgettin gis... its pass fail to start!

you can get PRIME internships without any grades!

you can get a

"If so, start by explaining away the 1% of Yale graduates who don't manage to get *any job at all* by the time they graduate."

You're kidding with this right?

Thats, like TWO PEOPLE. Its a rounding error. Thats a guy who forgot to send out his applications. If its even that. They may have put in 99% just to not say 100%. Their site has a 1% "other" category. They might just mean someone who chose something completely different.

"I guess this is just another religious or political debate; people are bound to believe whatever they want to believe regardless of all evidence to the contrary."

You just described yourself to a t!

it appears to me that a lot of you are missing the argument here. it goes back to the old saying 'what do you call the guy who finishes last in his med school class? you call him doctor.' this does not even come close to translating over to law school. what do you call the guy who finished last in his law school class? you call him unemployed. the person who finishes top 5% at brooklyn absolutely has better opportunities than the person who finishes below median at yale

jamba - you smokin' crack?

nope....but i am a second year law student going through the interview process as we speak.

"the person who finishes top 5% at brooklyn absolutely has better opportunities than the person who finishes below median at yale"

Uh, not even close.

You're now just hurting your case with nonsensical claims.

somewhereelse - I'm waiting for someone else to present anything resembling evidence for the contrary view. Just asserting something is so over and over again doesn't count.

Also: You seem to be unaware that Yale is only pass/fail for the first year; judges get to evaluate at least two years worth of grades when considering folks for clerkships.

Finally: Who cares if 1% of 200 people is only 2 people? The argument here is that there is at least *1* person (1 is less than 2) from Yale who is no better off than the top *1* person from a school like Seton Hall.

> what do you call the guy who finished last in his law school class?

At Brooklyn, sure.

Go last in your class at Yale... and you're president.
;-)

jamba: which school are you at?

"Finally: Who cares if 1% of 200 people is only 2 people? The argument here is that there is at least *1* person (1 is less than 2) from Yale who is no better off than the top *1* person from a school like Seton Hall."

Maybe the 1% from Yale with no jobs did not want jobs. Perhaps they went backpacking across Europe to "find" themselves. Or maybe they want to start their own firm. Bashing Yale because 1% of the grads did not have jobs is silly to be honest.

I'm fairly certain the placement statistics only apply to people who try/want to get jobs (kind of like unemployment). They also don't apply to people who don't graduate, so we're already ignoring any truly awful students.

Asserting that anyone is bashing Yale is only further missing the point of this argument, I think.

yes the point of the argument is long gone. law school is nowhere near a ponzi scheme. you are well informed of the risks before entering, unlike those who are deceived in a ponzi scheme. its almost scary the type of community that unsuccessful law grads have created on message boards like these. instead of getting out there and searching for jobs, they sit here and spam the internet all day.

but for those of you thinking that someone below median at yale will be handed a big law job are crazy. having the yale name on your resume may help for lateral moves/moves into government later in life, but as far as a first year/summer associate job top 5% at brooklyn>below median at yale. plain and simple.

What I have problems with is the constant focus in the media on how much first year lawyers make at these law firms and no discussion on how difficult it is for students who don't attend a top 10 law school to secure one of these jobs. Even at a top 20-25 law school, you need to graduate top 5% of the class and make law review. I have no idea of what goes on at Seton Hall Law School, but I do see alot of news articles about first year lawyers' salaries at these firms. I know that first year salaries are "news", but to an outsider to big law firms, it isn't clear how difficult these jobs are to secure.

"I know that first year salaries are "news", but to an outsider to big law firms, it isn't clear how difficult these jobs are to secure."

VERY difficult. At most big law firms, hiring of summer associates is down 44%.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202463749951

"the person who finishes top 5% at brooklyn absolutely has better opportunities than the person who finishes below median at yale"

Sounds to me somone is trying to justify not getting into Yale.

The_President: Are you a troll from XOXO? Or do you actually have a point that you're trying to make?

I've been reading this string for a while with interest. I'm a fairly senior associate at a "top 10" law firm. (I've put that in quotes because there are probably 12-20 firms that consider themselves top-10.) For those in the know: I work at the "quirky" international one. Anyway - every year we interview well over a 1000 summer associate applicants to fill between 60-100 slots. In lean years we have about 70 summer associates, in mean years we have over 100. This year I expect we will have about 80-90. Here are a few observations:

1. Most of our summers come from top-10 law schools, mostly Harvard, Yale, NYU, Columbia, Penn, Cornell, and some University of Chicago.
2. We are also very grade conscious (so a B+ average from Penn is not going to get you a call back). We have also figured out ways of screening for schools that don't give grades (e.g. - "high honors" is translated to an A, etc.).
3. We do interview at third-tier law schools. Very few students get call backs. All of those students are probably top 5% in their class.
4. Average students at top-tier schools will always have an easier time getting a job than average students at third-tier schools. This should not be surprising.
5. Even bottom of the class students at top-tier schools will have a good shot at finding a job (maybe just not their dream job).
6. Top of the class students at third-tier schools will get jobs in their local markets and find some success in NY. (For example, a top Ohio State grad will have multiple job offers in Cleveland, and one or two offers in NY.)
7. Is law school a ponzi scheme? No. (If you went to a third-tier law school in this economic environment and are not a straight A student - you should know that you are taking a gamble.)

"the person who finishes top 5% at brooklyn absolutely has better opportunities than the person who finishes below median at yale"

'Sounds to me somone is trying to justify not getting into Yale.'

for the record, i do not go to BLS and i did not even apply to yale

jamba: He's a troll, don't respond. He's just trying to get a rise out of you.

I think the real issue as to whether or not law school is worth the money is to consider the large number of attorneys who give up law as a profession within 10 years. The 'attrition rate' in the legal profession is VERY high, even among those who graduate from top tier schools. Anyone considering law school should consider whether s/he would be better off pursuing other career interests without that expensive degree.

I think the attrition rate of those who stay in the law has more to do with people going to law school who never should have gone to begin with. Unfortunately, law school is a sort of default choice of too many people who can't decide what they want to do or be. Yes, law school can help develop analytic abilities and many aspects of it can be very interesting intellectually, but it is also very expensive and very hard and very long. If you don't definitely want to practice law or actually use a law degree, I think it is a bad decision to go to law school. It isn't meant to be a place to park yourself while you figure out what you really want to do.

Back to Seton Hall:

I recently foudn this unofficial WIki page form them. It is hilarious and everyoe must read it:

Seton Hall is a middling, 2nd tier diploma mill located in Newark, NJ. Recently, the school plunged a full 11 points in the US News rankings, dropping from 66th to 77th. This was the second-largest drop among law schools in the #51 to #100 range. A new ranking methodology which includes the stats of part-time students as a criteria dealt a harsh blow to Seton Hall, which maximizes profit (and administrator salaries) by packing the night program to the rafters with low LSAT and GPA students, most of whom will have no legitimate employment options at graduation.

At over $43,500 a year, Seton Hall's tuition is beyond exorbitant. Most graduates end up unemployed or enter the Traffic Court Clerkship (TCC) program, which pays $35,000 a year and allows the law school to painlessly wash its hands of a good number of graduates. Following their stint in traffic court, most Seton Hall grads enter small-time ambulance chasing "firms" that pay under $40,000 a year. Many scrape by with part-time employment in document review for as little as $17 an hour, bitter and angry at life and the lies of Seton Hall.

No discussion of Seton Hall is complete without mentioning uber-shyster Patrick E. Hobbs, known on message boards as the "Valvoline Dean" for his oleaginous, used-car salesman persona, insincere posturing, and shameless manipulation of salary and employment data. The man takes more liberty with salary statistics than Michael Jackson did with 4 year olds at a Chuck-E-Cheese playpen. Hobbs was "called out" in an October 2006 Wall St Journal op-ed for accepting on behalf of Seton Hall an endowment from Bristol Meyers Squibb that was clearly a strong-armed shakedown of the company by US Attorney Christopher Christie, a Seton Hall alum and longtime crony of the Valvoline Dean. As part of a "deferred prosecution" agreement, Bristol Meyers agreed to cough up almost a million bucks for an "ethics chair" at Seton Hall. The WSJ personally noted Hobbs's moral bankruptcy in accepting this obvious shakedown, but the Valvoline Dean greased the deal thru and lost no sleep. This man slumbers like a baby on a mattress softened by the indebted souls his school has crushed.

On July 23, 2009, borderline mental retard Peter Cammarano, a Seton Hall Law alum and mayor of Hoboken, NJ, was charged with extortion by color of offical right for accepting $25,000 from an undercover FBI agent. He no doubt learned this pattern of dishonesty and sleaze at Seton Hall, a school noted for publishing patently fraudulent employment & salary statistics. The Valvoline Dean quickly morphed into full "Red Alert" damage control mode, eliminating all hagiographic references to Cammarano from the law school's website. Rumor has it that his stooges had to quickly "man their battle stations" as the school entered "Code Camarrano", trying to scrub any Seton Hall/Cammarano references from the blogosphere and refresh this Wiki page every 30 seconds to prevent Cammarano info such as this from being posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seton_Hall_University_School_of_Law&oldid=306264248