75 replies to this topic

[blech]

Which would you choose? How would the following factor in to your decision:

1. Ability to work in Canada at some point down the road
- I'm a Canadian citizen, not dual. I don't feel the need to work in Canada immediately after graduating (I wouldn't mind NYC for a bit), but at some point would like to be able to come back.

1.b Ability to work in the US/anywhere, immediately after graduation
- How east is this as a non-citizen/green-card holder in the US?

2. Chances of being able to "make it rain," as they say

2.b Chances of finding any legal job at all

With respect to (1), my instinct tells me that coming back to Canada and finding work with several years of legal experience under my belt would not be as difficult as those who go through the NCA process from the get-go, so that is not a main concern of mine, but I am worried about re: (1)b is being able to find work in the US at all.
With respect to (2) and (2)b, from what I've read the US legal market took a much worse hit than did Canada's, and that even the lower T14 is still a risk in this economy. While I suspect getting NYC biglaw out of Georgetown is probably easier than Toronto/Vancouver biglaw out of Manitoba, I'm curious what the thoughts are on this forum of the ability to get *ANY* law job at Manitoba versus Georgetown.

I'm not very concerned with making models and bottles money, and have some interest in Aboriginal law as well, which I think Manitoba would clearly have the edge on. Does anyone have any thoughts, or has anyone been faced with a similar decision? Would you say my assumptions thus far are correct?

Thanks in advance.

ps: if anyone is wondering how I ended up confronted with this decision, I am an extreme splitter (<3.0/171)... that about sums it up.
pps: no I haven't gotten in to Manitoba yet, but according to the conventional wisdom I've picked up on this forum my index score (77+) gives me a fairly good shot.

Edited by blech, 10 December 2011 - 11:14 AM.

[muffins]

The legal market in the states is terrible.

[blech]

muffins, on 10 December 2011 - 12:28 PM, said:

The legal market in the states is terrible.

= a vote for manitoba?

[veecee]

Not an expert, take advice with a grain of salt:

- Huge difference in price. Georgetown @ sticker will probably cost $200k with living expenses over three years.

- The US legal market is garbage. Manitoba offers much better prospects in TO/Van than Georgetown does in NYC. At Manitoba, all you'll need is a B average and a good interview.

- To have a snowball's chance from Georgetown, you'll have to finish top 20%~ (being generous), in a class of 510 ultra-keeners with the exact same goal in mind.

[Mal]

This will be a hard choice and is too personal. What you are really looking at is a extremely high risk, high potential school versus a low risk, low potential school. A lot of this choice depends on a realistic assessment of yourself, which is really difficult. Everyone assumes they will work hard in law school, but once the reality of that true meaning sets in is usually when people start to take time off for other things.

Personally, I would make the choice based on how I was funding it. If debt financed I would choose Manitoba, if financed by parents (and they are willing to take the risk) or independent wealth then Georgetown.

[Stupor]

Read this before you commit to Georgetown:
http://www.lawandsty...d=213&Itemid=99

TL;DR: The NCA process is a major pain in the ass. Harvard Law School grads with a SCC clerkship or 4 years of experience in New York still had to go through the basics.

Since you want to end up in Canada in the long term, I'd go with Manitoba.

[erinl2]

http://talk.collegec...nd-lawyers.html

I would recommend that anyone who is considering law school in the U.S., regardless of their stats or the particular school, take some time to read that thread, particularly the most recent pages. The picture there is grim for the vast majority of law grads, and it's a mistake to believe that you will be one of the fortunate few.

[muffins]

Also, why would you ever want to live in the US. It is a latrine of a society.

[QuincyWagstaff]

Both options are terrible. Either retake the LSAT and raise your GPA above 3.0 (if still in UG), or consider other career paths.
GeorgeTTTown at sticker is asinine. Take the 200K to Vegas, where your odds are better.

Edited by QuincyWagstaff, 10 December 2011 - 02:53 PM.

[Stupor]

muffins, on 10 December 2011 - 02:51 PM, said:

Also, why would you ever want to live in the US. It is a latrine of a society.

Have you even lived there? I have. There are parts of the US where I would love to live in. Those places tend not to be filled with close minded idiots prone to making blithe generalizations about a country of 300 million people.

[Fletcher Reed]

QuincyWagstaff, on 10 December 2011 - 02:51 PM, said:

Both options are terrible. Either retake the LSAT and raise your GPA above 3.0 (if still in UG), or consider other career paths.
GeorgeTTTown at sticker is asinine. Take the 200K to Vegas, where your odds are better.

LOL, my vote is for Manitoba. Hard work and putting yourself out there will give you a chance at any Canadian article you want bad enough. In any event, no matter what article you get (you probably will get one), you will still have the chance to establish yourself in an area of law you like and "make it rain."

Georgetown is a bad bet, imo. But do whatever you really want to do.

[kathryndan]

QuincyWagstaff, on 10 December 2011 - 02:51 PM, said:

Both options are terrible.

Seriously? Neither is a bad school. I could see how one would think that Georgetown isn't a good choice considering the process for coming to Canada and the debt you may incur. But how could Manitoba possibly be a "terrible choice" if you want to practice in Canada?

[muffins]

Stupor, on 10 December 2011 - 02:58 PM, said:

Have you even lived there? I have. There are parts of the US where I would love to live in. Those places tend not to be filled with close minded idiots prone to making blithe generalizations about a country of 300 million people.

K, Stup.

[tortsforthewin]

I don't understand why people are so cynical about the prospects of employment from a US T14 institution. The job market in the United States is harsher than it is in Canada, but not all law students (or law schools) are created equally. A JD from Georgetown will provide you with strong prospects of employment in some of the United States' biggest legal markets. More importantly, even if you returned to Canada and completed the NCA requirements, a JD from Georgetown would set you leagues ahead of the U of M (which is one of Canada's lowest ranked schools). The only major consideration will be, as others have mentioned, the significantly increased financial cost of a Georgetown degree.

Edited by tortsforthewin, 10 December 2011 - 06:36 PM.

[QuincyWagstaff]

tortsforthewin, on 10 December 2011 - 06:35 PM, said:

I don't understand why people are so cynical about the prospects of employment from a US T14 institution. The job market in the United States is harsher than it is in Canada, but not all law students (or law schools) are created equally. A JD from Georgetown will provide you with strong prospects of employment in some of the United States' biggest legal markets. More importantly, even if you returned to Canada and completed the NCA requirements, a JD from Georgetown would set you leagues ahead of the U of M (which is one of Canada's lowest ranked schools). The only major consideration will be, as others have mentioned, the significantly increased financial cost of a Georgetown degree.

The OP has an abysmal GPA and an average LSAT for the T14. There would be serious questions about his/her ability to finish above median at a school like Georgetown.

See the article Stupor linked re: practicing in Canada with an ABA JD. OP would also be 200K in debt.

[KER_2012]

Stupor, on 10 December 2011 - 01:57 PM, said:

Read this before you commit to Georgetown:
http://www.lawandsty...d=213&Itemid=99

This is a really good article.

Honestly, if you want to be a practicing lawyer, I don't understand why you wouldn't go to school in the country you want to practice in. Going elsewhere will open you up to a lot of potential complications and in most cases, a lot of debt.

Georgetown is a great school, but I wouldn't go unless you're planning to stay.

[blech]

I love how ruthlessly opinionated the internet is. Thank you all for the responses, at any rate.

With regards to everyone's comments (and again, thanks so much), here is some more information about me and GULC and more that I maybe should have mentioned in the first post, I'm curious if it would affect any of your opinions:

veecee, on 10 December 2011 - 01:42 PM, said:

- To have a snowball's chance from Georgetown, you'll have to finish top 20%~ (being generous), in a class of 510 ultra-keeners with the exact same goal in mind.

http://www.lawschool...se/?school=gulc

Shows 30-40% of the class getting market paying jobs in '09, and 50-70% in the boom years. What makes you think it's now closer to 20%? That would seriously affect my decision... (also, I don't think finishing top 20% in a group of 510 is any more or less difficult than in a group of 50 or 50 000 )

Mal, on 10 December 2011 - 01:52 PM, said:

Personally, I would make the choice based on how I was funding it. If debt financed I would choose Manitoba, if financed by parents (and they are willing to take the risk) or independent wealth then Georgetown.

At GULC my parents would be splitting the cost with me, so assume around $100k debt, at Manitoba I would be paying my whole way on loans (because I could), so around $80k debt. Sorry, I should've included this in the original post.

QuincyWagstaff, on 10 December 2011 - 02:51 PM, said:

Both options are terrible. Either retake the LSAT and raise your GPA above 3.0 (if still in UG), or consider other career paths.
GeorgeTTTown at sticker is asinine. Take the 200K to Vegas, where your odds are better.

QuincyWagstaff, on 10 December 2011 - 07:50 PM, said:

The OP has an abysmal GPA and an average LSAT for the T14. There would be serious questions about his/her ability to finish above median at a school like Georgetown.

First off, thank you for the vote of confidence in my educational abilities. Second, the unscientific internet consensus on the issue (http://www.top-law-s...4&view=viewpoll) is that neither GPA nor LSAT is a good predictor of law school success nor failure. Third, a 171 is only below median at HYSColumbia, it is the median at CN, and is above median at the rest of the T14. Does that give you, seemingly not subscribing to the consensus mentioned in point (2), any reason to believe I would in fact be able to finish above median at GULC? What would your advice be then? Thanks for your help.

tortsforthewin, on 10 December 2011 - 06:35 PM, said:

I don't understand why people are so cynical about the prospects of employment from a US T14 institution. The job market in the United States is harsher than it is in Canada, but not all law students (or law schools) are created equally. A JD from Georgetown will provide you with strong prospects of employment in some of the United States' biggest legal markets. More importantly, even if you returned to Canada and completed the NCA requirements, a JD from Georgetown would set you leagues ahead of the U of M (which is one of Canada's lowest ranked schools). The only major consideration will be, as others have mentioned, the significantly increased financial cost of a Georgetown degree.

The problem with your comment is that I don't know whether you are the most reasonable of the bunch or I just really, really want to agree with you.


Thanks for everyone's responses so far, they've been really helpful.

Edited by blech, 10 December 2011 - 09:13 PM.

[veecee]

tortsforthewin, on 10 December 2011 - 06:35 PM, said:

I don't understand why people are so cynical about the prospects of employment from a US T14 institution. The job market in the United States is harsher than it is in Canada, but not all law students (or law schools) are created equally. A JD from Georgetown will provide you with strong prospects of employment in some of the United States' biggest legal markets. More importantly, even if you returned to Canada and completed the NCA requirements, a JD from Georgetown would set you leagues ahead of the U of M (which is one of Canada's lowest ranked schools). The only major consideration will be, as others have mentioned, the significantly increased financial cost of a Georgetown degree.

I'm not an expert, so a grain of salt please:


1. Biglaw is all that counts when you're spending $200k+ on your education. The prospect of working at a mid-sized US firm is not sufficient to make the ROI work.

2. Upwards of three-quarters of Georgetown grads will not get biglaw positions - that's hardly what I'd consider a strong prospect.

3. Everyone thinks they will end up in the top 25% of their law school class. 75% of these people are delusional, unfortunately.

4. A shiny name on one's diploma will probably lend a hand when looking for biglaw jobs here in Canada. This advantage will not be worth $150k or the added hassle of the NCA.

[jin45]

If the cost will end up being roughly the same, I'd pick Georgetown. That's a pretty huge thing not to mention in the first post haha

Edit: OP, you should look into the loan forgiveness programs available at Georgetown. They tend to be pretty good at T14s, but the situation may be different for non-Americans (harder to get government jobs and so on).

Edited by jin45, 10 December 2011 - 09:28 PM.

[QuincyWagstaff]

www.lawschoolnumbers.com/
Unless URM, OP isn't even getting GTTTown with those pathetic stats. /thread

[Stupor]

QuincyWagstaff, on 10 December 2011 - 09:35 PM, said:

www.lawschoolnumbers.com/
Unless URM, OP isn't even getting GTTTown with those pathetic stats. /thread

Harsh dude. I get the impression that OP is already in at Georgetown, since he felt the need to explicitly says that he's not in yet at Manitoba but didn't say the same about Georgetown.

If the monetary difference is only 20k instead of 100k+, I'd go with Georgetown.

[veecee]

blech, on 10 December 2011 - 09:08 PM, said:

Shows 30-40% of the class getting market paying jobs in '09, and 50-70% in the boom years. What makes you think it's now closer to 20%? That would seriously affect my decision... (also, I don't think finishing top 20% in a group of 510 is any more or less difficult than in a group of 50 or 50 000 )

Regarding numbers:

1. GLUC class of 2009, only 62% actually working in private sector. Think 50-70% of those are in biglaw? In this economy? See #5.
2. Self-reported numbers.
3. Collected by GLUC.
4. Reflecting firms of all sizes, and in all markets.
5. The stats are exactly how they trick you.

Regarding class size:

The issue is that hundreds of other people will be competing for the same jobs as you, with an equally shiny degree. If your grades are equally as mediocre, you'll be equally as unemployed. $200k+ in the hole.

Edit: just saw the bit about the split cost. Wow. Generous, ask 'em if they'll just cover the cost of domestic tuition in Canada so you can graduate without a gigantic debt yoke.

Edited by veecee, 10 December 2011 - 09:59 PM.

[blech]

veecee, on 10 December 2011 - 09:53 PM, said:

Regarding numbers:

1. GLUC class of 2009, only 62% actually working in private sector. Think 50-70% of those are in biglaw? In this economy? See #5.
2. Self-reported numbers.
3. Collected by GLUC.
4. Reflecting firms of all sizes, and in all markets.
5. The stats are exactly how they trick you.

Regarding class size:

The issue is that hundreds of other people will be competing for the same jobs as you, with an equally shiny degree. If your grades are equally as mediocre, you'll be equally as unemployed. $200k+ in the hole.

I thought (still do) that the 50-70% were making biglaw in the boom years (see class of 2008 on lst), my current understanding was/is that 30-40% now make that (or at least did in 2009). I know that schools game the numbers, but I'm fairly sure they do not explicitly lie about them (they are LAW schools after all). My impression was that lawschooltransparency was specifically in place to sift through all the schools' bull and provide prospective students with the employment stats that schools are actually reporting. I'm confused, are you saying the stats reported on lawschooltransparency are also incorrect?

[QuincyWagstaff]

Stupor, on 10 December 2011 - 09:43 PM, said:

I get the impression that OP is already in at Georgetown

www.lawschoolpredictor.com

[blech]

QuincyWagstaff, on 10 December 2011 - 10:27 PM, said:

www.lawschoolpredictor.com

Stupor is correct - in at GULC, waiting on Manitoba.

[veecee]

blech, on 10 December 2011 - 10:04 PM, said:

I thought (still do) that the 50-70% were making biglaw in the boom years (see class of 2008 on lst), my current understanding was/is that 30-40% now make that (or at least did in 2009). I know that schools game the numbers, but I'm fairly sure they do not explicitly lie about them (they are LAW schools after all). My impression was that lawschooltransparency was specifically in place to sift through all the schools' bull and provide prospective students with the employment stats that schools are actually reporting. I'm confused, are you saying the stats reported on lawschooltransparency are also incorrect?

1. This would require that 50-70% of GULC grads working in the private sector to be employed in biglaw, post-meltdown. Pre-meltdown, sure. But after 2008?

2. Plenty of ways to game the numbers. Biglaw firms now make "deferred" offers - that's "employed" in the context of these stats. As a conspiratorial aside, wouldn't it be interesting if the surveys sent to students with below-median GPAs tended to get lost in the mail more often than those sent to students with above-median GPAs? Self-reported survey = thumbs way down.

3. As stated, the numbers include all markets, all firm sizes. Huzzah for midlaw in Baltimore? Think that's worth sticker @ GULC?

[blech]

veecee, on 10 December 2011 - 10:40 PM, said:

1. This would require that 50-70% of GULC grads working in the private sector to be employed in biglaw, post-meltdown. Pre-meltdown, sure. But after 2008?

2. Plenty of ways to game the numbers. Biglaw firms now make "deferred" offers - that's "employed" in the context of these stats. As a conspiratorial aside, wouldn't it be interesting if the surveys sent to students with below-median GPAs tended to get lost in the mail more often than those sent to students with above-median GPAs? Self-reported survey = thumbs way down.

3. As stated, the numbers include all markets, all firm sizes. Huzzah for midlaw in Baltimore? Think that's worth sticker @ GULC?

1: http://www.lawschool...se/?school=gulc
Sorry, I'm really not getting this. The blue area is all reported private sector salaries and the whole bar represents 100% of the graduating class. So the one bar representing between the 75th-100th percentiles of reported salaries there is shown to actually represent 10.95% of the graduating class. Therefore from the 25th percentile ($160k) and up actually represents 32.85% of the graduating class. Between the 0th(?) and 25th percentile there is another 10.95% of the class making somewhere between $0 and $160k.. where am I going wrong here?

3. From what I've read NYC is one of the easier markets to crack due to the sheer number of legal jobs there, finding jobs in smaller markets is actually harder due fewer jobs and students with ties seeking to come home from top schools (not to mention lower cost of living).

I actually don't really care about #3, but if you could show me where I'm going wrong with respect to #1 I'd really appreciate it. I'm not too concerned about deferred offers either... as you ultimately end up at work

[veecee]

blech, on 10 December 2011 - 11:07 PM, said:

1: http://www.lawschool...se/?school=gulc
Sorry, I'm really not getting this. The blue area is all reported private sector salaries and the whole bar represents 100% of the graduating class. So the one bar representing between the 75th-100th percentiles of reported salaries there is shown to actually represent 10.95% of the graduating class. Therefore from the 25th percentile ($160k) and up actually represents 32.85% of the graduating class. Between the 0th(?) and 25th percentile there is another 10.95% of the class making somewhere between $0 and $160k.. where am I going wrong here?

3. From what I've read NYC is one of the easier markets to crack due to the sheer number of legal jobs there, finding jobs in smaller markets is actually harder due fewer jobs and students with ties seeking to come home from top schools (not to mention lower cost of living).

I actually don't really care about #3, but if you could show me where I'm going wrong with respect to #1 I'd really appreciate it. I'm not too concerned about deferred offers either... as you ultimately end up at work

Where you are going wrong:

1. ~62% of 2009 GULC grads work in the private sector. 100% of biglaw jobs are in the private sector. If ~40% of GULC's grads work in biglaw, then this would constitute ~65% of the GULC grads working in the private sector, post-meltdown. I really couldn't make this clearer.

2. The numbers include firms of all sizes. So, not just biglaw, not just desirable markets. Looking at the quartiles is meaningless, unless you think Baltimore midlaw is worth the increased investment @ GULC.

3. Deferred offers don't necessarily materialize into work, and they game the statistics.

4. Your blasé attitude about deferred offers is a little concerning. You'd lose an entire year of earnings, during which you'd be required to service your six figure debt.

[blech]

veecee, on 10 December 2011 - 11:53 PM, said:

Where you are going wrong:

1. ~62% of 2009 GULC grads work in the private sector. 100% of biglaw jobs are in the private sector. If ~40% of GULC's grads work in biglaw, then this would constitute ~65% of the GULC grads working in the private sector, post-meltdown. I really couldn't make this clearer.

2. The numbers include firms of all sizes. So, not just biglaw, not just desirable markets. Looking at the quartiles is meaningless, unless you think Baltimore midlaw is worth the increased investment @ GULC.

3. Deferred offers don't necessarily materialize into work, and they game the statistics.

4. Your blasé attitude about deferred offers is a little concerning. You'd lose an entire year of earnings, during which you'd be required to service your six figure debt.

1&2. I still don't see how that explains the percentiles at certain earnings levels on the first page..? Like you said, the results are self-reported, therefore it would be entirely possible (probable even) that everyone who graduated into some shitlaw job is simply not reporting their earnings which would explain the seemingly higher percentage of GULC private sector grads in market-paying biglaw gigs. But the 10.96% "quartiles" on the first page represent the percentage of the graduating class, which seems like a more useful indicator than guesstimating the percentage of private sector employees you'd expect to end up in biglaw, no? Further, if $160k Baltimore midlaw (which I don't really believe exists) is included in those percentiles, I don't see why they would be more or less useful. Honestly I think (if it existed) $160k Baltimore midlaw would certainly be worth the investment.

3&4. From where I've heard of deferred offers taking place, usually a stipend was given for the time before work. But notwithstanding that, is it actually true that firms are offering kids jobs and then simply revoking them? That seems a little bit unbelievable. What possible reason could a law firm have to game a school's employment statistics? It seems like it would do them much more harm than good (I see no good) in terms of destroying the firm's reputation at the school. Where have you heard of this happening? Link?

5. Maybe I'm bad at the internet. Is this a flame?

[veecee]

blech, on 11 December 2011 - 12:34 AM, said:

\But the 10.96% "quartiles" on the first page represent the percentage of the graduating class, which seems like a more useful indicator than guesstimating the percentage of private sector employees you'd expect to end up in biglaw, no?

Not where the pertinent question is whether or not a given student stands a chance at getting a big law job, and not where the information provided by the quartiles gives students unrealistic expectations of their future earning potential.

Quote

Further, if $160k Baltimore midlaw (which I don't really believe exists) is included in those percentiles, I don't see why they would be more or less useful. Honestly I think (if it existed) $160k Baltimore midlaw would certainly be worth the investment.

I actually didn't say $160k. However, there are certainly midlaw firms in Baltimore paying mid six figures to first year associates, and some biglaw firms hitting the $160k mark - if that's what you're into.
For instance... Also... And, also...

Quote

3&4. From where I've heard of deferred offers taking place, usually a stipend was given for the time before work. But notwithstanding that, is it actually true that firms are offering kids jobs and then simply revoking them? That seems a little bit unbelievable.

I'm sure there's others, but here's some examples:
Yeesh.
Lawsuit? Seems like an underreaction.
Arson? Seems like an overreaction.
Via phone call.

Quote

What possible reason could a law firm have to game a school's employment statistics? It seems like it would do them much more harm than good (I see no good) in terms of destroying the firm's reputation at the school. Where have you heard of this happening? Link?

I didn't say that the firms were gaming the employment statistics. The schools are - by considering those with deferred offers to be among the employed.

You have the numbers - if you think they're a reliable representation of what GULC can offer you, then you don't need me to tell you whether this opportunity will offer a good ROI. I don't care what law school you go to, but wish you the best of luck in any case.

Edit: mistakenly posted a redundant link re: salaries. The link I meant to post was this one. Scroll to page six for the goods.

Edited by veecee, 11 December 2011 - 01:39 AM.