.

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
flem
Posts: 12949
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:44 pm

Re: richmond v. catholic (dirt cheap)

Postby flem » Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:08 am

abc12345675 wrote:I can't believe people would advice against a free legal education from a top 100 law school. Sorry guys, I'm not on board with your advice..........OP, take the money. There is no stip at all, right? If that's the case go there and bust your butt. You'll be a lawyer


That's what half the class thought too!

IBworkhardandnetworkandhustle

Also, fucking lol @ top 100 school as if that's a decent metric. There 5 schools in the DC metro area alone that are better schools than Catholic.

abc12345675
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:27 am

Re: richmond v. catholic (dirt cheap)

Postby abc12345675 » Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:32 am

Bro, I think you're missing the point that OP can get a FREE legal education. As in no cost. As in he walks in, takes classes, passes exams, they give him a diploma, and get graduates with no loan payments in 6 months. Even if he starts out at $55,000 a year he's fine!

It's not like this man is passing up a prestigious school, either.

And my top 100 comment was simply to highlight that we're not talking about a T4 here.

User avatar
PennBull
Posts: 15435
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:59 pm

Re: richmond v. catholic (dirt cheap)

Postby PennBull » Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:34 am

abc12345675 wrote:Bro, I think you're missing the point that OP can get a FREE legal education. As in no cost. As in he walks in, takes classes, passes exams, they give him a diploma, and get graduates with no loan payments in 6 months. Even if he starts out at $55,000 a year he's fine!

It's not like this man is passing up a prestigious school, either.

And my top 100 comment was simply to highlight that we're not talking about a T4 here.


Do you know what an opportunity cost is?

User avatar
flem
Posts: 12949
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:44 pm

Re: richmond v. catholic (dirt cheap)

Postby flem » Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:38 am

abc12345675 wrote:Bro, I think you're missing the point that OP can get a FREE legal education. As in no cost. As in he walks in, takes classes, passes exams, they give him a diploma, and get graduates with no loan payments in 6 months. Even if he starts out at $55,000 a year he's fine!

It's not like this man is passing up a prestigious school, either.

And my top 100 comment was simply to highlight that we're not talking about a T4 here.


He'll still be taking on 60-70K in living expense debt.

If you end up on the wrong side of that 50% it's all for nothing and you have a nice fat black market on your resume. A full ride is only as good as the likely outcome, and if the likely outcome is a 50/50 shot at legal work that isn't worth it to me.

And now I wait for people to conflate "elitism" with employment prospects.
Last edited by flem on Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

abc12345675
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:27 am

Re: richmond v. catholic (dirt cheap)

Postby abc12345675 » Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:38 am

Yes, you condescending prick. I was an econ major.

Fact of the matter is, however, that he doesn't have a better option. I wouldn't advise him to pass on Vandy for a free ride at Catholic. But it's Catholic or Richmond. I don't understand why this is a debate.

User avatar
flem
Posts: 12949
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:44 pm

Re: richmond v. catholic (dirt cheap)

Postby flem » Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:39 am

abc12345675 wrote:Yes, you condescending prick. I was an econ major.

Fact of the matter is, however, that he doesn't have a better option. I wouldn't advise him to pass on Vandy for a free ride at Catholic. But it's Catholic or Richmond. I don't understand why this is a debate.


Option three - retake LSAT, get better options, make it rain on them hoes.

abc12345675
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:27 am

Re: richmond v. catholic (dirt cheap)

Postby abc12345675 » Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:42 am

flem wrote:
abc12345675 wrote:Yes, you condescending prick. I was an econ major.

Fact of the matter is, however, that he doesn't have a better option. I wouldn't advise him to pass on Vandy for a free ride at Catholic. But it's Catholic or Richmond. I don't understand why this is a debate.


Option three - retake LSAT, get better options, make it rain on them hoes.


Retaking always an option. But for whatever reason OP has decided to choose based on these options. I'm sure he's aware that you can retake the test. He's chosen not to. It's not really advice to tell people to retake when they have already ruled that option out themselves.

User avatar
PennBull
Posts: 15435
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:59 pm

Re: richmond v. catholic (dirt cheap)

Postby PennBull » Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:45 am

abc12345675 wrote: I was an econ major.


Oh my bad. Carry on.

User avatar
flem
Posts: 12949
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:44 pm

Re: richmond v. catholic (dirt cheap)

Postby flem » Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:47 am

abc12345675 wrote:Retaking always an option. But for whatever reason OP has decided to choose based on these options. I'm sure he's aware that you can retake the test. He's chosen not to. It's not really advice to tell people to retake when they have already ruled that option out themselves.


It is when the options on the table give you a coin flip's chance at gainful full time legal employment, but whatevs brah

User avatar
Icculus
Posts: 1421
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:02 am

Re: richmond v. catholic (dirt cheap)

Postby Icculus » Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:49 am

abc12345675 wrote:Yes, you condescending prick. I was an econ major.

Fact of the matter is, however, that he doesn't have a better option. I wouldn't advise him to pass on Vandy for a free ride at Catholic. But it's Catholic or Richmond. I don't understand why this is a debate.




The question is why do OP and you both assume these are the only two options? Retake is an option, as is not going to law school. Schools like this pray on the fact that some people will go to law school at almost any cost and almost anywhere when maybe that's not the best decision. I've seen people on this forum say things like, "if it's your dream go for it" when the better advice may be to get a new dream. I always dreamed of being a starting pitcher for the Boston Red Sox, unfortunately my complete lack of pitching ability prevented that. Everyone has a niche and some people would better off looking at the reality of the situation they are putting themselves in. And free in this case is not free, it's still 60K + in debt.

abc12345675
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:27 am

Re: richmond v. catholic (dirt cheap)

Postby abc12345675 » Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:02 pm

Icculus wrote:
abc12345675 wrote:Yes, you condescending prick. I was an econ major.

Fact of the matter is, however, that he doesn't have a better option. I wouldn't advise him to pass on Vandy for a free ride at Catholic. But it's Catholic or Richmond. I don't understand why this is a debate.




The question is why do OP and you both assume these are the only two options? Retake is an option, as is not going to law school. Schools like this pray on the fact that some people will go to law school at almost any cost and almost anywhere when maybe that's not the best decision. I've seen people on this forum say things like, "if it's your dream go for it" when the better advice may be to get a new dream. I always dreamed of being a starting pitcher for the Boston Red Sox, unfortunately my complete lack of pitching ability prevented that. Everyone has a niche and some people would better off looking at the reality of the situation they are putting themselves in. And free in this case is not free, it's still 60K + in debt.


It's not 60k in debt. He says his parents are paying for half his living expenses. And if you have to spend 20k a year on living expenses, well shame on you for not being frugal enough.

What gets overlooked on here is that maybe this man has no chance at employment without a law degree. And he has an option to get a free one. Maybe he doesn't have a marketable degree, so his chance at employment there is substantially less than 50%.

User avatar
flem
Posts: 12949
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:44 pm

Re: richmond v. catholic (dirt cheap)

Postby flem » Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:06 pm

abc12345675 wrote:And if you have to spend 20k a year on living expenses, well shame on you for not being frugal enough.


You know Catholic is in DC, yes?

abc12345675
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:27 am

Re: richmond v. catholic (dirt cheap)

Postby abc12345675 » Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:09 pm

flem wrote:
abc12345675 wrote:And if you have to spend 20k a year on living expenses, well shame on you for not being frugal enough.


You know Catholic is in DC, yes?


Yes. I do. Are you going to live in the swankiest neighborhood? No. Are you going to eat out more than once a week? No. Are you a student? Yes, so live like it.

I went to undergrad in NYC and managed to have $1400 a month in living expenses. Including rent, food, utilities, transportation etc. And DC is cheaper

User avatar
Icculus
Posts: 1421
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:02 am

Re: richmond v. catholic (dirt cheap)

Postby Icculus » Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:13 pm

abc12345675 wrote:
Icculus wrote:
abc12345675 wrote:Yes, you condescending prick. I was an econ major.

Fact of the matter is, however, that he doesn't have a better option. I wouldn't advise him to pass on Vandy for a free ride at Catholic. But it's Catholic or Richmond. I don't understand why this is a debate.




The question is why do OP and you both assume these are the only two options? Retake is an option, as is not going to law school. Schools like this pray on the fact that some people will go to law school at almost any cost and almost anywhere when maybe that's not the best decision. I've seen people on this forum say things like, "if it's your dream go for it" when the better advice may be to get a new dream. I always dreamed of being a starting pitcher for the Boston Red Sox, unfortunately my complete lack of pitching ability prevented that. Everyone has a niche and some people would better off looking at the reality of the situation they are putting themselves in. And free in this case is not free, it's still 60K + in debt.


It's not 60k in debt. He says his parents are paying for half his living expenses. And if you have to spend 20k a year on living expenses, well shame on you for not being frugal enough.

What gets overlooked on here is that maybe this man has no chance at employment without a law degree. And he has an option to get a free one. Maybe he doesn't have a marketable degree, so his chance at employment there is substantially less than 50%.


How is one who is unemployable suddenly employable with a law degree from either of these schools? If OP has a guaranteed job with a JD like family connections/business or firm it would change my opinion. But a JD does not equal employment. And DC is expensive.

User avatar
flem
Posts: 12949
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:44 pm

Re: richmond v. catholic (dirt cheap)

Postby flem » Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:15 pm

Icculus wrote:How is one who is unemployable suddenly employable with a law degree from either of these schools? If OP has a guaranteed job with a JD like family connections/business or firm it would change my opinion. But a JD does not equal employment. And DC is expensive.


This

If he ends up on the wrong side of that coin flip I would argue he's even less employable than he was before with 30K of debt.

User avatar
top30man
Posts: 1224
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:11 pm

Re: richmond v. catholic (dirt cheap)

Postby top30man » Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:17 pm

flem wrote:
Icculus wrote:How is one who is unemployable suddenly employable with a law degree from either of these schools? If OP has a guaranteed job with a JD like family connections/business or firm it would change my opinion. But a JD does not equal employment. And DC is expensive.


This

If he ends up on the wrong side of that coin flip I would argue he's even less employable than he was before with 30K of debt.

I don't buy that people have "no employment prospects." If you have a college degree you are employable. I have a useless liberal arts degree and have been working full time in a white collar job for a year. I think it's more an issue of adjusting your standards.
Catholic for nearly free isn't a bad deal without stips. But it's not great either.

User avatar
sunynp
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: richmond v. catholic (dirt cheap)

Postby sunynp » Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:24 pm

abc12345675 wrote:
flem wrote:
abc12345675 wrote:Yes, you condescending prick. I was an econ major.

Fact of the matter is, however, that he doesn't have a better option. I wouldn't advise him to pass on Vandy for a free ride at Catholic. But it's Catholic or Richmond. I don't understand why this is a debate.


Option three - retake LSAT, get better options, make it rain on them hoes.


Retaking always an option. But for whatever reason OP has decided to choose based on these options. I'm sure he's aware that you can retake the test. He's chosen not to. It's not really advice to tell people to retake when they have already ruled that option out themselves.


Many people who refuse to retake don't understand how much the can benefit from a retake. No one wants to retake the LSAT. They retake because they know it will benefit them.

OP has a good chance of never working as a lawyer. But no one can stop him from going. If he wants to go anyway, then go ahead. At least he won't have a huge burden of debt he can't repay.

User avatar
flem
Posts: 12949
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:44 pm

Re: richmond v. catholic (dirt cheap)

Postby flem » Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:27 pm

top30man wrote:I don't buy that people have "no employment prospects." If you have a college degree you are employable. I have a useless liberal arts degree and have been working full time in a white collar job for a year. I think it's more an issue of adjusting your standards.
Catholic for nearly free isn't a bad deal without stips. But it's not great either.


To support this point: 35k/yr desk jockey with worthless lib arts degree checking in

timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: richmond v. catholic (dirt cheap)

Postby timbs4339 » Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:51 pm

top30man wrote:
flem wrote:
Icculus wrote:How is one who is unemployable suddenly employable with a law degree from either of these schools? If OP has a guaranteed job with a JD like family connections/business or firm it would change my opinion. But a JD does not equal employment. And DC is expensive.


This

If he ends up on the wrong side of that coin flip I would argue he's even less employable than he was before with 30K of debt.

I don't buy that people have "no employment prospects." If you have a college degree you are employable. I have a useless liberal arts degree and have been working full time in a white collar job for a year. I think it's more an issue of adjusting your standards.
Catholic for nearly free isn't a bad deal without stips. But it's not great either.


A lot of it may be that college graduates don't know how to go about looking for a white-collar job, but they do know how to apply to schools. And LSAC and the law schools make it so easy to apply to dozens of places. It's a situation where get mediocre paid entry-level job > work for a few years > slowly get promoted/switch jobs > comfortable middle class life seems more ridiculous than take LSAT > apply to law school > ???? > Profit.

User avatar
Nova
Posts: 9116
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: richmond v. catholic (dirt cheap)

Postby Nova » Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:31 pm

flem wrote:
top30man wrote:I don't buy that people have "no employment prospects." If you have a college degree you are employable. I have a useless liberal arts degree and have been working full time in a white collar job for a year. I think it's more an issue of adjusting your standards.
Catholic for nearly free isn't a bad deal without stips. But it's not great either.


To support this point: 35k/yr desk jockey with worthless lib arts degree checking in


30k/yr clothing store manager with worthless liberal arts degree also checking in.

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: richmond v. catholic (dirt cheap)

Postby RedBirds2011 » Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:43 pm

OP, I am of the opinion, depending on ones goals, that going to a lower ranked school with little debt can actually be a good choice if it's in a market you want to practice and have ties in. HOWEVER, I would NEVER do that in a major market like DC.

User avatar
BmoreOrLess
Posts: 2084
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:15 pm

Re: richmond v. catholic (dirt cheap)

Postby BmoreOrLess » Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:20 pm

flem wrote:
top30man wrote:I don't buy that people have "no employment prospects." If you have a college degree you are employable. I have a useless liberal arts degree and have been working full time in a white collar job for a year. I think it's more an issue of adjusting your standards.
Catholic for nearly free isn't a bad deal without stips. But it's not great either.


To support this point: 35k/yr desk jockey with worthless lib arts degree checking in


People who say there it is impossible to find a job are idiotic. Is it hard to find a really good, fulfilling job? Absolutely, but anyone who says they can't find a job anywhere is just being lazy. I don't care if you have some useless liberal arts degree. Find a investment management firm (think Fidelity, T Rowe Price, Vanguard to name a few), and apply to be a customer service rep. As long as you can speak intelligently about how you are a responsible human being, you will get a job. Does it suck? Very much so, but it will pay bills, and customer service is an extremely valuable skill to have. It will give you something to talk about if/when you do go to law school and are applying for jobs then. Its not great but its also not a bad gig to have while studying your ass off to retake the LSAT.

buster12
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 8:06 pm

.

Postby buster12 » Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:47 pm

.
Last edited by buster12 on Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
flem
Posts: 12949
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:44 pm

Re: richmond v. catholic (dirt cheap)

Postby flem » Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:50 pm

buster12 wrote:Very appreciative of all the replys. I'm taking everything into consideration. And just an FYI: If I go to Catholic I won't be taking out any loans for living expenses. I'd only choose Catholic over Richmond for saving money purposes and to maximize this I'd choose to live at home and eat and drink my parent's food and beer ;)


What are your career goals?

User avatar
rickgrimes69
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:56 am

Re: richmond v. catholic (dirt cheap)

Postby rickgrimes69 » Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:53 pm

abc12345675 wrote:
flem wrote:
abc12345675 wrote:And if you have to spend 20k a year on living expenses, well shame on you for not being frugal enough.


You know Catholic is in DC, yes?


Yes. I do. Are you going to live in the swankiest neighborhood a neighborhood where you won't get stabbed? No.


FTFY

I went to undergrad in NYC and managed to have $1400 a month in living expenses. Including rent, food, utilities, transportation etc. And DC is cheaper


And when and where did you live in NYC exactly? That sounds mighty frugal to me for someone supposedly living in Union Sq or the Village, so my guess is you either went to school a few years ago or you lived in the ghetto.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests