USC at Sticker or Loyola with $90k? Forum

[ndirish2010]

Who makes $75K out of law school? Bimodal distribution.

[Tiago Splitter]

The most common fallacy that I see on TLS is the notion that any school <T14 is completely and utterly not worth attending.

Actually, the biggest fallacy is pretending that this is the biggest fallacy, thus allowing someone to convince himself that those suggesting retake are a bunch of elitist pricks. Posters in this thread are saying that USC at more than 200K debt is a bad idea, not USC at any price.

I do think $75 out of Loyola is well within reach.

Only if you have a very liberal definition of "well within reach."

[CO2016YEAH]

The most common fallacy that I see on TLS is the notion that any school <T14 is completely and utterly not worth attending.

Actually, the biggest fallacy is pretending that this is the biggest fallacy, thus allowing someone to convince himself that those suggesting retake are a bunch of elitist pricks. Posters in this thread are saying that USC at more than 200K debt is a bad idea, not USC at any price.

I do think $75 out of Loyola is well within reach.

Only if you have a very liberal definition of "well within reach."

The point was not that those suggesting retaking are elitist pricks and was also not that retaking and attaining a higher score is not a good idea. The point was that favorable outcomes are by no narrow stretch attainable from paying sticker outside of T14. Which brings me to another often implied fallacy, which is to say that debt and limited prospects at graduation equals an abysmal pit of poverty and a lifetime of failure.

The notion that USC with scholarship money is preferable is not disputed.

[ndirish2010]

I don't go to a T14, but I am a 3L and I do know a little bit more about the job market than you do. I would think you would value the advice of someone in my position over a bunch of 0Ls. But what do I know? Like Mr. Splitter said, USC is not a bad school, it is just a bad investment at sticker price.

[CO2016YEAH]

I don't go to a T14, but I am a 3L and I do know a little bit more about the job market than you do. I would think you would value the advice of someone in my position over a bunch of 0Ls. But what do I know? Like Mr. Splitter said, USC is not a bad school, it is just a bad investment at sticker price.

I appreciate all input that has been provided. It's food for thought and the discussion has provided insight and sources of information I had not seen.

My only issue of contention with you was that it is a fallacy to say that "no one should attend (either school at the respective price)." I pointed this out by stating that the empirical evidence available is not static and "many" have had favorable outcomes. That is not to say that Loyola at 1/3 or USC at sticker will surely result in an awesome outcome (which is likely the fallacy that others have alluded to), but that those with thriving careers would disagree with your generalization.

So, thanks! Best of luck with OCI and your upcoming employment prospects. I have frequent contact with many attorneys that graduated mid 2000's and even earlier. The CW out "in the world" is that the market is tough, but not impenetrable (even for people coming from #51 and below). You'll come up with something.

[ndirish2010]

I don't go to a T14, but I am a 3L and I do know a little bit more about the job market than you do. I would think you would value the advice of someone in my position over a bunch of 0Ls. But what do I know? Like Mr. Splitter said, USC is not a bad school, it is just a bad investment at sticker price.

I appreciate all input that has been provided. It's food for thought and the discussion has provided insight and sources of information I had not seen.

My only issue of contention with you was that it is a fallacy to say that "no one should attend (either school at the respective price)." I pointed this out by stating that the empirical evidence available is not static and "many" have had favorable outcomes. That is not to say that Loyola at 1/3 or USC at sticker will surely result in an awesome outcome (which is likely the fallacy that others have alluded to), but that those with thriving careers would disagree with your generalization.

So, thanks! Best of luck with OCI and your upcoming employment prospects. I have frequent contact with many attorneys that graduated mid 2000's and even earlier. The CW out "in the world" is that the market is tough, but not impenetrable (even for people coming from #51 and below). You'll come up with something.

My OCI is long over.

Nobody should go to USC at sticker unless they are independently wealthy and have literally nothing else better to do for three years. If you really did have nothing better to do for three years, why not spend it continually retaking the LSAT?

[rad lulz]

So, thanks! Best of luck with OCI and your upcoming employment prospects. I have frequent contact with many attorneys that graduated mid 2000's and even earlier. The CW out "in the world" is that the market is tough, but not impenetrable (even for people coming from #51 and below). You'll come up with something.

Attorneys from the mid 2000s who are not actively involved in the hiring of new grads are some of the worst people to talk to about employment. They have no idea what it takes to get hired in the biggest recession since the great depression.

Furthermore, the stats already linked many times in this thread indicate that scads of people from USC and Loyola do not, in fact, come up with "something."

[JamesDean1955]

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?r=ca

More people are underemployed from Loyola than employed in FT/LT legal jobs

As for USC, I don't know why you'd pay sticker for a 68% shot at ANY FT/LT legal job. Note that that number is not "jobs that would make spending over $200,000 worthwhile.

Listen to Grizz.

[CO2016YEAH]

I don't go to a T14, but I am a 3L and I do know a little bit more about the job market than you do. I would think you would value the advice of someone in my position over a bunch of 0Ls. But what do I know? Like Mr. Splitter said, USC is not a bad school, it is just a bad investment at sticker price.

I appreciate all input that has been provided. It's food for thought and the discussion has provided insight and sources of information I had not seen.

My only issue of contention with you was that it is a fallacy to say that "no one should attend (either school at the respective price)." I pointed this out by stating that the empirical evidence available is not static and "many" have had favorable outcomes. That is not to say that Loyola at 1/3 or USC at sticker will surely result in an awesome outcome (which is likely the fallacy that others have alluded to), but that those with thriving careers would disagree with your generalization.

So, thanks! Best of luck with OCI and your upcoming employment prospects. I have frequent contact with many attorneys that graduated mid 2000's and even earlier. The CW out "in the world" is that the market is tough, but not impenetrable (even for people coming from #51 and below). You'll come up with something.

My OCI is long over.

Nobody should go to USC at sticker unless they are independently wealthy and have literally nothing else better to do for three years. If you really did have nothing better to do for three years, why not spend it continually retaking the LSAT?

The reality is I could walk back into a career that would pay close to the median reported salary coming out of Loyola. That would not be a better way to spend three years, though, as each year I'm not in law school is a year I'm delaying being an attorney. I would be retaining the opportunity in that career, but would be posed with the opportunity cost of not becoming an attorney in 2016. Merely attaining gainful employment and financial stability are not my life's end goals; they are incidental, however, necessary components. A high lsat and school pedigree are not end goals; they are also merely incidental, but I'm uncertain as to the degree they are necessary to meet the end. The statistics cited make a strong case, but aren't absolute. The end goal is being an attorney and becoming one as effectively and efficiently as possible.

My resistance to sitting it out a cycle is due to that fact that I'm not convinced this will lead to a more expedient or effective road to the ultimate goal. The obvious factors of consideration are debt load and the ability to offset that debt at graduation. To this end the responses I've gotten were predictable and statistically sound, but not absolute. So I guess the big question remains, will I "make it" out of Loyola just the same as I would out of USC (or UCLA)? A best outcome from sitting it out would be scoring higher and getting comparable money at one of the other two school. A worst case scenario would be being in the same situation I am now next year (potentially without the Loyola deal on the table). That is a risk and a delay of the action plan I'm not sure I'm willing to take. The problem is compounded by the possibility that a best case scenario next year may not mean a best case scenario 3, or 5, or 10 years later.

[francesfarmer]

Another bingo square: special snowflake syndrome (re: statistics are not absolutes).

[CO2016YEAH]

So, thanks! Best of luck with OCI and your upcoming employment prospects. I have frequent contact with many attorneys that graduated mid 2000's and even earlier. The CW out "in the world" is that the market is tough, but not impenetrable (even for people coming from #51 and below). You'll come up with something.

Attorneys from the mid 2000s who are not actively involved in the hiring of new grads are some of the worst people to talk to about employment. They have no idea what it takes to get hired in the biggest recession since the great depression.

Furthermore, the stats already linked many times in this thread indicate that scads of people from USC and Loyola do not, in fact, come up with "something."

Isn't this a good reason to go to the place that keeps debt to a minimum? I'm asking.

Yes, I know, the same deal at USC would be better. But that's not currently an anticipated option.

[Rahviveh]

I don't go to a T14, but I am a 3L and I do know a little bit more about the job market than you do. I would think you would value the advice of someone in my position over a bunch of 0Ls. But what do I know? Like Mr. Splitter said, USC is not a bad school, it is just a bad investment at sticker price.

I appreciate all input that has been provided. It's food for thought and the discussion has provided insight and sources of information I had not seen.

My only issue of contention with you was that it is a fallacy to say that "no one should attend (either school at the respective price)." I pointed this out by stating that the empirical evidence available is not static and "many" have had favorable outcomes. That is not to say that Loyola at 1/3 or USC at sticker will surely result in an awesome outcome (which is likely the fallacy that others have alluded to), but that those with thriving careers would disagree with your generalization.

So, thanks! Best of luck with OCI and your upcoming employment prospects. I have frequent contact with many attorneys that graduated mid 2000's and even earlier. The CW out "in the world" is that the market is tough, but not impenetrable (even for people coming from #51 and below). You'll come up with something.

My OCI is long over.

Nobody should go to USC at sticker unless they are independently wealthy and have literally nothing else better to do for three years. If you really did have nothing better to do for three years, why not spend it continually retaking the LSAT?

The reality is I could walk back into a career that would pay close to the median reported salary coming out of Loyola. That would not be a better way to spend three years, though, as each year I'm not in law school is a year I'm delaying being an attorney. I would be retaining the opportunity in that career, but would be posed with the opportunity cost of not becoming an attorney in 2016. Merely attaining gainful employment and financial stability are not my life's end goals; they are incidental, however, necessary components. A high lsat and school pedigree are not end goals; they are also merely incidental, but I'm uncertain as to the degree they are necessary to meet the end. The statistics cited make a strong case, but aren't absolute. The end goal is being an attorney and becoming one as effectively and efficiently as possible.

My resistance to sitting it out a cycle is due to that fact that I'm not convinced this will lead to a more expedient or effective road to the ultimate goal. The obvious factors of consideration are debt load and the ability to offset that debt at graduation. To this end the responses I've gotten were predictable and statistically sound, but not absolute. So I guess the big question remains, will I "make it" out of Loyola just the same as I would out of USC (or UCLA)? A best outcome from sitting it out would be scoring higher and getting comparable money at one of the other two school. A worst case scenario would be being in the same situation I am now next year (potentially without the Loyola deal on the table). That is a risk and a delay of the action plan I'm not sure I'm willing to take. The problem is compounded by the possibility that a best case scenario next year may not mean a best case scenario 3, or 5, or 10 years later.

The deal you're getting from Loyola isn't that great. I wouldn't lose sleep over it. And you'll probably get similar deals if you re-apply next year with the same numbers.

Also, you have not considered the option of taking the June test, which doesn't commit you to waiting a year, but does open up your options.

[timbs4339]

I don't go to a T14, but I am a 3L and I do know a little bit more about the job market than you do. I would think you would value the advice of someone in my position over a bunch of 0Ls. But what do I know? Like Mr. Splitter said, USC is not a bad school, it is just a bad investment at sticker price.

I appreciate all input that has been provided. It's food for thought and the discussion has provided insight and sources of information I had not seen.

My only issue of contention with you was that it is a fallacy to say that "no one should attend (either school at the respective price)." I pointed this out by stating that the empirical evidence available is not static and "many" have had favorable outcomes. That is not to say that Loyola at 1/3 or USC at sticker will surely result in an awesome outcome (which is likely the fallacy that others have alluded to), but that those with thriving careers would disagree with your generalization.

So, thanks! Best of luck with OCI and your upcoming employment prospects. I have frequent contact with many attorneys that graduated mid 2000's and even earlier. The CW out "in the world" is that the market is tough, but not impenetrable (even for people coming from #51 and below). You'll come up with something.

My OCI is long over.

Nobody should go to USC at sticker unless they are independently wealthy and have literally nothing else better to do for three years. If you really did have nothing better to do for three years, why not spend it continually retaking the LSAT?

The reality is I could walk back into a career that would pay close to the median reported salary coming out of Loyola. That would not be a better way to spend three years, though, as each year I'm not in law school is a year I'm delaying being an attorney. I would be retaining the opportunity in that career, but would be posed with the opportunity cost of not becoming an attorney in 2016. Merely attaining gainful employment and financial stability are not my life's end goals; they are incidental, however, necessary components. A high lsat and school pedigree are not end goals; they are also merely incidental, but I'm uncertain as to the degree they are necessary to meet the end. The statistics cited make a strong case, but aren't absolute. The end goal is being an attorney and becoming one as effectively and efficiently as possible.

My resistance to sitting it out a cycle is due to that fact that I'm not convinced this will lead to a more expedient or effective road to the ultimate goal. The obvious factors of consideration are debt load and the ability to offset that debt at graduation. To this end the responses I've gotten were predictable and statistically sound, but not absolute. So I guess the big question remains, will I "make it" out of Loyola just the same as I would out of USC (or UCLA)? A best outcome from sitting it out would be scoring higher and getting comparable money at one of the other two school. A worst case scenario would be being in the same situation I am now next year (potentially without the Loyola deal on the table). That is a risk and a delay of the action plan I'm not sure I'm willing to take. The problem is compounded by the possibility that a best case scenario next year may not mean a best case scenario 3, or 5, or 10 years later.

It's already been established that those "median starting salary" numbers are bullshit. The premise that the worst case scenario is the same salary + debt is completely wrong. The statistics may not be 100% conclusive, but you have no evidence to the contrary except anecdotes from successful graduates that are contradicted by the raw numbers, and what sounds like optimism bias about expecting to place higher than median.

Completing law school + passing the bar =/= being an attorney. Someone needs to actually hire you to represent clients or the government before you get to where you want to go.

You also need to discount the scholly on the chance you will lose it- since Loyola's median GPA is a 3.0 you're really getting a 45K scholly.

[CO2016YEAH]

The deal you're getting from Loyola isn't that great. I wouldn't lose sleep over it. And you'll probably get similar deals if you re-apply next year with the same numbers.

Also, you have not considered the option of taking the June test, which doesn't commit you to waiting a year, but does open up your options.

Ah! Excellent point!

I've been considering February, also. But that doesn't help much this cycle, aside from possibly negotiating.

[Rahviveh]

Ah! Excellent point!

I've been considering February, also. But that doesn't help much this cycle, aside from possibly negotiating.

If you aim for June you can maximize prepwork and also study without too much stress. For February you'd be cramming. It depends I guess on your current score and what you were PTing at. Check out NoodleOne's guide for retakers, and the study schedules on LSAT Blog, for guidance.

You are reluctant to think about next cycle but if you had a higher score you'd feel differently.

[CO2016YEAH]

I appreciate all input that has been provided. It's food for thought and the discussion has provided insight and sources of information I had not seen.

My only issue of contention with you was that it is a fallacy to say that "no one should attend (either school at the respective price)." I pointed this out by stating that the empirical evidence available is not static and "many" have had favorable outcomes. That is not to say that Loyola at 1/3 or USC at sticker will surely result in an awesome outcome (which is likely the fallacy that others have alluded to), but that those with thriving careers would disagree with your generalization.

So, thanks! Best of luck with OCI and your upcoming employment prospects. I have frequent contact with many attorneys that graduated mid 2000's and even earlier. The CW out "in the world" is that the market is tough, but not impenetrable (even for people coming from #51 and below). You'll come up with something.

My OCI is long over.

Nobody should go to USC at sticker unless they are independently wealthy and have literally nothing else better to do for three years. If you really did have nothing better to do for three years, why not spend it continually retaking the LSAT?

The reality is I could walk back into a career that would pay close to the median reported salary coming out of Loyola. That would not be a better way to spend three years, though, as each year I'm not in law school is a year I'm delaying being an attorney. I would be retaining the opportunity in that career, but would be posed with the opportunity cost of not becoming an attorney in 2016. Merely attaining gainful employment and financial stability are not my life's end goals; they are incidental, however, necessary components. A high lsat and school pedigree are not end goals; they are also merely incidental, but I'm uncertain as to the degree they are necessary to meet the end. The statistics cited make a strong case, but aren't absolute. The end goal is being an attorney and becoming one as effectively and efficiently as possible.

My resistance to sitting it out a cycle is due to that fact that I'm not convinced this will lead to a more expedient or effective road to the ultimate goal. The obvious factors of consideration are debt load and the ability to offset that debt at graduation. To this end the responses I've gotten were predictable and statistically sound, but not absolute. So I guess the big question remains, will I "make it" out of Loyola just the same as I would out of USC (or UCLA)? A best outcome from sitting it out would be scoring higher and getting comparable money at one of the other two school. A worst case scenario would be being in the same situation I am now next year (potentially without the Loyola deal on the table). That is a risk and a delay of the action plan I'm not sure I'm willing to take. The problem is compounded by the possibility that a best case scenario next year may not mean a best case scenario 3, or 5, or 10 years later.

It's already been established that those "median starting salary" numbers are bullshit. The premise that the worst case scenario is the same salary + debt is completely wrong. The statistics may not be 100% conclusive, but you have no evidence to the contrary except anecdotes from successful graduates that are contradicted by the raw numbers, and what sounds like optimism bias about expecting to place higher than median.

Completing law school + passing the bar =/= being an attorney. Someone needs to actually hire you to represent clients or the government before you get to where you want to go.

You also need to discount the scholly on the chance you will lose it- since Loyola's median GPA is a 3.0 you're really getting a 45K scholly.

The possibility of losing it is definitely something I've thought of. But in citing the salary I'm basically saying that I could make this in another industry, if not available in law. This puts me basically where I am now, less IBR, but with a JD.

[CO2016YEAH]

Ah! Excellent point!

I've been considering February, also. But that doesn't help much this cycle, aside from possibly negotiating.

If you aim for June you can maximize prepwork and also study without too much stress. For February you'd be cramming. It depends I guess on your current score and what you were PTing at. Check out NoodleOne's guide for retakers, and the study schedules on LSAT Blog, for guidance.

You are reluctant to think about next cycle but if you had a higher score you'd feel differently.

Definitely. I didn't see where you were going with that at first.

[timbs4339]

It's already been established that those "median starting salary" numbers are bullshit. The premise that the worst case scenario is the same salary + debt is completely wrong. The statistics may not be 100% conclusive, but you have no evidence to the contrary except anecdotes from successful graduates that are contradicted by the raw numbers, and what sounds like optimism bias about expecting to place higher than median.

Completing law school + passing the bar =/= being an attorney. Someone needs to actually hire you to represent clients or the government before you get to where you want to go.

You also need to discount the scholly on the chance you will lose it- since Loyola's median GPA is a 3.0 you're really getting a 45K scholly.

The possibility of losing it is definitely something I've thought of. But in citing the salary I'm basically saying that I could make this in another industry, if not available in law. This puts me basically where I am now, less IBR, but with a JD.

Which would you prefer, being a lawyer making 40-50K (doing small type law or local government DA/PD), or going back to your old career making 75K? Because the most likely option out of Loyola (the median option) is probably around 40-50K. And if you need top third to retain- you could be looking at a mid-six figure debt load.

I wouldn't rely on IBR. With the debt levels you'd be carrying out of USC or Loyola without scholly you'd almost certainly have to stay on the program for 20 years, and a lot can happen politically in 20 years. It'll be a drag on your credit and you'll have to pay off principal + capitalized interest if you ever do strike it rich.

[Eva_Bates]

You also need to discount the scholly on the chance you will lose it- since Loyola's median GPA is a 3.0 you're really getting a 45K scholly.

Loyola's media GPA definitely is NOT 3.0 - more like 3.2 or 3.3. So the original poster has to stay within the top 50% of the class, ish, in order to keep his scholarship for 2L and 3L.