Cardozo v. Loyola

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
well.let's.see
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:44 pm

Cardozo v. Loyola

Postby well.let's.see » Sun Apr 28, 2013 3:00 pm

I need some input, where I want to be geographically is not an issue. Love LA, Love NYC.

Cardozo would cost slightly more due to COL in NYC, but pretty close at the end of the day (or, 3 yrs).

I don't know the kind of law I'd like to do.

Any opinions about these schools?

Cultural climate? Competition? Caliber of students? General Opportunity? Alumni commitment? Anything at all?

Ti Malice
Posts: 1955
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:55 am

Re: Cardozo v. Loyola

Postby Ti Malice » Sun Apr 28, 2013 3:05 pm


User avatar
Meepo
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 9:02 pm

Re: Cardozo v. Loyola

Postby Meepo » Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:49 pm

well.let's.see wrote:I need some input, where I want to be geographically is not an issue. Love LA, Love NYC.

Cardozo would cost slightly more due to COL in NYC, but pretty close at the end of the day (or, 3 yrs).

I don't know the kind of law I'd like to do.

Any opinions about these schools?

Cultural climate? Competition? Caliber of students? General Opportunity? Alumni commitment? Anything at all?


loyola is conservative, and i think over the past couple of years was involved in some scandals about fixing GPA of students? also their employment numbers are abysmal. downtown LA isn't that a huge area, if you want city life, i'd go with cardozo over loyola

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Cardozo v. Loyola

Postby romothesavior » Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:54 pm

OP, please follow these basic instructions:

Ti Malice wrote:http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=206299


Both schools have very mediocre job prospects and you shouldn't go to either without a very sizeable scholarship (pretty much a full ride). Going into big debt for either would be a terrible decision.

well.let's.see
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:44 pm

Re: Cardozo v. Loyola

Postby well.let's.see » Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:28 pm

Ti Malice wrote:http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=206299


My apologies:

3.8/162 (taken once)

Total Debt: ~100k Loyola v. ~115k Cardozo

I think all the other considerations are addressed in the original post.

Also, while I respect the don't attend either and re-take perspective, it's really not in the cards for me. So, please, try and limit advice to the given options. Unless, of course, you want to tell me to re-take because you have specific information about these schools and not just the rationale posted all over TLS.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Cardozo v. Loyola

Postby romothesavior » Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:47 pm

You have a great GPA, and with 4-5 points, you'd be looking at T20 with scholarship, with 6-8 points you'd be looking at T14 acceptances and pretty much full rides to T20s, and with 9-10 points you're looking at T14 full rides/huge scholarships. Why do you think a retake isn't in the cards for you? It is, without any doubt at all, the best decision for you in the long term. I had a 3.8/161 and got a 168 on my retake. Unfortunately, apps were at an all time high then, so the competition was fierce. Now? Not so much. If I had gotten a 168 now I'd be looking at full rides at T20s. You'd be crazy not to retake.

Turning to these schools, Have you looked at the jobs data for these schools? The reason we say don't go is because of the job statistics:

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=cardozo
http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=loyola

Neither school is worth anywhere close to the kind of debt you're talking about. You have a 50/50 shot at getting a lawyer job, and more than likely that job will be in the mid-five figure range. Do you really want to be paying off 100k+ in debt with a 40-50k salary... or worse?

Finally, I'm curious... when did you apply?

User avatar
WokeUpInACar
Posts: 5513
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:11 pm

Re: Cardozo v. Loyola

Postby WokeUpInACar » Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:47 pm

You absolutely positively must retake the LSAT. Anything else would be ludicrous.

User avatar
Clearly
Posts: 4166
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:09 pm

Re: Cardozo v. Loyola

Postby Clearly » Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:59 pm

WokeUpInACar wrote:You absolutely positively must retake the LSAT. Anything else would be ludicrous.

This.

well.let's.see
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:44 pm

Re: Cardozo v. Loyola

Postby well.let's.see » Sun Apr 28, 2013 7:19 pm

romothesavior wrote:You have a great GPA, and with 4-5 points, you'd be looking at T20 with scholarship, with 6-8 points you'd be looking at T14 acceptances and pretty much full rides to T20s, and with 9-10 points you're looking at T14 full rides/huge scholarships. Why do you think a retake isn't in the cards for you? It is, without any doubt at all, the best decision for you in the long term. I had a 3.8/161 and got a 168 on my retake. Unfortunately, apps were at an all time high then, so the competition was fierce. Now? Not so much. If I had gotten a 168 now I'd be looking at full rides at T20s. You'd be crazy not to retake.

Turning to these schools, Have you looked at the jobs data for these schools? The reason we say don't go is because of the job statistics:

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=cardozo
http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=loyola

Neither school is worth anywhere close to the kind of debt you're talking about. You have a 50/50 shot at getting a lawyer job, and more than likely that job will be in the mid-five figure range. Do you really want to be paying off 100k+ in debt with a 40-50k salary... or worse?

Finally, I'm curious... when did you apply?


I applied mid-January.

I understand that I have a strong gpa, but I just don't feel confident that I would improve my LSAT enough to justify taking the year off. I feel I underperformed, greatly, but I was well prepared for the test, and things didn't go my way on test day.

But this might be a good question: I've done research, I read people's opinions, and I'm not clear...how are re-take's honestly evaluated?

For what it's worth, here's my understanding (of my situation)...if I improve:

1-2 pts : no benefit (162-3 ; 2 takes)

3 pts : slight benefit, but perhaps no benefit (a 164 ; 2 takes)

4-5 pts : benefit, no explanation (165-6 ; 2 takes)

6-7 pts : more beneficial, but needs a solid explanation to not be averaged (167-8 ; 2 takes)--if averaged, 164/5...and, I don't really have a great explanation

8+ pts : suspiciously received, most likely averaged (169+ ; 2 takes) 165+

And in all honestly, it would be a lie to say I think I will go up more than 6 pts.

So, what I'm thinking is that if I'm going to be evaluated at 165-7, best case scenario is that I am paying ~ half of what I am now at these schools, ~150 t-20, and sticker if I was lucky enough to get into a UCLA...and I don't think that, at best case scenario, is worth delaying a year of my life. Maybe, then, the conclusion is that I should not go to law school. But right now, I feel compelled.

User avatar
Nelson
Posts: 2061
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:43 am

Re: Cardozo v. Loyola

Postby Nelson » Sun Apr 28, 2013 7:20 pm

Law schools don't average retakes.

User avatar
NoodleyOne
Posts: 2358
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: Cardozo v. Loyola

Postby NoodleyOne » Sun Apr 28, 2013 7:30 pm

Retake.

Edit: Okay, I'm going to give real advice instead of snark. The LSAT is a learnable test. There are numerous guides on this very forum which have resulted in people scoring much better than previously possible. My own anecdote is I started at a cold 158, studied for awhile and "underperformed" a 169, then kicked that shit into high gear and "underperformed" for a 179 (October 2012 had a BS -1 for 180 curve and I missed 2... still bitter). The fact is, you can do better, and by doing better you are probably making yourself millions of dollars over the course of your career, not to mention tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in the short term based on better schools (with better employment prospects) and good scholarships. With your numbers and a 172, you could snag close to a full ride from numerous T14 schools.

Seriously. 150 bucks (or however much the LSAT costs), maybe 200 bucks more in study materials, maybe a few hundred bucks for a tutor (hit me up with a PM if you're interested ;) ), and one year is possibly what's standing between you and hundreds of thousands of dollars. If you insist on becoming a lawyer, there's no better bet.

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

Re: Cardozo v. Loyola

Postby timbs4339 » Sun Apr 28, 2013 7:36 pm

Nelson wrote:Law schools don't average retakes.


Seriously this should be posted in big, bold letters on every page on this website. Shit like this makes law schools millions each year.

Pope Francis
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 5:41 pm

Re: Cardozo v. Loyola

Postby Pope Francis » Sun Apr 28, 2013 7:47 pm

Nelson wrote:Law schools don't average retakes.


THIS. If you bring up the LSAT, you will get into the schools you would have gotten into had you only taken the test once (with the possible exception of Y/S)

User avatar
jump_man
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 12:05 am

Re: Cardozo v. Loyola

Postby jump_man » Sun Apr 28, 2013 7:59 pm

Greenwich Village = One of the best neighborhoods on the planet
Central LA = One of the worst neighborhoods on the planet

. . . not that you should decide law schools based on location, but Cardozo is the clear winner.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Cardozo v. Loyola

Postby romothesavior » Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:13 pm

well.let's.see wrote:I applied mid-January.

I understand that I have a strong gpa, but I just don't feel confident that I would improve my LSAT enough to justify taking the year off. I feel I underperformed, greatly, but I was well prepared for the test, and things didn't go my way on test day.

But this might be a good question: I've done research, I read people's opinions, and I'm not clear...how are re-take's honestly evaluated?

For what it's worth, here's my understanding (of my situation)...if I improve:

1-2 pts : no benefit (162-3 ; 2 takes)

3 pts : slight benefit, but perhaps no benefit (a 164 ; 2 takes)

4-5 pts : benefit, no explanation (165-6 ; 2 takes)

6-7 pts : more beneficial, but needs a solid explanation to not be averaged (167-8 ; 2 takes)--if averaged, 164/5...and, I don't really have a great explanation

8+ pts : suspiciously received, most likely averaged (169+ ; 2 takes) 165+

And in all honestly, it would be a lie to say I think I will go up more than 6 pts.

So, what I'm thinking is that if I'm going to be evaluated at 165-7, best case scenario is that I am paying ~ half of what I am now at these schools, ~150 t-20, and sticker if I was lucky enough to get into a UCLA...and I don't think that, at best case scenario, is worth delaying a year of my life. Maybe, then, the conclusion is that I should not go to law school. But right now, I feel compelled.

1) You applied pretty late in the cycle. Even without a retake, I would recommend reapplying (though obviously it would be stupid to reapply without one, maybe even two retakes). You should have better options and more money at these schools than you are currently looking at, and a lot of it is because of your late app.

2) You say you underperformed? Jesus H. Christ man... you MUST retake. You will regret this for the rest of your life if you don't. You are T20, maybe T14 material. So why are you contemplating putting your financial and professional future at risk by spending Porsche money on a 95 Toyota?

3) Very, very few schools actually average LSATs. Even more so now, given that high LSATs are in high demand. This is a grave misunderstanding on your part.

I know retaking sucks and you're probably itching to go now, but this is your entire career we're talking about. This is the most important test you'll ever take. If you want to be a member of this profession, you need to do it in a way that is financially and professionally responsible, and going to one of these schools at these prices is not. A better LSAT would radically change your job prospects, financial situation, and your life for the better. A few points and you're talking about a school like Vanderbilt at 120k debt instead of Loyola at 120k debt. A few more points on top of that and you're looking at a T14 with money. Take it from those of us who have actually been through this process: a year off and a retake is easily worth that kind of difference.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Cardozo v. Loyola

Postby romothesavior » Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:25 pm

Read some of this OP:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=208084

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=208046#p6665368

There are countless more stories like this floating around on here. Dozens and dozens and dozens of people were in your very shoes and did exactly what we're suggesting. I've yet to hear someone say "Man, taking a year or two off and retaking was a big mistake." I've heard and seen countless stories of "I took a year off, did 5-10 points better on the LSAT, and now I'm going to *insert prestigious school here* on a big scholarship." I've also heard a lot of "Man, I should have retaken the LSAT" stories from 2Ls and 3Ls.

You really need to do it. You're making a big mistake if you don't. Quite honestly, your reasons for not wanting to are short-sighted and in the case of the averaging concerns, just plain wrong.

User avatar
Clearly
Posts: 4166
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:09 pm

Re: Cardozo v. Loyola

Postby Clearly » Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:36 pm

romothesavior wrote:Read some of this OP:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=208084

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=208046#p6665368

There are countless more stories like this floating around on here. Dozens and dozens and dozens of people were in your very shoes and did exactly what we're suggesting. I've yet to hear someone say "Man, taking a year or two off and retaking was a big mistake." I've heard and seen countless stories of "I took a year off, did 5-10 points better on the LSAT, and now I'm going to *insert prestigious school here* on a big scholarship." I've also heard a lot of "Man, I should have retaken the LSAT" stories from 2Ls and 3Ls.

You really need to do it. You're making a big mistake if you don't. Quite honestly, your reasons for not wanting to are short-sighted and in the case of the averaging concerns, just plain wrong.

Chiming in as an additional example. "Under-performed" for a score close to yours, 164. Retook for 175+. Way worse GPA, still looking at T14 options because I took a year off and retook. These schools have terrible job placement. You do want to be a lawyer don't you?

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

Re: Cardozo v. Loyola

Postby timbs4339 » Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:40 pm

romothesavior wrote:
I know retaking sucks and you're probably itching to go now, but this is your entire career we're talking about. This is the most important test you'll ever take. If you want to be a member of this profession, you need to do it in a way that is financially and professionally responsible, and going to one of these schools at these prices is not. A better LSAT would radically change your job prospects, financial situation, and your life for the better. A few points and you're talking about a school like Vanderbilt at 120k debt instead of Loyola at 120k debt. A few more points on top of that and you're looking at a T14 with money. Take it from those of us who have actually been through this process: a year off and a retake is easily worth that kind of difference.

bananapeanutbutter
Posts: 351
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:12 pm

Re: Cardozo v. Loyola

Postby bananapeanutbutter » Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:36 am

Cardozo and Loyola are trap schools. If you won't retake, I'd go to a 4th tier. I have a good friend who went to one of these 2 you have, top quarter, a nerd but no more so than most lawyers. He was definitely really nice guy with good social skills and a published article. He was unemployed for a few months, and finally landed a 40-50k job. This is top quarter, mind you. The only people who get big law are people in the top 5-10%, and possibly top third if you're an exceptionally hot woman.

It makes much more sense to bypass 100k+ debt, and go to a TTTT for free which you'd get and hope to be in the top 1%. Odds are it won't happen, and you'll be unemployed and may need to consider government assistance options for at least a short period, but that will likely be the case out of these schools as well. I also think it will be just as easy to get top 1% at New York Law as it will to get top 5% at Cardozo, because the difference between a 162 and 170 IQ and analytical wise will be much smaller than the difference between the 162 and 154.

Now, it's not a good decision but I think the upside distinction b/w a 4th tier and these schools is minimal because they're both not heavily respected, and in terms of downside if you're going to be on food stamps it's better to do it without the debt.

With a retake the options will be better, and you can have >50% odds at a 100k+/yr outcome. However, I understand you need to start right away and the food stamp lifestyle is not such a bad outcome to you so my advice is based off of this.

PRgradBYU
Posts: 1419
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:04 pm

Re: Cardozo v. Loyola

Postby PRgradBYU » Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:44 am

well.let's.see wrote:I feel I underperformed, greatly, but I was well prepared for the test, and things didn't go my way on test day.


...then why not retake, if not just for the sake of redeeming yourself?

Myself
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:36 pm

.

Postby Myself » Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:45 am

.
Last edited by Myself on Sun Nov 24, 2013 10:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

well.let's.see
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:44 pm

Re: Cardozo v. Loyola

Postby well.let's.see » Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:05 pm

PRgradBYU wrote:
well.let's.see wrote:I feel I underperformed, greatly, but I was well prepared for the test, and things didn't go my way on test day.


...then why not retake, if not just for the sake of redeeming yourself?


Fair question.

I feel I underperformed based on my PTs. But test day is different. Just because I was 7-9 points better on PTs doesn't necessarily mean I am on the day of the test. It's hard to say. Here's what happened:
I was -4 after three sections at break (RC: -3, LR: -1, LG: exp).
But then I walked out -19...
I hit a wall on the 4th section (LG: -8) and don't remember taking the 5th (LR: -7).
I'm just trying to be honest with myself about how much better I can realistically anticipate doing. I truly was prepared, and confident, my performance at break showed it. But I hit a brick wall on the 4th section and couldn't keep my focus on the 5th. That's ultimately why I am reluctant to retake. I studied hard and I was prepared, and I truly believed I was going to have a top 3-5% score. But I didn't. I won't be better prepared. I won't be more confident. I'll just be hoping to keep a level head...and there's no LSAT study guide/program/routine that can prepare me for that...

I am reluctant to post this, people will surely mock this thought without restraint. But it's true, and honest. For whatever it's worth...

User avatar
Winston1984
Posts: 1789
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 12:02 pm

Re: Cardozo v. Loyola

Postby Winston1984 » Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:10 pm

well.let's.see wrote:
PRgradBYU wrote:
well.let's.see wrote:I feel I underperformed, greatly, but I was well prepared for the test, and things didn't go my way on test day.


...then why not retake, if not just for the sake of redeeming yourself?


Fair question.

I feel I underperformed based on my PTs. But test day is different. Just because I was 7-9 points better on PTs doesn't necessarily mean I am on the day of the test. It's hard to say. Here's what happened:
I was -4 after three sections at break (RC: -3, LR: -1, LG: exp).
But then I walked out -19...
I hit a wall on the 4th section (LG: -8) and don't remember taking the 5th (LR: -7).
I'm just trying to be honest with myself about how much better I can realistically anticipate doing. I truly was prepared, and confident, my performance at break showed it. But I hit a brick wall on the 4th section and couldn't keep my focus on the 5th. That's ultimately why I am reluctant to retake. I studied hard and I was prepared, and I truly believed I was going to have a top 3-5% score. But I didn't. I won't be better prepared. I won't be more confident. I'll just be hoping to keep a level head...and there's no LSAT study guide/program/routine that can prepare me for that...

I am reluctant to post this, people will surely mock this thought without restraint. But it's true, and honest. For whatever it's worth...


How do you expect to survive law school exams?

User avatar
Clearly
Posts: 4166
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:09 pm

Re: Cardozo v. Loyola

Postby Clearly » Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:59 pm

Trust me, retake. Your story is very similar to mine, I underperformed too by choking late in the test. Realize endurance and getting through those brick walls is just as trainable as having the techniques to answer questions! It sounds like you knew your stuff but just didnt have enough in the tank that day. Retake and prepare with 6 section PTs-- 2 experimental sections. Think of it like swinging a bat with a donut on it.

It's not like you can train techniques, but not improve your endurance and ability to do well late in the test. You are the IDEAL retaker, you know your potential is higher and it's just a matter of getting in better shape, and frankly just having a better day then you did then.

well.let's.see
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:44 pm

Re: Cardozo v. Loyola

Postby well.let's.see » Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:11 pm

Winston1984 wrote:
well.let's.see wrote:
PRgradBYU wrote:
well.let's.see wrote:I feel I underperformed, greatly, but I was well prepared for the test, and things didn't go my way on test day.


...then why not retake, if not just for the sake of redeeming yourself?


Fair question.

I feel I underperformed based on my PTs. But test day is different. Just because I was 7-9 points better on PTs doesn't necessarily mean I am on the day of the test. It's hard to say. Here's what happened:
I was -4 after three sections at break (RC: -3, LR: -1, LG: exp).
But then I walked out -19...
I hit a wall on the 4th section (LG: -8) and don't remember taking the 5th (LR: -7).
I'm just trying to be honest with myself about how much better I can realistically anticipate doing. I truly was prepared, and confident, my performance at break showed it. But I hit a brick wall on the 4th section and couldn't keep my focus on the 5th. That's ultimately why I am reluctant to retake. I studied hard and I was prepared, and I truly believed I was going to have a top 3-5% score. But I didn't. I won't be better prepared. I won't be more confident. I'll just be hoping to keep a level head...and there's no LSAT study guide/program/routine that can prepare me for that...

I am reluctant to post this, people will surely mock this thought without restraint. But it's true, and honest. For whatever it's worth...


How do you expect to survive law school exams?


I think that's kind of like asking me "if you can't hit a slider, how do you expect to hit a curve?"




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: lawman84 and 1 guest