GW $$ v. USC $$

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )

gw v. usc

GW
8
22%
USC
28
78%
 
Total votes: 36

bruin91
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:09 pm

Re: GW $$ v. USC $$

Postby bruin91 » Tue May 14, 2013 9:11 am

fLaw School Bound wrote:
Micdiddy wrote:What's up with all this reactionary advice nowadays? Conventional wisdom is now retake or don't go so people have to give bad advice just to say something different? Anyone who "sighs" just because the best advice tends to be the same over and over again does not give two shits about ops future. Why do we have thousands of posts and yet usually give the same advice? Because we recognize this op is different from yesterday's op and the one from the day before, so we need to give the same advice so that everyone has a chance to hear it and make the best decision for themselves. It would be disingenuous to do anything else.

Op, these schools are not worth this amount of money, period. Are there extreme cases where some person somewhere might actually be logically justified in taking one of these options? Maybe, but I highly doubt you are that exception (and would love to hear reasons you might be if you believe that's the case).
Good luck on your retake! Use the LSAT forum here for advice as it is top notch.


If it's conventional wisdom then why are you wasting your time posting it thousands of times over and over again? Especially when other posters have already posted the same message responding to the OP?

She asked a simple question: A or B. That's it. A or B. You "re-take or don't go" zealots make it seem like it's "conventional wisdom" simply because you canvass these boards day and night spreading your opinion like it's gospel. 1,700 posts? Don't you have anything better to do with your life?

Sorry for hijacking your board OP, just tired of these guys making it seem like something is "conventional wisdom" simply because they shout louder than everyone else.

For what it's worth, I'd pick USC, it's a great school and living at home will provide you a bit of both montetary and emotional relief. It's too easy when you're alone in a new town to focus on meeting people rather than studying. While that's merely mitigated and not outright solved by living witht the folks.... anything that helps get your brain focused on school seems to me to be a good idea.


+1 to everything.

TheNextAmendment
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:44 pm

Re: GW $$ v. USC $$

Postby TheNextAmendment » Tue May 14, 2013 9:17 am

Doorkeeper wrote:
fLaw School Bound wrote:If it's conventional wisdom then why are you wasting your time posting it thousands of times over and over again? Especially when other posters have already posted the same message responding to the OP?

Because when multiple posters put the same opinion on a thread and that opinion is then seen as the consensus, the OP is more likely to listen to that advice.

She asked a simple question: A or B. That's it. A or B. You "re-take or don't go" zealots make it seem like it's "conventional wisdom" simply because you canvass these boards day and night spreading your opinion like it's gospel. 1,700 posts? Don't you have anything better to do with your life?

If choice A was to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge and choice B was to jump off the Verrazano, why not mention that there's also the option to not jump?

Posters always say the options are A and B, but really the options are A, B, C, D, or E and they just either haven't put those options in the poll or haven't sufficiently considered them as legitimate options. I'm not going to give bad advice just because the OP told me to pick one of two bad options.

Also, there's no reason to devolve into ad hominem attacks. Get that shit out of here.


I think its a fair point though that so many people just say "retake" because the people with a high post count incessantly regurgitate it. I understand that long time TLSers here want to discourage people from making bad decisions and only flooding the market even more, but dont you think it has gotten a little out of hand? This kid is deciding between GW and USC, both with decent reductions, and people say retake. When it comes to CA, DC, NY, or Boston, obviously the COL is tough, but also has the advantages of better quality internships, more networking capabilities, etc etc that everyone already knows of. I understand both sides of the retake argument, but do believe its gotten way out of control. People are saying that an appropriate Total COA for gulc, GW, ucla, USC, fordham is around 120k. So with most big city COL being around 27k/yr, after interest is factored in only those paying 5k/year for tuition (aka those with ~45k/yr scholarships) should attend these T20 schools? Dont you think that's rather elitist?

rambleon65
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 2:05 pm

Re: GW $$ v. USC $$

Postby rambleon65 » Tue May 14, 2013 9:48 am

Doorkeeper wrote:
fLaw School Bound wrote:If it's conventional wisdom then why are you wasting your time posting it thousands of times over and over again? Especially when other posters have already posted the same message responding to the OP?

Because when multiple posters put the same opinion on a thread and that opinion is then seen as the consensus, the OP is more likely to listen to that advice.

She asked a simple question: A or B. That's it. A or B. You "re-take or don't go" zealots make it seem like it's "conventional wisdom" simply because you canvass these boards day and night spreading your opinion like it's gospel. 1,700 posts? Don't you have anything better to do with your life?

If choice A was to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge and choice B was to jump off the Verrazano, why not mention that there's also the option to not jump?

Posters always say the options are A and B, but really the options are A, B, C, D, or E and they just either haven't put those options in the poll or haven't sufficiently considered them as legitimate options. I'm not going to give bad advice just because the OP told me to pick one of two bad options.

Also, there's no reason to devolve into ad hominem attacks. Get that shit out of here.


First of all, I have to roll my eyes when you are saying A or B is a jumping off the bridge. This is a horrible analogy that's not valid. If you don't think 150K at GW is not a good investment, that's fine. Hell, I'll probably agree with you; I withdrew from GW with that COA too. But to equivocate to suicide is disingenuous.

It's not the mere fact that you're saying to retake: but WHY would you go onto a forum where the OP is saying, "yes, I'm already retaking a 3rd time and will hope to maximize my potential. But in case my score is maxed out, what is the better option?" and just say "RETAKE"?

It's more about the thoughtlessness of some of these answers. Say it with me, "OP is already retaking a 3rd time."

BigZuck
Posts: 10865
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: GW $$ v. USC $$

Postby BigZuck » Tue May 14, 2013 11:17 am

If these were my two options I would not go to law school.

OP, I don't think those schools are worth it at that price. If you can't get them any cheaper or go to better schools that are worth that price (basically the T12) then I don't think you should go to law school. Just would not be a prudent decision.

*disclaimer- I read every post in this thread and I put a lot of thought into that response. Also, I have over 1000 posts and I am a know-nothing 0L

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9641
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: GW $$ v. USC $$

Postby jbagelboy » Tue May 14, 2013 12:29 pm

TheNextAmendment wrote:
Doorkeeper wrote:
fLaw School Bound wrote:If it's conventional wisdom then why are you wasting your time posting it thousands of times over and over again? Especially when other posters have already posted the same message responding to the OP?

Because when multiple posters put the same opinion on a thread and that opinion is then seen as the consensus, the OP is more likely to listen to that advice.

She asked a simple question: A or B. That's it. A or B. You "re-take or don't go" zealots make it seem like it's "conventional wisdom" simply because you canvass these boards day and night spreading your opinion like it's gospel. 1,700 posts? Don't you have anything better to do with your life?

If choice A was to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge and choice B was to jump off the Verrazano, why not mention that there's also the option to not jump?

Posters always say the options are A and B, but really the options are A, B, C, D, or E and they just either haven't put those options in the poll or haven't sufficiently considered them as legitimate options. I'm not going to give bad advice just because the OP told me to pick one of two bad options.

Also, there's no reason to devolve into ad hominem attacks. Get that shit out of here.


I think its a fair point though that so many people just say "retake" because the people with a high post count incessantly regurgitate it. I understand that long time TLSers here want to discourage people from making bad decisions and only flooding the market even more, but dont you think it has gotten a little out of hand? This kid is deciding between GW and USC, both with decent reductions, and people say retake. When it comes to CA, DC, NY, or Boston, obviously the COL is tough, but also has the advantages of better quality internships, more networking capabilities, etc etc that everyone already knows of. I understand both sides of the retake argument, but do believe its gotten way out of control. People are saying that an appropriate Total COA for gulc, GW, ucla, USC, fordham is around 120k. So with most big city COL being around 27k/yr, after interest is factored in only those paying 5k/year for tuition (aka those with ~45k/yr scholarships) should attend these T20 schools? Dont you think that's rather elitist?


I agree to some degree that retake once an OP has already taken 3 times is not worth spamming, but its not about elitism -- its a raw calculation of opportunity cost. If an OP says "I want a federal clerkship", you say HYS maybe chicago or retake to get there. If they say "I want biglaw", then the credited response, the ONLY true credited response, should be go to a school with a greater than 50% chance of achieving that goal (which happen to be T13 schools ITE), or have very little debt and settle for not necessarily achieving that goal.

Also, many of the "retake" comments arise from OP's who have only taken the LSAT once and scored mid 160s but have a decent GPA. In these instances, "Retake" is also the credited response even if the OP got into MVP (great schools) @ sticker (ouch) or something, because you should never settle for a first attempt under 175 if you 1) PT in a higher range or 2) could prep more to PT in a higher range.

User avatar
Micdiddy
Posts: 2190
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: GW $$ v. USC $$

Postby Micdiddy » Tue May 14, 2013 12:36 pm

I'm not sure why the low posters are so quick to start frothing at the mouth with rage, but truthfully I'm not saying it's a bad thing for them to be here giving advice, I just think it is bad advice. There's an important distinction between those two.
By all means, give the advice you think is best and it's up to each and every op to make up their mind. If they think the people with 1k+ posts don't know anything (why again? Just because we "waste our time" trying to help dozens and dozens of prospective students?....not quite sure I understand the argument of why that equates to us knowing nothing, being ridiculous, etc....but whatever) then by all means go to wherever you want, do whatever you want, it is no one's choice but yours.

rambleon65
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 2:05 pm

Re: GW $$ v. USC $$

Postby rambleon65 » Tue May 14, 2013 1:03 pm

Micdiddy wrote:I'm not sure why the low posters are so quick to start frothing at the mouth with rage, but truthfully I'm not saying it's a bad thing for them to be here giving advice, I just think it is bad advice. There's an important distinction between those two.
By all means, give the advice you think is best and it's up to each and every op to make up their mind. If they think the people with 1k+ posts don't know anything (why again? Just because we "waste our time" trying to help dozens and dozens of prospective students?....not quite sure I understand the argument of why that equates to us knowing nothing, being ridiculous, etc....but whatever) then by all means go to wherever you want, do whatever you want, it is no one's choice but yours.


I actually agree. If you really read through the situation and come up with your "retake" response, that's fine. I even agree that OP should retake since the PT scores are so much higher.

But OP already stated she is retaking (god I sound like a broken record) and wants to know IF she gets a similar score, what should be her option. The BEST outcome for sure is if she scores as high as PTs. That's great. But in case she scores similar to her previous attempts (i.e. what the OP is asking here) my opinion goes something like this:
1) If you have studied diligently AND if you take LSAT three times and score 167, 163, and 165*, you have likely maxed out your score/attempts. (*= for the sake of argument)
2) If you have maxed out your score/attempts, it'd be likely a poor decision to wait 2+ years to qualify for a 4th retake w/ a marginal chance of improving.
3) If that is a poor decision and OP has decided LS is her thing, then the best advice to give would be which of the two options would be the best?

If you disagree w/ #2 and say that waiting a few years to retake a 4th time, that is a fair argument/opinion.

But to treat every sub-173 scores the same and just effortlessly blurt out "retake" is not constructive.

P.S. I'm not nearly emotionally attached enough to TLS that I'd be frothing at the mouth in anger. I reserve that for when I hear Nickelback.

BigZuck
Posts: 10865
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: GW $$ v. USC $$

Postby BigZuck » Tue May 14, 2013 1:11 pm

rambleon65 wrote:
Micdiddy wrote:I'm not sure why the low posters are so quick to start frothing at the mouth with rage, but truthfully I'm not saying it's a bad thing for them to be here giving advice, I just think it is bad advice. There's an important distinction between those two.
By all means, give the advice you think is best and it's up to each and every op to make up their mind. If they think the people with 1k+ posts don't know anything (why again? Just because we "waste our time" trying to help dozens and dozens of prospective students?....not quite sure I understand the argument of why that equates to us knowing nothing, being ridiculous, etc....but whatever) then by all means go to wherever you want, do whatever you want, it is no one's choice but yours.


I actually agree. If you really read through the situation and come up with your "retake" response, that's fine. I even agree that OP should retake since the PT scores are so much higher.

But OP already stated she is retaking (god I sound like a broken record) and wants to know IF she gets a similar score, what should be her option. The BEST outcome for sure is if she scores as high as PTs. That's great. But in case she scores similar to her previous attempts (i.e. what the OP is asking here) my opinion goes something like this:
1) If you have studied diligently AND if you take LSAT three times and score 167, 163, and 165*, you have likely maxed out your score/attempts. (*= for the sake of argument)
2) If you have maxed out your score/attempts, it'd be likely a poor decision to wait 2+ years to qualify for a 4th retake w/ a marginal chance of improving.
3) If that is a poor decision and OP has decided LS is her thing, then the best advice to give would be which of the two options would be the best?

If you disagree w/ #2 and say that waiting a few years to retake a 4th time, that is a fair argument/opinion.

But to treat every sub-173 scores the same and just effortlessly blurt out "retake" is not constructive.

P.S. I'm not nearly emotionally attached enough to TLS that I'd be frothing at the mouth in anger. I reserve that for when I hear Nickelback.


If the OP REALLY wants to be a lawyer and they can't improve their score/situation the I say that they still don't go to law school. They should consider themselves, in the immortal words of Mr. Pancakes, "disqualified." As the hyperbolic suicide analogy goes, no sense in picking one of two bad options when there is a third one that is good.

User avatar
Micdiddy
Posts: 2190
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: GW $$ v. USC $$

Postby Micdiddy » Tue May 14, 2013 1:24 pm

rambleon65 wrote:
Micdiddy wrote:I'm not sure why the low posters are so quick to start frothing at the mouth with rage, but truthfully I'm not saying it's a bad thing for them to be here giving advice, I just think it is bad advice. There's an important distinction between those two.
By all means, give the advice you think is best and it's up to each and every op to make up their mind. If they think the people with 1k+ posts don't know anything (why again? Just because we "waste our time" trying to help dozens and dozens of prospective students?....not quite sure I understand the argument of why that equates to us knowing nothing, being ridiculous, etc....but whatever) then by all means go to wherever you want, do whatever you want, it is no one's choice but yours.


I actually agree. If you really read through the situation and come up with your "retake" response, that's fine. I even agree that OP should retake since the PT scores are so much higher.

But OP already stated she is retaking (god I sound like a broken record) and wants to know IF she gets a similar score, what should be her option. The BEST outcome for sure is if she scores as high as PTs. That's great. But in case she scores similar to her previous attempts (i.e. what the OP is asking here) my opinion goes something like this:
1) If you have studied diligently AND if you take LSAT three times and score 167, 163, and 165*, you have likely maxed out your score/attempts. (*= for the sake of argument)
2) If you have maxed out your score/attempts, it'd be likely a poor decision to wait 2+ years to qualify for a 4th retake w/ a marginal chance of improving.
3) If that is a poor decision and OP has decided LS is her thing, then the best advice to give would be which of the two options would be the best?

If you disagree w/ #2 and say that waiting a few years to retake a 4th time, that is a fair argument/opinion.

But to treat every sub-173 scores the same and just effortlessly blurt out "retake" is not constructive.

P.S. I'm not nearly emotionally attached enough to TLS that I'd be frothing at the mouth in anger. I reserve that for when I hear Nickelback.


I think the contention lies in the assumption that since we say the same thing over and over again we are not dutifully reading the op and giving thoughtful advice. This is in general a false assumption (though I can't speak for everyone).
Retake or don't go IS considering everything op said. We know he is already retaking and we want to encourage that, but if op doesn't score better we (I guess I should mostly be saying "I" but whatever) think not going is the best choice.

We COULD say "retake, don't go, or do whatever you want..." But I think that third option is a given and doesn't need to be literally stated. Op can just do whatever he/she wants despite our advice, but, as has been pointed out, if BOTH options are bad ideas than it's disingenuous to choose between them, IMO, giving the false impression of condoning that decision.

So, just to make my personal opinion clear to op, I do not condone choosing either of these schools for that price, period. Good luck on your retake and though it does not need to be said, I'll say it anyway: you can do whatever you want despite anything a TLSer says.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: addie1412, Goldie, Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests