NorCal Schools Forum

[A. Nony Mouse]

I'm an old fart, and I have run into concerns that I would be unwilling to start over at the bottom, and basically to take orders from someone younger than I am and without my experiences. My sense though is that this is really a rebuttable presumption, and if you're prepared for employers to have this concern you can overcome that presumption. (For instance, I did a ton of various extracurricular stuff that involved working with classmates - not for this purpose or anything, I just wanted to do the stuff - but it then gave me a way to show I don't have a problem working with people who are 10-15 years younger than I am.) Like dawyzest1 said, I came into this knowing I knew nothing about how to be a lawyer, and I'm happy to learn that from anyone, whoever they are. Usually employers seemed pretty good with you if you said that directly.

[alawstudentsometime]

Bumping because I have to decide on Hastings by Monday (one thousand dollar housing deposit due). Still waiting on the results of an extra 10k public interest scholarship at Santa Clara; will know by June 6th.

I'm interested to know which school has more non-trads. I assume everyone is saying Santa Clara b/c of the lower cost and similar job prospects, correct? Can anyone make an argument for Hastings?

[Mal Reynolds]

Don't attend any of these schools.

[North]

Don't attend any of these schools.

[alawstudentsometime]

Don't attend any of these schools.

Thanks for contributing nothing. Anyone else like to type?

[untar614]

Don't attend any of these schools.

^this. sorry if you don't like it.

Everyone is saying Santa Clara because everyone is assuming you won't listen to the best answer which is to not go, so at least Santa Clara won't leave you in financial ruin. But at your age and stage in your career, even more so than someone in their early 20's, coming out and not landing a legitimate lawyer job can be a serious blow to your long term career as you have less time to switch and start something new and then work your way up in it, and you will be seen as - and may very well be - less flexible than a younger prospective employee. Please look at the data and let in sink in:

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=santaclara
http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=hastings
http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=pacific

That's a 40% chance of getting a full-time, long term legal job from any of these schools. If you don't get one of those, coming out in your late 30s after spending 3 years in law school (and not one that's going to impress any non-legal employers) as a gap in your work experience won't do your career prospects any favors. Don't forget the opportunity costs of lost work experience and income.

[071816]

Don't attend any of these schools.

Thanks for contributing nothing. Anyone else like to type?

Don't attend any of these schools.

[nickb285]

.

[SFSpartan]

Normally I would say retake. However, being that you're an non-traditional student, you're a special case. None of these options are great, though Santa Clara is objectively the least bad. However, keep in mind that SCU stacks their sections, so everyone (or almost everyone) in your 1L sections will be a scholarship student. Makes it a lot harder to keep that scholarship (and McGeorge does it too).

Also, a question: Do you have an SO that will be working while you attend LS? If so, it mitigates some of the financial risk involved with striking out (though it does place a burden on your SO, which you may not want to do).

[alawstudentsometime]

Without divulging too much personal information, the only opportunity cost here is tuition. If you didn't read the original post, your response will be ignored.

[alawstudentsometime]

Normally I would say retake. However, being that you're an non-traditional student, you're a special case. None of these options are great, though Santa Clara is objectively the least bad. However, keep in mind that SCU stacks their sections, so everyone (or almost everyone) in your 1L sections will be a scholarship student. Makes it a lot harder to keep that scholarship (and McGeorge does it too).

Also, a question: Do you have an SO that will be working while you attend LS? If so, it mitigates some of the financial risk involved with striking out (though it does place a burden on your SO, which you may not want to do).

No, no SO.

[North]

Without divulging too much personal information, the only opportunity cost here is tuition. If you didn't read the original post, your response will be ignored.

Do you know what an opportunity cost is?

[alawstudentsometime]

Without divulging too much personal information, the only opportunity cost here is tuition. If you didn't read the original post, your response will be ignored.

Do you know what an opportunity cost is?

Yes.

[untar614]

Without divulging too much personal information, the only opportunity cost here is tuition. If you didn't read the original post, your response will be ignored.

I read the original post. I hope your serious about considering not attending, but this isn't giving that impression, while some people will hesitantly do so, why should we give you advice on picking your poison when not drinking poison is an option?

And unless for some reason you would otherwise be forced to hand around your parents' basement do nothing productive, the bolded is false. There is always something else you could be doing to help you advance your career in a non-shooting craps type fashion.

[timbs4339]

Without divulging too much personal information, the only opportunity cost here is tuition. If you didn't read the original post, your response will be ignored.

And three years of your life plus whatever you could have made during those three years, plus training/specializing in another field.

[North]

Without divulging too much personal information, the only opportunity cost here is tuition. If you didn't read the original post, your response will be ignored.

Do you know what an opportunity cost is?

Yes.

I don't think you do. Your opportunity cost is what you will be forgoing in order to go to a school that gives you less than a coin flip's chance at becoming an attorney: three years of lost wages, three years of your prime career-building years, and all prospects for advancement in a different field.

[alawstudentsometime]

Without divulging too much personal information, the only opportunity cost here is tuition. If you didn't read the original post, your response will be ignored.

I read the original post. I hope your serious about considering not attending, but this isn't giving that impression, while some people will hesitantly do so, why should we give you advice on picking your poison when not drinking poison is an option?

And unless for some reason you would otherwise be forced to hand around your parents' basement do nothing productive, the bolded is false. There is always something else you could be doing to help you advance your career in a non-shooting craps type fashion.[/]



The bolded is true, your assumptions, false. Next?

[jbagelboy]

Without divulging too much personal information, the only opportunity cost here is tuition. If you didn't read the original post, your response will be ignored.

Do you know what an opportunity cost is?

Yes.

between the three schools its very clearly SCU by the opinion of all those who cared to answer.

the issue at this point is whether you attend or continue upon another career. you say there's no opportunity cost to attending besides tuition -- that means you're either 1) unemployed or 2) make minimum wage right now. statistically speaking those are the only scenarios worse than what you will make 3 years from now coming out of SCU. If you make 3) over $40,000+/year right now then attending has a significantly higher "opportunity cost" than staying at your job = don't go. If you are in the first two categories, then I can see the urge to attend since no other options are presenting themselves, but be aware that extended underemployment prior to matriculation will be seen poorly at OCI (to the extent santa clara has firms at an oci). so its a tough call.

[untar614]

Without divulging too much personal information, the only opportunity cost here is tuition. If you didn't read the original post, your response will be ignored.

I read the original post. I hope your serious about considering not attending, but this isn't giving that impression, while some people will hesitantly do so, why should we give you advice on picking your poison when not drinking poison is an option?

And unless for some reason you would otherwise be forced to hand around your parents' basement do nothing productive, the bolded is false. There is always something else you could be doing to help you advance your career in a non-shooting craps type fashion.[/]



The boldest is true, your assumptions, false. Next?

Ok, well then will you at least humor me?

If in some hypothetical scenario you didn't go to law school, what would you be doing for the next three years?

[nickb285]

.

[alawstudentsometime]

Without divulging too much personal information, the only opportunity cost here is tuition. If you didn't read the original post, your response will be ignored.

I read the original post. I hope your serious about considering not attending, but this isn't giving that impression, while some people will hesitantly do so, why should we give you advice on picking your poison when not drinking poison is an option?

And unless for some reason you would otherwise be forced to hand around your parents' basement do nothing productive, the bolded is false. There is always something else you could be doing to help you advance your career in a non-shooting craps type fashion.[/]



The boldest is true, your assumptions, false. Next?

Ok, well then will you at least humor me?

If in some hypothetical scenario you didn't go to law school, what would you be doing for the next three years?

PMed.

[untar614]

Ok, well then will you at least humor me?

If in some hypothetical scenario you didn't go to law school, what would you be doing for the next three years?

PMed.

Ok, that makes your situation a little more understandable. Still, I think there are other things you could be doing outside of law school. Devoting 3 years full time to learning computer programming is something that you could likely do and would serve you better. At least with that, or something of the sort, it would help your career prospects down the road even if you don't get a job right away. A JD from one of these schools, though, if you don't get a job soon after graduation, will likely put you SOL.

[North]

Ok, well then will you at least humor me?

If in some hypothetical scenario you didn't go to law school, what would you be doing for the next three years?

PMed.

Ok, that makes your situation a little more understandable. Still, I think there are other things you could be doing outside of law school. Devoting 3 years full time to learning computer programming is something that you could likely do and would serve you better. At least with that, or something of the sort, it would help your career prospects down the road even if you don't get a job right away. A JD from one of these schools, though, if you don't get a job soon after graduation, will likely put you SOL.

Good suggestion. Go back you UG and get an engineering or computer programming BA. You'll be better off than most attorneys and without the debt.

[BigZuck]

If these were my choices AND I really, really wanted to be a lawyer then I would not go to law school. Just too much of a risk of wasting three years and as people said there's a ton of opportunity costs being given up here.

If you had a guaranteed job and a gun to your head then Santa Clara is far and away the best option.

Also, why come out guns blazing with the hostility? Especially considering you already knew what people were going to tell you? If you don't want to hear the answer then don't ask the question. And if you don't value the opinions/contributions of the community why even participate? I wouldn't bother posting if I felt that way.

Also keep in mind that it's not our fault that you have a crappy job in your mid 30s, waited too long to go to law school and are too lazy to retake. Instead of lashing out on some randos on the Internet maybe look in the mirror next time and address the real source of the problem.

[jbagelboy]

If these were my choices AND I really, really wanted to be a lawyer then I would not go to law school. Just too much of a risk of wasting three years and as people said there's a ton of opportunity costs being given up here.

If you had a guaranteed job and a gun to your head then Santa Clara is far and away the best option.

Also, why come out guns blazing with the hostility? Especially considering you already knew what people were going to tell you? If you don't want to hear the answer then don't ask the question. And if you don't value the opinions/contributions of the community why even participate? I wouldn't bother posting if I felt that way.

Also keep in mind that it's not our fault that you have a crappy job in your mid 30s, waited too long to go to law school and are too lazy to retake. Instead of lashing out on some randos on the Internet maybe look in the mirror next time and address the real source of the problem.

I don't know, maybe we should go easier. It sounds like OP might have aspergers or some ADHD variant; untar was PMed some sensitive information, which even changed his approach and made it sound like a severe enough situation to merit this decision. family still paying CoL @ 33 years old means never really left the nest, didn't move out, typical of people with that condition; advancing late in life/not holding a steady job is another strong indicator; the type of categorical stubbornness associated with only taking an important test once (And not doing so hot on it) and refusing to consider retaking it is a very common personality trait for aspergers, and lastly, the social discomfort OP has felt in ITT and aggressiveness are associated symptoms

again, just a hunch, no offense intended