bruin91 wrote:BigZuck wrote:bruin91 wrote:Is retaking not an option? You have a very good paying job, taking a year off can't hurt too much. I'd agree with you though on the point that only you know how strong your connections are, not a bunch of strangers on an online forum. But what we can offer you is advice on the prudent decision for the average person without said connections. Your COA at GW seems a bit too high and there seems like there is no urgency to attend law school this fall, so we just want to help you make the financially wise decision and not lose cash that you can save up. I'd take GW if you absolutely must go now. Graduating top 20% of your class would yield biglaw in DC. It's a risk, and obviously up to you. I'd also note that while no one is "special", it's silly to assume OP would not be 20% just as it silly to assume he will be. You know nothing to comment, and to make an assumption that he will be median, while convenient, misses the point about the exact tradeoffs for a decision to be made.
Wut? Not sure what you mean by the last sentence.
Without having ever gone to law school how can anyone assume they will be anything but average? The OP is just as likely to be top 20% as bottom 20% and statistically speaking neither are the most likely scenario. The most likely scenario is she will be smack dab at the middle.
Agreed on how tough it is to calculate the value of the connections. The OP said she would have to be top 15-20%. She should find out what the firms cutoff is for hiring a rando from one of these schools. If they would only consider top 3% or something then her connections might give her a little boost. But if they expect 15-20% for everyone then they are meaningless. She should also find out what class rank they would expect for her coming from Catholic or American or from GULC and other T14s that would accept a 3.5. The OP really needs to get a stronger grasp on what her connections mean before taking the gamble IMO.
But really she should probablu just keep the job or aim higher.
My point was that making the assumption that OP would be average, while convenient for analysis purposes, misses the point on explaining the tradeoffs. I just want you to be more conservative with your assumptions is all. Don't tell OP he is unlikely to get top 20%; you don't even know him or his capabilities. You can warn him that "no one is special" and warn him of his studious and intelligent peers, but to make the assumption that he will probably be average is fallacious. You can't assume averageness just as you cannot assume top 20%. You assume average because it's more fair and enables you to give uniform feedback, which I get. But I think it would be more prudent to give the feedback as "Median at GW has poor employment prospects", and "Only top 1/3 get big law" than to make the leap of judgement and tell a stranger that it is likely that he will rank median, because as you said, no one can possibly know until the end of 1L.
(For the record, I'm not attacking you. This is a flaw I see in most TLS posters. Good intentioned reasoning and fair analysis but a bit too strong of assumptions, often leading to overly cynical conclusions)
He=she and the average 0L will most likely become an average law student. When the OP proves otherwise after getting law school grades back then I will adjust my assumptions accordingly.
I fully expect to be mediocre in law school, don't you? I mean, even though my UG grades and LSAT score are higher than the incoming average at the school I will be attending and I am older with WE I'm not really banking on being any higher than median simply because I have never taken a law school exam before and I have never been subjected to a law school curve. Of course I want to finish high in my class and I will work hard to do so but that applies to everyone so how can I say with any confidence that I will be special and rise to the top?
To assume you will be good at law school without ever having gone to law school takes a lot of hubris or stupidity or both IMO.