ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
ayl
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 11:04 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby ayl » Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:32 am

Goal: Leaving it open at the moment as I've learned from several attorneys that they ended up where they were almost on accident. I may have some interest in working with low-income clients, perhaps in family law, or maybe public interest, but I am not setting myself down until I have more experience. No desire for big law. Would perhaps like to follow in my dad's footsteps and take over his small firm (3 people).

Regional Ties: Born and raised in Charleston, SC. Dad has been an attorney here for 50+ years.

Schools: USCarolina - approx. $85,000 total (going on the high end of living expenses); WFU - approx. $113,000; Alabama (no scholarship info yet, so based off sticker) - approx. $141,000
*I have calculated my cost of living based on assistance from my parents. I also have spending data from the past two years I've been out on my own, and this is a decent approximation, so please don't slam me if it seems low. I control my spending pretty well.

Other pertinent information: No debt to speak of currently, and will have some assistance for groceries and car expenses from my parents. I also likely have the opportunity to take over my dad's firm in Charleston once I graduate. That is weighing me, but I'm afraid if I ever wanted to leave, a SC degree might not take me far.

User avatar
Dr. Review
Posts: 1797
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:51 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Dr. Review » Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:35 am

ayl wrote:Goal: Leaving it open at the moment as I've learned from several attorneys that they ended up where they were almost on accident. I may have some interest in working with low-income clients, perhaps in family law, or maybe public interest, but I am not setting myself down until I have more experience. No desire for big law. Would perhaps like to follow in my dad's footsteps and take over his small firm (3 people).

Regional Ties: Born and raised in Charleston, SC. Dad has been an attorney here for 50+ years.

Schools: USCarolina - approx. $85,000 total (going on the high end of living expenses); WFU - approx. $113,000; Alabama (no scholarship info yet, so based off sticker) - approx. $141,000
*I have calculated my cost of living based on assistance from my parents. I also have spending data from the past two years I've been out on my own, and this is a decent approximation, so please don't slam me if it seems low. I control my spending pretty well.

Other pertinent information: No debt to speak of currently, and will have some assistance for groceries and car expenses from my parents. I also likely have the opportunity to take over my dad's firm in Charleston once I graduate. That is weighing me, but I'm afraid if I ever wanted to leave, a SC degree might not take me far.


If you want to work in SC, and you are aware that biglaw is almost certainly off the table, I have no real problems with USC for <100.

ayl
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 11:04 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby ayl » Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:38 am

Bedsole wrote:If you want to work in SC, and you are aware that biglaw is almost certainly off the table, I have no real problems with USC for <100.


Thanks for the quick response. I know I have no desire to do biglaw. It's not in my personality to do it, though I know some people may think that means lazy or otherwise unmotivated, I just know myself well enough to say it's not in the cards for me. That being said, does SC's ranking differential between WFU and UA make an impact? The job prospect seems similar, but I am concerned knowing SC's is so low.

User avatar
yossarian
Posts: 1303
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 2:45 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby yossarian » Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:38 am

ayl wrote:Goal: Leaving it open at the moment as I've learned from several attorneys that they ended up where they were almost on accident.


I'd like to throw this out for discussion specifically as well. Most attorneys I've talked to, including boomers, but also a lot of lawyers in the 30-35 range, have encouraged me not to have too specific a goal going into law school. Directly contradicts most of the wisdom here.

Their general arguments are that you can't find your niche until you try things and that going in with too narrow a focus will eliminate opportunities.

Anyone care to take a shot at reconciling their advice with TLS's?

NOTE: I understand all these people were hired pre-recession. It may just be that simple. But a good majority of the attorneys I've chatted with have been on recession or post-recession selection committees.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22779
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Fri Feb 07, 2014 1:50 pm

Yeah, that's a real issue. I'm not doing anything like what I thought I'd do when I started law school (in particular, I was sure I'd never do criminal. Welp). I guess I have a few (some hypocritical) responses:

The most hypocritical is me saying, well, if you're not really sure what you want to do, maybe you haven't done enough research about what law practice entails, and maybe you should find out more before you commit to a law school (I mean, I totally didn't do this and am not really committed to this argument, but I can see someone making it).

Another response is, ideally you have enough of an idea to guide your choices, in that I think (some kinds of) PI/biglaw is the biggest divide in terms of picking a school, and that if you can ID at least one of those areas, you still have room to discover what you really want to do.

And I guess the last response is yup, that totally happens. Are you secure enough in your law school plans that if this does happen, if you shift from PI to biglaw or vice versa, are you willing to take the consequences?

User avatar
deadpanic
Posts: 1168
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 5:09 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby deadpanic » Fri Feb 07, 2014 2:11 pm

Bedsole wrote:
ayl wrote:Goal: Leaving it open at the moment as I've learned from several attorneys that they ended up where they were almost on accident. I may have some interest in working with low-income clients, perhaps in family law, or maybe public interest, but I am not setting myself down until I have more experience. No desire for big law. Would perhaps like to follow in my dad's footsteps and take over his small firm (3 people).

Regional Ties: Born and raised in Charleston, SC. Dad has been an attorney here for 50+ years.

Schools: USCarolina - approx. $85,000 total (going on the high end of living expenses); WFU - approx. $113,000; Alabama (no scholarship info yet, so based off sticker) - approx. $141,000
*I have calculated my cost of living based on assistance from my parents. I also have spending data from the past two years I've been out on my own, and this is a decent approximation, so please don't slam me if it seems low. I control my spending pretty well.

Other pertinent information: No debt to speak of currently, and will have some assistance for groceries and car expenses from my parents. I also likely have the opportunity to take over my dad's firm in Charleston once I graduate. That is weighing me, but I'm afraid if I ever wanted to leave, a SC degree might not take me far.


If you want to work in SC, and you are aware that biglaw is almost certainly off the table, I have no real problems with USC for <100.


I would advocate for USC here. To me, Charleston is one of the big cities in the country, and I would be there in a heartbeat, but I have no ties. Ties mean everything in law and from my experience, it is especially true in a blue blood/parochial place like Chucktown. Why you would ever want to leave Charleston is the real question.

But anyways, I think this is a situation where going to USC is justified. I don't think it is necessarily worth 85K for most people, but I think with your ties and Dad's legal connections, it's worth it. There is absolutely no reason to attend Wake or Bama in your situation at all. If anything, it would look worse to employers.

User avatar
worldtraveler
Posts: 7662
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:47 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby worldtraveler » Fri Feb 07, 2014 2:17 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Yeah, that's a real issue. I'm not doing anything like what I thought I'd do when I started law school (in particular, I was sure I'd never do criminal. Welp). I guess I have a few (some hypocritical) responses:

The most hypocritical is me saying, well, if you're not really sure what you want to do, maybe you haven't done enough research about what law practice entails, and maybe you should find out more before you commit to a law school (I mean, I totally didn't do this and am not really committed to this argument, but I can see someone making it).

Another response is, ideally you have enough of an idea to guide your choices, in that I think (some kinds of) PI/biglaw is the biggest divide in terms of picking a school, and that if you can ID at least one of those areas, you still have room to discover what you really want to do.

And I guess the last response is yup, that totally happens. Are you secure enough in your law school plans that if this does happen, if you shift from PI to biglaw or vice versa, are you willing to take the consequences?


This, and also that coming into law school you should at least be familiar with what practicing law entails, and how it varies between professions. Do you like sitting in an office all day and writing? Do you like working in a stressful situation and dealing with 50 difficult clients in a day?

Being a lawyer is very, very different based on the kind of job you have, so if you don't at least think about what interests you and what you're good at, you could end up with a career you hate.

Also need to know how much work you can handle. Can you work long hours in big law, or is time more important to you? Can you be geographically flexible if you want to work in human rights? You need to think about all that stuff first, and most people don't.

ayl
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 11:04 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby ayl » Fri Feb 07, 2014 2:56 pm

deadpanic wrote:I would advocate for USC here. To me, Charleston is one of the big cities in the country, and I would be there in a heartbeat, but I have no ties. Ties mean everything in law and from my experience, it is especially true in a blue blood/parochial place like Chucktown. Why you would ever want to leave Charleston is the real question.

But anyways, I think this is a situation where going to USC is justified. I don't think it is necessarily worth 85K for most people, but I think with your ties and Dad's legal connections, it's worth it. There is absolutely no reason to attend Wake or Bama in your situation at all. If anything, it would look worse to employers.


Awesome. Thanks for the input! I've been going back and forth since I was accepted in mid-December to all those schools, and especially now that I'm getting scholarship offers. I have some people who tell me to go to the best school I can get into, and others saying that you'll get out of what you put into it, and just because USC isn't ranked well, if I make the effort, I can do just as well as if I go to another school (not all schools, I realize there's a limit).

As for wanting to leave Charleston, it used to be top priority. After living in South Africa after graduation and doing a lot of traveling, I find it's sucking me back in like pluff mud! (Ohhhh forgive that haha)

User avatar
Dr. Review
Posts: 1797
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:51 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Dr. Review » Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:02 pm

ayl wrote:
deadpanic wrote:I would advocate for USC here. To me, Charleston is one of the big cities in the country, and I would be there in a heartbeat, but I have no ties. Ties mean everything in law and from my experience, it is especially true in a blue blood/parochial place like Chucktown. Why you would ever want to leave Charleston is the real question.

But anyways, I think this is a situation where going to USC is justified. I don't think it is necessarily worth 85K for most people, but I think with your ties and Dad's legal connections, it's worth it. There is absolutely no reason to attend Wake or Bama in your situation at all. If anything, it would look worse to employers.


Awesome. Thanks for the input! I've been going back and forth since I was accepted in mid-December to all those schools, and especially now that I'm getting scholarship offers. I have some people who tell me to go to the best school I can get into, and others saying that you'll get out of what you put into it, and just because USC isn't ranked well, if I make the effort, I can do just as well as if I go to another school (not all schools, I realize there's a limit).

As for wanting to leave Charleston, it used to be top priority. After living in South Africa after graduation and doing a lot of traveling, I find it's sucking me back in like pluff mud! (Ohhhh forgive that haha)

There is a bit of wisdom in the statement that you should attend the best school that you can. The part that I take issue with is where people translate that directly into "the highest ranked school according to USNWR", which is not a good metric. The best metric is to compare employment outcomes (as a factor of employment % and the types of jobs those employed are working) along with COA. I believe that in your case, given your desire to remain in SC, USC is among your best options. Particurly given the regionalism that many southern states (SC in particular) can have, staying in SC is definitely a good thing. South Carolinians are probably likely to wonder why you left SC to go to Wake if you wanted to work in SC.
I say much of this with confidence as an associate at a firm with multiple SC offices, at least one being in Charleston. It also helps that at least a few people in my office went to USC for law school.

User avatar
Otunga
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:56 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Otunga » Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:28 pm

worldtraveler wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:Yeah, that's a real issue. I'm not doing anything like what I thought I'd do when I started law school (in particular, I was sure I'd never do criminal. Welp). I guess I have a few (some hypocritical) responses:

The most hypocritical is me saying, well, if you're not really sure what you want to do, maybe you haven't done enough research about what law practice entails, and maybe you should find out more before you commit to a law school (I mean, I totally didn't do this and am not really committed to this argument, but I can see someone making it).

Another response is, ideally you have enough of an idea to guide your choices, in that I think (some kinds of) PI/biglaw is the biggest divide in terms of picking a school, and that if you can ID at least one of those areas, you still have room to discover what you really want to do.

And I guess the last response is yup, that totally happens. Are you secure enough in your law school plans that if this does happen, if you shift from PI to biglaw or vice versa, are you willing to take the consequences?


This, and also that coming into law school you should at least be familiar with what practicing law entails, and how it varies between professions. Do you like sitting in an office all day and writing? Do you like working in a stressful situation and dealing with 50 difficult clients in a day?

Being a lawyer is very, very different based on the kind of job you have, so if you don't at least think about what interests you and what you're good at, you could end up with a career you hate.

Also need to know how much work you can handle. Can you work long hours in big law, or is time more important to you? Can you be geographically flexible if you want to work in human rights? You need to think about all that stuff first, and most people don't.


Which legal jobs are more writing-intensive than not? I get it's an incredibly general question but I doubt many are into the idea of dealing with countless demanding clients all day. You hear and read that BigLaw is largely grunt work and that small firm work requires more marketing and networking, but clearly these are big generalizations (even if somewhat accurate).

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

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby timbs4339 » Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:17 pm

yossarian71 wrote:
ayl wrote:Goal: Leaving it open at the moment as I've learned from several attorneys that they ended up where they were almost on accident.


I'd like to throw this out for discussion specifically as well. Most attorneys I've talked to, including boomers, but also a lot of lawyers in the 30-35 range, have encouraged me not to have too specific a goal going into law school. Directly contradicts most of the wisdom here.

Their general arguments are that you can't find your niche until you try things and that going in with too narrow a focus will eliminate opportunities.

Anyone care to take a shot at reconciling their advice with TLS's?

NOTE: I understand all these people were hired pre-recession. It may just be that simple. But a good majority of the attorneys I've chatted with have been on recession or post-recession selection committees.


This type of crap, though, assumes that you have already gotten started in a position where you can jump between practice areas or types of legal work. What TLS tries to drive home is that your school is going to restrain your options, you need to consider in a general sense what kind of work you want to do (and what kind of work you absolutely don't want to do) and whether a school can get you there for a worthwhile price.

It's hard to describe, so here's an example. You don't need to know that you want to work on public M+A transactions for energy companies but you don't want to do high-yield debt offerings, or you want to do defense side pharma products liability as opposed to white collar securities defense. Nobody is asking for that level of specificity, and the advice of the boomer partner who said "I really didn't find out I wanted to focus on products liability until my sixth year of practice in biglaw" is generally right.

However, you do need to know, in a general sense, whether you want to do deals for big corporations, or prosecute low-level criminals, or do medical malpractice actions on behalf of injured patients, or sue governments on behalf of classes of citizens to enjoin violations of the First Amendment. And then you need to be able to analyze the prospects from schools, because there are a lot of schools where it is not worth 200K to find out if you can get on the "track" that allows you to choose between high-yield debt offerings and public M+A.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby JCougar » Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:49 pm

yossarian71 wrote:
ayl wrote:Goal: Leaving it open at the moment as I've learned from several attorneys that they ended up where they were almost on accident.


I'd like to throw this out for discussion specifically as well. Most attorneys I've talked to, including boomers, but also a lot of lawyers in the 30-35 range, have encouraged me not to have too specific a goal going into law school. Directly contradicts most of the wisdom here.

Their general arguments are that you can't find your niche until you try things and that going in with too narrow a focus will eliminate opportunities.

Anyone care to take a shot at reconciling their advice with TLS's?

NOTE: I understand all these people were hired pre-recession. It may just be that simple. But a good majority of the attorneys I've chatted with have been on recession or post-recession selection committees.


I did the exact opposite, and it did limit my options...but it only limited my options for places I didn't want to be anyway. It ended up enhancing my options, though, at where I did want to work, and pending any last-minute bureaucratic curveballs, it should work out for me in the end. But I ended up getting the (pending) job I wanted by the hair of my chinny-chin-chin, and if I didn't have this option, I don't have much of a backup plan. So specializing can end up backfiring, but it can also pay off.

The problem is, if you don't get good enough grades for OCI, you have to figure out how to make yourself stand out from the rest of the pack. Otherwise, you're just a statistic in a sea full of warm bodies with too much debt and jaded spirits. If you specialize with classes/internships/background in one area, you're not just another generic applicant with decent but not great grades and a secondary law review position when those types of specialty jobs pop up.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22779
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:04 pm

timbs4339 wrote:However, you do need to know, in a general sense, whether you want to do deals for big corporations, or prosecute low-level criminals, or do medical malpractice actions on behalf of injured patients, or sue governments on behalf of classes of citizens to enjoin violations of the First Amendment. And then you need to be able to analyze the prospects from schools, because there are a lot of schools where it is not worth 200K to find out if you can get on the "track" that allows you to choose between high-yield debt offerings and public M+A.

I think ideally this is the case. But I do think it can be hard to know the difference between these things. The areas that I thought were interesting in an academic sense, that we're interesting to learn about (e.g. civil rights, employment law) turned out not to be things that I enjoy in practice, given the way legal practice in those areas works (or can work, IME).
Otunga wrote: Which legal jobs are more writing-intensive than not? I get it's an incredibly general question but I doubt many are into the idea of dealing with countless demanding clients all day. You hear and read that BigLaw is largely grunt work and that small firm work requires more marketing and networking, but clearly these are big generalizations (even if somewhat accurate).

It varies, but as a huge generalization, trial-level criminal work is not writing-intensive compared to other areas of law. The more complex the case, the more you write (e.g. a capital case will have LOTS of motions), but a lot of the work is with law enforcement and witnesses, at least, again, compared to civil litigation, where you're dealing with documents. (Of course, where criminal gets closer to civil - white collar stuff - you deal with piles of documents as well.) My impression is that a lot of small law high-volume practices (like personal injury or some varieties of insurance defense) involves a lot of boilerplate writing rather than anything more labor-intensive, too, but that's just an impression.

User avatar
bsktbll28082
Posts: 602
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 5:25 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby bsktbll28082 » Tue Feb 11, 2014 6:37 pm

You guys help transfers in this thread?? If not, I can head over to the dedicated transfer forum.

Goal(s): Biglaw hopefully? Still deciding. Most likely not public interest.
Regional Ties: Pennsylvania (sort of), DC
School(s): WUSTL (88k), Emory (88K), GULC (110K)
Other pertinent information: Undergrad (20K), cost of living is being covered

Currently at Richmond, looking at transfer options.

User avatar
patogordo
Posts: 4827
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:33 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby patogordo » Tue Feb 11, 2014 6:45 pm

bsktbll28082 wrote:You guys help transfers in this thread?? If not, I can head over to the dedicated transfer forum.

Goal(s): Biglaw hopefully? Still deciding. Most likely not public interest.
Regional Ties: Pennsylvania (sort of), DC
School(s): WUSTL (88k), Emory (88K), GULC (110K)
Other pertinent information: Undergrad (20K), cost of living is being covered

Currently at Richmond, looking at transfer options.

are those the amounts that your COA would increase at those schools? i.e., if you transfer to WUSTL it will cost you $88k more to graduate than if you stayed at richmond?

User avatar
bsktbll28082
Posts: 602
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 5:25 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby bsktbll28082 » Tue Feb 11, 2014 6:55 pm

patogordo wrote:
bsktbll28082 wrote:You guys help transfers in this thread?? If not, I can head over to the dedicated transfer forum.

Goal(s): Biglaw hopefully? Still deciding. Most likely not public interest.
Regional Ties: Pennsylvania (sort of), DC
School(s): WUSTL (88k), Emory (88K), GULC (110K)
Other pertinent information: Undergrad (20K), cost of living is being covered

Currently at Richmond, looking at transfer options.

are those the amounts that your COA would increase at those schools? i.e., if you transfer to WUSTL it will cost you $88k more to graduate than if you stayed at richmond?



Sorry, no. That would be the total. Richmond would be around 69K. Its about 20K more in tuition for WUSTL/Emory.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby JCougar » Tue Feb 11, 2014 7:48 pm

I don't think any of those transfer options are good, but neither is staying at Richmond. IMO, transfering is not a good idea unless you can get into the T6 or so.

Excellent117
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 4:44 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Excellent117 » Tue Feb 11, 2014 7:57 pm

Posting for a friend...

Goal(s): Most likely PI, but doesn't want to rule out Biglaw
Regional Ties: Denver (born and raised) and San Diego (all of undergrad + he's been working there the last three years)
School(s): University of San Diego with a 32k/year scholarship (Total COA of 120k) or University of Denver with 28k/year scholarship (Total COA around 65k -- can live with family throughout)

Other: No undergrad loans, would prefer to live in SD after graduation, 3.61 GPA, 162 LSAT after 3rd try (143 --> 160 --> 162)

User avatar
prezidentv8
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby prezidentv8 » Tue Feb 11, 2014 10:12 pm

Excellent117 wrote:Posting for a friend...

Goal(s): Most likely PI, but doesn't want to rule out Biglaw
Regional Ties: Denver (born and raised) and San Diego (all of undergrad + he's been working there the last three years)
School(s): University of San Diego with a 32k/year scholarship (Total COA of 120k) or University of Denver with 28k/year scholarship (Total COA around 65k -- can live with family throughout)

Other: No undergrad loans, would prefer to live in SD after graduation, 3.61 GPA, 162 LSAT after 3rd try (143 --> 160 --> 162)


No.

Tremorzzz
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Tremorzzz » Tue Feb 11, 2014 11:22 pm

.
Last edited by Tremorzzz on Wed Jul 27, 2016 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
worldtraveler
Posts: 7662
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:47 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby worldtraveler » Tue Feb 11, 2014 11:35 pm

Tremorzzz wrote:Goal: Big Law(or regional) in any place other than NY (unless I had no other choice)
Other Info: Currently a CPA working at a national accounting firm (non Big 4)

Current Options:
GULC (at sticker at least for now)
Vandy (still waiting on scholarship info)
WUSTL (Over $100k in scholarship)
Emory (Over $100k in scholarship)
GW ($90k in scholarship which Im guessing could be slightly negotiated up)

Thoughts?


Do you desperately want to be a lawyer and could not live with doing anything else? Otherwise I say stay at your current job.

User avatar
bsktbll28082
Posts: 602
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 5:25 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby bsktbll28082 » Wed Feb 12, 2014 12:43 pm

JCougar wrote:I don't think any of those transfer options are good, but neither is staying at Richmond. IMO, transfering is not a good idea unless you can get into the T6 or so.


Yeah, don't want to stay at Richmond. So if these were my only options, would it be worth it? GULC will probably be a long shot, but not the others.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby JCougar » Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:32 pm

bsktbll28082 wrote:
JCougar wrote:I don't think any of those transfer options are good, but neither is staying at Richmond. IMO, transfering is not a good idea unless you can get into the T6 or so.


Yeah, don't want to stay at Richmond. So if these were my only options, would it be worth it? GULC will probably be a long shot, but not the others.


IMO, it's kind of a push. I mean, it's definitely a good move to transfer out of Richmond, as you're still paying a decent chunk of money there. Any idea of where you want to practice?

Are you factoring different costs of living into your total debt analysis?

User avatar
bsktbll28082
Posts: 602
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 5:25 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby bsktbll28082 » Thu Feb 13, 2014 5:08 pm

JCougar wrote:
bsktbll28082 wrote:
JCougar wrote:I don't think any of those transfer options are good, but neither is staying at Richmond. IMO, transfering is not a good idea unless you can get into the T6 or so.


Yeah, don't want to stay at Richmond. So if these were my only options, would it be worth it? GULC will probably be a long shot, but not the others.


IMO, it's kind of a push. I mean, it's definitely a good move to transfer out of Richmond, as you're still paying a decent chunk of money there. Any idea of where you want to practice?

Are you factoring different costs of living into your total debt analysis?


Not super limited to where I want to practice. I suppose I'd like to stay on the east coast, but that's about as far as I've thought about it.

Yes, I have factored in the cost of living.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby JCougar » Thu Feb 13, 2014 5:17 pm

bsktbll28082 wrote:Yes, I have factored in the cost of living.


You say you have ties to DC. Do you have family you could stay with there to reduce COL?

Transferring to G-Town is risky, but you're going to have to pay sticker anywhere you transfer.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media and 5 guests