The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
Princetonlaw68

Bronze
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:35 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby Princetonlaw68 » Sun May 04, 2014 7:22 pm

zman wrote:
nothingtosee wrote:
Princetonlaw68 wrote:
Nelson wrote:The real reason why Fordham gets bashed is they're stingy. USC and UCLA both give large numbers of significant scholarships and full rides. Fordham gives barely any merit money.



This makes sense, but I don't believe this is the case anymore. I don't have any hard stats to prove it, but it seems that Fordham is giving lots of merit aid this cycle (or at least way more than they used to). Maybe the bashing will stop once the stats come out that prove this to be the case.


USC gives grants to 63%
Fordham gives grants to 40%

15/20/25 are percentile splits for USC
7.5/10/19 are percentile splits for Fordham


So a quarter of students with grants at Fordham get at least 19 a year. So 10% o Fordham students get 19 a year.
Half of students with grants at USC get 20 a year. So 30% of USC students get at least 20 a year.

But yeah. We should wait for new data to come out before trying to make any judgments.

http://law.fordham.edu/assets/Admission ... m-2013.pdf
http://weblaw.usc.edu/assets/docs/why/c ... std509.pdf


it would be better to look at this year because in the past they didn't have to give much because of higher apps.



Yes. And from the small sample size I've seen (law school numbers and this site) I haven't seen anyone who was offered more aid by USC than by Fordham. USC seems to be trappier this cycle (based on my limited and obviously flawed sample size :) )


Also, I don't want to start a new heated argument, but USC has a higher LSAT and GPA average than Fordham. It's possible that many of those people who chose USC with scholly would have been able to get just as much or even more scholly from Fordham, but chose USC for the greater preftige (or other completely valid reasons involving location). Fordham gave out less aid, but their students had lesser numbers. All of the students who didn't get merit aid from Fordham very possibly couldn't have gotten any aid from USC either. This doesn't mean Fordham wasn't trappier as a school back then, but for the individuals, it may have been the less trappy choice. :)
Last edited by Princetonlaw68 on Sun May 04, 2014 7:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

zman

Bronze
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:31 am

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby zman » Sun May 04, 2014 7:28 pm

According to LSN USC>>>>Fordham in terms of aid this yeay(and past but not to the same extent).

BigZuck

Diamond
Posts: 11731
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby BigZuck » Sun May 04, 2014 7:41 pm

Princetonlaw68 wrote:
BigZuck wrote:Fordham is significantly more of a trap school than USC because its relatively easy to get at least 120K at USC but you're lucky to get 75K at Fordham (unless things have changed appreciably this cycle).



Okay, fair. I believe that Fordham has upped its game as far as giving out merit schollys, so I think maybe this trap school idea needs to go once its proven. (Or, people should refer to all of Fordham's peers as trap schools as well. It would accomplish the same thing).


I feel that based on what you're saying though, we are in agreement that if a person is offered more scholly from Fordham than he/she is offered from USC (I believe this is common this cycle), then in that person's case, USC is more of the trap than Fordham.


Naw

If I wanted to work in CA, even if Fordham was like 80K COA and USC was like 100K COA, choosing Fordham there would be dumb, IMO

User avatar
cotiger

Gold
Posts: 1648
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:49 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby cotiger » Sun May 04, 2014 7:42 pm

How much are you getting for this? Attn Fordham adcomms: If you're looking at this, I could give you much higher quality pro-FU trolling, and for not too high a price.

Is it the CA-Asian connection? I'm trying to understand your motivation ITT.

Princetonlaw68

Bronze
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:35 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby Princetonlaw68 » Sun May 04, 2014 7:45 pm

BigZuck wrote:
Princetonlaw68 wrote:
BigZuck wrote:Fordham is significantly more of a trap school than USC because its relatively easy to get at least 120K at USC but you're lucky to get 75K at Fordham (unless things have changed appreciably this cycle).



Okay, fair. I believe that Fordham has upped its game as far as giving out merit schollys, so I think maybe this trap school idea needs to go once its proven. (Or, people should refer to all of Fordham's peers as trap schools as well. It would accomplish the same thing).


I feel that based on what you're saying though, we are in agreement that if a person is offered more scholly from Fordham than he/she is offered from USC (I believe this is common this cycle), then in that person's case, USC is more of the trap than Fordham.


Naw

If I wanted to work in CA, even if Fordham was like 80K COA and USC was like 100K COA, choosing Fordham there would be dumb, IMO



I've seen much larger disparities than that

Princetonlaw68

Bronze
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:35 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby Princetonlaw68 » Sun May 04, 2014 7:45 pm

cotiger wrote:How much are you getting for this? Attn Fordham adcomms: If you're looking at this, I could give you much higher quality pro-FU trolling, and for not too high a price.

Is it the CA-Asian connection? I'm trying to understand your motivation ITT.



Boredom

User avatar
Tiago Splitter

Diamond
Posts: 17152
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sun May 04, 2014 7:47 pm

Princetonlaw68 wrote:
BigZuck wrote:If I wanted to work in CA, even if Fordham was like 80K COA and USC was like 100K COA, choosing Fordham there would be dumb, IMO



I've seen much larger disparities than that

At that point you just have to negotiate. Going to Fordham isn't really an option at any price for someone who'd strongly prefer LA small law to NYC biglaw.

The thing about this whole discussion is that these schools aren't peers. Not because they have terribly different employment stats, but because they place almost exclusively on opposite sides of the country. Very few people should be seriously considering both.

User avatar
cotiger

Gold
Posts: 1648
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:49 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby cotiger » Sun May 04, 2014 7:52 pm

zman wrote:According to LSN USC>>>>Fordham in terms of aid this yeay(and past but not to the same extent).


If we want to put some numbers on it, this year on LSN, we've got 61 USC applicants with $120k+ (aka enough to make it worth it). At Fordham.. we've got 2. Of those 63 applicants, 10 applied to both schools and listed money. 9 of them got more at USC.

Then there's also the scholarship data from actual matriculants.

Oh, and you also need to factor in dat Midtown Manhattan COL.

BASH BASH BASH BASH

User avatar
cotiger

Gold
Posts: 1648
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:49 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby cotiger » Sun May 04, 2014 7:55 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:The thing about this whole discussion is that these schools aren't peers. Not because they have terribly different employment stats, but because they place almost exclusively on opposite sides of the country. Very few people should be seriously considering both.


Yeah, this is another issue that I haven't raised bc there's been so much other questionable stuff being flung around.

USC/UCLA are peers. BU/BC are peers. NYU/CLS are peers.

USC/FU are not peers. There's no reason to compare them in the way that you're doing.

zman

Bronze
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:31 am

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby zman » Sun May 04, 2014 8:07 pm

kills this useless thread.

Princetonlaw68

Bronze
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:35 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby Princetonlaw68 » Sun May 04, 2014 8:19 pm

Well, depends on your definition of peers. Obviously we all know these schools are not peers as far as the locations they funnel their students into.

I'd also like to add that as far as my trappy-trappiest statement, do not underestimate the power of preftige. You guys are talking about rational people looking at schools in the correct way. There are way more people than one might think who go to a school like USC because it's the "best school they got into." "Go to the best school you get into" is something I hear all the time, and by best, these people mean US news rankings. I wouldn't be surprised at all if a huge portion of people who want nyc big law that get into Fordham w 90k scholly and USC with 60k scholly choose USC because "it's worth the extra 30k to go to the better school." For these people, and any other people who are choosing USC for its preftige, rather than the fact that they want to work in cali, (anyone who is indifferent about location, or wants a different location) USC is the trap option.

This is why I have a problem with the Fordham bashing. It really is the correct choice for lots of people (at least compared to their other options, and the fact that they won't be retaking).

Princetonlaw68

Bronze
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:35 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby Princetonlaw68 » Sun May 04, 2014 8:42 pm

cotiger wrote:
zman wrote:According to LSN USC>>>>Fordham in terms of aid this yeay(and past but not to the same extent).


If we want to put some numbers on it, this year on LSN, we've got 61 USC applicants with $120k+ (aka enough to make it worth it). At Fordham.. we've got 2. Of those 63 applicants, 10 applied to both schools and listed money. 9 of them got more at USC.

Then there's also the scholarship data from actual matriculants.

Oh, and you also need to factor in dat Midtown Manhattan COL.

BASH BASH BASH BASH



First off, you don't have to yell. You hurt my eye ears with that bash bash etc at the end. :-/

Secondly, I've gone down the first page of the applicants to Fordham and clicked each person who received aid. Here's the results for the ones that also applied to USC. (why just the first page? because it's a random sample, and I don't feel like going through every page. I'm not actually being paid for this, so not worth my time.)


dh374: Fordham 111,000 USC: waitlisted

Buffalo_: Fordham: 90,000 USC: 75,000

LAWSKOOL123: Fordham: 105,000 USC: Rejected

glasseyes: Fordham: 60,000 USC: 0.00

PR12-11: Fordham: 55,000 USC: Rejected

tripawlaw: Fordham: 60,000 USC: Rejected

Jaydo: Both gave him 105,000

fromfilmtolaw: Fordham: 105,000 USC: 120,000



From this randomly selected sample of people who received aid from Fordham, only 1 out of the 8 received more aid from USC. There was one other person who got an equal offer from both. I know this sample size is too small to draw any broad conclusions, but for what it's worth, it seems most people getting aid from Fordham don't get as much from USC. (which makes sense, due to USC's higher admissions standards). For any of these people, USC is the trappier trap.

Don't judge me for using such a shitty and small sample. I didn't know how to get any better data without wasting hours of my time. I'm aware this data just sucks and probably doesn't mean shit.

For what it's worth (nothing), I'd be willing to bet that this general trend would continue throughout the rest of the pages.

Princetonlaw68

Bronze
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:35 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby Princetonlaw68 » Sun May 04, 2014 8:46 pm

cotiger wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:The thing about this whole discussion is that these schools aren't peers. Not because they have terribly different employment stats, but because they place almost exclusively on opposite sides of the country. Very few people should be seriously considering both.


Yeah, this is another issue that I haven't raised bc there's been so much other questionable stuff being flung around.

USC/UCLA are peers. BU/BC are peers. NYU/CLS are peers.

USC/FU are not peers. There's no reason to compare them in the way that you're doing.



The reason would be to help out people who are indifferent about location, or it doesn't matter much to them. There are a lot of people that think this way.

User avatar
twenty

Gold
Posts: 3189
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:17 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby twenty » Sun May 04, 2014 8:48 pm

I wouldn't be surprised at all if a huge portion of people who want nyc big law that get into Fordham w 90k scholly and USC with 60k scholly choose USC because "it's worth the extra 30k to go to the better school."


At the point where you're inventing people to make bad choices because no reasonable person on TLS would ever consider advocating USC/60k over Fordham/90k if they wanted NYC, that's just silliness. Actually, TLS shouldn't be advocating USC/60k regardless of any other options, but that's a different story.

This isn't going to end well. No one's going to change, because no one's doing anything wrong. You're not bringing to light some huge underlying scheme where TLSers are secretly pandering to USC because of how prestigious it is. People recommend USC with lots of money to kids that want CA biglaw > CA any-law > other biglaw. People don't recommend USC with not-lots of money ever. That's not going to change. People are going to recommend retaking/T14 to anyone who wants NYC biglaw > anything else. That's not going to change either.

zman

Bronze
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:31 am

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby zman » Sun May 04, 2014 8:49 pm

Princetonlaw68 wrote:
cotiger wrote:
zman wrote:According to LSN USC>>>>Fordham in terms of aid this yeay(and past but not to the same extent).


If we want to put some numbers on it, this year on LSN, we've got 61 USC applicants with $120k+ (aka enough to make it worth it). At Fordham.. we've got 2. Of those 63 applicants, 10 applied to both schools and listed money. 9 of them got more at USC.

Then there's also the scholarship data from actual matriculants.

Oh, and you also need to factor in dat Midtown Manhattan COL.

BASH BASH BASH BASH



First off, you don't have to yell. You hurt my eye ears with that bash bash etc at the end. :-/

Secondly, I've gone down the first page of the applicants to Fordham and clicked each person who received aid. Here's the results for the ones that also applied to USC. (why just the first page? because it's a random sample, and I don't feel like going through every page. I'm not actually being paid for this, so not worth my time.)


dh374: Fordham 111,000 USC: waitlisted

Buffalo_: Fordham: 90,000 USC: 75,000

LAWSKOOL123: Fordham: 105,000 USC: Rejected

glasseyes: Fordham: 60,000 USC: 0.00

PR12-11: Fordham: 55,000 USC: Rejected

tripawlaw: Fordham: 60,000 USC: Rejected

Jaydo: Both gave him 105,000

fromfilmtolaw: Fordham: 105,000 USC: 120,000



From this randomly selected sample of people who received aid from Fordham, only 1 out of the 8 received more aid from USC. There was one other person who got an equal offer from both. I know this sample size is too small to draw any broad conclusions, but for what it's worth, it seems most people getting aid from Fordham don't get as much from USC. (which makes sense, due to USC's higher admissions standards). For any of these people, USC is the trappier trap.

Don't judge me for using such a shitty and small sample. I didn't know how to get any better data without wasting hours of my time. I'm aware this data just sucks and probably doesn't mean shit.

For what it's worth (nothing), I'd be willing to bet that this general trend would continue throughout the rest of the pages.



well that's very misleading.. look at the $$$ USC is offering to those at its median and not to its weakest applicants(fordham's elite applicants).

Princetonlaw68

Bronze
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:35 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby Princetonlaw68 » Sun May 04, 2014 8:53 pm

twenty wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised at all if a huge portion of people who want nyc big law that get into Fordham w 90k scholly and USC with 60k scholly choose USC because "it's worth the extra 30k to go to the better school."


At the point where you're inventing people to make bad choices because no reasonable person on TLS would ever consider advocating USC/60k over Fordham/90k if they wanted NYC, that's just silliness. Actually, TLS shouldn't be advocating USC/60k regardless of any other options, but that's a different story.

This isn't going to end well. No one's going to change, because no one's doing anything wrong. You're not bringing to light some huge underlying scheme where TLSers are secretly pandering to USC because of how prestigious it is. People recommend USC with lots of money to kids that want CA biglaw > CA any-law > other biglaw. People don't recommend USC with not-lots of money ever. That's not going to change. People are going to recommend retaking/T14 to anyone who wants NYC biglaw > anything else. That's not going to change either.



Lots of people are doing something wrong. I don't have to invent anyone. Most people I know are like this, whether you believe it or not.

There's lots of people who talk about Fordham sucking and not USC. I don't know what you're getting at with your definition of "wrong." For me, "wrong" means illogical and stupid. These people are just that. They fill the pages of Fordham choosing threads, and it's dumb and misleading.


End well? I don't gaf...

User avatar
cotiger

Gold
Posts: 1648
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:49 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby cotiger » Sun May 04, 2014 9:18 pm

Princetonlaw68 wrote:
cotiger wrote:
zman wrote:According to LSN USC>>>>Fordham in terms of aid this yeay(and past but not to the same extent).


If we want to put some numbers on it, this year on LSN, we've got 61 USC applicants with $120k+ (aka enough to make it worth it). At Fordham.. we've got 2. Of those 63 applicants, 10 applied to both schools and listed money. 9 of them got more at USC.

Then there's also the scholarship data from actual matriculants.

Oh, and you also need to factor in dat Midtown Manhattan COL.

BASH BASH BASH BASH



First off, you don't have to yell. You hurt my eye ears with that bash bash etc at the end. :-/

Secondly, I've gone down the first page of the applicants to Fordham and clicked each person who received aid. Here's the results for the ones that also applied to USC. (why just the first page? because it's a random sample, and I don't feel like going through every page. I'm not actually being paid for this, so not worth my time.)


dh374: Fordham 111,000 USC: waitlisted

Buffalo_: Fordham: 90,000 USC: 75,000

LAWSKOOL123: Fordham: 105,000 USC: Rejected

glasseyes: Fordham: 60,000 USC: 0.00

PR12-11: Fordham: 55,000 USC: Rejected

tripawlaw: Fordham: 60,000 USC: Rejected

Jaydo: Both gave him 105,000

fromfilmtolaw: Fordham: 105,000 USC: 120,000



From this randomly selected sample of people who received aid from Fordham, only 1 out of the 8 received more aid from USC. There was one other person who got an equal offer from both. I know this sample size is too small to draw any broad conclusions, but for what it's worth, it seems most people getting aid from Fordham don't get as much from USC. (which makes sense, due to USC's higher admissions standards). For any of these people, USC is the trappier trap.

Don't judge me for using such a shitty and small sample. I didn't know how to get any better data without wasting hours of my time. I'm aware this data just sucks and probably doesn't mean shit.

For what it's worth (nothing), I'd be willing to bet that this general trend would continue throughout the rest of the pages.


I wasn't going to post itt any more, but you just made my mind bleed. So now you're saying USC is a trap because it WL/rejects people who got into Fordham with money?

I already went through every single applicant who got 120k+ at one of the schools, and 9/10 who listed money for both got more at USC. If we expand this to 90k+, we find only 1 more person who got (15K) more at FU.

Also, around 95% of people didn't apply to both because herr derr they aren't peer schools.




Read that sentence again, please.











Your fictional horde of people who're picking between USC and Fordham doesn't exist. Fordham being significantly cheaper than USC doesn't exist. TLS's vindictive rage towards FU doesn't exist. TLS's desire to fellate USC doesn't exist.

PLEASE STOP SHITTING UP THIS BOARD

Princetonlaw68

Bronze
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:35 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby Princetonlaw68 » Sun May 04, 2014 9:30 pm

cotiger wrote:
Princetonlaw68 wrote:
cotiger wrote:
zman wrote:According to LSN USC>>>>Fordham in terms of aid this yeay(and past but not to the same extent).


If we want to put some numbers on it, this year on LSN, we've got 61 USC applicants with $120k+ (aka enough to make it worth it). At Fordham.. we've got 2. Of those 63 applicants, 10 applied to both schools and listed money. 9 of them got more at USC.

Then there's also the scholarship data from actual matriculants.

Oh, and you also need to factor in dat Midtown Manhattan COL.

BASH BASH BASH BASH



First off, you don't have to yell. You hurt my eye ears with that bash bash etc at the end. :-/

Secondly, I've gone down the first page of the applicants to Fordham and clicked each person who received aid. Here's the results for the ones that also applied to USC. (why just the first page? because it's a random sample, and I don't feel like going through every page. I'm not actually being paid for this, so not worth my time.)


dh374: Fordham 111,000 USC: waitlisted

Buffalo_: Fordham: 90,000 USC: 75,000

LAWSKOOL123: Fordham: 105,000 USC: Rejected

glasseyes: Fordham: 60,000 USC: 0.00

PR12-11: Fordham: 55,000 USC: Rejected

tripawlaw: Fordham: 60,000 USC: Rejected

Jaydo: Both gave him 105,000

fromfilmtolaw: Fordham: 105,000 USC: 120,000



From this randomly selected sample of people who received aid from Fordham, only 1 out of the 8 received more aid from USC. There was one other person who got an equal offer from both. I know this sample size is too small to draw any broad conclusions, but for what it's worth, it seems most people getting aid from Fordham don't get as much from USC. (which makes sense, due to USC's higher admissions standards). For any of these people, USC is the trappier trap.

Don't judge me for using such a shitty and small sample. I didn't know how to get any better data without wasting hours of my time. I'm aware this data just sucks and probably doesn't mean shit.

For what it's worth (nothing), I'd be willing to bet that this general trend would continue throughout the rest of the pages.


I wasn't going to post itt any more, but you just made my mind bleed. So now you're saying USC is a trap because it WL/rejects people who got into Fordham with money?

I already went through every single applicant who got 120k+ at one of the schools, and 9/10 who listed money for both got more at USC. If we expand this to 90k+, we find only 1 more person who got (15K) more at FU.

Also, around 95% of people didn't apply to both because herr derr they aren't peer schools.




Read that sentence again, please.











Your fictional person who's picking between USC and Fordham doesn't exist. TLS's vindictive rage towards FU doesn't exist. TLS's desire to fellate USC doesn't exist. Fordham being significantly cheaper than USC doesn't exist.

PLEASE STOP SHITTING UP THIS BOARD




I see a vindictive rage toward Fordham. I can't tell you what you see, but just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Other people have come into this thread and said things that imply they see the extra hatred towards Fordham.

Your herr derr aren't peer schools comment is just dumb. Peer can mean a lot of things. By the way, someone posting in this thread was choosing between USC and Fordham. From what I could tell, this thread helped him in deciding to choose Fordham over USC. Herr derr, you suck. Are you going to tell me it's nuance or some other bs that people on this forum like to say when they're wrong?


(no offense to the person who said the nuance thing earlier. You did get me on the 75k argument once it came out the tuition for that year was under 50k)

User avatar
cotiger

Gold
Posts: 1648
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:49 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby cotiger » Sun May 04, 2014 9:36 pm

Since you can't distinguish between bashing and saying there are more scenarios where USC makes sense than Fordham does despite similar overall placement stats, I figured that you needed the blunt instrument treatment.

Of course there are some (relatively rare) people who choose between the two.

Still, would you kindly please stop.

Princetonlaw68

Bronze
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:35 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby Princetonlaw68 » Sun May 04, 2014 9:47 pm

cotiger wrote:Since you can't distinguish between bashing and saying there are more scenarios where USC makes sense than Fordham does despite similar overall placement stats, I figured that you needed the blunt instrument treatment.

Of course there are some (relatively rare) people who choose between the two.

Still, would you kindly please stop.


Okay, just think this thread actually is useful, and people saying otherwise, I disagree with you. There are a lot of people on here who don't realize placement is the same for these schools. Bunches of people came in here at first to tell me that I don't get USC and I'm just aloof because I'm from the east coast. Someone else said to look at the last 3 years, not just last year. Another told me to take off my "east coast blinders." All of this because I said USC is not better than Fordham. I do "get" USC. It's the people who don't see that Fordham and USC have basically the same stats that don't see what's going on. I think many of the people who came in here thinking USC is somehow intrinsically better may have learned from this discussion that while there might be more scenarios where USC makes sense than there are scenarios where Fordham makes sense, USC is not an overall better institution than Fordham for getting a job. That's all I'm trying to say here. I don't see any reason for anyone (reasonable) to argue with this last statement.

BigZuck

Diamond
Posts: 11731
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby BigZuck » Sun May 04, 2014 10:57 pm

I assume you posted some links to threads as evidence of this "Fordham sucks, USC is prestigious, go to USC bro" sentiment that you're fighting back against. Would you mind posting those links again? I looked but the thread is 5 pages and I couldn't find it. Thanks.

Princetonlaw68

Bronze
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:35 pm

Re: fullride at USC vs. sticker NYU

Postby Princetonlaw68 » Sun May 04, 2014 11:08 pm

BigZuck wrote:
Princetonlaw68 wrote:Can someone please explain to me why USC seems to be seen as better than it really is, even on this forum? I really do not get it. Their employment prospects are not good. If you go on LST, you'll quickly see they are comparable to schools like BC, GW, Fordham, etc. I get that it's more preftigious, but I thought that notions of prestige usually only poison the minds of regular civilians, not TLSers. I would never go to USC. I'd go to one of the schools that are its employment peers, but not its prestige peers, as I'd have a better shot of placing higher in the class, with roughly equal employment percentages.

Someone please explain to me why I'm wrong.


A few reasons. One of the most glaring is if this were 2012 you would be saying that UCLA is the TTT in decline, not USC.



BigZuck, I don't know if I feel like doing all that work, but here's a post that seems to exemplify exactly what I'm talking about. I'll post more if you'd like.


(Just in case you don't see what I'm saying, I post a thread saying USC has similar stats to Fordham, and the first response I receive seems to imply that by making that comparison I view USC to be TTT in decline (meaning I think Fordham, gw etc. are that). This poster obviously, at this point in time, did not see the two schools as peers (peers as far as their overall employment stats, excluding location from the equation).


The reason for this thread is to break down this outdated view that seems to have made sense in 2010, but no longer does.

Princetonlaw68

Bronze
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:35 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby Princetonlaw68 » Sun May 04, 2014 11:15 pm

NYC2012 wrote:OP, where are you from?? It's hard for East Coasters to understand USC, I've found.



This poster says I must not understand USC, since I'm comparing it to the likes of toilet bowl Fordham.


(I'm just going through this thread right now, because I don't feel like going through the whole site. I think the fact that I can find these examples within this thread alone pretty nicely exemplifies my point)

If you really want, I could try to find the other threads.

Princetonlaw68

Bronze
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:35 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby Princetonlaw68 » Sun May 04, 2014 11:23 pm

I'm going to post 1 separate thread, just to show you it doesn't only exist within this thread. This thread was on the first page of "choosing a law school."

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=228658


Here's a post from that thread that pretty nicely displays my point:

From cahwc12:

"I'm not recommending he go anywhere except insofar as he's totally unwilling to consider alternatives. He shouldn't go at all and I've stressed that. But NU at sticker is still a better bet than either USC or Fordham with six figures of debt.

There's an error on LST's site on Fordham that I noticed this morning, and maybe that's why you are thinking their numbers are the same. Fordham employs a significant number of its graduates whereas USC doesn't, and that's why Fordham looks equal when it is really worse. But I'm not defending either of these schools as good options in case that wasn't clear. They are both terrible options. USC is not a bad school, but Fordham is. Both are ridiculously expensive at sticker, and OP isn't providing the correct numbers for at least fordham even though he says they are correct."



Do you need more?

BigZuck

Diamond
Posts: 11731
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: fullride at USC vs. sticker NYU

Postby BigZuck » Sun May 04, 2014 11:28 pm

Princetonlaw68 wrote:
BigZuck wrote:
Princetonlaw68 wrote:Can someone please explain to me why USC seems to be seen as better than it really is, even on this forum? I really do not get it. Their employment prospects are not good. If you go on LST, you'll quickly see they are comparable to schools like BC, GW, Fordham, etc. I get that it's more preftigious, but I thought that notions of prestige usually only poison the minds of regular civilians, not TLSers. I would never go to USC. I'd go to one of the schools that are its employment peers, but not its prestige peers, as I'd have a better shot of placing higher in the class, with roughly equal employment percentages.

Someone please explain to me why I'm wrong.


A few reasons. One of the most glaring is if this were 2012 you would be saying that UCLA is the TTT in decline, not USC.



BigZuck, I don't know if I feel like doing all that work, but here's a post that seems to exemplify exactly what I'm talking about. I'll post more if you'd like.


(Just in case you don't see what I'm saying, I post a thread saying USC has similar stats to Fordham, and the first response I receive seems to imply that by making that comparison I view USC to be TTT in decline (meaning I think Fordham, gw etc. are that). This poster obviously, at this point in time, did not see the two schools as peers (peers as far as their overall employment stats, excluding location from the equation).


The reason for this thread is to break down this outdated view that seems to have made sense in 2010, but no longer does.


I'm going to assume that you're just a troll because I really don't want to think someone like you actually exists.

I had two things in mind when I made that post: 1) I assumed you were doing that new 0L thing where they say USC is in decline based on one year of data and UCLA is the new, undisputed King of LA and 2) saying you'll have an appreciably better shot at placing higher in the class by attending Fordham is retarded.

I wasn't saying anything about Fordham being shit and USC being the shit. But you're really not dumb enough to think that's what I was saying, are you?



Return to “Choosing a Law School?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests