Cornell v. Michigan

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
downbeat14
Posts: 545
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:00 am

Re: Cornell v. Michigan

Postby downbeat14 » Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:32 pm

sneezus wrote:
that's fair, we may be talking past each other here. we've been zeroing in on different points. my overall thing is that TLS generally does a shitty job handling/interpreting these BLFC percentages, and that theres a ton going on underneath those numbers.


Yes, but it's good people see both sides, so better to get it out there if it will help 0Ls even if we aren't exactly on the same page. I know I was completely lost until I found this site! I think I thought GULC was better than UVA, sadly... granted I didn't even look at school specific data (including USNWR outside of HYS) until post-LSAT.

I just don't think we can quantify the other non-numerical stuff. BLFC is really the best objective metric we have. You get into some really fuzzy distinctions when you talk about placement power, etc. Without hard data, it's hard to make recommendations based on anything else.

But yeah, I guess it's a moot point, because you are all right that OP should probably retake/reapply, but I don't see that happening.

User avatar
downbeat14
Posts: 545
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:00 am

Re: Cornell v. Michigan

Postby downbeat14 » Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:35 pm

krads153 wrote:
Fair, but if OP's goal is not NYC and probably not even biglaw, I don't see how retake is not the best option here. Retake to get more $$$ at Michigan for OP's goal of a secondary Midwest market/Chicago. I wouldn't look at Cornell if my goal were a Midwest market and secondary Midwest market in particular.


Yes, they should, but like most stubborn 0Ls, they prob won't. I'm just going to beat the "play it safe" on BL numbers drum ad naseum, esp when the cost is also cheaper. srry :P

User avatar
cron1834
Posts: 1920
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:36 am

Re: Cornell v. Michigan

Postby cron1834 » Tue Apr 28, 2015 3:43 pm

Yeah. I mean, 166 is below median for BOTH schools! Literally two more questions right would be huge.

User avatar
zhenders
Posts: 743
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:21 pm

Re: Cornell v. Michigan

Postby zhenders » Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:31 am

Regardless of whether or not retaking is the objectively better decision -- and it almost always is; none of us would disagree that a 177/3.9 puts you in Ruby/HLS territory -- the OP stated, clearly and directly, that if law school was going to happen for her/him, it would be this cycle.

It's unhelpful to the OP to keep harping on retake; it falls outside of what has been stated as possible. If "retake" is the only answer, then what we're essentially telling the OP is "don't go to law school" (which may indeed be the right answer -- but we ought to just say that instead of blowing smoke up one another's asses about an option that isn't on the table).

My point is, we're all preaching to the choir here and it's not helpful at all. None of us wants to see a 3.9 go to waste -- but if an OP tells us that their life circumstances limit their options, it really only makes sense to take her or him at face value; if it turns out they had more options but are in a state of self-denial, that's 100% on them.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests