George Washington v. Washington and Lee

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

Choices

Washington & Lee
18
64%
George Washington
10
36%
 
Total votes: 28

timbs4339
Posts: 2765
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: George Washington v. Washington and Lee

Postby timbs4339 » Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:48 pm

DogSitting wrote:
timbs4339 wrote:What do you mean by good salary?


$70k would bring contentment. Haha


I don't think that's crazy, but it's on the high end of what you will probably get, you may need to accept something on the 45K end of that distribution. Keep in mind you may end up working in rural VA where the salaries are lower (but will obviously go a longer way.)

Obviously, no to low debt is an imperative. I don't even want to think about what it would be like to pay back 250K on a 70K salary.

BigZuck
Posts: 11623
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: George Washington v. Washington and Lee

Postby BigZuck » Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:56 pm

DogSitting wrote:Thanks a lot. I'll be looking more into that


UVA2B wrote:
DogSitting wrote:
timbs4339 wrote:What do you mean by good salary?


$70k would bring contentment. Haha


That sounds reasonable in theory, but then when you consider the bimodal nature of legal hiring, it's not particularly likely from anywhere. Hopefully this NALP related data gives you pause, because it should. There are peaks at $160k (presumably will be at $180k for the next classes with last summer's bump), and ~$45k which are likely public defenders, small firms, etc. This is the nature of the legal profession, and that's why you should look at the employment numbers of a given school through that lens, meaning Biglaw will get you significantly more than your goal of $70k, while other work like small firm, government, etc. will likely be closer to that $45k peak. This is our reality.



http://www.nalp.org/class_of_2014_salary_curve

Betchu wont bud haha lulz

DogSitting
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:48 pm

Re: George Washington v. Washington and Lee

Postby DogSitting » Thu Feb 16, 2017 7:47 am

Lolzies!


BigZuck wrote:
DogSitting wrote:Thanks a lot. I'll be looking more into that


UVA2B wrote:
DogSitting wrote:
timbs4339 wrote:What do you mean by good salary?


$70k would bring contentment. Haha


That sounds reasonable in theory, but then when you consider the bimodal nature of legal hiring, it's not particularly likely from anywhere. Hopefully this NALP related data gives you pause, because it should. There are peaks at $160k (presumably will be at $180k for the next classes with last summer's bump), and ~$45k which are likely public defenders, small firms, etc. This is the nature of the legal profession, and that's why you should look at the employment numbers of a given school through that lens, meaning Biglaw will get you significantly more than your goal of $70k, while other work like small firm, government, etc. will likely be closer to that $45k peak. This is our reality.



http://www.nalp.org/class_of_2014_salary_curve

Betchu wont bud haha lulz

User avatar
Stylnator
Posts: 503
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 4:26 pm

Re: George Washington v. Washington and Lee

Postby Stylnator » Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:49 am

Go to washington & lee and enjoy the money!

I don't even see that there's a decision to be made here. The amount of loans you'd have to take out for GW are insane even for a career in biglaw. If you go to washington & lee your chances of biglaw aren't depleted completely and you won't feel the constant stress of debt pressuring you into making a career choice that you might not want later.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 27197
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: George Washington v. Washington and Lee

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:54 am

DogSitting wrote:Just trolling at that point to prove how crappy such advice is.

lawman84 wrote:
DogSitting wrote:I love how you still think I might listen to your crappy advice


cavalier1138 wrote:
DogSitting wrote:
lawman84 wrote:Wait out this admissions cycle and retake the LSAT.


Lmao


I love that you still think this advice isn't serious.


But you've given the same advice that you call "crappy" to other people in this forum. Why is it crappy for you but good for them?

Except it's not crappy advice and don't troll other threads because you're pissed people won't validate your choices.

User avatar
Rigo
Posts: 15401
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:19 pm

Re: George Washington v. Washington and Lee

Postby Rigo » Thu Feb 16, 2017 11:04 am

Negotiate with both W&L and George Mason since a full ride is in reach at both and they're similarly ranked/peer schools. The locations and cultures are probably pretty different too so visit both. I'm sure rural Virginia isn't for everyone.

You should not go to George Washington though. That's your worst option right now.

User avatar
Dcc617
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 3:01 pm

Re: George Washington v. Washington and Lee

Postby Dcc617 » Thu Feb 16, 2017 11:06 am

Side note OP, I retook while I was active duty and in command of a company. It sucked, but I made a double digit improvement despite having been out of school for a few years.

User avatar
Future Ex-Engineer
Posts: 1243
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: George Washington v. Washington and Lee

Postby Future Ex-Engineer » Thu Feb 16, 2017 11:19 am

Dcc617 wrote:Side note OP, I retook while I was active duty and in command of a company. It sucked, but I made a double digit improvement despite having been out of school for a few years.


Congrats btw. But you forgot OP is aspie and unwilling to take the sound advice to retake

User avatar
Rigo
Posts: 15401
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:19 pm

Re: George Washington v. Washington and Lee

Postby Rigo » Thu Feb 16, 2017 11:49 am

Tbh the whole RETAKE OMG thing isn't as applicable here.
OP is a pretty big splitter and a retake here would at best give her T14 at sticker options.
I'm under the impression that her 168 is from 4+ years ago and will expire too so she'll lose her safety net.

It doesn't hurt to retake in June just to cover bases but it's not like she's refusing to retake a 157 with a 3.9 GPA.

cavalier1138
Posts: 3724
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: George Washington v. Washington and Lee

Postby cavalier1138 » Thu Feb 16, 2017 12:47 pm

Rigo wrote:Tbh the whole RETAKE OMG thing isn't as applicable here.
OP is a pretty big splitter and a retake here would at best give her T14 at sticker options.
I'm under the impression that her 168 is from 4+ years ago and will expire too so she'll lose her safety net.

It doesn't hurt to retake in June just to cover bases but it's not like she's refusing to retake a 157 with a 3.9 GPA.


Except OP is ignoring the abundance of information telling them that they are not going to get the outcome they want with their current options. And the OP is making abysmally stupid decisions, like spending time now "pre-studying" for school as an excuse for not prepping for an LSAT retake.

The fact that the OP is a splitter is precisely why a retake is important. Given WashU's recent numbers bump, a 168/2.8 probably doesn't get a great offer. A 170+/2.8 probably gets full tuition at WashU, as well as a much wider range of opportunities. The OP can't reasonably consider most T14 options at this point, because the OP isn't even a splitter at most T14 schools. If the OP were to become a splitter, then they might be able to get some money, but at the very least, they'd have more leverage against T20 schools, which would actually get them the high-paying job they so clearly want.

User avatar
trebekismyhero
Posts: 756
Joined: Fri May 22, 2015 5:26 pm

Re: George Washington v. Washington and Lee

Postby trebekismyhero » Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:02 pm

I agree a little more with Rigo on the retake. There is absolutely no harm in retaking, especially since a point or two would make a difference at WUSTL, but OP could have more leverage and a chance at better outcomes if they just applied to different/better schools for their goals.

User avatar
jjcorvino
Posts: 1441
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:49 am

Re: George Washington v. Washington and Lee

Postby jjcorvino » Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:12 pm

cavalier1138 wrote:
Rigo wrote:Tbh the whole RETAKE OMG thing isn't as applicable here.
OP is a pretty big splitter and a retake here would at best give her T14 at sticker options.
I'm under the impression that her 168 is from 4+ years ago and will expire too so she'll lose her safety net.

It doesn't hurt to retake in June just to cover bases but it's not like she's refusing to retake a 157 with a 3.9 GPA.


Except OP is ignoring the abundance of information telling them that they are not going to get the outcome they want with their current options. And the OP is making abysmally stupid decisions, like spending time now "pre-studying" for school as an excuse for not prepping for an LSAT retake.

The fact that the OP is a splitter is precisely why a retake is important. Given WashU's recent numbers bump, a 168/2.8 probably doesn't get a great offer. A 170+/2.8 probably gets full tuition at WashU, as well as a much wider range of opportunities. The OP can't reasonably consider most T14 options at this point, because the OP isn't even a splitter at most T14 schools. If the OP were to become a splitter, then they might be able to get some money, but at the very least, they'd have more leverage against T20 schools, which would actually get them the high-paying job they so clearly want.


I agree with both of you. The retake advice is actually not that great here because the LSAT is about to expire. However, neither of these options are great options. OP should either have applied to more schools (or should still) or just not go to school (unless they are OK with the $45k job prospects).

DogSitting
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:48 pm

Re: George Washington v. Washington and Lee

Postby DogSitting » Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:14 pm

Stylnator wrote:Go to washington & lee and enjoy the money!

I don't even see that there's a decision to be made here. The amount of loans you'd have to take out for GW are insane even for a career in biglaw. If you go to washington & lee your chances of biglaw aren't depleted completely and you won't feel the constant stress of debt pressuring you into making a career choice that you might not want later.


That's been kind of what I've been thinking exactly! Pretty much exactly how I'm learning toward in my decision making. Thanks !

DogSitting
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:48 pm

Re: George Washington v. Washington and Lee

Postby DogSitting » Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:15 pm

Thanks buddy!


cavalier1138 wrote:
Rigo wrote:Tbh the whole RETAKE OMG thing isn't as applicable here.
OP is a pretty big splitter and a retake here would at best give her T14 at sticker options.
I'm under the impression that her 168 is from 4+ years ago and will expire too so she'll lose her safety net.

It doesn't hurt to retake in June just to cover bases but it's not like she's refusing to retake a 157 with a 3.9 GPA.


Except OP is ignoring the abundance of information telling them that they are not going to get the outcome they want with their current options. And the OP is making abysmally stupid decisions, like spending time now "pre-studying" for school as an excuse for not prepping for an LSAT retake.

The fact that the OP is a splitter is precisely why a retake is important. Given WashU's recent numbers bump, a 168/2.8 probably doesn't get a great offer. A 170+/2.8 probably gets full tuition at WashU, as well as a much wider range of opportunities. The OP can't reasonably consider most T14 options at this point, because the OP isn't even a splitter at most T14 schools. If the OP were to become a splitter, then they might be able to get some money, but at the very least, they'd have more leverage against T20 schools, which would actually get them the high-paying job they so clearly want.

DogSitting
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:48 pm

Re: George Washington v. Washington and Lee

Postby DogSitting » Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:17 pm

Thank you!

There is no way I'm retaking it. If I retake it and do worse I lose the ability to use my old score and now am stuck with a worse score. People keep thinking "retake" is a good advice when I've clearly stated I will not be retaking the test.

Reading comprehension....



Rigo wrote:Tbh the whole RETAKE OMG thing isn't as applicable here.
OP is a pretty big splitter and a retake here would at best give her T14 at sticker options.
I'm under the impression that her 168 is from 4+ years ago and will expire too so she'll lose her safety net.

It doesn't hurt to retake in June just to cover bases but it's not like she's refusing to retake a 157 with a 3.9 GPA.

DogSitting
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:48 pm

Re: George Washington v. Washington and Lee

Postby DogSitting » Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:17 pm

I think $5k in tuition a year is hardly a bad decision vs not going at all to be honest


jjcorvino wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
Rigo wrote:Tbh the whole RETAKE OMG thing isn't as applicable here.
OP is a pretty big splitter and a retake here would at best give her T14 at sticker options.
I'm under the impression that her 168 is from 4+ years ago and will expire too so she'll lose her safety net.

It doesn't hurt to retake in June just to cover bases but it's not like she's refusing to retake a 157 with a 3.9 GPA.


Except OP is ignoring the abundance of information telling them that they are not going to get the outcome they want with their current options. And the OP is making abysmally stupid decisions, like spending time now "pre-studying" for school as an excuse for not prepping for an LSAT retake.

The fact that the OP is a splitter is precisely why a retake is important. Given WashU's recent numbers bump, a 168/2.8 probably doesn't get a great offer. A 170+/2.8 probably gets full tuition at WashU, as well as a much wider range of opportunities. The OP can't reasonably consider most T14 options at this point, because the OP isn't even a splitter at most T14 schools. If the OP were to become a splitter, then they might be able to get some money, but at the very least, they'd have more leverage against T20 schools, which would actually get them the high-paying job they so clearly want.


I agree with both of you. The retake advice is actually not that great here because the LSAT is about to expire. However, neither of these options are great options. OP should either have applied to more schools (or should still) or just not go to school (unless they are OK with the $45k job prospects).

DogSitting
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:48 pm

Re: George Washington v. Washington and Lee

Postby DogSitting » Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:22 pm

Not pissed at all. Just think it's funny.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
DogSitting wrote:Just trolling at that point to prove how crappy such advice is.

lawman84 wrote:
DogSitting wrote:I love how you still think I might listen to your crappy advice


cavalier1138 wrote:
DogSitting wrote:
lawman84 wrote:Wait out this admissions cycle and retake the LSAT.


Lmao


I love that you still think this advice isn't serious.


But you've given the same advice that you call "crappy" to other people in this forum. Why is it crappy for you but good for them?

Except it's not crappy advice and don't troll other threads because you're pissed people won't validate your choices.

User avatar
jjcorvino
Posts: 1441
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:49 am

Re: George Washington v. Washington and Lee

Postby jjcorvino » Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:23 pm

DogSitting wrote:I think $5k in tuition a year is hardly a bad decision vs not going at all to be honest


jjcorvino wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
Rigo wrote:Tbh the whole RETAKE OMG thing isn't as applicable here.
OP is a pretty big splitter and a retake here would at best give her T14 at sticker options.
I'm under the impression that her 168 is from 4+ years ago and will expire too so she'll lose her safety net.

It doesn't hurt to retake in June just to cover bases but it's not like she's refusing to retake a 157 with a 3.9 GPA.


Except OP is ignoring the abundance of information telling them that they are not going to get the outcome they want with their current options. And the OP is making abysmally stupid decisions, like spending time now "pre-studying" for school as an excuse for not prepping for an LSAT retake.

The fact that the OP is a splitter is precisely why a retake is important. Given WashU's recent numbers bump, a 168/2.8 probably doesn't get a great offer. A 170+/2.8 probably gets full tuition at WashU, as well as a much wider range of opportunities. The OP can't reasonably consider most T14 options at this point, because the OP isn't even a splitter at most T14 schools. If the OP were to become a splitter, then they might be able to get some money, but at the very least, they'd have more leverage against T20 schools, which would actually get them the high-paying job they so clearly want.


I agree with both of you. The retake advice is actually not that great here because the LSAT is about to expire. However, neither of these options are great options. OP should either have applied to more schools (or should still) or just not go to school (unless they are OK with the $45k job prospects).


Its not a bad decision as long as you are alright practicing in a small market making a small amount of money (you could make more by learning a trade). If that is what you want to do, more power to you and you can certainly pay back the small amount of loans.

cavalier1138
Posts: 3724
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: George Washington v. Washington and Lee

Postby cavalier1138 » Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:24 pm

DogSitting wrote:I think $5k in tuition a year is hardly a bad decision vs not going at all to be honest


I think any amount of tuition on a school that won't get you the career you want is a hugely bad decision, to be honest. But you are clearly going to do you.

I never understand why people who clearly don't have any real overriding interest in the law (going by the only stated "career" goal of making more than $70k a year) insist that they absolutely, positively, must go to law school in the next year, or their entire life will fall apart at the seams.

DogSitting
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:48 pm

Re: George Washington v. Washington and Lee

Postby DogSitting » Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:25 pm

We will see I suppose. Anyhow, I'll be submitting an updated post later once I get the rest of my admissions or denials. Still waiting to hear from a few schools.

Thanks for all the help!


jjcorvino wrote:
DogSitting wrote:I think $5k in tuition a year is hardly a bad decision vs not going at all to be honest


jjcorvino wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
Rigo wrote:Tbh the whole RETAKE OMG thing isn't as applicable here.
OP is a pretty big splitter and a retake here would at best give her T14 at sticker options.
I'm under the impression that her 168 is from 4+ years ago and will expire too so she'll lose her safety net.

It doesn't hurt to retake in June just to cover bases but it's not like she's refusing to retake a 157 with a 3.9 GPA.


Except OP is ignoring the abundance of information telling them that they are not going to get the outcome they want with their current options. And the OP is making abysmally stupid decisions, like spending time now "pre-studying" for school as an excuse for not prepping for an LSAT retake.

The fact that the OP is a splitter is precisely why a retake is important. Given WashU's recent numbers bump, a 168/2.8 probably doesn't get a great offer. A 170+/2.8 probably gets full tuition at WashU, as well as a much wider range of opportunities. The OP can't reasonably consider most T14 options at this point, because the OP isn't even a splitter at most T14 schools. If the OP were to become a splitter, then they might be able to get some money, but at the very least, they'd have more leverage against T20 schools, which would actually get them the high-paying job they so clearly want.


I agree with both of you. The retake advice is actually not that great here because the LSAT is about to expire. However, neither of these options are great options. OP should either have applied to more schools (or should still) or just not go to school (unless they are OK with the $45k job prospects).


Its not a bad decision as long as you are alright practicing in a small market making a small amount of money (you could make more by learning a trade). If that is what you want to do, more power to you and you can certainly pay back the small amount of loans.

DogSitting
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:48 pm

Re: George Washington v. Washington and Lee

Postby DogSitting » Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:29 pm

Move along buddy.


cavalier1138 wrote:
DogSitting wrote:I think $5k in tuition a year is hardly a bad decision vs not going at all to be honest


I think any amount of tuition on a school that won't get you the career you want is a hugely bad decision, to be honest. But you are clearly going to do you.

I never understand why people who clearly don't have any real overriding interest in the law (going by the only stated "career" goal of making more than $70k a year) insist that they absolutely, positively, must go to law school in the next year, or their entire life will fall apart at the seams.

User avatar
Rigo
Posts: 15401
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:19 pm

Re: George Washington v. Washington and Lee

Postby Rigo » Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:33 pm

You really should send apps to WUSTL and UIUC now though. UIUC will give you $$$$ and be your best shot at chicago.
I do agree that you didn't pick the best list of where to apply.

Goodluck though. This thread is kind of just beating a dead horse at this point.
As long as you get the don't go at sticker or take out $200k+ in loans memo AND have realistic employment expectations, then this thread has served its purpose.

uion1715
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:58 am

Re: George Washington v. Washington and Lee

Postby uion1715 » Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:32 pm

DogSitting wrote:
There is no way I'm retaking it. If I retake it and do worse I lose the ability to use my old score and now am stuck with a worse score. People keep thinking "retake" is a good advice when I've clearly stated I will not be retaking the test.

Reading comprehension....


Wait... what?
Last edited by uion1715 on Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Rigo
Posts: 15401
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:19 pm

Re: George Washington v. Washington and Lee

Postby Rigo » Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:34 pm

uion1715 wrote:
DogSitting wrote:There is no way I'm retaking it. If I retake it and do worse I lose the ability to use my old score and now am stuck with a worse score. People keep thinking "retake" is a good advice when I've clearly stated I will not be retaking the test.
Reading comprehension....

Wait... what?

Her score is from 4something years ago and LSAT scores expire after 5 years.

uion1715
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:58 am

Re: George Washington v. Washington and Lee

Postby uion1715 » Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:37 pm

Rigo wrote:
uion1715 wrote:
DogSitting wrote:There is no way I'm retaking it. If I retake it and do worse I lose the ability to use my old score and now am stuck with a worse score. People keep thinking "retake" is a good advice when I've clearly stated I will not be retaking the test.
Reading comprehension....

Wait... what?

Her score is from 4something years ago and LSAT scores expire after 5 years.


Oh, got it. So, by waiting a year, she loses the ability to use her LSAT score, which narrows down her choice considerably. I interpreted as meaning "If I retake LSAT, my score will be replaced, etc."




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest