Hofstra (150k) vs Brooklyn (80k)

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
Damage Over Time
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 8:14 pm

Re: Hofstra (150k) vs Brooklyn (80k)

Postby Damage Over Time » Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:48 pm

NotSkadden wrote:
Damage Over Time wrote:
law9898 wrote:Just because it worked out for me doesn't mean I took the right risk.


This is pretty spot on and avoids results-oriented "if it worked, that means it was a worthwhile risk" fallacious thinking.


Okay. Tell me then, how does one know when they've taken the right risk?


If I gave you the following bet:

You wager $100,000. You have a 10% chance of winning $500,000. You have a 90% chance of winning $0. You accept. You win.

Did you make the right decision?

law9898
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:49 pm

Re: Hofstra (150k) vs Brooklyn (80k)

Postby law9898 » Tue Aug 08, 2017 4:16 pm

NotSkadden wrote:
Damage Over Time wrote:
law9898 wrote:Just because it worked out for me doesn't mean I took the right risk.


This is pretty spot on and avoids results-oriented "if it worked, that means it was a worthwhile risk" fallacious thinking.


Okay. Tell me then, how does one know when they've taken the right risk?


If there is a low debt load and the applicant is comfortable making 40-60k. If you want to be a lawyer and you're fine with that lifestyle then great. Going to law school to be a biglaw lawyer is a different risk.

User avatar
Subban_Fan
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:52 am

Re: Hofstra (150k) vs Brooklyn (80k)

Postby Subban_Fan » Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:07 pm

cavalier1138 wrote:
NotSkadden wrote:PM me and don't get antagonized by the circle jerk. However, generally, they're giving you the right advice.

But they just can't help but letting you know how risk averse they are so they make a post not answering your question, even though you've made it clear you've already considered their advice and decided against it.

Fuck, if I'd listened to the advice I got on here, I'd still be working a 9-5 studying for the LSAT instead of making 3.5k a week working with the same people who probably gave me that advice.

Pretty ironic.

That being said, Hofstra IMO. Take the money because at either school you need to be at the top of your class to get biglaw or transfer.




It's a bad decision and risk if biglaw is your goal, but people make bad decisions and take bad risks all the time. It pans out for some.


It's weird how a lot of lawyers think about financial investments and risk. I think it's why despite a lot of their impressive work ethic and academic ability, I know many that aren't financially sucessful.

Almost everyone I know that's rich, especially the ones that have reached that status in their 30s (the city where I live is known for millionaire millenials), had to take some substantial risks. Antonio García Martínez describes these as "miracles" that had to happen for them. But they did. And if they didn't take those risks, they wouldn't have gotten those results. And they're not a 33 year-old on a yacht with a mansion in Los Altos.

Maybe that's why so many head of successful start-ups seem so ridiculously confident almost to the point of delusion (Travis Kalanik, Tony Hsieh, Steve Jobs). Probably been told by many people again and again they're being dumb or their idea is flawed (Evan Spiegel), only to succeed.

cavalier1138 wrote:Look, while everyone's here, I have a related question.

I'm going to go to Vegas and get super-rich. Should I do that playing the slots or the craps table? Positive responses only, please and thank you.


Definitely craps.

User avatar
lavarman84
#MAGA
Posts: 6308
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Hofstra (150k) vs Brooklyn (80k)

Postby lavarman84 » Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:32 pm

Subban_Fan wrote:It's weird how a lot of lawyers think about financial investments and risk. I think it's why despite a lot of their impressive work ethic and academic ability, I know many that aren't financially sucessful.

Almost everyone I know that's rich, especially the ones that have reached that status in their 30s (the city where I live is known for millionaire millenials), had to take some substantial risks. Antonio García Martínez describes these as "miracles" that had to happen for them. But they did. And if they didn't take those risks, they wouldn't have gotten those results. And they're not a 33 year-old on a yacht with a mansion in Los Altos.

Maybe that's why so many head of successful start-ups seem so ridiculously confident almost to the point of delusion (Travis Kalanik, Tony Hsieh, Steve Jobs). Probably been told by many people again and again they're being dumb or their idea is flawed (Evan Spiegel), only to succeed.


Yea, I'm a bit more willing to take risks than others, but I understand why they aren't. It's a personal choice.

cavalier1138
Posts: 3770
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Hofstra (150k) vs Brooklyn (80k)

Postby cavalier1138 » Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:46 pm

Subban_Fan wrote:Maybe that's why so many head of successful start-ups seem so ridiculously confident almost to the point of delusion (Travis Kalanik, Tony Hsieh, Steve Jobs). Probably been told by many people again and again they're being dumb or their idea is flawed (Evan Spiegel), only to succeed.


But notice that you're talking about people who headed up successful start-ups, not attorneys working for big firms. And for every Steve Jobs, there are a few hundred (or thousand) people who didn't get lucky and/or got fucked over by Steve Jobs as he clawed his way to the top. If you only focus on the success stories, you're much more likely to ignore what the reality is for the majority of people who tried to do the same thing and failed.

User avatar
TasmanianToucan
Posts: 592
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:16 am

Re: Hofstra (150k) vs Brooklyn (80k)

Postby TasmanianToucan » Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:04 pm

The real question is, if you have such an appetite for risk, why the hell would you want to be a lawyer?

User avatar
lavarman84
#MAGA
Posts: 6308
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Hofstra (150k) vs Brooklyn (80k)

Postby lavarman84 » Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:25 pm

TasmanianToucan wrote:The real question is, if you have such an appetite for risk, why the hell would you want to be a lawyer?


What brings out the adrenaline like scanning a ridiculously long document for stray commas?

Kcaz555
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:28 pm

Re: Hofstra (150k) vs Brooklyn (80k)

Postby Kcaz555 » Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:18 pm

lavarman84 wrote:
TasmanianToucan wrote:The real question is, if you have such an appetite for risk, why the hell would you want to be a lawyer?


What brings out the adrenaline like scanning a ridiculously long document for stray commas?


lmao

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 27276
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Hofstra (150k) vs Brooklyn (80k)

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:42 pm

TasmanianToucan wrote:The real question is, if you have such an appetite for risk, why the hell would you want to be a lawyer?

Yeah, being a lawyer is all about preparing for the worst-case-scenario. (even in the jobs with legit adrenaline moments.)

User avatar
Subban_Fan
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:52 am

Re: Hofstra (150k) vs Brooklyn (80k)

Postby Subban_Fan » Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:44 pm

cavalier1138 wrote:
Subban_Fan wrote:Maybe that's why so many head of successful start-ups seem so ridiculously confident almost to the point of delusion (Travis Kalanik, Tony Hsieh, Steve Jobs). Probably been told by many people again and again they're being dumb or their idea is flawed (Evan Spiegel), only to succeed.


But notice that you're talking about people who headed up successful start-ups, not attorneys working for big firms. And for every Steve Jobs, there are a few hundred (or thousand) people who didn't get lucky and/or got fucked over by Steve Jobs as he clawed his way to the top. If you only focus on the success stories, you're much more likely to ignore what the reality is for the majority of people who tried to do the same thing and failed.



That's generally the deal for a lot of valuable or great things. If you want a big payout, you're going to have to bet big. It's not that different in engineering, finance, real estate, or gambling. The existence and success of Skadden and Watchell Lipton was largely due to risk/timing/luck. Staying with the gambling analogies people have used, generally if you want to win big at blackjack, you're going to have to bet big.

It's interesting how people here keep using casino analogies to illustrate the stupidity of the OP's risk and the luck involved, when all of life's decisions can be simplified down to a gamble. I remember taking a statistics class and the recommended reading was The Drunkard's Walk, which covers how risk/luck plays a role in many of life's outcomes. I recommend every law student or lawyer read it.

No one is "only focusing" on the success stories anymore than others have pointed out how people here tend to focus on the failure stories. Sure, the majority of people who join a startup won't be Steve Jobs, no one said they would. But there's a comfortable middle ground. Thousands of people are minted fresh millionaires when companies like Twitter declare an IPO. They're not all Jack Dorsey, nor were they all failures. For all the people Steve Jobs fucked over, there were Apple employees that received gigantic pay-days. They're people that took a big bet at the time and with the right luck, received a huge payout. Without the willingness to take that risk and luck, would have never happened.

Yea, I'm a bit more willing to take risks than others, but I understand why they aren't. It's a personal choice.


Personally, I could care less whether someone takes on risk in their career or not (as long as I don't end up paying for whatever debt theyif they default. Go to Harvard, go to Cooley. Get your PhD in History despite poor employment outcomes. Why do I care? It's weird how TLS people get all enraged or personal about it, as if it somehow effects them (or maybe they just feel personally effected due to market satuturation. But if they think the OP is dumb in the first place, then it shouldn't be a concern because he wouldn't be competition anyways).

It's just interesting the way people on TLS view risk. Taking $200,000+ out on loans to go to a Top 10 law school on high interest, losing out on 3 years of work, insisting on only working for certain types of law firms doing certain types of work -- that's acceptable risk. But playing craps is crazy? It's like they're very risk adverse, except they're not at all within their view of what's an acceptable risk.

The real question is, if you have such an appetite for risk, why the hell would you want to be a lawyer?


Because it might be of more interest to them than javascript?

Yeah, being a lawyer is all about preparing for the worst-case-scenario. (even in the jobs with legit adrenaline moments.)


You don't think employees of startups or prudent investors prepare for the worst-case-scenario? Don't think Tony Hsieh ever thought about the possibility of and prepared for when his bank account went to $0 because Zappos wasn't profitable?
Last edited by Subban_Fan on Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 27276
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Hofstra (150k) vs Brooklyn (80k)

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:56 pm

Subban_Fan wrote:It's just interesting the way people on TLS view risk. Taking $200,000+ out on loans to go to a Top 10 law school on high interest, losing out on 3 years of work, insisting on only working for certain types of law firms doing certain types of work -- that's acceptable risk. But playing craps is crazy? It's like they're very risk adverse, except they're not at all within their view of what's an acceptable risk.

Except almost no one here thinks the bolded is an acceptable risk any more. Some people will justify HYS at those prices (although the need-based aid can mitigate the loans somewhat), but pretty much everyone here would tell someone looking at a top 10 school at $200k+ and tell them to take a lower T14 with money.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 27276
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Hofstra (150k) vs Brooklyn (80k)

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:58 pm

Subban_Fan wrote:
Yeah, being a lawyer is all about preparing for the worst-case-scenario. (even in the jobs with legit adrenaline moments.)


You don't think employees of startups or prudent investors prepare for the worst-case-scenario? Don't think Tony Hsieh ever thought about the possibility of and prepared for when his bank account went to $0 because Zappos wasn't profitable?

Missed this in my response above, but while I agree that prudent investors prepare for the worst-case-scenario, I don't think that's their whole job the way that it the whole job for many lawyers. In fact, I suspect the people you refer to above hire lawyers to prepare for the worst-case-scenario. (And probably accountants.)

User avatar
Subban_Fan
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:52 am

Re: Hofstra (150k) vs Brooklyn (80k)

Postby Subban_Fan » Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:15 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
Subban_Fan wrote:
Yeah, being a lawyer is all about preparing for the worst-case-scenario. (even in the jobs with legit adrenaline moments.)


You don't think employees of startups or prudent investors prepare for the worst-case-scenario? Don't think Tony Hsieh ever thought about the possibility of and prepared for when his bank account went to $0 because Zappos wasn't profitable?

Missed this in my response above, but while I agree that prudent investors prepare for the worst-case-scenario, I don't think that's their whole job the way that it the whole job for many lawyers. In fact, I suspect the people you refer to above hire lawyers to prepare for the worst-case-scenario. (And probably accountants.)


Though, it's hard to make the "who prepares more" comparison, I would say that for investors, preparing for the worst-case is going to be at least equal to many lawyers.

If you're a VC or an investor, your job is take into account the statistical risk of your investment. The liklihood of getting a return or loss is your job. I don't see how a VC's analysis of risk of loss (potentially losing billions for some firms) is anymore or less the job of the dude at Cravath who does research for his boss or "goes over commas" as someone else mentioned. You could also say that, a lot of the smarter firms now use mathematicians (and probably accountants) to help properly predict their chance at a worse-case-scenario (which is how legalist and fiscalnote came to be).

loslakers
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:33 am

Re: Hofstra (150k) vs Brooklyn (80k)

Postby loslakers » Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:04 pm

while i do agree that it inherently takes risk to win big, there’s one big difference in law school admissions that separates it from all these other analogies. for law school there’s a magic bullet, retake the lsat, and attend a better law school. if a biglaw job is the lottery would you rather buy the ticket that gives you an 8% (hofstra) chance of winning or over 50% (t13)??

User avatar
lavarman84
#MAGA
Posts: 6308
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Hofstra (150k) vs Brooklyn (80k)

Postby lavarman84 » Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:18 pm

loslakers wrote:while i do agree that it inherently takes risk to win big, there’s one big difference in law school admissions that separates it from all these other analogies. for law school there’s a magic bullet, retake the lsat, and attend a better law school. if a biglaw job is the lottery would you rather buy the ticket that gives you an 8% (hofstra) chance of winning or over 50% (t13)??


If that 8% lottery is free while the 50+% lottery costs $200,000, give me the 8% lottery. I'm not afraid of challenge.

BigZuck
Posts: 11633
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Hofstra (150k) vs Brooklyn (80k)

Postby BigZuck » Wed Aug 09, 2017 12:18 am

lavarman84 wrote:
loslakers wrote:while i do agree that it inherently takes risk to win big, there’s one big difference in law school admissions that separates it from all these other analogies. for law school there’s a magic bullet, retake the lsat, and attend a better law school. if a biglaw job is the lottery would you rather buy the ticket that gives you an 8% (hofstra) chance of winning or over 50% (t13)??


If that 8% lottery is free while the 50+% lottery costs $200,000, give me the 8% lottery. I'm not afraid of challenge.

Right but you admittedly have boundless baseless arrogance

Sorry, I mean you're less risk averse than most

User avatar
lavarman84
#MAGA
Posts: 6308
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Hofstra (150k) vs Brooklyn (80k)

Postby lavarman84 » Wed Aug 09, 2017 12:31 am

BigZuck wrote:
lavarman84 wrote:
loslakers wrote:while i do agree that it inherently takes risk to win big, there’s one big difference in law school admissions that separates it from all these other analogies. for law school there’s a magic bullet, retake the lsat, and attend a better law school. if a biglaw job is the lottery would you rather buy the ticket that gives you an 8% (hofstra) chance of winning or over 50% (t13)??


If that 8% lottery is free while the 50+% lottery costs $200,000, give me the 8% lottery. I'm not afraid of challenge.

Right but you admittedly have boundless baseless arrogance

Sorry, I mean you're less risk averse than most


I certainly am arrogant, but it works for me. I managed to win a lottery with worse odds than that.

BigZuck
Posts: 11633
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Hofstra (150k) vs Brooklyn (80k)

Postby BigZuck » Wed Aug 09, 2017 1:01 am

lavarman84 wrote:
BigZuck wrote:
lavarman84 wrote:
loslakers wrote:while i do agree that it inherently takes risk to win big, there’s one big difference in law school admissions that separates it from all these other analogies. for law school there’s a magic bullet, retake the lsat, and attend a better law school. if a biglaw job is the lottery would you rather buy the ticket that gives you an 8% (hofstra) chance of winning or over 50% (t13)??


If that 8% lottery is free while the 50+% lottery costs $200,000, give me the 8% lottery. I'm not afraid of challenge.

Right but you admittedly have boundless baseless arrogance

Sorry, I mean you're less risk averse than most


I certainly am arrogant, but it works for me. I managed to win a lottery with worse odds than that.

Won a lottery because what you do works for you? Or won a lottery because you got lucky?

Look man I'm sure you're a nice enough guy and all. I'm just saying that maybe you believe what you believe and say what you say because you're defective. Maybe the whole "But I've just got a different level of risk tolerance!" thing is a cover up for "I'm just blinded by my own dumb arrogance" (you, Johann, the OP) or "I'm just dumb" (Johann, probably the OP). I think it's something worth considering. I mean that, truly, not just trying to be contrarian.

Circling back to the OP- I'm personally a gambler. I appreciate some level of risk. And I'm confident in my own abilities. But you can take those thing too far. Going to Hofstra with big law aspirations is too far. If you can't see how dumb that is then you really shouldn't go to law school. If you're truly comfortable with your likely outcomes and it's at a reasonable cost then knock yourself out. It's not rocket surgery.

User avatar
lavarman84
#MAGA
Posts: 6308
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Hofstra (150k) vs Brooklyn (80k)

Postby lavarman84 » Wed Aug 09, 2017 1:10 am

BigZuck wrote:Won a lottery because what you do works for you? Or won a lottery because you got lucky?


Both. You need a little luck for just about anything in life, but it was much more the former than the latter. My chances of success were closer to 2% than 8%. I still succeeded. My success was wholly based on merit. Would I advise people to take the path I did? No. In fact, I've advised them not to take the path I did. But I still took the path I did. Of course, there are personal factors in play that made it much less risky for me than it would be for most people. And I didn't go into law school with the goal of winning that particular lottery. I just kind of fell into it.

Look man I'm sure you're a nice enough guy and all. I'm just saying that maybe you believe what you believe and say what you say because you're defective. Maybe the whole "But I've just got a different level of risk tolerance!" thing is a cover up for "I'm just blinded by my own dumb arrogance" (you, Johann, the OP) or "I'm just dumb" (Johann, probably the OP). I think it's something worth considering. I mean that, truly, not just trying to be contrarian.


Maybe I am defective, but defects can sometimes work in your favor.

BigZuck
Posts: 11633
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Hofstra (150k) vs Brooklyn (80k)

Postby BigZuck » Wed Aug 09, 2017 1:48 am

lavarman84 wrote:
BigZuck wrote:Won a lottery because what you do works for you? Or won a lottery because you got lucky?


Both. You need a little luck for just about anything in life, but it was much more the former than the latter. My chances of success were closer to 2% than 8%. I still succeeded. My success was wholly based on merit. Would I advise people to take the path I did? No. In fact, I've advised them not to take the path I did. But I still took the path I did. Of course, there are personal factors in play that made it much less risky for me than it would be for most people. And I didn't go into law school with the goal of winning that particular lottery. I just kind of fell into it.

Look man I'm sure you're a nice enough guy and all. I'm just saying that maybe you believe what you believe and say what you say because you're defective. Maybe the whole "But I've just got a different level of risk tolerance!" thing is a cover up for "I'm just blinded by my own dumb arrogance" (you, Johann, the OP) or "I'm just dumb" (Johann, probably the OP). I think it's something worth considering. I mean that, truly, not just trying to be contrarian.


Maybe I am defective, but defects can sometimes work in your favor.

Right, this is what I'm talking about. Just a total inability to internalize something that doesn't fit into your narrow vision of self.

"I'll just turn it into a pithy saying. Heh heh, got em."

"They think it's ridiculous to claim I am a STUDIOUS WATCHER OF FILM when I catch a couple of NFL network replays per week? Well I'll just make up some crap about Nate Peterman's footwork to show them how much I know. I am a film watcher, I knows it!!!"

That type of thinking is dangerous, that's all I'm saying. That's the type of thinking that will lead you to Hofstra with big law aspirations. Of course it could potentially work out as long as there is a slim possibility it will but it's more prudent to first maximize your chances at a good outcome. If you don't like advice that steers you in that direction that's fine, just keep talking to your great aunt. But TLS doesn't also have to be your great aunt. It's ok if TLS is the one resource that's different.

User avatar
Subban_Fan
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:52 am

Re: Hofstra (150k) vs Brooklyn (80k)

Postby Subban_Fan » Wed Aug 09, 2017 1:58 am

loslakers wrote:while i do agree that it inherently takes risk to win big, there’s one big difference in law school admissions that separates it from all these other analogies. for law school there’s a magic bullet, retake the lsat, and attend a better law school. if a biglaw job is the lottery would you rather buy the ticket that gives you an 8% (hofstra) chance of winning or over 50% (t13)??


The gambler in this instance says he's not retaking the LSAT so that's not an option to this bet. Too many posters in this thread keep harping on it when he's already decided. I think a sgement of people on TLS (not saying you, but this segment definitely exists) can't accept the fact that someone that's achieved less academically (lower LSAT score, worse GPA, worse schools) could end up making a lot more money than them. That someone who keeps making bad bets (or as BigZuck described, "dumb" bets that makes them unfit for law school) could end up somehow winning. Unfortunately, bad beats happen (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ3lgmkwG4A).

If what he says about the scholarship is true (free), then I would likely take Hoffstra. It's a free bet. Similar gambling process as when you split hands at the black jack table without buying up. If they're the same cost, then you take the T13 (more disciplined bet).

I try to make very disciplined bets. I stick to probabilities, but I get unlucky all the time. Jus don't bet more than you can afford. Prepare for the worst, and if you lose, don't flip the blackjack table over and look like a gigantic jackass. Also, tip well. The same theory should be held to law school, or life generally.

User avatar
lavarman84
#MAGA
Posts: 6308
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Hofstra (150k) vs Brooklyn (80k)

Postby lavarman84 » Wed Aug 09, 2017 2:21 am

BigZuck wrote:Right, this is what I'm talking about. Just a total inability to internalize something that doesn't fit into your narrow vision of self.

"I'll just turn it into a pithy saying. Heh heh, got em."

"They think it's ridiculous to claim I am a STUDIOUS WATCHER OF FILM when I catch a couple of NFL network replays per week? Well I'll just make up some crap about Nate Peterman's footwork to show them how much I know. I am a film watcher, I knows it!!!"


Bud, you really have no idea what you're talking about. Trying to speak authoritatively on a topic you're entirely ignorant about certainly tops my arrogance. :lol:

But hey, if you doubt my football knowledge, feel free to step into the NFL forum. I will be happy to clear up any issues there.

That type of thinking is dangerous, that's all I'm saying. That's the type of thinking that will lead you to Hofstra with big law aspirations. Of course it could potentially work out as long as there is a slim possibility it will but it's more prudent to first maximize your chances at a good outcome. If you don't like advice that steers you in that direction that's fine, just keep talking to your great aunt. But TLS doesn't also have to be your great aunt. It's ok if TLS is the one resource that's different.


I'm not in need of your advice, Zucker. My "dangerous" thinking has worked out quite well for me. It may or may not work out for the OP, but he knows the risks and accepts it. You can disagree with the decision, but it's still not your decision to make.

As demonstrated above, you're guilty of "dangerous" thinking yourself. You're full of yourself. You overestimate your own abilities. Mr. Pot, you're calling the kettle black.

User avatar
Barack O'Drama
Posts: 2406
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:21 pm

Re: Hofstra (150k) vs Brooklyn (80k)

Postby Barack O'Drama » Wed Aug 09, 2017 3:25 am

I think it's a wise bet to not bother helping those that can't be helped.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 27276
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Hofstra (150k) vs Brooklyn (80k)

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed Aug 09, 2017 5:46 am

lavarman84 wrote:
BigZuck wrote:Won a lottery because what you do works for you? Or won a lottery because you got lucky?


Both. You need a little luck for just about anything in life, but it was much more the former than the latter. My chances of success were closer to 2% than 8%. I still succeeded. My success was wholly based on merit. Would I advise people to take the path I did? No. In fact, I've advised them not to take the path I did. But I still took the path I did. Of course, there are personal factors in play that made it much less risky for me than it would be for most people. And I didn't go into law school with the goal of winning that particular lottery. I just kind of fell into it.

Look man I'm sure you're a nice enough guy and all. I'm just saying that maybe you believe what you believe and say what you say because you're defective. Maybe the whole "But I've just got a different level of risk tolerance!" thing is a cover up for "I'm just blinded by my own dumb arrogance" (you, Johann, the OP) or "I'm just dumb" (Johann, probably the OP). I think it's something worth considering. I mean that, truly, not just trying to be contrarian.


Maybe I am defective, but defects can sometimes work in your favor.

This is just kind of weird to me because apparently you succeeded through 1) merit 2) "just falling into it" and 3) having personal factors that made it less risky for you. How is that consistent/a basis for advising others (who presumably don't have the personal factors)?

cavalier1138
Posts: 3770
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Hofstra (150k) vs Brooklyn (80k)

Postby cavalier1138 » Wed Aug 09, 2017 5:53 am

Subban_Fan wrote:The gambler in this instance says he's not retaking the LSAT so that's not an option to this bet. Too many posters in this thread keep harping on it when he's already decided. I think a sgement of people on TLS (not saying you, but this segment definitely exists) can't accept the fact that someone that's achieved less academically (lower LSAT score, worse GPA, worse schools) could end up making a lot more money than them. That someone who keeps making bad bets (or as BigZuck described, "dumb" bets that makes them unfit for law school) could end up somehow winning. Unfortunately, bad beats happen (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ3lgmkwG4A).


Oh man, you really don't get it.

Why the fuck would anyone care if the OP manages to succeed? As has constantly been said to the other outliers on the thread: congratulations, but that's the exception that proves the rule. The only thing rubbing people the wrong way is his incredible level of arrogance in assuming that he's already better than 200 strangers who are going to be working for the same goals he is. If he ends up being right, good for him. I'm sure he'll be absolutely insufferable about it, but no one will care that he succeeded by bucking the odds. What matters is when people start using these one-off success stories as reasons to recommend a really dumb course of action.

The OP doesn't want to retake. Largely because he's decided on the path of least resistance (in the short term). But he hasn't articulated any reasons that a retake isn't the absolute, 100% right option in this situation.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: principalagent and 3 guests