Hofstra (150k) vs Brooklyn (80k)

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
CPAlawHopefu
Posts: 247
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:17 pm

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

Postby CPAlawHopefu » Tue Aug 01, 2017 5:23 pm

cavalier1138 wrote:
CPAlawHopefu wrote:Plenty of people graduated from TTT schools, open up practice, and dish in half a million a year. Come to California, the home of the worst of the TTT law schools, yet you see too many of the alums living a life of dream with their own practice. And, no, these aren't stories of some old farts that got their JD in the 80's or 90's when "things were different". All of them got their law degree post-2009 financial collapse, so I'm not talking of a different world here. Of course, these may be cases that represent exceptions, but the point is, life is spontaneous and don't set your goal so rigidly. For someone with a bit of financial freedom from loan, you are in a good position to start law education.


Are you a TJ admissions office plant?

Be honest, now...


Whittier.

User avatar
Versailles1919
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:57 pm

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

Postby Versailles1919 » Sat Aug 05, 2017 1:23 pm

I'd definitely go for Hofstra, and congratulations on finally making your choice! Hofstra has a strong alumni base and a full scholarship to law school is amazing. Even if big law doesn't work out for you right away, you didn't even pay for your law degree. I'm also from the area so I know many people who scored big law jobs in NYC making 6 figures after graduation. Don't let negative feedback discourage you. Again, congrats and good luck!

User avatar
TasmanianToucan
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:16 am

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

Postby TasmanianToucan » Sat Aug 05, 2017 2:27 pm

Quick question, OP. Let's say you're in the 92% at Hofstra that don't end up with a biglaw job. Do you have a backup plan? Something else you'd like to do?

I'm not going to fight with you about the wisdom of going to Hofstra; looks like that ship has sailed (at least mentally). I am curious about your thinking on where you're likely to end up, though. What's the plan if you don't beat the odds?

NotSkadden
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:31 pm

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

Postby NotSkadden » Sat Aug 05, 2017 3:38 pm

My back-up plan was to work at a small LI litigation botique with the same work-ethic necessary for BigLaw. I would do this and spend the 3k hours a year I'd otherwise be working at BigLaw learning how to start my own practice, or making partner at a firm that would set me up nicely.

If that didn't work out, i would have tried a DA's office to get trial experience and then try and go to a small LI lit botique.

Instead I got BigLaw, which was always my first choice. And I had my choice of firm, too. I will say, it's a huge risk. But the payoff is well worth the risk, if you're okay with the alternative (if your gamble doesn't pay off). I was. Most of you aren't, and that's okay. Please don't get mad at the kid for wanting to take some risk, especially when they seem well aware of what they're up against.

cavalier1138
Posts: 4668
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

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

Postby cavalier1138 » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:40 pm

NotSkadden wrote:My back-up plan was to work at a small LI litigation botique


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Versailles1919 wrote:I'm also from the area so I know many people who scored big law jobs in NYC making 6 figures after graduation.


I know lots of people who won good money at the slots in Vegas. Doesn't mean I'd recommend they stake their future careers on it.

NotSkadden
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:31 pm

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

Postby NotSkadden » Sat Aug 05, 2017 9:23 pm

cavalier1138 wrote:
NotSkadden wrote:My back-up plan was to work at a small LI litigation botique


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Versailles1919 wrote:I'm also from the area so I know many people who scored big law jobs in NYC making 6 figures after graduation.


I know lots of people who won good money at the slots in Vegas. Doesn't mean I'd recommend they stake their future careers on it.


Regardless of what you think it means, I meant a small (10 or less attorneys) litigation firm that specializes in a certain area of law--consistent with the definition of boutiques.

Second, cool story. Luckily OP isn't soliciting advice from risk averse people like you. Despite this, you can't help yourself from telling everyone how bad of an idea it is.

Putting your life savings into bitcoin 5+ years ago was allegedly a mistake, too. I hope I don't have to list other "stupid decisions" that turned out to be brilliant ideas. I don't understand why you can't wrap your head around the idea of taking a risk. Especially one were you can control many of the variables (unlike say a roulette table...).

Anyway, if you can't. Cool. Just stop spewing your unhelpful "advice," and yes it's unhelpful because it's already been well documented that OP is likely making a mistake by going to one of these two schools. But they want to be advised on how to make the best out of their situation (which despite your understanding is one law school or the other).

uion1715
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:58 am

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

Postby uion1715 » Sat Aug 05, 2017 10:47 pm

For what it's worth, we are probably talking like investing $1,000 on bitcoins in 2011 v. $150k+ on law school admissions in 2017.

Also, it's not like small law firms/boutiques are easier to get into than big law firms. Personal injury firms, maybe, but those don't pay anywhere close to biglaw.

Saying this as someone who think cavalier can tone it down a bit.

User avatar
UVA2B
Posts: 3146
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 10:48 pm

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

Postby UVA2B » Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 pm

NotSkadden wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
NotSkadden wrote:My back-up plan was to work at a small LI litigation botique


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Versailles1919 wrote:I'm also from the area so I know many people who scored big law jobs in NYC making 6 figures after graduation.


I know lots of people who won good money at the slots in Vegas. Doesn't mean I'd recommend they stake their future careers on it.


Regardless of what you think it means, I meant a small (10 or less attorneys) litigation firm that specializes in a certain area of law--consistent with the definition of boutiques.

Second, cool story. Luckily OP isn't soliciting advice from risk averse people like you. Despite this, you can't help yourself from telling everyone how bad of an idea it is.

Putting your life savings into bitcoin 5+ years ago was allegedly a mistake, too. I hope I don't have to list other "stupid decisions" that turned out to be brilliant ideas. I don't understand why you can't wrap your head around the idea of taking a risk. Especially one were you can control many of the variables (unlike say a roulette table...).

Anyway, if you can't. Cool. Just stop spewing your unhelpful "advice," and yes it's unhelpful because it's already been well documented that OP is likely making a mistake by going to one of these two schools. But they want to be advised on how to make the best out of their situation (which despite your understanding is one law school or the other).


This is nonsense, and it makes me sad that you don't realize that. You're talking about lit boutiques as a backup plan, but what type of lit boutique could you reasonably have as a backup plan that would pay well to cover such a risky investment straight out of law school? Keker or Desmarais isn't hiring the average grad from pretty much anywhere and paying them in a way that would allow them to pay off their loans, should they approach this investment as recklessly as you suggest. And beyond that, other small shops seem to fall in line with salary trends of new graduates, which is decidedly less rosy than you suggest, pulling in <$60k.

There are obviously always risky investments that pay off. That's cavalier's entire point. You can invest in Apple or Google in the late 90s if you're lucky, and you could invest in [insert risky start-up venture that failed] while losing huge. The people who invest in Apple or Google are genius because they got ahead of something they saw as a promising risk, while others failed miserably thinking MySpace would flourish.

I get that you're trying to play the other side to the risk-averse coin that TLS pretty much fully embraces, but your underlying arguments about why TLS is unnecessarily risk-averse has so many holes as to make it a worthless counter to TLS conventional wisdom, which focuses on goals, cost, and likelihood of accomplishing goals at that cost. To most here, paying $100k for a 10% chance of a goal is a bad investment. To others, risking $100k while working toward being in the 10% of those who get a certain goal seems admirable. Neither is right or wrong, but to dismiss the risk-averse as not valuable is to dismiss your own position because you're no longer making a value proposition.

NotSkadden
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:31 pm

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

Postby NotSkadden » Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:34 pm

UVA2B wrote:
NotSkadden wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
NotSkadden wrote:My back-up plan was to work at a small LI litigation botique


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Versailles1919 wrote:I'm also from the area so I know many people who scored big law jobs in NYC making 6 figures after graduation.


I know lots of people who won good money at the slots in Vegas. Doesn't mean I'd recommend they stake their future careers on it.


Regardless of what you think it means, I meant a small (10 or less attorneys) litigation firm that specializes in a certain area of law--consistent with the definition of boutiques.

Second, cool story. Luckily OP isn't soliciting advice from risk averse people like you. Despite this, you can't help yourself from telling everyone how bad of an idea it is.

Putting your life savings into bitcoin 5+ years ago was allegedly a mistake, too. I hope I don't have to list other "stupid decisions" that turned out to be brilliant ideas. I don't understand why you can't wrap your head around the idea of taking a risk. Especially one were you can control many of the variables (unlike say a roulette table...).

Anyway, if you can't. Cool. Just stop spewing your unhelpful "advice," and yes it's unhelpful because it's already been well documented that OP is likely making a mistake by going to one of these two schools. But they want to be advised on how to make the best out of their situation (which despite your understanding is one law school or the other).


This is nonsense, and it makes me sad that you don't realize that. You're talking about lit boutiques as a backup plan, but what type of lit boutique could you reasonably have as a backup plan that would pay well to cover such a risky investment straight out of law school? Keker or Desmarais isn't hiring the average grad from pretty much anywhere and paying them in a way that would allow them to pay off their loans, should they approach this investment as recklessly as you suggest. And beyond that, other small shops seem to fall in line with salary trends of new graduates, which is decidedly less rosy than you suggest, pulling in <$60k.

There are obviously always risky investments that pay off. That's cavalier's entire point. You can invest in Apple or Google in the late 90s if you're lucky, and you could invest in [insert risky start-up venture that failed] while losing huge. The people who invest in Apple or Google are genius because they got ahead of something they saw as a promising risk, while others failed miserably thinking MySpace would flourish.

I get that you're trying to play the other side to the risk-averse coin that TLS pretty much fully embraces, but your underlying arguments about why TLS is unnecessarily risk-averse has so many holes as to make it a worthless counter to TLS conventional wisdom, which focuses on goals, cost, and likelihood of accomplishing goals at that cost. To most here, paying $100k for a 10% chance of a goal is a bad investment. To others, risking $100k while working toward being in the 10% of those who get a certain goal seems admirable. Neither is right or wrong, but to dismiss the risk-averse as not valuable is to dismiss your own position because you're no longer making a value proposition.


That is if you've not already considered your advice in coming to the decision. If OP is making it clear that they are going to one school or the other, and has then made it clear that they have considered the risks involved with going to these schools, would it not be more helpful to give them the advice they are asking for?

We are talking about a full scholarship here. Is 10-30k for a 8-10% shot worth it? You can argue no; I'll argue maybe. Depends on the person and circumstances, IMO. Plus it's worth pointing out that the 10-30k that your putting yourself in debt will be paid off rather easily if you make BigLaw, or very manageable if you get a 60k+ starting job.

Also, I guess you can't say botique on TLS without bringing out the prestige. My bad? Let's instead argue in terms of a small LI lit firm that pays the generic 60k starting. If you end up top 75% at one of these schools you have a good chance of ending up in this situation or making at least 60k+ somewhere. If that's the case, how is going to school nearly for free a bad thing when all is said and done.

Before law school I was making 28k a year, I would have killed for 60k+. Please understand that we don't all live through the same circumstances. Going to a TTT was the best decision I've ever made, and I was bashed on this site for making that decision. I was told I was making the biggest mistake of my life, and I believed it.

Trust me, I've reached out to OP personally and let them know that I have plenty of friends who failed to achieve what they are trying to achieve. Friends who worked just as hard, and most even, harder than I had. I will be he first person to say this decision is risky, and not for everyone; but it has to be for some people. There will be 20 to 40 people from these schools who make BigLaw and prove everyone wrong. I took my chances, and I think OP has a right to take theirs without getting absolutely bashed as if they are an imbicle.

User avatar
lavarman84
#MAGA
Posts: 7476
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

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

Postby lavarman84 » Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:16 am

I'm with NotSkadden. You can believe a person is making the wrong decision. You can express that. But if they still insist on making their decision, offer the advice they're requesting or shut up. There are too many posters in this forum who act like jilted lovers when someone rejects their advice. The person might be making a mistake, but it's their mistake to make. It has no effect on your life. There's no reason to be insulting and nasty towards them because they dare to do their own thing.

That behavior is especially obnoxious when it comes from 0Ls and 1Ls who know fuck all about the legal profession beyond the TLS conventional wisdom.

Also, UVA, you're defining litigation boutique pretty narrowly. I wouldn't call every small litigation firm a boutique, but there are certainly more out there than just the big name prestigious ones. And I'll also say that this forum tends to have a more pessimistic outlook at career paths than many normal people. As NotSkadden pointed out, there are a lot of people out there who wouldn't bat an eyelash at taking a $50,000 to $65,000 job at a small firm or in a JD advantage position (especially considering one's potential to advance and earn in the six figures down the line).

User avatar
chargers21
Posts: 3654
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2016 10:54 pm

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

Postby chargers21 » Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:27 am

Wouldn't a full ride to Hofstra still be pretty expensive, like more than 10 to 30k? I thought it was in a pretty high COL area. It's not like UGA where you can rent a room for 300 bucks a month

BigZuck
Posts: 11716
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

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

Postby BigZuck » Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:27 am

lavarman84 wrote:I'm with NotSkadden. You can believe a person is making the wrong decision. You can express that. But if they still insist on making their decision, offer the advice they're requesting or shut up. There are too many posters in this forum who act like jilted lovers when someone rejects their advice. The person might be making a mistake, but it's their mistake to make. It has no effect on your life. There's no reason to be insulting and nasty towards them because they dare to do their own thing.

That behavior is especially obnoxious when it comes from 0Ls and 1Ls who know fuck all about the legal profession beyond the TLS conventional wisdom.

Also, UVA, you're defining litigation boutique pretty narrowly. I wouldn't call every small litigation firm a boutique, but there are certainly more out there than just the big name prestigious ones. And I'll also say that this forum tends to have a more pessimistic outlook at career paths than many normal people. As NotSkadden pointed out, there are a lot of people out there who wouldn't bat an eyelash at taking a $50,000 to $65,000 job at a small firm or in a JD advantage position (especially considering one's potential to advance and earn in the six figures down the line).

Great Aunts and Johanns were literally invented to pat people on the back and tell them they're doing the right thing no matter what. That's not why TLS was invented.

We get it, you're a gunner and v smart and you're a VERY ESTEEMED WATCHER OF FILM but come on bro.

(Real talk though you won't often catch me admitting this publically but I appreciate bad takes like yours and Johann's to really punctuate the good stuff so I guess just keep it coming both here and in sports threads?)

OP- Definitely 100% do not go to law school. TITCR /thread

User avatar
lavarman84
#MAGA
Posts: 7476
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

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

Postby lavarman84 » Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:49 am

BigZuck wrote:
lavarman84 wrote:I'm with NotSkadden. You can believe a person is making the wrong decision. You can express that. But if they still insist on making their decision, offer the advice they're requesting or shut up. There are too many posters in this forum who act like jilted lovers when someone rejects their advice. The person might be making a mistake, but it's their mistake to make. It has no effect on your life. There's no reason to be insulting and nasty towards them because they dare to do their own thing.

That behavior is especially obnoxious when it comes from 0Ls and 1Ls who know fuck all about the legal profession beyond the TLS conventional wisdom.

Also, UVA, you're defining litigation boutique pretty narrowly. I wouldn't call every small litigation firm a boutique, but there are certainly more out there than just the big name prestigious ones. And I'll also say that this forum tends to have a more pessimistic outlook at career paths than many normal people. As NotSkadden pointed out, there are a lot of people out there who wouldn't bat an eyelash at taking a $50,000 to $65,000 job at a small firm or in a JD advantage position (especially considering one's potential to advance and earn in the six figures down the line).

Great Aunts and Johanns were literally invented to pat people on the back and tell them they're doing the right thing no matter what. That's not why TLS was invented.

We get it, you're a gunner and v smart and you're a VERY ESTEEMED WATCHER OF FILM but come on bro.

(Real talk though you won't often catch me admitting this publically but I appreciate bad takes like yours and Johann's to really punctuate the good stuff so I guess just keep it coming both here and in sports threads?)

OP- Definitely 100% do not go to law school. TITCR /thread


Nah, bro, I have a perspective that comes from not going to a top school. That allowed me to witness firsthand many things that are relevant to these discussions. I don't hide the ball from people, but I also am not the pessimist that many people on this site are.

I really don't care if you pat people on the back or not. But you're taking all of this a little too personally if you feel the need to stick around and insult the person repeatedly after they ignored your advice.("You" in this paragraph meaning the people who actually do this, not necessarily BigZuck)

P.S. As I recall, you called my takes on the 49ers bad last year despite them being dead-on accurate, so I'll take this as a compliment. :wink:

cavalier1138
Posts: 4668
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

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

Postby cavalier1138 » Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:20 am

I love that the Positivity Train has already forgotten that the OP's "full" scholarship is conditional.

So not only is the OP gambling on doing well enough to get biglaw, they're gambling on doing well enough to actually continue going to Hofstra for the only acceptable price tag.

And I love love love love love the constant litany of "calculated risks, bro". It's not a calculated risk. It's just a risk. And if the OP wants someone to pat them on the head and tell them what a great decision they're making, they can go to the Hofstra admissions office or a close relative who knows nothing about legal hiring. This particular OP is biglaw-or-bust, and they're making a dumb decision by going to a shit school on a conditional scholarship.

Oh, and...

NotSkadden wrote:Also, I guess you can't say botique on TLS without bringing out the prestige.


Love it. How were you not aware that the term "boutique" (this is how it's actually spelled, by the way) is used to refer to a specific type of firm in legal hiring? You'll find the "boutique" classification all over the place; it's not just a TLS "prestige" thing. What you've been referring to is a small firm, and the chances of lateraling from a small firm/ADA position in to biglaw are probably lower than the chances of getting it from Hofstra in the first place.

Maybe before you advocate for making stupid fucking decisions, you should at least know the hiring market for your "backup plans". You got lucky; congrats. The overwhelming majority of your classmates didn't, and it's beyond ridiculous that you won't acknowledge that the OP can't count on your particular combination of circumstances manifesting for them.

User avatar
UVA2B
Posts: 3146
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 10:48 pm

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

Postby UVA2B » Sun Aug 06, 2017 8:50 am

lavarman84 wrote:I'm with NotSkadden. You can believe a person is making the wrong decision. You can express that. But if they still insist on making their decision, offer the advice they're requesting or shut up. There are too many posters in this forum who act like jilted lovers when someone rejects their advice. The person might be making a mistake, but it's their mistake to make. It has no effect on your life. There's no reason to be insulting and nasty towards them because they dare to do their own thing.

That behavior is especially obnoxious when it comes from 0Ls and 1Ls who know fuck all about the legal profession beyond the TLS conventional wisdom.

Also, UVA, you're defining litigation boutique pretty narrowly. I wouldn't call every small litigation firm a boutique, but there are certainly more out there than just the big name prestigious ones. And I'll also say that this forum tends to have a more pessimistic outlook at career paths than many normal people. As NotSkadden pointed out, there are a lot of people out there who wouldn't bat an eyelash at taking a $50,000 to $65,000 job at a small firm or in a JD advantage position (especially considering one's potential to advance and earn in the six figures down the line).


You're right, I defined it overly narrowly, and there are certainly more lit boutiques than Keker and Desmarais. My point wasn't that the available lit boutiques is tiny, but more that the number of lit boutiques that will compensate well to make this kind of decision not a mistake is a really small and finite set of firms, and more importantly, getting hired by those "lit boutiques" will be more competitive than the biglaw the person wants more. Gunning for lit boutiques is arguably much worse than gunning for biglaw, regardless which school you're attending, much less treating it as a back-up plan to missing biglaw.

This entire conversation hinges on the risk profile of a given person, and I accept that, but there is no requirement that a person give bad advice because the person is seeking bad advice. If an entire chorus of people tells someone they're making a mistake, it's arguably more helpful than picking the less bad option because it shows a bunch of internet strangers think it is a bad decision. Or they could dismiss that advice because they believe the anonymous masses are wrong. Either way, TLS should do its best to give the best advice to people, not to give the best advice relative to the narrow parameters the OP sets out. FWIW, Hofstra for cheap is the much better option for the OP if they insist on going, but that should come with a healthy dose of reality that Biglaw is entirely unlikely, and any back-up plan that consists of making a decently high salary, at least initially, is also unlikely. If the person is comfortable with that reality, fine. But that still doesn't mean people like NotSkadden should be touting naked confirmation bias of it being a sound plan because it worked out for them. It's great that it worked out, to be sure, but that path is not easily repeatable, and further, it shouldn't cause someone who went that path to recommend others go that path in hindsight. Luck isn't something anyone should bank on when a profession and a lot of money is on the line.

User avatar
TasmanianToucan
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:16 am

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

Postby TasmanianToucan » Sun Aug 06, 2017 9:04 am

^^^ This is the point I was trying to get at with my question. OP, planning from the perspective that a 92% probability will win out over an 8% possibility is not "risk aversion," it is realism. Before you dive into this, please be sure that you know what the likely outcomes are and are ok with what those look like.

Justtrying2help
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 3:57 pm

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

Postby Justtrying2help » Sun Aug 06, 2017 10:17 am

TasmanianToucan wrote:^^^ This is the point I was trying to get at with my question. OP, planning from the perspective that a 92% probability will win out over an 8% possibility is not "risk aversion," it is realism. Before you dive into this, please be sure that you know what the likely outcomes are and are ok with what those look like.


The problem with that line of thinking is that the 8% who get biglaw from Hofstra don't all do it based on merit. Some get biglaw based on connections (nepotism) and unusual characteristics (olympic gold medalist/ ridiculous attractiveness with a ip law background). Less than 5 students per class likely gets biglaw based solely on grades. Thats a hell of a bet for anyone to make on themselves if they do not have connections. My only hope is that OP drops out after his first year if he/she falls short of the goal.

User avatar
lavarman84
#MAGA
Posts: 7476
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

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

Postby lavarman84 » Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:59 pm

UVA2B wrote:
lavarman84 wrote:Also, UVA, you're defining litigation boutique pretty narrowly. I wouldn't call every small litigation firm a boutique, but there are certainly more out there than just the big name prestigious ones. And I'll also say that this forum tends to have a more pessimistic outlook at career paths than many normal people. As NotSkadden pointed out, there are a lot of people out there who wouldn't bat an eyelash at taking a $50,000 to $65,000 job at a small firm or in a JD advantage position (especially considering one's potential to advance and earn in the six figures down the line).


You're right, I defined it overly narrowly, and there are certainly more lit boutiques than Keker and Desmarais. My point wasn't that the available lit boutiques is tiny, but more that the number of lit boutiques that will compensate well to make this kind of decision not a mistake is a really small and finite set of firms, and more importantly, getting hired by those "lit boutiques" will be more competitive than the biglaw the person wants more. Gunning for lit boutiques is arguably much worse than gunning for biglaw, regardless which school you're attending, much less treating it as a back-up plan to missing biglaw.


Yea but a lot of people end up having no issue with a $55,000 to $65,000 starting salary. I know what OP's goals are now, but goals tend to change in law school. I expect NotSkadden wasn't referring to a litigation boutique like Keker. I expect he was referring to a small firm with a starting salary like the one I referenced above that does civil litigation.

Again, people who went to top law schools don't have the same perspective that someone who didn't has. I have friends who are incredibly happy with their job at a small law firm making $50,000 to $60,000 a year starting. I have friends who are incredibly happy with JD advantage jobs making $60,000 to $70,000 per year starting. As long as a person makes a reasonable decision in regards to the debt they take out, they can be very happy with these jobs that TLSers treat as inferior. Even if a person doesn't get biglaw, he might end up with a job he likes. He might end up with a job he likes a hell of a lot more than biglaw.

I also know people who are currently unemployed. That is part of the risk and isn't something that should be ignored.

This entire conversation hinges on the risk profile of a given person, and I accept that, but there is no requirement that a person give bad advice because the person is seeking bad advice.


There is no requirement you give advice. You can just leave when the person ignores what you tell him. But many here can't do that. They have to stay, fight, and insult. It's not your decision. It's not your life. There's no reason to take it so personally. You're not going to change a person's mind by insulting them.

If an entire chorus of people tells someone they're making a mistake, it's arguably more helpful than picking the less bad option because it shows a bunch of internet strangers think it is a bad decision. Or they could dismiss that advice because they believe the anonymous masses are wrong. Either way, TLS should do its best to give the best advice to people, not to give the best advice relative to the narrow parameters the OP sets out. FWIW, Hofstra for cheap is the much better option for the OP if they insist on going, but that should come with a healthy dose of reality that Biglaw is entirely unlikely, and any back-up plan that consists of making a decently high salary, at least initially, is also unlikely. If the person is comfortable with that reality, fine. But that still doesn't mean people like NotSkadden should be touting naked confirmation bias of it being a sound plan because it worked out for them. It's great that it worked out, to be sure, but that path is not easily repeatable, and further, it shouldn't cause someone who went that path to recommend others go that path in hindsight. Luck isn't something anyone should bank on when a profession and a lot of money is on the line.


I have no issue with NotSkadden telling people to take that path if he doesn't hide the ball. Tell them what the odds of success are. Explain that they need to have realistic backup plans. Discuss the risks. That gives the person all the information needed to make a decision.

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

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

Postby Kcaz555 » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:31 pm

hey so this is OP (lost my other account info). I haven't looked at this in a while so i'm not going to be able to respond to everything thats been said so far. I appreciate all the advice and everything people have said. I appreciate the advice from people like cavilier and the advice from people like notskadden. For sake of any continued arguements I should mention this now: OP will most likely be coming out of law school debt free. That being said will probably shift the direction of any continued arguments. The scholarship in question is not a typical scholarship where you have to stay above the median. Its only condition, rather, is that its recipient maintain at least a 2.2 GPA.

I'd also just like to say that my main goal with this post was to draw attention from people like notskadden (and everyone else who reached out, sorry I can't remember right now) who were in similar positions and who had the same mindset. I guess i should have made that more clearer in the original post. This post turned into a debate so clearly between lawyers/future lawyers, which is something I was trying to avoid lol.

I get where people come from on this site thinking that any decision that is not optimal for the user is a stupid decision. Some people can't/don't know how to take the right risks. The right risk for one person may be the worst decision for another. People like notskadden took the right risk for them and as he said, such risk have variables that are controllable. For others, such a decision would be too much for them to handle. That is why I made this post, in hopes of finding people who could understand this/my mindset, which some of you get, and some of you do not (which is understandable).

The good news is that I am BigLaw or bust, but even if BigLaw doesn't happen, there will be few if any debt (I apologize if this comes off weird I just think for sake of any more arguements people should know this). Don't really know what else to say but I appreciate the advice and the people who reached out to me with their experiences (and would love to continue to hear more)

Justtrying2help
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 3:57 pm

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

Postby Justtrying2help » Sun Aug 06, 2017 8:34 pm

Kcaz555 wrote:hey so this is OP (lost my other account info). I haven't looked at this in a while so i'm not going to be able to respond to everything thats been said so far. I appreciate all the advice and everything people have said. I appreciate the advice from people like cavilier and the advice from people like notskadden. For sake of any continued arguements I should mention this now: OP will most likely be coming out of law school debt free. That being said will probably shift the direction of any continued arguments. The scholarship in question is not a typical scholarship where you have to stay above the median. Its only condition, rather, is that its recipient maintain at least a 2.2 GPA.

I'd also just like to say that my main goal with this post was to draw attention from people like notskadden (and everyone else who reached out, sorry I can't remember right now) who were in similar positions and who had the same mindset. I guess i should have made that more clearer in the original post. This post turned into a debate so clearly between lawyers/future lawyers, which is something I was trying to avoid lol.

I get where people come from on this site thinking that any decision that is not optimal for the user is a stupid decision. Some people can't/don't know how to take the right risks. The right risk for one person may be the worst decision for another. People like notskadden took the right risk for them and as he said, such risk have variables that are controllable. For others, such a decision would be too much for them to handle. That is why I made this post, in hopes of finding people who could understand this/my mindset, which some of you get, and some of you do not (which is understandable).

The good news is that I am BigLaw or bust, but even if BigLaw doesn't happen, there will be few if any debt (I apologize if this comes off weird I just think for sake of any more arguements people should know this). Don't really know what else to say but I appreciate the advice and the people who reached out to me with their experiences (and would love to continue to hear more)


Your goals only make since if you can place among the top 5 students in your class at Hofstra. Roughly 8% of Hofstra students get biglaw and most don't do it purely based on merit. Many get biglaw based on connections (nepotism) or on unusual characteristics (olympic gold medalist/ ridiculous attractiveness combined with a ip law background). Less than 5 students per class likely gets biglaw based solely on grades. Thats a hell of a bet for anyone to make on themselves if they do not have connections coming into law school. I commend you on trying to reach your goals, but you'll probably have a hell of a time trying to be the unicorn of your class. I'm a student at a top school and I know a few 3Ls still trying to find a big firm job. All of them could have attended Hofstra with a full tuition scholarship (honestly all of us could probably get full scholarships to far better schools than that). I have a close friend who is #2 in his class, an incredibly impressive kid with outstanding credentials at a school ranked in the 30's to 40's, who completely struck out at oci for biglaw last year (however he did get several offers for nice gov jobs). I was completely shocked by his lack of success at oci, but the name of the school on his resume likely screwed him. Being number 1 at Hofstra does not guarantees you biglaw. Law is a prestige driven industry and Hofstra impresses no one in it. I would ask you to reconsider but it appears futile at this point. I would recommend that you drop out of law school if you don't get biglaw after your 2L OCI. Nothing is wrong with being biglaw or bust, but it would be smarter to give yourself a better chance at achieving it (by retaking the lsat until you get a suitable score). Good luck OP.

sparkytrainer
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 12:32 am

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

Postby sparkytrainer » Sun Aug 06, 2017 8:39 pm

Justtrying2help wrote:
Kcaz555 wrote:hey so this is OP (lost my other account info). I haven't looked at this in a while so i'm not going to be able to respond to everything thats been said so far. I appreciate all the advice and everything people have said. I appreciate the advice from people like cavilier and the advice from people like notskadden. For sake of any continued arguements I should mention this now: OP will most likely be coming out of law school debt free. That being said will probably shift the direction of any continued arguments. The scholarship in question is not a typical scholarship where you have to stay above the median. Its only condition, rather, is that its recipient maintain at least a 2.2 GPA.

I'd also just like to say that my main goal with this post was to draw attention from people like notskadden (and everyone else who reached out, sorry I can't remember right now) who were in similar positions and who had the same mindset. I guess i should have made that more clearer in the original post. This post turned into a debate so clearly between lawyers/future lawyers, which is something I was trying to avoid lol.

I get where people come from on this site thinking that any decision that is not optimal for the user is a stupid decision. Some people can't/don't know how to take the right risks. The right risk for one person may be the worst decision for another. People like notskadden took the right risk for them and as he said, such risk have variables that are controllable. For others, such a decision would be too much for them to handle. That is why I made this post, in hopes of finding people who could understand this/my mindset, which some of you get, and some of you do not (which is understandable).

The good news is that I am BigLaw or bust, but even if BigLaw doesn't happen, there will be few if any debt (I apologize if this comes off weird I just think for sake of any more arguements people should know this). Don't really know what else to say but I appreciate the advice and the people who reached out to me with their experiences (and would love to continue to hear more)


Your goals only make since if you can place among the top 5 students in your class at Hofstra. Roughly 8% of Hofstra students get biglaw and most don't do it purely based on merit. Many get biglaw based on connections (nepotism) or on unusual characteristics (olympic gold medalist/ ridiculous attractiveness combined with a ip law background). Less than 5 students per class likely gets biglaw based solely on grades. Thats a hell of a bet for anyone to make on themselves if they do not have connections coming into law school. I commend you on trying to reach your goals, but you'll probably have a hell of a time trying to be the unicorn of your class. I'm a student at a top school and I know a few 3Ls still trying to find a big firm job. All of them could have attended Hofstra with a full tuition scholarship (honestly all of us could probably get full scholarships to far better schools than that). I have a close friend who is #2 in his class, an incredibly impressive kid with outstanding credentials at a school ranked in the 30's to 40's, who completely struck out at oci for biglaw last year (however he did get several offers for nice gov jobs). I was completely shocked by his lack of success at oci, but the name of the school on his resume likely screwed him. Being number 1 at Hofstra does not guarantees you biglaw. Law is a prestige driven industry and Hofstra impresses no one in it. I would ask you to reconsider but it appears futile at this point. I would recommend that you drop out of law school if you don't get biglaw after your 2L OCI. Nothing is wrong with being biglaw or bust, but it would be smarter to give yourself a better chance at achieving it (by retaking the lsat until you get a suitable score). Good luck OP.


I just wanna jump in here as well. I know someone who graduated top 2% from Hofstra law in the past 2-3 years. Got 0 biglaw interviews. 0 biglaw offers. This person is going to work in a small town DA's office in a not great area of the country after looking everywhere for a job. That is not an exception, that is the most likely outcome. So even if you are in the top 2 or 3 students in your class, good luck getting biglaw from Hofstra (you'll need it, because you wont get it).

User avatar
lavarman84
#MAGA
Posts: 7476
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

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

Postby lavarman84 » Sun Aug 06, 2017 9:07 pm

Justtrying2help wrote:I have a close friend who is #2 in his class, an incredibly impressive kid with outstanding credentials at a school ranked in the 30's to 40's, who completely struck out at oci for biglaw last year (however he did get several offers for nice gov jobs). I was completely shocked by his lack of success at oci, but the name of the school on his resume likely screwed him.


Oh honey, no. If your friend is #2 in his class and struck out at OCI at a school ranked in the 30s to 40s, your friend is a very bad interviewer. Your friend should be looking at an Art. III clerkship and a biglaw SA if he's a decent interviewer and competent socially with that ranking.

User avatar
UVA2B
Posts: 3146
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 10:48 pm

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

Postby UVA2B » Sun Aug 06, 2017 9:09 pm

lavarman84 wrote:
Justtrying2help wrote:I have a close friend who is #2 in his class, an incredibly impressive kid with outstanding credentials at a school ranked in the 30's to 40's, who completely struck out at oci for biglaw last year (however he did get several offers for nice gov jobs). I was completely shocked by his lack of success at oci, but the name of the school on his resume likely screwed him.


Oh honey, no. If your friend is #2 in his class and struck out at OCI at a school ranked in the 30s to 40s, your friend is a very bad interviewer. Your friend should be looking at an Art. III clerkship and a biglaw SA if he's a decent interviewer and competent socially with that ranking.


At my own peril, I agree with this wholeheartedly. If true, your friend screwed up OCI in any number of ways.

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

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

Postby Kcaz555 » Sun Aug 06, 2017 9:10 pm

lavarman84 wrote:
Justtrying2help wrote:I have a close friend who is #2 in his class, an incredibly impressive kid with outstanding credentials at a school ranked in the 30's to 40's, who completely struck out at oci for biglaw last year (however he did get several offers for nice gov jobs). I was completely shocked by his lack of success at oci, but the name of the school on his resume likely screwed him.


Oh honey, no. If your friend is #2 in his class and struck out at OCI at a school ranked in the 30s to 40s, your friend is a very bad interviewer. Your friend should be looking at an Art. III clerkship and a biglaw SA if he's a decent interviewer and competent socially.



I'm only an 0l but im betting lavar hit this one on the head lol. (I was hoping someone would point this out so I, being a 0l wouldn't have to).

cavalier1138
Posts: 4668
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

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

Postby cavalier1138 » Sun Aug 06, 2017 9:14 pm

Kcaz555 wrote:The scholarship in question is not a typical scholarship where you have to stay above the median. Its only condition, rather, is that its recipient maintain at least a 2.2 GPA.


*sigh*

What's the median at Hofstra? And how many students retain their scholarships after 1L?

Your plan is ridiculous and arrogant beyond words, but your scholarship is likely pretty typical.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: codys2592 and 8 guests