Hofstra (150k) vs Brooklyn (80k)

[AspiringAspirant]

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.

lol this is TLS in a nutshell. I don't think the approach is problematic as a starting matter -- saying up front that someone shouldn't be limiting themselves to the options presented is always worthwhile (and correct) advice, imo. But when you then continually refuse to actually answer the question presented, it becomes clear you're more interested in being a dick and telling someone how wrong they are than you are in actually helping. I notice these type of people tend to be those who (based on comment count) spend the most time on here. There might be something to that...

I'd take Hofstra OP. Big-law will be a pipe dream, and you may waste three years, but at least you won't be crushed by debt.

Finally! Someone who will give me a straight answer to my question. What should I play to win my fortune in Vegas: slots or craps? Don't tell me that this is a stupid plan, because I don't want to hear it. I've given you two options, and you must respond with one of them. I eagerly await your answer.

You think this analogy is more clever than it is. I would say, as I said above if you read, that you shouldn't be limiting yourself to those options. But if you won't be moved on that, then choose the one with the better odds. I don't do gambling so I can't help there.

[AspiringAspirant]

But I said in myfirst sentence that acknowledging that it is a false dichotomy is perfectly acceptable and correct advice. Once you get that out of your system, if you don't think the two options are identical, the helpful thing to do is tell OP what the better option is. Especially when he's told you over and over that he is going to choose between the two options and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

How is that helpful?

If you think the OP is making a bad decision either way, then it isn't helpful to tell them to take either option. If the OP wants to be monumentally arrogant (and yes, that's what going to Hofstra with the plan of "killing it" is), that's their choice. No one else has to encourage that.

It's helpful because the two choices are not equally bad. This isn't complicated.

[Future Ex-Engineer]

i love getting lectured by someone aspiring to aspire.

that's about as useful as hoping to not be hopeless or dreaming about dreams

[Kcaz55]

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.

lol this is TLS in a nutshell. I don't think the approach is problematic as a starting matter -- saying up front that someone shouldn't be limiting themselves to the options presented is always worthwhile (and correct) advice, imo. But when you then continually refuse to actually answer the question presented, it becomes clear you're more interested in being a dick and telling someone how wrong they are than you are in actually helping. I notice these type of people tend to be those who (based on comment count) spend the most time on here. There might be something to that...

I'd take Hofstra OP. Big-law will be a pipe dream, and you may waste three years, but at least you won't be crushed by debt.

lol yeah you nailed it. I've been coming to this site for the past few months and didn't make a post because of how weird it gets on here but finally threw one out there with this guy. I''ve just been looking for advise like this. I'm cool with being told that BigLaw is a pipedream or whatever because im aware of the odds. At the same time though, I love competition especially when I have shitty odds so i'm not panicking/stressed out about this.

Hofstra giving me the full tuition is the deciding factor I believe. Also, I'm going into this believing I'll finish top of my class. I know a bunch of people will see that and say its a huge mistake for thinking like that, but why the hell are you going to school with the attitude that you're not going to outwork the competition and finish at the top? lol

[cavalier1138]

But I said in myfirst sentence that acknowledging that it is a false dichotomy is perfectly acceptable and correct advice. Once you get that out of your system, if you don't think the two options are identical, the helpful thing to do is tell OP what the better option is. Especially when he's told you over and over that he is going to choose between the two options and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

How is that helpful?

If you think the OP is making a bad decision either way, then it isn't helpful to tell them to take either option. If the OP wants to be monumentally arrogant (and yes, that's what going to Hofstra with the plan of "killing it" is), that's their choice. No one else has to encourage that.

It's helpful because the two choices are not equally bad. This isn't complicated.

Really? They're both absolutely ridiculous decisions for someone with biglaw goals.

If I cut off my ring finger, it's probably not as bad as cutting off my index finger. But maybe cutting off any appendages is a bad idea altogether, and no one should be fueling my delusions that I need to go around hacking off limbs.

And in case you think I'm exaggerating, here's the delusion you fed:

Hofstra giving me the full tuition is the deciding factor I believe. Also, I'm going into this believing I'll finish top of my class. I know a bunch of people will see that and say its a huge mistake for thinking like that, but why the hell are you going to school with the attitude that you're not going to outwork the competition and finish at the top? lol

[UVA2B]

But I said in myfirst sentence that acknowledging that it is a false dichotomy is perfectly acceptable and correct advice. Once you get that out of your system, if you don't think the two options are identical, the helpful thing to do is tell OP what the better option is. Especially when he's told you over and over that he is going to choose between the two options and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

How is that helpful?

If you think the OP is making a bad decision either way, then it isn't helpful to tell them to take either option. If the OP wants to be monumentally arrogant (and yes, that's what going to Hofstra with the plan of "killing it" is), that's their choice. No one else has to encourage that.

It's helpful because the two choices are not equally bad. This isn't complicated.

I get what you're saying, and I think I responded above in a way you would deem acceptable personally, but there is still a problem with giving advice between options where one is less bad, depending on the situation. If you don't like the gambling analogy, what about this: should I live homeless for a year or cut my arm off and go on social security for the rest of my life? Homeless for a year is undoubtedly the less bad option, but would you recommend anyone to do either while thinking you're giving good advice?

It's always possible to make clear that they're making a bad decision if they pick A or B, if neither A nor B is likely to give them the result they want. While it might be harsh/terse how it is occasionally done here, that's the message many are trying to get across, especially when there is a magic option C where their goals come within reach.

[Mullens]

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.

lol this is TLS in a nutshell. I don't think the approach is problematic as a starting matter -- saying up front that someone shouldn't be limiting themselves to the options presented is always worthwhile (and correct) advice, imo. But when you then continually refuse to actually answer the question presented, it becomes clear you're more interested in being a dick and telling someone how wrong they are than you are in actually helping. I notice these type of people tend to be those who (based on comment count) spend the most time on here. There might be something to that...

I'd take Hofstra OP. Big-law will be a pipe dream, and you may waste three years, but at least you won't be crushed by debt.

Finally! Someone who will give me a straight answer to my question. What should I play to win my fortune in Vegas: slots or craps? Don't tell me that this is a stupid plan, because I don't want to hear it. I've given you two options, and you must respond with one of them. I eagerly await your answer.

You think this analogy is more clever than it is. I would say, as I said above if you read, that you shouldn't be limiting yourself to those options. But if you won't be moved on that, then choose the one with the better odds. I don't do gambling so I can't help there.

I think the problem with doing this though is that OP is just gonna skim over the first part and then use the second part to confirm their bad choices based on the rationalization that they already decided not to retake so they can just ignore the first part. To mean, the only good advice is neither and hope the force of the neither/retake answers gets OP to actually reconsider.

To OP: you shouldn't go to Hofstra or Brooklyn with a goal of biglaw. The opportunity cost is too high and the odds of reaching your goals are too low.

[AspiringAspirant]

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.

lol this is TLS in a nutshell. I don't think the approach is problematic as a starting matter -- saying up front that someone shouldn't be limiting themselves to the options presented is always worthwhile (and correct) advice, imo. But when you then continually refuse to actually answer the question presented, it becomes clear you're more interested in being a dick and telling someone how wrong they are than you are in actually helping. I notice these type of people tend to be those who (based on comment count) spend the most time on here. There might be something to that...

I'd take Hofstra OP. Big-law will be a pipe dream, and you may waste three years, but at least you won't be crushed by debt.

lol yeah you nailed it. I've been coming to this site for the past few months and didn't make a post because of how weird it gets on here but finally threw one out there with this guy. I''ve just been looking for advise like this. I'm cool with being told that BigLaw is a pipedream or whatever because im aware of the odds. At the same time though, I love competition especially when I have shitty odds so i'm not panicking/stressed out about this.

Hofstra giving me the full tuition is the deciding factor I believe. Also, I'm going into this believing I'll finish top of my class. I know a bunch of people will see that and say its a huge mistake for thinking like that, but why the hell are you going to school with the attitude that you're not going to outwork the competition and finish at the top? lol

You have the right attitude. But I hope you understand that many if not all of your classmates will come in with the same mindset; many will fail and not end up at the top, which is a bad place to be (check out the Vale thread if you haven't already). As long as you're aware of that (high) possibility -- I wish you luck!

[Kcaz55]

But I said in myfirst sentence that acknowledging that it is a false dichotomy is perfectly acceptable and correct advice. Once you get that out of your system, if you don't think the two options are identical, the helpful thing to do is tell OP what the better option is. Especially when he's told you over and over that he is going to choose between the two options and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

How is that helpful?

If you think the OP is making a bad decision either way, then it isn't helpful to tell them to take either option. If the OP wants to be monumentally arrogant (and yes, that's what going to Hofstra with the plan of "killing it" is), that's their choice. No one else has to encourage that.

It's helpful because the two choices are not equally bad. This isn't complicated.

Really? They're both absolutely ridiculous decisions for someone with biglaw goals.

If I cut off my ring finger, it's probably not as bad as cutting off my index finger. But maybe cutting off any appendages is a bad idea altogether, and no one should be fueling my delusions that I need to go around hacking off limbs.

And in case you think I'm exaggerating, here's the delusion you fed:

Hofstra giving me the full tuition is the deciding factor I believe. Also, I'm going into this believing I'll finish top of my class. I know a bunch of people will see that and say its a huge mistake for thinking like that, but why the hell are you going to school with the attitude that you're not going to outwork the competition and finish at the top? lol

lol cavalier you gotta chill, you're just coming off insecure. artisisan didn't feed anything, its my attitude, I'm sorry my confident attitude throws you off the rocker.

[AspiringAspirant]

But I said in myfirst sentence that acknowledging that it is a false dichotomy is perfectly acceptable and correct advice. Once you get that out of your system, if you don't think the two options are identical, the helpful thing to do is tell OP what the better option is. Especially when he's told you over and over that he is going to choose between the two options and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

How is that helpful?

If you think the OP is making a bad decision either way, then it isn't helpful to tell them to take either option. If the OP wants to be monumentally arrogant (and yes, that's what going to Hofstra with the plan of "killing it" is), that's their choice. No one else has to encourage that.

It's helpful because the two choices are not equally bad. This isn't complicated.

I get what you're saying, and I think I responded above in a way you would deem acceptable personally, but there is still a problem with giving advice between options where one is less bad, depending on the situation. If you don't like the gambling analogy, what about this: should I live homeless for a year or cut my arm off and go on social security for the rest of my life? Homeless for a year is undoubtedly the less bad option, but would you recommend anyone to do either while thinking you're giving good advice?

It's always possible to make clear that they're making a bad decision if they pick A or B, if neither A nor B is likely to give them the result they want. While it might be harsh/terse how it is occasionally done here, that's the message many are trying to get across, especially when there is a magic option C where their goals come within reach.

I hear you. Here's my thing: in posts like these, the OP has made it clear that he's going to do one or the other regardless of your warning. I understand and agree with the need to say that both are bad options to begin with -- but if you know that OP is going with the options he's presented to you, I think the truly helpful thing to do is say which option is better. After you've given the necessary warnings, of course.

[cavalier1138]

lol cavalier you gotta chill, you're just coming off insecure. artisisan didn't feed anything, its my attitude, I'm sorry my confident attitude throws you off the rocker.

Not confidence. Arrogance. Don't confuse the two.

Going in to school knowing that you are going to perform to the best of your abilities and excel at your coursework is confidence. Going in with the assumption that you're going to be a better student than your 200+ classmates is arrogance.

Trust me, the last thing you're making me feel is insecure. You're making a monumentally stupid decision right now, and the only stake I have in this is my general dislike of seeing young people throw their lives away because they have no concept of time.

[Kcaz55]

Your situation probably needs a bit more information before I am comfortable giving any advice, but I don't think the calculus changes that demonstrably even when you provide this information. Do you have cost of living covered at either school? What is your estimated debt levels at graduation at either school? If you missed out on Biglaw, would you be comfortable/happy with a more modest outcome like a small firm that pays <$50k (at least initially, and possibly for longer), and would you be comfortable if you missed out on a legal career altogether since it's a distinct possibility?

Right now your options and your goals are a bit incongruous because you don't have a great shot of achieving your goal out of either, so assuming you are comfortable and happy with more modest outcomes, you should go with the less debt option at Hofstra. It's not a good option for your goals, but you already know that, so debt minimization is the better call since it won't hold you down under a program like PAYE as strenuously.

Hey so here's my situation now:

I go to Hofstra with full tuition. Living expenses will be covered so I will come out with little to no debt. So its looking like Hofstra is now even more the move

[Mullens]

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.

lol this is TLS in a nutshell. I don't think the approach is problematic as a starting matter -- saying up front that someone shouldn't be limiting themselves to the options presented is always worthwhile (and correct) advice, imo. But when you then continually refuse to actually answer the question presented, it becomes clear you're more interested in being a dick and telling someone how wrong they are than you are in actually helping. I notice these type of people tend to be those who (based on comment count) spend the most time on here. There might be something to that...

I'd take Hofstra OP. Big-law will be a pipe dream, and you may waste three years, but at least you won't be crushed by debt.

lol yeah you nailed it. I've been coming to this site for the past few months and didn't make a post because of how weird it gets on here but finally threw one out there with this guy. I''ve just been looking for advise like this. I'm cool with being told that BigLaw is a pipedream or whatever because im aware of the odds. At the same time though, I love competition especially when I have shitty odds so i'm not panicking/stressed out about this.

Hofstra giving me the full tuition is the deciding factor I believe. Also, I'm going into this believing I'll finish top of my class. I know a bunch of people will see that and say its a huge mistake for thinking like that, but why the hell are you going to school with the attitude that you're not going to outwork the competition and finish at the top? lol

You're making an awful decision. I wish you the best of luck and hope you succeed, but I'm not optimistic about your chances. The problem with your logic is that for your gamble to pay off, pretty much everything has to go your way. You have no wiggle room for chance or bad luck.

It's hard to understand as a 0L, but law school exams/grades are not perfectly correlated with hard work and intelligence (ignoring that a large part of your law school class will be similarly intelligent to you). You can outwork everyone in your class and there's still a decent chance you fail to get biglaw. Law schools exams are different than anything you've done academically in the past. They are a specific skill and it's near impossible to know if you have a knack for them before law school. And that's assuming that exams are graded evenly and fairly. It's hard to convey just how random law school grades can be. At times, the "competition" as you have termed it, can feel and can be random. Your professor randomly spaces while grading and misses giving you points you deserve? Too bad; dream gone for reasons outside your control. She just doesn't like your writing style? Too bad; dream gone for reasons outside your control. Someone in your family gets sick right before exams? Too bad, life isn't fair; dream gone for reasons outside your control.

And all of that is before biglaw hiring even comes into account. Making the huge assumption that you get good grades, you're still on an uphill battle to convince a biglaw firm to hire you when they can take candidates with similar grades at much better schools. And those candidates have more alumni from their schools pushing for them.

Retaking the LSAT gives your more wiggle room for bad luck and makes it more likely you reach your goals.

[Cogburn1984]

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.

lol this is TLS in a nutshell. I don't think the approach is problematic as a starting matter -- saying up front that someone shouldn't be limiting themselves to the options presented is always worthwhile (and correct) advice, imo. But when you then continually refuse to actually answer the question presented, it becomes clear you're more interested in being a dick and telling someone how wrong they are than you are in actually helping. I notice these type of people tend to be those who (based on comment count) spend the most time on here. There might be something to that...

I'd take Hofstra OP. Big-law will be a pipe dream, and you may waste three years, but at least you won't be crushed by debt.

lol yeah you nailed it. I've been coming to this site for the past few months and didn't make a post because of how weird it gets on here but finally threw one out there with this guy. I''ve just been looking for advise like this. I'm cool with being told that BigLaw is a pipedream or whatever because im aware of the odds. At the same time though, I love competition especially when I have shitty odds so i'm not panicking/stressed out about this.

Hofstra giving me the full tuition is the deciding factor I believe. Also, I'm going into this believing I'll finish top of my class. I know a bunch of people will see that and say its a huge mistake for thinking like that, but why the hell are you going to school with the attitude that you're not going to outwork the competition and finish at the top? lol

OP, that is an objectively insane assumption. Going into law school assuming you're going to "outwork" the competition and finish at the top is in no way warranted. It's deeply lacking in perspective.

There is no way to predict how you will perform in law school, you have a 10 % chance of finishing in the top 10% of your class, the same as your chance of finishing in the bottom 10 %.

[cavalier1138]

I just remembered something about Hofstra...

OP, is that scholarship conditional?

[Gitaroo_Dude]

At the same time though, I love competition especially when I have shitty odds so i'm not panicking/stressed out about this

You love competition but refuse to actually compete on the LSAT.

Does not compute.

[Kcaz55]

lol cavalier you gotta chill, you're just coming off insecure. artisisan didn't feed anything, its my attitude, I'm sorry my confident attitude throws you off the rocker.

Not confidence. Arrogance. Don't confuse the two.

Going in to school knowing that you are going to perform to the best of your abilities and excel at your coursework is confidence. Going in with the assumption that you're going to be a better student than your 200+ classmates is arrogance.

Trust me, the last thing you're making me feel is insecure. You're making a monumentally stupid decision right now, and the only stake I have in this is my general dislike of seeing young people throw their lives away because they have no concept of time.

Well I appreciate the warning, but maybe read the post a little more carefully next time and notice I was trying to avoid repetitive discussions that I've already been a part of.

And yes the scholly is conditional (maintain a 2.2 to retain 100 percent).

[Kcaz55]

At the same time though, I love competition especially when I have shitty odds so i'm not panicking/stressed out about this

You love competition but refuse to actually compete on the LSAT.

Does not compute.

or I can't take a year off to take the LSAT and reapply...

[cavalier1138]

lol cavalier you gotta chill, you're just coming off insecure. artisisan didn't feed anything, its my attitude, I'm sorry my confident attitude throws you off the rocker.

Not confidence. Arrogance. Don't confuse the two.

Going in to school knowing that you are going to perform to the best of your abilities and excel at your coursework is confidence. Going in with the assumption that you're going to be a better student than your 200+ classmates is arrogance.

Trust me, the last thing you're making me feel is insecure. You're making a monumentally stupid decision right now, and the only stake I have in this is my general dislike of seeing young people throw their lives away because they have no concept of time.

Well I appreciate the warning, but maybe read the post a little more carefully next time and notice I was trying to avoid repetitive discussions that I've already been a part of.

And yes the scholly is conditional (maintain a 2.2 to retain 100 percent).

Please read this thread. And please don't pay attention to the fact that the requirement there was a 3.0. The issue is that the school is deliberately granting these scholarships with the expectation of revoking a large portion of them (according to LST, 41% of Hofstra 1Ls lost their scholarships last year).

[Kcaz55]

Please read this thread. And please don't pay attention to the fact that the requirement there was a 3.0. The issue is that the school is deliberately granting these scholarships with the expectation of revoking a large portion of them (according to LST, 41% of Hofstra 1Ls lost their scholarships last year).[/quote]

Damn that's tough but that does bring up something I've been wondering...Do law schools typically group their scholly kids together? I know there has been discussion on it but I haven't seen anything conclusive.
Also as a side note, this is the kind of stuff I appreciate seeing as a warning. I don't mind being warned about the decisions i'm making. But I've been coming to this site for a little bit now and I think the whole full frontal attack on posts that ask to not say 'retake' and stuff like that is lame. Not because its bad advice, (its good advice), but because I've seen those discussions, read those discussions, and had many of those discussions (in real life and outside of this website).

[cavalier1138]

Damn that's tough but that does bring up something I've been wondering...Do law schools typically group their scholly kids together? I know there has been discussion on it but I haven't seen anything conclusive.
Also as a side note, this is the kind of stuff I appreciate seeing as a warning. I don't mind being warned about the decisions i'm making. But I've been coming to this site for a little bit now and I think the whole full frontal attack on posts that ask to not say 'retake' and stuff like that is lame. Not because its bad advice, (its good advice), but because I've seen those discussions, read those discussions, and had many of those discussions (in real life and outside of this website).

But it sounds like you haven't quite taken those discussions to heart, because you clearly don't think that the normal rules apply to you. Regardless of how well you think you're going to do, you are exactly the same as everyone else in your class. You cannot count on outperforming them.

Yes, schools that offer conditional scholarships regularly "section stack". That's where all the kids with conditional scholarships are in the same section. Every school that does it vehemently denies it, but the numbers tell a different story.

[megamega88]

.

[megamega88]

.

[CPAlawHopefu]

Hofstra is obviously the right choice of the two.

You are actually in a pretty good situation with the full scholly. The chance of getting BigLaw is slim, but you will come out with less debt than most law school grads. Lose the "BigLaw or Bust" mentality. BigLaw is necessary mostly for those that needs to pay off six-figure debt. For your case, not getting a biglaw job is not the end of the world. You have a good chance of making a six-figure salary as you advance through your career even if you start out at 60k salary (which is the most likely outcome based on stats).

I'm still a 0L who will start his law education in four weeks, and while BigLaw is my goal, I know that the world won't collapse if I fail to achieve it. I'm in a similar situation as you - my school isn't exactly a feeder to BigLaw but I received a hefty scholarship that my debt will be severely lower than an average law school grad, so I head into LS not with a frigid attitude but with an open mind knowing that my career pathway can change at any time.

Don't be so short-sighted thinking that your starting salary is somehow correlated to what you will make for the rest of your professional life. Life is long and spontaneous. A business partner of mine got his JD from Berkeley and started off at BigLaw, and has decided to open up his own business (not a law firm) and makes 3-4x what his colleagues at law firms make. A family member of mine graduated from Case Western, started off working temp jobs, then jumped from jobs to jobs through his network, and has landed an in-house counsel job dishing in 200k a year working 9-6, 5 days a week. 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.

TLDR; choose the school that throws more money at you.

[cavalier1138]

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...