cavalier1138 wrote:AspiringAspirant wrote:NotSkadden wrote:
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.