Brooklyn Law School vs. St Johns Law Forum

[ra568]

My main question was whether rankings should have an impact on my decision and only one person responded to that lmao I appreciate that y’all are telling me about the potential costs and how this might not be a good investment but the way you went about it was rude and that just now... lol. You shouldn’t downright discourage someone especially when you don’t know what people go through to get here. But I’m sure you don’t care about how you come off to others so whatever.

In Jack London's Call to the Wild, the protagonist tells us that only one in seven men returns alive from Alaska during the gold rush and that he'll be that one in seven. We admire his drive because he wants wealth and will do anything to get it, but we'd admire him less if he turned down taking a private jet to walk across Alaska.

Yes, people have gone to both schools and even unaccredited law schools and succeeded, but the reality is that if you're in a major city like NYC you're going to be dependent on getting work out of school to succeed so the job placement of schools matter and they matter a lot. Now many people can succeed without starting off with a high salary in law, but you need to get a job that enables you to learn marketable skills so you can grow as an attorney.

Law is structured such that if you don't have a certain type of job coming out of law school, it is impossible to ever get it. There are expected benchmarks you need to reach. A much higher percentage of people from the schools you mention got those jobs over the last 2-3 years than who got them 5-6 years ago. In 10 years, their careers will probably be further along than those who graduated before them. Were these new grads smarter or better in any meaningful way? No, the economy was just such that it could support a surplus of lawyers.

Not taking the economy into account when choosing a law school would be like the equivalent of investing in airlines or cruise ships without taking into account worldwide travel bans. The reality is these would both be very risky choices at those prices if the economy was golden, but we are now at least temporarily in 2008 territory.

Working and experienced attorneys are worried about their futures because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lawyers depend on economic movement for legal work, and even if they are busy now, the existing work will be completed. The reality is that most employers will be operating at a loss for at least 6 months and potentially more. They won't be able to support the same growth structure they previously had in place so we're likely going to be looking at a temporary return to 2008 levels that will impact some classes. It might impact your graduating class. It might not. Nobody really knows, but you should consider whether you'd be comfortable graduating from Brooklyn or St. John's with that debt if it was 2008.

You say that you don't really want to hear about retaking the LSAT to get into schools with better placement, but the fact you care about rank indicates that you value prestige to at least some extent. You want to go to the school that seems better. People are telling you that nobody cares about that, and you should only think about job placement. That's practical advice. The idea is why settle for a school that gives you a 50% shot of getting a job you'd be happy with when you could attend one that gives you a 90% shot? In light of the pandemic, those odds may be more like 65-20. Schools like Brooklyn and St. John's, those that aren't terrible but are no where near elite, tend to be the ones hit hardest by recessions.

I'm saying to just think about it. I'd be weary of expecting to get gainful employment in NYC in 3 years coming from anything below Fordham. The $45k difference only matters in light of total cost, which you can't muster up from scholarship alone. Law schools and scholarships are like Jos-A Bank and suits. They take a $99 suit and sticker it for $499 but always have crazy sales that make it $99 so you feel like you're getting a bargain on this great suit.

If you do go to one of these, I'd make sure that others don't receive scholarships contingent on a certain class rank and that the school doesn't have any accusations of section stacking. The LSAT is somewhat predictive of 1L performance, and section stacking is a process by which schools put those with contingent scholarships in a specific section to ensure a certain percentage lose their scholarships. This allows schools to boost profits while inflating their admission numbers by attracting students who would not have attended but for the scholarship offer.

Many people say that you should negotiate away the stipulations. I don't buy into that because if you can't crack the top forty percent or so at St. John's and Brooklyn, and don't look like a character on Baywatch your odds of getting good employment coming out are next to nil. In that situation, you should almost always drop out regardless. The reason I'd strongly urge you against schools where section stacking is a possibility is because unless you're at the very top or bottom of every class, your grades will be lower because of it.

At schools like Brooklyn and St. John's you can anticipate that at least 25% of your class is going to be naturally weak at law school exams and about 25% will be naturally good at them. Roughly half of every class gets a grade at or very close to the median. If you're good at taking the exams and treat it like a 9-5 job, it's pretty easy to do well because you're unlikely to ever get below median at these schools and you only need to shine on a few exams to wind up with a nice class standing. At schools with section stacking, many scholarship students who would likely have wound up in the top 10% in a random distribution do not wind up in the top 10%, and those slots are taken by non-scholarship students.

The reason this matter is because while you may have say a 40% shot at a certain outcome going in, after 1L exams, that 40 becomes more like 70/10. You should know that it is not elitism that is dictating the feedback you're getting. There's no "you're not smart enough because you didn't get into this school" so don't do it even if that's how it may seem to you right now. Nobody knows you, and it's certainly possible that you can be the 1:7 like Jack Wild's character aspires to be. Because none of us know you, we are coming about this in a non-personal objective way and treating you like a # we apply against the statistics. That's what is dictating the advice.

As for your exact question, Brooklyn does place somewhat better in Manhattan and Brooklyn and St. Johns places somewhat better in Queens and Long Island. And just to sum up why people seem to stress job placement so much, if you come out of law school and wind up doing doc review like many graduates at these schools do, many legal employers will never even look at you. It's different than it was 30-years ago when there wasn't a saturation of lawyers and opportunities were available to everyone who could pass the bar such that grit and determination won out, meaning you're more likely to see more St. John's grads doing better than Harvard grads from the baby boomer generation than in subsequent ones. Further, many of those really successful grads you seem to be referencing started their own practice and struggled for their first few years. Law school was much cheaper back then so if you could live off of peanut butter and jelly and don't mind living with a roommate into your early 30s, you could go a few years with little to no income. The debt load simply makes that option unavailable for young attorneys so they wind up taking any job offer that comes their way.

I know this post is long but I hope it clears up both why you're getting the feedback you're getting, and explains why you can't use the 1970's and 1980's as a proxy for the legal world today.

Honestly thanks so much for writing out this response for me and taking the time to do so, I really appreciate this!!!

[ra568]

Rankings don't matter, those can change drastically from year to year. Just go to 7sage law school rankings and see for yourself how they've changed for those 2 schools, they have a graph for every school. Rankings change a lot outside the first 19 schools, which are usually the same group. If a school suddenly moves up 10 spots but drops 5 the next year, it doesn't mean that the quality/outcomes drastically changed from one year to another, outcomes/quality tends to be consistent at most schools.

What should matter are the outcomes, employment numbers, and places where students go to work. Look at salaries, percentage of students not employed full-time after 9 months in bar passage required positions, and ask if you're comfortable with those numbers. Some students do get great outcomes from these schools but, when you look at statistics, they're less than 20% of each class.

What other posters have brought up in this thread isn't ill-advised, they have a point, you should think about opportunity cost. For a lot of people, law school's not a good financial decision and they go in without proper research.

In the end, it's up to you, just make sure you're making an informed decision

Thank you for this informative response, I appreciate it!

[Johnnybgoode92]

My main question was whether rankings should have an impact on my decision and only one person responded to that lmao I appreciate that y’all are telling me about the potential costs and how this might not be a good investment but the way you went about it was rude and that just now... lol. You shouldn’t downright discourage someone especially when you don’t know what people go through to get here. But I’m sure you don’t care about how you come off to others so whatever.

“Is 2 or 8 a prime number? I recall one of them is”
“Actually neither is. A prime number is”
“I didn’t ask that!”

Your assumptions here aren’t helpful for your prospects. You came onto an anonymous chat board for advice and you don’t like it. Tough. Don’t go to law school is my two cents. Your options aren’t great and you seem thin skinned.

You literally don’t know me and you say I’m thin skinned lmao. It’s an anonymous forum and yet you’ve already made an assumption about me haha

I did not make an assumption. I said “seem” because, as you sagely pointed out, this is an anonymous forum. An impression is not an assumption. Writing “lmao” to respond to numerous non-comical posts seems immature (again, not an assumption).

Your writing style, even for an online board, leaves much to be desired. You also seem to have a low EQ. St Johns and Brooklyn should therefore be good fits, especially with a lot of debt and scholarship stipulations without compensatory job outcomes. Best of luck!

[ra568]

My main question was whether rankings should have an impact on my decision and only one person responded to that lmao I appreciate that y’all are telling me about the potential costs and how this might not be a good investment but the way you went about it was rude and that just now... lol. You shouldn’t downright discourage someone especially when you don’t know what people go through to get here. But I’m sure you don’t care about how you come off to others so whatever.

“Is 2 or 8 a prime number? I recall one of them is”
“Actually neither is. A prime number is”
“I didn’t ask that!”

Your assumptions here aren’t helpful for your prospects. You came onto an anonymous chat board for advice and you don’t like it. Tough. Don’t go to law school is my two cents. Your options aren’t great and you seem thin skinned.

You literally don’t know me and you say I’m thin skinned lmao. It’s an anonymous forum and yet you’ve already made an assumption about me haha

I did not make an assumption. I said “seem” because, as you sagely pointed out, this is an anonymous forum. An impression is not an assumption. Writing “lmao” to respond to numerous non-comical posts seems immature (again, not an assumption).

Your writing style, even for an online board, leaves much to be desired. You also seem to have a low EQ. St Johns and Brooklyn should therefore be good fits, especially with a lot of debt and scholarship stipulations without compensatory job outcomes. Best of luck!

“Your writing style, even for an online board, leaves much to be desired.” Alright, thanks for that! Good luck to you too since you seem to be so miserable in your life that you love putting down others. I was a peer reader in college and gained awards for my thesis but go off I guess. At least I’m a decent enough person that I don’t go around insulting people for no reason. I can live in peace, knowing that I am a good person with a good heart. I don’t gain satisfaction from insulting others. I sincerely hope you at least try to better yourself.

[Johnnybgoode92]

My main question was whether rankings should have an impact on my decision and only one person responded to that lmao I appreciate that y’all are telling me about the potential costs and how this might not be a good investment but the way you went about it was rude and that just now... lol. You shouldn’t downright discourage someone especially when you don’t know what people go through to get here. But I’m sure you don’t care about how you come off to others so whatever.

“Is 2 or 8 a prime number? I recall one of them is”
“Actually neither is. A prime number is”
“I didn’t ask that!”

Your assumptions here aren’t helpful for your prospects. You came onto an anonymous chat board for advice and you don’t like it. Tough. Don’t go to law school is my two cents. Your options aren’t great and you seem thin skinned.

You literally don’t know me and you say I’m thin skinned lmao. It’s an anonymous forum and yet you’ve already made an assumption about me haha

I did not make an assumption. I said “seem” because, as you sagely pointed out, this is an anonymous forum. An impression is not an assumption. Writing “lmao” to respond to numerous non-comical posts seems immature (again, not an assumption).

Your writing style, even for an online board, leaves much to be desired. You also seem to have a low EQ. St Johns and Brooklyn should therefore be good fits, especially with a lot of debt and scholarship stipulations without compensatory job outcomes. Best of luck!

“Your writing style, even for an online board, leaves much to be desired.” Alright, thanks for that! Good luck to you too since you seem to be so miserable in your life that you love putting down others. I was a peer reader in college and gained awards for my thesis but go off I guess. Asshole.

If that is true, then St Johns and Brooklyn would have given you more money based on the GPA requirements generally attached to a thesis program and the LSAT score that would be commensurate with being a peer reader. Peer readers should, if they are not the blind leading the blind, do better on standardized testing. Because neither second/third tier school gave you merit aid, you are either (1) lying or (2) your attitude and immaturity shone through your personal statement. Either way, I think you should go with whichever you take out a heftier loan with worse job opportunities. It’ll be a fun three years with little to show for it. But you’ll get to live in Brooklyn (or Jamaica) so I guess that’s cool....

[ra568]

My main question was whether rankings should have an impact on my decision and only one person responded to that lmao I appreciate that y’all are telling me about the potential costs and how this might not be a good investment but the way you went about it was rude and that just now... lol. You shouldn’t downright discourage someone especially when you don’t know what people go through to get here. But I’m sure you don’t care about how you come off to others so whatever.

“Is 2 or 8 a prime number? I recall one of them is”
“Actually neither is. A prime number is”
“I didn’t ask that!”

Your assumptions here aren’t helpful for your prospects. You came onto an anonymous chat board for advice and you don’t like it. Tough. Don’t go to law school is my two cents. Your options aren’t great and you seem thin skinned.

You literally don’t know me and you say I’m thin skinned lmao. It’s an anonymous forum and yet you’ve already made an assumption about me haha

I did not make an assumption. I said “seem” because, as you sagely pointed out, this is an anonymous forum. An impression is not an assumption. Writing “lmao” to respond to numerous non-comical posts seems immature (again, not an assumption).

Your writing style, even for an online board, leaves much to be desired. You also seem to have a low EQ. St Johns and Brooklyn should therefore be good fits, especially with a lot of debt and scholarship stipulations without compensatory job outcomes. Best of luck!

“Your writing style, even for an online board, leaves much to be desired.” Alright, thanks for that! Good luck to you too since you seem to be so miserable in your life that you love putting down others. I was a peer reader in college and gained awards for my thesis but go off I guess. Asshole.

If that is true, then St Johns and Brooklyn would have given you more money based on the GPA requirements generally attached to a thesis program and the LSAT score that would be commensurate with being a peer reader. Peer readers should, if they are not the blind leading the blind, do better on standardized testing. Because neither second/third tier school gave you merit aid, you are either (1) lying or (2) your attitude and immaturity shone through your personal statement. Either way, I think you should go with whichever you take out a heftier loan with worse job opportunities. It’ll be a fun three years with little to show for it. But you’ll get to live in Brooklyn (or Jamaica) so I guess that’s cool....

There’s no point in responding but I will say one thing: I’m not lying. The only thing that shows through here is your arrogance and elitist attitude. Good luck to you.

[Johnnybgoode92]

My main question was whether rankings should have an impact on my decision and only one person responded to that lmao I appreciate that y’all are telling me about the potential costs and how this might not be a good investment but the way you went about it was rude and that just now... lol. You shouldn’t downright discourage someone especially when you don’t know what people go through to get here. But I’m sure you don’t care about how you come off to others so whatever.

“Is 2 or 8 a prime number? I recall one of them is”
“Actually neither is. A prime number is”
“I didn’t ask that!”

Your assumptions here aren’t helpful for your prospects. You came onto an anonymous chat board for advice and you don’t like it. Tough. Don’t go to law school is my two cents. Your options aren’t great and you seem thin skinned.

You literally don’t know me and you say I’m thin skinned lmao. It’s an anonymous forum and yet you’ve already made an assumption about me haha

I did not make an assumption. I said “seem” because, as you sagely pointed out, this is an anonymous forum. An impression is not an assumption. Writing “lmao” to respond to numerous non-comical posts seems immature (again, not an assumption).

Your writing style, even for an online board, leaves much to be desired. You also seem to have a low EQ. St Johns and Brooklyn should therefore be good fits, especially with a lot of debt and scholarship stipulations without compensatory job outcomes. Best of luck!

“Your writing style, even for an online board, leaves much to be desired.” Alright, thanks for that! Good luck to you too since you seem to be so miserable in your life that you love putting down others. I was a peer reader in college and gained awards for my thesis but go off I guess. Asshole.

If that is true, then St Johns and Brooklyn would have given you more money based on the GPA requirements generally attached to a thesis program and the LSAT score that would be commensurate with being a peer reader. Peer readers should, if they are not the blind leading the blind, do better on standardized testing. Because neither second/third tier school gave you merit aid, you are either (1) lying or (2) your attitude and immaturity shone through your personal statement. Either way, I think you should go with whichever you take out a heftier loan with worse job opportunities. It’ll be a fun three years with little to show for it. But you’ll get to live in Brooklyn (or Jamaica) so I guess that’s cool....

There’s no point in responding but I will say one thing: I’m not lying. The only thing that shows through here is your arrogance and elitist attitude. Good luck to you.

You can discount us as rude and delusional. I could be kinder. Yet every veteran poster on TLS will say retake the LSAT and go to a better school. You may not like our delivery, but the legal profession is full of elitists. When you ask if the rankings matter in this situation, we will explain why not and what you should do, from our perspective. Many will wince at the mere mention of those schools and their ilk, and attorneys will be displeased if they are assigned to interview you. Whatever positive reputation those schools maintain is a legacy from a much less competitive, more lucrative, and more stable industry. Schools of that caliber produce big law partners and PI leaders, but increasingly less so.

TL:dr we can be jerks but heed our advice

[Johnnybgoode92]

My main question was whether rankings should have an impact on my decision and only one person responded to that lmao I appreciate that y’all are telling me about the potential costs and how this might not be a good investment but the way you went about it was rude and that just now... lol. You shouldn’t downright discourage someone especially when you don’t know what people go through to get here. But I’m sure you don’t care about how you come off to others so whatever.

“Is 2 or 8 a prime number? I recall one of them is”
“Actually neither is. A prime number is”
“I didn’t ask that!”

Your assumptions here aren’t helpful for your prospects. You came onto an anonymous chat board for advice and you don’t like it. Tough. Don’t go to law school is my two cents. Your options aren’t great and you seem thin skinned.

You literally don’t know me and you say I’m thin skinned lmao. It’s an anonymous forum and yet you’ve already made an assumption about me haha

I did not make an assumption. I said “seem” because, as you sagely pointed out, this is an anonymous forum. An impression is not an assumption. Writing “lmao” to respond to numerous non-comical posts seems immature (again, not an assumption).

Your writing style, even for an online board, leaves much to be desired. You also seem to have a low EQ. St Johns and Brooklyn should therefore be good fits, especially with a lot of debt and scholarship stipulations without compensatory job outcomes. Best of luck!

“Your writing style, even for an online board, leaves much to be desired.” Alright, thanks for that! Good luck to you too since you seem to be so miserable in your life that you love putting down others. I was a peer reader in college and gained awards for my thesis but go off I guess. At least I’m a decent enough person that I don’t go around insulting people for no reason. I can live in peace, knowing that I am a good person with a good heart. I don’t gain satisfaction from insulting others. I sincerely hope you at least try to better yourself.

Before you once again toot your own horn about how good a person you are and how good your heart is, maybe reconsider calling others “asshole” for disagreeing with you and then meekly editing your comment. Proof of your cursing is in one my above posts. Maybe you should better yourself before giving me unsolicited advice (unlike you, who solicited advice on TLS).

[QContinuum]

[snipped]

Honestly thanks so much for writing out this response for me and taking the time to do so, I really appreciate this!!!

But will you seriously consider reevaluating your position in response to LSATWiz's excellent post?

[Johnnybgoode92]

[snipped]

Honestly thanks so much for writing out this response for me and taking the time to do so, I really appreciate this!!!

But will you seriously consider reevaluating your position in response to LSATWiz's excellent post?

No way. OP is impressed with himself and all he’s accomplished. He’s overcome so much adversity to achieve these options. He’ll follow his dreams!

[LSATWiz.com]

^ Note to OP - focus on his objective content, not his hostility or emotions he elicits. Emotions are all fine and good in your interpersonal relationships, but have no place in making financial and/or professional decisions.

[Johnnybgoode92]

^ Note to OP - focus on his objective content, not his hostility or emotions he elicits. Emotions are all fine and good in your interpersonal relationships, but have no place in making financial and/or professional decisions.

Good advice.

Without JDU, Paul campos, and other key fixtures in the law school scam movement, there is a dearth of emphatic advice. Total ridicule of ridiculous expectations (i.e. I’ll get a great job out of Brooklyn!!! I’ve achieved to get here so XYZ will happen!!!”) can help them walk away from a cliff.

[LSATWiz.com]

^ Note to OP - focus on his objective content, not his hostility or emotions he elicits. Emotions are all fine and good in your interpersonal relationships, but have no place in making financial and/or professional decisions.

Good advice.

Without JDU, Paul campos, and other key fixtures in the law school scam movement, there is a dearth of emphatic advice. Total ridicule of ridiculous expectations (i.e. I’ll get a great job out of Brooklyn!!! I’ve achieved to get here so XYZ will happen!!!”) can help them walk away from a cliff.

You risk invoking a fight or flight reaction. Once someone comes up with a plan and goes through enough stages, they subconsciously consider that plan to be a part of them so saying "your law school plan is bad" is often interpreted at a subconscious level as "you are bad". This skewed sense of self in our species is what allows us to accomplish things other species cannot, but often leads us to make poor choices. OP really needs to realize that retaking the LSAT to maximize probabilities can be part of that plan.

I wouldn't say your approach is any less empathetic than mine, just that I'm probably more manipulative. If I wanted to talk a suicidal person off a cliff, I wouldn't assume I could convince them they have too much to live for. Obviously those who love them couldn't do that so why would a shmuck like me be able to? I'd just convince them the cliff was really somewhere else. I'd feel more comfortable betting the jumper's self confidence is so low I could convince them their sense of reality was wrong than that I could convince them their life is worth living.

OP may be great or not be great. I don't know. What I know and what OP should know is that s/he's walking into this fire: https://www.bcgsearch.com/article/90005 ... b9296f00b3. Attending any non-top 14 with anything less than $100k or a millionaire family is like walking into that fire without a hazmat suit.

[Johnnybgoode92]

^ Note to OP - focus on his objective content, not his hostility or emotions he elicits. Emotions are all fine and good in your interpersonal relationships, but have no place in making financial and/or professional decisions.

Good advice.

Without JDU, Paul campos, and other key fixtures in the law school scam movement, there is a dearth of emphatic advice. Total ridicule of ridiculous expectations (i.e. I’ll get a great job out of Brooklyn!!! I’ve achieved to get here so XYZ will happen!!!”) can help them walk away from a cliff.

You risk invoking a fight or flight reaction. Once someone comes up with a plan and goes through enough stages, they subconsciously consider that plan to be a part of them so saying "your law school plan is bad" is often interpreted at a subconscious level as "you are bad". This skewed sense of self in our species is what allows us to accomplish things other species cannot, but often leads us to make poor choices. OP really needs to realize that retaking the LSAT to maximize probabilities can be part of that plan.

I wouldn't say your approach is any less empathetic than mine, just that I'm probably more manipulative. If I wanted to talk a suicidal person off a cliff, I wouldn't assume I could convince them they have too much to live for. Obviously those who love them couldn't do that so why would a shmuck like me be able to? I'd just convince them the cliff was really somewhere else. I'd feel more comfortable betting the jumper's self confidence is so low I could convince them their sense of reality was wrong than that I could convince them their life is worth living.

OP may be great or not be great. I don't know. What I know and what OP should know is that s/he's walking into this fire: https://www.bcgsearch.com/article/90005 ... b9296f00b3. Attending any non-top 14 with anything less than $100k or a millionaire family is like walking into that fire without a hazmat suit.

Do you agree with that article? And as it stands, do you think we may have an 08 situation?

[LSATWiz.com]

^ Note to OP - focus on his objective content, not his hostility or emotions he elicits. Emotions are all fine and good in your interpersonal relationships, but have no place in making financial and/or professional decisions.

Good advice.

Without JDU, Paul campos, and other key fixtures in the law school scam movement, there is a dearth of emphatic advice. Total ridicule of ridiculous expectations (i.e. I’ll get a great job out of Brooklyn!!! I’ve achieved to get here so XYZ will happen!!!”) can help them walk away from a cliff.

You risk invoking a fight or flight reaction. Once someone comes up with a plan and goes through enough stages, they subconsciously consider that plan to be a part of them so saying "your law school plan is bad" is often interpreted at a subconscious level as "you are bad". This skewed sense of self in our species is what allows us to accomplish things other species cannot, but often leads us to make poor choices. OP really needs to realize that retaking the LSAT to maximize probabilities can be part of that plan.

I wouldn't say your approach is any less empathetic than mine, just that I'm probably more manipulative. If I wanted to talk a suicidal person off a cliff, I wouldn't assume I could convince them they have too much to live for. Obviously those who love them couldn't do that so why would a shmuck like me be able to? I'd just convince them the cliff was really somewhere else. I'd feel more comfortable betting the jumper's self confidence is so low I could convince them their sense of reality was wrong than that I could convince them their life is worth living.

OP may be great or not be great. I don't know. What I know and what OP should know is that s/he's walking into this fire: https://www.bcgsearch.com/article/90005 ... b9296f00b3. Attending any non-top 14 with anything less than $100k or a millionaire family is like walking into that fire without a hazmat suit.

Do you agree with that article? And as it stands, do you think we may have an 08 situation?

It's hard to say. I'm in class action litigation financing and claims management so I'm no expert on legal hiring. I also do some day trading and run my LSAT tutoring company so I might have more business sense than the average associate, but someone like Barnes is a more reliable source than me.

What struck me about the article is that it's written by a recruitment firm that makes money by placing people in high paying jobs, but the article tells people to look for jobs in government and small law, which is presumably against the writer's financial interest. I study and partake in biblical archaeology as a hobby, and it's a little bit like the cruxifixction argument to me. Although there is no evidence that Jesus was crucified or resurrected, virtually all scholars accept the historicity of the cruxifixction. There were certain requirements that the Jewish messiah had to fulfill. Having Jesus killed in the same manner as tens of thousands of other Jews before he accomplished any of them worked against the writer's interest of depicting him as the messiah. As this part of the story is at odds with the writer's goal, particularly during the time it was written, it is generally accepted as true even without evidence of such. If we apply this logic here, clearly those very knowledgeable of the legal industry expect a lot of layoffs and harm their harm self-interest by admitting such.

Personally, I think the general thesis of a legal recession makes sense. Fields like corporate law always move with the economy, and many of the major economic sectors are at a total standstill. Sure, some companies like Slack and Zoom stand to benefit from it but not to an extent that meaningfully offsets the harm to other industries. Our economy is also driven more by consumer sentiment than by reality, and it's hard to envision that sentiment being very high when people are legally prohibited from leaving their homes. There are more studies than I can count about the link between sunlight or cardiovascular activity and optimism so in addition to putting the economy at a standstill, we're also psychologically conditioning people to be more pessimistic by screwing with their endorphins, which is also bad for the market.

I think that the economic ramifications of this will be felt even after COVID-19 subsides for some time. Trump's prediction that the economy will just bounce back seems to presuppose that investors won't have a recency bias, which is an assumption that runs afoul to human cognition. Unlike 2008, a lot of the cases we work on are just delayed for an indefinite amount of time due to coronavirus so any practice dependent on legal fees from verdicts are also going to suffer. You only have so many judges so even when this subsides, you're going to have a backlash and many cases are going to be delayed, which is a delay in revenue. Most of these judges are also from the demographic that's likeliest to die from this thing so I wouldn't be surprised if there's a temporary shortage of judges, and these cases will be further delayed getting new judges up to speed.

Virtually every area of law that supports paying new attorneys six-figure salaries will suffer. In theory, bankruptcy stands to do well but it also seems like most businesses harmed by this will ultimately be bailed out so that gain may not be there. Nobody in America other than attorneys cries sour grapes about big law attorneys not making big law money. I'd imagine working class legal fields like immigration and matrimonial law will emerge relatively unscathed, but even there, I'm sure this will impact the divorce rate one way or the other. On the one hand, spouses are spending more time together. On the other, they're spending more time together. In my opinion, there will either be many more or many less divorces after this. It's really hard to think of a private legal sector that won't be impacted by this in some way.

Now, I don't think it's like 2008 in that there's not a foundational flaw to our economic system that created this collapse. However, in the short term it's probably worse than 2008 because we didn't have a complete shutdown like this in 2008. In my experience, legal employers are overly reactionary - they're overly bullish in good times and overly bearish in bad times so I think his prediction is probably going to be right. Employers need to consider the ramifications of losing good talent when the economy does bounce back, but to the extent that all employees are fungible and can be replaced at any time, I'm not sure that matters.

Also, and I don't want to be overly grim, but this pandemic has revealed a fundamental vulnerability in the global economy - plagues can spread internationally in a matter of weeks and bring the world to a standstill. Now, if you're the next ISIS or al-Quada, do you continue business as usual, launch an attack on Saturday that's out out of the paper on Tuesday, or do you drop a bacteria on a salad bar in Times Square? I don't want to sound paranoid, but I'm not so sure this is a once off, and the global economy is likely going to have to adapt to being able to function in the event of lockdowns in the future. In fact, I think it's much likelier the entire economic sector, the legal industry included adapts to these lockdowns than it is that everything returns to normal.

[LSATWiz.com]

^ Note to OP - focus on his objective content, not his hostility or emotions he elicits. Emotions are all fine and good in your interpersonal relationships, but have no place in making financial and/or professional decisions.

Good advice.

Without JDU, Paul campos, and other key fixtures in the law school scam movement, there is a dearth of emphatic advice. Total ridicule of ridiculous expectations (i.e. I’ll get a great job out of Brooklyn!!! I’ve achieved to get here so XYZ will happen!!!”) can help them walk away from a cliff.

You risk invoking a fight or flight reaction. Once someone comes up with a plan and goes through enough stages, they subconsciously consider that plan to be a part of them so saying "your law school plan is bad" is often interpreted at a subconscious level as "you are bad". This skewed sense of self in our species is what allows us to accomplish things other species cannot, but often leads us to make poor choices. OP really needs to realize that retaking the LSAT to maximize probabilities can be part of that plan.

I wouldn't say your approach is any less empathetic than mine, just that I'm probably more manipulative. If I wanted to talk a suicidal person off a cliff, I wouldn't assume I could convince them they have too much to live for. Obviously those who love them couldn't do that so why would a shmuck like me be able to? I'd just convince them the cliff was really somewhere else. I'd feel more comfortable betting the jumper's self confidence is so low I could convince them their sense of reality was wrong than that I could convince them their life is worth living.

OP may be great or not be great. I don't know. What I know and what OP should know is that s/he's walking into this fire: https://www.bcgsearch.com/article/90005 ... b9296f00b3. Attending any non-top 14 with anything less than $100k or a millionaire family is like walking into that fire without a hazmat suit.

Do you agree with that article? And as it stands, do you think we may have an 08 situation?

I have a tendency to go off topic. At work meetings, I normally have someone who motions to me when I'm about to go on a spiel, but I do think my overly lengthy response has beneficial information.

My short answer is yes I expect a short term collapse like 2008 - I'd be surprised if the legal economy is not at least in temporary worse shape than it was in 2008. I do think there may be more guilt about laying people off during a pandemic-caused recession, but I definitely believe the legal industry will be in worse shape for a little while than it was in 2008. At the same time, I don't think incoming classes have offers rescinded unless every firm agrees to do it simultaneously. Just picture the ATL headline "Incoming _____ associate with COVID-19 learns her offer is rescinded on hospital bed". I think it's much likelier that subsequent classes face the brunt of the economic damage. For example, it seems more likely to me that a firm with 100 incoming associates when COVID-19 reduces its need to 60 hires 20 less associates for the next couple years.

I do disagree with Barnes about some of his "won't be affected" practice areas. Because I work in class actions, a very large percentage of my work deals with antitrust actions as these are much easier to bring on behalf of the entire country. Most antitrust class actions follow a government investigation into the pricing conspiracy - that's more often than not how the firm gets the idea in the first place. A significant percentage of antitrust actions are pay-for-delay cases against the Pharma companies. Given that the Pharma companies are supplying the government with everything they need and many are doing so at a loss, it's hard to imagine the government immediately coming out and suing them as soon as this blows over. It seems likely they get a pass for a little while. I think a lot of the sentiment towards these companies goes away. I think the antitrust area probably suffers too, but can't speak to the other insulated niche fields he mentions.

[Johnnybgoode92]

Thank you for the thoroughness. It makes sense and is the best prediction I’ve read.

[QContinuum]

I do disagree with Barnes about some of his "won't be affected" practice areas.

Agree. In addition to antitrust, I disagree that FDA law and project finance will be protected. Pharma companies, like every other company, reflexively belt-tighten and cut R&D budgets during economic uncertainty. It's true there's a mad scramble to rush coronavirus drugs/vaccines to market, but that's not going to be nearly enough to make "FDA law" generally a "protected" legal area.

Same goes for project finance, whether private or public. Private funding always dries up when there's economic uncertainty, and that's doubly true when the object of the funding is to build some kind of megaproject. Barnes argues that public funding is "likely to increase to create jobs," but I question that. The government's already going (even more) broke between sending stimulus checks to individuals and bailing out essential companies and transit agencies. I don't think there's going to be much appetite (or budget...) left over to fund big projects.

[LSATWiz.com]

I do disagree with Barnes about some of his "won't be affected" practice areas.

Agree. In addition to antitrust, I disagree that FDA law and project finance will be protected. Pharma companies, like every other company, reflexively belt-tighten and cut R&D budgets during economic uncertainty. It's true there's a mad scramble to rush coronavirus drugs/vaccines to market, but that's not going to be nearly enough to make "FDA law" generally a "protected" legal area.

Same goes for project finance, whether private or public. Private funding always dries up when there's economic uncertainty, and that's doubly true when the object of the funding is to build some kind of megaproject. Barnes argues that public funding is "likely to increase to create jobs," but I question that. The government's already going (even more) broke between sending stimulus checks to individuals and bailing out essential companies and transit agencies. I don't think there's going to be much appetite (or budget...) left over to fund big projects.

Yeah, it seems naive FDA law to remain unchanged. I just know from losing some money during the Ebola outbreak that in addition to a vaccine failing during stages 1 or 2, companies often lose more money by making and marketing a perfect vaccine. By the time the vaccine comes out, the virus or plague is generally over and there's no demand for it. Even if there's another outbreak a decade later, the patent's gone so there's really no incentive for companies to make vaccines for new pandemics unless they know it will last. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation mitigates this to some extent, but still doesn't offset the company's costs, much less makes them a profit. If we had a better system in place, we've had, had a SARS 1 vaccine that likely could be slightly tweaked to cover us here. I think the FDA will change if only because the current system likely puts public health at risk. A lot more viruses would be cured if there were economic incentives for curing them.

[QContinuum]

Yeah, it seems naive FDA law to remain unchanged. I just know from losing some money during the Ebola outbreak that in addition to a vaccine failing during stages 1 or 2, companies often lose more money by making and marketing a perfect vaccine. By the time the vaccine comes out, the virus or plague is generally over and there's no demand for it. Even if there's another outbreak a decade later, the patent's gone so there's really no incentive for companies to make vaccines for new pandemics unless they know it will last. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation mitigates this to some extent, but still doesn't offset the company's costs, much less makes them a profit. If we had a better system in place, we've had, had a SARS 1 vaccine that likely could be slightly tweaked to cover us here. I think the FDA will change if only because the current system likely puts public health at risk. A lot more viruses would be cured if there were economic incentives for curing them.

Agree. This is largely why we didn't have an Ebola vaccine until one was made by Canada's Public Health Agency. (The other reason being that most of the demand for an Ebola vaccine would be in Africa, not the first world, driving down expected profit margins...) Even though it was well-established for years that we'd have another Ebola outbreak sooner or later, there was enough uncertainty around "how much later" the next outbreak would happen that pharma companies weren't really motivated to drive toward a vaccine, as no single outbreak lasted long enough for a vaccine to be developed, approved and brought to market before the outbreak ended.