Give a boy some admissions confidence

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
daryldixon
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 3:55 am

Re: Give a boy some admissions confidence

Postby daryldixon » Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:12 am

ScottRiqui wrote:
daryldixon wrote:
I believe they are peers but you need to draw the line somewhere and my line is T10 (minus Michigan and plus Duke) for taking out any loans at all. Doesn't mean I am 100% right but my distinction is valid.


Why do you need to "draw the line" at all? Do you really think that even with swapping Michigan and Duke, there's enough of a difference in employment results between the lower few of those ten and the other four to necessitate a distinction?

I made the distinction as a broad statement to the original OP. Obviously his actual admissions cycle may cause him to want to deviate from such a rigid distinction but I think it could be useful as a rough guide. I was really trying to make the point that taking out debt at any law school that gives you less that a coin-flip chance at a favorable employment outcome is very risky.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9651
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Give a boy some admissions confidence

Postby jbagelboy » Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:20 am

daryldixon wrote:
ScottRiqui wrote:
daryldixon wrote:
I believe they are peers but you need to draw the line somewhere and my line is T10 (minus Michigan and plus Duke) for taking out any loans at all. Doesn't mean I am 100% right but my distinction is valid.


Why do you need to "draw the line" at all? Do you really think that even with swapping Michigan and Duke, there's enough of a difference in employment results between the lower few of those ten and the other four to necessitate a distinction?

I made the distinction as a broad statement to the original OP. Obviously his actual admissions cycle may cause him to want to deviate from such a rigid distinction but I think it could be useful as a rough guide. I was really trying to make the point that taking out debt at any law school that gives you less that a coin-flip chance at a favorable employment outcome is very risky.


By your own measure, your T10 thing doesnt make any sense, since Northwestern and Cornell (and some could argue GULC) give more than a "coin flip" chance at "a favorable" outcome.

However, I guess I agree with your strong reservations re: taking out debt for law school.

User avatar
heythatslife
Posts: 897
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: Give a boy some admissions confidence

Postby heythatslife » Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:21 am

daryldixon wrote:The meaning is in the eye of the beholder bro. You sound a little butt hurt about it though. Do you go to a school in DCGN?

Well, as far as I can see, this is the point at which the thread began its descent into the toilet.

User avatar
Fiero85
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:38 am

Re: Give a boy some admissions confidence

Postby Fiero85 » Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:26 am

daryldixon wrote:
BigZuck wrote:Daryl- I'm about to say something that will blow your mind. You might want to sit down. Are you ready?

By and large, the lower T14 schools are peers.

I agree with you. I am just arguing with this asshole from Yale because he thinks he is king of the rankings distinctions. I answered OP's question using a distinction that I believe is meaningful (or at least as meaningful as the other BS distinctions). But this asshole decided to try to come in and school me on how uneducated I was on rankings and employment outcomes since I had only been on TLS for a month.

I believe they are peers but you need to draw the line somewhere and my line is T10 (minus Michigan and plus Duke) for taking out any loans at all. Doesn't mean I am 100% right but my distinction is valid.


Your distinction may be valid. But turnabout is fair play. You shouldn't goad someone by calling them butt hurt for disagreeing with you and then be overly sensitive when they point out that they are not, in fact, a butt hurt #11-14 student just being defensive.

On top of that, you are a fool if you think Penn is a true peer of Yale, even for big law. See the concept of "self selection" if you need further assistance.

*BUTT HURT LEVEL DISCLAIMER: I am a 0L who will not be attending a HYS, T6, T7, T10, T12, or T14 or any other elite designation school. No dog in this fight.

User avatar
Serett
Posts: 8848
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Give a boy some admissions confidence

Postby Serett » Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:59 am

daryldixon wrote:
Serett wrote:The prudent time to cut your losses really would have been prior to this post.

Explain what I am "losing" here?


Respectfully, everything under contention. First, you attempted to draw a suspect ranking distinction of T10. When someone disagreed, you responded by attributing it to presumed T14-11 self-interest, and that's when you were caught by the left hook TKO of a Yalegerbomb. Then, the ref counted to 10, the match ended, and the audience went home, following which, you metaphorically held a press conference smack-talking your opponent and challenging him to an ill-advised rematch.

That's about as far as I can take the metaphor, but suffice it to say, the distinction of T10 is pretty meaningless. T14, T6, and T3 are the widely agreed-upon breaks, and those breaks are by and large what the data supports. You've allowed for a Michigan-Duke trade-off, but #13 Cornell's LST employment score for 2012 beats that of Michigan (and is extremely comparable to Berkeley, with Cornell likely boasting lower COA for most people), and if we're going to pretend that only Biglaw is a satisfactory outcome, its large firm employment significantly so. Is the 5% unemployment difference really sufficient to discard the lower T14 as not worth it for a cent of debt? If TLS had a "C'mon, Man!" segment, that'd be a lock. You could point to UVA being an exception with Penn, but there's a debate there over UVA's rankings gaming and school-employed graduates that it's not worth hashing out in this topic. In the end, T14, not T10, is the historical distinction supported by employment outcome data. Also, see:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=213

Lots of movement outside of that T6 over time. Just admit that T10 isn't a meaningful divide, and move on. If your first post read:

daryldixon wrote:You are looking at a T20 on the high side. You should retake but also consider if you really want to go to law school. ITE I wouldn't be taking on debt at any school (even for cost of living) at any law school less than a T14.


You'd be in a stronger position, and no one would've taken any issue with your advice. I get that you probably took some offense at Malice taking a shot at how recently you joined the forums in his response, but it's really not worth going this far down the rabbit hole for an unsustainable position.
Last edited by Serett on Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Fiero85
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:38 am

Re: Give a boy some admissions confidence

Postby Fiero85 » Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:19 am

Serett wrote:
daryldixon wrote:
Serett wrote:The prudent time to cut your losses really would have been prior to this post.

Explain what I am "losing" here?


Respectfully, everything under contention. First, you attempted to draw a suspect ranking distinction of T10. When someone disagreed, you responded by attributing it to presumed T14-11 self-interest, and that's when you were caught by the left hook TKO of a Yalegerbomb. Then, the ref counted to 10, the match ended, and the audience went home, following which, you metaphorically held a press conference smack-talking your opponent and challenging him to an ill-advised rematch.

That's about as far as I can take the metaphor, but suffice it to say, the distinction of T10 is pretty meaningless. T14, T6, and T3 are the widely agreed-upon breaks, and those breaks are by and large what the data supports. You've allowed for a Michigan-Duke trade-off, but #13 Cornell's LST employment score for 2012 beats that of Michigan (and is extremely comparable to Berkeley, with Cornell likely boasting lower COA for most people), and if we're going to pretend that only Biglaw is a satisfactory outcome, it's large firm employment significantly so. Is the 5% unemployment difference really sufficient to discard the lower T14 as not worth it for a cent of debt? If TLS had a "C'mon, Man!" segment, that'd be a lock. You could point to UVA being an exception with Penn, but there's a debate there over UVA's rankings gaming and school-employed graduates that it's not worth hashing out in this topic. In the end, T14, not T10, is the historical distinction supported by employment outcome data. Also, see:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=213

Lots of movement outside of that T6 over time. Just admit that T10 isn't a meaningful divide, and move on. If your first post read:

daryldixon wrote:You are looking at a T20 on the high side. You should retake but also consider if you really want to go to law school. ITE I wouldn't be taking on debt at any school (even for cost of living) at any law school less than a T14.


You'd be in a stronger position, and no one would've taken any issue with your advice. I get that you probably took some offense at Malice taking a shot at how recently you joined the forums in his response, but it's really not worth going this far down the rabbit hole for an unsustainable position.


Skip what I said and read this twice. Nailed it.

daryldixon
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 3:55 am

Re: Give a boy some admissions confidence

Postby daryldixon » Thu Jan 02, 2014 2:57 am

Serett wrote:
daryldixon wrote:
Serett wrote:The prudent time to cut your losses really would have been prior to this post.

Explain what I am "losing" here?


Respectfully, everything under contention. First, you attempted to draw a suspect ranking distinction of T10. When someone disagreed, you responded by attributing it to presumed T14-11 self-interest, and that's when you were caught by the left hook TKO of a Yalegerbomb. Then, the ref counted to 10, the match ended, and the audience went home, following which, you metaphorically held a press conference smack-talking your opponent and challenging him to an ill-advised rematch.

That's about as far as I can take the metaphor, but suffice it to say, the distinction of T10 is pretty meaningless. T14, T6, and T3 are the widely agreed-upon breaks, and those breaks are by and large what the data supports. You've allowed for a Michigan-Duke trade-off, but #13 Cornell's LST employment score for 2012 beats that of Michigan (and is extremely comparable to Berkeley, with Cornell likely boasting lower COA for most people), and if we're going to pretend that only Biglaw is a satisfactory outcome, its large firm employment significantly so. Is the 5% unemployment difference really sufficient to discard the lower T14 as not worth it for a cent of debt? If TLS had a "C'mon, Man!" segment, that'd be a lock. You could point to UVA being an exception with Penn, but there's a debate there over UVA's rankings gaming and school-employed graduates that it's not worth hashing out in this topic. In the end, T14, not T10, is the historical distinction supported by employment outcome data. Also, see:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... ?f=1&t=213

Lots of movement outside of that T6 over time. Just admit that T10 isn't a meaningful divide, and move on. If your first post read:

daryldixon wrote:You are looking at a T20 on the high side. You should retake but also consider if you really want to go to law school. ITE I wouldn't be taking on debt at any school (even for cost of living) at any law school less than a T14.


You'd be in a stronger position, and no one would've taken any issue with your advice. I get that you probably took some offense at Malice taking a shot at how recently you joined the forums in his response, but it's really not worth going this far down the rabbit hole for an unsustainable position.

Your argument is flawed because of its premise. I haven't lost anything because I never intended to "win" anything. You are arguing semantics that are obviously a matter of opinion (which your post sort of admits). The breaks in the rankings are only meaningful to those that make them. I could have just as easily said T7 (t6 plus Penn) or any other distinction. The only thing I was arguing is that I have a valid opinion. I wasn't defending how "accepted" or "right" my opinion was. In fact I admitted it may be wrong. But my opinion is valid and I gave it to OP based on the numbers as I interpret them.

My issue with the poster from Yale was his ad hominem attack on my knowledge based on a rather stupid assumption he made about me. The truth is I have been around TLS much longer than this username would suggest. I am a 3L at a T6 that has been through the OCI and employment process and received an offer from a big law firm. I don't think many of the people in this thread can say that. I gave the OP the advice I wish someone would have given me.

There is no right or wrong answer to this question, only opinions. and most of them will be based on very outdated information by the time they apply to the OP. But that doesn't mean any are less valid than others.

User avatar
lawschool22
Posts: 3875
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:47 pm

Re: Give a boy some admissions confidence

Postby lawschool22 » Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:03 am

Oh boy. I'm about to go off topic from the OP but felt I should respond a bit to this topic of conversation.

Even the T6 is not necessarily a meaningful distinction and is primarily made on this board exclusively and not in actual practice by actual hiring partners, let alone T10 (which is an even more dubious distinction).

When we make distinctions like CCN, or CCNP, or MVP, or DCNG, or XYZ and YYZ (bonus points if you get the reference) we're basically splitting hairs with the employment data, when really we're looking at 5%-20% differences that are pretty tough to differentiate among self-selection issues, regional bias issues, random yearly fluctuations, etc. We can't say for sure that someone will have a 5% better chance at biglaw if they go to X school, without considering the myriad other factors at play.

At the end of the day, outside of the HYS, the T14 is pretty much interchangeable (for biglaw, which will be the outcome for most of you on this board) and you should choose based $$$ and to a lesser extent based on region. Outside of the T3, 9/10 you need to follow the money. For biglaw, one could even make the argument that you should eschew HYS at sticker and take a T4-T14 with $$$.

The distinctions we make here are very subtle and are almost always trumped by differences in total COA. The bottom line: graduate with the best grades and the least debt possible, and the rest will fall into place.

Edit: Typos
Last edited by lawschool22 on Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:47 am, edited 2 times in total.

BigZuck
Posts: 10876
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Give a boy some admissions confidence

Postby BigZuck » Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:20 am

Daryl, if you're really a 3L at a T6 then all the more reason for you to not make weird distinctions. You should know better. We don't want to lead people astray here.

Shame on you.

daryldixon
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 3:55 am

Re: Give a boy some admissions confidence

Postby daryldixon » Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:40 am

BigZuck wrote:Daryl, if you're really a 3L at a T6 then all the more reason for you to not make weird distinctions. You should know better. We don't want to lead people astray here.

Shame on you.

I understand what you are saying. The "grouping" distinctions are somewhat useless and misleading to make overall comparisons with. But a grouping can have meaning to the person that is using it in the specific context they are using it. I used T10 to describe my personal cut off point for taking on debt if I was the OP. If this was a thread about an applicant that had been accepted to several specific schools I would have never used a T6, T14, T10 or any other "grouping" distinction.

03152016
Posts: 9189
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: Give a boy some admissions confidence

Postby 03152016 » Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 am

.
Last edited by 03152016 on Tue Mar 15, 2016 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15515
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Give a boy some admissions confidence

Postby Tiago Splitter » Thu Jan 02, 2014 5:17 pm

daryldixon wrote:
BigZuck wrote:Daryl, if you're really a 3L at a T6 then all the more reason for you to not make weird distinctions. You should know better. We don't want to lead people astray here.

Shame on you.

I understand what you are saying. The "grouping" distinctions are somewhat useless and misleading to make overall comparisons with. But a grouping can have meaning to the person that is using it in the specific context they are using it. I used T10 to describe my personal cut off point for taking on debt if I was the OP. If this was a thread about an applicant that had been accepted to several specific schools I would have never used a T6, T14, T10 or any other "grouping" distinction.

How much debt would you recommend taking for Duke or Berkeley? If you'd take zero for Cornell, it can't be that high.

daryldixon
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 3:55 am

Re: Give a boy some admissions confidence

Postby daryldixon » Thu Jan 02, 2014 11:20 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:
daryldixon wrote:
BigZuck wrote:Daryl, if you're really a 3L at a T6 then all the more reason for you to not make weird distinctions. You should know better. We don't want to lead people astray here.

Shame on you.

I understand what you are saying. The "grouping" distinctions are somewhat useless and misleading to make overall comparisons with. But a grouping can have meaning to the person that is using it in the specific context they are using it. I used T10 to describe my personal cut off point for taking on debt if I was the OP. If this was a thread about an applicant that had been accepted to several specific schools I would have never used a T6, T14, T10 or any other "grouping" distinction.

How much debt would you recommend taking for Duke or Berkeley? If you'd take zero for Cornell, it can't be that high.

I haven't thought of a specific number but definitely the least amount possible. Less than the cost of living for three years...so less than 75k. Honestly, I wouldn't give it a very specific number but probably very low for schools right on the margin of my cut-off like Berkeley and Duke. Of course I would be willing to take on more at HYS but not significantly more.

I am pretty debt adverse but that is because of what I have seen people go through to secure employment. I was much less debt averse as a 0L.

User avatar
lawschool22
Posts: 3875
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:47 pm

Re: Give a boy some admissions confidence

Postby lawschool22 » Thu Jan 02, 2014 11:32 pm

daryldixon wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:
daryldixon wrote:
BigZuck wrote:Daryl, if you're really a 3L at a T6 then all the more reason for you to not make weird distinctions. You should know better. We don't want to lead people astray here.

Shame on you.

I understand what you are saying. The "grouping" distinctions are somewhat useless and misleading to make overall comparisons with. But a grouping can have meaning to the person that is using it in the specific context they are using it. I used T10 to describe my personal cut off point for taking on debt if I was the OP. If this was a thread about an applicant that had been accepted to several specific schools I would have never used a T6, T14, T10 or any other "grouping" distinction.

How much debt would you recommend taking for Duke or Berkeley? If you'd take zero for Cornell, it can't be that high.

I haven't thought of a specific number but definitely the least amount possible. Less than the cost of living for three years...so less than 75k. Honestly, I wouldn't give it a very specific number but probably very low for schools right on the margin of my cut-off like Berkeley and Duke. Of course I would be willing to take on more at HYS but not significantly more.

I am pretty debt adverse but that is because of what I have seen people go through to secure employment. I was much less debt averse as a 0L.


"Definitely the least amount possible." Um, what a novel idea :D

daryldixon
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 3:55 am

Re: Give a boy some admissions confidence

Postby daryldixon » Thu Jan 02, 2014 11:57 pm

lawschool22 wrote:"Definitely the least amount possible." Um, what a novel idea :D

You would be surprised. Many people get into "peer" schools and the amount of debt takes a back seat to geographic concerns or some BS specialty ranking.

For instance, I go to school with a girl that got into several T14s and had a full ride (plus some sort of stipend) at a school ranked slightly lower than ours. She obviously chose our school and took on a significant amount of debt. I think she liked her experience here but she has told me more than once (privately of course) that she wishes she would have taken that scholarship.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: timmyd, Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests