LSAT not required Forum

[Traynor Brah]

Also, I am interested in focusing on Public Interest law which I know does not pay as well, but that is where my passion would lie.

This is a big pivot from what you said on the last page (most prestigious, elite practice possible --> grinding out landlord-tenant disputes for indigent clients and getting paid 30k a year), which again makes me think law school is a bad idea for you. Probably half of all law school matriculants' personal statements express their undying passion for "public interest" law and then they never spend a day pursuing it. You need to spend signficant time around those practicing law in your areas of interest before you go down this path, or any path related to lawyering. Taking debt to do public interest is an especially poor idea, too.

You are seriously underestimating the barriers to entry here, and seem to be even more seriously overestimating the reward (financially and otherwise).

[ihenry]

Just out of curiosity OP, is it that your life experience or business venture raised your awareness in public legal interest which you later decided to commit yourself to, or that you want a fresh career start followed by some variants of "hey why not do law" or "law looks cool" lines of thought?

[Alive97]

Well you can tell you came to the right place OP, cause you've already got 3 pages of people arguing over what advice they should give you haha. My advice remains the same which is to be wary of TLS posters who ignore a potentially exceptional case and instead issue blanket statements and exaggerations ("law schools care literally only about numbers").

And to the guy telling OP not to go because he has not done enough research or does not have realistic expectations - why just tell him to go get realistic expectations? You are exposin your preconceived bias when you pontificate from your keyboard that this person "should not go to law school".

[YoungProfessional]

Well you can tell you came to the right place OP, cause you've already got 3 pages of people arguing over what advice they should give you haha. My advice remains the same which is to be wary of TLS posters who ignore a potentially exceptional case and instead issue blanket statements and exaggerations ("law schools care literally only about numbers").

And to the guy telling OP not to go because he has not done enough research or does not have realistic expectations - why just tell him to go get realistic expectations? You are exposin your preconceived bias when you pontificate from your keyboard that this person "should not go to law school".

Thank you.

I do wonder if some of the posters are law school graduates struggling to pay their bills. I have never read such bitter comments. Wow!

[hdunlop]

Did you read the post quoted and think "periods go inside quotes" and wonder, or better, know where a question mark would go? If you did, ignore the haters--law school is for you. If you think that's dumb, you have no idea what you're thinking about getting into.

[BigZuck]

Well you can tell you came to the right place OP, cause you've already got 3 pages of people arguing over what advice they should give you haha. My advice remains the same which is to be wary of TLS posters who ignore a potentially exceptional case and instead issue blanket statements and exaggerations ("law schools care literally only about numbers").

And to the guy telling OP not to go because he has not done enough research or does not have realistic expectations - why just tell him to go get realistic expectations? You are exposin your preconceived bias when you pontificate from your keyboard that this person "should not go to law school".

There's nothing exceptional about an older person going to law school. Their reasons for attending can be (and often are, from my experience) just as bad as a 21 year old's. Schools basically only care about LSAT/gpa (and URM status). I've never seen anything in the data or anecdotes that says otherwise. "Exposin preconceived bias?" What are you talking about? It doesn't matter how old someone is, if they say they want to go to law school "cuz 1st Amendment" or "cuz help people" that shows how little they know about what law school entails and what kinds of jobs they get you. This OP started asking about an unaccredited school. It's clear that they haven't done much research and need to learn a lot more before they are even close to making any kind of a decision (not trying to slam the OP here, what he's done is totally fine, I'm just addressing whatever this Alive guy is babbling on about)

[Traynor Brah]

Well you can tell you came to the right place OP, cause you've already got 3 pages of people arguing over what advice they should give you haha. My advice remains the same which is to be wary of TLS posters who ignore a potentially exceptional case and instead issue blanket statements and exaggerations ("law schools care literally only about numbers").

This is just stupid. We have data that makes the proposition that LSAT and GPA are all that effectively matter undeniable. Rhodes scholars are exceptional cases. Some dude who is 45 and sold his small business (for a sum that would not cover law attending law school) who also happens to have an MBA (which is almost entirely irrelevant here) is in no way an exceptional case. (I'm not trying to tear you down, OP, but you need to have realistic expectations and not think your work experience is going to be some kind of panacea to remedy e.g. a poor LSAT -- it's not).

And to the guy telling OP not to go because he has not done enough research or does not have realistic expectations - why just tell him to go get realistic expectations? You are exposin your preconceived bias when you pontificate from your keyboard that this person "should not go to law school".

What are you talking about here? This is a senseless post. The compelling interest and real-life reason to attend law school should come before the decision to attend law school. You're saying it's reasonable to, for some unknown reason, decide to go to law school, then "develop" some interest/calling and law and come up with some justification to attend?

It seems OP likes the idea of being a lawyer (probably because of his exposure to popular media) but doesn't know much about the profession. That's a big red flag even for wandering KJD lib arts dudes. And then factoring in OP's age and experience level, there's going to be a pretty poor return on investment, in all likelihood. So, yeah, when someone doesn't have a personal justification to attend nor a financial one, I don't really have much problem advising them not to attend, especially considering tens of thousands of people graduate law school jobless every year with six figures of debt (and almost four years of lost income). This is not a decision to be taken lightly.

[BigZuck]

Well you can tell you came to the right place OP, cause you've already got 3 pages of people arguing over what advice they should give you haha. My advice remains the same which is to be wary of TLS posters who ignore a potentially exceptional case and instead issue blanket statements and exaggerations ("law schools care literally only about numbers").

And to the guy telling OP not to go because he has not done enough research or does not have realistic expectations - why just tell him to go get realistic expectations? You are exposin your preconceived bias when you pontificate from your keyboard that this person "should not go to law school".

Thank you.

I do wonder if some of the posters are law school graduates struggling to pay their bills. I have never read such bitter comments. Wow!

You need to think a lot more critically about what you read. If you default to "obvi these doods just can't pay their bills!" then that's really scary IMO.

But no, no, that's not what's happening.

[Alive97]

Well you can tell you came to the right place OP, cause you've already got 3 pages of people arguing over what advice they should give you haha. My advice remains the same which is to be wary of TLS posters who ignore a potentially exceptional case and instead issue blanket statements and exaggerations ("law schools care literally only about numbers").

And to the guy telling OP not to go because he has not done enough research or does not have realistic expectations - why just tell him to go get realistic expectations? You are exposin your preconceived bias when you pontificate from your keyboard that this person "should not go to law school".

There's nothing exceptional about an older person going to law school. Their reasons for attending can be (and often are, from my experience) just as bad as a 21 year old's. Schools basically only care about LSAT/gpa (and URM status). I've never seen anything in the data or anecdotes that says otherwise. "Exposin preconceived bias?" What are you talking about? It doesn't matter how old someone is, if they say they want to go to law school "cuz 1st Amendment" or "cuz help people" that shows how little they know about what law school entails and what kinds of jobs they get you. This OP started asking about an unaccredited school. It's clear that they haven't done much research and need to learn a lot more before they are even close to making any kind of a decision (not trying to slam the OP here, what he's done is totally fine, I'm just addressing whatever this Alive guy is babbling on about)

When I say exceptional, earlier in the thread I was floating the possibility he had tons of money, which if that's not the case, may change things.

I agree numbers are by far the most important thing, but TLS posters saying they are "literally the only" thing that matters are not accounting for exceptions.

And the preconceived bias is towards emphatically telling people not to go to law school, without accounting for exceptions.

I agree the OP should become thoroughly informed about the matter. I just don't think anyone should say "don't go", because they don't know enough to make such an assertion.

[Alive97]

Well you can tell you came to the right place OP, cause you've already got 3 pages of people arguing over what advice they should give you haha. My advice remains the same which is to be wary of TLS posters who ignore a potentially exceptional case and instead issue blanket statements and exaggerations ("law schools care literally only about numbers").

This is just stupid. We have data that makes the proposition that LSAT and GPA are all that effectively matter undeniable. Rhodes scholars are exceptional cases. Some dude who is 45 and sold his small business (for a sum that would not cover law attending law school) who also happens to have an MBA (which is almost entirely irrelevant here) is in no way an exceptional case. (I'm not trying to tear you down, OP, but you need to have realistic expectations and not think your work experience is going to be some kind of panacea to remedy e.g. a poor LSAT -- it's not).

And to the guy telling OP not to go because he has not done enough research or does not have realistic expectations - why just tell him to go get realistic expectations? You are exposin your preconceived bias when you pontificate from your keyboard that this person "should not go to law school".

What are you talking about here? This is a senseless post. The compelling interest and real-life reason to attend law school should come before the decision to attend law school. You're saying it's reasonable to, for some unknown reason, decide to go to law school, then "develop" some interest/calling and law and come up with some justification to attend?

It seems OP likes the idea of being a lawyer (probably because of his exposure to popular media) but doesn't know much about the profession. That's a big red flag even for wandering KJD lib arts dudes. And then factoring in OP's age and experience level, there's going to be a pretty poor return on investment, in all likelihood. So, yeah, when someone doesn't have a personal justification to attend nor a financial one, I don't really have much problem advising them not to attend, especially considering tens of thousands of people graduate law school jobless every year with six figures of debt (and almost four years of lost income). This is not a decision to be taken lightly.

As I've said I agree the OP should optimize his application process with regard to numbers, and not assume softs will carry him. And as I've also said, I agree the OP should be thoroughly informed and know what he's getting into. I only advise law school in limited circumstances, as I've said ITT. But I do not tell people on TLS "do not go to law school", as opposed to "know what you're getting into, make sure your money and job prospects are reasonable, and then optimize your application".

Unsurprisingly, you overreacted to my post, in true TLS advice-giver fashion, and pretended to know more than you do with regard to the OP (and no, the fact that he asked questions about an unaccredited school and constitutional law does not mean he can't reach a level wherein law school is reasonable for him).

[BigZuck]

Well you can tell you came to the right place OP, cause you've already got 3 pages of people arguing over what advice they should give you haha. My advice remains the same which is to be wary of TLS posters who ignore a potentially exceptional case and instead issue blanket statements and exaggerations ("law schools care literally only about numbers").

And to the guy telling OP not to go because he has not done enough research or does not have realistic expectations - why just tell him to go get realistic expectations? You are exposin your preconceived bias when you pontificate from your keyboard that this person "should not go to law school".

There's nothing exceptional about an older person going to law school. Their reasons for attending can be (and often are, from my experience) just as bad as a 21 year old's. Schools basically only care about LSAT/gpa (and URM status). I've never seen anything in the data or anecdotes that says otherwise. "Exposin preconceived bias?" What are you talking about? It doesn't matter how old someone is, if they say they want to go to law school "cuz 1st Amendment" or "cuz help people" that shows how little they know about what law school entails and what kinds of jobs they get you. This OP started asking about an unaccredited school. It's clear that they haven't done much research and need to learn a lot more before they are even close to making any kind of a decision (not trying to slam the OP here, what he's done is totally fine, I'm just addressing whatever this Alive guy is babbling on about)

When I say exceptional, earlier in the thread I was floating the possibility he had tons of money, which if that's not the case, may change things.

I agree numbers are by far the most important thing, but TLS posters saying they are "literally the only" thing that matters are not accounting for exceptions.

And the preconceived bias is towards emphatically telling people not to go to law school, without accounting for exceptions.

I agree the OP should become thoroughly informed about the matter. I just don't think anyone should say "don't go", because they don't know enough to make such an assertion.

"You probably shouldn't go to a bad law school at sticker price because the most likely outcome is financial ruin. But shit man there are exceptions and we can't predict the future so who are we to give you advice?"

People around here tend to give advice based on aggregated data and probabilities. Sometimes there are exceptions to things. Sometimes a blind squirrel finds a nut. It's true that if we convinced every person who is "interested" in civil rights law to not go to law school we might destroy the career of the next Ruth Bader Ginsberg. But we would save dozens and dozens of people. We can't just sign off on dumb decisions on the off chance that each and every person is that lucky blind Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

[BigZuck]

Well you can tell you came to the right place OP, cause you've already got 3 pages of people arguing over what advice they should give you haha. My advice remains the same which is to be wary of TLS posters who ignore a potentially exceptional case and instead issue blanket statements and exaggerations ("law schools care literally only about numbers").

This is just stupid. We have data that makes the proposition that LSAT and GPA are all that effectively matter undeniable. Rhodes scholars are exceptional cases. Some dude who is 45 and sold his small business (for a sum that would not cover law attending law school) who also happens to have an MBA (which is almost entirely irrelevant here) is in no way an exceptional case. (I'm not trying to tear you down, OP, but you need to have realistic expectations and not think your work experience is going to be some kind of panacea to remedy e.g. a poor LSAT -- it's not).

And to the guy telling OP not to go because he has not done enough research or does not have realistic expectations - why just tell him to go get realistic expectations? You are exposin your preconceived bias when you pontificate from your keyboard that this person "should not go to law school".

What are you talking about here? This is a senseless post. The compelling interest and real-life reason to attend law school should come before the decision to attend law school. You're saying it's reasonable to, for some unknown reason, decide to go to law school, then "develop" some interest/calling and law and come up with some justification to attend?

It seems OP likes the idea of being a lawyer (probably because of his exposure to popular media) but doesn't know much about the profession. That's a big red flag even for wandering KJD lib arts dudes. And then factoring in OP's age and experience level, there's going to be a pretty poor return on investment, in all likelihood. So, yeah, when someone doesn't have a personal justification to attend nor a financial one, I don't really have much problem advising them not to attend, especially considering tens of thousands of people graduate law school jobless every year with six figures of debt (and almost four years of lost income). This is not a decision to be taken lightly.

As I've said I agree the OP should optimize his application process with regard to numbers, and not assume softs will carry him. And as I've also said, I agree the OP should be thoroughly informed and know what he's getting into. I only advise law school in limited circumstances, as I've said ITT. But I do not tell people on TLS "do not go to law school", as opposed to "know what you're getting into, make sure your money and job prospects are reasonable, and then optimize your application".

Unsurprisingly, you overreacted to my post, in true TLS advice-giver fashion, and pretended to know more than you do with regard to the OP (and no, the fact that he asked questions about an unaccredited school and constitutional law does not mean he can't reach a level wherein law school is reasonable for him).

Who are you arguing with? I can't find the "Don't go to law school" post you're quibbling with.

[lawat43]

Trust me, this is not a decision I am taking lightly. I know very well the risks involved. If this is not a financially viable opportunity then I will reconsider. And I don't expect my age to carry me into law school. I was just saying that life experience can benefit me during the application process. I know I will need solid numbers. My GPA isn't bad and if I kill the LSAT I hope to be at Harvard by the Fall . Seriously though, this is more about me following a passion of mine. I got an MBA because I was following the money. I did OK in the business world, but I was never really happy. I have no desire to go back and run/manage another business. I know my choice of concentration (PI) will not yield me a windfall of cash, but I have no desire to join a large firm and start in the basement with a hundred other much younger people slashing throats to move up. I want to help people, simple as that.

[lymenheimer]

I know I will need solid numbers. My GPA isn't bad and if I kill the LSAT I hope to be at Harvard by the Fall

I don't think Harvard accepts Feb LSATs for admission. But I may have my schools mixed up.

[Alive97]

Well you can tell you came to the right place OP, cause you've already got 3 pages of people arguing over what advice they should give you haha. My advice remains the same which is to be wary of TLS posters who ignore a potentially exceptional case and instead issue blanket statements and exaggerations ("law schools care literally only about numbers").

And to the guy telling OP not to go because he has not done enough research or does not have realistic expectations - why just tell him to go get realistic expectations? You are exposin your preconceived bias when you pontificate from your keyboard that this person "should not go to law school".

There's nothing exceptional about an older person going to law school. Their reasons for attending can be (and often are, from my experience) just as bad as a 21 year old's. Schools basically only care about LSAT/gpa (and URM status). I've never seen anything in the data or anecdotes that says otherwise. "Exposin preconceived bias?" What are you talking about? It doesn't matter how old someone is, if they say they want to go to law school "cuz 1st Amendment" or "cuz help people" that shows how little they know about what law school entails and what kinds of jobs they get you. This OP started asking about an unaccredited school. It's clear that they haven't done much research and need to learn a lot more before they are even close to making any kind of a decision (not trying to slam the OP here, what he's done is totally fine, I'm just addressing whatever this Alive guy is babbling on about)

When I say exceptional, earlier in the thread I was floating the possibility he had tons of money, which if that's not the case, may change things.

I agree numbers are by far the most important thing, but TLS posters saying they are "literally the only" thing that matters are not accounting for exceptions.

And the preconceived bias is towards emphatically telling people not to go to law school, without accounting for exceptions.

I agree the OP should become thoroughly informed about the matter. I just don't think anyone should say "don't go", because they don't know enough to make such an assertion.

"You probably shouldn't go to a bad law school at sticker price because the most likely outcome is financial ruin. But shit man there are exceptions and we can't predict the future so who are we to give you advice?"

People around here tend to give advice based on aggregated data and probabilities. Sometimes there are exceptions to things. Sometimes a blind squirrel finds a nut. It's true that if we convinced every person who is "interested" in civil rights law to not go to law school we might destroy the career of the next Ruth Bader Ginsberg. But we would save dozens and dozens of people. We can't just sign off on dumb decisions on the off chance that each and every person is that lucky blind Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

This is a cool collection of snark but does not address what I was talking about, which is people exaggerating their point or saying "don't go to law school", rather than giving more useful advice.

[hdunlop]

Speaking as a semiold, age will help you with study habits and in the job hunt. For admissions at best it's a tiebreaker.

Forget Harvard. Do you research then get Harvard numbers on the lsat and then go somewhere free. You're too experienced to chase prestige.

[BigZuck]

Well you can tell you came to the right place OP, cause you've already got 3 pages of people arguing over what advice they should give you haha. My advice remains the same which is to be wary of TLS posters who ignore a potentially exceptional case and instead issue blanket statements and exaggerations ("law schools care literally only about numbers").

And to the guy telling OP not to go because he has not done enough research or does not have realistic expectations - why just tell him to go get realistic expectations? You are exposin your preconceived bias when you pontificate from your keyboard that this person "should not go to law school".

There's nothing exceptional about an older person going to law school. Their reasons for attending can be (and often are, from my experience) just as bad as a 21 year old's. Schools basically only care about LSAT/gpa (and URM status). I've never seen anything in the data or anecdotes that says otherwise. "Exposin preconceived bias?" What are you talking about? It doesn't matter how old someone is, if they say they want to go to law school "cuz 1st Amendment" or "cuz help people" that shows how little they know about what law school entails and what kinds of jobs they get you. This OP started asking about an unaccredited school. It's clear that they haven't done much research and need to learn a lot more before they are even close to making any kind of a decision (not trying to slam the OP here, what he's done is totally fine, I'm just addressing whatever this Alive guy is babbling on about)

When I say exceptional, earlier in the thread I was floating the possibility he had tons of money, which if that's not the case, may change things.

I agree numbers are by far the most important thing, but TLS posters saying they are "literally the only" thing that matters are not accounting for exceptions.

And the preconceived bias is towards emphatically telling people not to go to law school, without accounting for exceptions.

I agree the OP should become thoroughly informed about the matter. I just don't think anyone should say "don't go", because they don't know enough to make such an assertion.

"You probably shouldn't go to a bad law school at sticker price because the most likely outcome is financial ruin. But shit man there are exceptions and we can't predict the future so who are we to give you advice?"

People around here tend to give advice based on aggregated data and probabilities. Sometimes there are exceptions to things. Sometimes a blind squirrel finds a nut. It's true that if we convinced every person who is "interested" in civil rights law to not go to law school we might destroy the career of the next Ruth Bader Ginsberg. But we would save dozens and dozens of people. We can't just sign off on dumb decisions on the off chance that each and every person is that lucky blind Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

This is a cool collection of snark but does not address what I was talking about, which is people exaggerating their point or saying "don't go to law school", rather than giving more useful advice.

Once again: Who are you arguing with? I can't find the "Don't go to law school" post you're quibbling with. Who, specifically, is unjustifiably saying that and not offering more helpful advice in this thread?

[Clearly]

Well you can tell you came to the right place OP, cause you've already got 3 pages of people arguing over what advice they should give you haha. My advice remains the same which is to be wary of TLS posters who ignore a potentially exceptional case and instead issue blanket statements and exaggerations ("law schools care literally only about numbers").

And to the guy telling OP not to go because he has not done enough research or does not have realistic expectations - why just tell him to go get realistic expectations? You are exposin your preconceived bias when you pontificate from your keyboard that this person "should not go to law school".

There's nothing exceptional about an older person going to law school. Their reasons for attending can be (and often are, from my experience) just as bad as a 21 year old's. Schools basically only care about LSAT/gpa (and URM status). I've never seen anything in the data or anecdotes that says otherwise. "Exposin preconceived bias?" What are you talking about? It doesn't matter how old someone is, if they say they want to go to law school "cuz 1st Amendment" or "cuz help people" that shows how little they know about what law school entails and what kinds of jobs they get you. This OP started asking about an unaccredited school. It's clear that they haven't done much research and need to learn a lot more before they are even close to making any kind of a decision (not trying to slam the OP here, what he's done is totally fine, I'm just addressing whatever this Alive guy is babbling on about)

When I say exceptional, earlier in the thread I was floating the possibility he had tons of money, which if that's not the case, may change things.

I agree numbers are by far the most important thing, but TLS posters saying they are "literally the only" thing that matters are not accounting for exceptions.

And the preconceived bias is towards emphatically telling people not to go to law school, without accounting for exceptions.

I agree the OP should become thoroughly informed about the matter. I just don't think anyone should say "don't go", because they don't know enough to make such an assertion.

"You probably shouldn't go to a bad law school at sticker price because the most likely outcome is financial ruin. But shit man there are exceptions and we can't predict the future so who are we to give you advice?"

People around here tend to give advice based on aggregated data and probabilities. Sometimes there are exceptions to things. Sometimes a blind squirrel finds a nut. It's true that if we convinced every person who is "interested" in civil rights law to not go to law school we might destroy the career of the next Ruth Bader Ginsberg. But we would save dozens and dozens of people. We can't just sign off on dumb decisions on the off chance that each and every person is that lucky blind Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

This is a cool collection of snark but does not address what I was talking about, which is people exaggerating their point or saying "don't go to law school", rather than giving more useful advice.

You should reread this whole thread, I suspect you've exaggerated what's been said.

[Alive97]

Traynor brah for one said "Based on everything you've said, I think law school would be an all-around poor decision, if not terrible one. Don't do this to yourself; enjoy life."

Others implied he shouldn't go, e.g. Saying he's risking his health at his age. Besides the statement "don't go to law school" there are other exaggerations all over TLS. ITT there was "even a big law salary isn't enough to pay off loans".

If you deny that TLS has a significant dose of some toxic things like this (as well as neurotic anxiety), then I guess you've been in the bubble too long.

[Clearly]

Edit: I'm done

[BigZuck]

Traynor brah for one said "Based on everything you've said, I think law school would be an all-around poor decision, if not terrible one. Don't do this to yourself; enjoy life."

Others implied he shouldn't go, e.g. Saying he's risking his health at his age. Besides the statement "don't go to law school" there are other exaggerations all over TLS. ITT there was "even a big law salary isn't enough to pay off loans".

If you deny that TLS has a significant dose of some toxic things like this (as well as neurotic anxiety), then I guess you've been in the bubble too long.

Yeah I mean, a big law salary isn't really enough to pay off huge loans, especially if you live in a high cost of living area (which is where a lot of the 160K salaries are). Big law careers are typically short and can end at any time and then you're usually taking a big pay cut. Going like 200K+ in debt (which is sticker debt at most schools) to get, say, NYC big law, is not usually a good move.

I don't see how what Traynor said is very controversial. It's a 40+ year old talking about going to an unaccredited law school to work on first amendment cases. That's a no-go. Full stop. Total nonstarter. If that's the situation, you don't go to law school.

But, you notice when the tune changed, Traynor was more open to the idea. He said the OP needs to learn more, which is totally true. Traynor is advocating keeping costs down and going to a school that can get you the job you want with an appropriate degree of probability. What is controversial about that?

You're raging against an imaginary machine here duder. I'm all for bringing the Hivemind to its knees. But don't just make stuff up.

[Alive97]

Traynor and others were not leaving a whole lot of room for describing a situation where law school would be a reasonable choice. He said to "enjoy life" instead. Another guy said he'd be risking his health at 43 LOL. In some ways TLS can be like going on the Internet to look up health symptoms you're having; the first and maybe only thing you read about is cynical worst case scenario.

It's good that in this particular thread, the discussion developed beyond the OP's Initial sentiments and TLS's standard response. It's not a given for that to happen though.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Another guy said he'd be risking his health at 43 LOL.

That part was really stupid. But there's a difference between the TLS hive mind saying "don't go unless" and people saying "don't go" for stupid reasons.

[Alive97]

Another guy said he'd be risking his health at 43 LOL.

That part was really stupid. But there's a difference between the TLS hive mind saying "don't go unless" and people saying "don't go" for stupid reasons.

You give the hive mind too much credit from my vantage point.

[BigZuck]

Traynor and others were not leaving a whole lot of room for describing a situation where law school would be a reasonable choice. He said to "enjoy life" instead. Another guy said he'd be risking his health at 43 LOL. In some ways TLS can be like going on the Internet to look up health symptoms you're having; the first and maybe only thing you read about is cynical worst case scenario.

It's good that in this particular thread, the discussion developed beyond the OP's Initial sentiments and TLS's standard response. It's not a given for that to happen though.

Oh, so this thread is cool, you're just complaining about other threads you've read on TLS?

Ok, link us to a couple where people are unjustifiably telling someone to not go to law school and we can set the record straight.

I'm serious, I don't think this site should be spreading misinformation or bad advice. Link us to a couple of the threads you're talking about.