Answer this one question; should someone with a 166 apply ED to Columbia instead of waiting one admissions cycle to get a higher score which could save them tremendous amounts of money?curry1 wrote:The fact that the majority of T-14 matriculants have work experience does not necessarily mean that getting work experience was worthwhile for most of them or that doing so would be worthwhile for most applicants. Given the incredible cost of law school today, it is certainly arguable that it would be better for students with the stats to get into T6 schools or T14 with substantial money to go straight through rather than start biglaw when they are approaching 30 with enormous amounts of debt. People who have work experience are naturally going to be predisposed to say that they would "never trade their experience," but their desire to not feel like they have wasted time does not make getting work experience a good idea for everyone. The idea that even exceptional college graduates are going to generate significant "savings" during their few years of work experience and whatever they do generate will be directly countered by the price of law school rising 4-5% every year, compounding. You should stop posting.RamTitan wrote:Once again, you're proving you're not a very good reader. I never said you were still in college; I asked if you were a K-JD. But I'll keep this going for my own amusement, but I'm sure it will get distorted.lawlorbust wrote:Oh, I never suggested that my initial opinion is word of law. I just thought that it was strange that you were questioning my background -- whether I was still in college -- since you are probably the most underqualified poster on this board to be giving any advice. To recap:RamTitan wrote:LMAO, you definitely intended for that to be rude (or you're completely socially incompetent...or both?). But I do not flip burgers (and never have), and actually do marketing for an IT company, so your comments don't offend me. With that said, your initial advice is still misguided.
Based off of a brief glance of your posting history, you come from an insulated perspective. That's cool that you went to a good law school and have had some success, but that doesn't mean your initial opinion is word of law. My point was that work experience, of any kind, can be good for most students (just take a look at the average starting age for the top tier law schools OP, and you'll see what I mean). Instead of addressing that, you insulted me when you know little about me other than what seems to be information taken from my first few posts here.
Edit - I also never claimed to be an authority on "non-shitty post-grad jobs". For someone who claims to have done the things he/she has done, I would have thought your language and logic skills would be stronger...
1. 0L
2. Shit ugrad
3. Unimpressive work experience (one year of IT marketing!!)
4. Worthless major
5. Mediocre GPA
6. Mediocre LSAT
(Again, I mean to state your qualifications in an objective manner, and want to state for the avoidance of any doubt that I'm not trying to come off as rude as all.) That hasn't stopped you from racking a thousand posts on giving advice on something that you don't really know anything about, that's a huge decision for lots of people. The world would be a better place if you didn't!
1. As another poster pointed out, you are definitely not being objective. Are you sure you understand the definition of that word?
2. You don't know what undergraduate school I went to, so how do you know it's "shit"?
3. If you knew the company I worked for, you wouldn't be saying that. You likely say it's name every day, but I will not reveal anymore information about that.
4. I'm not going to debate whether an English Writing major is worthless. I agree that it's not the most employable degree, but I think someone with such weak reading comprehension skills like yourself should probably not knock it.
5. 3.66 isn't great on these boards, but it's definitely not mediocre.
6. 169....maybe you scored higher (which would be crazy considering the insane amount of assumptions you make), but a 169 is not mediocre.
7. I rarely give advice. Almost all of my posts have been asking questions about the LSAT and applying to schools. You clearly know my posting history, and can easily search it, so you should have known that what you said was false.
In summary, laworbust is either a troll or a brain dead elitist who was luckily born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
Edit - and you still never actually addressed my initial point about having work experience of ANY kind is good for most students before they enroll in school. It seems that everyone in this thread agrees that you are dead wrong, so do us a favor and shut up.
OP may not even get in with a 166, let alone the money considerations!
Edit - OP wouldn't be approaching 30 when he got out of law school by taking one gap year. Nor did I ever say that getting work experience is a good idea for everyone. The hypotheticals you propose aren't even remotely similar to OP's case.
In addition, what if OP learns that he does not want to be a lawyer through this paralegal job, thus saving him the pain and cost of law school? Don't be stupid curry1.