3.45/174

Not sure where your numbers will get you? Dying to know where you stand? Come have your palms read by your fellow posters!
User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: 3.45/174

Postby IAFG » Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:11 pm

JazzOne wrote:
IAFG wrote:
mrmangs wrote:
IAFG wrote:the whole "nothing below this at sticker" debate seems silly to me. if you miss biglaw, is $80k any less suffocating than $150k or $210k? they're all incredibly daunting.


I think psychologically, yes, but there is no universal risk/reward calculation running in everyone's head. Financially there is a big difference though, no matter your mental state.


i am just saying, if you don't have an LRAP-eligible job or biglaw, that loan payment is going to be unthinkably oppressive either way, so it makes sense to improve your chances by paying sticker at CCN/MVP/whatever rather than $90k at GW.

Yeah, in that example, you're right. But where the decisions get difficult is with a full ride. Or, as in my case, with a stipend? They're paying me? Oh hell yeah.

True, a true fullride is different. But paying COL alone in Chicago/DC is quite a bit of debt. Then again, everyone on TLS is going to land in the top 10% so why would they worry about striking out.

User avatar
mrmangs
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: 3.45/174

Postby mrmangs » Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:14 pm

JazzOne wrote:
IAFG wrote:
mrmangs wrote:
IAFG wrote:the whole "nothing below this at sticker" debate seems silly to me. if you miss biglaw, is $80k any less suffocating than $150k or $210k? they're all incredibly daunting.


I think psychologically, yes, but there is no universal risk/reward calculation running in everyone's head. Financially there is a big difference though, no matter your mental state.


i am just saying, if you don't have an LRAP-eligible job or biglaw, that loan payment is going to be unthinkably oppressive either way, so it makes sense to improve your chances by paying sticker at CCN/MVP/whatever rather than $90k at GW.

Yeah, in that example, you're right. But where the decisions get difficult is with a full ride. Or, as in my case, with a stipend? They're paying me? Oh hell yeah.


Agreed. And like I mentioned earlier, everyone is operating on their own cost-benefit analysis. I certainly think that, unless you know you want to work in a specific region and preferably have connections there (family, friends, etc., working at firms in the area), it's a top school or bust. When I said no LS seems worth paying sticker outside of HYS, I really should have said none is assuming you have other offers within the T14 (or perhaps T17) with some amount of money. That's where it becomes a complicated decision IMO.

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: 3.45/174

Postby JazzOne » Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:14 pm

IAFG wrote:True, a true fullride is different. But paying COL alone in Chicago/DC is quite a bit of debt. Then again, everyone on TLS is going to land in the top 10% so why would they worry about striking out.

You know, I was snatched from the jaws of striking out. Even with so little debt, I was still freakin' out. I can't even imagine what kind of psychological torture it would be to face a strikeout with $100K sunk already.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: 3.45/174

Postby IAFG » Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:17 pm

mrmangs wrote:Agreed. And like I mentioned earlier, everyone is operating on their own cost-benefit analysis. I certainly think that, unless you know you want to work in a specific region and preferably have connections there (family, friends, etc., working at firms in the area), it's a top school or bust. When I said no LS seems worth paying sticker outside of HYS, I really should have said none is assuming you have other offers within the T14 (or perhaps T17) with some amount of money. That's where it becomes a complicated decision IMO.

other offers should not come into it. either it is worth sticker or it isn't.i have some money at my T14 and yeah, the debt keeps me up at night. lol not really true, i keep drinking vodka until i can sleep

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: 3.45/174

Postby JazzOne » Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:20 pm

IAFG wrote:
mrmangs wrote:Agreed. And like I mentioned earlier, everyone is operating on their own cost-benefit analysis. I certainly think that, unless you know you want to work in a specific region and preferably have connections there (family, friends, etc., working at firms in the area), it's a top school or bust. When I said no LS seems worth paying sticker outside of HYS, I really should have said none is assuming you have other offers within the T14 (or perhaps T17) with some amount of money. That's where it becomes a complicated decision IMO.

other offers should not come into it. either it is worth sticker or it isn't. i have some money at my T14 and yeah, the debt keeps me up at night.

It's a subtle point, but you're right. A school's EV could be calculated independently of other offers. But when you have multiple offers, you have to compare the EV's of each offer. In that case, an offer that is "worth sticker" in isolation may not be "worth sticker" in the real context.

User avatar
mrmangs
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: 3.45/174

Postby mrmangs » Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:27 pm

IAFG wrote:
mrmangs wrote:Agreed. And like I mentioned earlier, everyone is operating on their own cost-benefit analysis. I certainly think that, unless you know you want to work in a specific region and preferably have connections there (family, friends, etc., working at firms in the area), it's a top school or bust. When I said no LS seems worth paying sticker outside of HYS, I really should have said none is assuming you have other offers within the T14 (or perhaps T17) with some amount of money. That's where it becomes a complicated decision IMO.

other offers should not come into it. either it is worth sticker or it isn't. i have some money at my T14 and yeah, the debt keeps me up at night.


I guess I just think it's a bit silly to consider one choice out of many in a vacuum. Offered, in isolation, sex with Jessica Alba, yes, I'd take it. But make that a choice between Jessica Alba on one hand and Scarlett Johansson on the other...

Of course, that's assuming you're going to be having sex with somebody, which is a dubious assumption ITE. If you want BigLaw (or prestigious PI), go to a T17 and pray you're at the top of your class. If you are happy with smaller firms and perhaps maybe regional BigLaw, a lower ranked school is certainly worth considering (especially if you have been networking and/or otherwise have connections to your market of choice). $$$ is a legitimate consideration, and the weight you give it depends on your options and aspirations, IMO.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: 3.45/174

Postby IAFG » Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:32 pm

mrmangs wrote:
I guess I just think it's a bit silly to consider one choice out of many in a vacuum. Offered, in isolation, sex with Jessica Alba, yes, I'd take it. But make that a choice between Jessica Alba on one hand and Scarlett Johansson on the other...

Of course, that's assuming you're going to be having sex with somebody, which is a dubious assumption ITE. If you want BigLaw (or prestigious PI), go to a T17 and pray you're at the top of your class. If you are happy with smaller firms and perhaps maybe regional BigLaw, a lower ranked school is certainly worth considering (especially if you have been networking and/or otherwise have connections to your market of choice). $$$ is a legitimate consideration, and the weight you give it depends on your options and aspirations, IMO.

smaller firms aren't hiring right out of school, and they weren't really even when the economy was stronger. i am not biglaw or bust because i am so excited about signing my soul over to corporate america, but because it is really your best hope of paying your loans off. LRAP-eligable jobs are as hard, if not harder to get. law is not a field with a lot of backup plans if you have significant debt.

User avatar
MysticalWheel
Posts: 354
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: 3.45/174

Postby MysticalWheel » Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:44 pm

lawschoollll wrote:
IAFG wrote:the whole "nothing below this at sticker" debate seems silly to me. if you miss biglaw, is $80k any less suffocating than $150k or $210k? they're all incredibly daunting.

In a word, yes.

+1

MW

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: 3.45/174

Postby IAFG » Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:46 pm

MysticalWheel wrote:
lawschoollll wrote:
IAFG wrote:the whole "nothing below this at sticker" debate seems silly to me. if you miss biglaw, is $80k any less suffocating than $150k or $210k? they're all incredibly daunting.

In a word, yes.

+1

MW

why don't you break down your cost-benefit analysis for us, MW.

User avatar
mrmangs
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: 3.45/174

Postby mrmangs » Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:50 pm

IAFG wrote:
mrmangs wrote:
I guess I just think it's a bit silly to consider one choice out of many in a vacuum. Offered, in isolation, sex with Jessica Alba, yes, I'd take it. But make that a choice between Jessica Alba on one hand and Scarlett Johansson on the other...

Of course, that's assuming you're going to be having sex with somebody, which is a dubious assumption ITE. If you want BigLaw (or prestigious PI), go to a T17 and pray you're at the top of your class. If you are happy with smaller firms and perhaps maybe regional BigLaw, a lower ranked school is certainly worth considering (especially if you have been networking and/or otherwise have connections to your market of choice). $$$ is a legitimate consideration, and the weight you give it depends on your options and aspirations, IMO.

smaller firms aren't hiring right out of school, and they weren't really even when the economy was stronger. i am not biglaw or bust because i am so excited about signing my soul over to corporate america, but because it is really your best hope of paying your loans off. LRAP-eligable jobs are as hard, if not harder to get. law is not a field with a lot of backup plans if you have significant debt.


This may be true generally, but people can manage their way into small firms. I work at one that just hired two newly minted graduates (one from CCN and the other from another that is barely even in the rankings), and it pays pretty well (it's not BigLaw, but not shabby, all things considered... there are also very manageable hours here).

On a slight tangent, one thing that has always struck me as odd is that people hoping to go into BigLaw think smaller firms are absolutely terrible. Sure, there are a dime a dozen shingles hung up everywhere, and shitty lawyers are abound. However, you can make some serious bank at a small firm if you are a good businessperson (and hopefully have a little charisma, although even this is not required), which I assume is exactly the sort of personality you would need to thrive and become a partner in BigLaw. I guess BigLaw is the safe option (assuming they get in) for hardworking folks without the business mentality that are willing to go the non-equity partner track. More to the point, I think smaller firms are definitely possible to get into as long as you can sell yourself (and hopefully have been networking your ass off before immediate employment becomes an issue).

In any case, I agree with you for the most part. Debt sucks. However, your strategy seems to be that the number of zeros to your amount of debt doesn't really matter insofar as one is going to the best school possible (within the T14 or T17). I think minimizing that debt is an important, although not overriding, concern. Thinking purely in terms of "all or nothing" just seems a bit odd to me.

Edit: perhaps what is needed on making a choice is an honest assessment of the sort of personality you have and your strengths and weaknesses... If you are highly analytical, but have no savings, WE, and legitimate connections, as well as don't have not much in the way of business acumen or charisma, sticker at <insert school> may be your best choice. I hope we can at least agree that when debating between closely ranked schools, like Michigan vs. Penn, money certainly comes into play.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: 3.45/174

Postby IAFG » Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:55 pm

mrmangs wrote:This may be true generally, but people can manage their way into small firms. I work at one that just hired two newly minted graduates (one from CCN and the other from another that is barely even in the rankings), and it pays pretty well (it's not BigLaw, but not shabby, all things considered... there are also very manageable hours here).

On a slight tangent, one thing that has always struck me as odd is that people hoping to go into BigLaw think smaller firms are absolutely terrible. Sure, there are a dime a dozen shingles hung up everywhere, and shitty lawyers are abound. However, you can make some serious bank at a small firm if you are a good businessperson (and hopefully have a little charisma, although even this is not required), which I assume is exactly the sort of personality you would need to thrive and become a partner in BigLaw. I guess BigLaw is the safe option (assuming they get in) for hardworking folks without the business mentality that are willing to go the non-equity partner track. More to the point, I think smaller firms are definitely possible to get into as long as you can sell yourself (and hopefully have been networking your ass off before immediate employment becomes an issue).

In any case, I agree with you for the most part. Debt sucks. However, your strategy seems to be that the number of zeros to your amount of debt doesn't really matter insofar as one is going to the best school possible (within the T14 or T17). I think minimizing that debt is an important, although not overriding, concern. Thinking purely in terms of "all or nothing" just seems a bit odd to me.

i am not saying the level of debt doesn't matter at all, just that the difference btw 100k and 200k isn't that significant if you can't pay it either way.

it isn't that TLSers think biglaw is wonderful and small firms are shitty, it's that big firms actively recruit from our schools. compare to trying to break into a small firm, which could mean mailing hundreds of firms to get one interview.

User avatar
MysticalWheel
Posts: 354
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: 3.45/174

Postby MysticalWheel » Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:02 pm

IAFG wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:
lawschoollll wrote:
IAFG wrote:the whole "nothing below this at sticker" debate seems silly to me. if you miss biglaw, is $80k any less suffocating than $150k or $210k? they're all incredibly daunting.

In a word, yes.

+1

MW

why don't you break down your cost-benefit analysis for us, MW.


How about a simple "You're wrong"? Does that do it for you? LOL- where do you get 80k as NOT being less suffocating than double that? WOW.

MW

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: 3.45/174

Postby IAFG » Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:04 pm

MysticalWheel wrote:How about a simple "You're wrong"? Does that do it for you? LOL- where do you get 80k as NOT being less suffocating than double that? WOW.

MW
hth

User avatar
MysticalWheel
Posts: 354
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: 3.45/174

Postby MysticalWheel » Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:06 pm

IAFG wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:How about a simple "You're wrong"? Does that do it for you? LOL- where do you get 80k as NOT being less suffocating than double that? WOW.

MW
hth I cannot admit error, but wink wink, get it?

HTH sweety.

MW

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: 3.45/174

Postby IAFG » Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:07 pm

MysticalWheel wrote:
IAFG wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:How about a simple "You're wrong"? Does that do it for you? LOL- where do you get 80k as NOT being less suffocating than double that? WOW.

MW
hth I cannot admit error, but wink wink, get it?

HTH sweety.

MW

if you are making $45k a year doing insurance defense, you can't afford your loan payment on just COL or full freight. get it?

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: 3.45/174

Postby JazzOne » Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:08 pm

IAFG wrote:
mrmangs wrote:This may be true generally, but people can manage their way into small firms. I work at one that just hired two newly minted graduates (one from CCN and the other from another that is barely even in the rankings), and it pays pretty well (it's not BigLaw, but not shabby, all things considered... there are also very manageable hours here).

On a slight tangent, one thing that has always struck me as odd is that people hoping to go into BigLaw think smaller firms are absolutely terrible. Sure, there are a dime a dozen shingles hung up everywhere, and shitty lawyers are abound. However, you can make some serious bank at a small firm if you are a good businessperson (and hopefully have a little charisma, although even this is not required), which I assume is exactly the sort of personality you would need to thrive and become a partner in BigLaw. I guess BigLaw is the safe option (assuming they get in) for hardworking folks without the business mentality that are willing to go the non-equity partner track. More to the point, I think smaller firms are definitely possible to get into as long as you can sell yourself (and hopefully have been networking your ass off before immediate employment becomes an issue).

In any case, I agree with you for the most part. Debt sucks. However, your strategy seems to be that the number of zeros to your amount of debt doesn't really matter insofar as one is going to the best school possible (within the T14 or T17). I think minimizing that debt is an important, although not overriding, concern. Thinking purely in terms of "all or nothing" just seems a bit odd to me.

i am not saying the level of debt doesn't matter at all, just that the difference btw 100k and 200k isn't that significant if you can't pay it either way.

it isn't that TLSers think biglaw is wonderful and small firms are shitty, it's that big firms actively recruit from our schools. compare to trying to break into a small firm, which could mean mailing hundreds of firms to get one interview.

The flaw in your logic arises if you DO make biglaw. In that case, you're going to care a whole lot whether your debt is $100K or $200K.

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: 3.45/174

Postby JazzOne » Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:08 pm

IAFG wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:
IAFG wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:How about a simple "You're wrong"? Does that do it for you? LOL- where do you get 80k as NOT being less suffocating than double that? WOW.

MW
hth I cannot admit error, but wink wink, get it?

HTH sweety.

MW

if you are making $45k a year doing insurance defense, you can't afford your loan payment on just COL or full freight. get it?

MW is a flame. I'd suggest ignore.

User avatar
MysticalWheel
Posts: 354
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: 3.45/174

Postby MysticalWheel » Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:13 pm

IAFG wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:
IAFG wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:How about a simple "You're wrong"? Does that do it for you? LOL- where do you get 80k as NOT being less suffocating than double that? WOW.

MW
hth I cannot admit error, but wink wink, get it?

HTH sweety.

MW

if you are making $45k a year doing insurance defense, you can't afford your loan payment on just COL or full freight. get it?

That's not the argument. Either way you cut it, 80K is less suffocating than 160K- do you get it?

MW

User avatar
mrmangs
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: 3.45/174

Postby mrmangs » Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:17 pm

IAFG wrote:
mrmangs wrote:This may be true generally, but people can manage their way into small firms. I work at one that just hired two newly minted graduates (one from CCN and the other from another that is barely even in the rankings), and it pays pretty well (it's not BigLaw, but not shabby, all things considered... there are also very manageable hours here).

On a slight tangent, one thing that has always struck me as odd is that people hoping to go into BigLaw think smaller firms are absolutely terrible. Sure, there are a dime a dozen shingles hung up everywhere, and shitty lawyers are abound. However, you can make some serious bank at a small firm if you are a good businessperson (and hopefully have a little charisma, although even this is not required), which I assume is exactly the sort of personality you would need to thrive and become a partner in BigLaw. I guess BigLaw is the safe option (assuming they get in) for hardworking folks without the business mentality that are willing to go the non-equity partner track. More to the point, I think smaller firms are definitely possible to get into as long as you can sell yourself (and hopefully have been networking your ass off before immediate employment becomes an issue).

In any case, I agree with you for the most part. Debt sucks. However, your strategy seems to be that the number of zeros to your amount of debt doesn't really matter insofar as one is going to the best school possible (within the T14 or T17). I think minimizing that debt is an important, although not overriding, concern. Thinking purely in terms of "all or nothing" just seems a bit odd to me.

i am not saying the level of debt doesn't matter at all, just that the difference btw 100k and 200k isn't that significant if you can't pay it either way.

it isn't that TLSers think biglaw is wonderful and small firms are shitty, it's that big firms actively recruit from our schools. compare to trying to break into a small firm, which could mean mailing hundreds of firms to get one interview.


Gotta do what you gotta do. TBF, this is what most unemployed people have to do in any sector in this country these days. It's tedious, time-consuming, and depressing, and I understand the "but I paid so much money for LS, I want my job right now" argument, but that's the risk we take going to law school right now. And this is precisely why I think minimizing debt matters. The majority of people are not going to be in the top of their class; minimizing debt should be important because BigLaw (or even perhaps a job at all) is far from guaranteed. Psychologically, I don't know what it would feel like being 100k vs. 200k in debt when you're struggling to meet your obligations (probably not pretty good), but it does matter financially. Do you want the debt to haunt you for years and years or until you die?

User avatar
mrmangs
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: 3.45/174

Postby mrmangs » Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:17 pm

JazzOne wrote:
IAFG wrote:
mrmangs wrote:This may be true generally, but people can manage their way into small firms. I work at one that just hired two newly minted graduates (one from CCN and the other from another that is barely even in the rankings), and it pays pretty well (it's not BigLaw, but not shabby, all things considered... there are also very manageable hours here).

On a slight tangent, one thing that has always struck me as odd is that people hoping to go into BigLaw think smaller firms are absolutely terrible. Sure, there are a dime a dozen shingles hung up everywhere, and shitty lawyers are abound. However, you can make some serious bank at a small firm if you are a good businessperson (and hopefully have a little charisma, although even this is not required), which I assume is exactly the sort of personality you would need to thrive and become a partner in BigLaw. I guess BigLaw is the safe option (assuming they get in) for hardworking folks without the business mentality that are willing to go the non-equity partner track. More to the point, I think smaller firms are definitely possible to get into as long as you can sell yourself (and hopefully have been networking your ass off before immediate employment becomes an issue).

In any case, I agree with you for the most part. Debt sucks. However, your strategy seems to be that the number of zeros to your amount of debt doesn't really matter insofar as one is going to the best school possible (within the T14 or T17). I think minimizing that debt is an important, although not overriding, concern. Thinking purely in terms of "all or nothing" just seems a bit odd to me.

i am not saying the level of debt doesn't matter at all, just that the difference btw 100k and 200k isn't that significant if you can't pay it either way.

it isn't that TLSers think biglaw is wonderful and small firms are shitty, it's that big firms actively recruit from our schools. compare to trying to break into a small firm, which could mean mailing hundreds of firms to get one interview.

The flaw in your logic arises if you DO make biglaw. In that case, you're going to care a whole lot whether your debt is $100K or $200K.


This is also a good point.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: 3.45/174

Postby IAFG » Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:23 pm

JazzOne wrote:
IAFG wrote:
mrmangs wrote:This may be true generally, but people can manage their way into small firms. I work at one that just hired two newly minted graduates (one from CCN and the other from another that is barely even in the rankings), and it pays pretty well (it's not BigLaw, but not shabby, all things considered... there are also very manageable hours here).

On a slight tangent, one thing that has always struck me as odd is that people hoping to go into BigLaw think smaller firms are absolutely terrible. Sure, there are a dime a dozen shingles hung up everywhere, and shitty lawyers are abound. However, you can make some serious bank at a small firm if you are a good businessperson (and hopefully have a little charisma, although even this is not required), which I assume is exactly the sort of personality you would need to thrive and become a partner in BigLaw. I guess BigLaw is the safe option (assuming they get in) for hardworking folks without the business mentality that are willing to go the non-equity partner track. More to the point, I think smaller firms are definitely possible to get into as long as you can sell yourself (and hopefully have been networking your ass off before immediate employment becomes an issue).

In any case, I agree with you for the most part. Debt sucks. However, your strategy seems to be that the number of zeros to your amount of debt doesn't really matter insofar as one is going to the best school possible (within the T14 or T17). I think minimizing that debt is an important, although not overriding, concern. Thinking purely in terms of "all or nothing" just seems a bit odd to me.

i am not saying the level of debt doesn't matter at all, just that the difference btw 100k and 200k isn't that significant if you can't pay it either way.

it isn't that TLSers think biglaw is wonderful and small firms are shitty, it's that big firms actively recruit from our schools. compare to trying to break into a small firm, which could mean mailing hundreds of firms to get one interview.

The flaw in your logic arises if you DO make biglaw. In that case, you're going to care a whole lot whether your debt is $100K or $200K.

but you have to pick a school before you know how your OCI is going to go. it isn't a flaw in my logic, it is just a betrayal of how risk averse i am.

trudat15
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:57 pm

Re: 3.45/174

Postby trudat15 » Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:25 pm

Ignoring the debate on debt, OP I would say you're in UofC ED. At least I hope so. I have the EXACT same numbers, though I have WE, and I ED'd as well. Wasnt worth the risk of WL hell, which is what I mainly see our numbers getting at Chicago RD (both from LSN and people PMing me when I posted this same thread months ago).
Plus it's not like we were getting any money from CCN anyways, and I personally would take CCN at sticker over the small $$ we would get from MVP (being below everyone's 25th GPA, we're not getting substantial $$$ anywhere, I dont think).

Anyways, so to get the thread back on track - in at Chicago ED.
Stanford - out
Columbia - WL then who knows
NYU - MAYBE in
UVA - in if you wrote essay
Duke (w/ why duke,) - either in or WL in? Not sure
UCLA - in
Texas - in
CU-Boulder - in $$$$

Spackledgoat
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 9:41 am

Re: 3.45/174

Postby Spackledgoat » Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:51 pm

Hey, not trying to hijack but I'm close enough numbers wise that maybe its not worth making another thread.

I'm a 3.42/174

Is the difference between .45 and .42 going to do much to change predictions between what he'd get into and what I'd get into? Also, I am ED at Columbia, how does that look for me?

Thanks

User avatar
MysticalWheel
Posts: 354
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: 3.45/174

Postby MysticalWheel » Fri Nov 19, 2010 7:21 pm

Spackledgoat wrote:Hey, not trying to hijack but I'm close enough numbers wise that maybe its not worth making another thread.

I'm a 3.42/174

Is the difference between .45 and .42 going to do much to change predictions between what he'd get into and what I'd get into? Also, I am ED at Columbia, how does that look for me?

Thanks


I don't think 3.42/3.45 is going to make a great difference. ED for Columbia is probably right around 45%/50%- my guess.

MW

trudat15
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:57 pm

Re: 3.45/174

Postby trudat15 » Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:07 pm

MysticalWheel wrote:
Spackledgoat wrote:Hey, not trying to hijack but I'm close enough numbers wise that maybe its not worth making another thread.

I'm a 3.42/174

Is the difference between .45 and .42 going to do much to change predictions between what he'd get into and what I'd get into? Also, I am ED at Columbia, how does that look for me?

Thanks


I don't think 3.42/3.45 is going to make a great difference. ED for Columbia is probably right around 45%/50%- my guess.

MW


Think the difference in GPA there is negligible. Though I think ED to Columbia might be a little less than MW predicted (dont really remember, but when I was deciding whether to ED Chicago or Columbia, I remember thinking my chances at Columbia were less than 50%ish)




Return to “What are my chances?”

Who is online

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