PSA: forget about specialties or professors--take the money Forum

[manu6926]

...

[Rexdan]

Also according to a recent post by OP he took out some pretty major debt. Yet another 'do as I say, not as I do' TLS special.

This is a fairly dumb criticism, because the whole point of so many of these posts is to say, "Yes, I did this thing you're considering, and now that I've done it, here are the reasons why I now think it's a bad idea." You can disagree with the advice but the point is that it comes from experience.

^^^This.

I'm studying (and by studying, I mean slamming a hammer at my temple), and one of the basic things an LSAT taker has to learn is that the "do as I say, not as I do" thing gets thrown out the window. So what if a person's previous actions are inconsistent with actions that they are now advocating for? Maybe the person's past actions are what led to their argument? Whatever they did in the past shouldn't be seen in a bad light for an argument that they're making now. Well, maybe in a political campaign that will work, but it doesn't sit right with me in the real world.

Also, I think that OP's logic in the matter is correct about not choosing school x because school y has courses r,s, and t. I'm not sure if it will have a large impact on things like admissions rates and tuition/scholly, but it is definitely something that has been on my mind since I started looking into law school.

[koalacity]

Manu, you're not a second-class citizen because you were admitted off the waitlist, but you are one because you're a legit shit person. I have to wonder if the reason someone with your numbers was waitlisted in the first was because you came off as a prestige-whoring douche in your interview and application, too.

You say you're not a prestige whore and your decision to attend H wasn't hard, but you literally found every H vs X thread in the choosing forum and advocated against H. You posted earlier in the thread about Stanford's lack of prestige in Asia (this post was edited and changed). You bashed successful practicing lawyers whose honest advice has helped countless prospective law students (myself included) for attending a school that you view as beneath yours and think having high numbers is just cause for looking down on others. And you name-drop "Cambridge" in every other sentence you post here. We have all worked hard to get where we are now. That doesn't entitle you to being a condescending prick.

I really don't think it will take long for our classmates to realize that you a truly are a second-class citizen as a person (you're off to a great start already!). If the first thirty seconds of talking to you doesn't make it evident enough, hearing you rip the pages of library books will do the trick.

This. All of this.

[jkhalfa]

...

I wish I saw his reply; I'm sure it was very entertaining

[jbagelboy]

...

I wish I saw his reply; I'm sure it was very entertaining

Y'all have to step up your quoting game.

[DELG]

I'm studying (and by studying, I mean slamming a hammer at my temple), and one of the basic things an LSAT taker has to learn is that the "do as I say, not as I do" thing gets thrown out the window. So what if a person's previous actions are inconsistent with actions that they are now advocating for? Maybe the person's past actions are what led to their argument? Whatever they did in the past shouldn't be seen in a bad light for an argument that they're making now. Well, maybe in a political campaign that will work, but it doesn't sit right with me in the real world.

For some reason, people only want to learn from success, and never failure. Which I find incredibly stupid. People are happy to hear someone say "I was in the top 10% and here is how I studied" or "I got a 175 and here is how I prepped" or "I landed a v5 and here is what I focused on in my interview" or "I love biglaw and am in a great practice area" and will start threads asking exclusively for advice from those people and listen to them speculate about what they might have done right.

Wouldn't it be just as valuable to hear from someone who timed-PT averaged 15 points above their first LSAT score, or had v5 grades but struck out, or was below median first semester then turned it around second semester?

It's sort of the same kind of stupid to call someone a hypocrite for admitting they made a mistake and suggesting you not do the same. (It's obviously a different kind of stupid to see the mistake Rayiner made, if any, is not what he's railing against in his OP but we'll leave that alone because grasping nuance is hard).

[quijotesca1011]

I'm studying (and by studying, I mean slamming a hammer at my temple), and one of the basic things an LSAT taker has to learn is that the "do as I say, not as I do" thing gets thrown out the window. So what if a person's previous actions are inconsistent with actions that they are now advocating for? Maybe the person's past actions are what led to their argument? Whatever they did in the past shouldn't be seen in a bad light for an argument that they're making now. Well, maybe in a political campaign that will work, but it doesn't sit right with me in the real world.

For some reason, people only want to learn from success, and never failure. Which I find incredibly stupid. People are happy to hear someone say "I was in the top 10% and here is how I studied" or "I got a 175 and here is how I prepped" or "I landed a v5 and here is what I focused on in my interview" or "I love biglaw and am in a great practice area" and will start threads asking exclusively for advice from those people and listen to them speculate about what they might have done right.

Wouldn't it be just as valuable to hear from someone who timed-PT averaged 15 points above their first LSAT score, or had v5 grades but struck out, or was below median first semester then turned it around second semester?

It's sort of the same kind of stupid to call someone a hypocrite for admitting they made a mistake and suggesting you not do the same. (It's obviously a different kind of stupid to see the mistake Rayiner made, if any, is not what he's railing against in his OP but we'll leave that alone because grasping nuance is hard).

As I think I reiterated multiple times, I was not saying that the advice of people who made that choice and regretted it is not valuable. I was saying it is hypocritical to come back and YELL at people for making the same choice you made as if the system is all of a sudden their fault. Anyway, we already hashed through my arguments and maybe 'do as I say, not as I do' was a poorly chosen quote to make my point. But I followed it up by repeating multiple times that I was not saying that people shouldn't come back and explain why they regret their choice (useful) but rather that it is indeed hypocritical to come back and aggressively blame entering OL's for the system without any acknowledgment that it's years of people making that same decision that, by your own logic, have led us to where we are. OP isn't railing against the mistake I made, I agree with you. He's railing against people making the exact same decision he made as if their decision magically perpetuates the system in ways the same decision four years ago didn't. For me it was more a question of tone. Plenty of people argued that doesn't matter, I made my case for why I think it did.

[DELG]

I'm studying (and by studying, I mean slamming a hammer at my temple), and one of the basic things an LSAT taker has to learn is that the "do as I say, not as I do" thing gets thrown out the window. So what if a person's previous actions are inconsistent with actions that they are now advocating for? Maybe the person's past actions are what led to their argument? Whatever they did in the past shouldn't be seen in a bad light for an argument that they're making now. Well, maybe in a political campaign that will work, but it doesn't sit right with me in the real world.

For some reason, people only want to learn from success, and never failure. Which I find incredibly stupid. People are happy to hear someone say "I was in the top 10% and here is how I studied" or "I got a 175 and here is how I prepped" or "I landed a v5 and here is what I focused on in my interview" or "I love biglaw and am in a great practice area" and will start threads asking exclusively for advice from those people and listen to them speculate about what they might have done right.

Wouldn't it be just as valuable to hear from someone who timed-PT averaged 15 points above their first LSAT score, or had v5 grades but struck out, or was below median first semester then turned it around second semester?

It's sort of the same kind of stupid to call someone a hypocrite for admitting they made a mistake and suggesting you not do the same. (It's obviously a different kind of stupid to see the mistake Rayiner made, if any, is not what he's railing against in his OP but we'll leave that alone because grasping nuance is hard).

As I think I reiterated multiple times, I was not saying that the advice of people who made that choice and regretted it is not valuable. I was saying it is hypocritical to come back and YELL at people for making the same choice you made as if the system is all of a sudden their fault. Anyway, we already hashed through my arguments and maybe 'do as I say, not as I do' was a poorly chosen quote to make my point. But I followed it up by repeating multiple times that I was not saying that people shouldn't come back and explain why they regret their choice (useful) but rather that it is indeed hypocritical to come back and aggressively blame entering OL's for the system without any acknowledgment that it's years of people making that same decision that, by your own logic, have led us to where we are. It was more a question of tone which a lot of people just argue isn't important, and I happen to disagree.

Rayiner didn't have money, anywhere, and didn't choose on any metric other than job placement, so that's still a stupid beef to have. So your tone trolling whine is still stupid.

[quijotesca1011]

Rayiner didn't have money, anywhere, and didn't choose on any metric other than job placement, so that's still a stupid beef to have. So your tone trolling whine is still stupid.

By a combo of his logic and TLS logic, having no money isn't an excuse. you should sit out a cycle and retake to get a scholarship, rather than 'ruin law school for everyone else.'

[DELG]

Rayiner didn't have money, anywhere, and didn't choose on any metric other than job placement, so that's still a stupid beef to have. So your tone trolling whine is still stupid.

By a combo of his logic and TLS logic, having no money isn't an excuse. you should sit out a cycle and retake to get a scholarship, rather than 'ruin law school for everyone else.'

So now you're synthesizing DF and Rayiner into a new person

I'm duly terrified

[quijotesca1011]

--

[NYSprague]

Maybe some people should just go ahead and borrow $300,000 of non-dischargable debt at high interest rates. Then they can come back and try to tell everyone why it is a terrible, potentially life ruining idea.

People just won't listen sometimes and they can't be helped.

[njdevils2626]

I'm studying (and by studying, I mean slamming a hammer at my temple), and one of the basic things an LSAT taker has to learn is that the "do as I say, not as I do" thing gets thrown out the window. So what if a person's previous actions are inconsistent with actions that they are now advocating for? Maybe the person's past actions are what led to their argument? Whatever they did in the past shouldn't be seen in a bad light for an argument that they're making now. Well, maybe in a political campaign that will work, but it doesn't sit right with me in the real world.

For some reason, people only want to learn from success, and never failure. Which I find incredibly stupid. People are happy to hear someone say "I was in the top 10% and here is how I studied" or "I got a 175 and here is how I prepped" or "I landed a v5 and here is what I focused on in my interview" or "I love biglaw and am in a great practice area" and will start threads asking exclusively for advice from those people and listen to them speculate about what they might have done right.

Wouldn't it be just as valuable to hear from someone who timed-PT averaged 15 points above their first LSAT score, or had v5 grades but struck out, or was below median first semester then turned it around second semester?

It's sort of the same kind of stupid to call someone a hypocrite for admitting they made a mistake and suggesting you not do the same. (It's obviously a different kind of stupid to see the mistake Rayiner made, if any, is not what he's railing against in his OP but we'll leave that alone because grasping nuance is hard).

As I think I reiterated multiple times, I was not saying that the advice of people who made that choice and regretted it is not valuable. I was saying it is hypocritical to come back and YELL at people for making the same choice you made as if the system is all of a sudden their fault. Anyway, we already hashed through my arguments and maybe 'do as I say, not as I do' was a poorly chosen quote to make my point. But I followed it up by repeating multiple times that I was not saying that people shouldn't come back and explain why they regret their choice (useful) but rather that it is indeed hypocritical to come back and aggressively blame entering OL's for the system without any acknowledgment that it's years of people making that same decision that, by your own logic, have led us to where we are. OP isn't railing against the mistake I made, I agree with you. He's railing against people making the exact same decision he made as if their decision magically perpetuates the system in ways the same decision four years ago didn't. For me it was more a question of tone. Plenty of people argued that doesn't matter, I made my case for why I think it did.

Read: "He sounded mean when he said it and I think he was yelling at me :'( "

[rayiner]

Retaking my 176 wouldn't have helped. In any case, the vast majority of law students aren't super-splitters, and there is nothing generalizable to take away from their choices. Even to the extent they may be mild-splitters, the scholarship situation four or five years ago was very different. The cycles were a lot more competitive.

[ph14]

I'm studying (and by studying, I mean slamming a hammer at my temple), and one of the basic things an LSAT taker has to learn is that the "do as I say, not as I do" thing gets thrown out the window. So what if a person's previous actions are inconsistent with actions that they are now advocating for? Maybe the person's past actions are what led to their argument? Whatever they did in the past shouldn't be seen in a bad light for an argument that they're making now. Well, maybe in a political campaign that will work, but it doesn't sit right with me in the real world.

For some reason, people only want to learn from success, and never failure. Which I find incredibly stupid. People are happy to hear someone say "I was in the top 10% and here is how I studied" or "I got a 175 and here is how I prepped" or "I landed a v5 and here is what I focused on in my interview" or "I love biglaw and am in a great practice area" and will start threads asking exclusively for advice from those people and listen to them speculate about what they might have done right.

Wouldn't it be just as valuable to hear from someone who timed-PT averaged 15 points above their first LSAT score, or had v5 grades but struck out, or was below median first semester then turned it around second semester?

It's sort of the same kind of stupid to call someone a hypocrite for admitting they made a mistake and suggesting you not do the same. (It's obviously a different kind of stupid to see the mistake Rayiner made, if any, is not what he's railing against in his OP but we'll leave that alone because grasping nuance is hard).

As I think I reiterated multiple times, I was not saying that the advice of people who made that choice and regretted it is not valuable. I was saying it is hypocritical to come back and YELL at people for making the same choice you made as if the system is all of a sudden their fault. Anyway, we already hashed through my arguments and maybe 'do as I say, not as I do' was a poorly chosen quote to make my point. But I followed it up by repeating multiple times that I was not saying that people shouldn't come back and explain why they regret their choice (useful) but rather that it is indeed hypocritical to come back and aggressively blame entering OL's for the system without any acknowledgment that it's years of people making that same decision that, by your own logic, have led us to where we are. OP isn't railing against the mistake I made, I agree with you. He's railing against people making the exact same decision he made as if their decision magically perpetuates the system in ways the same decision four years ago didn't. For me it was more a question of tone. Plenty of people argued that doesn't matter, I made my case for why I think it did.

The attitude toward taking on debt and attending at sticker was much different 5 years ago, especially on TLS. The most common advice back then was "ED UVA."

[NYSprague]

^^^^
Couldn't agree more. The attitude was that sticker debt could be repaid on big law salaries without much problem.

[hasmith]

Definitely been a ton of swings wrt this board's advice. When I first started cruising around here in 07, it was a small community and most were pretty elite. This board convinced me not to take sticker at GULC or GW, but I wish the retake theme existed then. I think I could have gotten in the low 170s if I had really buckled down and it would have given me a ton more options.

I ended ok, no debt, good job, but I still think about leaving the law. Lawyers, including me, are assholes.