Fordham full price vs. American with $20K Forum

[timbs4339]

What does this even mean? Law school will always be there. It's a lot easier to retake and get into a better school than it is to be at the top of your class at a mediocre school.

It's true that law school will always be there, but I've always performed well in school (I'm at the top of my class in my current master's program at the London School of Economics) and I've choked all three times I've taken the LSAT.

Fordham at sticker is not good. American is the laughing stock of DC law schools and is not worth over 100k in debt. Fordham has the better job prospects, but it is NOT worth over 200k in debt.

Retake/Reapply if not accepted to Georgetown.

Move to NYC this summer and work as a paralegal or something. Retake and reapply for next year.

I'm aware of American's reputation in DC, but I think the University of the District of Columbia is the laughing stock of DC law schools if there is one.

Before starting grad school I worked as a legal assistant in the DC office of a top law firm. I did really well there and established strong relationships with many attorneys at all levels who are either still at that firm or have moved on, so I think my job prospects are better than some.

Anyway, thanks for the input everyone. Aside from the unnecessary insults, your thoughts and suggestions have been helpful!

Unfortunately law school is about six 3-4 hour timed tests against a group of people who are all just as smart as you and working just as hard. It's quite a different animal from any other academic experience.

I'd retake. 200K+ of debt for a 25% or less shot at a biglaw job is not worth it IMO. If you have a job right now or can get one I'd work and try to get a larger scholly.

[rad lulz]

It's true that law school will always be there, but I've always performed well in school (I'm at the top of my class in my current master's program at the London School of Economics) and I've choked all three times I've taken the LSAT.

Before starting grad school I worked as a legal assistant in the DC office of a top law firm. I did really well there and established strong relationships with many attorneys at all levels who are either still at that firm or have moved on, so I think my job prospects are better than some.

looks like we got ourselves a special snowflake, bros

lol @ the special snowflake who "choked" on the LSAT but doesn't think he will choke on his 4 law school exams in a pd of 2 weeks each semester that each determine the entirely of his grade in a particular class.

[flem]

lol @ the special snowflake who "choked" on the LSAT but doesn't think he will choke on his 4 law school exams in a pd of 2 weeks each semester that each determine the entirely of his grade in a particular class.

This isn't really directed at the OP, but I'm always baffled/loling at people who are like "I didn't do well on the LSAT because I'm a bad test taker", but have decided to go into a professional school and career field where your entire fate is decided by nothing but tests, culminating in a three day test to determine if you can practice or not.

[Bronck]

It's true that law school will always be there, but I've always performed well in school (I'm at the top of my class in my current master's program at the London School of Economics) and I've choked all three times I've taken the LSAT.

Before starting grad school I worked as a legal assistant in the DC office of a top law firm. I did really well there and established strong relationships with many attorneys at all levels who are either still at that firm or have moved on, so I think my job prospects are better than some.

looks like we got ourselves a special snowflake, bros

lol @ the special snowflake who "choked" on the LSAT but doesn't think he will choke on his 4 law school exams in a pd of 2 weeks each semester that each determine the entirely of his grade in a particular class.

I LOLed pretty hard at that too.

[dingbat]

No reason to attack me as not making sense. I'm just reporting to you about the 1 person I know who went to Fordham, and that has been his experience. Maybe it was an outlier. Maybe he had some connection I didn't know about. But he is at Seward and Kissel out of Fordham at slightly about 50%

I'm sure some people do get BigLaw with less than stellar grades. But here are the employment stats:

http://law.fordham.edu/career-planning/1776.htm

109 people out of 428 graduates got jobs with firms of 100+ attorneys.

That makes about 25%; however, it's not necessarily the top 25%.
Add to that number the people who struck out (the mysterious "fit") and those who self-select PI, gov, etc.
Before the new data came out, I figured on roughly a top 1/3 cut-off for biglaw interviews.
Now I think that might be a bit too stingy
(if we assume 1/2 PI and 1/3 Gov self-select out and include federal clerkship, that brings the total to about 36%)

[jenesaislaw]

^Did you factor out the 42-53 graduates who were in govt and PI jobs through one of the 53 short-term school-funded jobs? That's up to 12.4% of the class. There were only 19.4% of graduates in public service (PI/Govt) jobs.

It is possible that many of the "clerkships" were school-funded jobs. We'll know soon enough. It's unfortunate that Fordham put up the old version of the ABA printouts for this year. Hopefully they update it soon.

[dingbat]

^Did you factor out the 42-53 graduates who were in govt and PI jobs through one of the 53 short-term school-funded jobs? That's up to 12.4% of the class. There were only 19.4% of graduates in public service (PI/Govt) jobs.

It is possible that many of the "clerkships" were school-funded jobs. We'll know soon enough. It's unfortunate that Fordham put up the old version of the ABA printouts for this year. Hopefully they update it soon.

I admit that I didn't take that into account, but, in all likelihood 11 of those 53 are academia (15 in academia short term), so that brings it down to 42

2/3 of all short-term positions are school funded.
I've seen arguments for (defray costs for a bar passage required PI/gov position) and against (artificial boosting of employment statistics) short-term positions and will impress on everyone to make their own decision on how to interpret it.
I do not want to dismiss all law school funded employment, as the numerical implications are illogical.

The percentages are as follows:
25% biglaw (101+ attorneys)
17% small law (up to 100 attorneys - of which 13% in firms of 10 or less)
12% business&industry (broad category which may include starbucks baristas)
11% government
8% PI
3% Federal clerkship
5% State/Local clerkship
4% Academia
15% unemployed (including further education)

12% in short-term school funded positions

[jenesaislaw]

Another point to add. You cannot assume that a federal clerk could have had biglaw these days. You also cannot assume that top PI and top govt GPAs would have had biglaw either. It's just as likely that they would have taken the job of one of their peers.

Regardless, not that this isn't all important to think about, we are splitting hairs. My point is that in your hustle to get that number up as high as possible, you're losing sight of Fordham's sticker price (268k debt-financed, full loans -- 25.5k COL included, but reducing that 5k gets us to 250k) not being worth at best a (I think you said) 36% chance at a shot of biglaw to pay it off. Even with biglaw, you're likely out after 2-3 years. Your salary doesn't go down to zero, but it's likely to go down by 50%. Somebody with that much debt is also eligible for IBR the entire time -- the fact that biglaw + 3 years of experience doesn't remove somebody's IBR qualification should cause everybody pause.

Gun to my head AU vs Fordham in this scenario, I say Fordham. It's just an insane decision if you don't view 230k as consumption. If there's no hardship caused by shelling out that kind of cash, it'd be an interesting three years at least.

[dingbat]

Another point to add. You cannot assume that a federal clerk could have had biglaw these days. You also cannot assume that top PI and top govt GPAs would have had biglaw either. It's just as likely that they would have taken the job of one of their peers.

Regardless, not that this isn't all important to think about, we are splitting hairs. My point is that in your hustle to get that number up as high as possible, you're losing sight of Fordham's sticker price (268k debt-financed, full loans -- 25.5k COL included, but reducing that 5k gets us to 250k) not being worth at best a (I think you said) 36% chance at a shot of biglaw to pay it off. Even with biglaw, you're likely out after 2-3 years. Your salary doesn't go down to zero, but it's likely to go down by 50%. Somebody with that much debt is also eligible for IBR the entire time -- the fact that biglaw + 3 years of experience doesn't remove somebody's IBR qualification should cause everybody pause.

Gun to my head AU vs Fordham in this scenario, I say Fordham. It's just an insane decision if you don't view 230k as consumption. If there's no hardship caused by shelling out that kind of cash, it'd be an interesting three years at least.

I agree that it is a ridiculous amount of cash to pay and that one should think long and hard before shelling out that kind of money. Hell, one should think about it the other way around: if I had X dollars today, would I spend it on tuition, or one something else?

I just don't like the fact that every time someone asks "should I choose school A or school B", the general discussion turns to why both are a bad idea.
It is a very lawyerly way to address a question, but it is not helpful.
I prefer to assume 1) that the person asking the question has already determined law school in general to be worth the price (regardless of which option), and 2) that IBR should not be taken into account and LRAP only cautiously.
IBR is a trap to set the mind at ease, while LRAP has stipulations and is not guaranteed.

If a prospective student really wants biglaw, then going to the school that gives a better shot at biglaw is usually the answer. If a prospective student wants, e.g. PI, where minimizing debt is far more important, then the cheaper option is the best response.

[timbs4339]

Another point to add. You cannot assume that a federal clerk could have had biglaw these days. You also cannot assume that top PI and top govt GPAs would have had biglaw either. It's just as likely that they would have taken the job of one of their peers.

Regardless, not that this isn't all important to think about, we are splitting hairs. My point is that in your hustle to get that number up as high as possible, you're losing sight of Fordham's sticker price (268k debt-financed, full loans -- 25.5k COL included, but reducing that 5k gets us to 250k) not being worth at best a (I think you said) 36% chance at a shot of biglaw to pay it off. Even with biglaw, you're likely out after 2-3 years. Your salary doesn't go down to zero, but it's likely to go down by 50%. Somebody with that much debt is also eligible for IBR the entire time -- the fact that biglaw + 3 years of experience doesn't remove somebody's IBR qualification should cause everybody pause.

Gun to my head AU vs Fordham in this scenario, I say Fordham. It's just an insane decision if you don't view 230k as consumption. If there's no hardship caused by shelling out that kind of cash, it'd be an interesting three years at least.

I agree that it is a ridiculous amount of cash to pay and that one should think long and hard before shelling out that kind of money. Hell, one should think about it the other way around: if I had X dollars today, would I spend it on tuition, or one something else?

I just don't like the fact that every time someone asks "should I choose school A or school B", the general discussion turns to why both are a bad idea.
It is a very lawyerly way to address a question, but it is not helpful.
I prefer to assume 1) that the person asking the question has already determined law school in general to be worth the price (regardless of which option), and 2) that IBR should not be taken into account and LRAP only cautiously.
IBR is a trap to set the mind at ease, while LRAP has stipulations and is not guaranteed.

If a prospective student really wants biglaw, then going to the school that gives a better shot at biglaw is usually the answer. If a prospective student wants, e.g. PI, where minimizing debt is far more important, then the cheaper option is the best response.

There is a point though where biglaw chances aren't going to matter, which is a combination of debt and school ranking. It's dumb to ask "Touro or NYLS for biglaw" even with a half or 3/4 scholly, for example- it's a waste of three years and a not-insignificant amount of money. If OP chooses Fordham for biglaw, he is paying about $70K and one year of earning potential for a 33% or less shot at the job he wants, because if he doesn't get a 2L SA he might as well drop out. Those odds aren't great and that should definitely be in the discussion even if OP doesn't know it yet.

There is also the huge likelihood that the person is missing important information or basing their decision off of anecdotes (I know some guy who graduated from Fordham and got a biglaw job and he's not that smart) or cognitive bias (I'll just go and hit top 10% because I'll study really hard/stop smoking pot/LSAT isn't a good measure of my intelligence/etc.)

[dingbat]

There is a point though where biglaw chances aren't going to matter, which is a combination of debt and school ranking. It's dumb to ask "Touro or NYLS for biglaw" even with a half or 3/4 scholly, for example- it's a waste of three years and a not-insignificant amount of money. If OP chooses Fordham for biglaw, he is paying about $70K and one year of earning potential for a 33% or less shot at the job he wants, because if he doesn't get a 2L SA he might as well drop out. Those odds aren't great and that should definitely be in the discussion even if OP doesn't know it yet.

There is also the huge likelihood that the person is missing important information or basing their decision off of anecdotes (I know some guy who graduated from Fordham and got a biglaw job and he's not that smart) or cognitive bias (I'll just go and hit top 10% because I'll study really hard/stop smoking pot/LSAT isn't a good measure of my intelligence/etc.)

yeah, some people don't think things through - which is why they end up having to choose between Touro and NYLS to begin with.
Unfortunately, most of those people are unlikely to be dissuaded by such trivial things as facts

[jenesaislaw]

yeah, some people don't think things through - which is why they end up having to choose between Touro and NYLS to begin with.
Unfortunately, most of those people are unlikely to be dissuaded by such trivial things as facts

You act like the people at Touro and NYLS are stupid (if they thought things through --> their choice would be better than Touro/NYLS). They're not. We're still talking about an elite group of (a) college graduates (b) who performed pretty well to well in undergrad and (c) outperformed at least half of LSAT takers (though in some cases, slightly less than half) who are also in the same group.

Are these people as bright as those getting into the elite schools? Probably not, though I'd caution judging intelligence solely using a predictor for law school performance. (Example, if you take the MCAT and score low, does this make you stupid?)

Now, are these people unlikely to be dissuaded "by such trivial things as facts?" Perhaps, though more of them are these days. (Have you seen NYLS's credit rating?) But really the explanation is that, for their entire life, they've been told they can achieve whatever they want. They've done that so far. They've also been socialized to think education is always the right thing to do. To make matters worse, they've been conditioned to associate law school with more success and money. There are a lot of facts floating around now -- and I spend my days working on this, so I am sharply aware of the situation -- but it can only move the needle so much. Transparency isn't a panacea. It's a start.

[dingbat]

yeah, some people don't think things through - which is why they end up having to choose between Touro and NYLS to begin with.
Unfortunately, most of those people are unlikely to be dissuaded by such trivial things as facts

You act like the people at Touro and NYLS are stupid (if they thought things through --> their choice would be better than Touro/NYLS). They're not. We're still talking about an elite group of (a) college graduates (b) who performed pretty well to well in undergrad and (c) outperformed at least half of LSAT takers (though in some cases, slightly less than half) who are also in the same group.

Are these people as bright as those getting into the elite schools? Probably not, though I'd caution judging intelligence solely using a predictor for law school performance. (Example, if you take the MCAT and score low, does this make you stupid?)

Now, are these people unlikely to be dissuaded "by such trivial things as facts?" Perhaps, though more of them are these days. (Have you seen NYLS's credit rating?) But really the explanation is that, for their entire life, they've been told they can achieve whatever they want. They've done that so far. They've also been socialized to think education is always the right thing to do. To make matters worse, they've been conditioned to associate law school with more success and money. There are a lot of facts floating around now -- and I spend my days working on this, so I am sharply aware of the situation -- but it can only move the needle so much. Transparency isn't a panacea. It's a start.

I agree with this 100%

I don't think they're stupid - (almost?) everyone who can even graduate college is above average, but, being smart and being able to logically think things through are two different matters altogether.

[rickgrimes69]

You act like the people at Touro and NYLS are stupid (if they thought things through --> their choice would be better than Touro/NYLS). They're not. We're still talking about an elite group of (a) college graduates (b) who performed pretty well to well in undergrad and (c) outperformed at least half of LSAT takers (though in some cases, slightly less than half) who are also in the same group.

Are these people as bright as those getting into the elite schools? Probably not, though I'd caution judging intelligence solely using a predictor for law school performance. (Example, if you take the MCAT and score low, does this make you stupid?)

I'm not sure this is an accurate analogy. I've never taken the MCAT, but to my understanding it is heavily biology and chemistry based, which is not intuitive and requires prerequisite knowledge. The LSAT, basically a glorified reading comprehension test, requires no previous knowledge (all the info you need to answer a question is on the page). So someone who hasn't studied for the MCAT will almost certainly fail, but someone could conceivably score decently (high 150s / low 160s) on their LSAT dry run.

Also, FWIW, Mensa considers a 95% score on the LSAT a qualifying score for entry, but does not count the MCAT.

[flem]

You act like the people at Touro and NYLS are stupid (if they thought things through --> their choice would be better than Touro/NYLS). They're not.

ehhhhhhh

[Bronx Bum]

I went to Fordham at sticker. Granted I paid for all of my living expenses & about 10k tuition by working full time. Honestly, it's the biggest mistake I've ever made in my life. I also have a job lined up (small law but probably one of the better small law firms). Essentially, for me to ever "make it", I will have to dominate the business aspect of it (i.e. learn here---->go solo and make it rain). TBF, same burden I could have had without 100k in debt.

Fordham is a great school. Great adjuncts (like judges and awesome lawyers). You can get a lot of respect and make connections from this school. It just costs too much money.

[cinephile]

I'm not sure this is an accurate analogy. I've never taken the MCAT, but to my understanding it is heavily biology and chemistry based, which is not intuitive and requires prerequisite knowledge. The LSAT, basically a glorified reading comprehension test, requires no previous knowledge (all the info you need to answer a question is on the page). So someone who hasn't studied for the MCAT will almost certainly fail, but someone could conceivably score decently (high 150s / low 160s) on their LSAT dry run.

Also, FWIW, Mensa considers a 95% score on the LSAT a qualifying score for entry, but does not count the MCAT.

1/3 of the MCAT is the verbal section, which is kind of like logical reasoning/reading comprehension. So, yes, you'd still fail without knowing bio, ochem, gchem, and physics, but you still have to excel on the reading comprehnsion part to do well.

[JCFindley]

FWIW, the cost of housing in DC is pretty much as high as it is in NYC assuming you live outside Manhattan..... You have lived here and know how high it is but NYC can be affordable so long as you live off the little island. (I have lived in both places.)

[dingbat]

FWIW, the cost of housing in DC is pretty much as high as it is in NYC assuming you live outside Manhattan..... You have lived here and know how high it is but NYC can be affordable so long as you live off the little island. (I have lived in both places.)

Even on the island there are places that are affordable - just less desirable.

The heights are quite livable and an easy commute, although the A train doesn't run that often late at night and you're unlikely to get friends to shlep up there for a visit
Harlem has a bad rep and some people feel uncomfortable in a black neighborhood
If you don't mind a more difficult commute, Chinatown and LES have affordable options as well
Don't go to Battery Park - what you save in rent money you'll more than make up for in cab fare

[JCFindley]

FWIW, the cost of housing in DC is pretty much as high as it is in NYC assuming you live outside Manhattan..... You have lived here and know how high it is but NYC can be affordable so long as you live off the little island. (I have lived in both places.)

Even on the island there are places that are affordable - just less desirable.

The heights are quite livable and an easy commute, although the A train doesn't run that often late at night and you're unlikely to get friends to shlep up there for a visit
Harlem has a bad rep and some people feel uncomfortable in a black neighborhood
If you don't mind a more difficult commute, Chinatown and LES have affordable options as well
Don't go to Battery Park - what you save in rent money you'll more than make up for in cab fare

I have lived in metro DC for the last few years and live on the outskirts where it is cheaper. For what I paid here per month I can get far MORE in NYC with an easier commute.....

And, here is something else to think about, since I am a special snowflake myself but plan on PI that opens up one more biglaw spot for someone else..... heh

[EdgarWinter]

.

[dingbat]

You act like the people at Touro and NYLS are stupid (if they thought things through --> their choice would be better than Touro/NYLS). They're not. We're still talking about an elite group of (a) college graduates (b) who performed pretty well to well in undergrad and (c) outperformed at least half of LSAT takers (though in some cases, slightly less than half) who are also in the same group.

Lol. College is easy and so is (to a point) the LSAT. Speaking generally, even if most NYLS/Touro students do have above-average raw intelligence, they probably lack most other forms of sense and let's face it, the average isn't that high of a bar anyway. College students and people isolated in educated professions forget just how dull the masses really are. "Elite" is not a word I would use here.

Oh just so we're on topic both of OP's options will consign her to debt penury and are horrible ideas. Retake or find a new calling imo.

Not to mention, the 25-75 GPA range at Touro is 2.91-3.42 and the LSAT range is 148-153
At some colleges, just handing in the assignment guarantees a C.
It also appears that only about half of their students outperformed at least half of LSAT takers.

This year a non-URM with a 151/2.9 and a non-URM 144/3.3 got scholarship money (out of the small sample who have reported their scores to websites such as LSN)
It is entirely possible that someone with below average intelligence got through a high school that passes students based on attendance got into a college that doesn't have high standards and is able to get a semi-decent grades by taking easy classes and working a bit harder than everyone else, then taking the LSAT and scoring not too far below median partly by getting lucky (it is not inconceivable that someone could score in the 140s just by guessing every question) to get into touro.
While I think that the vast majority is of at least above average intelligence, the GPA/LSAT range for this school does not scream "elite" in any way shape or form. (and I'm going to ignore the URM boost, which has allowed a 147/2.63 to get scholly money)
Sorry, but my bar for elite is a lot higher than that

edit: I hope this doesn't come off as disparaging; I don't think everyone there is stupid, I just don't think the entry requirements are that hard to meet, so it is entirely possible for someone who is neither particularly smart nor particularly hard-working to get in there. Let's be nice and assume that that only applies to one or two out of the entire class.

[jenesaislaw]

How unbecoming.