Baylor v St. Marys v Maryland Forum

[PepperJack]

Sincerely, what are these hundreds of thousands of applicants missing?

How does rent a center stay in business charging 3k for a tv that costs 800? They're uninformed and uneducated. In the end, it's about prestige. People see attorneys and think of every television show with attorneys. In the same way that every college athlete thinks they're going to the NFL. The difference here is that you're taking out six figure debt to ultimately make less than you do now.

Let's say you hustle for 5 years and work your way up to making 90k. You'll still have a butt ton of debt and have sacrificed an opportunity cost. In those 3 years at your current job you'd probably progress to 85-90k and have NO DEBT. Does "prestige" matter that much to you?

Not really a great analogy.

Rent 2 Own stays in business because of bad credit, and no savings. They sell stuff people need to live human life - beds, couches, etc. These things cost money. It's also potentially risky to buy furniture used in large cities. You might have a pee stained couch, bed bugs, etc. Tom figures he has his steady job, and if his luck breaks right, he'll pay it off in no sweat.

The Rent 2 Own people might be predatory to some, but they have the counterargument that they're giving people a life they could not otherwise afford. They're giving people a second chance.

I don't really see that counterargument for schools like these. They're not really giving people a second chance unless you say that by giving people who can't do well on standardized testing or in college a chance, they're in a sense giving them a second chance. The fact is they are preying upon the weakness of American education. "You can be anything you want to be... all you need is a dream. You're special, you're special, you're special. No writing in red, because that's too offensive. Only give children A's or A+'s." Being trained to think like this, even if the average person knew they only had a 10% chance at success they'd still take it they would still take it.

In Call To The Wild, Jack London introduces the teenage protagonist by noting that he recognizes the odds of surviving the Alaskan wilderness during the winter gold rush are only 1:9. He confidently declares to himself that he will be that 1. The character's tragic flaw is his overconfidence, and his desire to change his family's lives by finding gold. In a lot of ways, Call To The Wild could be retitled Call To St. Mary's, and it would have the same dramatic impact.

[cron1834]

PJ, what are you talking about dude? It's a great analogy. Both sell people crap that is worth much less than they end up charging, and debts accumulate over time. How is that not apt? Particularly when bizzike mentioned a TV (not exactly a bio-necessity). Both are predatory.

[BigZuck]

Sincerely, what are these hundreds of thousands of applicants missing?

How does rent a center stay in business charging 3k for a tv that costs 800? They're uninformed and uneducated. In the end, it's about prestige. People see attorneys and think of every television show with attorneys. In the same way that every college athlete thinks they're going to the NFL. The difference here is that you're taking out six figure debt to ultimately make less than you do now.

Let's say you hustle for 5 years and work your way up to making 90k. You'll still have a butt ton of debt and have sacrificed an opportunity cost. In those 3 years at your current job you'd probably progress to 85-90k and have NO DEBT. Does "prestige" matter that much to you?

Not really a great analogy.

Rent 2 Own stays in business because of bad credit, and no savings. They sell stuff people need to live human life - beds, couches, etc. These things cost money. It's also potentially risky to buy furniture used in large cities. You might have a pee stained couch, bed bugs, etc. Tom figures he has his steady job, and if his luck breaks right, he'll pay it off in no sweat.

The Rent 2 Own people might be predatory to some, but they have the counterargument that they're giving people a life they could not otherwise afford. They're giving people a second chance.

I don't really see that counterargument for schools like these. They're not really giving people a second chance unless you say that by giving people who can't do well on standardized testing or in college a chance, they're in a sense giving them a second chance. The fact is they are preying upon the weakness of American education. "You can be anything you want to be... all you need is a dream. You're special, you're special, you're special. No writing in red, because that's too offensive. Only give children A's or A+'s." Being trained to think like this, even if the average person knew they only had a 10% chance at success they'd still take it they would still take it.

In Call To The Wild, Jack London introduces the teenage protagonist by noting that he recognizes the odds of surviving the Alaskan wilderness during the winter gold rush are only 1:9. He confidently declares to himself that he will be that 1. The character's tragic flaw is his overconfidence, and his desire to change his family's lives by finding gold. In a lot of ways, Call To The Wild could be retitled Call To St. Mary's, and it would have the same dramatic impact.

*of*

I think it's a fair analogy too

[TheSpanishMain]

OP, you need to ask what's more important to you: being a lawyer or not retaking the LSAT. There may just be no way to find a decent school at a decent price with those numbers. Your GPA is your GPA. No point worrying about it now. There are, though, good schools that will take a chance on splitters, or you could get some money from Baylor/UH.

Also, did you mean to say UT and GMU? Because Texas is a very solid school, particularly if you want to work in Texas. GMU is a very, very mediocre school that gets overshadowed by Georgetown/George Washington. Just curious as to why you seem to have zeroed in on George Mason as a peer to Texas.

[A-Train]

I'm verbose but I don't know why people think my posting is a flame?! That is not the case - I am just a flustered applicant! Thanks again for all the good info here.

I am going to apply to PT UH, and also their MBA as a backup. The money for the PT UH is a non-issue, and I wouldn't care about sticker there. Thoughts on that?

If I don't get into UH PT, I will either start on the MBA and/or retake the LSAT. I really do not want to retake, but I think the point is well made that even if the school I apply at next year is not a dramatic improvement, the money that could be earned via scholarships from busting my ass to go up 5-10 points on the LSAT would be well worth the time investment.

Baylor was my worst case semi-respectable backup, and somehow it went from there to my first choice. I think during this whole application process, I've lost some perspective in the shuffle. Making a $100k mistake would be a life changing devastation regardless of the school. At this juncture, I almost feel as though there is no reason to have a backup unless its quite proud/elite (to quantify, any school is the top 10-20 range is solid for me).

Anyway, I have some older friends back east that are midlaw, and they recruit from GMU. I could have a job waiting. There are things logistically that make GMU a lock winner, even though I am quite clear that it GMU is not on par with UT. That was probably a bad thing to throw out there without any back story.

I welcome any more thoughts on my process. The dialog has been helpful, as most people that think of law school (outside of applicants/lawyers/school marketing folks) simply view the end product "prestige" not the nuts and bolts and big decisions along the way.

[TheSpanishMain]

I am going to apply to PT UH, and also their MBA as a backup. The money for the PT UH is a non-issue, and I wouldn't care about sticker there. Thoughts on that?

Um, why? My first thought is "that's dumb." Are you saying that UH is so amazing that sticker is a good investment? Because it's not. I wouldn't do UT at sticker, either, and it's much better than UH. I'm of the opinion that basically no school, including Yale, is really ever worth sticker in light of other options that someone is likely to have. UH is a decent school, sure, but not at that price. (This is assuming that going PT would still involve a substantial amount of loans. If you can cover your expenses, or the vast majority of them by working during the day, then go nuts.)

At this juncture, I almost feel as though there is no reason to have a backup unless its quite proud/elite (to quantify, any school is the top 10-20 range is solid for me).

I think you need to let go of this "proud/elite" thing, especially when it's based around the USNWR. It's all about jobs and cost and location. The top 14 schools are all going to have some degree of national mobility, but 15-20 are just really good regional schools. If you want Texas, you'd be dumb to pick Georgetown at sticker over Texas with instate tuition and money, despite the fact that Georgetown is slightly higher ranked.