Cornell vs. Georgetown Forum

[rayiner]

I am more than happy with my options as they stand right now, no need to take an expensive test just to get no money at a different school!

First, 167 is the worst LSAT score. Its right at the line where a few more points will mean life-changing differences in options. Second, stop with this "happy with my options" bullshit. That's for people who can't change their circumstances. You, however can get $100k by retaking one test. Third, the "expensive test" bit made me laugh. Its like $200. You know what's expensive? The 6-8 1L exams you'll pay $40k to take. You can't retake those suckers, nosiree.

The LSAT is the only high-stakes life event that allows mulligans. 1L GPA doesn't. 2L OCI doesn't. Certainly, six figure debt doesn't. Only with the LSAT can you take another bite at the apple, but 0L's reflexively choose not to justifying their actions with "I'm happy with my score" which is the type of bullshit you tell people who just have to accept the hand they're dealt in life.

[kek5250]

I know the year of lost biglaw salary is a consideration against the retake, but you could decrease law school debt by 100k, or almost with a good enough score. Also there is the possibility of not obtaining biglaw and the less debt the better. Statistically, it's more or less 35-40% at Cornell, although that's a non-negligible percentage.

Keep in mind here that my debt isn't exactly real debt. My parents have made it very clear that if I happen to get a non big law job that they are willing to be very flexible about their terms. Also, they have offered to fund 1/3 without being reimbursed. So really I have 2/3 of my tuition, 120k, accounted for right this second at Cornell without even thinking about debt. Could it be more? Obviously. But it seems to me as though taking a year off to work as a bartender at Hooters (literally that is my only job offer right now, not even kidding) isn't going to get me anywhere.

[metroidbum]

.

[kek5250]

I am more than happy with my options as they stand right now, no need to take an expensive test just to get no money at a different school!

First, 167 is the worst LSAT score. Its right at the line where a few more points will mean life-changing differences in options. Second, stop with this "happy with my options" bullshit. That's for people who can't change their circumstances. You, however can get $100k by retaking one test. Third, the "expensive test" bit made me laugh. Its like $200. You know what's expensive? The 6-8 1L exams you'll pay $40k to take. You can't retake those suckers, nosiree.

The LSAT is the only high-stakes life event that allows mulligans. 1L GPA doesn't. 2L OCI doesn't. Certainly, six figure debt doesn't. Only with the LSAT can you take another bite at the apple, but 0L's reflexively choose not to justifying their actions with "I'm happy with my score" which is the type of bullshit you tell people who just have to accept the hand they're dealt in life.

Well someone is angry!

Again, the test itself is obviously not expensive. To clarify, I will once again say that the cost of the year off is the expensive bit. Not enough earning potential, a lot of wasted time.

I scored a 167, and I am happy with Georgetown or Cornell! no need to tell me what I ought or ought not to be happy with. I've been experiencing emotions for quite some time now without too many problems!

I agree that 167 is an awkward middle ground, though. I took 50 tests and never passed it. No point in taking in June, because I have no prep time, and taking a year off is not an option. Again. Getting dizzy from talking in circles.

[kek5250]

Yeah I studied for months, hired a private tutor who got perfect scores on the LSAT, MCAT, and GRE, studied for at least 4 hours a day, and took about 50 practice tests along with hundreds of pages of drills by question type. No way am I taking the June LSAT with no prep and no way am I taking a year off. Not happening. I absolutely will not perform as well the second time around.

Well, if all that is true then it sounds like it may in fact be hard for you to improve. But in light of the massive amount of debt in comparison to the relatively much cheaper opportunity cost of retaking, it is still something you should consider. Again, I was in your exact same shoes. I had a 3.8X and a 166 coming out of my first take, and was looking at maybe a few lower T14 acceptances, with a little $ if I was lucky. I retook and scored high enough that my options ultimately included Harvard and two of CCN with half rides, in addition to several lower T14s with $$$. For such small investment, you could reap HUGE rewards, in terms of less debt and far superior job opportunities.

You're suggesting taking a year off to carry pizzas? Taking a year now to do something meaningless and irrelevant, when I worked during school for years doing just that, seems hardly worth putting off a decent salary I could have after school is over. It's not about the studying, I actually really like studying (don't we all?!) it's more about the time and the cost of waiting. It seems silly to put off a potential big law salary to make drops in the bucket, especially since I am very very sure I maxed out my score. I could not have studied harder than I did without having a stroke.

I appreciate everyone's input, but if your input is "retake", please don't bother! I'm really looking to compare the two schools and that is all.

Obviously you should try to get more substantive and high paying work; paralegal is ideal if you can get it, since it is two years, will pay an actual salary (even if it is only 20-30k) and gives you a close look at legal work, helping you decide what kind of legal work you want to do or if you even want to do legal work at all.

But in lieu of that, doing ANY type of job for a year (even bartender at hooters) will improve your prospects, both in the context of an improved retake AND in terms of better acceptances when you reapply AND better prospects when you go to OCI. It isn't about the money you make in your gap year(s) at all. You can spin almost any job experience into a learning/growth opportunity in an interview if you are skillful about it.

Part of my issue here with taking a year off is that it just means spinning my wheels for a year for a chance at something better. Let's say for the sake of argument that I did max out at 167. (Really the highest I ever scored on all of the practice tests I took was a 168) So I say, "self, let's take it again!", take a year off, prep like mad again, and score equal or even less. Then I have a year of my life working a job I didn't want, with exactly nothing to show for it that I don't already have. I've worked plenty of crappy jobs by now during school, been peed on on more than one occasion! (Quick, drunk or little kid?!?) I just don't see why, if I am 98% certain I have maxed out, I should waste a year of my life. It is not worth that 2% to me.


Edit: pressed submit too soon, wanted to say thank you for the thoughtful response and I really do appreciate it!

[Elston Gunn]

Just go to Cornell. The other posters should save their Retake energy for someone whose parents aren't bankrolling.

[Otunga]

I know the year of lost biglaw salary is a consideration against the retake, but you could decrease law school debt by 100k, or almost with a good enough score. Also there is the possibility of not obtaining biglaw and the less debt the better. Statistically, it's more or less 35-40% at Cornell, although that's a non-negligible percentage.

Keep in mind here that my debt isn't exactly real debt. My parents have made it very clear that if I happen to get a non big law job that they are willing to be very flexible about their terms. Also, they have offered to fund 1/3 without being reimbursed. So really I have 2/3 of my tuition, 120k, accounted for right this second at Cornell without even thinking about debt. Could it be more? Obviously. But it seems to me as though taking a year off to work as a bartender at Hooters (literally that is my only job offer right now, not even kidding) isn't going to get me anywhere.

That puts you in a better spot than if it were gov loans. If you aren't biglaw or bust, then go to Cornell since you're looking at a 80% probability that you get a JD-required job. If you are interested in biglaw or something else prestigious, then I would say to retake for that reason alone. With a lenient loan balance, HYS would be amazing.

[kek5250]

I know the year of lost biglaw salary is a consideration against the retake, but you could decrease law school debt by 100k, or almost with a good enough score. Also there is the possibility of not obtaining biglaw and the less debt the better. Statistically, it's more or less 35-40% at Cornell, although that's a non-negligible percentage.

Keep in mind here that my debt isn't exactly real debt. My parents have made it very clear that if I happen to get a non big law job that they are willing to be very flexible about their terms. Also, they have offered to fund 1/3 without being reimbursed. So really I have 2/3 of my tuition, 120k, accounted for right this second at Cornell without even thinking about debt. Could it be more? Obviously. But it seems to me as though taking a year off to work as a bartender at Hooters (literally that is my only job offer right now, not even kidding) isn't going to get me anywhere.

That puts you in a better spot than if it were gov loans. If you aren't biglaw or bust, then go to Cornell since you're looking at a 80% probability that you get a JD-required job. If you are interested in biglaw or something else prestigious, then I would say to retake for that reason alone. With a lenient loan balance, HYS would be amazing.

Well yes that would be amazing, wouldn't it? Not really possible though even if I took a year off and did better! 3.8 is kinda just ok.

I'm not really looking to do anything too prestigious, I'd just like to make a solid living and maybe send my parents on vacation sometimes. Perhaps that's setting the bar a bit low? But really, right now I want to keep my options as open as I can and see where life takes me!

[cron1834]

This thread went from "loans" to "rich parents" pretty quickly ...

Just go to Cornell if your parents will really cover you in the event that you strike out. It obviously has better outcome %s than GULC, unless you want some obscure DC-PI connection.

[Lincoln]

you should be able to get a cheaper apartment next year if you sign your lease in october like everyone else on campus. the ithaca rent cycle is nuts.

That's really helpful, thank you! Where do you suggest looking? Any ideas?

Anywhere besides wherever you found a tiny $1400 studio. My studio is $400 less and right by the law school.

I paid $530/month last year in Ithaca for sharing an apt nicer than anything I've lived in since I moved out of my mom's house. It was "far" from campus, meaning it took me 12 minutes to walk home.

[riverwater]

.

[kek5250]

you should be able to get a cheaper apartment next year if you sign your lease in october like everyone else on campus. the ithaca rent cycle is nuts.

That's really helpful, thank you! Where do you suggest looking? Any ideas?

Anywhere besides wherever you found a tiny $1400 studio. My studio is $400 less and right by the law school.

I paid $530/month last year in Ithaca for sharing an apt nicer than anything I've lived in since I moved out of my mom's house. It was "far" from campus, meaning it took me 12 minutes to walk home.

Haha 12 minutes is pretty great! I'd love to hear how you found housing, do you on mind if I PM you about it?

If your family is serious about you paying them back, you should retake and get a better lsat score.

You should retake. I had almost identical numbers to you after my first take, and retaking vastly improved my position.

That being said, of these two options, Cornell is the easy pick.

Check your pretension, guys! So many people on this site need serious doses of reality about this "when to retake" nonsense! I will not be retaking. I'm in at two great schools, this is hardly a terrible position that I'm in! I am more than happy with my options as they stand right now, no need to take an expensive test just to get no money at a different school! Metriodbum, I appreciate the input on the final outcome though, rather than a snarky comment with no value whatsoever.

I don't think I said anything wrong. It just seemed like you could save your parents (or yourself) a lot more money. See you at Cornell.

Ah I understand slightly better now. The implication seemed to be that no one going to either of those schools was capable of repaying their debts, so I should retake and do better or not bother at all. Sorry for any misunderstanding, and I'll see you there. (Obviously if you're there you felt it was worth it, mind going into why?)

[Lincoln]

Haha 12 minutes is pretty great! I'd love to hear how you found housing, do you on mind if I PM you about it?

PM away. Happy to answer any Cornell-related questions to the extent I can and have the time. Lavitz is a current student, so he'll be a good resource, too.

[lecsa]

I took the LSAT once and wish I had retaken for more $$$. That said, if I were in your position (parents willing to pay sticker) I wouldn't go to law school in the first place. Maybe you can use their money for something more interesting.

[riverwater]

.

[kek5250]

That said, if I were in your position
(parents willing to pay sticker) I wouldn't go to
law school in the first place. Maybe you can use
their money for something more interesting.

Now this is a snarky comment with no value whatsoever.

No, dude, I'm pretty sure Confucius said that.

(pantiesinabunch. hilarious.)

[BigZuck]

OP- Go wherever makes you happy. While I think I speak for TLS when I say that we don't believe you actually worked as hard on the LSAT as you claim to have worked (and we definitely don't agree with you that you have maxed out your potential), we all recognize the sweetness of the teet that you get to suckle upon if law school doesn't work out for you. Because of that sweet teet the usual risk vs reward weighing that us normal humans have to do doesn't apply to you. You're also obstinate and lazy, which are not good combinations when it comes to someone who should retake- objectively speaking- but who does not want to do so.

YOLO friend, choose whichever school feels right to you and leave this site in your rearview mirror.

[Nebby]

What's with all these rich parent threads lately

[riverwater]

.

[unc0mm0n1]

Just go to Cornell. The other posters should save their Retake energy for someone whose parents aren't bankrolling.

I was on the retake bandwagon, but he has rich parents who will catch him if he falls. Have fun in Ithaca.

P.s. I wish I had rich parents

[unc0mm0n1]

OP- Go wherever makes you happy. While I think I speak for TLS when I say that we don't believe you actually worked as hard on the LSAT as you claim to have worked (and we definitely don't agree with you that you have maxed out your potential), we all recognize the sweetness of the teet that you get to suckle upon if law school doesn't work out for you. Because of that sweet teet the usual risk vs reward weighing that us normal humans have to do doesn't apply to you. You're also obstinate and lazy, which are not good combinations when it comes to someone who should retake- objectively speaking- but who does not want to do so.

YOLO friend, choose whichever school feels right to you and leave this site in your rearview mirror.

I disagree with this. If what he says is true he worked harder than me and I think I worked my butt off. Some people just top out. I helped one girl study and for three months we'd spend on average 10-12 hrs a week plus the time she studied by herself so 20hrs-30hrs a week on just the LSAT. We did 25+ test where I acted like the moderator and we simulated test conditions. She ended up with a 163. Which was impressive since she started below 150. Some people do have a ceiling.

[rayiner]

I think everyone has a ceiling. But some people also plateau then improve once they try a different strategy. For a 167/3.8, there is potentially six figures riding on figuring out how to game a few more points.

The big thing to me is that people who don't retake seem to suffer from "test fatigue." They don't like the stress and pressure of a timed exam, and all the time they have to invest in figuring out how to game the exam. But guess what: law school exams are like that too. You can't grind your way to good grades in law school. You have to figure out how to deconstruct and game the exams.


Finally, "foregone income potential" is boomer bullshit. You'll go to school and flame out of big law in a few years, and it doesn't matter whether you start that process this year or next year. The goal for a law graduate is hitting that magic "zero net worth" and putting a year into the LSAT is a more productive way to do it than anything else, especially if you're a K-JD.

[unc0mm0n1]

I think everyone has a ceiling. But some people also plateau then improve once they try a different strategy. For a 167/3.8, there is potentially six figures riding on figuring out how to game a few more points.

The big thing to me is that people who don't retake seem to suffer from "test fatigue." They don't like the stress and pressure of a timed exam, and all the time they have to invest in figuring out how to game the exam. But guess what: law school exams are like that too. You can't grind your way to good grades in law school. You have to figure out how to deconstruct and game the exams.


Finally, "foregone income potential" is boomer bullshit. You'll go to school and flame out of big law in a few years, and it doesn't matter whether you start that process this year or next year. The goal for a law graduate is hitting that magic "zero net worth" and putting a year into the LSAT is a more productive way to do it than anything else, especially if you're a K-JD.

You're preaching to the choir. I just hate when people say "I got a 176 but you only got a 167 so you didn't try hard enough." Some people try extremely hard they just can't get much better scores. Though I will admit that I think the vast majority of people who claim they worked their butt off are lying, it's just hard for me to call out a specific person.

[FlanAl]

For housing you should have looked on craiglist, my apartment was on there for $700/m and its a great apartment. You must have done the college town terrace or whatever which is ridiculously convenient and there will be other law students in there but is also way too expensive for what you get.

ALSO, if your parents are fronting it you should 100% do the JD/MBA. A lot of firms will give you a bonus for having the MBA and it will help you punch above your grades when OCI comes.

[Otunga]

I think everyone has a ceiling. But some people also plateau then improve once they try a different strategy. For a 167/3.8, there is potentially six figures riding on figuring out how to game a few more points.

The big thing to me is that people who don't retake seem to suffer from "test fatigue." They don't like the stress and pressure of a timed exam, and all the time they have to invest in figuring out how to game the exam. But guess what: law school exams are like that too. You can't grind your way to good grades in law school. You have to figure out how to deconstruct and game the exams.


Finally, "foregone income potential" is boomer bullshit. You'll go to school and flame out of big law in a few years, and it doesn't matter whether you start that process this year or next year. The goal for a law graduate is hitting that magic "zero net worth" and putting a year into the LSAT is a more productive way to do it than anything else, especially if you're a K-JD.

The plateauing justification against a retake doesn't convince me. Even if you have good reason to believe you've more or less maxed out your potential, you could save 100k less by doing a little better than it. To use the OP for an example, OP's ceiling is 167 or 168, but if they perform slightly better than that for a 170+, their offer could go from 60k to 150k at Cornell, or perhaps to a Dillard at UVA. Maybe the test suits OP's strengths and they're on a hot streak during it. I mean - suppose there's a minor probability you score that 170+. I would choose that over a 100% probability that the debt level stays enormous.