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

[worldtraveler]

Please don't kill me, but just in case any prospectives take the op too seriously, don't actually make it clear to the law schools you're applying to that all you care about is placement and scholly money. That's great once you get in, but having that attitude shine through in an application is not going to get you into any reach schools. Law schools like applicants that take a particular interest in their school for reasons that go beyond placement percentages.

this is approx what I did. Did a "Why School" that mentioned specific things, and then asked for more money later in a way that made it clear that the money was basically the only thing I was interested in the other school for, but that the money was VERY IMPORTANT. It worked.

Oh yeah, definitely suck up while applying. It just gives you more leverage when it comes time to make decisions.

There's also nothing wrong with being legitimately interested in certain offerings at a school and getting excited about them. Those just aren't worth extra money though.

Really the opportunities at the top schools are all really similar anyway, and you have limited time in law school. You don't need 19 journals, 5 human rights clinics, study abroad on 4 continents, and classes on every aspect of international law. You will have time to do about 1/5 of that wherever you go.

[timbs4339]

Please don't kill me, but just in case any prospectives take the op too seriously, don't actually make it clear to the law schools you're applying to that all you care about is placement and scholly money. That's great once you get in, but having that attitude shine through in an application is not going to get you into any reach schools. Law schools like applicants that take a particular interest in their school for reasons that go beyond placement percentages.

this is approx what I did. Did a "Why School" that mentioned specific things, and then asked for more money later in a way that made it clear that the money was basically the only thing I was interested in the other school for, but that the money was VERY IMPORTANT. It worked.

Note that this is generally good advice for going into the workforce or changing jobs. Don't talk turkey until they bring it up first, but be firm.

[Blindmelon]

undue burden

Seriously? I hope I don't forget how to talk like a normal person one day.

[Paul Campos]

To keep raising tuition, law school administrators depend on maintaining a pretense. There are several elements to that pretense, but they include:

1) The pretense that the quality of education is materially different at any of the top 50 law schools;
2) The pretense that law schools are a major value-add to students beyond pedigree and sorting;
3) The pretense that legal scholarship has a materially positive impact on training lawyers for practice.

Law school administrators are not bad people. But they embrace this pretense and use it to justify raising tuition. The more people push back on these ideas, the harder it gets to maintain this pretense. The more people are willing to peel the veneer off the industry, the harder it gets to justify bigger faculty, more programs, etc.

178 (Some law school administrators actually are pretty bad people).

[quijotesca1011]

I'm not arguing that it's not a better choice to take a scholarship most of the time.

I'm arguing that OP's language is ridiculous. Reread the post:

"Whose fault is it? Yours."

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.

My point here is that OP is HIGHLY critical of people making the exact same choice he (or she?) made.

I don't think that was the OP's point at all. The point is that taking the scholly money is almost always a better idea than taking the animal law concentration. That if enough people followed the "TLS method" of picking law schools it would go a long way to fixing the system is just an added bonus. Nobody's demanding 0L sacrifice themselves on the altar of the profession.

And this is the first year that real tuition is actually going to decrease, thanks in part to the fact that students are being way more savvy with schollies. A few schools have posted large effective tuition cuts. There's still a long way to go but we've already come so far in the few years I've been around these parts. The word needs to get out to more people but we've reached a tipping point.

This was the point that came across in OP's post, because of it's language. If the point was simply, take a scholarship, there wouldn't be any reason to phrase it as quoted above. OP blamed people who choice not to take scholarships because of certain programs for the rising price of tuition. There's no way that relationship is so direct, especially not considering tuition at similar grad school programs are the same.

I'm not by any means saying someone should go to a law school because of a single journal, clinic, or even concentration. I completely understand the point that concentrations are irrelevant for the vast majority if not all of students and it is largely a marketing ploy. That said, I think OP's accusatory tone is simply not warranted.

[quijotesca1011]

I'm not arguing that it's not a better choice to take a scholarship most of the time.

I'm arguing that OP's language is ridiculous. Reread the post:

"Whose fault is it? Yours."
"you're ruining law school for everyone"
"Don't be part of the problem."

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.

My point here is that OP is HIGHLY critical of people making the exact same choice he (or she?) made. If it were phrased the way you phrase it, I wouldn't have any objection. Reread OP, it's not phrased like this. I'm not saying that the choice isn't different now in a different economy (it obviously is) but under the original model, OP is JUST as guilty of 'causing' higher law school prices as anyone who makes that decision today. So I think the condescending and accusatory tone is very out of place.

I don't think that was the OP's point at all. The point is that taking the scholly money is almost always a better idea than taking the animal law concentration. That if enough people followed the "TLS method" of picking law schools it would go a long way to fixing the system is just an added bonus. Nobody's demanding 0L sacrifice themselves on the altar of the profession.

And this is the first year that real tuition is actually going to decrease, thanks in part to the fact that students are being way more savvy with schollies. A few schools have posted large effective tuition cuts. There's still a long way to go but we've already come so far in the few years I've been around these parts. The word needs to get out to more people but we've reached a tipping point.

This was the point that came across in OP's post, because of it's language. If the point was simply, take a scholarship, there wouldn't be any reason to phrase it as quoted above. Again, regarding the bolded part, read the OP again. That's how it comes across, in my opinion. I'm just saying people have to make the decision they consider professionally correct for them, they don't have any responsibility to consider how it affects tuition structure, in my opinion. That's simply not an applicants responsibility. And TLS has no patience for the facts that OLs receive very different advice everywhere but here. I just think if the message were phrased differently it would be a lot more effective.

OP blamed people who choice not to take scholarships because of certain programs for the rising price of tuition. There's no way that relationship is so direct, especially not considering tuition at similar grad school programs are the same.

I'm not by any means saying someone should go to a law school because of a single journal, clinic, or even concentration. I completely understand the point that concentrations are irrelevant for the vast majority if not all of students and it is largely a marketing ploy. That said, I think OP's accusatory tone is simply not warranted.

[timbs4339]

I'm not arguing that it's not a better choice to take a scholarship most of the time.

I'm arguing that OP's language is ridiculous. Reread the post:

"Whose fault is it? Yours."
"you're ruining law school for everyone"
"Don't be part of the problem."

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.

My point here is that OP is HIGHLY critical of people making the exact same choice he (or she?) made. If it were phrased the way you phrase it, I wouldn't have any objection. Reread OP, it's not phrased like this. I'm not saying that the choice isn't different now in a different economy (it obviously is) but under the original model, OP is JUST as guilty of 'causing' higher law school prices as anyone who makes that decision today. So I think the condescending and accusatory tone is very out of place.

I don't think that was the OP's point at all. The point is that taking the scholly money is almost always a better idea than taking the animal law concentration. That if enough people followed the "TLS method" of picking law schools it would go a long way to fixing the system is just an added bonus. Nobody's demanding 0L sacrifice themselves on the altar of the profession.

And this is the first year that real tuition is actually going to decrease, thanks in part to the fact that students are being way more savvy with schollies. A few schools have posted large effective tuition cuts. There's still a long way to go but we've already come so far in the few years I've been around these parts. The word needs to get out to more people but we've reached a tipping point.

This was the point that came across in OP's post, because of it's language. If the point was simply, take a scholarship, there wouldn't be any reason to phrase it as quoted above. OP blamed people who choice not to take scholarships because of certain programs for the rising price of tuition. There's no way that relationship is so direct, especially not considering tuition at similar grad school programs are the same.

I'm not by any means saying someone should go to a law school because of a single journal, clinic, or even concentration. I completely understand the point that concentrations are irrelevant for the vast majority if not all of students and it is largely a marketing ploy. That said, I think OP's accusatory tone is simply not warranted.

Well the OP makes both points and he's right on both. People are stupid about higher ed (because they truly want to believe in the sunshine and rainbows) and if people were less attuned to the marketing pitches and more to cost/job stats tuition would be lower. Now it's hard to blame them if it's the only reasonable choice under the circumstances. For example, it's hard to blame an individual for going to college since however bad the job market is for BAs it's a lot worse for non-BAs, even if we'd be better off if fewer people went to college. But here it's not even a reasonable choice.

Have you spent a lot of time on this forum? Eventually the way people refuse to confront their biases and continue to parrot the common wisdom gets frustrating. People with absolutely no experience will spend three pages arguing that TTT Law School's #3 international law ranking must mean that there are a ton of jobs in international law when you can't tell them any more plainly that no, there aren't a lot of jobs in international law and no, the #3 specialty ranking has nothing to do with how competitive the school is for those jobs.

[DELG]

lol @ people inferring that rayiner had any choice but sticker at NU. He didn't exactly have full rides to turn down no matter how enticing Northwestern's death row clinic stuff is.

[A. Nony Mouse]

My point here is that OP is HIGHLY critical of people making the exact same choice he (or she?) made.

How does this invalidate his argument? He's now acknowledging that there are problems with that choice. And he's also explained what factors were different when he was making the choice (in particular, what information is available now that wasn't available then).

[09042014]

lol @ people inferring that rayiner had any choice but sticker at NU. He didn't exactly have full rides to turn down no matter how enticing Northwestern's death row clinic stuff is.

Not having a choice isn't a good excuse. It's still a shitty bet these days.

However, learning from a mistake can make someone a great person to listen to.

I paid sticker at northwestern. I got biglaw, and I don't hate it that badly. It was still a stupid choice. Discounting my opinion because I did it is retarded. If you think that way, you'll pay stick, be at the bottom of your class, and die a poor loser.

[quijotesca1011]

Have you spent a lot of time on this forum? Eventually the way people refuse to confront their biases and continue to parrot the common wisdom gets frustrating. People with absolutely no experience will spend three pages arguing that TTT Law School's #3 international law ranking must mean that there are a ton of jobs in international law when you can't tell them any more plainly that no, there aren't a lot of jobs in international law and no, the #3 specialty ranking has nothing to do with how competitive the school is for those jobs.

Again, I was not trying to say that the ideas that a) a scholarship is usually the best decision and b) concentrations are not what they are hyped up to be are at all wrong. i actually don't think I was parroting any wisdom at all (I certainly wasn't saying people should take a law school because of some random concentration over a another school with a scholarship). And I certainly don't believe in international law rankings, nor in making your decision based on a particular clinic, journal, class, professor, etc. I think I've made both of those points several times. I'm arguing that the idea of blaming entering students for the tuition crisis is kind of ridiculous, and that a few people choosing to take scholarships over other schools and making bitter phone calls to whatever school they turn down probably isn't going to bring around an overhaul to the system. I object to the idea that people who make their own personal choice (whether you agree with it or not) are "ruining it for everyone". It's their choice. And just as OP decided it was the right choice for him/her, and it was NOT (in my opinion) his/her fault that tuition is where it is today, so too does an entering 1L get to make their own choice (and it's ridiculous to say, 'tuition prices are your fault')

[DELG]

lol @ people inferring that rayiner had any choice but sticker at NU. He didn't exactly have full rides to turn down no matter how enticing Northwestern's death row clinic stuff is.

Not having a choice isn't a good excuse. It's still a shitty bet these days.

However, learning from a mistake can make someone a great person to listen to.

I paid sticker at northwestern. I got biglaw, and I don't hate it that badly. It was still a stupid choice. Discounting my opinion because I did it is retarded. If you think that way, you'll pay stick, be at the bottom of your class, and die a poor loser.

If you had it to do again, what would you do?

[timbs4339]

Have you spent a lot of time on this forum? Eventually the way people refuse to confront their biases and continue to parrot the common wisdom gets frustrating. People with absolutely no experience will spend three pages arguing that TTT Law School's #3 international law ranking must mean that there are a ton of jobs in international law when you can't tell them any more plainly that no, there aren't a lot of jobs in international law and no, the #3 specialty ranking has nothing to do with how competitive the school is for those jobs.

Again, I was not trying to say that the ideas that a) a scholarship is usually the best decision and b) concentrations are not what they are hyped up to be are at all wrong. i actually don't think I was parroting any wisdom at all (I certainly wasn't saying people should take a law school because of some random concentration over a another school with a scholarship). And I certainly don't believe in international law rankings, nor in making your decision based on a particular clinic, journal, class, professor, etc. I think I've made both of those points several times. I'm arguing that the idea of blaming entering students for the tuition crisis is kind of ridiculous, and that a few people choosing to take scholarships over other schools and making bitter phone calls to whatever school they turn down probably isn't going to bring around an overhaul to the system. I object to the idea that people who make their own personal choice (whether you agree with it or not) are "ruining it for everyone". It's their choice. And just as OP decided it was the right choice for him/her, and it was NOT (in my opinion) his/her fault that tuition is where it is today, so too does an entering 1L get to make their own choice (and it's ridiculous to say, 'tuition prices are your fault')

I'm not sure what your point is. You do accept that people can make personal choices that have effects on other people, right? If I come to your party and drink all the wine, it's my fault that there's no wine, even though it's my personal choice to drink your wine. If 20 people are at the party, and 5 of them each drink 1/5 of the wine even though they're told there's only enough wine for everyone to have one glass, same result (esp. if you're told drinking too much wine will make you sick).

The OP's point is not that a single person has such an overwhelming effect on the system that if that person decided not to listen to school marketing pitches the system will be saved. But it's true that acting in aggregate, a bunch of bad choices made by a significant number of people can cause problems for everyone, and that if everybody woke up tomorrow and did what the OP said, tuition costs would go down, like they are going down now. Now it's certainly true that it was impossible for a lot of current students and grads to make better choices because they didn't have access to relevant information or people to tell them they were being stupid, but that's a different argument.

[TooOld4This]

I'm not arguing that it's not a better choice to take a scholarship most of the time.

I'm arguing that OP's language is ridiculous. Reread the post:

"Whose fault is it? Yours."
"you're ruining law school for everyone"
"Don't be part of the problem."

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.

My point here is that OP is HIGHLY critical of people making the exact same choice he (or she?) made. If it were phrased the way you phrase it, I wouldn't have any objection. Reread OP, it's not phrased like this. I'm not saying that the choice isn't different now in a different economy (it obviously is) but under the original model, OP is JUST as guilty of 'causing' higher law school prices as anyone who makes that decision today. So I think the condescending and accusatory tone is very out of place.

I don't think that was the OP's point at all. The point is that taking the scholly money is almost always a better idea than taking the animal law concentration. That if enough people followed the "TLS method" of picking law schools it would go a long way to fixing the system is just an added bonus. Nobody's demanding 0L sacrifice themselves on the altar of the profession.

And this is the first year that real tuition is actually going to decrease, thanks in part to the fact that students are being way more savvy with schollies. A few schools have posted large effective tuition cuts. There's still a long way to go but we've already come so far in the few years I've been around these parts. The word needs to get out to more people but we've reached a tipping point.

This was the point that came across in OP's post, because of it's language. If the point was simply, take a scholarship, there wouldn't be any reason to phrase it as quoted above. Again, regarding the bolded part, read the OP again. That's how it comes across, in my opinion. I'm just saying people have to make the decision they consider professionally correct for them, they don't have any responsibility to consider how it affects tuition structure, in my opinion. That's simply not an applicants responsibility. And TLS has no patience for the facts that OLs receive very different advice everywhere but here. I just think if the message were phrased differently it would be a lot more effective.

OP blamed people who choice not to take scholarships because of certain programs for the rising price of tuition. There's no way that relationship is so direct, especially not considering tuition at similar grad school programs are the same.

I'm not by any means saying someone should go to a law school because of a single journal, clinic, or even concentration. I completely understand the point that concentrations are irrelevant for the vast majority if not all of students and it is largely a marketing ploy. That said, I think OP's accusatory tone is simply not warranted.

Wow. Way to run from personal responsibility in a most bizarre fashion.

If you choose a more expensive peer school over a less expensive peer school, you are part of the problem. If you choose to pay sticker at a school, you are part of the problem. Abstaining from making these decisions may not fix the problem, but you won't be contributing to it.

Now you might want to argue that soaring tuition isn't a problem, but that's a different argument. If people won't pay the price on the table, the price will come down. Scholarships increased when individuals with high grades/LSAT balked at sticker and application numbers dropped.

You don't have to care that you are part of the problem. But the OP made two points: the willingness of people to pay more for law school is the reason tuition is so high and the reasons many people think it is "worth it" to pay more are very often stupid.

[09042014]

lol @ people inferring that rayiner had any choice but sticker at NU. He didn't exactly have full rides to turn down no matter how enticing Northwestern's death row clinic stuff is.

Not having a choice isn't a good excuse. It's still a shitty bet these days.

However, learning from a mistake can make someone a great person to listen to.

I paid sticker at northwestern. I got biglaw, and I don't hate it that badly. It was still a stupid choice. Discounting my opinion because I did it is retarded. If you think that way, you'll pay stick, be at the bottom of your class, and die a poor loser.

If you had it to do again, what would you do?

Networked with startups in the chicago area and gotten a job at one.

[DELG]

lol @ people inferring that rayiner had any choice but sticker at NU. He didn't exactly have full rides to turn down no matter how enticing Northwestern's death row clinic stuff is.

Not having a choice isn't a good excuse. It's still a shitty bet these days.

However, learning from a mistake can make someone a great person to listen to.

I paid sticker at northwestern. I got biglaw, and I don't hate it that badly. It was still a stupid choice. Discounting my opinion because I did it is retarded. If you think that way, you'll pay stick, be at the bottom of your class, and die a poor loser.

If you had it to do again, what would you do?

Networked with startups in the chicago area and gotten a job at one.

If I had it to do all over again, I'd do it all over again.

[09042014]

Not having a choice isn't a good excuse. It's still a shitty bet these days.

However, learning from a mistake can make someone a great person to listen to.

I paid sticker at northwestern. I got biglaw, and I don't hate it that badly. It was still a stupid choice. Discounting my opinion because I did it is retarded. If you think that way, you'll pay stick, be at the bottom of your class, and die a poor loser.

If you had it to do again, what would you do?

Networked with startups in the chicago area and gotten a job at one.

If I had it to do all over again, I'd do it all over again.

Give it two weeks.

[DELG]

Nah I am actually having a really bad week. A partner had a midlevel tell me off for reminding him of a deadline not in the gentle touchy feely way he wanted.

[ymmv]

lol @ people inferring that rayiner had any choice but sticker at NU. He didn't exactly have full rides to turn down no matter how enticing Northwestern's death row clinic stuff is.

Not having a choice isn't a good excuse. It's still a shitty bet these days.

However, learning from a mistake can make someone a great person to listen to.

I paid sticker at northwestern. I got biglaw, and I don't hate it that badly. It was still a stupid choice. Discounting my opinion because I did it is retarded. If you think that way, you'll pay stick, be at the bottom of your class, and die a poor loser.

If you had it to do again, what would you do?

Networked with startups in the chicago area and gotten a job at one.

Startups, too, can be a hellish work environment with the right/wrong bosses. And they come with the wonderful advantage of zero job security, crazy turnover rates, and the statistical likelihood that you will be applying for new jobs more often than a wannabe career clerk. Also typically pathetic pay (at long hours) for everyone but the software engineers and upper levels.

I don't know that biglaw's any better, but startups ain't necessarily a bed of roses.

[09042014]

Not having a choice isn't a good excuse. It's still a shitty bet these days.

However, learning from a mistake can make someone a great person to listen to.

I paid sticker at northwestern. I got biglaw, and I don't hate it that badly. It was still a stupid choice. Discounting my opinion because I did it is retarded. If you think that way, you'll pay stick, be at the bottom of your class, and die a poor loser.

If you had it to do again, what would you do?

Networked with startups in the chicago area and gotten a job at one.

Startups, too, can be a hellish work environment with the right/wrong bosses. And they come with the wonderful advantage of zero job security, crazy turnover rates, and the statistical likelihood that you will be applying for new jobs more often than a wannabe career clerk. Also typically pathetic pay (at long hours) for everyone but the software engineers and upper levels.

I don't know that biglaw's any better, but startups ain't necessarily a bed of roses.

I'd do startups to rejumpstart my career. I kinda shitttracked myself. So I'd a chance to get relevant experience.

But even if the startup went bottom up, I could move back to my dads house with my money and have no debt. Right now I've got a quarter million dollars riding on keeping a job.

People used to say biglaw was golden handcuffs. But mine sure feel like iron chains.

[Pneumonia]

"Do as I say..." would apply if Ray/DF were 0L's telling everyone else not to go. As the matter stands the word for what they are providing is "advice." If you are incapable of either comprehending the difference or of recognizing that the occasional use of strong rhetoric does not invalidate a person's point, then for your own and everyone else's sake please, do as I say rather than as I do and do not attend law school.

[rad lulz]

.

[quijotesca1011]

"Don't do meth kids, I did it and I lost my teeth and all my friends and now I'm broke and homeless"

"Well I want to do meth. You did meth so your argument is invalid"

Makes sense

Again, not what I was saying.

I think it's great if OP comes back and offers the opinion, 'kids, don't do meth, it's bad for you and will potentially ruin your life.' (although meth is a bad metaphor in that law school doesn't exactly go disastrously for everyone. But I don't have an issue with people coming back and telling horror stories, I think it really helps us to make informed decisions).

I'm objecting to OP coming back and saying 'kids, you are evil for doing meth, and the whole drug industry is your fault,' with a condescending and blaming tone that doesn't mention that, 'oh, I made that same decision and I guess I should take some of the blame' (not really a great metaphor in my opinion. personally I don't think it's exactly the equivalent to pay full tuition and thus contribute (in an extremely minor way) to the increase in tuition, and to buy illegal drugs. But trying to work with the metaphor).

[NYSprague]

"Don't do meth kids, I did it and I lost my teeth and all my friends and now I'm broke and homeless"

"Well I want to do meth. You did meth so your argument is invalid"

Makes sense

Again, not what I was saying.

I think it's great if OP comes back and offers the opinion, 'kids, don't do meth, it's bad for you and will potentially ruin your life.' (although meth is a bad metaphor in that law school doesn't exactly go disastrously for everyone. But I don't have an issue with people coming back and telling horror stories, I think it really helps us to make informed decisions).

I'm objecting to OP coming back and saying 'kids, you are evil for doing meth, and the whole drug industry is your fault,' with a condescending and blaming tone that doesn't mention that, 'oh, I made that same decision and I guess I should take some of the blame' (not really a great metaphor in my opinion. personally I don't think it's exactly the equivalent to pay full tuition and thus contribute (in an extremely minor way) to the increase in tuition, and to buy illegal drugs. But trying to work with the metaphor).

Please give it a rest. You are really annoying.

[Pneumonia]

incapable of recognizing that the occasional use of strong rhetoric does not invalidate a person's point