Fordham vs. BC vs. UNC vs. Miami Forum

[HRomanus]

All options are equally bad, none make any sense. Also, your butthurt against TLS is very weird to me. Oh well.

OP, you're doing it wrong. If you want a break from real life go move to another country or something. Law school is not the time for a change of pace, especially given the state of the job market right now.

We post because we want to help OPs make better choices for law school. At the end of the day, we probably post because we care about these anonymous people and because we understand - abstractly or experientially - the crushing consequences of the wrong choices. Engaging OPs at their level - based on their questions and circumstances - will yield better results than a "retake lol" mantra.

If an OP offers four schools and can't decide between them, the retake advice is almost useless. Most people will not wait a year and will just reject the advice. Isn't it far better to respectfully offer the retake advice and then respectfully offer realistic and constructive advice about the choices they gave us? In this case, this OPs choices are not all universally bad and at least one of them can make sense if we explain the reality. Is OP from North Carolina? Then UNC is a rational choice - he has a (limited) opportunity for BigLaw and his average outcome (small-town NC lawyer) won't be miserable. But if we only told him to retake he might end up going to Fordham and lose big.

[Ngoblue2014]

Go to UNC, get instate residency for years 2/3 and have an awesome time in Chapel Hill. By far the best college town i have been to, and the weather is perfect

[BigZuck]

All options are equally bad, none make any sense. Also, your butthurt against TLS is very weird to me. Oh well.

OP, you're doing it wrong. If you want a break from real life go move to another country or something. Law school is not the time for a change of pace, especially given the state of the job market right now.

We post because we want to help OPs make better choices for law school. At the end of the day, we probably post because we care about these anonymous people and because we understand - abstractly or experientially - the crushing consequences of the wrong choices. Engaging OPs at their level - based on their questions and circumstances - will yield better results than a "retake lol" mantra.

If an OP offers four schools and can't decide between them, the retake advice is almost useless. Most people will not wait a year and will just reject the advice. Isn't it far better to respectfully offer the retake advice and then respectfully offer realistic and constructive advice about the choices they gave us? In this case, this OPs choices are not all universally bad and at least one of them can make sense if we explain the reality. Is OP from North Carolina? Then UNC is a rational choice - he has a (limited) opportunity for BigLaw and his average outcome (small-town NC lawyer) won't be miserable. But if we only told him to retake he might end up going to Fordham and lose big.

If someone asked me "I want to be a professional basketball player but I'm not going to practice basketball. So, which should I do: spend all my free time watching TV or playing video games?" I'm going to tell that person "Neither, you really should be working on your crossover dribble." I'm also not going to feel bad if he never makes it to the NBA, I gave it my best shot and if he's too dumb to realize he should have been working on his crossover that's on him.

I feel like there may be be some sort of cognitive impairment here though so I'll stop.

[HRomanus]

If someone asked me "I want to be a professional basketball player but I'm not going to practice basketball. So, which should I do: spend all my free time watching TV or playing video games?" I'm going to tell that person "Neither, you really should be working on your crossover dribble." I'm also not going to feel bad if he never makes it to the NBA, I gave it my best shot and if he's too dumb to realize he should have been working on his crossover that's on him.

I feel like there may be be some sort of cognitive impairment here though so I'll stop.

Inane comparrison, as 36.6% of Fordham grads make BigLaw.

[TheSpanishMain]

I do appreciate the input from dsamuels and Romanus.

Because they gave you advice you wanted to hear.

Look, I will acknowledge that Miami for free or UNC/BC/Fordham for 90k will probably not ruin your life. It's just not the best way to pursue your goals, and you could have options that WOULD give you a better chance to pursue your goals if you would just study for a stupid test. That's why the "LALALALA NOT RETAKING" is frustrating. It's like you're not serious about your own goals.

If your uncle is going to guarantee you a job in a location you want then go to Miami for free. If you have a guaranteed job, why are you even asking?

[HRomanus]

None give you a good enough shot at DC.
All are regionals.
Where do you want to practice?
Go there.

Where would I choose?
UNC - because I'm from the Carolinas.

I thought this was pretty realistic and good advice.

[Ngoblue2014]

Romanus: Bears fan from the Carolinas, who has a picture of Mark Trestman after a season basically the same as that which got Lovie Smith fired? You sir are an enigma haha

[Let It Roll]

I do appreciate the input from dsamuels and Romanus.

Extended family member runs a firm, not particularly as concerned about the legal job market - more concerned about where I'd receive the best education, which schools offer the best clinic/experiential programs, which is the most prestigious, etc.

Falling back on your extended family member to get you a job sounds like a bad idea. Are you absolutely positive this person can land you a job you'd be content with? If you want to work in DC, you should retake and try to get into georgetown or gwu with $$ or other regional schools that feed into DC with $$$. Going to these schools and expecting DC is not a good idea.

[HRomanus]

Romanus: Bears fan from the Carolinas, who has a picture of Mark Trestman after a season basically the same as that which got Lovie Smith fired? You sir are an enigma haha

In college, I dated a girl whose dad was a Bears fanatic. I hated football but learned about the team for conversation's sake. Though I eventually broke up with the girl, I had already become a fan - after all, the Panthers were crap. Now I'm the fanatic - by the way, Brandon Marshall tweeted at me today! The NFL is a great conversation piece, especially when my politics differ so much from my location in the Carolinas. I'd rather be known as the "Bears fan" than the "gay marriage supporter" or "Obama voter." The win column might have been the same, but the Bears were completely different under Trestman and I'm excited about the future.

What I love about Trestman is his analytical approach to the game. With TLS's emphasis on analytics and quantitative rationals, I figured Trestman was an appropriate avatar.

[Ngoblue2014]

glad to hear you're a Dem in the Carolinas, need about a million more haha yea they are a good team, I like the move locking up marshall and cutler, Jay takes way too much heat he's at least as good as Stafford (and has won a hell of a lot more big games, big 4th quarters) and nobody talks about Stafford being a 20 mil a year guy

[BigZuck]

If someone asked me "I want to be a professional basketball player but I'm not going to practice basketball. So, which should I do: spend all my free time watching TV or playing video games?" I'm going to tell that person "Neither, you really should be working on your crossover dribble." I'm also not going to feel bad if he never makes it to the NBA, I gave it my best shot and if he's too dumb to realize he should have been working on his crossover that's on him.

I feel like there may be be some sort of cognitive impairment here though so I'll stop.

Inane comparrison, as 36.6% of Fordham grads make BigLaw.

This is why I think either you or I have some serious cognition issues.

I don't see anything about the OP wanting big law, I do see "Not corporate law" which I interpreted as "not big law." I also see employment and personal injury law, which is small firm territory generally.

So what does Fordham's big law placement have to do with anything?

Before the OP told us (or implied?) that he had a job waiting for him once he graduated, he was asking about which school would help him get a small firm job in DC. And the answer is none. Small firm work is going to require some hustle, and being far away from where he would have to be hustling at schools that aren't well connected to small firms in that area makes no sense. And then racking up 90K debt to get a 40-60K job also isn't very smart. That's why multiple people told the OP that he was going about this the wrong way and he should refocus and do it right. The fact that he cares about stuff like prestige and education quality also implies he really doesn't know much about how this all works.

But of course the OP didn't give us all the information necessary as per usual.

[HRomanus]

This is why I think either you or I have some serious cognition issues.

I don't see anything about the OP wanting big law, I do see "Not corporate law" which I interpreted as "not big law." I also see employment and personal injury law, which is small firm territory generally.

So what does Fordham's big law placement have to do with anything?

Before the OP told us (or implied?) that he had a job waiting for him once he graduated, he was asking about which school would help him get a small firm job in DC. And the answer is none. Small firm work is going to require some hustle, and being far away from where he would have to be hustling at schools that aren't well connected to small firms in that area makes no sense. And then racking up 90K debt to get a 40-60K job also isn't very smart. That's why multiple people told the OP that he was going about this the wrong way and he should refocus and do it right. The fact that he cares about stuff like prestige and education quality also implies he really doesn't know much about how this all works.

But of course the OP didn't give us all the information necessary as per usual.

Oh. lol. I kinda zoned out of the OP after my first post and got on my preacher's box.

[rickgrimes69]

All options are equally bad, none make any sense. Also, your butthurt against TLS is very weird to me. Oh well.

OP, you're doing it wrong. If you want a break from real life go move to another country or something. Law school is not the time for a change of pace, especially given the state of the job market right now.

We post because we want to help OPs make better choices for law school.

Bro sometimes the best choice is "retake" or "don't go at all." I understand that you think you're being helpful but if you advise OP to make a bad decision than you're not being helpful. If the OP doesn't choose to listen to good advice that's their problem, but just because an OP only presents bad options doesn't mean we have to give bad advice.

[dsamuels]

All options are equally bad, none make any sense. Also, your butthurt against TLS is very weird to me. Oh well.

OP, you're doing it wrong. If you want a break from real life go move to another country or something. Law school is not the time for a change of pace, especially given the state of the job market right now.

We post because we want to help OPs make better choices for law school.

Bro sometimes the best choice is "retake" or "don't go at all." I understand that you think you're being helpful but if you advise OP to make a bad decision than you're not being helpful. If the OP doesn't choose to listen to good advice that's their problem, but just because an OP only presents bad options doesn't mean we have to give bad advice.

With that said. After we present them with the best advice (retake, choose other schools, dont go etc) which posters did give. We can help them choose the best of their bad options. Posters already gave good advice. BigZuck for example is dead on about the options being equally bad. So the next option would be to help him choose the best of these options if he chose to negate the advice that other posters gave. Thats all HRomanus and I were trying to do. Regardless, what we say he is making a decision on the schools he listed, might as well help him pick the best of those options with a disclaimer (i.e. that retaking, or not going would be the best options).

[rickgrimes69]

All options are equally bad, none make any sense. Also, your butthurt against TLS is very weird to me. Oh well.

OP, you're doing it wrong. If you want a break from real life go move to another country or something. Law school is not the time for a change of pace, especially given the state of the job market right now.

We post because we want to help OPs make better choices for law school.

Bro sometimes the best choice is "retake" or "don't go at all." I understand that you think you're being helpful but if you advise OP to make a bad decision than you're not being helpful. If the OP doesn't choose to listen to good advice that's their problem, but just because an OP only presents bad options doesn't mean we have to give bad advice.

With that said. After we present them with the best advice (retake, choose other schools, dont go etc) which posters did give. We can help them choose the best of their bad options. Posters already gave good advice. BigZuck for example is dead on about the options being equally bad. So the next option would be to help him choose the best of these options if he chose to negate the advice that other posters gave. Thats all HRomanus and I were trying to do. Regardless, what we say he is making a decision on the schools he listed, might as well help him pick the best of those options with a disclaimer (i.e. that retaking, or not going would be the best options).

No dude. If all the options are objectively bad, recommending one still means you're giving objectively bad advice.

When the OP presents 2 bad options and asks which is better, that's a false dichotomy - there is always the option of neither. Just because they don't present that option doesn't mean we have to ignore its existence.

TLS gets snarky with 0Ls because its incredibly arrogant to ask for advice but reject the advice you don't like. I mean, if they know the responses will be "retake" why even bother asking? This forum is called "choosing a law school" not "validate my bad decisions."

[NYC-WVU]

No dude. If all the options are objectively bad, recommending one still means you're giving objectively bad advice.

When the OP presents 2 bad options and asks which is better, that's a false dichotomy - there is always the option of neither. Just because they don't present that option doesn't mean we have to ignore its existence.

TLS gets snarky with 0Ls because its incredibly arrogant to ask for advice but reject the advice you don't like. I mean, if they know the responses will be "retake" why even bother asking? This forum is called "choosing a law school" not "validate my bad decisions."

You will have difficulty being a good lawyer, if you think that helping someone choose their best bad option is equivalent to "giving objectively bad advice." Good luck.

[rickgrimes69]

No dude. If all the options are objectively bad, recommending one still means you're giving objectively bad advice.

When the OP presents 2 bad options and asks which is better, that's a false dichotomy - there is always the option of neither. Just because they don't present that option doesn't mean we have to ignore its existence.

TLS gets snarky with 0Ls because its incredibly arrogant to ask for advice but reject the advice you don't like. I mean, if they know the responses will be "retake" why even bother asking? This forum is called "choosing a law school" not "validate my bad decisions."

You will have difficulty being a good lawyer, if you think that helping someone choose their best bad option is equivalent to "giving objectively bad advice." Good luck.

It's like you stopped reading after the first sentence

[NYC-WVU]

No dude. If all the options are objectively bad, recommending one still means you're giving objectively bad advice.

When the OP presents 2 bad options and asks which is better, that's a false dichotomy - there is always the option of neither. Just because they don't present that option doesn't mean we have to ignore its existence.

TLS gets snarky with 0Ls because its incredibly arrogant to ask for advice but reject the advice you don't like. I mean, if they know the responses will be "retake" why even bother asking? This forum is called "choosing a law school" not "validate my bad decisions."

You will have difficulty being a good lawyer, if you think that helping someone choose their best bad option is equivalent to "giving objectively bad advice." Good luck.

It's like you stopped reading after the first sentence

The idea that OP has more options than the ones presented is true, and a good point.

That doesn't make your first sentence any more true. You said that recommending an option when "all the options are objectively bad" "means you're giving objectively bad advice." Is that not what you meant?

[rickgrimes69]

No dude. If all the options are objectively bad, recommending one still means you're giving objectively bad advice.

When the OP presents 2 bad options and asks which is better, that's a false dichotomy - there is always the option of neither. Just because they don't present that option doesn't mean we have to ignore its existence.

TLS gets snarky with 0Ls because its incredibly arrogant to ask for advice but reject the advice you don't like. I mean, if they know the responses will be "retake" why even bother asking? This forum is called "choosing a law school" not "validate my bad decisions."

You will have difficulty being a good lawyer, if you think that helping someone choose their best bad option is equivalent to "giving objectively bad advice." Good luck.

It's like you stopped reading after the first sentence

The idea that OP has more options than the ones presented is true, and a good point.

That doesn't make your first sentence any more true. You said that recommending an option when "all the options are objectively bad" "means you're giving objectively bad advice." Is that not what you meant?

You're right I should have said "all the options presented by the OP"

sorta thought that was obvious given the context of the rest of my poast but ok

[HRomanus]

My point is that if the OP will only listen to advice which selects between bad alternatives, our best course is to identify the least-awful choice AND tell the OP he is better retaking and/or never going. Isn't that the best possible advice?

[dsamuels]

My point is that if the OP will only listen to advice which selects between bad alternatives, our best course is to identify the least-awful choice AND tell the OP he is better retaking and/or never going. Isn't that the best possible advice?

Yes it is. Apparently NYC-WVU and HRomanus, there are those that can not comprehend this simplistic topic and are going out of their way for no apparent reason but to claim that attempting to help the OP in other ways than telling them to retake or apply elsewhere is beneficial. The OP has already decided no to do the best two choices. That does not mean people can still not help him make the next best decision. This topic is no longer even trying to help the OP, and thats a shame. OP I hope you weigh your options and choose whats best for you.

[rickgrimes69]

My point is that if the OP will only listen to advice which selects between bad alternatives, our best course is to identify the least-awful choice AND tell the OP he is better retaking and/or never going. Isn't that the best possible advice?

No, because you're still validating the OP's bad decision.

When somebody asks you for advice, then rejects your advice, why does that compel you to change your opinion? If someone doesn't listen to good, sound, well-supported advice, that's their problem, not yours.

[HRomanus]

My point is that if the OP will only listen to advice which selects between bad alternatives, our best course is to identify the least-awful choice AND tell the OP he is better retaking and/or never going. Isn't that the best possible advice?

No, because you're still validating the OP's bad decision.

When somebody asks you for advice, then rejects your advice, why does that compel you to change your opinion? If someone doesn't listen to good, sound, well-supported advice, that's their problem, not yours.

You're not changing your opinion. You're ranking their options. 1) Retake 2) Don't go to law school 3) Go to School X