BLS v. Uconn v. Penn State v. Cardozo Forum

[rickgrimes69]

While I admire the sentiment of not rushing into the decision to go to law school, I don't believe myself or anyone else considering schools of this caliber to be in the horrible predicament you paint for us as long as we make a financially responsible decision and REALLY apply ourselves upon attending law school.

This doesn't become a financially responsible decision simply by virtue of being superior to another awful option. Almost all of your classmates will "really apply" themselves as well, and you have no idea of how well you'll perform on law school exams relative to your peers. (And relative performance is all that matters. You can write an objectively very good exam, but if the professor thinks 60% of the class wrote even better exams, you're getting a bad grade. If even 25% of the class writes a better exam, you're getting a bad grade compared to what you'll need from a TTT.)

Job prospects decline much faster than student ability as you go down the rankings, which is why it's rank idiocy to impatiently rush past what is by far the most consequential test for your future as a lawyer (the LSAT), a test over which you still exert total control, in order to start "applying yourself" from a greatly disadvantaged position at the outset. You will have far less margin for error at a lower-ranked school, and your competition isn't going to roll over for you. They'll work just as hard as you will.

I know law school is its own bag AND that I'm a 0L, but I just don't buy the fact that law school is as unpredictable as everyone on here says it is. I think at this point of our lives, we have a decent assessment of our own intelligence/work ethic ratio in comparison to others. Going to law school obviously does not make one "smart" or motivated by default so why would our view of ourselves be any less valid in law school than it would anywhere else? Not to mention, I have a good friend who was on law review at Harvard (currently works in NYC) and thinks both of these are viable options as long as I bust my ass and am fully committed--which I am. I don't want this to come accross as defensive since I think you bring up a valid point, and maybe I'm just being elitist, but I think confidence combined with gumption can go further than you think.

First of all, you are a 0L so your opinion is just that: an opinion, unsupported by evidence. I'm not sure why you would discount the unanimous agreement of current and former students in favor of your own unsupported opinion.

Second, your assessment of your "intelligence and work ethic in relation to others" is based off your competition at undergraduate schools, who come from a variety of backgrounds and possess widely varying levels of work ethic and intelligence. In Law School, you are exclusively pitted against those who performed similarly in re to GPA and LSAT. This filtering mechanism ensures your classmates will be at a similar level as you: therefore, your past experiences are irrelevant, because the competition has entirely changed.

Finally, your friend in Harvard is being nice to you because he/she goes to Harvard. He/she isn't going to say "you're considering going where?" because you're friends, and he/she doesn't want to come across as elitist. Furthermore, he/she is just one person who may or may not be informed re: the state of the legal market. Going to a T3 school tends to insulate you from negative outcomes. You should be seeking evidence from people who have gone to similarly ranked schools, and those who have done research on the statistical outcomes of its graduates. That evidence suggests your options will very likely end in failure.

[LRGhost]

I know law school is its own bag AND that I'm a 0L, but I just don't buy the fact that law school is as unpredictable as everyone on here says it is. I think at this point of our lives, we have a decent assessment of our own intelligence/work ethic ratio in comparison to others. Going to law school obviously does not make one "smart" or motivated by default so why would our view of ourselves be any less valid in law school than it would anywhere else? Not to mention, I have a good friend who was on law review at Harvard (currently works in NYC) and thinks both of these are viable options as long as I bust my ass and am fully committed--which I am. I don't want this to come accross as defensive since I think you bring up a valid point, and maybe I'm just being elitist, but I think confidence combined with gumption can go further than you think.

Let's break this down piece by piece

You disbelieve people who have the experience of going to school saying that there is an amount of unpredictability in both grading and hiring. You say it comes down to your work ethic and intelligence compared to others.

These aren't mutually exclusive, but your willingness to disregard people who have gone through this before doesn't do much to help you. This part is going to suck but you have a 159 LSAT. It may not be a perfect test but generally speaking, it does its job. More importantly, people who are 'smart' don't say 'I don't want to study and retake' and opt for poor options. If we're being honest about your intelligence, you seem to suffer from the mentality that this shortcoming is exceptional and not indicative of your abilities. And you extend this to the schools. The people who don't get quality work are the exceptions and you will surely defy conventional wisdom. Why so brash?

Your idea that confidence, gumption, and a go-getter attitude can compensate for the inability of these schools to get graduates jobs is disturbing for a couple reasons, but mostly because of what it says about your opinion of others. You necessarily think everyone else at those schools lack confidence, aren't smart, and don't have a go-getter attitude. Why? Do you think they're all ignorant and dumb? That's incredibly forward of you.

You seem to think that you are the exception to every generalization. Please don't make this mistake. The scholarships are good but they aren't full scholarships and at the end of the day, you'd have other expenses and waste three years for a black mark on your resume.

[Ms. B]

Maybe you have confused me with the OP, but I'm not. Just in his boat as far as schools...I guess my point is there is a difference between "very likely" to fail and 50% chance of failing. This is also assuming we all have the same definition of what it is to fail or what it is succeed. I feel that there is a tendency to make radical assumptions such as this one on this site and I find this suspect when trying to assess the credibility of people I've never and will never meet. I don't believe I'm every truly disregarding anyone's take but I admittedly give more weight to those whom I respect. Also--ofcourse I'm not trying to say I know anymore about law school than anyone else, especially those of you who are currently in the thick of it. What could I know?? I'm a OL! But how could you possibily claim to know so definitively what its like be a law student somewhere else or what is relevent to a future employer seeing as you, yourself are not currently employed?

[pocket herc]

Is "black mark" on your resume going a little too far? Not justifiable in light of the cost...absolutely.

[LRGhost]

This is also assuming we all have the same definition of what it is to fail or what it is succeed. I feel that there is a tendency to make radical assumptions such as this one on this site and I find this suspect when trying to assess the credibility of people I've never and will never meet. I don't believe I'm every truly disregarding anyone's take but I admittedly give more weight to those whom I respect. Also--ofcourse I'm not trying to say I know anymore about law school than anyone else, especially those of you who are currently in the thick of it. What could I know?? I'm a OL! But how could you possibily claim to know so definitively what its like be a law student somewhere else or what is relevent to a future employer seeing as you, yourself are not currently employed?

As a side note, don't understand why anyone on here cares enough to get so hostile. What is it to you if someone you'll never meet makes a decision you don't agree with?

I agree that some people here are unnecessarily "BigLaw or Bust" but when you have the debt, working small law isn't really a viable solution. Making $40,000 a year with $100,000+ of debt is not a successful situation. You can work retail for three years and probably make more money.

People who 'definitively' know what it is like know because we look at employment stats and the information freely available that you seem to be ignoring? I'm sure it may be a great experience to be a student at these schools but for the price, people are going in to it looking to begin a career.

This is hardly hostile, by the way. The passion comes because it is fucking horrible for schools, even T1 schools, to charge kids six figures under the guise of the prestige of being a lawyer and all that comes with it. It's exploitative and it's wrong.

Is "black mark" on your resume going a little too far? Not justifiable in light of the cost...absolutely.

No, it's not going too far. A lot of jobs won't hire you with a JD because a lot of jobs still think you can just go off and be a lawyer. So then you have a three year gap where most people were gaining work experience.

[pocket herc]

speaking from personal experience, I think this is somewhat overstated here, but again, to the primary point, i.e. the ROI of most law degrees, I agree. And I understand my personal experience should not be extended to a broad generalization.

[timbs4339]

Maybe you have confused me with the OP, but I'm not. Just in his boat as far as schools...I guess my point is there is a difference between "very likely" to fail and 50% chance of failing. This is also assuming we all have the same definition of what it is to fail or what it is succeed. I feel that there is a tendency to make radical assumptions such as this one on this site and I find this suspect when trying to assess the credibility of people I've never and will never meet. I don't believe I'm every truly disregarding anyone's take but I admittedly give more weight to those whom I respect. Also--ofcourse I'm not trying to say I know anymore about law school than anyone else, especially those of you who are currently in the thick of it. What could I know?? I'm a OL! But how could you possibily claim to know so definitively what its like be a law student somewhere else or what is relevent to a future employer seeing as you, yourself are not currently employed?

Credibility issues cut both ways. Look around, there are numerous threads on here about people asking for advice on how to confront friends and relatives IRL about their desire to attend crappy law schools. Even people with thousands of "don't go to law school" posts will advise not to confront people IRL. Many people will say on the internet what they would never say in person for fear of offending you or ruining a friendship.

I went to a T6, and many people there simply had no idea what it was like at lower-ranked schools. Many went to Ivy League UGs and all their friends are successful, and the students they do know from lower-ranked law schools are the 10% or 15% who got lucky and are working at their firm. Meanwhile, I know people from those same schools who graduated median who are still unemployed a year out or making 40K with 200K debt. I had occasion to attend a Law Review sponsored event at a TTT recently and I came away with the impression that things weren't all that bad even in the face of terrible nine month stats because I was in front of a small group of relatively successful students.

[shredmeister]

I know law school is its own bag AND that I'm a 0L, but I just don't buy the fact that law school is as unpredictable as everyone on here says it is. I think at this point of our lives, we have a decent assessment of our own intelligence/work ethic ratio in comparison to others. Going to law school obviously does not make one "smart" or motivated by default so why would our view of ourselves be any less valid in law school than it would anywhere else? Not to mention, I have a good friend who was on law review at Harvard (currently works in NYC) and thinks both of these are viable options as long as I bust my ass and am fully committed--which I am. I don't want this to come accross as defensive since I think you bring up a valid point, and maybe I'm just being elitist, but I think confidence combined with gumption can go further than you think.

Let's break this down piece by piece

You disbelieve people who have the experience of going to school saying that there is an amount of unpredictability in both grading and hiring. You say it comes down to your work ethic and intelligence compared to others.

These aren't mutually exclusive, but your willingness to disregard people who have gone through this before doesn't do much to help you. This part is going to suck but you have a 159 LSAT. It may not be a perfect test but generally speaking, it does its job. More importantly, people who are 'smart' don't say 'I don't want to study and retake' and opt for poor options. If we're being honest about your intelligence, you seem to suffer from the mentality that this shortcoming is exceptional and not indicative of your abilities. And you extend this to the schools. The people who don't get quality work are the exceptions and you will surely defy conventional wisdom. Why so brash?

Your idea that confidence, gumption, and a go-getter attitude can compensate for the inability of these schools to get graduates jobs is disturbing for a couple reasons, but mostly because of what it says about your opinion of others. You necessarily think everyone else at those schools lack confidence, aren't smart, and don't have a go-getter attitude. Why? Do you think they're all ignorant and dumb? That's incredibly forward of you.

You seem to think that you are the exception to every generalization. Please don't make this mistake. The scholarships are good but they aren't full scholarships and at the end of the day, you'd have other expenses and waste three years for a black mark on your resume.

a) if you're so wise, please don't mix up posters on a simple forum. If "smart" people need to retake the LSAT and wait a year to start obtaining their professional degree, they should probably know how to interpret the forums on which they speak.

B)if you're this condescending to people you don't even know, you should question your people skills. I hear people skills are pretty important in the legal profession. But don't take my word for it, I only scored a 159 on my LSAT (with many practice tests above that, but that's irrelevant). I guess you could always sue everybody that doubts you, though.

C) since we're talking about how everybody going to law school is an intellectual, confident, go-getter, then why are so many of them spending their time condescending on this forum towards those who either a) weren't as good at test-taking and scored less than the 98th%ile on their LSAT or b) want REAL advice about the cards they were dealt, rather than hearing the same ol' BS about retake or you're a lazy, arrogant, moronic, waste of space that perpetuates HORRIBLE T and TT schools' criminal tuition increases.

The real advice givers are the current students who say, "hey, I go here, if you're interested, PM me." Not the condescending closet-haters who log on every 10 minutes to tell people who got into BC, BU, Fordham, Cardozo, Uconn, PSU, even fucking Hofstra, that they should turn around and start again. That's not helpful, even with your employment-statistic numbers.

Nobody agrees with the price of law school. Nobody can WISELY look at LST numbers and say "hey, I'm bright, I'm going to do that." But guess what? People do it. 58% employment after graduation from PSU is by no means an ENTIRE reflection of the education or investment. Many people in law school lack likeable personalities; many lack charm. Many haven't found a job their passionate about quite yet. You have NO IDEA, and thus NO RIGHT to judge based on a number. I'll tell you the kind of people employers don't hire- condescending, arrogant, forum trolls. (it's trolling when it's not helpful). I posted here for genuine advice and others have replied with advice that I may or may not choose to follow, but it's helpful, nonetheless. Coming on here to straight condescend and (not you, but Thethe) assume that people are going to law school "because mommy says its a good idea" need to gtfo.

If I, or anybody else who posted on this site with the intention to listen to people who say, "retake or die," we probably would've retaken. If I felt I was throwing away my "HYS" gpa, I wouldn't throw it away.

I work at a restaurant, if somebody asked me "hey, should I get the chicken marsala or chicken piccata," I don't benefit by telling them, in response, "Wow, you need to leave, go work for another paycheck, and then find a better restaurant that serves higher end food. If you don't, you'll never eat."

And just a p.s.- shitting on suny schools just means you overspent for college or didn't live in NY (and have Ivy league grades and wallets). Because those schools are a great fucking deal.

[rad lulz]

Nobody agrees with the price of law school. Nobody can WISELY look at LST numbers and say "hey, I'm bright, I'm going to do that." But guess what? People do it.

Frankly, people are ignorant, or in your case, willfully blind

58% employment after graduation from PSU is by no means an ENTIRE reflection of the education or investment. Many people in law school lack likeable personalities; many lack charm. Many haven't found a job their passionate about quite yet. You have NO IDEA, and thus NO RIGHT to judge based on a number.

As a 3L, I can tell you pretty confidently that plenty of really awesome, hardworking people in my class are unemployed, and not because they are waiting for the "perfect job," whatever that might be. It's bad out there d00d. On the whole, about half of all law students don't get legal jobs. Because there aren't enough jobs.

I work at a restaurant, if somebody asked me "hey, should I get the chicken marsala or chicken piccata," I don't benefit by telling them, in response, "Wow, you need to leave, go work for another paycheck, and then find a better restaurant that serves higher end food. If you don't, you'll never eat."

Chicken marsala isn't a $100k+ investment, so your analogy is inapposite

[thethe]

It's not unpredictable. It's a very specific skill that you may have or may not have. You'll be able to guess which of your friends do better when you talk about a practice test with them, and know how they type.

[timbs4339]

I know law school is its own bag AND that I'm a 0L, but I just don't buy the fact that law school is as unpredictable as everyone on here says it is. I think at this point of our lives, we have a decent assessment of our own intelligence/work ethic ratio in comparison to others. Going to law school obviously does not make one "smart" or motivated by default so why would our view of ourselves be any less valid in law school than it would anywhere else? Not to mention, I have a good friend who was on law review at Harvard (currently works in NYC) and thinks both of these are viable options as long as I bust my ass and am fully committed--which I am. I don't want this to come accross as defensive since I think you bring up a valid point, and maybe I'm just being elitist, but I think confidence combined with gumption can go further than you think.

Let's break this down piece by piece

You disbelieve people who have the experience of going to school saying that there is an amount of unpredictability in both grading and hiring. You say it comes down to your work ethic and intelligence compared to others.

These aren't mutually exclusive, but your willingness to disregard people who have gone through this before doesn't do much to help you. This part is going to suck but you have a 159 LSAT. It may not be a perfect test but generally speaking, it does its job. More importantly, people who are 'smart' don't say 'I don't want to study and retake' and opt for poor options. If we're being honest about your intelligence, you seem to suffer from the mentality that this shortcoming is exceptional and not indicative of your abilities. And you extend this to the schools. The people who don't get quality work are the exceptions and you will surely defy conventional wisdom. Why so brash?

Your idea that confidence, gumption, and a go-getter attitude can compensate for the inability of these schools to get graduates jobs is disturbing for a couple reasons, but mostly because of what it says about your opinion of others. You necessarily think everyone else at those schools lack confidence, aren't smart, and don't have a go-getter attitude. Why? Do you think they're all ignorant and dumb? That's incredibly forward of you.

You seem to think that you are the exception to every generalization. Please don't make this mistake. The scholarships are good but they aren't full scholarships and at the end of the day, you'd have other expenses and waste three years for a black mark on your resume.

a) if you're so wise, please don't mix up posters on a simple forum. If "smart" people need to retake the LSAT and wait a year to start obtaining their professional degree, they should probably know how to interpret the forums on which they speak.

B)if you're this condescending to people you don't even know, you should question your people skills. I hear people skills are pretty important in the legal profession. But don't take my word for it, I only scored a 159 on my LSAT (with many practice tests above that, but that's irrelevant). I guess you could always sue everybody that doubts you, though.

C) since we're talking about how everybody going to law school is an intellectual, confident, go-getter, then why are so many of them spending their time condescending on this forum towards those who either a) weren't as good at test-taking and scored less than the 98th%ile on their LSAT or b) want REAL advice about the cards they were dealt, rather than hearing the same ol' BS about retake or you're a lazy, arrogant, moronic, waste of space that perpetuates HORRIBLE T and TT schools' criminal tuition increases.

The real advice givers are the current students who say, "hey, I go here, if you're interested, PM me." Not the condescending closet-haters who log on every 10 minutes to tell people who got into BC, BU, Fordham, Cardozo, Uconn, PSU, even fucking Hofstra, that they should turn around and start again. That's not helpful, even with your employment-statistic numbers.

Nobody agrees with the price of law school. Nobody can WISELY look at LST numbers and say "hey, I'm bright, I'm going to do that." But guess what? People do it. 58% employment after graduation from PSU is by no means an ENTIRE reflection of the education or investment. Many people in law school lack likeable personalities; many lack charm. Many haven't found a job their passionate about quite yet. You have NO IDEA, and thus NO RIGHT to judge based on a number. I'll tell you the kind of people employers don't hire- condescending, arrogant, forum trolls. (it's trolling when it's not helpful). I posted here for genuine advice and others have replied with advice that I may or may not choose to follow, but it's helpful, nonetheless. Coming on here to straight condescend and (not you, but Thethe) assume that people are going to law school "because mommy says its a good idea" need to gtfo.

If I, or anybody else who posted on this site with the intention to listen to people who say, "retake or die," we probably would've retaken. If I felt I was throwing away my "HYS" gpa, I wouldn't throw it away.

I work at a restaurant, if somebody asked me "hey, should I get the chicken marsala or chicken piccata," I don't benefit by telling them, in response, "Wow, you need to leave, go work for another paycheck, and then find a better restaurant that serves higher end food. If you don't, you'll never eat."

And just a p.s.- shitting on suny schools just means you overspent for college or didn't live in NY (and have Ivy league grades and wallets). Because those schools are a great fucking deal.

You sound not only irrational but absolutely miserable to be around. If someone walked into your restaurant and asked "hey, should I stab myself in the chest or shoot myself in the head?" I'm sure you'd be right there telling them mortality statistics are just numbers and they should do what they feel is right.

[shredmeister]

ignoring that statement. but seriously, helpful advice or don't post here please. I didn't write this to be told that I'm incompetent, irrational, or what not. I just wanted some opinions about the aforementioned schools.

[LRGhost]

ignoring that statement. but seriously, helpful advice or don't post here please. I didn't write this to be told that I'm incompetent, irrational, or what not. I just wanted some opinions about the aforementioned schools.

Good luck. I'm sorry you feel that these are the cards you were dealt because it doesn't have to be and if you were PTing higher, you can obviously do better. But best of luck to you.

[WanderingPondering]

OP is a jerk and deserves whatever bad outcomes result from his decision.

So, If you have to chose the best choice is whatever is the cheapest.

[shredmeister]

yup, i'm a jerk because others disregarded the original post... and then it spiraled until my choice to attend one of the aforementioned law schools was "because mommy said its a good idea" and because I'm too arrogant for a student with a 159 lsat score.

[LRGhost]

yup, i'm a jerk because others disregarded the original post... and then it spiraled until my choice to attend one of the aforementioned law schools was "because mommy said its a good idea" and because I'm too arrogant for a student with a 159 lsat score.

You can score better and give yourself a much better shot at a bright future. You choose not to. This is incredibly upsetting for us who wish we could have had your GPA. You're asking for advice but you don't really want advice, you want us to tell you which of these poor choices is best. Here's the answer: Go where it's cheapest.

[shredmeister]

yup, i'm a jerk because others disregarded the original post... and then it spiraled until my choice to attend one of the aforementioned law schools was "because mommy said its a good idea" and because I'm too arrogant for a student with a 159 lsat score.

You can score better and give yourself a much better shot at a bright future. You choose not to. This is incredibly upsetting for us who wish we could have had your GPA. You're asking for advice but you don't really want advice, you want us to tell you which of these poor choices is best. Here's the answer: Go where it's cheapest.

This is an example of a good response, thank you. I know that my GPA is really good, but I just don't test well (standardized) in general, I'm a much better student than test taker, which is why I'm willing to dive in to school and just work my ass off. I know that I could probably raise my score a bit, because I really got unlucky in October, but like I said, I just don't think my choices will be so much better. Even if I got a full ride to Cardozo or even BC or BU (which probably wouldnt happen), I don't expect that, especially going by LST numbers, I'd be so much better off than I am now. It'd just be another stressful decision between schools with poor numerical job prospects a year down the road. If i really believed (anecdotal but I feel comparable because he went to a SUNY also- my friend has a 166, 3.9 and hasn;t gotten into a school higher ranked than Minnesota) that scoring between a 163-166 (prob the best I could do, after executing perfectly and getting lucky) would get me into a school worth dropping $$$$, I'd retake. But I just don't see that as a worthwhile gamble. (A gamble not only because a year in my 20's is valuable time, but also literally- LSAT tutoring and exam would cost another 1k, applications would be $500 or so, lost seat deposits would be up to a grand. Then what if I got a 163 in June, I'd retake in October and spend even more) It just appears to me to be a vicious cycle.

[timbs4339]

yup, i'm a jerk because others disregarded the original post... and then it spiraled until my choice to attend one of the aforementioned law schools was "because mommy said its a good idea" and because I'm too arrogant for a student with a 159 lsat score.

You can score better and give yourself a much better shot at a bright future. You choose not to. This is incredibly upsetting for us who wish we could have had your GPA. You're asking for advice but you don't really want advice, you want us to tell you which of these poor choices is best. Here's the answer: Go where it's cheapest.

This is an example of a good response, thank you. I know that my GPA is really good, but I just don't test well (standardized) in general, I'm a much better student than test taker, which is why I'm willing to dive in to school and just work my ass off. I know that I could probably raise my score a bit, because I really got unlucky in October, but like I said, I just don't think my choices will be so much better. Even if I got a full ride to Cardozo or even BC or BU (which probably wouldnt happen), I don't expect that, especially going by LST numbers, I'd be so much better off than I am now. It'd just be another stressful decision between schools with poor numerical job prospects a year down the road. If i really believed (anecdotal but I feel comparable because he went to a SUNY also- my friend has a 166, 3.9 and hasn;t gotten into a school higher ranked than Minnesota) that scoring between a 163-166 (prob the best I could do, after executing perfectly and getting lucky) would get me into a school worth dropping $$$$, I'd retake. But I just don't see that as a worthwhile gamble. (A gamble not only because a year in my 20's is valuable time, but also literally- LSAT tutoring and exam would cost another 1k, applications would be $500 or so, lost seat deposits would be up to a grand. Then what if I got a 163 in June, I'd retake in October and spend even more) It just appears to me to be a vicious cycle.

People have an amazing capacity to throw reason out the window when they are evaluating themselves. Kid, every single person with a high GPA who is going to whatever school you choose next year has the same excuse as you. Every kid with a high LSAT is telling themselves they're really going to try harder this time since this is srs business now. Every kid with medians at both is convinced the high GPA folks will be too dumb and the high LSAT folks too lazy. The people with both nubmers below medians are telling themselves that if they weren't plucky the school wouldn't have chosen them. All these people can't be right.

It's irrational not to spend one-year of your life and 2.5K to potentially get $50,000, $75,000, $100,000 in benefit at the exact same schools. Besides, LSAT prep doesn't have to cost more than the official books and bibles, you can negotiate fee waivers, and you'll have a job in the meantime.

[Gunnar Stahl]

OP is a special snowflake, leave them alone.

[somewhatwayward]

I know law school is its own bag AND that I'm a 0L, but I just don't buy the fact that law school is as unpredictable as everyone on here says it is. I think at this point of our lives, we have a decent assessment of our own intelligence/work ethic ratio in comparison to others. Going to law school obviously does not make one "smart" or motivated by default so why would our view of ourselves be any less valid in law school than it would anywhere else? Not to mention, I have a good friend who was on law review at Harvard (currently works in NYC) and thinks both of these are viable options as long as I bust my ass and am fully committed--which I am. I don't want this to come accross as defensive since I think you bring up a valid point, and maybe I'm just being elitist, but I think confidence combined with gumption can go further than you think.

Let's break this down piece by piece

You disbelieve people who have the experience of going to school saying that there is an amount of unpredictability in both grading and hiring. You say it comes down to your work ethic and intelligence compared to others.

These aren't mutually exclusive, but your willingness to disregard people who have gone through this before doesn't do much to help you. This part is going to suck but you have a 159 LSAT. It may not be a perfect test but generally speaking, it does its job. More importantly, people who are 'smart' don't say 'I don't want to study and retake' and opt for poor options. If we're being honest about your intelligence, you seem to suffer from the mentality that this shortcoming is exceptional and not indicative of your abilities. And you extend this to the schools. The people who don't get quality work are the exceptions and you will surely defy conventional wisdom. Why so brash?

Your idea that confidence, gumption, and a go-getter attitude can compensate for the inability of these schools to get graduates jobs is disturbing for a couple reasons, but mostly because of what it says about your opinion of others. You necessarily think everyone else at those schools lack confidence, aren't smart, and don't have a go-getter attitude. Why? Do you think they're all ignorant and dumb? That's incredibly forward of you.

You seem to think that you are the exception to every generalization. Please don't make this mistake. The scholarships are good but they aren't full scholarships and at the end of the day, you'd have other expenses and waste three years for a black mark on your resume.

a) if you're so wise, please don't mix up posters on a simple forum. If "smart" people need to retake the LSAT and wait a year to start obtaining their professional degree, they should probably know how to interpret the forums on which they speak.

B)if you're this condescending to people you don't even know, you should question your people skills. I hear people skills are pretty important in the legal profession. But don't take my word for it, I only scored a 159 on my LSAT (with many practice tests above that, but that's irrelevant). I guess you could always sue everybody that doubts you, though.

C) since we're talking about how everybody going to law school is an intellectual, confident, go-getter, then why are so many of them spending their time condescending on this forum towards those who either a) weren't as good at test-taking and scored less than the 98th%ile on their LSAT or b) want REAL advice about the cards they were dealt, rather than hearing the same ol' BS about retake or you're a lazy, arrogant, moronic, waste of space that perpetuates HORRIBLE T and TT schools' criminal tuition increases.

The real advice givers are the current students who say, "hey, I go here, if you're interested, PM me." Not the condescending closet-haters who log on every 10 minutes to tell people who got into BC, BU, Fordham, Cardozo, Uconn, PSU, even fucking Hofstra, that they should turn around and start again. That's not helpful, even with your employment-statistic numbers.

Nobody agrees with the price of law school. Nobody can WISELY look at LST numbers and say "hey, I'm bright, I'm going to do that." But guess what? People do it. 58% employment after graduation from PSU is by no means an ENTIRE reflection of the education or investment. Many people in law school lack likeable personalities; many lack charm. Many haven't found a job their passionate about quite yet. You have NO IDEA, and thus NO RIGHT to judge based on a number. I'll tell you the kind of people employers don't hire- condescending, arrogant, forum trolls. (it's trolling when it's not helpful). I posted here for genuine advice and others have replied with advice that I may or may not choose to follow, but it's helpful, nonetheless. Coming on here to straight condescend and (not you, but Thethe) assume that people are going to law school "because mommy says its a good idea" need to gtfo.

If I, or anybody else who posted on this site with the intention to listen to people who say, "retake or die," we probably would've retaken. If I felt I was throwing away my "HYS" gpa, I wouldn't throw it away.

I work at a restaurant, if somebody asked me "hey, should I get the chicken marsala or chicken piccata," I don't benefit by telling them, in response, "Wow, you need to leave, go work for another paycheck, and then find a better restaurant that serves higher end food. If you don't, you'll never eat."

And just a p.s.- shitting on suny schools just means you overspent for college or didn't live in NY (and have Ivy league grades and wallets). Because those schools are a great fucking deal.

This is a really disproportionate response to what was written to you. It comes across as really irrational and angry. I get that you're frustrated, but unless there is some indication that someone is posting merely to provoke a reaction, there is no reason to go off on anyone. I do see how that post could seem condescending but I also think it was written from a place of care/concern.

You seem to have gotten (but not accepted) the message so I won't bother repeating it. The answer to your question is to negotiate with the schools using the offers from the other schools like crazy. Ideally you start soft and then play hardball (ie, you write them and say you were really excited about attending and felt honored by their offer but have to withdraw bc it is still not financial feasible' - with apps down this year, I believe schools will be coming back to people who WD with bigger offers, which also happened last year). Once you have your offers in, calculate your total COA, including living expenses. Then go to whatever school is the cheapest.

If two are very similar in cost, choose the one in the city you want to live in. Understand that all of these schools will likely limit you to the city, or maybe the nearby area, where the school is located. PSU and UConn are not bringing you back to NYC, for example. But don't pay significantly more for Cardozo or Brooklyn bc they just aren't worth it. Don't take into account silly things like whether BLS is selling buildings or whether Cardozo is good for IP. I can't remember if I mentioned it in this thread but it is worth repeating because of the impression USNWR gives: in 99% of situations, you are better off going to Harvard if you want X specialty than you are going to whatever school USNWR ranked first in X specialty.

[Ti Malice]

ignoring that statement. but seriously, helpful advice or don't post here please. I didn't write this to be told that I'm incompetent, irrational, or what not. I just wanted some opinions about the aforementioned schools.

You're getting helpful advice. It just runs counter to what you want to hear. Your angry, hypersensitive responses, by and large, are completely out of proportion to the other posters' comments.

[cinephile]

I just don't test well (standardized) in general, I'm a much better student than test taker, which is why I'm willing to dive in to school and just work my ass off.

But you realize law school is just a series of standardized tests. That's all it is.

[amf728]

This thread is depressing; I am a terrible tester, too, so I feel your pain. I am choosing between some of the same schools w/similar scholarship offers and IMHO, if you can go for free at a somewhat lower-ranked school vs paying close to sticker for a higher ranking, why pay the $150k+ when the value of ranking diminishes the closer to graduation you get? I've spent the past several months getting impressions of my accepted schools and the alumni, as I live and work in NYC with attorneys and have friends who have attended all of these schools. Everyone has an opinion, but the general consensus seems to be that if you can avoid debt, do it, and if you know how to network, getting a job won't be as terrible as it sounds. We obviously aren't talking NYU vs Dozo here, so I don't think rankings play as big of a role. I attended the BLS Skadden reception and was impressed by their ties to the legal community and the involvement of the professors, regardless of their ranking drop. Everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt; go to the school where you can see yourself for 3 years of your life and offers the best curriculum and opportunities for you.

[LRGhost]

This thread is depressing; I am a terrible tester, too, so I feel your pain. I am choosing between some of the same schools w/similar scholarship offers and IMHO, if you can go for free at a somewhat lower-ranked school vs paying close to sticker for a higher ranking, why pay the $150k+ when the value of ranking diminishes the closer to graduation you get? I've spent the past several months getting impressions of my accepted schools and the alumni, as I live and work in NYC with attorneys and have friends who have attended all of these schools. Everyone has an opinion, but the general consensus seems to be that if you can avoid debt, do it, and if you know how to network, getting a job won't be as terrible as it sounds. We obviously aren't talking NYU vs Dozo here, so I don't think rankings play as big of a role. I attended the BLS Skadden reception and was impressed by their ties to the legal community and the involvement of the professors, regardless of their ranking drop. Everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt; go to the school where you can see yourself for 3 years of your life and offers the best curriculum and opportunities for you.

This is fair. Go where you'll have the least debt. Getting a job isn't as easy as networking and hustling, but your point about the ranking mattering less is true.

[Robespierre]

Where do your parents live? Near enough to one of the schools you've mentioned to commute?