Plan to work in NYC!! Forum

[WokeUpInACar]

I'm just curious to know whether or not you think if I even get one more point higher on the LSAT it would be the difference of me being out vs in with money, cuz I'm currently WL at 6 top schools that for some I can probably push to pay sticker at, so unless money is the difference, no I don't think a 1 point increase tips the entire scale. Other than t14 with money, objectively given my goals, the next best option is Fordham.

Actually at some schools, yes. Once you get to 169, the value of each additional point is ENORMOUS. Also applying early instead of late could make a very big difference. Honestly though, I'd advise you to take a year+ off even if you had taken the LSAT three times.

[Rlabo]

OP. I think you have to recognize that once you finish your first year of law school, you won't really have any second chances. If you bring up your LSAT through a certain amount of studying, you will more likely get a job after your first year, because you'll be at a better school. You can increase your chances of getting a job by retaking the LSAT, but not by retaking 1L. That's what really sucks, and that's why the LSAT is so important. It's your only opportunity to retake for higher chance at biglaw. Seriously, you will not have the chance to increase your odds again.

That said, those in the legal profession, and on these forums, are extremely risk adverse. You might be willing to take a greater risk so that you can graduate a year earlier. Doesn't sound like law student think, but maybe your risk taking will be useful down the road. You aren't an idiot, just remember you can't retake 1L.

If this person was 32, I could understand feeling an urgency. But the poster is 20. I don't see what benefit starting law school that young could give you, and I only see potential harm.

Like I said I knew that wasn't going to win any brownie points. For the record not that its gonna be worth anything, but my life experiences and world view are not of a typical 20 year old. I guess you can take that with as much salt as you'd like as it is in essence my opinion.

[Rlabo]

I'm just curious to know whether or not you think if I even get one more point higher on the LSAT it would be the difference of me being out vs in with money, cuz I'm currently WL at 6 top schools that for some I can probably push to pay sticker at, so unless money is the difference, no I don't think a 1 point increase tips the entire scale. Other than t14 with money, objectively given my goals, the next best option is Fordham.

Actually at some schools, yes. Once you get to 169, the value of each additional point is ENORMOUS. Also applying early instead of late could make a very big difference. Honestly though, I'd advise you to take a year+ off even if you had taken the LSAT three times.

I really think its that 171 that tips that enormous scale, if anything. I think applying early wouldve seen me in at duke cornell michigan so yea I can see that too. But i don't think it would've been with significant money where a cheap JD from fordham wouldn't be preferable.

[dr123]

Dudes made up his mind. time to pack it up and stop fighting him bros.

[WokeUpInACar]

GPA 3.55-3.65, from this cycle
169
170
171
172

[Pope Francis]

OP. I think you have to recognize that once you finish your first year of law school, you won't really have any second chances. If you bring up your LSAT through a certain amount of studying, you will more likely get a job after your first year, because you'll be at a better school. You can increase your chances of getting a job by retaking the LSAT, but not by retaking 1L. That's what really sucks, and that's why the LSAT is so important. It's your only opportunity to retake for higher chance at biglaw. Seriously, you will not have the chance to increase your odds again.

That said, those in the legal profession, and on these forums, are extremely risk adverse. You might be willing to take a greater risk so that you can graduate a year earlier. Doesn't sound like law student think, but maybe your risk taking will be useful down the road. You aren't an idiot, just remember you can't retake 1L.

If this person was were 32, I could understand feeling an urgency. But the poster is 20. I don't see what benefit starting law school that young could give you, and I only see potential harm.

Like I said I knew that wasn't going to win any brownie points. For the record, not that it's gonna be worth anything, but my life experiences and world view are not of a typical 20 year old. I guess you can take that with as much salt as you'd like as it is in essence my opinion.

OP. If you have impressive softs, feel free to share. Everyone else, is there actual hard data that younger=less employable? I know that super old=less employable. But there were some really really young people in my school who all got jobs--then again, they destroyed law school. Just wondering. I honestly have no idea.

[IrwinM.Fletcher]

Dudes made up his mind. time to pack it up and stop fighting him bros.

Yep, can't save em all.

[Rlabo]

Dudes made up his mind. time to pack it up and stop fighting him bros.

Yep, can't save em all.

I genuinely do appreciate you trying though. If I didnt, I probably wouldnt be trying to reply to every1 whose had at least something critical to say as I know its being proposed for my well being.

[Rlabo]

OP. I think you have to recognize that once you finish your first year of law school, you won't really have any second chances. If you bring up your LSAT through a certain amount of studying, you will more likely get a job after your first year, because you'll be at a better school. You can increase your chances of getting a job by retaking the LSAT, but not by retaking 1L. That's what really sucks, and that's why the LSAT is so important. It's your only opportunity to retake for higher chance at biglaw. Seriously, you will not have the chance to increase your odds again.

That said, those in the legal profession, and on these forums, are extremely risk adverse. You might be willing to take a greater risk so that you can graduate a year earlier. Doesn't sound like law student think, but maybe your risk taking will be useful down the road. You aren't an idiot, just remember you can't retake 1L.

If this person was were 32, I could understand feeling an urgency. But the poster is 20. I don't see what benefit starting law school that young could give you, and I only see potential harm.

Like I said I knew that wasn't going to win any brownie points. For the record, not that it's gonna be worth anything, but my life experiences and world view are not of a typical 20 year old. I guess you can take that with as much salt as you'd like as it is in essence my opinion.

OP. If you have impressive softs, feel free to share. Everyone else, is there actual hard data that younger=less employable? I know that super old=less employable. But there were some really really young people in my school who all got jobs--then again, they destroyed law school. Just wondering. I honestly have no idea.

I didn't cure cancer if that's what your asking and there will always be some1 with something more impressive than I have. My softs are strong in my opinion but not awe-worthy. Self taught musician, 3 yrs of photography work both in fashion and private events, a year TAing at both the school i attend and Columbia. A year working in customer service. 4 months at a law firm. A school fellowship. Speak 3 languages. (Proficient in office )

[Rlabo]

GPA 3.55-3.65, from this cycle
169
170
171
172

So I would need 2+ points to see the jump every1 is describing

[thelawyler]

If I were you and didn't want to "work" for a year?

Take another year of college instead of graduating early, take super easy classes and get 4.0-4.3 GPA for an entire year, possibly pull that GPA up to a 3.7+, up the LSAT 2 points with a lot of extra studying, and then enjoy a T14 for nearly a full ride.

[thelawyler]

So I would need 2+ points to see the jump every1 is describing

No, if you got 170, you could probably ED Penn and get in.

[WokeUpInACar]

So I would need 2+ points to see the jump every1 is describing

No, if you got 170, you could probablydefinitely ED Penn and get in.

They let in 170/3.2s ED the last couple cycles, it would essentially be a lock.

[Rlabo]

So I would need 2+ points to see the jump every1 is describing

No, if you got 170, you could probably ED Penn and get in.

Yes but money off an ED is not likely, I'm WL there now which for Penn means i probably have anywhere between 15-20% chance of getting in. Definitely not likely, but also definitely not impossible and worth pushing for if I want to pay sticker. Truthfully, I would strongly consider paying sticker for Penn though so thats not terrible but still doesnt make sense to ED. If anything I would ED columbia.

[WokeUpInACar]

I give up... just how strongly everyone ITT feels should really say something to you about the choice you are making. You're a special snowflake though I guess, GL.

[worldtraveler]

You're the poster child for applicants who should take a year off but won't for silly reasons.

I have a really good friend who started law school at 20. He says it was the worst decision of his life and he missed out on being young. Just take a year off and go live your life.

[Rlabo]

I give up... just how strongly everyone ITT feels should really say something to you about the choice you are making. You're a special snowflake though I guess, GL.

Thanks for the advice. Definitely not a special snowflake just looking at a situation from an aerial view and the options just don't seem bad to me (especially considering some1 posting right below me is considering hofstra V nyls). The nature of a law school student is a go getter so i understand exactly why every1 is saying push for the extra lsat points. There's definitely potentially more for me to grasp if i take that year off. You're all also objectively right in saying I'm quite young at starting law school at 20 and talking a year off wouldnt kill me. But I'm going straight through because I am fully aware of what I want to do and the options I currently have laid out will allow me to achieve goals that I have at a cost I can more than justify while saving that year. I'm not one to let a year blink by as some1 posted b4 and a year is worth more to me than that possibility of what may lie ahead as opposed to what already lies ahead.

[dr123]

Whats the "cost" of taking a year, or *gasp* two, off before law school?

[worldtraveler]

Whats the "cost" of taking a year, or *gasp* two, off before law school?

You are depressed while working big law at 24 instead of 23.

[Rlabo]

You're the poster child for applicants who should take a year off but won't for silly reasons.

I have a really good friend who started law school at 20. He says it was the worst decision of his life and he missed out on being young. Just take a year off and go live your life.

Honestly, I've heard extreme anecdotes from both sides of the coin, whether its a friend I had who went to fordham and transferred to Harvard or its a friend I had who bombed 1L at GULC and then decided to do an LLM which basically saved his ass. These are both extreme cases and while very possibly could happen, either one is as likely as the next, while most likely ill end up along the median (statistically speaking) or as I do plan to work hard hopefully above and beyond that. I don't view being 20 as a liability but as an asset, there's an argument that can be made for either side though.

[Rlabo]

Whats the "cost" of taking a year, or *gasp* two, off before law school?

You are depressed while working big law at 24 instead of 23.

There really are so many people that dont want to be lawyers that go to law school and I dont understand it. I'm not saying you dont want to be a lawyer, but depression isnt a good outlook to have from now.

[HankBashir]

I honestly don't understand why you won't retake or at least apply early next cycle so you can get into schools that would allow you a greater chance of achieving your goals, especially since you have nothing to lose but a year (and you're young, so that doesn't hurt you) but ech....I'm not your daddy.

[Rlabo]

Whats the "cost" of taking a year, or *gasp* two, off before law school?

Opportunity cost for one, I know what I want and have a solid means of getting it at a good price now. No reason to put off another year with said options.

I also dont get how an applicant with several T20 acceptances seems like such a bad place to be for the majority posting here.

[WokeUpInACar]

Whats the "cost" of taking a year, or *gasp* two, off before law school?

Opportunity cost for one, I know what I want and have a solid means of getting it at a good price now. No reason to put off another year with said options.

I also dont get how an applicant with several T20 acceptances seems like such a bad place to be for the majority posting here.

Dude how many times must we tell you that it's not about absolute options. An AA 4.0/160 would have some pretty great options compared to most people, but they should still certainly retake.

[thelawyler]

Whats the "cost" of taking a year, or *gasp* two, off before law school?

Opportunity cost for one, I know what I want and have a solid means of getting it at a good price now. No reason to put off another year with said options.

I also dont get how an applicant with several T20 acceptances seems like such a bad place to be for the majority posting here.

You have good options, but that doesn't make your decision the right one.

It is called maximizing your expected returns.