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

[njdevils2626]

Please give it a rest. You are really annoying.

[09042014]

RAy and I are actually getting loan forgiveness in exchange for talking CCN kids into fullrides at NU.

[quijotesca1011]

Please give it a rest. You are really annoying.

Sorry, I don't know why people get so up in arms on here. I just thought it was an interesting discussion. I'll be done now.

I'll reiterate before I go, never that I disagree with OP's point that for a large majority of people it's probably the right choice to take a scholarship, and I respect the advice of people coming back to say that paying sticker wasn't right for them (I don't know why they think their word has to be the only truth, but I appreciate the input to OL's decisions).

I just still think it is weird to throw the blame for a problem that has been building for decades on the backs of people entering law school now. But I accept the point that as entering OLs we share the blame for perpetuating the system (but argue no more so than people who have been going to law school for quite a while, because tuition has been growing for a while).

But as there are other factors contributing to tuition rising, and since the problem is by no means limited to law school, I think the change is ultimately going to have to come in a more overarching way. And I still think given how small of a piece of the puzzle each individual's choice is, the fact that each person is making a pretty major decision for their own life and career (and they can't count on anyone else making the "right choice" so as to achieve the necessary aggregate), and the fact that the change is not likely not coming for a long time and wouldn't affect anyone presently making the decision, OP's rhetoric was overboard (which leads too…)

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

Personally, I think tone is extremely important. And I didn't argue with OP's valid points (see above, I repeatedly conceded to some of OP's main point) but rather with the rhetoric and the points implied by his language ("you're ruining law school for everyone").

Overall I think people just aren't going to listen to a post like the OP, and whatever good points there are underneath the rhetoric are going to get lost whether you like it or not.

[NYSprague]

Please give it a rest. You are really annoying.

Sorry, I don't know why people get so up in arms on here. I just thought it was an interesting discussion. I'll be done now.

I'll reiterate before I go, never that I disagree with OP's point that for a large majority of people it's probably the right choice to take a scholarship, and I respect the advice of people coming back to say that paying sticker wasn't right for them (I don't know why they think their word has to be the only truth, but I appreciate the input to OL's decisions).

I just still think it is weird to throw the blame for a problem that has been building for decades on the backs of people entering law school now. But I accept the point that as entering OLs we share the blame for perpetuating the system (but argue no more so than people who have been going to law school for quite a while, because tuition has been growing for a while).

But as there are other factors contributing to tuition rising, and since the problem is by no means limited to law school, I think the change is ultimately going to have to come in a more overarching way. And I still think given how small of a piece of the puzzle each individual's choice is, the fact that each person is making a pretty major decision for their own life and career (and they can't count on anyone else making the "right choice" so as to achieve the necessary aggregate), and the fact that the change is not likely not coming for a long time and wouldn't affect anyone presently making the decision, OP's rhetoric was overboard (which leads too…)

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

Personally, I think tone is extremely important. And I didn't argue with OP's valid points (see above, I repeatedly conceded to some of OP's main point) but rather with the rhetoric and the points implied by his language ("you're ruining law school for everyone").

Overall I think people just aren't going to listen to a post like the OP, and whatever good points there are underneath the rhetoric are going to get lost whether you like it or not.

No one ever listens. Not true. But the percentage is low.
The most annoying person to me is someone who defends why they aren't part of the problem, but never bothers to offer any solution.

[rayiner]

Personally, I think tone is extremely important. And I didn't argue with OP's valid points (see above, I repeatedly conceded to some of OP's main point) but rather with the rhetoric and the points implied by his language ("you're ruining law school for everyone").

Tone is important, but what's important is using the right tone. The goal is to rip the veneer of prestige off of law schools and get prospective students thinking in clear-eyed terms about their very expensive decisions. Using nice language indulges and reinforces this pretense.

[quijotesca1011]

The most annoying person to me is someone who defends why they aren't part of the problem, but never bothers to offer any solution.

you're right, I don't have the solution. I wish I did; I guess I was thinking of more systemic/policy changes (which we as students can advocate for and perhaps that's a way of taking responsibility). I'm not thinking wikipedia is the most valid source, but here are a bunch of recommendations for attacking rising tuition. They seem more promising than depending on individual decisions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_edu ... ble_theory (see the part on recommendations).

But all I got out of OP was throwing the blame at current students (with no implication that earlier students who made the same decision were also part of the problem) and telling them they are responsible to fix a problem that's been years in coming. Again, I think I conceded in my last post that I understand now the argument that OL's are perpetuating the system and it's an interesting and valid point. I just think it's pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

[timbs4339]

Personally, I think tone is extremely important. And I didn't argue with OP's valid points (see above, I repeatedly conceded to some of OP's main point) but rather with the rhetoric and the points implied by his language ("you're ruining law school for everyone").

Tone is important, but what's important is using the right tone. The goal is to rip the veneer of prestige off of law schools and get prospective students thinking in clear-eyed terms about their very expensive decisions. Using nice language indulges and reinforces this pretense.

Yeah I hear this a lot but have never seen anyone offer a nice, empathetic way to approach someone who's like "got 5 K at Hofstra, Drexel, and American, want to do international or business law, don't tell me to retake cause I have to go to law school next year and I'm going to transfer to GW or Fordham anyway after I kick ass 1L year."

[worldtraveler]

Personally, I think tone is extremely important. And I didn't argue with OP's valid points (see above, I repeatedly conceded to some of OP's main point) but rather with the rhetoric and the points implied by his language ("you're ruining law school for everyone").

Tone is important, but what's important is using the right tone. The goal is to rip the veneer of prestige off of law schools and get prospective students thinking in clear-eyed terms about their very expensive decisions. Using nice language indulges and reinforces this pretense.

quijo wants to do international human rights.

We're a special bunch that doesn't like to listen to logic.

[quijotesca1011]

Yeah I hear this a lot but have never seen anyone offer a nice, empathetic way to approach someone who's like "got 5 K at Hofstra, Drexel, and American, want to do international or business law, don't tell me to retake cause I have to go to law school next year and I'm going to transfer to GW or Fordham anyway after I kick ass 1L year."

I actually find a lot of posts on here relatively convincing in that regard, in terms of giving facts and numbers, etc. I don't know if people listen to them, but I find them very logical… I just think being snarky and aggressive is kind of self-defeating. I get it, because people on TLS see a million posts on here that are like your example and it seems like an idiotic question. But TLS might be an OL's first stop and they are getting a very different message offline. It would help if we all read backwards more, I know.

[manu6926]

...

[NYSprague]

Dang. I was going to try to guess how long it would be until an aggressive 0L chimes in.Usually it takes a few more posts after another 0L lectures TLS about being more effective by just being nicer before someone shows up to moot the point.

I waited too long.

[UnicornHunter]

Many people including myself are gunning for bigger things than biglaw such as SCOTUS, academia and government. And if that's the case, a law degree from Harvard or Yale would significantly increase one's chances of achieving those goals. Besides, although I know that law schools are professional schools, I really am not convinced that law school is just a trade school (and nothing more than that).

You're talking about paying six figures to increase your odds of getting something from almost impossible to extremely unlikely (if we're talking about Yale. Still "almost impossible" if H, just a little bit less so). Also, for a lot of the jobs you just listed, experience is huge (especially academia). It's one thing to pick Y because you want academia AND you also have a top tier phd in econ. If that past sentence describes you, then general TLS advice doesn't apply to you. It's an entirely different beast if you're K-JD or if you have a couple years of "meh" WE.

[sd5289]

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.

This. I was pretty hard ball with scholly negotiating once it was narrowed down. The school I ended up at gave me a full ride only after I withdrew and said "well, the similarly ranked X school in the same market is giving me a full ride and you're not, so peace!" They called me up a few days later and asked me if I'd reconsider if they increased the scholarship. My answer was "how much of an increase?" They said "we'll let you know tomorrow," and low and behold, there was a full ride sitting in my inbox the next day.

[FuriousDuck]

...

[09042014]

Many people including myself are gunning for bigger things than biglaw such as SCOTUS, academia and government. And if that's the case, a law degree from Harvard or Yale would significantly increase one's chances of achieving those goals. Besides, although I know that law schools are professional schools, I really am not convinced that law school is just a trade school (and nothing more than that).

Exactly, nobody is factoring that in. Which is exactly why I tell everyone to pay sticker at WUSTL instead of taking a large scholarship at Iowa if they want somethng more than shitlaw, like biglaw. WUSTL would significantly increase one's chances of achieving that goal. Great post.

[furrrman]

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.

This. I was pretty hard ball with scholly negotiating once it was narrowed down. The school I ended up at gave me a full ride only after I withdrew and said "well, the similarly ranked X school in the same market is giving me a full ride and you're not, so peace!" They called me up a few days later and asked me if I'd reconsider if they increased the scholarship. My answer was "how much of an increase?" They said "we'll let you know tomorrow," and low and behold, there was a full ride sitting in my inbox the next day.

Thats pretty ballsy. Glad that it worked out for you. Mind divulging which schools? (You can PM.)

[worldtraveler]

Many people including myself are gunning for bigger things than biglaw such as SCOTUS, academia and government. And if that's the case, a law degree from Harvard or Yale would significantly increase one's chances of achieving those goals. Besides, although I know that law schools are professional schools, I really am not convinced that law school is just a trade school (and nothing more than that).

OP already said there are special snowflakes for whom this doesn't apply.

You get the same education at any top school. Your professors will be brilliant, your classmates really smart, and you'll use the same books and take the same exams.

[DELG]

It's really shitty at being a trade school given the trade school outcomes

[manu6926]

...

[manu6926]

...

[09042014]

Many people including myself are gunning for bigger things than biglaw such as SCOTUS, academia and government. And if that's the case, a law degree from Harvard or Yale would significantly increase one's chances of achieving those goals. Besides, although I know that law schools are professional schools, I really am not convinced that law school is just a trade school (and nothing more than that).

You're talking about paying six figures to increase your odds of getting something from almost impossible to extremely unlikely (if we're talking about Yale. Still "almost impossible" if H, just a little bit less so). Also, for a lot of the jobs you just listed, experience is huge (especially academia). It's one thing to pick Y because you want academia AND you also have a top tier phd in econ. If that past sentence describes you, then general TLS advice doesn't apply to you. It's an entirely different beast if you're K-JD or if you have a couple years of "meh" WE.

Well, I wouldn't go any deeper into what I want to do. No point.
I don't really think any 0L should adopt this attitude: "The probability that I will be able to pursue a public service career is so small. So I might as well just go to the cheapest school and just try to get a biglaw job." Especially given that the schools I mentioned are Yale and Harvard, that attitude doesn't make much sense.

It's downright stupid not to compare the cost of your slightly increased chances. Yale and Harvard might be way better at academia, but it's going from a 1% chance to a 4% change. 3% better odds at getting academia isn't worth 150k. SCOTUS clerking is even dumber since it's low odds and is only temporary.

I haven't seen any evidence YHS gives any huge boost for government. Government isn't elite. It's just tough recently since the hiring freezes.

[Hipster but Athletic]

If you're a prospective applicant, and are seriously weighing things like whether a particular school has certain classes, or a particular joint degree, or a certain concentration, or a certain famous professor: just stop. You're ruining law school for everyone. You're making law school administrators think that any of this shit matters. No employer cares about the classes you take in law school beyond the basics available at every school. Unless you're gunning for SCOTUS or academia, professors are fungible. That little note on your degree saying you did the concentration in IP Law isn't going to change the fact that you have bad grades and no technical background. So just forget about all that, and compare law schools based on placement, scholarship $$, and location.

Justice Scalia recently noted:

Harvard Law School, in the year I graduated, had a faculty of 56 professors, 9 teaching fellows, and 4 lecturers; it now has a faculty of 119 professors, 53 visiting professors, and 115 lecturers in law. A total of 69 then and 287 now.

Harvard Law's class size has been about the same since the 1950's if not earlier. The teaching of law has been the same since the 1850's if not earlier. This explosion in law faculty is unnecessary. The expensive catered events are unnecessary. The fancy new buildings are unnecessary. The outrageous tuition is not necessary to accomplish the function of educating lawyers.

Whose fault is it? Yours. Every goddamn 0L that inquires into a school's "animal law concentration" or its breadth of coursework in "law & baking" is part of the problem.

Don't be part of the problem.

Instead, let schools know that all you care about is placement and tuition. Call up Michigan and say "fuck you, I'm going to Cornell because they offered me marginally more money." Be part of the solution.

This is the most fucked up/stupid OP of all time. Literally, the opposite is true. We're slave to the rankings and prestige because of shit like this. If people would care more about location, classes offered, access to a particular faculty, programs, externships, etc....it'd be harder to rank schools, people care less about prestige, people would enjoy law school more, and lots of other good stuff. Right now, it's a simple calculus: Oh, you went to a TTT? You must be from a poor family and have done poorly on the LSAT.

I petition that you quit this website and quit giving out advice from now on. You are a jerk.

[papercut]

It's downright stupid not to compare the cost of your slightly increased chances. Yale and Harvard might be way better at academia, but it's going from a 1% chance to a 4% change. 3% better odds at getting academia isn't worth 150k. SCOTUS clerking is even dumber since it's low odds and is only temporary.

I haven't seen any evidence YHS gives any huge boost for government. Government isn't elite. It's just tough recently since the hiring freezes.

The hiring data is difficult to compare without good data on what employment outcomes the students were shooting for.

I wonder how big of boost you get from YHS compared to CCN in big law hiring?

[manu6926]

...

[ymmv]

If you're a prospective applicant, and are seriously weighing things like whether a particular school has certain classes, or a particular joint degree, or a certain concentration, or a certain famous professor: just stop. You're ruining law school for everyone. You're making law school administrators think that any of this shit matters. No employer cares about the classes you take in law school beyond the basics available at every school. Unless you're gunning for SCOTUS or academia, professors are fungible. That little note on your degree saying you did the concentration in IP Law isn't going to change the fact that you have bad grades and no technical background. So just forget about all that, and compare law schools based on placement, scholarship $$, and location.

Justice Scalia recently noted:

Harvard Law School, in the year I graduated, had a faculty of 56 professors, 9 teaching fellows, and 4 lecturers; it now has a faculty of 119 professors, 53 visiting professors, and 115 lecturers in law. A total of 69 then and 287 now.

Harvard Law's class size has been about the same since the 1950's if not earlier. The teaching of law has been the same since the 1850's if not earlier. This explosion in law faculty is unnecessary. The expensive catered events are unnecessary. The fancy new buildings are unnecessary. The outrageous tuition is not necessary to accomplish the function of educating lawyers.

Whose fault is it? Yours. Every goddamn 0L that inquires into a school's "animal law concentration" or its breadth of coursework in "law & baking" is part of the problem.

Don't be part of the problem.

Instead, let schools know that all you care about is placement and tuition. Call up Michigan and say "fuck you, I'm going to Cornell because they offered me marginally more money." Be part of the solution.

This is the most fucked up/stupid OP of all time. Literally, the opposite is true. We're slave to the rankings and prestige because of shit like this. If people would care more about location, classes offered, access to a particular faculty, programs, externships, etc....it'd be harder to rank schools, people care less about prestige, people would enjoy law school more, and lots of other good stuff. Right now, it's a simple calculus: Oh, you went to a TTT? You must be from a poor family and have done poorly on the LSAT.

I petition that you quit this website and quit giving out advice from now on. You are a jerk.

What. Do you know how scarcity works?