Page 1 of 2
Case Western v Houston
Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:38 pm
by lawschooliscool
Case would be about 16k/yr cheaper, Houston has slightly better job prospects, wouldn't mind living at either place
Re: Case Western v Houston
Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:47 pm
by bdole2
chiwachiwa wrote:This forum needs a template for all "what school should I go to" questions. It's excruciating to have to read through paragraphs of drivel to get to the pertinent information in an OP. And even worse, most people don't even post all the info necessary to give advice, so posters have to drag it out of them, question-by-question.
TOPIC: School A (cost of attendance, see below) vs. School B (COA) vs. School C (COA)
POST:
LSAT
GPA
Undergrad and major
Whether you are K-JD or working or nontrad
Pre-LS debt
Cost of attendance at each school. NOT scholarship, NOT "$$$" vs. "$$," NOT anything else. How much will you pay per year at each school?
Cities/regions you want to work in post-graduation, ranked in your order of preference
Cities/regions where you have connections and what those connections are (family, undergrad, grew up there, whatever)
Etc.
This would make reading this forum a happier experience and would get more advice to more posters/applicants.
Re: Case Western v Houston
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 1:54 pm
by romothesavior
If no ties to either, then neither. Did you pull these schools out of a hat? Dartboard method?
Re: Case Western v Houston
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 1:58 pm
by lawschooliscool
So according you people's logic if a person was from Wyoming and got into the following schools
Wyoming
Ohio State
Indiana
Georgia
Minnesota
Since they only have ties to Wyoming they should go there. That sounds pretty f@#$in stupid
Re: Case Western v Houston
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:56 pm
by romothesavior
Good point. Yeah, spending six figs to go to a regional school 1,000 miles away with no ties is a good investment. Dunno how we missed that one.
Re: Case Western v Houston
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:09 pm
by thexfactor
Your best options:
1. retake
2. retake
3. retake
4. retake
5. retake
...
...
1000. Houston- ranked it slightly higher cuz the economy in texas is doing semi ok.
1001. Case Western
Re: Case Western v Houston
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:09 pm
by Case2L
Guys, cut OP a break. Many of you have been on this forum for a while, and you're tired of answering this type of question over and over again. If that's the case, just don't answer rather than give a smart ass answer. OP is new to this and likely doesn't know any better.
OP, it's a big investment, so you have to go where you feel the best "fit." Both schools are very regional, but Case does have the advantage of less competition. Houston is a much bigger city, but it's also a very desirable market so you will have competition from the T14 plus U of T, and some other highly ranked southern schools. However, if you love big cities and warm weather, then you may be happier at Houston. Neither degree is particularly portable, so you have to be okay with living in either Northeast Ohio or Southeast Texas for at least the next several years.
Also, I don't know if this applies to you, but if you've narrowed your choice to Case and Houston because of their Health law concentrations, toss out that factor and consider other, less expensive options if they exist. Specialty rankings are pretty much meaningless.
Re: Case Western v Houston
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:11 pm
by aekea
lawschooliscool wrote:So according you people's logic if a person was from Wyoming and got into the following schools
Wyoming
Ohio State
Indiana
Georgia
Minnesota
Since they only have ties to Wyoming they should go there. That sounds pretty f@#$in stupid
You're overstating the TSL "go where you have ties" advice. You asked people on opinions between two Tier II schools in completely different regions. In some situations, ties don't matter as much. This is especially true for very high ranked schools and those in large, non-insular markets like New York. However, when you're looking at schools like Case and Houston, ties are important because they are only competitive in a particular region. If you don't have ties and are trying to break into a parochial market, you will have a very hard time securing a job. So, do you have ties to either region? Do you want to live in either region for the rest of your career?
Re: Case Western v Houston
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:28 pm
by romothesavior
Well said aekea.
Re: Case Western v Houston
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:36 pm
by CanadianWolf
Houston may be an exception. OP, Houston is fine if you want to live & work in that geographic region.
Re: Case Western v Houston
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:41 pm
by rad lulz
.
Re: Case Western v Houston
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:54 pm
by ckelly85
The board subforum is "Choosing A Law School" not "Choosing Law School." Retake or don't go is very borderline as far as useful advice is concerned.
Re: Case Western v Houston
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:01 pm
by rad lulz
.
Re: Case Western v Houston
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:03 pm
by bk1
ckelly85 wrote:The board subforum is "Choosing A Law School" not "Choosing Law School." Retake or don't go is very borderline as far as useful advice is concerned.
Considering the employment outcomes and debt levels at most law schools in this country, it's probably the most useful advice people can give in a lot of cases.
Re: Case Western v Houston
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:35 pm
by romothesavior
ckelly85 wrote:The board subforum is "Choosing A Law School" not "Choosing Law School." Retake or don't go is very borderline as far as useful advice is concerned.
I see your point, but its like asking "Should I light my money on fire or stick it in a paper shredding machine?" The answer is neither. I don't think anyone would be doing any favors by advocating either of these schools for the average person, and I could certainly never do so in good conscience absent a good reason.
OP, what is the cost of each? Are you from either region? I have a feeling that the answers to these is "high" and "no" given that you've ignored them so far, but they're pretty relevant in the equation.
Re: Case Western v Houston
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:50 pm
by rad lulz
.
Re: Case Western v Houston
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:03 pm
by ckelly85
romothesavior wrote:
I see your point, but its like asking "Should I light my money on fire or stick it in a paper shredding machine?" The answer is neither. I don't think anyone would be doing any favors by advocating either of these schools for the average person, and I could certainly never do so in good conscience absent a good reason.
They could be devalued foreign currency possessed by a disgruntled ex-national, or you could be a drug dealer that desperately needs to get rid of marked bills. Sure, neither might be applicable in both money burning and choosing T2 law schools, but if someone is asking a question it is probably more helpful to assume that they aren't doing so from a point of ignorance. I completely agree that one should attach a caveat to answering either former question, that money burning is usually no bueno, and that for 80-90% of a T2 class, attendance can be a mistake. I don't think, though, that likelihood of none of the above in an A or B question completely invalidates it. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the advice, given the lack of context, but only that the dude maybe deserves something better than "retake or don't go."
Anyways, I cast a vote for Houston due to supporting, if questionable lawschooltransparency job data. Also personal bias.
Re: Case Western v Houston
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:16 pm
by bk1
ckelly85 wrote:it is probably more helpful to assume that they aren't doing so from a point of ignorance.
This is out of touch with reality. Most people are ignorant and/or suffering from severe optimism bias.
Re: Case Western v Houston
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:19 pm
by ckelly85
:(
Re: Case Western v Houston
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:34 pm
by rad lulz
.
Re: Case Western v Houston
Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 12:16 am
by romothesavior
ckelly85 wrote:
Yes, it is all very sad indeed.
Re: Case Western v Houston
Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 3:24 pm
by lawschooliscool
I'll have zero debt at either school.
Re: Case Western v Houston
Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:03 pm
by romothesavior
lawschooliscool wrote:I'll have zero debt at either school.
Then pick where you want to live and go there. Pray to the deity of your choice for a jerb.
Re: Case Western v Houston
Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:14 pm
by rad lulz
.
Re: Case Western v Houston
Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:36 pm
by bdole2
lawschooliscool wrote:I'll have zero debt at either school.
I don't believe you.