Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=202316
ndirish2010 wrote:Retake. USC at sticker is meh. Loyola is just not good.
What would be a worthy scholarship at USC? The 70K you got at Vandy? More? Less?rad lulz wrote:Sticker at USC is asinine
Going to Loyola is asinine with that sholarship and stips
Retake or don't go
Given the stats we have today, I probably would not attend Vandy if I got the same scholarship today. Though attending with a 70k+ scholarship isn't indefensible.BigZuck wrote:What would be a worthy scholarship at USC? The 70K you got at Vandy? More? Less?rad lulz wrote:Sticker at USC is asinine
Going to Loyola is asinine with that sholarship and stips
Retake or don't go
An offer's merit is subjective and opinions will vary, but I still consider 2/3 tuition at Loyola to be descent. Also, despite the position of 51 in USNW, Loyola does have a solid reputation and alumni network in the regional market; as this is the market I want to work in, going for 1/3 of tuition is an option which carries more appeal than waiting, even if second to attending USC without respect to cost.ndirish2010 wrote:The offer from Loyola is not exactly a good one, so why would you "especially consider" it? Why is waiting another year "not an option?" Nobody should pay sticker for USC and nobody should go to Loyola unless it was absolutely free (even then, opportunity cost).
Huh? Nobody here relies on US News.CO2016YEAH wrote:An offer's merit is subjective and opinions will vary, but I still consider 2/3 tuition at Loyola to be descent. Also, despite the position of 51 in USNW, Loyola does have a solid reputation and alumni network in the regional market; as this is the market I want to work in, going for 1/3 of tuition is an option which carries more appeal than waiting, even if second to attending USC without respect to cost.ndirish2010 wrote:The offer from Loyola is not exactly a good one, so why would you "especially consider" it? Why is waiting another year "not an option?" Nobody should pay sticker for USC and nobody should go to Loyola unless it was absolutely free (even then, opportunity cost).
As for waiting, let me rephrase: it is an option, but is not an appealing one and I do not anticipate that it would be a wise move strategically. Again, this determination is subject to opinion, but I am far from K-JD and with familial obligations; re-entering the workforce and building my career is of immediate importance. In addition, I'm not sure if there are many more points for me to gain on the LSAT, which would be necessary for a significantly improved application cycle outcome.
While I understand your logic (at least to a degree), it is also important to consider that the USNW statistics we tend to regard as the holy grail of information and the basis for concrete normative judgments are not static over an entire career. Having said that, while I appreciate your opinions and feedback, the statements that "nobody should pay sticker for USC" and "nobody should go to Loyola unless it was absolutely free" are extremely over-broad and pessimistic; even if looking at USNW employment stats at graduation (which, granted, are not entirely reliable and, as I've said, are not static), considering median private sector at USC of $160k vs. $75k at LLS, the price of full tuition is recouped in 2 years (maybe 3 or even 4 considering income taxes and interest). On its face this looks like a strong argument for USC but, again, its basis is not concrete; the reality is there are also plenty of attorneys with strong careers that have come out of Loyola. COL is a fact of life whether in school or not, so I'll set the COL consideration aside for the moment; having a JD from a strong regional school for $45k in tuition doesn't look too bad, especially if USC doesn't wind up being an option.
As for opportunity cost, it is also present for each year I am not building my law career. This is especially true if I don't manage to secure a spot at a better school or a drastically better scholarship package next year.
Having said all of this, your pessimism has validity. But while we would all love to go to HYS at sticker, or to a T-14/20,etc. with good money and nothing less, this is simply not a reality for the vast majority of law school applicants. In search of a best case scenario, maybe USC at sticker or retaking is the better option. Maybe one last solid crack at a retake and sitting out a cycle is the wiser choice.
I'm not looking for a flame war, just reasonable discourse considering outcomes with due respect to a variety of factors.
Thanks for your input.
You are seriously overestimating the chances of making that type of money coming out those schools.CO2016YEAH wrote:While I understand your logic (at least to a degree), it is also important to consider that the USNW statistics we tend to regard as the holy grail of information and the basis for concrete normative judgments are not static over an entire career. Having said that, while I appreciate your opinions and feedback, the statements that "nobody should pay sticker for USC" and "nobody should go to Loyola unless it was absolutely free" are extremely over-broad and pessimistic; even if looking at USNW employment stats at graduation (which, granted, are not entirely reliable and, as I've said, are not static), considering median private sector at USC of $160k vs. $75k at LLS, the price of full tuition is recouped in 2 years (maybe 3 or even 4 considering income taxes and interest). On its face this looks like a strong argument for USC but, again, its basis is not concrete; the reality is there are also plenty of attorneys with strong careers that have come out of Loyola.
Really? How many times a day are "T14," "T1," T2," "TTT," and "TTTT" referenced? How are people in Tennessee and Indiana forming strong opinions on the merits of schools on the other side of the country? It may not be pretty and we may not like it, but USNW gets a lot of attention.ChampagnePapi wrote:CO2016YEAH wrote:An offer's merit is subjective and opinions will vary, but I still consider 2/3 tuition at Loyola to be descent. Also, despite the position of 51 in USNW, Loyola does have a solid reputation and alumni network in the regional market; as this is the market I want to work in, going for 1/3 of tuition is an option which carries more appeal than waiting, even if second to attending USC without respect to cost.ndirish2010 wrote:The offer from Loyola is not exactly a good one, so why would you "especially consider" it? Why is waiting another year "not an option?" Nobody should pay sticker for USC and nobody should go to Loyola unless it was absolutely free (even then, opportunity cost).
As for waiting, let me rephrase: it is an option, but is not an appealing one and I do not anticipate that it would be a wise move strategically. Again, this determination is subject to opinion, but I am far from K-JD and with familial obligations; re-entering the workforce and building my career is of immediate importance. In addition, I'm not sure if there are many more points for me to gain on the LSAT, which would be necessary for a significantly improved application cycle outcome.
While I understand your logic (at least to a degree), it is also important to consider that the USNW statistics we tend to regard as the holy grail of information and the basis for concrete normative judgments are not static over an entire career. Having said that, while I appreciate your opinions and feedback, the statements that "nobody should pay sticker for USC" and "nobody should go to Loyola unless it was absolutely free" are extremely over-broad and pessimistic; even if looking at USNW employment stats at graduation (which, granted, are not entirely reliable and, as I've said, are not static), considering median private sector at USC of $160k vs. $75k at LLS, the price of full tuition is recouped in 2 years (maybe 3 or even 4 considering income taxes and interest). On its face this looks like a strong argument for USC but, again, its basis is not concrete; the reality is there are also plenty of attorneys with strong careers that have come out of Loyola. COL is a fact of life whether in school or not, so I'll set the COL consideration aside for the moment; having a JD from a strong regional school for $45k in tuition doesn't look too bad, especially if USC doesn't wind up being an option.
As for opportunity cost, it is also present for each year I am not building my law career. This is especially true if I don't manage to secure a spot at a better school or a drastically better scholarship package next year.
Having said all of this, your pessimism has validity. But while we would all love to go to HYS at sticker, or to a T-14/20,etc. with good money and nothing less, this is simply not a reality for the vast majority of law school applicants. In search of a best case scenario, maybe USC at sticker or retaking is the better option. Maybe one last solid crack at a retake and sitting out a cycle is the wiser choice.
I'm not looking for a flame war, just reasonable discourse considering outcomes with due respect to a variety of factors.
Thanks for your input.
Huh? Nobody here relies on US News.
You have a lot of errors in your post and are about to get slammed hard. My suggestion via retaking is that while it is getting late in the game, you can study and prepare for June. If you do much better in June, you can re-evaluate your options (I'm almost positive that if you got a few more points you'd be willing to wait out a cycle).
But there are MANY successful Loyola gradsndirish2010 wrote:If you can get into USC sticker, then you only need two more points to get decent money and/or get T14. I'm not going to address the many fallacies in your previous post because I think you even know that they are fallacies.
You suggested in your original post that becoming a lawyer was your number one priority. You'd even be willing to work part time at Jack in the Box to make it happen. Providing for your family didn't seem to be such a grave concern, but the funny thing is that if you are primarily concerned about providing for your family, you'd quickly turn down both of these options.CO2016YEAH wrote: I am far from K-JD and with familial obligations; re-entering the workforce and building my career is of immediate importance.
I wholeheartedly agree with the statement that those who want to be lawyers shouldn't just go wherever they get in. And I also agree that not all those that want to be lawyers are cut out for the profession and possess the necessary attributes.BigZuck wrote:FWIW I did exactly what champagnepapi is talking about last cycle, I was choosing between a couple of schools in the top 50, jumped 5+ points and am now looking at t14 schools and t20 schools with serious scholarships. It's a great plan.
Also the whole "it would be nice if we could all go to Yale but that's not a reality for most of us so I'll have to look at these schools" argument is flawed in that it assumes that people have to go to law school but they don't. If only T14 are reasonable choices (and I'm not saying they are, let's just say for the sake of the argument they are) then everyone who falls short of acceptance to them either needs to keep retaking until they get in or just choose a different career. If they can't get into a reasonable school then they should just acknowledge that they are, in the immortal words of Mr. Pancakes, disqualified from attending law school. I will never be an astronaut or an NFL quarterback because I don't have the required skills/pedigree. Becoming a lawyer should be no different. A desire to be a lawyer does not mean you should just go to whatever law school you can if its an unreasonable/irrational choice to make.
Also I'm not trying to pick on you this is just an argument I've seen a lot lately here and it seems to be deeply flawed to me.
You'll also note from the earlier post that "Jack in the Box" is not the actual alternative to immediately practicing law, but was used in order to illustrate that BigLaw debt free is not the primary objective. Furthermore, the key phrase in the latter post was "building my career," not working probono indefinitely.Tiago Splitter wrote:You suggested in your original post that becoming a lawyer was your number one priority. You'd even be willing to work part time at Jack in the Box to make it happen. Providing for your family didn't seem to be such a grave concern, but the funny thing is that if you are primarily concerned about providing for your family, you'd quickly turn down both of these options.CO2016YEAH wrote: I am far from K-JD and with familial obligations; re-entering the workforce and building my career is of immediate importance.
Upon what evidence is that based?CO2016YEAH wrote:I wholeheartedly agree with the statement that those who want to be lawyers shouldn't just go wherever they get in. And I also agree that not all those that want to be lawyers are cut out for the profession and possess the necessary attributes.BigZuck wrote:FWIW I did exactly what champagnepapi is talking about last cycle, I was choosing between a couple of schools in the top 50, jumped 5+ points and am now looking at t14 schools and t20 schools with serious scholarships. It's a great plan.
Also the whole "it would be nice if we could all go to Yale but that's not a reality for most of us so I'll have to look at these schools" argument is flawed in that it assumes that people have to go to law school but they don't. If only T14 are reasonable choices (and I'm not saying they are, let's just say for the sake of the argument they are) then everyone who falls short of acceptance to them either needs to keep retaking until they get in or just choose a different career. If they can't get into a reasonable school then they should just acknowledge that they are, in the immortal words of Mr. Pancakes, disqualified from attending law school. I will never be an astronaut or an NFL quarterback because I don't have the required skills/pedigree. Becoming a lawyer should be no different. A desire to be a lawyer does not mean you should just go to whatever law school you can if its an unreasonable/irrational choice to make.
Also I'm not trying to pick on you this is just an argument I've seen a lot lately here and it seems to be deeply flawed to me.
And I also agree that those who want to be lawyers must do what is necessary to get into a place that will adequately prepare them for the job (or are otherwise disqualified-lol). The dilemma here is not between The Peoples College and Yale. The most common fallacy that I see on TLS is the notion that any school <T14 is completely and utterly not worth attending. The vast majority of those working in the profession, I'm confident, would disagree.
I used the wage considerations above for illustrative purposes. I'm well aware the majority from either school are not making $160k, but I do think $75 out of Loyola is well within reach.