GW $$ v. USC $$ Forum

[kacy]

-The schools you are considering

GW - 29k/yr scholarship + fin.aid
USC - 20k/yr scholarship
Waitlisted at UVA & Cornell.

-The total Cost of Attendance (COA) of each. COA = cost of tuition + fees + books + cost of living (COL) + accumulated interest - scholarships. Here is a helpful calculator.

GW COA= ~150K
USC COA = ~ 150K

USC's tuition is higher and they are giving me less $ but my parents live in LA so i can save on living costs if i live with them. So total COA end up being pretty much the same at both schools.

-How you will be financing your COA, i.e. loans, family, or savings I will be taking out loans for everything.

I'll be taking out loans for all costs.

-Where you are from and where you want to work, and other places where you have significant ties (if any)

I've lived in Cali for 3 yrs as a kid, most of my life in Atlanta including undergrad, and just a yr in NYC.


USC pros-
My parents are now in LA, and they have more friends there but I dont know how helpful my family ties will be for me. My boyfriend is working overseas and it will be much easier for him to visit me in LA then DC. LA will also be easier for him to find a job and settle when he comes back to the states. I also take a lil comfort in the fact that USC is small in class size.

GW pros-
I wouldn't mind working in DC. I have visited and it seemed like a very good place to live. I have a few friends working for the gov agencies in DC and they are very happy there, and I have a friend working in biglaw in DC and he is just thrilled to be there.
Also, I lived in NYC for only one yr but I have absolutely loved it. I think it will be easier to get a job in NYC graduating from GW then USC.
And... I wonder if it will be better to stay away from family so I can just study and focus without distractions from them.

I know it comes down to where I would like to practice but I dont have a strong preference. East or west, or even South, I just want a job after graduation and be able to pay off my debt.

-Your general career goals

I am very open, but from what I hear, it will be good to get a biglaw job out of school bc it pays the school loans and bc it'll be much easier to move from biglaw to any other areas then it is other way. I think itll be wonderful to make money and get experience in biglaw and i can do whatever else i have passion for after a few yrs in biglaw.


-Your LSAT/GPA numbers

3.4 gpa
167 & 163 lsat.

I scored lower on my second one and i dont know what happened. I used to PT at 173... i am signed up for the June LSAT and I am still PTing at 170-173 but I guess i just dont do as well on actual LSAT.


IF i dont do any better on June test and if i dont get off the waitlist at UVA or Cornell, then i would have to choose bw the two schools. Whats a better choice??


Please help!

P.S. pls dont tell me to not go to law school. Please please please.

[timbs4339]

You know your chances of getting biglaw are sub-50% right?

[Bronck]

Not going is the best choice, because both schools are terrible choices at this cost.

[TheNextAmendment]

I think your COA numbers are off too. With that reduction GW is like 180k with interest.

[Doorkeeper]

Retake and reapply is the only credited option if you're PTing at 170-173.

GWU and USC are not worth $150k if you want biglaw. You're basically paying $150,000 for a 30% chance at getting the job you want.

Good luck on the UVA and Cornell waitlists.

[hephaestus]

Not going is the best choice, because both schools are terrible choices at this cost.

Yes. You have to retake and reapply.

[fLaw School Bound]

So sick of the re-take/re-apply drones on here. Have you seen these guys post totals? Thousands of posts all just saying the same thing "retake dude, not worth it," it's like they hold themselves up to be the law school crusaders, cursed with the burden of protecting poor aspiring law students from attending school at all costs. They ignore the question asked and the particulars of the situation and just spew out their stock answers.

Practice tests, while helpful, don't really give you a super accurate predictor of your scores. The testtaking environments are too different. Statistically, one's first re-take will be worth a 1-2 point bump, assuming you studied. If you studied hard, had no real extenuating circumstances, and still got a 163, it means your 167 will probably be close to the best you can expect. You may end up with a 168 or 169, but more likely something in the middle of your last two scores.

I will assume that you're a big girl, have looked into the field, weighed the risks and decided to go to law school anyway. USC and GW are not very far apart rankings wise, nor, it seems for you, in cost of living. Both schools place largely regionally, but have at least a little national cred. GW would be a better option for NYC placement. USC way better for California placement.

Given that the schools are pretty comparable in prestige job placement (Big Law, Big Government and Federal clerkships combined) you should really consider what you are passionate about and which location provides the best networking opportunites for THAT field.

Personally, I chose GW and will be attending in the fall with the same debt load. (Trollers: yes I know the statistics. yes i know the risks. yes I'm going anyway because it's what makes the most sense for me).

P.S.- there are other options besides Big Law to pay off debt.... for instance you can get your loan forgiven after 10 years of public service work. Also, many boutique firms, especially in L.A. pay just as well as Big Law.

[bruin91]

So sick of the re-take/re-apply drones on here. Have you seen these guys post totals? Thousands of posts all just saying the same thing "retake dude, not worth it," it's like they hold themselves up to be the law school crusaders, cursed with the burden of protecting poor aspiring law students from attending school at all costs. They ignore the question asked and the particulars of the situation and just spew out their stock answers.

Practice tests, while helpful, don't really give you a super accurate predictor of your scores. The testtaking environments are too different. Statistically, one's first re-take will be worth a 1-2 point bump, assuming you studied. If you studied hard, had no real extenuating circumstances, and still got a 163, it means your 167 will probably be close to the best you can expect. You may end up with a 168 or 169, but more likely something in the middle of your last two scores.

I will assume that you're a big girl, have looked into the field, weighed the risks and decided to go to law school anyway. USC and GW are not very far apart rankings wise, nor, it seems for you, in cost of living. Both schools place largely regionally, but have at least a little national cred. GW would be a better option for NYC placement. USC way better for California placement.

Given that the schools are pretty comparable in prestige job placement (Big Law, Big Government and Federal clerkships combined) you should really consider what you are passionate about and which location provides the best networking opportunites for THAT field.

Personally, I chose GW and will be attending in the fall with the same debt load. (Trollers: yes I know the statistics. yes i know the risks. yes I'm going anyway because it's what makes the most sense for me).

P.S.- there are other options besides Big Law to pay off debt.... for instance you can get your loan forgiven after 10 years of public service work. Also, many boutique firms, especially in L.A. pay just as well as Big Law.

^^ I like you. I like you a lot.

As for you OP, my vote is for USC. COA would make the price differential pretty significant between USC and GW if you were to live with your parents in LA.

Also, USC has a smaller class size, and about 40% get a biglaw/Art III clerkship; not bad by any means (compared to T14, obviously, in a different league, but still very solid) USC also has amazing career services, from what I've heard from people who go there. Alumni base is very strong in CA.

If you want to go to DC, I'd choose GW. Otherwise, if you want to stay in LA (make yourself, your boyfriend, and your parents happy) by staying home, saving money, and going to school at USC.

[dawyzest1]

So sick of the re-take/re-apply drones on here. Have you seen these guys post totals? Thousands of posts all just saying the same thing "retake dude, not worth it," it's like they hold themselves up to be the law school crusaders, cursed with the burden of protecting poor aspiring law students from attending school at all costs. They ignore the question asked and the particulars of the situation and just spew out their stock answers.

I hear you on this, but I wouldn't be that harsh. I think all the advice given is well-intended. It is just incredibly hard to give advice without imprinting your own risk-aversion and values on the question. It's hard to distinguish what you should do from what I would do, if that makes sense. This is clearest when someone posts and says "I will not do X" and most of the advice is to do exactly X.

[timbs4339]

So sick of the re-take/re-apply drones on here. Have you seen these guys post totals? Thousands of posts all just saying the same thing "retake dude, not worth it," it's like they hold themselves up to be the law school crusaders, cursed with the burden of protecting poor aspiring law students from attending school at all costs. They ignore the question asked and the particulars of the situation and just spew out their stock answers.

Practice tests, while helpful, don't really give you a super accurate predictor of your scores. The testtaking environments are too different. Statistically, one's first re-take will be worth a 1-2 point bump, assuming you studied. If you studied hard, had no real extenuating circumstances, and still got a 163, it means your 167 will probably be close to the best you can expect. You may end up with a 168 or 169, but more likely something in the middle of your last two scores.

I will assume that you're a big girl, have looked into the field, weighed the risks and decided to go to law school anyway. USC and GW are not very far apart rankings wise, nor, it seems for you, in cost of living. Both schools place largely regionally, but have at least a little national cred. GW would be a better option for NYC placement. USC way better for California placement.

Given that the schools are pretty comparable in prestige job placement (Big Law, Big Government and Federal clerkships combined) you should really consider what you are passionate about and which location provides the best networking opportunites for THAT field.

Personally, I chose GW and will be attending in the fall with the same debt load. (Trollers: yes I know the statistics. yes i know the risks. yes I'm going anyway because it's what makes the most sense for me).

P.S.- there are other options besides Big Law to pay off debt.... for instance you can get your loan forgiven after 10 years of public service work. Also, many boutique firms, especially in L.A. pay just as well as Big Law.

If OP really wants to do biglaw or something else as high-paying, that debt is not good for the chances. OP may have no idea what the chances of biglaw are out of either school, or that GW placed 20% of its graduates in school-funded jobs paying 25K.

[jbagelboy]

Practice tests, while helpful, don't really give you a super accurate predictor of your scores. The testtaking environments are too different. Statistically, one's first re-take will be worth a 1-2 point bump, assuming you studied. If you studied hard, had no real extenuating circumstances, and still got a 163, it means your 167 will probably be close to the best you can expect. You may end up with a 168 or 169, but more likely something in the middle of your last two scores.

We all agree PT's are not fully representative of actual scoring. But they are nonetheless indicative of a range you should hit on test day. PTing at 170-173 should yield at least a 168, barring unforeseen disaster. Since OP scored a 163 on her last test, she clearly underperformed and could do better.

Where are you drawing your "statistics" for the bolded statement above? I retook and gained 8 points FWIW. Many people here have seen huge jumps that have changed the trajectories of their cycles. The conventional wisdom used to be (and is now somewhat changing) that if you scored within a couple points (1-2+) of your previous score, law schools would just assume you prepped more and treat it as identical within a score range, with some jumps being more significant than others (like 169->170). However, if you make a LARGE jump (5+), then they know your lower score does not accurately reflect your potential and go with the higher one only. This is totally worth it.

P.S.- there are other options besides Big Law to pay off debt.... for instance you can get your loan forgiven after 10 years of public service work. Also, many boutique firms, especially in L.A. pay just as well as Big Law.

Those boutique firms are sometimes more difficult to get than traditional biglaw. Also, I agree the LRAP route is often too easily dismissed on TLS... However, note that OP specified she wanted biglaw, so the previous posters' comments were referring to that statement.

edit: also OP, I apologize for not stating my vote earlier: USC. It gets a +1 for CA placement, +1 for your relationship, +1 for saving costs on housing (which will inevitably outweigh the scholarship delta over time), and FWIW +1 for being technically higher ranked (all else equal this "kind of" matters.)

[fLaw School Bound]

My statistics come directly from the LSAC website, which says that re-takers avergage a little under a 2 point bump. The problem with practice tests is that a) most people fail to adequately time themselves and b) you can't really simulate the conditions of the test where the anxiety of knowing the importance of the test can induce a lot of stress.

I don't disagree with those that point out the risks and even those that suggest re-taking if the circumstances are right for it.... but those who dismissively say re-take not worth it (they're the ones usually with 4 digit post totals) every time, even when the OP says retake is not an option, are simply being demeaning and not helping at all. What they're doing is bullying people by making them feel that any opinion other than there own is foolish and without merit.

For instance, I'm attending GW this fall. It's going to cost me 155K closer to 190K by the time interest is factored in. To some that's not worth the risk. For me a chance, even only a 30% chance, at securing a really good career with a great salary, is worth the risk because it's really my only even remotely realistic chance and I happen to be very very good at it.

If these posters wanted to be constructive and not just belittling, they could say "either is really risky. You'll have to end up in the top quarter of your class if you're going to land in big law. You should know that going in."

[jbagelboy]

My statistics come directly from the LSAC website, which says that re-takers avergage a little under a 2 point bump. The problem with practice tests is that a) most people fail to adequately time themselves and b) you can't really simulate the conditions of the test where the anxiety of knowing the importance of the test can induce a lot of stress.

I don't disagree with those that point out the risks and even those that suggest re-taking if the circumstances are right for it.... but those who dismissively say re-take not worth it (they're the ones usually with 4 digit post totals) every time, even when the OP says retake is not an option, are simply being demeaning and not helping at all. What they're doing is bullying people by making them feel that any opinion other than there own is foolish and without merit.

For instance, I'm attending GW this fall. It's going to cost me 155K closer to 190K by the time interest is factored in. To some that's not worth the risk. For me a chance, even only a 30% chance, at securing a really good career with a great salary, is worth the risk because it's really my only even remotely realistic chance and I happen to be very very good at it.

If these posters wanted to be constructive and not just belittling, they could say "either is really risky. You'll have to end up in the top quarter of your class if you're going to land in big law. You should know that going in."

your situation is rather unique seeing as you have a shit GPA, a high LSAT already so no point retaking, and you're getting old so if you waited any longer you'd hardly be employable (normally I'd say 36-37 is pushing it to be employable in biglaw due to the ageism factor, but your prior experience in litigation would be a boost and compensate for it). For a lot of these younger kids with low LSATs, the choice is much more available and could save a lot of heartache.

[timbs4339]

For instance, I'm attending GW this fall. It's going to cost me 155K closer to 190K by the time interest is factored in. To some that's not worth the risk. For me a chance, even only a 30% chance, at securing a really good career with a great salary, is worth the risk because it's really my only even remotely realistic chance and I happen to be very very good at it.

Retake.

Also, lol wut?

For me a chance, even only a 30% chance, at securing a really good career with a great salary, is worth the risk because it's really my only even remotely realistic chance and I happen to be very very good at it.

[fLaw School Bound]

your situation is rather unique seeing as you have a shit GPA, a high LSAT already so no point retaking, and you're getting old so if you waited any longer you'd hardly be employable (normally I'd say 36-37 is pushing it to be employable in biglaw due to the ageism factor, but your prior experience in litigation would be a boost and compensate for it). For a lot of these younger kids with low LSATs, the choice is much more available and could save a lot of heartache.

Ha, yeah, that's pretty much the hard truth of it as far as my situation, but what choices are available for others? These kids scoring in the mid 160's are scoring better than 90% of their peers who take the LSAT, in my mind that means that they are people that excel at law. Who's to say they excel equally, or even in the same ball park, in other fields.

And what other fields have better job numbers with a better standard of living? You think law has been hit hard try architecture, journalism, industrial design, accounting... even high finance took a major hit. Pretty much the only degrees that are close to a "sure thing" these days are in the medical field and some engineering fields, and only medicine has a similar ceiling to law of the two.

So if you're not cut out to be a doctor or an engineer, what options provide you more solid footing then law?

If you want to save kids from heartache and a ruined pocket book, there's a whole bunch of film students and aspiring screenwriters that could use a talking to.

[jbagelboy]

your situation is rather unique seeing as you have a shit GPA, a high LSAT already so no point retaking, and you're getting old so if you waited any longer you'd hardly be employable (normally I'd say 36-37 is pushing it to be employable in biglaw due to the ageism factor, but your prior experience in litigation would be a boost and compensate for it). For a lot of these younger kids with low LSATs, the choice is much more available and could save a lot of heartache.

Ha, yeah, that's pretty much the hard truth of it as far as my situation, but what choices are available for others? These kids scoring in the mid 160's are scoring better than 90% of their peers who take the LSAT, in my mind that means that they are people that excel at law. Who's to say they excel equally, or even in the same ball park, in other fields.

And what other fields have better job numbers with a better standard of living? You think law has been hit hard try architecture, journalism, industrial design, accounting... even high finance took a major hit. Pretty much the only degrees that are close to a "sure thing" these days are in the medical field and some engineering fields, and only medicine has a similar ceiling to law of the two.

So if you're not cut out to be a doctor or an engineer, what options provide you more solid footing then law?

If you want to save kids from heartache and a ruined pocket book, there's a whole bunch of film students and aspiring screenwriters that could use a talking to.

This is part of a broader discussion implicating forum-wide polemics on whether to attend law school ITE at all and the comparative value of a JD today relative to other fields. I am of the hopeful opinion that the legal market will continue to improve mildly over the next few years as it has since the low of 2010/2011. However, it is the very concept that law is a "safer bet" than other industries, programs, or professions, that has led to so much distrust between school and student, so many problems for grads and via trickling down of information, so much caution for 0Ls here.

Also, if you get a Ph.D in Portuguese literature or a funded masters in journalism or film (many are), naturally you will struggle to find employment, but you won't be $200,000 in debt. Clearly film-making and writing, music recording and performance, ect. are huge longshots, but they always have been, and everyone entering that industry knows it well. These should not be compared to law. CPA's, MD's, PEs, ect. on the other hand are all statistically more likely to find a job requiring their credentials than a JD as far as total grads/total jobs is concerned. CS is off the charts.

[TheNextAmendment]

@flawschoolbound- that's a great point about other fields of interest. It needs to be stressed more on this site that very few industries are doing well enough to be called "safe bets" besides maybe nursing and elementary education. Thanks boomers...u overspend and indulge, leave us shit deep in a recession, and expect us to make our money taking care of you in a retirement home. Tough love.

[y2zipper]

There's no such thing as a sure thing, but law school is so costly that you have to try and make a good bet. If you haven't taken the LSAT 3 times and don't have something in the 170's, you probably haven't done that. Schools always take the high score, so re-taking isn't a bad option ever unless you get a 175 or out score your PT average by a lot.

If you're PTing at 170, you should do better than 163. The market favors applicants right now because less people are going. Retake, do better and negotiate a good deal.

[rambleon65]

*sigh* at the canned responses...
I think there is a huge difference between one 165er who was PTing around 170/173 and one 165er who was PTing around 163-166. The 2.3/2.4 average increase on LSAT is simply a fact. Sure, many have success stories, but these are highly anecdotal and statistically irrelevant.

OP, while I do believe you have a great chance at a score closer to your PT score, which would give you better options, out of the two options you proposed and what you want, I think USC seems to be a better choice.

GW, when you discount the 20% school funded jobs that you probably don't want as part of full-time/long-term/legal jobs, has a lower employment score than USC and a lower large firm score. Also, saving on COL will likely make USC much more financially attractive than your current GW offer. Personally, I'm not a big fan of LA and I love DC, but i think USC is the better choice in your situation. Good luck!

P.S. Lol it's amazing that a lot of these 2000+ posters are current law students--I'd think if i had time to post this many times, I'd take a break from the desk and go to the gym or something. But what do i know, I'm just a lowly 0L.

[Bronck]

You guys really aren't giving him good advice. There's a reason so many current law students advise people in situations like this to retake or reassess their goals. It simply isn't a wise decision to go into that much debt when you have less than a 50% chance of getting a job that will let you service it.

[rambleon65]

You guys really aren't giving him good advice. There's a reason so many current law students advise people in situations like this to retake or reassess their goals. It simply isn't a wise decision to go into that much debt when you have less than a 50% chance of getting a job that will let you service it.

1) Most likely OP is a girl, thus "her." Probably would have figured it out if you read the actual question.
(OP, i apologize sincerely if you are male)

2) OP is already retaking. Probably would have figured it out if you read the actual question.

[Bronck]

You guys really aren't giving him good advice. There's a reason so many current law students advise people in situations like this to retake or reassess their goals. It simply isn't a wise decision to go into that much debt when you have less than a 50% chance of getting a job that will let you service it.

1) Most likely OP is a girl, thus "her." Probably would have figured it out if you read the actual question.
(OP, i apologize sincerely if you are male)

2) OP is already retaking. Probably would have figured it out if you read the actual question.

Thanks for bringing up irrelevant points

[Micdiddy]

What's up with all this reactionary advice nowadays? Conventional wisdom is now retake or don't go so people have to give bad advice just to say something different? Anyone who "sighs" just because the best advice tends to be the same over and over again does not give two shits about ops future. Why do we have thousands of posts and yet usually give the same advice? Because we recognize this op is different from yesterday's op and the one from the day before, so we need to give the same advice so that everyone has a chance to hear it and make the best decision for themselves. It would be disingenuous to do anything else.

Op, these schools are not worth this amount of money, period. Are there extreme cases where some person somewhere might actually be logically justified in taking one of these options? Maybe, but I highly doubt you are that exception (and would love to hear reasons you might be if you believe that's the case).
Good luck on your retake! Use the LSAT forum here for advice as it is top notch.

[fLaw School Bound]

What's up with all this reactionary advice nowadays? Conventional wisdom is now retake or don't go so people have to give bad advice just to say something different? Anyone who "sighs" just because the best advice tends to be the same over and over again does not give two shits about ops future. Why do we have thousands of posts and yet usually give the same advice? Because we recognize this op is different from yesterday's op and the one from the day before, so we need to give the same advice so that everyone has a chance to hear it and make the best decision for themselves. It would be disingenuous to do anything else.

Op, these schools are not worth this amount of money, period. Are there extreme cases where some person somewhere might actually be logically justified in taking one of these options? Maybe, but I highly doubt you are that exception (and would love to hear reasons you might be if you believe that's the case).
Good luck on your retake! Use the LSAT forum here for advice as it is top notch.

If it's conventional wisdom then why are you wasting your time posting it thousands of times over and over again? Especially when other posters have already posted the same message responding to the OP?

She asked a simple question: A or B. That's it. A or B. You "re-take or don't go" zealots make it seem like it's "conventional wisdom" simply because you canvass these boards day and night spreading your opinion like it's gospel. 1,700 posts? Don't you have anything better to do with your life?

Sorry for hijacking your board OP, just tired of these guys making it seem like something is "conventional wisdom" simply because they shout louder than everyone else.

For what it's worth, I'd pick USC, it's a great school and living at home will provide you a bit of both montetary and emotional relief. It's too easy when you're alone in a new town to focus on meeting people rather than studying. While that's merely mitigated and not outright solved by living witht the folks.... anything that helps get your brain focused on school seems to me to be a good idea.

[Doorkeeper]

If it's conventional wisdom then why are you wasting your time posting it thousands of times over and over again? Especially when other posters have already posted the same message responding to the OP?

Because when multiple posters put the same opinion on a thread and that opinion is then seen as the consensus, the OP is more likely to listen to that advice.

She asked a simple question: A or B. That's it. A or B. You "re-take or don't go" zealots make it seem like it's "conventional wisdom" simply because you canvass these boards day and night spreading your opinion like it's gospel. 1,700 posts? Don't you have anything better to do with your life?

If choice A was to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge and choice B was to jump off the Verrazano, why not mention that there's also the option to not jump?

Posters always say the options are A and B, but really the options are A, B, C, D, or E and they just either haven't put those options in the poll or haven't sufficiently considered them as legitimate options. I'm not going to give bad advice just because the OP told me to pick one of two bad options.

Also, there's no reason to devolve into ad hominem attacks. Get that shit out of here.