Help, TLS. Last minute decision. Forum

[Have you met Lydia?]

3.4/169 (1 take, but I outperformed my PTs)/biglaw or any jerb/only CA ties/not at all risk or debt averse/no geographical preference whatsoever/debt financed with loans and interest has been added.

Please let me know your thoughts. I feel like USC lay prestige is considerably higher (and that's speaking with east coasters as well), but Fordham seems like a peer school in meaningful data. (Why are they so much lower ranked anyway? Yes, I know the rankings don't factor into this--I am just genuinely curious. Even on ATL's more "realistic" rankings, Fordham is way lower. Why? Super penalized for prestige/clerkships/Manhattan cost? Seems a bit much.)

I guess the bottom line is that USC is a better school, but NY is a better state? So, for someone who doesn't care where they end up, is USC worth 50k more or not?

Been working in the EU for the past few years, but I don't want to stay, and my prospects in the US are very weak, so the opportunity cost is pretty low here.

Last, I didn't want to expand the poll, but I also have Cornell and NU at 220k each. I am pretty sure I am not willing to do that, but even if those are terrible options, does anyone think that those options are better than the two in the poll?

Thanks, friends. Seriously.

[TheodoreKGB]

.

[Have you met Lydia?]

Did you try negotiating with Northwestern/Cornell? If the COA for those schools came down, even a little, it would make a big difference. The hard part is that you're undecided on what you want to do/where you want to work. USC and Fordham will keep you stuck in their respective markets. A T14 degree makes you much more flexible + increased earning potential.

I say Fordham if you want NYC; it's a fair price. If not, go with Northwestern (negotiate, of course).

Thanks for your response.

Negotiations are out on the other two. NU is actually sticker, but I have free lodging in the area, so I deducted housing from the COA.

It's not so much that I'm undecided on what I want to do (biglawl) or where I want to work (either is 100% fine), I am just aware it's about a 1 in 3 chance at either place. Priority, then, is simply full-time, JD employment.

[cahwc12]

3.4/169 (1 take, but I outperformed my PTs)/biglaw or any jerb/only CA ties/not at all risk or debt averse/no geographical preference whatsoever/debt financed with loans and interest has been added.

Please let me know your thoughts. I feel like USC lay prestige is considerably higher (and that's speaking with east coasters as well), but Fordham seems like a peer school in meaningful data. (Why are they so much lower ranked anyway? Yes, I know the rankings don't factor into this--I am just genuinely curious. Even on ATL's more "realistic" rankings, Fordham is way lower. Why? Super penalized for prestige/clerkships/Manhattan cost? Seems a bit much.)

I guess the bottom line is that USC is a better school, but NY is a better state? So, for someone who doesn't care where they end up, is USC worth 50k more or not?

Been working in the EU for the past few years, but I don't want to stay, and my prospects in the US are very weak, so the opportunity cost is pretty low here.

Last, I didn't want to expand the poll, but I also have Cornell and NU at 220k each. I am pretty sure I am not willing to do that, but even if those are terrible options, does anyone think that those options are better than the two in the poll?

Thanks, friends. Seriously.

Please provide the actual tuition discounts you received, because your math is wrong. Fordham doesn't give out more than 75%, so the minimum COA you could have at Fordham is closer to $120k unless you're living at home, which you aren't.

That puts Fordham at the same COA as USC, both at around $120k, and that's only if you got 75% at both schools. Are you subtracting familial contributions or savings from your total COA? If so, you shouldn't be.

At the stated numbers you mentioned, USC seems like a much better option than Fordham, so the question just becomes whether you think $120k is an acceptable level of debt or not, and only you can answer that.

If it were me, I'd strongly consider NU at 80% positive outcome over USC at 40% positive outcome. That $100k difference is not so bad, considering the 'free lodging' is easily worth about $60k. In three years, if you could give $10k for a 10% better shot at employment, do you think you'd do it?


Anyway, I think your best bet is to not go to law school or continue to wait for a better opportunity, and I say that because that's what I chose and I have your same GPA. Still no place is going to give you a full ride that is worth going to. Are you so sure that you really want to be a lawyer? Have you ever worked at a law firm or spoken at length to people who have? This debt you take on will take you a decade or more to pay off and that's IF you're one of the 1/3 with a positive outcome from these two schools.

If you go to NU, you'll be in debt for most of your working life, but at least there you've got an 80% chance at a positive outcome. If you don't absolutely, positively, beyond any doubt, want to become a lawyer, you should wait until schools start giving full rides to your numbers, which is not far off. Just two years ago, your numbers wouldn't have sniffed scholarship at either of those places, and now they are offering 75%.

[Have you met Lydia?]

Please provide the actual tuition discounts you received, because your math is wrong. Fordham doesn't give out more than 75%, so the minimum COA you could have at Fordham is closer to $120k unless you're living at home, which you aren't.

At the stated numbers you mentioned, USC seems like a much better option than Fordham, so the question just becomes whether you think $120k is an acceptable level of debt or not, and only you can answer that.

Anyway, I think your best bet is to not go to law school or continue to wait for a better opportunity, and I say that because that's what I chose and I have your same GPA.

Thank you for the detailed analysis.

I forgot to put in the original post that I wouldn't be retaking (don't think I'll improve) and I won't be waiting for the applicant pool to worsen or anything like that. Will be attending this year.

Also, the COA numbers are accurate and represent a significant amount of time and research, though some of it is personal. Please just judge this situation on the COAs that I posted.

Back to your comment of USC being a much better option at the numbers I stated, I would like to know a little more about why you feel that way. Year after year their numbers seem very comparable, so what is the extra 50k of value in USC?

[cahwc12]

Please provide the actual tuition discounts you received, because your math is wrong. Fordham doesn't give out more than 75%, so the minimum COA you could have at Fordham is closer to $120k unless you're living at home, which you aren't.

At the stated numbers you mentioned, USC seems like a much better option than Fordham, so the question just becomes whether you think $120k is an acceptable level of debt or not, and only you can answer that.

Anyway, I think your best bet is to not go to law school or continue to wait for a better opportunity, and I say that because that's what I chose and I have your same GPA.

Thank you for the detailed analysis.

I forgot to put in the original post that I wouldn't be retaking (don't think I'll improve) and I won't be waiting for the applicant pool to worsen or anything like that. Will be attending this year.

Also, the COA numbers are accurate and represent a significant amount of time and research, though some of it is personal. Please just judge this situation on the COAs that I posted.

Back to your comment of USC being a much better option at the numbers I stated, I would like to know a little more about why you feel that way. Year after year their numbers seem very comparable, so what is the extra 50k of value in USC?

You're asking for advice but you are giving skewed numbers and also eschewing certain outcomes. Useful advice can only come from the right numbers and acknowledging all relevant alternatives.

As to why USC is better, COL is slightly lower (although still very expensive), quality of life will be objectively much higher, and your chances at a real job are about 10% better. Combine this with the fact that they will be the same price makes it a no-brainer (ASSUMING YOU PLAN TO DISREGARD ANY POSSIBILITY OF RETAKING, DELAYING, OR NOT CONSIDERING NORTHWESTERN AT STICKER). Fordham is a bad school and it's an expensive school. USC is an OK school and an expensive school. OK > Bad

Your best options are:

(1) Don't go at all.

(2) Go to Northwestern at sticker.

(3) Go to USC

(4) Go to Cornell at sticker.

(5) Go to Fordham


Have you definitely tried using USC money to get anything out of Cornell? Because then you can use Cornell money to get something out of Northwestern. With your numbers, a few people last year were able to get tuition discounts from Cornell, so I think if you persist a bit more, you can get something out of them. I also don't think retaking will significantly improve your position because your GPA locks you out of everything except maybe NYU, barring a truly exceptional score.

[beepboopbeep]

As to why USC is better, COL is slightly lower (although still very expensive), quality of life will be objectively much higher, and your chances at a real job are about 10% better. Combine this with the fact that they will be the same price makes it a no-brainer (ASSUMING YOU PLAN TO DISREGARD ANY POSSIBILITY OF RETAKING, DELAYING, OR NOT CONSIDERING NORTHWESTERN AT STICKER). Fordham is a bad school and it's an expensive school. USC is an OK school and an expensive school. OK > Bad

Your best options are:

(1) Don't go at all.
(2) Go to Northwestern at sticker.
(3) Go to USC
(4) Go to Cornell at sticker.
(5) Go to Fordham

Have you definitely tried using USC money to get anything out of Cornell? Because then you can use Cornell money to get something out of Northwestern. With your numbers, a few people last year were able to get tuition discounts from Cornell, so I think if you persist a bit more, you can get something out of them. I also don't think retaking will significantly improve your position because your GPA locks you out of everything except maybe NYU, barring a truly exceptional score.

Everything but (1) and the last paragraph is bad and you should feel bad.

First, Fordham and USC have almost exactly the same LST across the board. Almost 20% of USC's c/o 2013 is completely unemployed. I have no idea what data you're basing this "ok > bad" comparison on.

Second, COA of schools only matters to the degree that OP is actually paying for them. It doesn't matter to him what sticker is as long as his debt predictions are accurate. I would run the numbers again, OP, but you know your situation more than any of us do. If 60k debt is the actual cost of Fordham, that's not bad. It's not a great school, and retake is still TCR, but it's not objectively stupid at that price. 100k+ is another story.

Third, NU is a good school, but sticker is just an unconscionable amount of money. From your own post on another thread:

The tl;dr of all this blabbering is this: don't recommend sticker on this forum--it's not some higher percentage hedge against less positive outcomes. It has much higher risk than you even want to admit to yourself, and that debt load will burden you for years, maybe decades, after you graduate even if you do land one of these rapidly vanishing, largely soul-sucking jobs. Sticker price is a loser's game, and how much you lose is the wrong question to be asking. Avoid that debt because these jobs you think you have a great shot at are much harder to get than you are letting yourself believe.

It's true you've got more than a puncher's chance at biglaw from NU, but whether that's a good outcome with sticker debt is another question.

[thebobs1987]

As to why USC is better, COL is slightly lower (although still very expensive), quality of life will be objectively much higher, and your chances at a real job are about 10% better. Combine this with the fact that they will be the same price makes it a no-brainer (ASSUMING YOU PLAN TO DISREGARD ANY POSSIBILITY OF RETAKING, DELAYING, OR NOT CONSIDERING NORTHWESTERN AT STICKER). Fordham is a bad school and it's an expensive school. USC is an OK school and an expensive school. OK > Bad

Your best options are:

(1) Don't go at all.
(2) Go to Northwestern at sticker.
(3) Go to USC
(4) Go to Cornell at sticker.
(5) Go to Fordham

Have you definitely tried using USC money to get anything out of Cornell? Because then you can use Cornell money to get something out of Northwestern. With your numbers, a few people last year were able to get tuition discounts from Cornell, so I think if you persist a bit more, you can get something out of them. I also don't think retaking will significantly improve your position because your GPA locks you out of everything except maybe NYU, barring a truly exceptional score.

Everything but (1) and the last paragraph is bad and you should feel bad.

First, Fordham and USC have almost exactly the same LST across the board. Almost 20% of USC's c/o 2013 is completely unemployed. I have no idea what data you're basing this "ok > bad" comparison on.

Second, COA of schools only matters to the degree that OP is actually paying for them. It doesn't matter to him what sticker is as long as his debt predictions are accurate. I would run the numbers again, OP, but you know your situation more than any of us do. If 60k debt is the actual cost of Fordham, that's not bad. It's not a great school, and retake is still TCR, but it's not objectively stupid at that price. 100k+ is another story.

Third, NU is a good school, but sticker is just an unconscionable amount of money. From your own post on another thread:

The tl;dr of all this blabbering is this: don't recommend sticker on this forum--it's not some higher percentage hedge against less positive outcomes. It has much higher risk than you even want to admit to yourself, and that debt load will burden you for years, maybe decades, after you graduate even if you do land one of these rapidly vanishing, largely soul-sucking jobs. Sticker price is a loser's game, and how much you lose is the wrong question to be asking. Avoid that debt because these jobs you think you have a great shot at are much harder to get than you are letting yourself believe.

It's true you've got more than a puncher's chance at biglaw from NU, but whether that's a good outcome with sticker debt is another question.

Exactly. If OP's COA at Fordham is only 60k that's a solid deal. If OP truly is big law or bust, then they should retake or pay sticker at NU or Cornell. Though that's a lot of debt

[runinthefront]

.

[Have you met Lydia?]

I really appreciate this discussion. I am also not casually discounting the don't-go advice, but I do believe that none of the options are objectively bad, and I am ready, so I was just looking for a consensus between the two. (Although I now feel that I should have added NU to the poll--I just wasn't seriously considering it.)

Not dead set on biglaw by any means, or I would agree that neither of these is a particularly good choice.

[cahwc12]

As to why USC is better, COL is slightly lower (although still very expensive), quality of life will be objectively much higher, and your chances at a real job are about 10% better. Combine this with the fact that they will be the same price makes it a no-brainer (ASSUMING YOU PLAN TO DISREGARD ANY POSSIBILITY OF RETAKING, DELAYING, OR NOT CONSIDERING NORTHWESTERN AT STICKER). Fordham is a bad school and it's an expensive school. USC is an OK school and an expensive school. OK > Bad

Your best options are:

(1) Don't go at all.
(2) Go to Northwestern at sticker.
(3) Go to USC
(4) Go to Cornell at sticker.
(5) Go to Fordham

Have you definitely tried using USC money to get anything out of Cornell? Because then you can use Cornell money to get something out of Northwestern. With your numbers, a few people last year were able to get tuition discounts from Cornell, so I think if you persist a bit more, you can get something out of them. I also don't think retaking will significantly improve your position because your GPA locks you out of everything except maybe NYU, barring a truly exceptional score.

Everything but (1) and the last paragraph is bad and you should feel bad.

First, Fordham and USC have almost exactly the same LST across the board. Almost 20% of USC's c/o 2013 is completely unemployed. I have no idea what data you're basing this "ok > bad" comparison on.

Second, COA of schools only matters to the degree that OP is actually paying for them. It doesn't matter to him what sticker is as long as his debt predictions are accurate. I would run the numbers again, OP, but you know your situation more than any of us do. If 60k debt is the actual cost of Fordham, that's not bad. It's not a great school, and retake is still TCR, but it's not objectively stupid at that price. 100k+ is another story.

Third, NU is a good school, but sticker is just an unconscionable amount of money. From your own post on another thread:

The tl;dr of all this blabbering is this: don't recommend sticker on this forum--it's not some higher percentage hedge against less positive outcomes. It has much higher risk than you even want to admit to yourself, and that debt load will burden you for years, maybe decades, after you graduate even if you do land one of these rapidly vanishing, largely soul-sucking jobs. Sticker price is a loser's game, and how much you lose is the wrong question to be asking. Avoid that debt because these jobs you think you have a great shot at are much harder to get than you are letting yourself believe.

It's true you've got more than a puncher's chance at biglaw from NU, but whether that's a good outcome with sticker debt is another question.

I'm not recommending he go anywhere except insofar as he's totally unwilling to consider alternatives. He shouldn't go at all and I've stressed that. But NU at sticker is still a better bet than either USC or Fordham with six figures of debt.

There's an error on LST's site on Fordham that I noticed this morning, and maybe that's why you are thinking their numbers are the same. Fordham employs a significant number of its graduates whereas USC doesn't, and that's why Fordham looks equal when it is really worse. But I'm not defending either of these schools as good options in case that wasn't clear. They are both terrible options. USC is not a bad school, but Fordham is. Both are ridiculously expensive at sticker, and OP isn't providing the correct numbers for at least fordham even though he says they are correct.

COA matters a lot and yes it's not at sticker, but $120k is still a significant sum of money when you have worse than coin-flip odds at being able to service that debt from either of these schools. Just because he says it's $60k doesn't make it true, nor should we give him advice based on something that is obviously wrong. It's not a case of "well let's take him at his word."

Fordham for $60k all in is not bad, but it's also not true. You're right that if it were true, it wouldn't be such an awful option. But it isn't, and he is withholding information, choosing not to consider the best options, and then asking for advice on what he should do.



OP, you genuinely seem like a rational person, and even insofar as beepboopbeep and I are disagreeing, it really amounts to splitting hairs to the larger picture which we both do agree on--you really, genuinely shouldn't be going at these prices. Double, triple, quadruple check your data, because I promise you that fordham calculation is wrong, and you're basing a decision that will impact the next several years of your life on it. And when you see that your options are Fordham or USC for a 1/3 chance at success for $120k and three years or your life, or NU for $250k and three years of your life, or DONT GO AT ALL... I think you'll be much more hard-pressed to take either of the former paths, as well you should be.

For the vast majority of people going to law school, they are paying way too much and taking on far too much risk. Even people who say they are okay taking on that much risk don't fully appreciate the gravity of having six figures in debt and spending three years of their lives for a job they may or may not even ultimately like. For those that have full scholarships and COL support, law school still makes sense. For everyone else, it's just varying levels of "retake or don't go." And in your case, since retaking isn't going to overcome your GPA enough, the choices are either a) mire yourself in debt with dubious job prospects, or b) don't go.

Have you given any thought to what you'll do if you strike out at USC or Fordham? You can't do very much with a law degree if you're not practicing law, and in most cases it's a shit-stain on your resume because employers don't want to pay a premium for something you feel warrants a premium. People will openly admit to you that law school doesn't teach much, so you're investing in a credential that, if it doesn't get you the job you want, has only negative worth.

If you spent three years learning to code, you could land a secure job in silicon valley or any number of increasingly tech-savvy firms. If you spend that three years getting some kind of real work experience, you've still got a much better shot at a desirable outcome than coming out of either of these schools.

[runinthefront]

.

[Have you met Lydia?]

Just because he says it's $60k doesn't make it true, nor should we give him advice based on something that is obviously wrong. It's not a case of "well let's take him at his word."

I appreciated you until this point, but now you are becoming a bit belligerent.

The first time you questioned my calculations was understandable and reasonable, and I responded that the numbers were indeed accurate. To further challenge me on that point is no longer helpful. Let us put this particular point of contention to bed, shall we? It is exactly a case of "well let's take him at his word."

Now, in terms of Fordham on LST, how do you know there is a problem? Schools whose employment scores are affected by school-funded jobs are marked with an asterisk. For 2011 and 2012, Fordham was around 1%. Do you have more accurate data? If so, please provide the source.

[cahwc12]

Just because he says it's $60k doesn't make it true, nor should we give him advice based on something that is obviously wrong. It's not a case of "well let's take him at his word."

I appreciated you until this point, but now you are becoming a bit belligerent.

The first time you questioned my calculations was understandable and reasonable, and I responded that the numbers were indeed accurate. To further challenge me on that point is no longer helpful. Let us put this particular point of contention to debate, shall we? It is exactly a case of "well let's take him at his word."

Now, in terms of Fordham on LST, how do you know there is a problem? Schools whose employment scores are affected by school-funded jobs are marked with an asterisk. For 2011 and 2012, Fordham was around 1%. Do you have more accurate data? If so, please provide the source.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0#p7653484

I asked because it looked like an oversight, but it was my own error. The school-funded jobs I saw were all short-term, not long-term.

If you're truly convinced that Fordham will only cost you $60k all in, then I think most would agree that it's a reasonable investment and that you should go for it. For posterity, would you mind PMing me the data you're basing that off of though?

[Princetonlaw68]

As to why USC is better, COL is slightly lower (although still very expensive), quality of life will be objectively much higher, and your chances at a real job are about 10% better. Combine this with the fact that they will be the same price makes it a no-brainer (ASSUMING YOU PLAN TO DISREGARD ANY POSSIBILITY OF RETAKING, DELAYING, OR NOT CONSIDERING NORTHWESTERN AT STICKER). Fordham is a bad school and it's an expensive school. USC is an OK school and an expensive school. OK > Bad

Your best options are:

(1) Don't go at all.
(2) Go to Northwestern at sticker.
(3) Go to USC
(4) Go to Cornell at sticker.
(5) Go to Fordham

Have you definitely tried using USC money to get anything out of Cornell? Because then you can use Cornell money to get something out of Northwestern. With your numbers, a few people last year were able to get tuition discounts from Cornell, so I think if you persist a bit more, you can get something out of them. I also don't think retaking will significantly improve your position because your GPA locks you out of everything except maybe NYU, barring a truly exceptional score.

Everything but (1) and the last paragraph is bad and you should feel bad.

First, Fordham and USC have almost exactly the same LST across the board. Almost 20% of USC's c/o 2013 is completely unemployed. I have no idea what data you're basing this "ok > bad" comparison on.

Second, COA of schools only matters to the degree that OP is actually paying for them. It doesn't matter to him what sticker is as long as his debt predictions are accurate. I would run the numbers again, OP, but you know your situation more than any of us do. If 60k debt is the actual cost of Fordham, that's not bad. It's not a great school, and retake is still TCR, but it's not objectively stupid at that price. 100k+ is another story.

Third, NU is a good school, but sticker is just an unconscionable amount of money. From your own post on another thread:

The tl;dr of all this blabbering is this: don't recommend sticker on this forum--it's not some higher percentage hedge against less positive outcomes. It has much higher risk than you even want to admit to yourself, and that debt load will burden you for years, maybe decades, after you graduate even if you do land one of these rapidly vanishing, largely soul-sucking jobs. Sticker price is a loser's game, and how much you lose is the wrong question to be asking. Avoid that debt because these jobs you think you have a great shot at are much harder to get than you are letting yourself believe.

It's true you've got more than a puncher's chance at biglaw from NU, but whether that's a good outcome with sticker debt is another question.

I'm not recommending he go anywhere except insofar as he's totally unwilling to consider alternatives. He shouldn't go at all and I've stressed that. But NU at sticker is still a better bet than either USC or Fordham with six figures of debt.

There's an error on LST's site on Fordham that I noticed this morning, and maybe that's why you are thinking their numbers are the same. Fordham employs a significant number of its graduates whereas USC doesn't, and that's why Fordham looks equal when it is really worse. But I'm not defending either of these schools as good options in case that wasn't clear. They are both terrible options. USC is not a bad school, but Fordham is. Both are ridiculously expensive at sticker, and OP isn't providing the correct numbers for at least fordham even though he says they are correct.

COA matters a lot and yes it's not at sticker, but $120k is still a significant sum of money when you have worse than coin-flip odds at being able to service that debt from either of these schools. Just because he says it's $60k doesn't make it true, nor should we give him advice based on something that is obviously wrong. It's not a case of "well let's take him at his word."

Fordham for $60k all in is not bad, but it's also not true. You're right that if it were true, it wouldn't be such an awful option. But it isn't, and he is withholding information, choosing not to consider the best options, and then asking for advice on what he should do.



OP, you genuinely seem like a rational person, and even insofar as beepboopbeep and I are disagreeing, it really amounts to splitting hairs to the larger picture which we both do agree on--you really, genuinely shouldn't be going at these prices. Double, triple, quadruple check your data, because I promise you that fordham calculation is wrong, and you're basing a decision that will impact the next several years of your life on it. And when you see that your options are Fordham or USC for a 1/3 chance at success for $120k and three years or your life, or NU for $250k and three years of your life, or DONT GO AT ALL... I think you'll be much more hard-pressed to take either of the former paths, as well you should be.

For the vast majority of people going to law school, they are paying way too much and taking on far too much risk. Even people who say they are okay taking on that much risk don't fully appreciate the gravity of having six figures in debt and spending three years of their lives for a job they may or may not even ultimately like. For those that have full scholarships and COL support, law school still makes sense. For everyone else, it's just varying levels of "retake or don't go." And in your case, since retaking isn't going to overcome your GPA enough, the choices are either a) mire yourself in debt with dubious job prospects, or b) don't go.

Have you given any thought to what you'll do if you strike out at USC or Fordham? You can't do very much with a law degree if you're not practicing law, and in most cases it's a shit-stain on your resume because employers don't want to pay a premium for something you feel warrants a premium. People will openly admit to you that law school doesn't teach much, so you're investing in a credential that, if it doesn't get you the job you want, has only negative worth.

If you spent three years learning to code, you could land a secure job in silicon valley or any number of increasingly tech-savvy firms. If you spend that three years getting some kind of real work experience, you've still got a much better shot at a desirable outcome than coming out of either of these schools.

I did this quickly, but I compared Fordham's ABA report to LST and I didn't see an error. Could you explain the error please? Thanks.

As far as I could see, Fordham does have around 63.x percent full time J.D. required bar passage, after subtracting the school funded numbers. I can explain my rationale further if you'd like.

[cron1834]

USC has pretty consistently been better than Fordham. They slipped this year, but that doesn't negate all of the years that came before it. Plus, OP's only ties are to CA.

Still, I think I agree that e) none of the above is TCR.

[Scuppers]

Plus, OP's only ties are to CA.

Yeah, NYC requires extensive ties.

[Princetonlaw68]

USC has pretty consistently been better than Fordham. They slipped this year, but that doesn't negate all of the years that came before it. Plus, OP's only ties are to CA.

Still, I think I agree that e) none of the above is TCR.

I know most people on TLS don't really believe in this, but I think that the higher employment percentages for USC, in an average year, are extremely marginal. So marginal, in fact, that the higher quality of the students there probably negates the advantage. I agree with the general logic that one is likely to end up around 50th percentile, and generally you should go to the better school because the amount smarter/hard working the students will be is not nearly enough to account for the vast increases in employment, but in the case of USC and Fordham, I don't think USC is a better choice at all. USC is a classic case of a T20 that completely underperforms, considering its reputation, so it's a bunch of high level students with bleaker employment prospects than they should have. Fordham, on the other hand, is a typical example of a school that consistently has employment prospects that far surpass its reputation. Because of this combination of factors, I really don't think USC is a better choice at all, even for equal cost. I think that a given student is going to have roughly the same outcome whether he/she attends USC or Fordham.

(The only difference being where that outcome is located)

[Scuppers]

I just wanted to add that as much as princetonlaw got troll status for his other thread, and the Cornell debacle, I find myself agreeing with a lot of his points, especially the last one. And I would love if one of his detractors would come in here and prove it wrong. (Sort of in the way that Plato would take contrary positions just so Socrates would disprove him.)

As someone who spent some time debating t20 $$ versus t10 sticker, I have an interest in this whole GPA/LSAT correlation to 1l class rank. I have searched TLS well and the consensus seems to be that there is a somewhat strong correlation (based on the LSAC information, NOT the random anecdotes of sub 25 percentilers booking every exam), but not strong enough to justify attending a lower-ranked school because of differing employment prospects. BUT in this case, it really does seem to make sense.

USC 2013
163-166-167 3.5-3.7-3.79

Fordham 2013
161-163-165 3.32-3.52-3.68

By the LSAT, the USC medians are in the 93rd percentile while Fordhams are in the 88th. At my school, going from 3.7 to 3.5 GPA drops you around 10% in class rank. It seems to me that a person with a 3.4 169 could reasonably expect to perform 5-10% better at Fordham than USC just by virtue of the competition. On the other hand, USC does not enjoy 5-10% better employment prospects, so top 30% at Fordham is much better than top 40% at USC. So all things being equal, and location not factored, doesn't Fordham get the nod? Added to which, all things are not equal as Fordham is actually cheaper too (in this case). Doesn't that kind of make Fordham a slam dunk here?

(I wish I could further ask those who voted Fordham at which point, in money, they would have voted USC. What if Fordham were only 25k cheaper, would you still go Fordham? What if it were even money, would you switch to USC at that point?)

[cron1834]

Plus, OP's only ties are to CA.

Yeah, NYC requires extensive ties.

Don't be dickish. It should be obvious that there are advantages to having friends/family in the region in which one lives/works other than 2L callbacks.

USC has pretty consistently been better than Fordham. They slipped this year, but that doesn't negate all of the years that came before it. Plus, OP's only ties are to CA.

Still, I think I agree that e) none of the above is TCR.

I know most people on TLS don't really believe in this, but I think that the higher employment percentages for USC, in an average year, are extremely marginal. So marginal, in fact, that the higher quality of the students there probably negates the advantage. I agree with the general logic that one is likely to end up around 50th percentile, and generally you should go to the better school because the amount smarter/hard working the students will be is not nearly enough to account for the vast increases in employment, but in the case of USC and Fordham, I don't think USC is a better choice at all. USC is a classic case of a T20 that completely underperforms, considering its reputation, so it's a bunch of high level students with bleaker employment prospects than they should have. Fordham, on the other hand, is a typical example of a school that consistently has employment prospects that far surpass its reputation. Because of this combination of factors, I really don't think USC is a better choice at all, even for equal cost. I think that a given student is going to have roughly the same outcome whether he/she attends USC or Fordham.

(The only difference being where that outcome is located)

Again with this? Dude, you came across pretty silly re: scholarships and re: advice in the other thread, and now you're doubling down? Fordham = USC for the CO'13, sure. But it was a bit of an aberration for USC, who beat Fordham in the previous several years in overall employment and the previous several years in bigaw+fedclerk outcomes. Additionally, there is no pro-USC cabal. It happens to be slightly better than Fordham, and seems to be more generous. Very few people are ever going to be in a position that they're deciding between the two, because they're both hyper-regional.

Next you're going to be telling us that Fordham is essentially equivalent to YLS. After all, Yale doesn't produce as many biglaw outcomes as its USNWR rank would predict, and the students are so high-level, right? Are you related to someone who works at F. or something? I don't understand the fascination.

[Scuppers]

Next you're going to be telling us that Fordham is essentially equivalent to YLS. After all, Yale doesn't produce as many biglaw outcomes as its USNWR rank would predict, and the students are so high-level, right? Are you related to someone who works at F. or something? I don't understand the fascination.

Cool straw man, bra.

No one said anything about YLS. All he said, and I agree, is that the employment advantage at USC (nonexistent in 2013, and fairly small when averaged out over the last three years) is smaller than the difference in student lsat/gpa. Even money, maybe USC still wins, I don't know. It's close. But this is not a case of even money.

[cron1834]

Next you're going to be telling us that Fordham is essentially equivalent to YLS. After all, Yale doesn't produce as many biglaw outcomes as its USNWR rank would predict, and the students are so high-level, right? Are you related to someone who works at F. or something? I don't understand the fascination.

Cool straw man, bra.

No one said anything about YLS. All he said, and I agree, is that the employment advantage at USC (nonexistent in 2013, and fairly small when averaged out over the last three years) is smaller than the difference in student lsat/gpa. Even money, maybe USC still wins, I don't know. It's close. But this is not a case of even money.

I was exaggerating for effect, and referring to the bizarre set of claims he made earlier. Of course it's not an actual argument, "bra." Also, who actually cares about incoming LSAT 25/75s? Is this some "be at the top of your class" thing?

Anyway, Fordham is still a toilet, and the answer here is still "retake."

[Onomatopoeia]

i dont think some schlep for fordam would be pointing out the inferior stats of their incoming class - ever. i can see the advantage of attending fordam, where, in the aggregate, you have done better in school and standardized tests than a greater percentage of the class relative to if you attended usc. both options aren't great though, and that is very important to remember.

[Scuppers]

I was exaggerating for effect, and referring to the bizarre set of claims he made earlier. Of course it's not an actual argument, "bra." Also, who actually cares about incoming LSAT 25/75s? Is this some "be at the top of your class" thing?

Anyway, Fordham is still a toilet, and the answer here is still "retake."

I guess this is our fundamental issue. You are straw manning (sorry, "exaggerating for effect") and name calling. I'm just looking at the data.

It's not a be at the top of your class thing. It's a http://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source ... rmance.pdf thing

It's not a "one school is a toilet" thing. It's a http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/usc/2013/ and http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/fordham/ thing. (Including previous years.)

[Mal Reynolds]

Retake is the only option. Don't go to any of these schools.