Loyola $$$$ vs. Hastings $$$$ Forum

[ghost5-0]

I understand most will say this is not a decision that even needs to be made and I should re-take, but given scholly, savings and family help I will be able to graduate with close to $0 debt and I'm ready to go so is there anything obvious that I'm missing?

Loyola 129K Aulumni scholarship

vs.

Hastings 129K Regents scholarship

COA will be similar at both schools and as mentioned I will be able to pay for most of my expenses out of pocket.

I have more direct ties to the Southern California as I went to boarding school and college down there but have good connections in the north as well.

Stats were 3.52/165 and took the LSAT twice.

[eaternation]

Wouldn't cost of living be a bit higher in SF unless he/she lives in a dangerous area, outside of sf, or shares a room?

If you have to go, I would base it off where you would rather practice NorCal or SoCal. Big law is likely out.

[CanadianWolf]

Seems to be a personal preference decision; do you prefer to go to law school in SF or LA ?

[OhBoyOhBortles]

What are your career goals?

[ghost5-0]

Career goals are hazy, which I understand is not an ideal thing when attending something out of T14.

Big Law would be an interest, but again I understand that is pie in the sky when picking from these two. Wouldn't mind public interest, or some mid/small level litigation firm.

Out of curiosity does the general pessimism on these forums stem from pure reality, or one part reality and one part scare tactics for people who are just considering law school because they can't think of anything else to do?

[downbeat14]

Retake or don't go to law school.

[Traynor Brah]

Out of curiosity does the general pessimism on these forums stem from pure reality, or one part reality and one part scare tactics for people who are just considering law school because they can't think of anything else to do?

Dude, you realize that, for the past several years, about 45% of all graduates, nationally, have been unable to find work as an attorney within nine months of graduating, right?

Attending either of these schools without specific career goals? Not advisable. I mean, no debt, so whatever. If you seriously have nothing better to do with your life, then fire away, I guess.

[Tiago Splitter]

Career goals are hazy, which I understand is not an ideal thing when attending something out of T14.

Big Law would be an interest, but again I understand that is pie in the sky when picking from these two. Wouldn't mind public interest, or some mid/small level litigation firm.

Out of curiosity does the general pessimism on these forums stem from pure reality, or one part reality and one part scare tactics for people who are just considering law school because they can't think of anything else to do?

The pure reality is all the scare tactics anyone needs. Both of these schools put fewer than 60% of their grads into Full time legal jobs ten months after graduation. With no debt a degree from either place isn't the end of the world, but it sounds like you're just going because you can't find anything else to do. It's very unlikely you'll be in a better spot three years from now.

[BasilHallward]

Did you apply to USC or UCLA??

[OhBoyOhBortles]

Reality. You will have a little to no chance of achieving your goals from either of these schools. A retake can put you in much better position to try and make them happen. I'd head on over to the lsat prep threads and read up on how to better prepare yourself for your next take. Good luck!

[Traynor Brah]

You will have a little to no chance of achieving your goals from either of these schools.

? OP said he didn't have any goals. I think these are both fine options for achieving that.

[ghost5-0]

Did you apply to USC or UCLA??

Yea of course. Rejected at USC and waitlist at UCLA.

Also in with good money at Davis and Irvine but not close enough to full tuition to really consider.

Though it may be time to come to terms with the fact that the offers I have also aren't worth considering...

[OhBoyOhBortles]

Did you apply to USC or UCLA??

Yea of course. Rejected at USC and waitlist at UCLA.

Also in with good money at Davis and Irvine but not close enough to full tuition to really consider.

Though it may be time to come to terms with the fact that the offers I have also aren't worth considering...

Cheers to common sense! You're doing the best thing for your future with a retake. http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=6

[Johann]

I actually think the people suited best for law school are those who have no career goals in mind i.e. are flexible to whatever position they can find and don't come in with preconceived notions of what they think they want to do when they really don't know shit about the profession. So as far as that goes, you're good. The law schools you're going to would be risks, but at $0, not much of a risk, so you're good there also.

The only thing left I'd really consider is what kind of skills you have now and what job you can get now. If you can get a $50k job with any sort of advancement possibilities down the line, I'd take that. If you have applied to lots of jobs and are having no luck, sure go into law. The only biglaw you're gonna sniff is huge firms doing insurance defense work, which sucks for the most part but pays the bills. If you're content with ending up in a small law firm, or JD advantage job, or government work, sure go ahead.

[usn26]

I actually think the people suited best for law school are those who have no career goals in mind i.e. are flexible to whatever position they can find and don't come in with preconceived notions of what they think they want to do when they really don't know shit about the profession.

Yeah, but it seems to me that flexibility is a liability these days. Admittedly my hiring experience is in a different field, but when you're getting a metric ton of applications the advantage goes to the specialist/striver, and there's going to be those people in every pool. So yeah, if you don't focus in on being a prosecutor, for example, you might be able to apply for public defender, small firm, big firm, PI jobs, etc, but in each of those applicant pools you'll be competing against people who have tailored their experience and resume to those things, which just makes it that much harder to stand out. So I'm not sure open-mindedness/flexibility is a desirable trait except in rare sense of going to a top school for big law and being flexible as to litigation vs transactional, corporate vs tax, etc.