Top Law Schools

Sadly, this means the vast majority of the people on this board are idiots.

The only situation in which anyone should even consider going to law school are as follows:

1. You go to a t10
2. You incur less than 100k in debt

Going to a t10 with more than 100k in debt is stupid, but still possible to justify. Likewise, going to a non-t10 with less than 100k in debt is stupid, but also still possible to justify.

If you decide to go to a non-t10 and also plan on incurring more then 100k in debt, you are setting yourself up for a miserable, horrible, indebted, and unemployed life. There of course will be some exceptions, but for most, you will be doomed.

This isn't completely over the top or anything.

Helmholtz wrote:This isn't completely over the top or anything.

I'm willing to defend my point. Do you honestly disagree with me?

shmoo597 wrote:

Helmholtz wrote:This isn't completely over the top or anything.

I'm willing to defend my point. Do you honestly disagree with me?

Going to a t10 with more than 100k in debt is stupid

So going to Yale Law with an expected debt load of $101k is stupid?

Likewise, going to a non-t10 with less than 100k in debt is stupid

Going to Duke Law for free is stupid?

If you decide to go to a non-t10 and also plan on incurring more then 100k in debt, you are setting yourself up for a miserable, horrible, indebted, and unemployed life.

I would be willing to bet that the majority of people going to schools like Duke and Cornell and incurring $101-120k in debt are going to be just fine.

Explain which valuation system you used to come up with 100k as the break even point.

PBateman1 wrote:Explain which valuation system you used to come up with 100k as the break even point.

I think he's using the "unsubstantiated opinion" valuation system.

shmoo597 wrote:

Helmholtz wrote:This isn't completely over the top or anything.

I'm willing to defend my point. Do you honestly disagree with me?

Yes. I mean, to the degree that it's possible to disagree with baseless allegations. Your pleading needs more facts buddy.

The problem is that you don't see nuance, which is probably why you are doing poorly in law school and want to "warn" others away.

Here's the thing, though. Should someone really not even consider going to Duke, Cornell, Georgetown, Texas, Vandy, or UCLA for 105k in debt?

The answer's no; they should consider it, and, depending on their interests, it could be a great idea. That runs directly in the face of your wonderful theorem of success. Therefore, you're an idiot.

Q.E.D.

OP, it's clear that this isn't intended to actually benefit anyone so if we're ruling out any altruistic motive, is this to make you feel better about yourself? Are you attending a T10 for $999,999 or below? If so just ask for a pat on the back and save the demeaning posts.

BeenDidThat wrote:The problem is that you don't see nuance, which is probably why you are doing poorly in law school and want to "warn" others away.

Here's the thing, though. Should someone really not even consider going to Duke, Cornell, Georgetown, Texas, Vandy, or UCLA for 105k in debt?

The answer's no; they should consider it, and, depending on their interests, it could be a great idea. That runs directly in the face of your wonderful theorem of success. Therefore, you're an idiot.

Q.E.D.

I fail to see haw this proves quantum electrodynamics.

Edit: $99,999. Aggressive key stroking there.

Even I would agree that $999,999 might not be wise.

BeenDidThat wrote:The problem is that you don't see nuance, which is probably why you are doing poorly in law school and want to "warn" others away.

Here's the thing, though. Should someone really not even consider going to Duke, Cornell, Georgetown, Texas, Vandy, or UCLA for 105k in debt?

The answer's no; they should consider it, and, depending on their interests, it could be a great idea. That runs directly in the face of your wonderful theorem of success. Therefore, you're an idiot.

Q.E.D.

Look, of course this is "baseless" in that of course this is only my opinion. But its my opinion based on 3 years of law school, going deep into debt, and going through OCI/the recruitment process. From my experiences and perspective, I conclude that taking on more then 100k in debt can only be justified by very good job prospects, and that very good job prospects are really only available at a t10 school. Yes, of course 105k in debt from UCLA will work out for some people. But for most, paying sticker at a t20 school is a really bad idea that won't work out!

Either way, my point is not really meant for people on the margins of the t10 or of the 100k debt club. Its meant for people who are considering paying sticker at a t30 or t50 school. Those are the real morons.

Impending1L wrote:OP, it's clear that this isn't intended to actually benefit anyone so if we're ruling out any altruistic motive, is this to make you feel better about yourself? Are you attending a T10 for $999,999 or below? If so just ask for a pat on the back and save the demeaning posts.

You did not undertand my post. I think its ok for people to attend t10 schools for more then 100k in debt, even though it should be done with a lot of consideration and skepticism, just like I think it is ok to attend a non-t10 school as long as your debt stays below 100k, also with a lot of consideration and skepticism. Its the people who attend non-t10s AND who take on 100k+ in debt who are really dooming themselves.

shmoo597 wrote: Its the people who attend non-t10s AND who take on 100k+ in debt who are really dooming themselves.

I don't think I'm doomed, but thanks for your opinion.

It'd be interesting to see why you draw such a huge distinction between t10 and t11 when it comes to employment prospects. Say, t5 or t14 maybe you could point out more of a correlation, but it seems pretty arbitrary to draw a t10-t11 distinction. This is especially due to the fact that the rankings are bound to change rendering some people automatic idiots based on your system because their school shifted slightly in the rankings.

Also, it's called "t14" for a reason. Someone who is the top of their class at say Georgetown or Cornell, both outside of the t10, would fare much better than someone from a t10 school who graduated bottom barrel.

Basically, there are just too many nuances you have to take into account before you can make such generalizations.

ITT: OP struck out at OCI and is of course blaming his school, etc instead of assessing what went wrong.

sandwiches5000 wrote:It'd be interesting to see why you draw such a huge distinction between t10 and t11 when it comes to employment prospects. Say, t5 or t14 maybe you could point out more of a correlation, but it seems pretty arbitrary to draw a t10-t11 distinction. This is especially due to the fact that the rankings are bound to change rendering some people automatic idiots based on your system because their school shifted slightly in the rankings.

Also, it's called "t14" for a reason. Someone who is the top of their class at say Georgetown or Cornell, both outside of the t10, would fare much better than someone from a t10 school who graduated bottom barrel.

Basically, there are just too many nuances you have to take into account before you can make such generalizations.

I am speaking in generalizations based on my experience. Of course top 1% at GULC is in a better position then bottom 1% at duke. But from the perspective of a 0L, I'd say it COULD make sense to attend UVA or Boalt for 100k+ while it is a bad choice to attend GULC or Cornell for 100k+

shmoo597 wrote:

sandwiches5000 wrote:It'd be interesting to see why you draw such a huge distinction between t10 and t11 when it comes to employment prospects. Say, t5 or t14 maybe you could point out more of a correlation, but it seems pretty arbitrary to draw a t10-t11 distinction. This is especially due to the fact that the rankings are bound to change rendering some people automatic idiots based on your system because their school shifted slightly in the rankings.

Also, it's called "t14" for a reason. Someone who is the top of their class at say Georgetown or Cornell, both outside of the t10, would fare much better than someone from a t10 school who graduated bottom barrel.

Basically, there are just too many nuances you have to take into account before you can make such generalizations.

I am speaking in generalizations based on my experience. Of course top 1% at GULC is in a better position then bottom 1% at duke. But from the perspective of a 0L, I'd say it COULD make sense to attend UVA or Boalt for 100k+ while it is a bad choice to attend GULC or Cornell for 100k+

So basically what you're saying is the original post was useless and we're going to spend an hour pinning down what exactly is useless about it. How about just leaving it "be careful taking on debt."

AreJay711 wrote:

BeenDidThat wrote:The problem is that you don't see nuance, which is probably why you are doing poorly in law school and want to "warn" others away.

Here's the thing, though. Should someone really not even consider going to Duke, Cornell, Georgetown, Texas, Vandy, or UCLA for 105k in debt?

The answer's no; they should consider it, and, depending on their interests, it could be a great idea. That runs directly in the face of your wonderful theorem of success. Therefore, you're an idiot.

Q.E.D.

I fail to see haw this proves quantum electrodynamics.

QED means literally, "which was to be demonstrated." It has been placed at the end of formal proofs of geometry since Greek times (where it is OED) to indicate by restatement that what was set out to be proved, has been proved.

Okay, back to your regularly scheduled viewing.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 5#p5005525
OP is trolling lol

I figured Mtal was the OP. Surprise surprise.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4#p4861124

Lol.. this post is even better, a shorter male lawyer is screwed according to him

Blindmelon wrote:ITT: OP struck out at OCI and is of course blaming his school, etc instead of assessing what went wrong.

I'm going to go with this as TCR.

Apparently I'm an idiot, thanks OP. Maybe your social skills had something to do with why you struck out

Campagnolo wrote:

AreJay711 wrote:I fail to see haw this proves quantum electrodynamics.

QED means literally, "which was to be demonstrated." It has been placed at the end of formal proofs of geometry since Greek times (where it is OED) to indicate by restatement that what was set out to be proved, has been proved.

Okay, back to your regularly scheduled viewing.

Whoosh.