Fall grades after submitting applications Forum

[justsocurious]

I've just received my grades for the Fall 2017 semester. Should I email scanned copies/unofficial transcripts directly to law schools, or just an updated official transcript to LSAC?

[cavalier1138]

Everything goes through LSAC.

[justsocurious]

Okay thank you.

Just to be clear: no need to directly let any of the schools know that my transcript has been updated? Just let LSAC take care of it all?

[UVA2B]

Okay thank you.

Just to be clear: no need to directly let any of the schools know that my transcript has been updated? Just let LSAC take care of it all?

Yes. Once LSAC processes your updated transcripts, they are disseminated through their online portal.

This could all be avoided if you wait to apply until after you graduate and work for a bit and figure out adulthood more than you likely have as an UG senior (maybe you’re the exception, but I kind of doubt based on the law of averages). Just saying.

[edcat]

Okay thank you.

Just to be clear: no need to directly let any of the schools know that my transcript has been updated? Just let LSAC take care of it all?

Yes. Once LSAC processes your updated transcripts, they are disseminated through their online portal.

This could all be avoided if you wait to apply until after you graduate and work for a bit and figure out adulthood more than you likely have as an UG senior (maybe you’re the exception, but I kind of doubt based on the law of averages). Just saying.

Well people are offering unsolicited advice,

I recommend that you:
a) Learn what the law of averages is.
b) Consider additional reading comp training. The OP already has applied and consequently cannot wait to apply. He could burn the application fees and then wait a few years before reapplying, but how likely is he to do that on the advice of an internet stranger who doesn't know better than to apply the law of averages to a single case?
c) Consider whether your transition to unsolicited advice makes sense before making it. What could all be avoided? The pain of sending your transcript to one centralized location? He would have to do that again anyway whenever he did apply. Alternatively, the pain of asking a question about how things worked? That didn't need to be painful.

Just saying.

[blackmamba8]

I'm currently in the middle of my gap year. If it's remotely possible to do I would 100% recommend. I plan on getting a job soon, but I've just been chilling since I submitted all my apps at the end of October. Taking a break after undergrad has really made me excited to start school again. Anyway, to summarize my rambling, throughout college I never considered taking a gap year but it was the best decision I could've made.

[UVA2B]

Okay thank you.

Just to be clear: no need to directly let any of the schools know that my transcript has been updated? Just let LSAC take care of it all?

Yes. Once LSAC processes your updated transcripts, they are disseminated through their online portal.

This could all be avoided if you wait to apply until after you graduate and work for a bit and figure out adulthood more than you likely have as an UG senior (maybe you’re the exception, but I kind of doubt based on the law of averages). Just saying.

Well people are offering unsolicited advice,

I recommend that you:
a) Learn what the law of averages is.
b) Consider additional reading comp training. The OP already has applied and consequently cannot wait to apply. He could burn the application fees and then wait a few years before reapplying, but how likely is he to do that on the advice of an internet stranger who doesn't know better than to apply the law of averages to a single case?
c) Consider whether your transition to unsolicited advice makes sense before making it. What could all be avoided? The pain of sending your transcript to one centralized location? He would have to do that again anyway whenever he did apply. Alternatively, the pain of asking a question about how things worked? That didn't need to be painful.

Just saying.

You're right, that wasn't actually the law of averages. Thanks for correcting me. It's the law that idiot 0Ls think they should go straight from UG to law schools. I fully accept that was a misapplication of the law of averages.

And on the "already applied" bit: of course I read that, but that's really the point. IME, people ask for advice that may differ from things they actually need to think about. And I've yet to find a compelling case where going K-JD was the best course. So I suggested the OP wait on applications. That could mean burning these applications and this cycle, but they should seriously consider it. Find me the right reason to go straight through that wouldn't be even better with a few years of real world experience and I'll absolutely retract this point. But they should still seriously reconsider this very fundamental point.

I'm sure you think this was a really great "gotcha" because you think you're putting me in my place in some way. I misused the law of averages, so congrats on pointing that out. And my advice was completely unsolicited. It's still the best advice they can receive from an internet stranger who has no personal investment in their individual success, and cares much more about the integrity of the advice given here. If you can point to how my actual advice is assailable, I'm all ears.

If you're not willing/ready to engage the underlying advice, fine.

[edcat]

Okay thank you.

Just to be clear: no need to directly let any of the schools know that my transcript has been updated? Just let LSAC take care of it all?

Yes. Once LSAC processes your updated transcripts, they are disseminated through their online portal.

This could all be avoided if you wait to apply until after you graduate and work for a bit and figure out adulthood more than you likely have as an UG senior (maybe you’re the exception, but I kind of doubt based on the law of averages). Just saying.

Well people are offering unsolicited advice,

I recommend that you:
a) Learn what the law of averages is.
b) Consider additional reading comp training. The OP already has applied and consequently cannot wait to apply. He could burn the application fees and then wait a few years before reapplying, but how likely is he to do that on the advice of an internet stranger who doesn't know better than to apply the law of averages to a single case?
c) Consider whether your transition to unsolicited advice makes sense before making it. What could all be avoided? The pain of sending your transcript to one centralized location? He would have to do that again anyway whenever he did apply. Alternatively, the pain of asking a question about how things worked? That didn't need to be painful.

Just saying.

You're right, that wasn't actually the law of averages. Thanks for correcting me. It's the law that idiot 0Ls think they should go straight from UG to law schools. I fully accept that was a misapplication of the law of averages.

And on the "already applied" bit: of course I read that, but that's really the point. IME, people ask for advice that may differ from things they actually need to think about. And I've yet to find a compelling case where going K-JD was the best course. So I suggested the OP wait on applications. That could mean burning these applications and this cycle, but they should seriously consider it. Find me the right reason to go straight through that wouldn't be even better with a few years of real world experience and I'll absolutely retract this point. But they should still seriously reconsider this very fundamental point.

I'm sure you think this was a really great "gotcha" because you think you're putting me in my place in some way. I misused the law of averages, so congrats on pointing that out. And my advice was completely unsolicited. It's still the best advice they can receive from an internet stranger who has no personal investment in their individual success, and cares much more about the integrity of the advice given here. If you can point to how my actual advice is assailable, I'm all ears.

If you're not willing/ready to engage the underlying advice, fine.

I didn't address the caliber of your advice the first time due to its irrelevance, but if you want to argue about whether it is still a good idea to wait a year to go to law school in light of the Prosper Act then I'm willing. It is kind of shocking there isn't already a TLS thread on this(at least that I can find).

The Prosper Act passed the US House about a week ago and would cap grad student federal borrowing at 28,500 per year if passed by the Senate, and signed into law. It also reduces the options for paying back loans for students starting later than 2018. This would also make scholarships much more coveted for obvious reasons. Now you might want to roll the dice and hope that the Senate doesn't cave on that. But the rest of us are not obligated to follow you off the cliff. Talk about needless uncertainty. Some of us are risk adverse.

I'm certainly also not obligated to sit on a high LSAT score and mediocre GPA and wait to see if the GRE neutralizes my current excellent position for law school admissions and scholarships as its influence grows because you think I will be more mature in a few years.

For the sake of the OP, I should be clear. I'm not saying it is never a good idea to wait a cycle. If you are independently rich, it probably is. If this bill goes through, admissions selectivity to law school is going to plummet since people won't be able to afford it. Cost may also decrease a smidge due to the lower volume of attending students. If you have an LSAT score which won't get you what you want then you should probably also postpone a cycle and hope the Senate grows a spine, but don't pull your application because someone on the internet is blindly parroting advice which used to usually be right.

[cavalier1138]

The Prosper Act passed the US House about a week ago and would cap grad student federal borrowing at 28,500 per year if passed by the Senate, and signed into law. It also reduces the options for paying back loans for students starting later than 2018. This would also make scholarships much more coveted for obvious reasons. Now you might want to roll the dice and hope that the Senate doesn't cave on that. But the rest of us are not obligated to follow you off the cliff. Talk about needless uncertainty. Some of us are risk adverse.

There's risk-averse, and then there's assuming that a particular bill will get through the Senate without a single modification. Justify your choices however you like, but maybe stick to reality. You might as well argue that you're going now to beat the next recession.

[UVA2B]

I didn't address the caliber of your advice the first time due to its irrelevance, but if you want to argue about whether it is still a good idea to wait a year to go to law school in light of the Prosper Act then I'm willing. It is kind of shocking there isn't already a TLS thread on this(at least that I can find).

The Prosper Act passed the US House about a week ago and would cap grad student federal borrowing at 28,500 per year if passed by the Senate, and signed into law. It also reduces the options for paying back loans for students starting later than 2018. This would also make scholarships much more coveted for obvious reasons. Now you might want to roll the dice and hope that the Senate doesn't cave on that. But the rest of us are not obligated to follow you off the cliff. Talk about needless uncertainty. Some of us are risk adverse.

I'm certainly also not obligated to sit on a high LSAT score and mediocre GPA and wait to see if the GRE neutralizes my current excellent position for law school admissions and scholarships as its influence grows because you think I will be more mature in a few years.

For the sake of the OP, I should be clear. I'm not saying it is never a good idea to wait a cycle. If you are independently rich, it probably is. If this bill goes through, admissions selectivity to law school is going to plummet since people won't be able to afford it. Cost may also decrease a smidge due to the lower volume of attending students. If you have an LSAT score which won't get you what you want then you should probably also postpone a cycle and hope the Senate grows a spine, but don't pull your application because someone on the internet is blindly parroting advice which used to usually be right.

This is a pretty hilarious take on reasons for improvident borrowing for something.

I want to make sure I understand this correctly. Your reason for not getting life experience and waiting on law school is because the house passed an act last week that could potentially affect your ability to go into six figures of non dischargeable debt? And you think this helps prove your point that a little growth and maturity won't help in making responsible adult decisions? And this is somehow risk aversion?

First, as cav mentioned, wait until you see a final bill passed into law before you decide how it will affect your behavior. Remember that the Senate majority is much thinner than the House, and as such could come with a completely different bill. Or it could go absolutely nowhere. The potential of a bill shouldn't drive your behavior like this. Otherwise I'll be forced to call Moment Maximum Security and let them know they have a hot new prisoner in bound. They should be thrilled because they're already bursting at the seams with tenants.

Should the Prosper Act pass in its current form, what do you actually expect to happen? That graduate education will be magically foreclosed to you because you won't have access to funding for law school? It could impact the way you have to borrow, but either way you're still borrowing. I would've been more receptive if you mentioned potentially losing PSLF, and that you want to make sure your loans find their way into some potential grandfather clause. That at least has the benefit of mattering for repayment. But from my understanding, most of the reputable LRAPs would be covered should PSLF go away, and that it largely won't matter whether they are tied to PSLF. But even that is entirely speculative, because it hasn't happened yet.

You have some perverse justification of who has the benefit of waiting. "Independently wealthy" (depending on how you loosely define that) are really the only people who have the freedom to not wait without it mattering. Everyone else should make this decision deliberately, and they should do it while minimizing their debt obligations to the best of their ability.

I know you're not going to even consider waiting, but you should still at least seriously consider what you're using to justify not waiting. You're speculating all up and down how one potential bill will affect law school tuition, borrowing, and admissions practices as a result of that bill. And all of that is being done to rush into a debt obligation that you can't get out from under if you find out it was wrong for you. I'm not advocating waiting for the fun of it. I'm advocating for it because there are important lessons that you learn in the early years out from under the parent and school bubble. Those lessons are invaluable, and they change you in important ways. If you learn those lessons before you're saddled with a debt that you can't escape, you'll be better prepared for dealing with adulthood when you have that debt. And you'll be more able/ready to handle the pressures this profession comes with.

You seem to heavily value your LSAT and worry that it'll somehow get devalued very soon, or that it's some golden ticket to something special. Congrats on doing well on the LSAT, but that score isn't going away. You're not obligated to wait, just like you're not obligated to go to law school right now. If you come out of your admissions cycle with a full ride, or you find another way to not go into debt for law school, congratulations. You'll be in good financial shape when you graduate. I hope that's you. But if you're staring at six figures of debt for entry into a profession you don't have any idea whether will fit for you (you're probably pretty sure right now about what you want, but I doubt you understand the profession well enough that you can know this with any certainty. Obviously I'm projecting this onto you as a generic 0L that could be way off, but this assumption is based on my anecdotal experience dealing with 0Ls. If you have intimate familiarity with the legal profession and how it'll fit in your career goals, then so be it. This part would be off).

Good luck with your admissions cycle. I hope you land a decent tuition discount, and I hope you find out the legal profession is the right fit for you. And I hope you don't take on too much of that precious federal debt.

[edcat]

I didn't address the caliber of your advice the first time due to its irrelevance, but if you want to argue about whether it is still a good idea to wait a year to go to law school in light of the Prosper Act then I'm willing. It is kind of shocking there isn't already a TLS thread on this(at least that I can find).

The Prosper Act passed the US House about a week ago and would cap grad student federal borrowing at 28,500 per year if passed by the Senate, and signed into law. It also reduces the options for paying back loans for students starting later than 2018. This would also make scholarships much more coveted for obvious reasons. Now you might want to roll the dice and hope that the Senate doesn't cave on that. But the rest of us are not obligated to follow you off the cliff. Talk about needless uncertainty. Some of us are risk adverse.

I'm certainly also not obligated to sit on a high LSAT score and mediocre GPA and wait to see if the GRE neutralizes my current excellent position for law school admissions and scholarships as its influence grows because you think I will be more mature in a few years.

For the sake of the OP, I should be clear. I'm not saying it is never a good idea to wait a cycle. If you are independently rich, it probably is. If this bill goes through, admissions selectivity to law school is going to plummet since people won't be able to afford it. Cost may also decrease a smidge due to the lower volume of attending students. If you have an LSAT score which won't get you what you want then you should probably also postpone a cycle and hope the Senate grows a spine, but don't pull your application because someone on the internet is blindly parroting advice which used to usually be right.

This is a pretty hilarious take on reasons for improvident borrowing for something.

I want to make sure I understand this correctly. Your reason for not getting life experience and waiting on law school is because the house passed an act last week that could potentially affect your ability to go into six figures of non dischargeable debt? And you think this helps prove your point that a little growth and maturity won't help in making responsible adult decisions? And this is somehow risk aversion?

First, as cav mentioned, wait until you see a final bill passed into law before you decide how it will affect your behavior. Remember that the Senate majority is much thinner than the House, and as such could come with a completely different bill. Or it could go absolutely nowhere. The potential of a bill shouldn't drive your behavior like this. Otherwise I'll be forced to call Moment Maximum Security and let them know they have a hot new prisoner in bound. They should be thrilled because they're already bursting at the seams with tenants.

Should the Prosper Act pass in its current form, what do you actually expect to happen? That graduate education will be magically foreclosed to you because you won't have access to funding for law school? It could impact the way you have to borrow, but either way you're still borrowing. I would've been more receptive if you mentioned potentially losing PSLF, and that you want to make sure your loans find their way into some potential grandfather clause. That at least has the benefit of mattering for repayment. But from my understanding, most of the reputable LRAPs would be covered should PSLF go away, and that it largely won't matter whether they are tied to PSLF. But even that is entirely speculative, because it hasn't happened yet.

You have some perverse justification of who has the benefit of waiting. "Independently wealthy" (depending on how you loosely define that) are really the only people who have the freedom to not wait without it mattering. Everyone else should make this decision deliberately, and they should do it while minimizing their debt obligations to the best of their ability.

I know you're not going to even consider waiting, but you should still at least seriously consider what you're using to justify not waiting. You're speculating all up and down how one potential bill will affect law school tuition, borrowing, and admissions practices as a result of that bill. And all of that is being done to rush into a debt obligation that you can't get out from under if you find out it was wrong for you. I'm not advocating waiting for the fun of it. I'm advocating for it because there are important lessons that you learn in the early years out from under the parent and school bubble. Those lessons are invaluable, and they change you in important ways. If you learn those lessons before you're saddled with a debt that you can't escape, you'll be better prepared for dealing with adulthood when you have that debt. And you'll be more able/ready to handle the pressures this profession comes with.

You seem to heavily value your LSAT and worry that it'll somehow get devalued very soon, or that it's some golden ticket to something special. Congrats on doing well on the LSAT, but that score isn't going away. You're not obligated to wait, just like you're not obligated to go to law school right now. If you come out of your admissions cycle with a full ride, or you find another way to not go into debt for law school, congratulations. You'll be in good financial shape when you graduate. I hope that's you. But if you're staring at six figures of debt for entry into a profession you don't have any idea whether will fit for you (you're probably pretty sure right now about what you want, but I doubt you understand the profession well enough that you can know this with any certainty. Obviously I'm projecting this onto you as a generic 0L that could be way off, but this assumption is based on my anecdotal experience dealing with 0Ls. If you have intimate familiarity with the legal profession and how it'll fit in your career goals, then so be it. This part would be off).

Good luck with your admissions cycle. I hope you land a decent tuition discount, and I hope you find out the legal profession is the right fit for you. And I hope you don't take on too much of that precious federal debt.

As with your reading of the OP, you either didn't bother or are not capable of exercising basic reading comprehension.

First of all I mentioned that it has to pass the Senate. Let's say ad arguendo that there is some fixed percent chance of that happening (I may think that the chance of it passing or another version ultimately passing both chambers with these provisions in place is about 50 percent; you may put it at a more optimistic 10 percent or maybe something even lower). Let us say I also know it could dramatically hurt my scholarship chances if it goes through and wouldn't do anything to them if it didn't go through. Let us also say that I acknowledge there is some also fixed benefit of working for 2-3 years before going into law school. The fact that I am risk adverse means that I would prefer to miss out on the fixed benefit of waiting rather than incur the risk of the much larger loss of scholarship position by waiting.

I'm not focused on preserving my ability to go into debt. I'm aware of the impact of others ability to go into debt on how hard it is to secure scholarship offers. If others can go into debt, they will continue to generally ignore scholarships and go to the best school that they can. If they can't, then they will take scholarships instead. It will be a lot harder to secure full scholarships inside the top 14 if a significant fraction of Harvard, Yale, and Stanford's classes turn them down instead to seek the best full ride they can find.

Independently wealthy(read can pay for law school out of pocket) people are the obvious beneficiary of this. Admissions selectivity will fall(who do you think fills the spot of those new scholarship takers?).

Your right that if you idiotically decide that the value of waiting a few years to go to law school is invaluable(read infinite) then nothing could possibly make it worth not waiting. I don't know why you would do that, but people operate based on stupid assumptions all the time. Assuming there is some positive benefit that is far less than the cost of law school seems much more reasonable.

I figured you were passingly familiar with law school admissions. Right now, a great LSAT is essentially a golden ticket to something special(law school for free). The score isn't going away(for 5 years), however the opportunity that comes with it could diminish either as a result of rising GPA thresholds and importance due to the GRE or a dramatic change in how federal borrowing for law school works. If you hope I get a full ride or minimize debt, then you should also hope I apply well they are still giving out full rides at their present rate on the basis of LSAT.

Additionally, you said you have never heard of a 0L KJD law school student who wouldn't benefit from waiting, but you have certainly heard of them getting full tuition scholarships inside the top 14 and even top 6. After getting these scholarships should they turn them down to get the "invaluable" and unique life experience of working while not in school even though they might not get that good of an offer again?

Anyways, I'll read your response, but I am about done hijacking the OPs thread to discuss your unoriginal and unsolicited advice, poor understanding of the law of averages, speculation about others, willingness to obfuscate the truth, and inability to exercise basic reading comprehension.

[Rigo]

Send to LSAC. If significant improvement (as in, you move above median or above 75%) I'd email schools with a quick one sentence update.

[mcmand]

Anyways, I'll read your response, but I am about done hijacking the OPs thread to discuss your unoriginal and unsolicited advice, poor understanding of the law of averages, speculation about others, willingness to obfuscate the truth, and inability to exercise basic reading comprehension.

Your defensiveness about your poor decision to rush into law school without prior post grad work experience speaks volumes. You can argue until you're blue in the face, but the fact that you don't actually know yet what it's like to be a college graduate in the work force necessarily means you don't understand the value of waiting to go to law school. People keep telling you (and OP) this advice so you don't learn the hard way.

No one is saying this to patronize you or OP or lord our collective knowledge over you. We keep saying it because it's true. Instead of arguing your way toward the outcome you want in your own head, consider why people of experience and wisdom would be telling you that's not a good idea.

[UVA2B]

As with your reading of the OP, you either didn't bother or are not capable of exercising basic reading comprehension.

First of all I mentioned that it has to pass the Senate. Let's say ad arguendo that there is some fixed percent chance of that happening (I may think that the chance of it passing or another version ultimately passing both chambers with these provisions in place is about 50 percent; you may put it at a more optimistic 10 percent or maybe something even lower). Let us say I also know it could dramatically hurt my scholarship chances if it goes through and wouldn't do anything to them if it didn't go through. Let us also say that I acknowledge there is some also fixed benefit of working for 2-3 years before going into law school. The fact that I am risk adverse means that I would prefer to miss out on the fixed benefit of waiting rather than incur the risk of the much larger loss of scholarship position by waiting.

I'm not focused on preserving my ability to go into debt. I'm aware of the impact of others ability to go into debt on how hard it is to secure scholarship offers. If others can go into debt, they will continue to generally ignore scholarships and go to the best school that they can. If they can't, then they will take scholarships instead. It will be a lot harder to secure full scholarships inside the top 14 if a significant fraction of Harvard, Yale, and Stanford's classes turn them down instead to seek the best full ride they can find.

Independently wealthy(read can pay for law school out of pocket) people are the obvious beneficiary of this. Admissions selectivity will fall(who do you think fills the spot of those new scholarship takers?).

Your right that if you idiotically decide that the value of waiting a few years to go to law school is invaluable(read infinite) then nothing could possibly make it worth not waiting. I don't know why you would do that, but people operate based on stupid assumptions all the time. Assuming there is some positive benefit that is far less than the cost of law school seems much more reasonable.

I figured you were passingly familiar with law school admissions. Right now, a great LSAT is essentially a golden ticket to something special(law school for free). The score isn't going away(for 5 years), however the opportunity that comes with it could diminish either as a result of rising GPA thresholds and importance due to the GRE or a dramatic change in how federal borrowing for law school works. If you hope I get a full ride or minimize debt, then you should also hope I apply well they are still giving out full rides at their present rate on the basis of LSAT.

Additionally, you said you have never heard of a 0L KJD law school student who wouldn't benefit from waiting, but you have certainly heard of them getting full tuition scholarships inside the top 14 and even top 6. After getting these scholarships should they turn them down to get the "invaluable" and unique life experience of working while not in school even though they might not get that good of an offer again?

Anyways, I'll read your response, but I am about done hijacking the OPs thread to discuss your unoriginal and unsolicited advice, poor understanding of the law of averages, speculation about others, willingness to obfuscate the truth, and inability to exercise basic reading comprehension.

You sound like a petulant child, and it's not a good look.

[cavalier1138]

Anyways, I'll read your response, but I am about done hijacking the OPs thread to discuss your unoriginal and unsolicited advice, poor understanding of the law of averages, speculation about others, willingness to obfuscate the truth, and inability to exercise basic reading comprehension.

Your defensiveness about your poor decision to rush into law school without prior post grad work experience speaks volumes. You can argue until you're blue in the face, but the fact that you don't actually know yet what it's like to be a college graduate in the work force necessarily means you don't understand the value of waiting to go to law school. People keep telling you (and OP) this advice so you don't learn the hard way.

No one is saying this to patronize you or OP or lord our collective knowledge over you. We keep saying it because it's true. Instead of arguing your way toward the outcome you want in your own head, consider why people of experience and wisdom would be telling you that's not a good idea.

Oh shit, I forgot that this is the guy who wrote the world's best Yale 250 and then wrote a bunch of posts about people not getting it.

[mace]

Okay thank you.

Just to be clear: no need to directly let any of the schools know that my transcript has been updated? Just let LSAC take care of it all?

Yes. Once LSAC processes your updated transcripts, they are disseminated through their online portal.

This could all be avoided if you wait to apply until after you graduate and work for a bit and figure out adulthood more than you likely have as an UG senior (maybe you’re the exception, but I kind of doubt based on the law of averages). Just saying.

Well people are offering unsolicited advice,

I recommend that you:
a) Learn what the law of averages is.
b) Consider additional reading comp training. The OP already has applied and consequently cannot wait to apply. He could burn the application fees and then wait a few years before reapplying, but how likely is he to do that on the advice of an internet stranger who doesn't know better than to apply the law of averages to a single case?
c) Consider whether your transition to unsolicited advice makes sense before making it. What could all be avoided? The pain of sending your transcript to one centralized location? He would have to do that again anyway whenever he did apply. Alternatively, the pain of asking a question about how things worked? That didn't need to be painful.

Just saying.

You're right, that wasn't actually the law of averages. Thanks for correcting me. It's the law that idiot 0Ls think they should go straight from UG to law schools. I fully accept that was a misapplication of the law of averages.

And on the "already applied" bit: of course I read that, but that's really the point. IME, people ask for advice that may differ from things they actually need to think about. And I've yet to find a compelling case where going K-JD was the best course. So I suggested the OP wait on applications. That could mean burning these applications and this cycle, but they should seriously consider it. Find me the right reason to go straight through that wouldn't be even better with a few years of real world experience and I'll absolutely retract this point. But they should still seriously reconsider this very fundamental point.

I'm sure you think this was a really great "gotcha" because you think you're putting me in my place in some way. I misused the law of averages, so congrats on pointing that out. And my advice was completely unsolicited. It's still the best advice they can receive from an internet stranger who has no personal investment in their individual success, and cares much more about the integrity of the advice given here. If you can point to how my actual advice is assailable, I'm all ears.

If you're not willing/ready to engage the underlying advice, fine.

Sure, he's the petulant child. Definitely not you. Although, calling all 0Ls idiots for going straight to law school just because he corrected you on your use of the law of averages seems pretty petulant to me.

By the way, I'm new here. Nice to meet you all

[UVA2B]

Sure, he's the petulant child. Definitely not you. Although, calling all 0Ls idiots for going straight to law school just because he corrected you on your use of the law of averages seems pretty petulant to me.

By the way, I'm new here. Nice to meet you all

Welcome to TLS.

TBF, I was only referring to 0Ls who go straight to law school from UG as idiots, because it's a really bad decision. I would've called them idiots whether he rightly corrected me in misusing the law of averages or not. He was correcting something incident to the point being made, so I thanked him for the correction and revised the target audience I wanted the advice to land on.

Again, find me someone who would be worse off by working in the real world for a few years between UG and law school and I'm willing to listen. But there's a reason every person here, both attorneys who went straight through and wish they had waited on law school for a bit in hindsight, and those of us who actually took time off to do something else between UG and law school, see the value in getting that experience.

I'm always willing to listen to reason. The person you're defending has been one of the most unpleasant and unreasonable posters here ever since they arrived.

Anyways, I'll read your response, but I am about done hijacking the OPs thread to discuss your unoriginal and unsolicited advice, poor understanding of the law of averages, speculation about others, willingness to obfuscate the truth, and inability to exercise basic reading comprehension.

Your defensiveness about your poor decision to rush into law school without prior post grad work experience speaks volumes. You can argue until you're blue in the face, but the fact that you don't actually know yet what it's like to be a college graduate in the work force necessarily means you don't understand the value of waiting to go to law school. People keep telling you (and OP) this advice so you don't learn the hard way.

No one is saying this to patronize you or OP or lord our collective knowledge over you. We keep saying it because it's true. Instead of arguing your way toward the outcome you want in your own head, consider why people of experience and wisdom would be telling you that's not a good idea.

Oh shit, I forgot that this is the guy who wrote the world's best Yale 250 and then wrote a bunch of posts about people not getting it.

I have no idea how I never read that, but it's comedy gold.

[mace]

Sure, he's the petulant child. Definitely not you. Although, calling all 0Ls idiots for going straight to law school just because he corrected you on your use of the law of averages seems pretty petulant to me.

By the way, I'm new here. Nice to meet you all

Welcome to TLS.

TBF, I was only referring to 0Ls who go straight to law school from UG as idiots, because it's a really bad decision. I would've called them idiots whether he rightly corrected me in misusing the law of averages or not. He was correcting something incident to the point being made, so I thanked him for the correction and revised the target audience I wanted the advice to land on.

Again, find me someone who would be worse off by working in the real world for a few years between UG and law school and I'm willing to listen. But there's a reason every person here, both attorneys who went straight through and wish they had waited on law school for a bit in hindsight, and those of us who actually took time off to do something else between UG and law school, see the value in getting that experience.

I'm always willing to listen to reason. The person you're defending has been one of the most unpleasant and unreasonable posters here ever since they arrived.

Anyways, I'll read your response, but I am about done hijacking the OPs thread to discuss your unoriginal and unsolicited advice, poor understanding of the law of averages, speculation about others, willingness to obfuscate the truth, and inability to exercise basic reading comprehension.

Your defensiveness about your poor decision to rush into law school without prior post grad work experience speaks volumes. You can argue until you're blue in the face, but the fact that you don't actually know yet what it's like to be a college graduate in the work force necessarily means you don't understand the value of waiting to go to law school. People keep telling you (and OP) this advice so you don't learn the hard way.

No one is saying this to patronize you or OP or lord our collective knowledge over you. We keep saying it because it's true. Instead of arguing your way toward the outcome you want in your own head, consider why people of experience and wisdom would be telling you that's not a good idea.

Oh shit, I forgot that this is the guy who wrote the world's best Yale 250 and then wrote a bunch of posts about people not getting it.

I have no idea how I never read that, but it's comedy gold.

Necessary to call K-JDs idiots? Thousands apply each year, and you are willing to bet that each K-JD is an idiot and worse off for going straight to law school? Don't think you have personally met them all and know their situation. Not arguing with you about whether whom you are arguing with is pleasant or not, but from the looks of your posts, you tend to help a lot. Maybe continue to be a model example to a K-JD such as myself and not engage in such unpleasantries? Fighting, especially behind a screen, is pointless. Think we should all be like Rigo here and answer OP's question and get on with our lives. As a K-JD i'm applying because i believe it'll help me contribute more to my business (business owner here). Don't see anything wrong with that seeing as I'm young and my business isn't going anywhere.

edit: Any constructive criticism on why I am an "idiot" for not accepting a full scholarship, while still being able to handle my business remotely from law school, I'm all ears.

[cavalier1138]

I'm so confused. Is this a sock puppet?

[leoCane]

I'm so confused. Is this a sock puppet?

Couldn’t care less whether you think he’s real or not to be honest. Instead, all of you should stop acting tough and give up the keyboard warrior act. Should be helping OP

[edcat]

Anyways, I'll read your response, but I am about done hijacking the OPs thread to discuss your unoriginal and unsolicited advice, poor understanding of the law of averages, speculation about others, willingness to obfuscate the truth, and inability to exercise basic reading comprehension.

Your defensiveness about your poor decision to rush into law school without prior post grad work experience speaks volumes. You can argue until you're blue in the face, but the fact that you don't actually know yet what it's like to be a college graduate in the work force necessarily means you don't understand the value of waiting to go to law school. People keep telling you (and OP) this advice so you don't learn the hard way.

No one is saying this to patronize you or OP or lord our collective knowledge over you. We keep saying it because it's true. Instead of arguing your way toward the outcome you want in your own head, consider why people of experience and wisdom would be telling you that's not a good idea.

So just to be clear after lashing out at me for correcting your mistake, you asked me to offer you a reason for a KJD to go directly to law school. I did. You then, instead of responding to the reason, decided I can't possibly have a reason because I haven't had the experience of working while not in school and therefore can't understand the value of it(a value which you ealier falsely claimed to be invaluable or infinite).

Notably this would rule out any KJD ever applying to law school. It is circular reasoning. It starts, a KJD should never go directly to law school because none has offered me a persuasive reason that they should. Then someone offers a reason. You refuse to respond to the reason instead saying the reason cannot be right because they don't have the experience of working in the work force while not in school.

Perhaps you should consider that rather than having an outcome we want in our heads, people are looking to maximize their outcome given the available evidence. Your claim that you have experience and wisdom and believe work experience prior to law school has infinite value makes very poor evidence. First it is anectodal. Second of all your anectdote probably doesn't even support the claim that the waiting is invaluable.

I told you I believe work experience outside school has value. I don't believe that value is infinite. I believe that value is that it would to some fairly small, but significant degree help me get a job out of law school and might help teach me the value of avoiding debt. Neither of those things is worth risking going into a high degree of debt for when I know I don't have to if I apply this cycle.

Maybe rather than smearing my motives for arguing(I am defensive and have an outcome that I want in my head) you should have responded to the argument. Ad hominem attacks like you and Cav have resorted to are the recourse of those unwilling to argue on the basis of the facts and logic.

Edit: It apears that UVA wasn't the writer of this post. The points stand, but the tenses are a little off. I apologize to the OP for correcting UVA's mistake. I didn't realize it was going to lead to such a massive distraction. The OP's question about how transcripts get updated was useful and it is questions like that and the answers to them which are the saving grace of TLS. These questions and the good responses generally make up for the unthinking, repetitive, and unsightful mantras people on this forum repeat regardless of whether they are relevant.

[Rigo]

Treasure

[rowdy]

TLS for beginners:

If a thread has a boring title, don't bother reading it.
If a thread has a boring title but somehow keeps getting bumped, grab your popcorn and dive in because things have gone wildly off the rails.

[mcmand]

Edit: It apears that UVA wasn't the writer of this post. The points stand, but the tenses are a little off. I apologize to the OP for correcting UVA's mistake. I didn't realize it was going to lead to such a massive distraction. The OP's question about how transcripts get updated was useful and it is questions like that and the answers to them which are the saving grace of TLS. These questions and the good responses generally make up for the unthinking, repetitive, and unsightful mantras people on this forum repeat regardless of whether they are relevant.

I didn't think my post was ad hominem. I made a conscious effort to be more dialed down compared to UVA2B's post (note: no offense UVA2B, I agree with you), in the vain hope of convincing you. W/e. You're already way out over your skis on this one. You're so determined to be right that you can't even fathom in your posts how you could be wrong.

[edcat]

I didn't think my post was ad hominem. I made a conscious effort to be more dialed down compared to UVA2B's post (note: no offense UVA2B, I agree with you), in the vain hope of convincing you. W/e. You're already way out over your skis on this one. You're so determined to be right that you can't even fathom in your posts how you could be wrong.

If you can't see why claiming someone is wrong because you think they are determined to be right and not because of the actual content of their argument is wrong is an ad hominem, then I probably can't help you.

You are attacking me and not my argument. It is practically the definition of an ad hominem.

Saying I'm over my skis may not be particularly offensive, but if you are saying my argument is wrong because I am "over my skis" that makes it a not very offensive ad hominem fallacy.