Life as a law school dropout... Forum

[LettuceBeefRealTea]

quitting any task that you decide to undertake without being physically unable to finish is pretty shitty. mostly for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs ... st_fallacy

i'm an econ/math major, but there are things that escape economic analysis. from an econ standpoint, 95% of the population should kill themselves when they hit 60. econ is the same as most sciences (chem, physics, biology, history, etc.), they are awesome at explaining broad, large scale tendencies but fail as the scale gets smaller. things turn meaningless and chaotic. the understanding of the big events is predicated on the fact that millions of small events have a slightly higher probability of turning out a certain way than another. you might say that the idea of sunk costs is a small event with a huge probability of being financially smart. if this is so, then almost every single student facing the same debt load and job prospects should drop out. the opportunity cost of even going to law school in the first place is stupidly huge in almost all situations, so most people outside of even the T3 should probably drop out and use their time and money for more profitable purposes. since the huge majority of people are staying in school despite being in a similar situation as this person, his choice is a deviation from the event's trend/higher probability. therefore this was a decision based on human emotion. this makes it not a question of economics but happiness or some other human emotion/quality that makes economic analysis at the individual level chaotic. this is what my response addressed a way of evaluating those emotions.

i know sunk costs. do you know the will to power?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_to_power

[savagedm]

quitting any task that you decide to undertake without being physically unable to finish is pretty shitty. mostly for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs ... st_fallacy

i'm an econ/math major, but there are things that escape economic analysis. from an econ standpoint, 95% of the population should kill themselves when they hit 60. econ is the same as most sciences (chem, physics, biology, history, etc.), they are awesome at explaining broad, large scale tendencies but fail as the scale gets smaller. things turn meaningless and chaotic. the understanding of the big events is predicated on the fact that millions of small events have a slightly higher probability of turning out a certain way than another. you might say that the idea of sunk costs is a small event with a huge probability of being financially smart. if this is so, then almost every single student facing the same debt load and job prospects should drop out. the opportunity cost of even going to law school in the first place is stupidly huge in almost all situations, so most people outside of even the T3 should probably drop out and use their time and money for more profitable purposes. since the huge majority of people are staying in school despite being in a similar situation as this person, his choice is a deviation from the event's trend/higher probability. therefore this was a decision based on human emotion. this makes it not a question of economics but happiness or some other human emotion/quality that makes economic analysis at the individual level chaotic. this is what my response addressed a way of evaluating those emotions.

i know sunk costs. do you know the will to power?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_to_power

Having Jesus in your avatar and posting will to power stuff makes your argument more awesome and credible in my book.

[Bumi]

therefore this was a decision based on human emotion. this makes it not a question of economics but happiness or some other human emotion/quality that makes economic analysis at the individual level chaotic. this is what my response addressed a way of evaluating those emotions.

The sunk cost fallacy applies to emotions, too. You and the other dude saying it's just economics analysis aren't seeing how it applies to an incredible range of situations that have nothing to do with economics. For example, plenty of people stay in terrible, abusive relationships because they've already been with the person so long.

You called the OP "shitty" for quitting law school. If by "my response addressed a way of evaluating those emotions" you mean "my response was immature", then sure.

The point is that the decision to continue something should be viewed independently of the decision to start as new information becomes available. This is not "shitty." You started that relationship five years ago when you didn't know the guy would hit you. You started law school thinking you'd enjoy it or be good at it and you'd get a job. Now that you have new information, quitting is perfectly reasonable and not "shitty" at all. As an 0L, I sure as hell wouldn't judge someone for deciding they don't want to be in law school anymore.

[3ThrowAway99]

I think there are usually plenty of ppl who drop out of law school; in the past I suspect most of this group did so because they realized they weren't interested in law, but now probably there are more who do so out of a (perhaps realistic in some cases) fear of not getting a decent job.

For me it was important to make a commitment to myself to stick with it regardless of how it seems to be going. My primary motivation in the first place was an actual interest in law, rather than an interest in getting a high-paying job.

I think in some cases dropping out could be the right thing to do, but I don't think it is generally the wise course for people to take. The economic situation is pretty bleak, but I still think that most people who hang in and get the JD will be better off in most cases than those who drop out. But if your only goal is getting a firm job from the start and it looks like that truly won't happen in the way you want, or if you just realize law really isn't for you, then I think dropping out during or immediately after the 1st year may not be such a bad decision.

[Gatriel]

Oblomov . . . ?

He was supposed to graduate in 3 weeks. Poor guy. I wonder what happened to him.

[174]

I came into law school knowing what to expect so all of those great experiences happened when I finally got here and left my dead end job prospects back home. Kinda strange how life turns out for the better if you look before you leap isnt it?

are TLS posters really this aspie IRL, or does the Internet just turn everyone into a self-fellating asswipe?

TITCQ

[keg411]

I have zero issue with OP dropping out. I'm just curious if he dropped out because he had a shitty first semester or if he just hated lawl skool. Either way OP did the right thing, but I wish he would have given some more insight. ("I was below-median at a TTT" or "I hated the subject matter and didn't want to do any work" or something like that)

However, I do think that there is a percentage of people that come in with no idea what to expect or are overly optimistic about what law school is and tend to disproportionately be unhappy. It's easier to enjoy lawl skool if (1) you get good grades and (2) you allow yourself (and at times, convince yourself) to enjoy the subject matter.

[waitlisted1]

Also, I just want to say, anyone who goes into law school thinking of it solely as an economic investment is so fucking dumb it's unbelievable.

+1

[blsingindisguise]

I feel like that would be a huge waste of time and money on the semesters you did attend.

But whatever makes you happy.

EDIT: redacted because this was already addressed in thread.

[blsingindisguise]

Also, I just want to say, anyone who goes into law school thinking of it solely as an economic investment is so fucking dumb it's unbelievable.

This is basically a straw man and I'm not sure what it has to do with this thread anyway. If someone drops out because they realize they don't like the law, that's not really an economic reason. If someone drops out because they think they won't be able to get a job that pays enough to service their loans, that's not the same as viewing it "solely" as an economic investment. In some cases it's actually a very mature decision, with the caveat that the person in that circumstance may have been inadequately mature in making the initial decision.

[LettuceBeefRealTea]

quitting any task that you decide to undertake without being physically unable to finish is pretty shitty. mostly for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs ... st_fallacy

i'm an econ/math major, but there are things that escape economic analysis. from an econ standpoint, 95% of the population should kill themselves when they hit 60. econ is the same as most sciences (chem, physics, biology, history, etc.), they are awesome at explaining broad, large scale tendencies but fail as the scale gets smaller. things turn meaningless and chaotic. the understanding of the big events is predicated on the fact that millions of small events have a slightly higher probability of turning out a certain way than another. you might say that the idea of sunk costs is a small event with a huge probability of being financially smart. if this is so, then almost every single student facing the same debt load and job prospects should drop out. the opportunity cost of even going to law school in the first place is stupidly huge in almost all situations, so most people outside of even the T3 should probably drop out and use their time and money for more profitable purposes. since the huge majority of people are staying in school despite being in a similar situation as this person, his choice is a deviation from the event's trend/higher probability. therefore this was a decision based on human emotion. this makes it not a question of economics but happiness or some other human emotion/quality that makes economic analysis at the individual level chaotic. this is what my response addressed a way of evaluating those emotions.

i know sunk costs. do you know the will to power?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_to_power

Having Jesus in your avatar and posting will to power stuff makes your argument more awesome and credible in my book.

sarcasm? you do see the guy telling jesus, "cool story, bro?", right?

also, in the antichrist, nietzsche talks about how jesus was a badass. he also talks about how jesus' only flaw was his rejection of reality, and thus life/power, for the kingdom. he mostly hated on the capital C Church, made up of the apostles, rituals, institutions, etc.

i would say that nietzsche is more christ-like than any christian that i know. his famous line that god is dead was a result of his belief of the Church's grotesque perversion of christ's message. 12 years of catholic education here.

[LettuceBeefRealTea]

therefore this was a decision based on human emotion. this makes it not a question of economics but happiness or some other human emotion/quality that makes economic analysis at the individual level chaotic. this is what my response addressed a way of evaluating those emotions.

The sunk cost fallacy applies to emotions, too. You and the other dude saying it's just economics analysis aren't seeing how it applies to an incredible range of situations that have nothing to do with economics. For example, plenty of people stay in terrible, abusive relationships because they've already been with the person so long.

You called the OP "shitty" for quitting law school. If by "my response addressed a way of evaluating those emotions" you mean "my response was immature", then sure.

The point is that the decision to continue something should be viewed independently of the decision to start as new information becomes available. This is not "shitty." You started that relationship five years ago when you didn't know the guy would hit you. You started law school thinking you'd enjoy it or be good at it and you'd get a job. Now that you have new information, quitting is perfectly reasonable and not "shitty" at all. As an 0L, I sure as hell wouldn't judge someone for deciding they don't want to be in law school anymore.

no, it doesn't apply to emotions. any argument attempting to connect the two is built on intellectual sand.
you don't respond to anything substantive in my last post.
you also have a very poor understanding of economics.

your example is shit and doesn't make sense in the context of your argument.
1. people stay in those relationships for psychological reasons, not because they fail to do "rational economic analysis". it has nothing to do with a sunk cost fallacy. their utility--their high--from the abusive relationship is greater than the utility they believe they will have without it. chicks would benefit a lot more from dating a nice guy, but a lot of women like being treated like shit. psych studies have shown that women become more attached to unstable men because the drama evokes emotions and "closeness" that a "more stable" individual does.

2. you don't even realize that your example and explanation in the example is economic. your specific reasoning for these hypothetical people is an economic analysis of time, as a scarce resource, invested into the relationship. this does nothing to show the application of sunk costs to non-economic situations.

i didn't call the op shitty, you ass. learn to read. i said that it is a shitty action. for me, quitting anything is a pretty shitty feeling. nowhere, in my post, do i attack anyone. i give my ideas on the action of quitting and the feelings that could skew someone's judgment process. there was nothing immature in my post, though your post is immature with its errors in logic, poor grasp of economics, appeals to emotion with your shitty abuse example, and general attitude towards me.

lol, i'm sure people care about your judgment. i haven't passed any judgment anywhere in this thread until now based on the stupid smeared all over your post.