3.56/172 and I'm 55 years old Forum

[JAGbound]

Yeah, can we ignore whatever the hell Sarah is doing on her high horse and focus on this bit:

But, I've been giving thought to the consideration of good old JFK law school in Pleasant Hill, for reasonable and logical avenue for my "diverse" situation. It at least deserves to be put on the list.

I've literally never heard of this school, and the idea that anyone with a 172 would contemplate going there is terrifying.

This seems more and more like the work of a troll. I've visited that "law school" to take the MPRE. It's located in a corporate suburb office building and seems more like Devry University than a law school. OP, I would recommend avoiding.

[Npret]

Yeah, can we ignore whatever the hell Sarah is doing on her high horse and focus on this bit:

But, I've been giving thought to the consideration of good old JFK law school in Pleasant Hill, for reasonable and logical avenue for my "diverse" situation. It at least deserves to be put on the list.

I've literally never heard of this school, and the idea that anyone with a 172 would contemplate going there is terrifying.

I assumed this was a fictional place OP was using for her example.

Edit: I was wrong. https://www.jfku.edu/college/law/

[totesTheGoat]

Ok, no problem at all, though I am not railing against anyone or anything but am merely responding in a civilized way to a discussion in an open forum, something I would’ve thought would be welcomed here—even if my views were offensive.

But I’ve been nothing but polite and have remarked only on what seems to be gratuitous and unwarranted responses to op’s original questions. That’s all.

ROFL.

You rolled in here and called everybody bigots and naive in your first sentence of your first post. Get the fuck outta here with this "civilized" "polite" bullshit. You came in here, dropped a turd in the thread, and decided to smear it around after being called out for it.

The only thing I can't tell is whether you're one of the regular trolls or you're actually deluded enough to believe the crap you wrote in the above quote.

good old JFK law school in Pleasant Hill

I'll add my vote that I've never heard of this school before, and wouldn't attend there even if they paid me. Law is (regrettably) a prestige driven industry. You're gonna have a hard time forming the requisite connections and network required for starting a practice attending a school nobody has ever heard of.

[LSATWiz.com]

[Quoted text redacted for length]

Don't know how a school founded in 1965 is "old". Also it's bar passage rate is 26%. That means out of every 4 graduates, only 1 pass the bar or approximately 13 out of the 50 students graduating each year. That means the average student has only a 26% chance of being able to practice law even if they secure a job. Seems like an awful decision.

[sarahlgee]

Ok, no problem at all, though I am not railing against anyone or anything but am merely responding in a civilized way to a discussion in an open forum, something I would’ve thought would be welcomed here—even if my views were offensive.

But I’ve been nothing but polite and have remarked only on what seems to be gratuitous and unwarranted responses to op’s original questions. That’s all.

ROFL.

You rolled in here and called everybody bigots and naive in your first sentence of your first post. Get the fuck outta here with this "civilized" "polite" bullshit. You came in here, dropped a turd in the thread, and decided to smear it around after being called out for it.

The only thing I can't tell is whether you're one of the regular trolls or you're actually deluded enough to believe the crap you wrote in the above quote.

good old JFK law school in Pleasant Hill

I'll add my vote that I've never heard of this school before, and wouldn't attend there even if they paid me. Law is (regrettably) a prestige driven industry. You're gonna have a hard time forming the requisite connections and network required for starting a practice attending a school nobody has ever heard of.

I told the moderator I would not post on this topic any longer, and I’ve stayed true to my word out of respect, despite the other 1 or so responses before yours. But I’m sure it’s reasonable for me to do so, given your nasty mouth and inability to see the simple point that some of those opinions about the op’s age, unsolicited as they were, reflect bias. She never asked, and that some responded the way they did at least suggested as much.

Ya know, limiting your response only to the question stem and assuming no outside knowledge?

I don’t know if we’ve got sensitive snowflakism here, or if I hit a Bm chord, but this is simply one person’s opinion, nothing more, nothing less. What’s so hard to take? It’s not a big deal, and it was certainly not meant to be personal.

I called everybody bigots? Ha. Wow. Sloppy.

So, how about we let it go, huh, friend?

[Npret]

^
Just FYI there is no requirement to respond simply to the question asked. Most of us look to our years of experience with law and with this forum to give the advice we feel is appropriate. Usually the posters don’t even know the correct questions to ask. If anything yourchiming in on those responses is the off-topic bit of this thread.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think any biglaw firm would hire a 55 year old without that person bringing extensive knowledge and experience from another field. You can rant about the obvious discrimination that exists in biglaw hiring, but that doesn’t make it less real or something OP shouldn’t know about.

I think OP is a troll anyway.

[sarahlgee]

^
Just FYI there is no requirement to respond simply to the question asked. Most of us look to our years of experience with law and with this forum to give the advice we feel is appropriate. Usually the posters don’t even know the correct questions to ask. If anything yourchiming in on those responses is the off-topic bit of this thread.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think any biglaw firm would hire a 55 year old without that person bringing extensive knowledge and experience from another field. You can rant about the obvious discrimination that exists in biglaw hiring, but that doesn’t make it less real or something OP shouldn’t know about.

I think OP is a troll anyway.

Hi,

Good points—and you’re most likely right about the op.

S

[nixy]

I mean, the original question was what everyone thought of the OP’s cranky mentor and the OP’s plans. I think answers suggesting that the OP could well encounter ageism are pretty much within the prompt.

[sarahlgee]

I mean, the original question was what everyone thought of the OP’s cranky mentor and the OP’s plans. I think answers suggesting that the OP could well encounter ageism are pretty much within the prompt.

Hi,

I understood what you meant, and I appreciate your decency.

My only point was that the age and financial information was not relevant to op’s question about whether or not she should go to law school to become a solo; she never asked about employment prospects at so-called big law or anywhere else. So, I was a bit surprised by some of the responses, that’s all really.

[The Lsat Airbender]

I mean, the original question was what everyone thought of the OP’s cranky mentor and the OP’s plans. I think answers suggesting that the OP could well encounter ageism are pretty much within the prompt.

Hi,

I understood what you meant, and I appreciate your decency.

My only point was that the age and financial information was not relevant to op’s question about whether or not she should go to law school to become a solo; she never asked about employment prospects at so-called big law or anywhere else. So, I was a bit surprised by some of the responses, that’s all really.

Financial concerns are even more pertinent for someone thinking about solo practice (or, in OP's case, a new partnership), no? Running out of cash/credit means no more law firm.

[nyu2019maybeplease]

With all due respect to all posters, the bigotry implied in some of these responses is possibly equaled only by the shortsightedness of the notion of what people expect in a lawyer. Frankly, someone older may command more respect due to the presumption of wisdom and experience, while someone younger may not inspire as much confidence due to the presumption of exactly the opposite.

As far as employability is concerned, today’s market is defined by mid-career changes and unusual circumstances, in large part brought about by the ‘08 financial collapse. That event profoundly changed this country and the way we work—and is one of the reasons why both medical and law schools have seen a considerable uptick in the number of those in their 50s in entering classes.

Bottom line: you absolutely should pursue law school. Your experience and intelligence would be a fantastic addition to any 1L class. I’m sure you’ll have a long and exciting career.

how does someone imply that they are a bigot

[sarahlgee]

I mean, the original question was what everyone thought of the OP’s cranky mentor and the OP’s plans. I think answers suggesting that the OP could well encounter ageism are pretty much within the prompt.

Hi,

I understood what you meant, and I appreciate your decency.

My only point was that the age and financial information was not relevant to op’s question about whether or not she should go to law school to become a solo; she never asked about employment prospects at so-called big law or anywhere else. So, I was a bit surprised by some of the responses, that’s all really.

Financial concerns are even more pertinent for someone thinking about solo practice (or, in OP's case, a new partnership), no? Running out of cash/credit means no more law firm.

Hi,

That certainly is true, no question about it, though a few of the financial musings were, as I remember, focused on the urgency of getting a free ride (scholarships) on account of age and the potentially limited time remaining on earth as calculated against a reasonable amortization of loans and a timely return. If those warnings focused instead on the financials associated with operating a business, I likely would’ve continued quietly reading on as ordinarily.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Hi,

That certainly is true, no question about it, though a few of the financial musings were, as I remember, focused on the urgency of getting a free ride (scholarships) on account of age and the potentially limited time remaining on earth as calculated against a reasonable amortization of loans and a timely return. If those warnings focused instead on the financials associated with operating a business, I likely would’ve continued quietly reading on as ordinarily.

I mean, it's the same problem either way: you generally shouldn't convert a huge pile of cash (either cash on hand or money you get through loans) to illiquid assets (a law degree and then business-startup costs) late in life because it's comparatively riskier than when a young person does it. That's not ageism, that's just the mathematics involved in making long-term plans. Law-school tuition is probably a bigger part of that financial picture than going solo, and I stand by my advice that, within reasonable bounds, OP would be much better served with a cheaper legal education than an expensive one.

"Don't mortgage your retirement if you don't need to" is advice we give 25-year-olds too, but they have about 30 year's worth of extra slack to absorb mistakes.

[sarahlgee]

Hi,

That certainly is true, no question about it, though a few of the financial musings were, as I remember, focused on the urgency of getting a free ride (scholarships) on account of age and the potentially limited time remaining on earth as calculated against a reasonable amortization of loans and a timely return. If those warnings focused instead on the financials associated with operating a business, I likely would’ve continued quietly reading on as ordinarily.

I mean, it's the same problem either way: you generally shouldn't convert a huge pile of cash (either cash on hand or money you get through loans) to illiquid assets (a law degree and then business-startup costs) late in life because it's comparatively riskier than when a young person does it. That's not ageism, that's just the mathematics involved in making long-term plans. Law-school tuition is probably a bigger part of that financial picture than going solo, and I stand by my advice that, within reasonable bounds, OP would be much better served with a cheaper legal education than an expensive one.

"Don't mortgage your retirement if you don't need to" is advice we give 25-year-olds too, but they have about 30 year's worth of extra slack to absorb mistakes.

Hi,

Certainly you make good sense.

[CentrumToLawSchool]

I didn't mean for people to get into arguments. I may be intelligent, but I am still a dingy and I guess I'm really showing my age because I don't know what a "troll" is.

The troll I know is under a bridge. Can someone please tell me what the work means in this context because whatever it is, I don't think it is me.


Also, my husband is not rich and I was thrown by the mentor -- I say "the" because I don't think I will take any more commentary from her.

On JFK law school -- thank you. I would rather not think about it, it only depresses me. I just want to get feedback that I wasn't nuts wanting to go to law school and not wanting to go to JFK.

Please don't argue guys. I appreciate everyone's opinions.

V

[LSATWiz.com]

I didn't mean for people to get into arguments. I may be intelligent, but I am still a dingy and I guess I'm really showing my age because I don't know what a "troll" is.

The troll I know is under a bridge. Can someone please tell me what the work means in this context because whatever it is, I don't think it is me.


Also, my husband is not rich and I was thrown by the mentor -- I say "the" because I don't think I will take any more commentary from her.

On JFK law school -- thank you. I would rather not think about it, it only depresses me. I just want to get feedback that I wasn't nuts wanting to go to law school and not wanting to go to JFK.

Please don't argue guys. I appreciate everyone's opinions.

V

Your post suggesting you may go to JFK seemed out of touch with reality for someone with a 172. It also seemed odd because it isn't exactly like it's a household name the way that maybe a school like Mercer and similarly regarded schools within a certain 25 mile radius. Few people in Cali have really heard of JFK. It's just a tiny school so that's why they thought it was a troll or you were making it up. You're not going to be discriminated against at the admissions level so there's no reason to sell yourself short. The randomness and badness of JFK made people suspect you were a troll.

[LSATWiz.com]

I mean, the original question was what everyone thought of the OP’s cranky mentor and the OP’s plans. I think answers suggesting that the OP could well encounter ageism are pretty much within the prompt.

Hi,

I understood what you meant, and I appreciate your decency.

My only point was that the age and financial information was not relevant to op’s question about whether or not she should go to law school to become a solo; she never asked about employment prospects at so-called big law or anywhere else. So, I was a bit surprised by some of the responses, that’s all really.

Financial concerns are even more pertinent for someone thinking about solo practice (or, in OP's case, a new partnership), no? Running out of cash/credit means no more law firm.

Hi,

That certainly is true, no question about it, though a few of the financial musings were, as I remember, focused on the urgency of getting a free ride (scholarships) on account of age and the potentially limited time remaining on earth as calculated against a reasonable amortization of loans and a timely return. If those warnings focused instead on the financials associated with operating a business, I likely would’ve continued quietly reading on as ordinarily.

You know, when I was growing up and attending religious schools, I legitimately believed that the standard age people lived to if they abstained from sin was 120 because that's what we were taught. Based on this logic, even if OP graduates at 60, they have at least 50 years before old age sets in and they need to kick it back a notch. Then around the fifth grade my great grandmother got very ill, and I realized she would not make it to 120. When I asked my teacher if she had sinned, she told me the truth is that nobody really lives to be 120.

The reality is lucky people get to work into their 70s and 80s, and when I say lucky, I mean the genetically and medically blessed. That's not everyone, and it's largely unpredictable but to the extent it is predictable is mostly predicated on physical fitness and genetics, at least the latter of which you'd argue is discriminatory if used to implement advise. I'd say OP is probably in good enough shape if they are able to get a 172 on the LSAT while holding down long hours as a paralegal, but to not include age in advising them on future potential is crazy. They will graduate when they are 60. It's not that they can't practice when they are 60, but what about 70 and 80? You develop as a lawyer with experience so it tends to only be worthwhile if you do it for the long haul.

[hatelawandgoinghome]

What the fuck is this thread? This gotta be one of the most absurd ones I've seen in awhile.

[CentrumToLawSchool]

57KJ