Chances at Texas Tech? Forum

[Aqualibrium]

I don't think enough attention is being paid to the fact that it appears to be raining dirt in Lubbock, Texas.

[kalvano]

I don't think enough attention is being paid to the fact that it appears to be raining dirt in Lubbock, Texas.

Because it's not unusual.

Welcome to west Texas.

[b.gump81]

.

Also, "snobby" would imply that I think SMU is inherently better for non-objective reasons than Tech. I don't. In fact, I've been fairly critical of SMU on a lot of key points. But it's not "snobby" to say that your chances of employment in the field you want to be in are greatly increased by going to one school over another. I don't get all pissy when people are advised to go to UT over SMU. It's an objectively better school for gaining employment.

thats all i am asking for....i just want to see this objective criteria you are talking about

direct me to the evidence where it shows it is objectively better to pay over $150,000 to get the same type of job (non-biglaw) as a guy that pays $60,000

or where smu "greatly" increases the chances of getting a job in the field i want, when the field i want is government, non-profit, immigration, energy, or basically anything that isnt biglaw

[kalvano]

.

Also, "snobby" would imply that I think SMU is inherently better for non-objective reasons than Tech. I don't. In fact, I've been fairly critical of SMU on a lot of key points. But it's not "snobby" to say that your chances of employment in the field you want to be in are greatly increased by going to one school over another. I don't get all pissy when people are advised to go to UT over SMU. It's an objectively better school for gaining employment.

thats all i am asking for....i just want to see this objective criteria you are talking about

direct me to the evidence where it shows it is objectively better to pay over $150,000 to get the same type of job (non-biglaw) as a guy that pays $60,000

or where smu "greatly" increases the chances of getting a job in the field i want, when the field i want is government, non-profit, immigration, energy, or basically anything that isnt biglaw

Show me where it says everyone is paying $150K+ or paying $60K at Tech.

Law schools place on school name. Employers go to schools based on school name. It's not exactly breaking news that better-ranked schools will provide more opportunities for the students there. It's also arguably easier to get the job you want with a lower class ranking from a better school. A person in the top half at UT will have about the same chances that a person in the top 25% or so at SMU / UofH will.

Further, speaking of unfounded assumptions, where does this idea that the only good placement for SMU is Biglaw? I've got vastly more opportunities than people at the only other school around, Wesleyan. I worked with a guy who went there, and we talked a lot...the job opportunities that are offered to SMU students across all areas greatly outstripped what were offered to him. Much as I imagine looking at the Symplicty page for UT or another T14 would send me into a tizzy.

If any of that is news to you, then again, I can do nothing for you.

[HookemHooker]

.

Also, "snobby" would imply that I think SMU is inherently better for non-objective reasons than Tech. I don't. In fact, I've been fairly critical of SMU on a lot of key points. But it's not "snobby" to say that your chances of employment in the field you want to be in are greatly increased by going to one school over another. I don't get all pissy when people are advised to go to UT over SMU. It's an objectively better school for gaining employment.

thats all i am asking for....i just want to see this objective criteria you are talking about

direct me to the evidence where it shows it is objectively better to pay over $150,000 to get the same type of job (non-biglaw) as a guy that pays $60,000

or where smu "greatly" increases the chances of getting a job in the field i want, when the field i want is government, non-profit, immigration, energy, or basically anything that isnt biglaw

Gump81 what makes you think non-big law hiring is any different? In fact, I would say it is even more important to go to a higher ranked school with a scholarship due to the competition over a small number of position in government/non-profit work.

Second, while I agree that going to a T2 school with debt is ridiculous, the OP has a great chance of getting into UT with manageable improvement on his LSAT. Aside from living expenses, UT would cost the same.

[b.gump81]

Show me where it says everyone is paying $150K+ or paying $60K at Tech.

Law schools place on school name. Employers go to schools based on school name. It's not exactly breaking news that better-ranked schools will provide more opportunities for the students there. It's also arguably easier to get the job you want with a lower class ranking from a better school. A person in the top half at UT will have about the same chances that a person in the top 25% or so at SMU / UofH will.

Further, speaking of unfounded assumptions, where does this idea that the only good placement for SMU is Biglaw? I've got vastly more opportunities than people at the only other school around, Wesleyan. I worked with a guy who went there, and we talked a lot...the job opportunities that are offered to SMU students across all areas greatly outstripped what were offered to him. Much as I imagine looking at the Symplicty page for UT or another T14 would send me into a tizzy.

If any of that is news to you, then again, I can do nothing for you.

if it costs around 20,000 a semester at smu and about 11 for a semester at tech, that is 120,000 for three years at smu and 66,000 at tech...cost of living is more in dallas, but i was just giving estimations....

and i think you are getting a little confused still by the fact that we aren't talking about biglaw..."employers go to schools based on school names," but im not talking about OCI because such a small percentage of OCI is conducted by non-biglaw employers

as to your point about class rank, sure, but it depends on the type of job we are talking about...here are some illustrations

i think an immigration firm would take a tech student that can speak spanish fluently that is ranked 50% in his class over an smu grad that cant speak spanish but is ranked around 30% in his class

i think a d.a. office will take a tech grad that competed on a national mock trial team that is ranked around 50% in his class over a smu grad that ranked around 30% in his class

i think an energy firm (especially one specializing in wind energy) will take a tech grad at 50% in his class over an smu grad that is 30% in his class

the point is, that the benefit of going to a higher ranked school needs to be weighed by each applicant because it will vary depending on what they want and how much scholarship money they get...to blindly say one school is a clear choice over the other in every situation reeks of bias, and that sir, is what you do in every single post about tech

does smu have its advantages? absolutely, especially for the dallas metroplex area...but those benefits need to be weighed against how much money it would cost....thats all im saying

[b.gump81]

Second, while I agree that going to a T2 school with debt is ridiculous, the OP has a great chance of getting into UT with manageable improvement on his LSAT. Aside from living expenses, UT would cost the same.

yeah i completely agree that the OP should retake. He also recently posted that he is eligible for Hazelwood, so a lot of this talk about money is irrelevant as to the OP.

[kalvano]

to blindly say one school is a clear choice over the other in every situation reeks of bias, and that sir, is what you do in every single post about tech

That's because it's pretty much never a good idea to go to Tech. No one has yet posted a situation in which the benefits of going to Tech are outweighed by the drawbacks.

[b.gump81]

to blindly say one school is a clear choice over the other in every situation reeks of bias, and that sir, is what you do in every single post about tech

That's because it's pretty much never a good idea to go to Tech. No one has yet posted a situation in which the benefits of going to Tech are outweighed by the drawbacks.

i think you meant "where the drawbacks are outweighed by the benefits," but at any rate, the drawbacks of tech have been vastly outweighed by the benefits for me

i am going to school for practically free, and i will most likely get the job I want in the dallas area when i graduate, and my debt to income ratio will allow me to not be stuck in an office 80 hours a week just to pay off my loans...hows that?

granted, i have no dreams of ever going into biglaw, but that is the benefit of having low debts: you aren't forced into taking the highest paying job you can find just to stay afloat...with nearly no debt, you can take that non-profit, immigration, or government job you came to law school for in the first place

[kalvano]

1) Most people I know are on scholarship of some sort.
2) IBR / loan forgiveness for public interest / government work (which is hard to get, by the way - prestige of school matters)
3) There is no 3, but people like lists and it looks more authoritative.

Also, I said what I meant. When it comes to attending a 4th-tier school, the drawbacks will almost invariably outweigh any potential benefit.

[swilson215]

Okay, boys, play nicely.

Here's the skinny/the summary:

OP may have a reason to go to Tech. Tech is not the best school OP could get into, and it might not make the most financial sense. OP should retake, then re-weigh his options. OP should not pigeonhole himself or sell himself short. OP should go to the school where the $$ is balanced with the prestige. It might be Tech, but odds are it will be somewhere else.

[b.gump81]

1) Most people I know are on scholarship of some sort.

.....and they still pay more than tech at sticker

2) IBR / loan forgiveness for public interest / government work (which is hard to get, by the way - prestige of school matters)

i thought you just had to have the non-profit or government job for 10 years, regardless of where you went to school, as long as it is accredited of course

Okay, boys, play nicely.

Here's the skinny/the summary:

OP may have a reason to go to Tech. Tech is not the best school OP could get into, and it might not make the most financial sense. OP should retake, then re-weigh his options. OP should not pigeonhole himself or sell himself short. OP should go to the school where the $$ is balanced with the prestige. It might be Tech, but odds are it will be somewhere else.

here's the unbiased skinny/the summary

tech may not be the best school he can get into because with a retake he could get into UT, which is undoubtedly better than Tech and SMU...but as far as retaking to go to SMU, i personally dont think it would be that much of a benefit if the OP does not want to end up in the dallas area, like he has stated. again, he would have to weigh the cost of waiting out a year against the marginal benefit that smu will have on his placement in immigration law in a border town.

now, i think this would be completely different if the OP wasnt dead set on not doing biglaw or if he didnt have a shot at UT...if he had any inclination that he may change his mind while in school or had a lower GPA, i wouldnt say consider tech without a retake, if you get in

as to the 147, i actually think you have a decent shot at getting accepted....we just got a new dean, and there seems to be a big push to increase our diversity

good luck

[ClutchCity24]

SMH