Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: 3 denials 7 still out  (Read 2791 times)

fortook

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
    • View Profile
Re: 3 denials 7 still out
« Reply #10 on: May 28, 2012, 06:50:45 PM »
 Congrats, you have debt and a job? You're a winner?
"Thank you for inviting me, Mrs. Palin." "Thank you for cutting your mullet, Levi."

john4040

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
    • View Profile
Re: 3 denials 7 still out
« Reply #11 on: May 29, 2012, 10:38:25 AM »
The circular logic through me. Congrats on having no debt and no job. You're a winner. :)

You're more of a winner with no debt and no job than one with mountains of debt and no job.  It's not circular reasoning - the statistics support the conclusion.

fortook

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
    • View Profile
Re: 3 denials 7 still out
« Reply #12 on: May 29, 2012, 04:35:29 PM »
Meh, use an obvious and simple equation to answer a problem that's so vague and pessimistic it comes off as sarcasm because it is circular in reasoning? 

It wouldn't be without using the "congrats" followed by condemning prospects of no job, btw.

Congrats, you are going to prison for 20 years and have no debt.  You're a winner.
Congrats, your leg fell off and you have no debt. You're a winner.
Etc.



"Thank you for inviting me, Mrs. Palin." "Thank you for cutting your mullet, Levi."

john4040

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
    • View Profile
Re: 3 denials 7 still out
« Reply #13 on: May 30, 2012, 02:35:48 AM »
Meh, use an obvious and simple equation to answer a problem that's so vague and pessimistic it comes off as sarcasm because it is circular in reasoning? 

It wouldn't be without using the "congrats" followed by condemning prospects of no job, btw.

Congrats, you are going to prison for 20 years and have no debt.  You're a winner.
Congrats, your leg fell off and you have no debt. You're a winner.
Etc.

Instead of attacking my "equation" as "vague and pessimistic", why don't you post some stats up to show why OP should go to CUNY?  While you're sitting there with your thumb up your a$$, postulating, allow me to show you some stats:

$112K cost of attendance, or $140K, assuming OP isn't a resident of NY [source http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/clearinghouse/?school=cuny-queens];
18% are unemployed at graduation  [source http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/clearinghouse/?school=cuny-queens&class=2010&show=ABA];
19% are employed by the school, in short-term positions, upon graduation;
Not a single graduate of the class of 2010 reported employment by a firm with > 50 attorneys.
7.1% of this school's graduates were employed and reported a salary.  The average salary of the reporters was $52,500

Given the above stats, if all graduates reported and all salaries were averaged up, I would wager a bet that the average salary would be no more than $30,000.  Given that 18% are unemployed at graduation and another 19% are employed in "fake" temporary jobs funded by CUNY (meant to boost the employment stats of their graduates), it's not mere speculation to suggest that the OP has a 40% chance of being "unemployed" upon graduation or soon thereafter.

It may be true that CUNY is king of sh1t mountain (i.e., the best out of a multitude of horrible schools); that this guy has a 1% chance of making serious money; that CUNY has a good x or y program; that it feels great to know that you're a lawyer; or that OP has wanted to become a lawyer since childhood (probably negated by the fact that OP has never actually spoken to a lawyer to make an informed decision on whether or not he/she would actually enjoy the practice of law).  None of these are serious answers, and all overlook the fact that employment prospects from CUNY are absolutey horrible.

Going to an LSAT prep course and retaking the LSAT is incredibly cheap compared to taking $112 - 140K to the chin for, what statistics say, will yield you $30K.  The LSAT can be learned - why not take some time, invest heavily up front, learn the LSAT, and get a full paid scholarship?

So far, your most helpful post to the OP is:

"I'll admit I don't know too much about CUNY.  I've heard if you want to do public interest in NYC, that's the place to go."

The first sentence explains it all:  You don't know wtf you're talking about, yet, you are willing to open your mouth and give advice.  As to the second sentence, if you want to do public interest [or any legal job, for that matter,] in NYC, go to the best law school in NY.  Otherwise, your colleagues at higher-ranked schools will typically pwn you for those positions and you risk becoming unemployed upon graduation.

fortook

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
    • View Profile
Re: 3 denials 7 still out
« Reply #14 on: May 30, 2012, 09:23:09 AM »
Hmmm based on the %10 of your long post I bothered to read: You seem to be missing the point-  Both of the OP and myself. Post all of the stats you want- none can be relevant unless they address data on YOUR rhetoric.

I've never advocated s/he should go to CUNY.  Our little banter started when you said your sarcasm wasn't sarcasm. When you said circular reasoning (used as rhetoric) wasn't circular.  Btw, all that can be fine- I'm not a CUNY fan, I know hardly anything about them. CUNY has nothing to do with it.   

The OP's top choice is CUNY.  That decision seems made.  S/he never asked you if they should go to CUNY.  Why are you trying so hard to discourage?  The question is unrelated.  CUNY is probably the best choice for the OP because of the low debt.  Am I saying you're right? Partly. I would loosen the noose a little because CUNY is the best choice for some people and successful attorneys do come out of CUNY.

The ridiculous examples I used weren't enough.  Wow- Congrats. We're arguing pointlessly and off topic. We have no debt. We're winners.
"Thank you for inviting me, Mrs. Palin." "Thank you for cutting your mullet, Levi."

fortook

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
    • View Profile
Re: 3 denials 7 still out
« Reply #15 on: May 30, 2012, 09:33:03 AM »
OP- if you are still bothering to read this thread: steve's first question is right.  What are your numbers?  When did you apply? If we're talking 145/2.5 you might be in trouble.

Not hearing back by 5 April isn't necessarily the kiss of death. Not hearing back by 30 May, even to be rejected or waitlisted, now that's not good.  I have read a few articles lately that claim this cycle is much smaller that pre 2011 cycles, based on LSAT turn out and applications submitted.  That means admissions offices may need to change up some of their policies- admit people with lower scores than they used to or shrink class size or make huge waitlists, etc.   

Regardless, Good luck.

I suspect you got in somewhere since you haven't been back freaking.   
"Thank you for inviting me, Mrs. Palin." "Thank you for cutting your mullet, Levi."

john4040

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
    • View Profile
Re: 3 denials 7 still out
« Reply #16 on: May 30, 2012, 10:33:02 AM »
Hmmm based on the %10 of your long post I bothered to read: You seem to be missing the point-  Both of the OP and myself. Post all of the stats you want- none can be relevant unless they address data on YOUR rhetoric.

I've never advocated s/he should go to CUNY.  Our little banter started when you said your sarcasm wasn't sarcasm. When you said circular reasoning (used as rhetoric) wasn't circular.  Btw, all that can be fine- I'm not a CUNY fan, I know hardly anything about them. CUNY has nothing to do with it.   

The OP's top choice is CUNY.  That decision seems made.  S/he never asked you if they should go to CUNY.  Why are you trying so hard to discourage?  The question is unrelated.  CUNY is probably the best choice for the OP because of the low debt.  Am I saying you're right? Partly. I would loosen the noose a little because CUNY is the best choice for some people and successful attorneys do come out of CUNY.

The ridiculous examples I used weren't enough.  Wow- Congrats. We're arguing pointlessly and off topic. We have no debt. We're winners.

The guy stated that he was striking out and that CUNY was his top choice.  If CUNY was his top choice, I think it's a safe assumption that the other schools were ranked near or below it.  I simply stated that the law schools saved him from making a horrible decision.  In other words, don't sweat getting rejected by these schools, you just dodged a bullet.

Good luck to you, OP.  Not everyone is cut out for law school.  Just don't become one of the piles of students whining about debt and bad job prospects and hoping that tax payers to bail you out.

fortook

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
    • View Profile
Re: 3 denials 7 still out
« Reply #17 on: May 31, 2012, 12:05:44 PM »
1) He never stated he scratched out CUNY.
2) You assume too much. There are reasons to go to CUNY that have noting to do with ranking.
3) You the one that brought up no debt. That's a good reason.
4) Tax payers bail you out?- that explains a lot.
5) Tax payers? what?
6) Ah tea party?
7) Go Ron Paul 2012
8 ) I know this is a douch.y way to do this.
9) Idc
10) Tax payers? What?
"Thank you for inviting me, Mrs. Palin." "Thank you for cutting your mullet, Levi."

john4040

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
    • View Profile
Re: 3 denials 7 still out
« Reply #18 on: May 31, 2012, 01:21:28 PM »
1) He never stated he scratched out CUNY. . .

Reading comprehension FAIL.

The title of the post says "3 denials 7 still out", meaning that the OP has been rejected from 3 schools and still has 7 apps pending.

He stated that he has heard nothing back from most schools that he applied to (probably the 7 referenced in the title), including CUNY, his top choice.  He then asked whether he was completely hosed.

I never stated that "he scratched out CUNY".  I stated that he was striking out, CUNY was his top choice, it's fair to assume that the other schools that weren't his top choice were ranked at or worse than CUNY, and that he's, therefore, fortunate not to get accepted to any of those schools.  So, no, he's not completely hosed.

With regard to #2, maybe I do, maybe I don't.  Either way, I think it's a pretty safe assumption.

#3 - The guy asked whether he was hosed.  No, he's not.  For the reasons I already gave.

#s 4-10 - Incredibly stupid.  Hope you enjoy the student loan bubble that will soon plague the US.  Government backed student loans are given to anyone and everyone without regard to the quality of school, the intended field of study, and the demand for graduates in that field.

fortook

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
    • View Profile
Re: 3 denials 7 still out
« Reply #19 on: May 31, 2012, 02:23:00 PM »
Dooood. I have never seen such an example of speculation and assumption being mistaken for cleverness. I'll do the same thing- typical tea party induction.  Inducing huge conclusions from minute irrelevant or even exception data. You base a conclusion on outliers.  Or worse, generalizations that can't include all the data.

Not everything in such an important decision as which law school to go is always based on linear rankings exclusively, and should not be.  You do not know which schools rejected him.  I saw a person apply to Harvard with a 148.  She applied to a few T1s, a few T2s and a few T4s.

If anything he infers he has not heard back from CUNY. 

CUNY is a different kind of school. It is outside the rankings. What I mean by that is the school admits people with 140s LSAT and can reject a person with a 160. They think differently than most schools.

Ah the student loan bubble.  That's why you try to discourage people from law school. You don't want to help the OP. You want him/her swept aside as to not be part of the problem. 

You're posting here to stop people from going to law school. Wow. Not selfish at all. Not apathetic. Not lame or weak, but practical, ehe?

What an f.in selfish dic.k.
"Thank you for inviting me, Mrs. Palin." "Thank you for cutting your mullet, Levi."