UT v Bama v UGA With a Twist! Forum

[ggmu1992]

This is my second-ever post, mainly because I am always on TLS at work where IT has figured out how to prevent folks from logging into sites (but I can still view them? IT is lame). So I feel guilty for just leeching, but, eh.

Point is, I've been around the TLS block and know the standard advice.

Some schools haven't gotten back yet (I applied almost at deadlines), but the current options are:

UT @ 90 k (prenegotiation--think I have decent odds at getting that to 60k after negotiation-- at/above both 75ths)

UGA 35k.

Bama for free.

Goals: big fed or in house. Potential pit stops at clerkship and/or big law, depending on life situations/ambitions/etc. Don't care where.

BUT WAIT THERE'S A TWIST: well, two actually.

(1) I want to do an MPA dual. Want to learn the stuff, and have better quant skills. UGA is top 5 in the country for that. UT is top 10. Bama's MPA program, as far as USNews is concerned, doubles as a janitorial staff.

(2) related to the above: I might not want to be a lawyer forever! *GASP* BUT before you shout me down: I know I'd be happy being a lawyer forever, as I work with legal at my job. I just also like the business side of things, and have diverse interests in general, and would gladly enter another related profession if the opportunity arose. In fact, I know I'm someone who probably won't do the same exact thing for 30 years. Which is why I like the MPA option (to gain a broader education), and is why I am (please hear this) VERY debt-averse. Even 35 k is scary to me, because I don't want loan payments to ever determine any choice that I make.

So in summary:
Best law school: UT > Bama & UGA
Best MPA: UT & UGA > Bama
Best cost: Bama > UGA > UT

See how that is cyclical?

Also I'm WL at H and would absolutely accept an offer and go for full cost because I'm a starry eyed dunce.

Soooo... skewer me.

P.S. - visited Bama. Impressed. Visiting UGA next week. Asked UT if they'll fund a visit; no response yet.

P.P.S. --- I purposefully didn't include stats, though there are hints. I'm considering retaking (again)/going again next cycle. Personal reasons for both staying and going, but point is: assume I'm going, know that retake advice is already being considered carefully, and yes I know that if I retake and improve a bit and apply earlier, I will probably get in nearly everywhere with $$$. You may tell me to retake/reapply, but if that is your only contribution... I mean, I can't tell you what to do, but you'll waste 2 clicks and 6 keystrokes

[ggmu1992]

This is my second-ever post, mainly because I am always on TLS at work where IT has figured out how to prevent folks from logging into sites (but I can still view them? IT is lame). So I feel guilty for just leeching, but, eh.

Reserved. Do y'all do cat taxes around here?

[Npret]

Where do you want to practice?

From the bit you said, UT, I guess. I have no clue about whatever an MPA is or how it would help your career.
Doesn't a dual degree change your cost calculations?

[cavalier1138]

So you want to get an MPA for... business? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Anyway, bigfed probably ain't happening from UGA or Alabama. But your primary consideration should be where you want to work. Employers won't care about the dual-degree, and these schools all place relatively close to home (UT has a bit of a wider reach, but not by enough to make it a good choice for Alabama/Georgia with no ties).

[ggmu1992]

So you want to get an MPA for... business? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Anyway, bigfed probably ain't happening from UGA or Alabama. But your primary consideration should be where you want to work. Employers won't care about the dual-degree, and these schools all place relatively close to home (UT has a bit of a wider reach, but not by enough to make it a good choice for Alabama/Georgia with no ties).

I know this is a foreign concept for the mercenaries on TLS, but I want to get an MPA because education is intrinsically valuable. It is factored into cost calculations already.

And as stated above, where I work isn't a big deal. BUT: don't more places open up to a person who is top 5-10% of their class at a good regional school like these? I know, assume you'll be median, blah blah, and obviously I wouldn't go to one of these schools if I wasn't happy living/practicing there... But it seems to me people drastically overestimate the regional-ness of schools, especially for the good students.

For instance: Bama people I talked to have jobs in: Charlotte, New York x 2, Houston, Atlanta.

Thoughts?

[cavalier1138]

So you want to get an MPA for... business? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Anyway, bigfed probably ain't happening from UGA or Alabama. But your primary consideration should be where you want to work. Employers won't care about the dual-degree, and these schools all place relatively close to home (UT has a bit of a wider reach, but not by enough to make it a good choice for Alabama/Georgia with no ties).

I know this is a foreign concept for the mercenaries on TLS, but I want to get an MPA because education is intrinsically valuable. It is factored into cost calculations already.

And as stated above, where I work isn't a big deal. BUT: don't more places open up to a person who is top 5-10% of their class at a good regional school like these? I know, assume you'll be median, blah blah, and obviously I wouldn't go to one of these schools if I wasn't happy living/practicing there... But it seems to me people drastically overestimate the regional-ness of schools, especially for the good students.

For instance: Bama people I talked to have jobs in: Charlotte, New York x 2, Houston, Atlanta.

Thoughts?

I agree that education is intrinsically valuable, but graduate degrees aren't just generic "education". An MPA is a specialized degree, just like a JD, and if you're interested in business, I don't understand why you'd choose that over an MBA. (I actually don't know why anyone does a dual-degree program with a JD unless they're doing a PhD and want to go into academia, but that's a different thread...)

And yes, top 5% at these schools probably gives you more geographic flexibility. It's not "drastically overestimating" anything when you tell someone that the school confines graduates to an area. 5% of the class going to NY means nothing if you aren't in the top 5%. And despite you paying lip service to the idea of assuming that you'll be at the median, it seems pretty clear that you think you're going to be at the top. You need to get that idea out of your head.

The schools are going to put you in touch with their most successful alumni. Stay objective. Look at job statistics. Don't start thinking, "It worked out for that guy I talked to, so it can work out for me." And make sure you're clear on what you're getting a degree for. Graduate degrees aren't just generic pieces of paper that let you put extra letters after your name.

[Rigo]

You are debt-phobic but want to take on an extra year of debt for an MPA? Also, yeah what cav said about MPA =/= business goals.

What are your legal career goals?
Where do you want to practice?

[guynourmin]

Have you ever talked to someone with an MPA (or any professional degree, really) who said they were intrinsically valuable educational experiences? While education might be, I don't see how those degrees are. At least, there are dozens of other programs I have to imagine have more intrinsic educational value. Philosophy, classics, physics, art history, math... Why not any of those?

[Npret]

So you want to get an MPA for... business? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Anyway, bigfed probably ain't happening from UGA or Alabama. But your primary consideration should be where you want to work. Employers won't care about the dual-degree, and these schools all place relatively close to home (UT has a bit of a wider reach, but not by enough to make it a good choice for Alabama/Georgia with no ties).

I know this is a foreign concept for the mercenaries on TLS, but I want to get an MPA because education is intrinsically valuable. It is factored into cost calculations already.

And as stated above, where I work isn't a big deal. BUT: don't more places open up to a person who is top 5-10% of their class at a good regional school like these? I know, assume you'll be median, blah blah, and obviously I wouldn't go to one of these schools if I wasn't happy living/practicing there... But it seems to me people drastically overestimate the regional-ness of schools, especially for the good students.

For instance: Bama people I talked to have jobs in: Charlotte, New York x 2, Houston, Atlanta.

Thoughts?

You talked to two people from Alabama that got jobs in NY and suddenly it isn't regional? Charlotte and Atlanta are cities I would expect Alabama grads to go, and possibly they already had ties there.

You post as if you know all the advice or the posters here but you want a different response. I'm not sure what you are after?

There is no way to guarantee you will be top 5 or 10% of your class. Almost everyone like you assumes they will be because they have had great grades in the past and assume they will be smarter than everyone else at school.
You say you know this but blah, blah, blah.

I can't see how getting an MPA will help you with anything. People here do find education intrinsically valuable but that isn't the point with professional school.

I would be interested in how you think you will spin getting an MPA in an interview with a law firm.

If you do so desperately want the MPA, it seems that would immediately take Alabama out of the running.

Also, are your debt costs accurate? You can cover COL yourself?

[Rigo]

Have you ever talked to someone with an MPA (or any professional degree, really) who said they were intrinsically valuable educational experiences? While education might be, I don't see how those degrees are. At least, there are dozens of other programs I have to imagine have more intrinsic educational value. Philosophy, classics, physics, art history, math... Why not any of those?

I never went for my MPA but I can attest to public administration and policy classes being very practical and data wonky. You spend a lot of time in Microsoft Excel and data modeling policy proposals. When you aren't working with numbers, you are just being told and reading in a million ways that bureaucracy exists. I'm not sure it fits what you are looking for. People who love learning for the sake of learning and ideas/intellectualism tend to really hate public administration.
An MPA is a good degree to have and will help you with government job placement, but if that's what you want then why waste 3 years on a law degree too? You seem to not have a clear idea of what you want to do. Correct me if I'm wrong and lay out specific jobs that you want.

[ggmu1992]

Have you ever talked to someone with an MPA (or any professional degree, really) who said they were intrinsically valuable educational experiences? While education might be, I don't see how those degrees are. At least, there are dozens of other programs I have to imagine have more intrinsic educational value. Philosophy, classics, physics, art history, math... Why not any of those?

To all: I appreciate the dialogue, even if I seem stubborn. Thanks, folks

Math is actually reason #1 for the MPA. Policy-centered MPAs do a few stats-y classses, and that is the skill I want. It's one of few ways that I, a liberal arts major, can continue my math education without going and taking undergrad calc classes. Also my SO's dad has a PhD in math, so I can (and plan to) learn from him/my SO (who is a math major). As far as classics/philosophy, that's what my undergrad is in--so just looking for some other courses of study.

Also, I have a history of serving with non-profits, so it's obvs a passion of mine, and an MPA is one of the degrees people get for Non-Profit management. So the non-policy-analysis classes are appealing in that sense.

[Rigo]

Okay I guess the main question now is Why Law?

[guynourmin]

Have you ever talked to someone with an MPA (or any professional degree, really) who said they were intrinsically valuable educational experiences? While education might be, I don't see how those degrees are. At least, there are dozens of other programs I have to imagine have more intrinsic educational value. Philosophy, classics, physics, art history, math... Why not any of those?

To all: I appreciate the dialogue, even if I seem stubborn. Thanks, folks

Math is actually reason #1 for the MPA. Policy-centered MPAs do a few stats-y classses, and that is the skill I want. It's one of few ways that I, a liberal arts major, can continue my math education without going and taking undergrad calc classes. Also my SO's dad has a PhD in math, so I can (and plan to) learn from him/my SO (who is a math major). As far as classics/philosophy, that's what my undergrad is in--so just looking for some other courses of study.

Also, I have a history of serving with non-profits, so it's obvs a passion of mine, and an MPA is one of the degrees people get for Non-Profit management. So the non-policy-analysis classes are appealing in that sense.

You haven't said anything here that makes me think you should get both degrees.

Getting an MPA to take a few stat-y courses is right up there with following Warner to Harvard-level bad idea. Just take a few classes without the rest of the degree if you want. Thats also hardly a math education. Assuming you've taken those undergrad calc classes already, there's SO much to do in math. If you haven't, why are you writing them off?

Also, if you've done a philosophy and classics double at any half respectable institution, there will be nothing educationally ​fulfilling in an MPA program. Like, literally nothing at all.

Do you want to manage a non profit or be a lawyer?

[ggmu1992]

1. You talked to two people from Alabama that got jobs in NY and suddenly it isn't regional? Charlotte and Atlanta are cities I would expect Alabama grads to go, and possibly they already had ties there.

2. There is no way to guarantee you will be top 5 or 10% of your class. Almost everyone like you assumes they will be because they have had great grades in the past and assume they will be smarter than everyone else at school.
You say you know this but blah, blah, blah.


3. I would be interested in how you think you will spin getting an MPA in an interview with a law firm.

4. If you do so desperately want the MPA, it seems that would immediately take Alabama out of the running.

5. Also, are your debt costs accurate? You can cover COL yourself?

1. Well, a previous response said implied that UGA/Bama placed in diff places. Which, sure, they will place better in the big cities they are right next to, but it seems both would place in the SouthEast generally, for a good student at least.

2. I am not ignoring this advice. I think it's good advice, which i would heed, for the top 15-20 schools (including UT). But I know people that have gone to schools 20-50, and I've met people there. I think that for a person who goes to a school they are overqualified for, they'll have a pretty easy time coming out on top, assuming no work ethic problems/other extraneous factors. I've got a friend who matches the profile of the overconfident person who is median at law school, and I am not him. I'm more realistic about my ability, and I work harder.
BUT I also realize that I have absolutely ZERO credibility on this matter until I do it, so I do take everyone's advice on this seriously. I hedge for it, even though I "know" it won't happen to me.
If you do know of a thread where people have gone to a T20-50 school knowing that they are, numbers-wise, better than everyone else there and significantly better than the median, and still have done poorly, I'd be happy to read it. Every time I see this advice, though, it is oriented towards people who are average for their school, OR are going to T14 schools, where of course everyone is brilliant. I don't really want this to be a sticking point for this thread, though. Like I said--please don't conflate my confidence that I can do really well with an inability to consider that I might be wrong.

3. "I wanted to get good at data cause I like data" (so basically, I wouldn't. I'd just use it to pivot towards a more conversational explanation of some of my interests/hobbies.)

4. Noted., and appreciated. But graduating without any debt would be reallly nice... (this is my problem)

5. Yeah, they're good. Thanks for the concern though!

[ggmu1992]

Have you ever talked to someone with an MPA (or any professional degree, really) who said they were intrinsically valuable educational experiences? While education might be, I don't see how those degrees are. At least, there are dozens of other programs I have to imagine have more intrinsic educational value. Philosophy, classics, physics, art history, math... Why not any of those?

To all: I appreciate the dialogue, even if I seem stubborn. Thanks, folks

Math is actually reason #1 for the MPA. Policy-centered MPAs do a few stats-y classses, and that is the skill I want. It's one of few ways that I, a liberal arts major, can continue my math education without going and taking undergrad calc classes. Also my SO's dad has a PhD in math, so I can (and plan to) learn from him/my SO (who is a math major). As far as classics/philosophy, that's what my undergrad is in--so just looking for some other courses of study.

Also, I have a history of serving with non-profits, so it's obvs a passion of mine, and an MPA is one of the degrees people get for Non-Profit management. So the non-policy-analysis classes are appealing in that sense.

You haven't said anything here that makes me think you should get both degrees.

Getting an MPA to take a few stat-y courses is right up there with following Warner to Harvard-level bad idea. Just take a few classes without the rest of the degree if you want. Thats also hardly a math education. Assuming you've taken those undergrad calc classes already, there's SO much to do in math. If you haven't, why are you writing them off?

Also, if you've done a philosophy and classics double at any half respectable institution, there will be nothing educationally ​fulfilling in an MPA program. Like, literally nothing at all.

Do you want to manage a non profit or be a lawyer?

but the MPA is free! and assistantships mean getting to work on a (probably fun) project with a Prof, and/or teaching, both of which are great fun.

I don't want to manage a non-profit. I would like to be able to help one though. Also, some skills of managing a non-profit are pretty similar to skills of managing a business, and that knowledge can be helpful in lots of ways.

FInally, I don't share your disdain for vocational education. I certainly recognize that a class on Public Finance will probs not utilise the Socratic method, but that doesn't make the knowledge gained less important. I'm guessing you're someone who rues the fact that education is so vocational and myopic now, which I would totally agree with, but there's something to be said for trying to assimilate the way things are with the way I wish they were--which to me means not eschewing vocational degrees simply based on principle.

[Dcc617]

1. You talked to two people from Alabama that got jobs in NY and suddenly it isn't regional? Charlotte and Atlanta are cities I would expect Alabama grads to go, and possibly they already had ties there.

2. There is no way to guarantee you will be top 5 or 10% of your class. Almost everyone like you assumes they will be because they have had great grades in the past and assume they will be smarter than everyone else at school.
You say you know this but blah, blah, blah.


3. I would be interested in how you think you will spin getting an MPA in an interview with a law firm.

4. If you do so desperately want the MPA, it seems that would immediately take Alabama out of the running.

5. Also, are your debt costs accurate? You can cover COL yourself?

1. Well, a previous response said implied that UGA/Bama placed in diff places. Which, sure, they will place better in the big cities they are right next to, but it seems both would place in the SouthEast generally, for a good student at least.

2. I am not ignoring this advice. I think it's good advice, which i would heed, for the top 15-20 schools (including UT). But I know people that have gone to schools 20-50, and I've met people there. I think that for a person who goes to a school they are overqualified for, they'll have a pretty easy time coming out on top, assuming no work ethic problems/other extraneous factors. I've got a friend who matches the profile of the overconfident person who is median at law school, and I am not him. I'm more realistic about my ability, and I work harder.
BUT I also realize that I have absolutely ZERO credibility on this matter until I do it, so I do take everyone's advice on this seriously. I hedge for it, even though I "know" it won't happen to me.
If you do know of a thread where people have gone to a T20-50 school knowing that they are, numbers-wise, better than everyone else there and significantly better than the median, and still have done poorly, I'd be happy to read it. Every time I see this advice, though, it is oriented towards people who are average for their school, OR are going to T14 schools, where of course everyone is brilliant. I don't really want this to be a sticking point for this thread, though. Like I said--please don't conflate my confidence that I can do really well with an inability to consider that I might be wrong.

3. "I wanted to get good at data cause I like data" (so basically, I wouldn't. I'd just use it to pivot towards a more conversational explanation of some of my interests/hobbies.)

4. Noted., and appreciated. But graduating without any debt would be reallly nice... (this is my problem)

5. Yeah, they're good. Thanks for the concern though!

1) Your goals seem all over the place, which means you don't really know what you want. It would be helpful if you could clarify what your minimum goals would be.

2) None of those schools are the best options for geographic mobility, biglaw, bigfed, etc. You want T13. I have trouble believing that you have a big scholarship to UT and a Harvard waitlist, but nothing in between. Did you apply to Duke or UVA?

3) The vast majority of law school kids think they're going to be at the top of the class. However, that cannot be what happens. Being above the medians, or even 75ths does not mean you'll be the best at law school exams. That's why you assume median and see if you'd be happy with the result.

4) Professional degrees are for jobs. I mean, it's your decision to take out tens of thousands of dollars in debt for fun, but I think you'd be better off not doing that and saving up for a downpayment on a house or something.

5) Cut the shitty tone. Most people who take the time to respond are genuinely trying to help. Why even ask the question if you're not going listen or act like you're actually so special that advice doesn't apply to you?

[Bob loblaw law blog]

Have you ever talked to someone with an MPA (or any professional degree, really) who said they were intrinsically valuable educational experiences? While education might be, I don't see how those degrees are. At least, there are dozens of other programs I have to imagine have more intrinsic educational value. Philosophy, classics, physics, art history, math... Why not any of those?

To all: I appreciate the dialogue, even if I seem stubborn. Thanks, folks

Math is actually reason #1 for the MPA. Policy-centered MPAs do a few stats-y classses, and that is the skill I want. It's one of few ways that I, a liberal arts major, can continue my math education without going and taking undergrad calc classes. Also my SO's dad has a PhD in math, so I can (and plan to) learn from him/my SO (who is a math major). As far as classics/philosophy, that's what my undergrad is in--so just looking for some other courses of study.

Also, I have a history of serving with non-profits, so it's obvs a passion of mine, and an MPA is one of the degrees people get for Non-Profit management. So the non-policy-analysis classes are appealing in that sense.

You haven't said anything here that makes me think you should get both degrees.

Getting an MPA to take a few stat-y courses is right up there with following Warner to Harvard-level bad idea. Just take a few classes without the rest of the degree if you want. Thats also hardly a math education. Assuming you've taken those undergrad calc classes already, there's SO much to do in math. If you haven't, why are you writing them off?

Also, if you've done a philosophy and classics double at any half respectable institution, there will be nothing educationally ​fulfilling in an MPA program. Like, literally nothing at all.

Do you want to manage a non profit or be a lawyer?

Agreed. Do not get an MPA if you don't want to do non-profit work or policy work. And even then, don't get an MPA. I had to take quite a few classes with MPA grad students for undergrad and as someone who enjoys both math and learning in general I found them to God awful.

Why not just go to whichever one get you closest to where you want to work (still waiting to hear where that is) and take a few undergrad courses if you find you have the the time (many law schools let you count a few towards your credits for graduation). That would let you enjoy your love of learning whole not adding any cost and not locking you into a very narrow set of courses.

[Bob loblaw law blog]

1. You talked to two people from Alabama that got jobs in NY and suddenly it isn't regional? Charlotte and Atlanta are cities I would expect Alabama grads to go, and possibly they already had ties there.

2. There is no way to guarantee you will be top 5 or 10% of your class. Almost everyone like you assumes they will be because they have had great grades in the past and assume they will be smarter than everyone else at school.
You say you know this but blah, blah, blah.


3. I would be interested in how you think you will spin getting an MPA in an interview with a law firm.

4. If you do so desperately want the MPA, it seems that would immediately take Alabama out of the running.

5. Also, are your debt costs accurate? You can cover COL yourself?

1. Well, a previous response said implied that UGA/Bama placed in diff places. Which, sure, they will place better in the big cities they are right next to, but it seems both would place in the SouthEast generally, for a good student at least.

2. I am not ignoring this advice. I think it's good advice, which i would heed, for the top 15-20 schools (including UT). But I know people that have gone to schools 20-50, and I've met people there. I think that for a person who goes to a school they are overqualified for, they'll have a pretty easy time coming out on top, assuming no work ethic problems/other extraneous factors. I've got a friend who matches the profile of the overconfident person who is median at law school, and I am not him. I'm more realistic about my ability, and I work harder.
BUT I also realize that I have absolutely ZERO credibility on this matter until I do it, so I do take everyone's advice on this seriously. I hedge for it, even though I "know" it won't happen to me.
If you do know of a thread where people have gone to a T20-50 school knowing that they are, numbers-wise, better than everyone else there and significantly better than the median, and still have done poorly, I'd be happy to read it. Every time I see this advice, though, it is oriented towards people who are average for their school, OR are going to T14 schools, where of course everyone is brilliant. I don't really want this to be a sticking point for this thread, though. Like I said--please don't conflate my confidence that I can do really well with an inability to consider that I might be wrong.

3. "I wanted to get good at data cause I like data" (so basically, I wouldn't. I'd just use it to pivot towards a more conversational explanation of some of my interests/hobbies.)

4. Noted., and appreciated. But graduating without any debt would be reallly nice... (this is my problem)

5. Yeah, they're good. Thanks for the concern though!

Retake. Gets you better options and might give you some better logical reasoning in the process. Christ.

Your friend's experience is entirely irrelevant and you continue to assume your smarter than everyone else. There will be plenty of smart people in every law school. There will be multiple people at Bama who turned down T14 for Bama cause it's thier home and it was free. You may be better at law school than them, or you might not, and the same applies to literally everyone else in the class vs you. No one knows how they're going to do, stop assuming you're special.

[guynourmin]

an MPA is one of the degrees people get for Non-Profit management. So the non-policy-analysis classes are appealing in that sense...I don't want to manage a non-profit. I would like to be able to help one though. Also, some skills of managing a non-profit are pretty similar to skills of managing a business, and that knowledge can be helpful in lots of ways.

FInally, I don't share your disdain for vocational education. I certainly recognize that a class on Public Finance will probs not utilise the Socratic method, but that doesn't make the knowledge gained less important. I'm guessing you're someone who rues the fact that education is so vocational and myopic now, which I would totally agree with, but there's something to be said for trying to assimilate the way things are with the way I wish they were--which to me means not eschewing vocational degrees simply based on principle.

See how weird those first two sentences look when I put them next to each other?

You've read me completely wrong. I am not even sure how you tried to read this out of me here, but I am a HUGE advocate of vocational​ education. I think the decline in emphasis on vocational education in this country is going seriously to hurt us in the future if it's not already. I just think it's stupid to say you want to get a professional degree because you appreciate education, because they are very different things.

I also just say things like "that's stupid" instead of using rue, myopic, and eschew in the same sentence. Good luck

[cavalier1138]

2. I am not ignoring this advice. I think it's good advice, which i would heed, for the top 15-20 schools (including UT). But I know people that have gone to schools 20-50, and I've met people there. I think that for a person who goes to a school they are overqualified for, they'll have a pretty easy time coming out on top, assuming no work ethic problems/other extraneous factors. I've got a friend who matches the profile of the overconfident person who is median at law school, and I am not him. I'm more realistic about my ability, and I work harder.
BUT I also realize that I have absolutely ZERO credibility on this matter until I do it, so I do take everyone's advice on this seriously. I hedge for it, even though I "know" it won't happen to me.
If you do know of a thread where people have gone to a T20-50 school knowing that they are, numbers-wise, better than everyone else there and significantly better than the median, and still have done poorly, I'd be happy to read it. Every time I see this advice, though, it is oriented towards people who are average for their school, OR are going to T14 schools, where of course everyone is brilliant. I don't really want this to be a sticking point for this thread, though. Like I said--please don't conflate my confidence that I can do really well with an inability to consider that I might be wrong.

This just isn't how it works. Working harder doesn't always correlate to performing better than others on an exam, and that's literally the only thing that you're graded on.

[BigZuck]

2. I am not ignoring this advice. I think it's good advice, which i would heed, for the top 15-20 schools (including UT). But I know people that have gone to schools 20-50, and I've met people there. I think that for a person who goes to a school they are overqualified for, they'll have a pretty easy time coming out on top, assuming no work ethic problems/other extraneous factors. I've got a friend who matches the profile of the overconfident person who is median at law school, and I am not him. I'm more realistic about my ability, and I work harder.
BUT I also realize that I have absolutely ZERO credibility on this matter until I do it, so I do take everyone's advice on this seriously. I hedge for it, even though I "know" it won't happen to me.
If you do know of a thread where people have gone to a T20-50 school knowing that they are, numbers-wise, better than everyone else there and significantly better than the median, and still have done poorly, I'd be happy to read it. Every time I see this advice, though, it is oriented towards people who are average for their school, OR are going to T14 schools, where of course everyone is brilliant. I don't really want this to be a sticking point for this thread, though. Like I said--please don't conflate my confidence that I can do really well with an inability to consider that I might be wrong.

This just isn't how it works. Working harder doesn't always correlate to performing better than others on an exam, and that's literally the only thing that you're graded on.

I went a T20 with entering stats probably in at least the Top 10% of the class. I ended up above median when I graduated but not significantly so. And that's with me being pretty strategic about what classes I took and genuinely trying hard for all 3 years. I was good at school my whole life, I just wasn't particularly good at law school. It happens. I had no way of predicting that going in.

[ggmu1992]

Retake. Gets you better options and might give you some better logical reasoning in the process. Christ.

Your friend's experience is entirely irrelevant and you continue to assume your smarter than everyone else. There will be plenty of smart people in every law school. There will be multiple people at Bama who turned down T14 for Bama cause it's their home and it was free. You may be better at law school than them, or you might not, and the same applies to literally everyone else in the class vs you. No one knows how they're going to do, stop assuming you're special.

My logical reasoning is just fine! And I am smarter than most people!

It is silly of you (and others) to insinuate that there is no way to predict law school success. But I've said multiple times that I'm willing to concede the possibility that I come out in the middle. It's why I'm debt averse. If I'm an average lawyer, I probably won't continue doing law very long, because I don't like doing things that I am not very very good at--and that possibility is why i don't want to be chained to debt. But it is utterly silly to PLAN on being bad at something, when I've been good at similar things my whole life (and this isn't just about ability, it's also about work ethic).

My belief that I'll end up in the top of the class is a distinct issue from whether I am circumspect enough to make a decision that accounts for the possibility that it won't happen. Only the latter is required to make a responsible decision, and only the latter is what YOU should care about if you are on these forums to help people make responsible decisions. You seem to actually care more about eliminating the belief, which is unhelpful. It doesn't bother me, but maybe consider that when you advise others!

[ggmu1992]

2. I am not ignoring this advice. I think it's good advice, which i would heed, for the top 15-20 schools (including UT). But I know people that have gone to schools 20-50, and I've met people there. I think that for a person who goes to a school they are overqualified for, they'll have a pretty easy time coming out on top, assuming no work ethic problems/other extraneous factors. I've got a friend who matches the profile of the overconfident person who is median at law school, and I am not him. I'm more realistic about my ability, and I work harder.
BUT I also realize that I have absolutely ZERO credibility on this matter until I do it, so I do take everyone's advice on this seriously. I hedge for it, even though I "know" it won't happen to me.
If you do know of a thread where people have gone to a T20-50 school knowing that they are, numbers-wise, better than everyone else there and significantly better than the median, and still have done poorly, I'd be happy to read it. Every time I see this advice, though, it is oriented towards people who are average for their school, OR are going to T14 schools, where of course everyone is brilliant. I don't really want this to be a sticking point for this thread, though. Like I said--please don't conflate my confidence that I can do really well with an inability to consider that I might be wrong.

This just isn't how it works. Working harder doesn't always correlate to performing better than others on an exam, and that's literally the only thing that you're graded on.

I went a T20 with entering stats probably in at least the Top 10% of the class. I ended up above median when I graduated but not significantly so. And that's with me being pretty strategic about what classes I took and genuinely trying hard for all 3 years. I was good at school my whole life, I just wasn't particularly good at law school. It happens. I had no way of predicting that going in.

I appreciate this. Thanks.
Do you still think this would be the case at a lower ranked school? It seems the standard deviation for students is a lot bigger at lower ranked schools (which is why big firms will hire the top few students, and leave the rest).

[A. Nony Mouse]

Retake. Gets you better options and might give you some better logical reasoning in the process. Christ.

Your friend's experience is entirely irrelevant and you continue to assume your smarter than everyone else. There will be plenty of smart people in every law school. There will be multiple people at Bama who turned down T14 for Bama cause it's their home and it was free. You may be better at law school than them, or you might not, and the same applies to literally everyone else in the class vs you. No one knows how they're going to do, stop assuming you're special.

My logical reasoning is just fine! And I am smarter than most people!

It is silly of you (and others) to insinuate that there is no way to predict law school success. But I've said multiple times that I'm willing to concede the possibility that I come out in the middle. It's why I'm debt averse. If I'm an average lawyer, I probably won't continue doing law very long, because I don't like doing things that I am not very very good at--and that possibility is why i don't want to be chained to debt. But it is utterly silly to PLAN on being bad at something, when I've been good at similar things my whole life (and this isn't just about ability, it's also about work ethic).

My belief that I'll end up in the top of the class is a distinct issue from whether I am circumspect enough to make a decision that accounts for the possibility that it won't happen. Only the latter is required to make a responsible decision, and only the latter is what YOU should care about if you are on these forums to help people make responsible decisions. You seem to actually care more about eliminating the belief, which is unhelpful. It doesn't bother me, but maybe consider that when you advise others!

Dude. You really can't predict law school success. You haven't previously been in a situation where you've been graded on a curve, in a situation where the people all around you fall pretty close to you on the LSAT/GPA scale (because most law schools have students who fall within a pretty narrow range), being tested on material unrelated to your previous areas of study. In the end, you can't predict your success because your success isn't determined by what you do, but by what everyone else in your class does, which you can't predict or control.

And the problem is that maybe you are going to be circumspect enough to account for the possibility that it won't happen, but SO MANY applicants show up here saying "it's okay to go to School X because I'll be in the top 10%," and want to make decisions based on that belief, and your belief that you can predict your success just encourages them to think that way.

[zot1]

My logical reasoning is just fine! And I am smarter than most people!

You're gonna be a great lawyer.