<p>I recently was accepted to both Fordham and Cardozo Law Schools. I got a full scholarship to Cardozo and 10,000 a year from Fordham. I am having a real hard time figuring out which one to go to. Any advice? thanks</p>
<p>Congrats on your acceptances. My kid has similar choices to make too. Free ride vs.some merit at similar ranked schools vs. higher ranked schools paying full freight.
she doesn’t have a clear choice either. She’s hoping her visits to the schools make her final decision easier. </p>
<p>what I will add is that we have scores of friends who are practicing attorneys in the NYC area. Many work for NYC gov’t agencies like Corp. Counsel; many work for banks & insurance companies; and some are solo practitioners. We don’t hang with the BIGLAW crowd. These are friends we’ve grown up with or worked with for at least 20 plus years.These are people who know our kid and we value and trust their opinions.</p>
<p>The group consensus is when you have a decision like that–
– you take the money and go with Cardozo.</p>
<p>My kid is still mulling her options too. But in this economy going to school debt free from a school ranked around 50 (?)vs. debt of $150,000 from a school ranked 30 (?) may not be so clear cut.</p>
<p>but please visit both schools- that may help in your final decision.
Good luck!!</p>
<p>I don’t know if I was helpful or insightful- but I guess I just wanted to pass along that you are not alone in this decision making process.</p>
<p>If it’s between a T14 and Fordham, I’d take the T14 no matter the price.</p>
<p>flowerhead- OP’s choice is between a T-30 vs. T-50 with full ride. So what do you think??</p>
<p>But I will add that in our household we have expanded this similar discussion to include T-14 vs. T-30 vs. T-50 (or thereabouts) with full ride.</p>
<p>the consensus from our friends who are working attorneys in NYC, is still to take the money and don’t look back!! This decision is not as easy as my kid thought it would be.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have no useful opinion on the matter. If it was me, I’d take the LSAT again and try for a T14.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I really dislike this. Taking advice from current practitioners in the field can be either useful or dangerous. It can be dangerous because they might be old, and will have entered the legal field at a different time, with a different economic and job climate. A lot of the advice they provide might be context sensitive… simply inapplicable to today.</p>
<p>~Going to edit this out. I think I said a lot of controversial things here. Don’t want to start an argument.~</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, MY lawyer friends (who DO work in biglaw) would say to go to the T14. I think there’s a bias at play here. But the fact that you haven’t communicated with biglaw attorneys for their opinion means you’re only getting one side of the story.</p>
<p>Going to edit this out. I think I said a lot of controversial things here. Don’t want to start an argument.</p>
<p>it’s not just generational. I really think it’s also a combo of being a real new yorker and having that NYC connection. Real New Yorkers have there own ways to network too.</p>
<p>I think as a T-5 law student, you are also getting a very myopic view of the NYC law community. My educated guess is that % wise there is less big law attorneys in NYC when compared to small/solo practitioners, gov’t, corporations, banks, insurance companies etc. etc.</p>
<p>I know alot of kids graduating from Brooklyn Law, New York Law (not NYU) and like schools who aren’t having too hard of time finding employment contrary to popular belief. (Maybe the ones who can’t find jobs, just aren’t talking about it.) You have to remember these schools are really tied into the NY law community. These kids work at Corp. Counsel, DA’s office, clerked for NYC judges over the summer. These school are way more connected to the daily fabric of NY life than some of the T-14’s. And those who hire (you know us old guys) are alum of these schools. I think you fail to recognize how many alum of Brooklyn, St John’s, Cardoza etc. are running this city and have say in employee hiring.</p>
<p>Sure if you want big law- then a T-14 probably is the best way to go. But if you want to work in the Brooklyn DA’s office, you might be better off with Brooklyn Law School.
(JMO)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That isn’t merely an educated guess, it’s a fact. Biglaw attorneys constitute a very small percentage of the overall lawyer population. No doubt about it.</p>
<p>But…</p>
<p>Many of the “alternatives” to biglaw that you cite are alternative after biglaw. Maybe back in the day, it was easier to start in those alternatives, but not today. Corporations generally require biglaw experience; government is just as competitive as top biglaw jobs; for banks, see corporations; same with insurance companies. Being a solo practitioner is risky too: How do you know you’ll succeed after just having finished law school? Would never suggest the path for a newly minted law school graduate. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And nothing you say here contradicts what I said. In fact, I think I pretty much said the same thing (though that might have been in the redacted version of my post).</p>
<p>I know plenty of BLS, NYLS, FLS, and Dozo students. Some of them knew exactly why they chose their schools (and some could, IMO, give plenty of YLS students a run for their money). If you have coherent, well-reasoned, and informative views on what you want to do and how to do it, then by all means. Most prospective law students, however, have no idea.</p>
<p>I should mention that my plans changed during 1L too. And I thought I had a pretty strong picture of what I wanted when I was entering. Pretty scary, but I’d say many students’ plans change during the course of their first year. As always, I’m mighty impressed with the person who starts and finishes law school with the same plans. Friend began LS saying she wanted to do PI; by the time biglaw recruiting came around, she booked her airline ticket for after interviews, firmly convinced that she wanted to do PI, and pretty much permanently closing a big door. I look at that decision with such admiration and respect, and no offense, but I simply think a great majority of those who enter law school with PI aspirations don’t have that level of conviction.</p>
<p>flowerhead- I thought your controversial section that you edited was that you called my friends (and for that matter, me ) old.</p>
<p>I do think that those who may have worked for a year or two before law school may have a better idea of what they want to do when they “grow up”. Though my kid is not 100% sure what she wants to do- she probably will stay connected to her union activities and employment law.
But I’m pretty sure she doesn’t want to work in the BigLaw environment and have no other life. If she goes the T-14 route, she may be forced to work BigLaw in order to pay off her law school debt. </p>
<p>It’s more than deciding on what law school to go to- but deciding what type of life style you want to lead when you are 25 to 35 years old.</p>
<p>and many of the jobs I mentioned are NOT alternatives to BigLaw. For some it is a path that they willingly choose.<br>
Again, I think there is a rather narrow mindset that some T-14 law grads gravitate to as there is a whole world out here beside BIGLAW!!
Realistically speaking, those with $150,000 in debt may feel it necessary to go the biglaw route- but those not in debt, may really have alot more choices in front of them.</p>
<p>Debt free from a T-50 school really needs to get serious consideration. (IMO)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>IMO, that “pretty sure” is not sure enough.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but can only choose after having acquired the requisite experience. How do you get that requisite experience? Will small-law attorney be as competitive applying for GC of Apple than someone who works for a big firm with them as their client? No way.</p>
<p>flowerhead-
- it doesn’t matter what I think SHE thinks. She’ll be the one making the decision. </p>
<ol>
<li> believe it or not- not everyone wants to be GC for Apple.</li>
</ol>
<p>I’m beginning to think the T-14 mindset is way too narrow. There are many career paths to choose from and it’s unfortunate that it seems to always go back to the Biglaw experience for T-14 grads. </p>
<p>Again- not being in debt may give one the flexibility to follow their hearts desire (or so to speak).<br>
and don’t get me wrong- but sometimes the attorney who starts their career in government or non-profits may get way more experience and responsibility in the first few years of a job than the typical T-14 grad. My understanding is that most new Biglaw associates will do alot of research for the firm and may not do the “real lawyering” like personally representing clients, negotiating settlements, going to court–or whatever the heck experienced attorneys do for several years. When hubby worked for NYC, he was in court and doing trials within a very short time. </p>
<p>Of course, not every attorney wants to go to court- but it seems the level of responsibility comes alot sooner and is greater for those in the public and non profit sector in comparison to those going the biglaw route.</p>
<p>that’s what makes life interesting. People have different opinions- and no one is really right or wrong!! People have to choose on what seems right for them.
but I will add- if she had to pay full freight for T-14 vs. T-30 vs. T 50, she’d go to the top ranked school. stupid she ain’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. She should KNOW whether she doesn’t want something before she shuts the door. It’s her decision to make, but that doesn’t mean she should make it recklessly. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now you’re being unnecessarily hostile. That was merely an example. I’m sure it applies to many other instances.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’ve repeated this three times now, without actually thinking about the career paths available to law school graduates. Let me be clear: Most students in the T14 don’t want to do biglaw for the rest of their lives. Many of that majority view it as an essential stepping-stone do what they want to do. And that’s true.</p>
<p>Most of the career paths you cited above require earlier experience, typically in the form if biglaw. </p>
<p>People are so fixated on biglaw because it’s one of the few fields in which you are paid a lot for no experience whatsoever. The positions you outlined above don’t enjoy the same advantage. If they did, I’m almost positive most of my biglaw-bound classmates would be going straight in-house. That just ain’t happening. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That statement is misleading. What if your daughter realized (this is a hypothetical; I hope you’re following) she wants to work at Sullivan & Cromwell? Taking on the $$$ at Fordham pretty much locks her out of that.</p>
<p>So let’s modify that statement: Not being in debt gives one flexibility in choosing less selective career paths. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Completely agree. But I also am under the belief that government and PI are just as selective as biglaw. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Depends on the firm. For most, this is true. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>More often than not, yes. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is EXACTLY what I’ve been saying since the beginning of this thread. You’re just sounding needlessly hostile.</p>
<p>saying not everyone wants to be GC of Apple is hostile (??) I didn’t mean it that way. Sorry if I offended you.</p>
<p>I see life from an adult perspective. It’s ok when you are 23 not to know what you want to do with the rest of your life. It’s ok to change your mind. But when you are $150,000 in debt, you may be forced to make certain decisions solely based on your economic plight. And no parent (or friend) wants to see anyone have to make life altering decisions based on finances and debt level.</p>
<p>so I think we agree --that people have to choose on what seems right for them.<br>
Enough said on this matter.</p>