<p>Absolutely nothing “mediocre” about UCLA and Berkeley.</p>
<p>Well, I know. They’re amazing schools, but I definitely don’t see how picking UCLA or Cal is the answer to my dilemma when I clearly said I wanted to go to Amherst or Georgetown.</p>
<p>So go to both! :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Mini has expressed a legitimate concern. The OP should feel grateful not resentful to him for expressing it.</p>
<p>“Which is better?” questions occur over and over again in life. It is a very useful skill to be able to frame these questions in a way that supports good decision-making. In my opinion, Amherst would be a better environment in which to develop it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. If a student comes out of college having learned how to critically assess situations and to communicate a viewpoint effectively, it will have been time well spent. </p>
<p>Obviously, until you find out what your out-of-pockets costs will be at Amherst there is no intelligent decision yet to be made. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, not at all. But, just guessing from some of the other posts, some of us may be wondering if law is right for you, not whether you can get into law school. Getting great grades can help get you into medical school but that doesn’t mean you will a good doctor. If you have doubts about your self-worth there are several professions that may not be a good fit for you, law being one of them. If law school and subsequent internships don’t make this apparent I don’t know what will. So, you have to decide whether this ‘I wonder whether I’ll fail’ stuff is just a smoke screen/facade you wish to present to us or is really you. </p>
<p>On the other hand we ‘hear’ from the confident person that tells us they are succeeding with a ton of stuff on her plate. I don’t care where you go to school, that’s good enough for me. The question is, is it good enough for you?</p>
<p>Actually, law is a great profession for someone who can see both sides of an issue and analyze it to multiple levels of depth. In fact, an excess of “decisiveness” can be a big problem for a lawyer.</p>
<p>I would agree that being able to grasp the pros/cons to both sides of any issue is invaluable - as my first point references. However, there is a big difference between effective analysis and paralysis. I think you are confusing ‘excess of decisiveness’ with ‘being impulsive.’ They are not the same.</p>
<p>I have known far more lawyers who decided too quickly – especially when under pressure from clients or business people – than not quickly enough. A couple of them are in jail now.</p>
<p>Also, indecisiveness in junior lawyers is a lot more coachable than too much decisiveness. “Good analysis – now come to a conclusion” is advice that people can learn to follow pretty readily. “This would have been a good memo if you had thought a lot more about what might be the problems with your position” is for some reason much harder to get through young lawyers’ skulls.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. Same thing in consulting.</p>
<p>Assuming financial aid follows through, I’ll be going to Amherst.</p>
<p>Have a great FOUR full years! Ooops, forgot you were a transfer. Just have a great time at Amherst.</p>