<p>I think I was one of those who had recommended your son retake the LSAT (in a thread last fall). At this point I have no advice but one piece of data to offer. On the LSAC website they have a table listing stats on re-takers (data from 2010-2011). If you google “LSAC repeater data” you can probably find it. Anyway of those who previously scored a 168 there were 130 who retook the LSAT. 70 of those scored between 170-180 on the retake, 57 scored 160-169, 2 scored between 150-159 and 1 scored 140-149. Overall 76 increased, 6 scored the same and 46 scored lower.</p>
<p>“Actually I think this is unlikely. PSLF is classed as revenue neutral (even though it really isn’t) so there’s no political reason to cut it.”</p>
<p>The political reason to cut it comes when it becomes blatantly obvious that it is anything but revenue neutral, and that gushing wound has to be sutured. Our federal government is all sorts of broke, which is why I can’t understand someone taking on a quarter-million in debt under the assumption that the feds will forgive all but about $50,000 of it. That’s insane (and a rather irresponsible use of the programme).</p>
<p>blue: To be clear, are you suggesting that he go through the cycle, get whatever scholarships he gets, make his choice and still take the LSAT in June. Then if it looks like he is in a position to get more scholarships because of his LSAT score he should reapply and withdraw from the school he accepted or request that his admission be deferred? Once again, I was under the impression that schools will not look favorably on a reapplicant, particularly if he was previously accepted to the school and turned down the acceptance. This seems like the one caveat in this plan that could be a problem. Otherwise, it seems reasonable. In other words if he withdraws form Cal (see I’m learning) now, would they be less likely to accept him in the next cycle even with the improved LSAT?</p>
<p>Aires: You make some interesting points but it weakens your credibility when you followup with insults. None of that is necessary.</p>
<p>Neuchimie: As I see it this is true only if Boalt accepts him next time around. Again I have some concerns about the consequences of reapplication.</p>
<p>padded: Thank you to alluding to the point that there are considerations and concerns beyond the scope of the forum post.</p>
<p>Demos:Very interesting article. I also agree that if you can score a 168 you can also score a 170 but margin of error runs both ways and even among those tested in the article, the neuroplasticity margins were variable and correlated with the degree of LSAT success…Also help me out, what is PSLF and IBR?</p>
<p>The Brian: First, thank you for taking things back to my original question! Can you elaborate on why you would pick USC over UCLA? Regarding S’s certainty about settling in CA, it isn’t than he is uncertain, it is more that since there aren’t any strong relationships that are tying him to the state I can see circumstances coming up where he might want to practice outside of CA. Portability was very important in my life so it is more a matter of me projecting that life could take him other places if he was able to go. To be clear, even USC with scholarship isn’t debfree. (I guess that dispells any question of parents paying 300K to send kiddo to Boalt).</p>
<p>NEM: Thanks for providing the data, I wouldn’t have thought to look for those statistics but they are about where I would have guessed except for the decline to the 140 to 150 range, that I wouldn’t have expected, it must have been a very bad day!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With the exception of HYS (which will require a much higher lsat – hmmm), law schools don’t provide need-based aid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure that they did but that is a rather silly reason, IMO. What happens when that rock-star Prof is courted away to go start up a new LS? (See Dean Chemirinski, from Duke LS to Irvine Law.) Is the student then going to transfer to a non-ranked, provisionally-accredited school? What happens when that Prof is on sabbatical? :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, that is exactly what I’m suggesting. (But only retake in June IFF his practice tests are averaging in the 170’s.) And yes, it might cost him an admission or two, and perhaps Cal, but he’d gain others, perhaps even including full tuition at some of the T14. Heck, Stanford would be in play, which it is not now. </p>
<p>With the massive downturn in law apps, schools cannot be too picky with high LSAT scores, since they want to hold their medians. High GPAs are much more common – there are 3k colleges, so 3k Vals and Sals… High GPAs AND high LSAT scores are rare, which is why they are amply rewarded with big bucks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is why he ONLY retakes if he is comfortably scoring in the 170’s on practice tests. Even if he has a really bad day, and bombs the retake – say, 160 – Cal won’t care. He is still accepted.</p>
<p>btw: the LG is the easiest section in which to raise scores, so unless he missed 0 or -1, that will go up with practice, practice, practice.</p>
<p>“Aires: You make some interesting points but it weakens your credibility when you followup with insults. None of that is necessary.”</p>
<p>I’m so very sorry that you think I’m not credible, simply because I am furious at the idea that a person would rack up debt with no intention of ever paying it off, and that his parent fully supports this plan. Furthermore, this child’s time is apparently too valuable to even attempt to study for the LSATs again, or to defer a year, or to otherwise keep his debt load (and therefore taxpayer-funded debt forgiveness) down.</p>
<p>Is that not a correct statement of the situation?</p>
<p>Blue, not that i disagree strongly with what you said but to point out that there are non financial factors that influence our choice. Students may have aspirations that may make their choice seems reckless in financial terms. But if they have the confidence that they can succeed then we parents should support them as best as we can. Have we become “a nation of shop keepers” and will embark on ventures only when a financial reward is in sight? I am not speaking in hypothetical terms as I have been supporting my own D in her choice which many would argue being far from prudent. </p>
<p>Btw, not only professors may move, they may also pass away as with Dworkin recently. I do believe other schools give out need-based aids, although less generously. I don’t have first hand info but at least it is claimed by many schools on their website.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I doubt they’d either notice or care. They have to report LSAT scores to US News, not reapplications. As long as that LSAT score is a point higher, that’s all they’ll see. It seems fairly straightforward that following bluebayou’s advice is the best course: see what you can get out of the schools your son is into now all the while studying hard and retaking. Barring that or should he do more poorly, I would recommend Berkeley as your only T14 option (should others accept him come back and we can discuss them). But ultimately it’s your son’s choice and your son who will bear the incredible burden of poor decision-making. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Public Service Loan Forgiveness and Income Based Repayment. They are two methods of loan repayment resulting in payments based on discretionary income and not having to pay back the entire amount. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I cannot tell you how glad I am that my parents did not treat me this way. My parents were well aware that 22 year old me shouldn’t write checks that need to still be cashed by 30 year old me. Luckily they’d raised me well enough that I knew it at 22 as well, but if I’d forgotten they were there to remind me, not give me facile platitudes like “follow your dreams.” Like I said to lawfuture, it’s your kid and your family. If you make a bad decision, your kid could end up spending the next few decades paying for it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed. And I feel that, as a parent, it is my responsibility to clearly point out reckless behavior, and not encourage it. Of course, if you have the resources to pay sticker, and not take it out of your retirement, that is your financial choice. </p>
<p>And, wrt your personal situation, yes, I would pay definitely consider paying sticker for HYS. As I posted on your thread, there are doors open to only HYS grads. But the OP is posting about Cal, for which he could earn big money.</p>
<p>^^ Desmothenes, I admire your certitude. Incidentally, why did they not discourage you from seeking a law degree? A career in law is by no means financially secure, even without incurring debt. Why did they not encourage you in a career in ibanking, computer science or medicine. </p>
<p>I am indeed the type of parents that encourage their children to pursue her dreams. My D went to a LAC and majored in English. But her confidence in herself did lead to a job in a leading consulting firm. She has been offered a place in HY (did not apply to S) as well as full-tuition named scholarships at three other T14 schools. Perhaps you can see why I do not discourage her from pursuing her dream. Moreover, if she needs my help financially, it won’t be a big deal. One makes choices based on personal circumstances.</p>
<p>aires: Too bad that you are furious. You don’t know me, my son or my situation. No decisions have been made but everything on the table is perfectly legal and there are reasons that these policies were put in place. If you have something to say and you want to be heard be polite. If you don’t want to be polite I guess you care more about hearing yourself than about being heard. Our conversation is finished.</p>
<p>Blue: I like it. That does sound like a win win strategy. I will pitch the idea to him.</p>
<p>Demos: Thanks for your thoughts and for clarifying.</p>
<p>Brian: I’d still love to hear about your preference for USC over UCLA.</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The acquisition of cultural capital. Children of the wealthy don’t have to do anything with their lives, but do face intense pressure to keep up appearances.</p>
<p>That politeness, the most bourgeois of bourgeois conventions, would take precedence over arguments themselves reveals the presence of a masquerader.</p>
<p>Berkeley is the highest-ranked of the three schools and would serve you well.</p>
<p>lawfuture:</p>
<p>my preference for usc is because their big law placement outpaces ucla’s (and even some t14’s). usc has beaten ucla in big law hiring i believe all but one year (2010) in the past 5-6 years. additionally, it has similar clerkship/public interest placement, so it really doesn’t lose anything there, either. here are two sources for last year’s big law numbers showing usc’s relatively strong placement:
[Law</a> Blogs Best Big Law Feeder Schools - Law Blog - WSJ](<a href=“Law Blog's Best Big Law Feeder Schools - WSJ”>Law Blog's Best Big Law Feeder Schools - WSJ)
[THE</a> GO-TO LAW SCHOOLS](<a href=“http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202543436520&THE_GOTO_LAW_SCHOOLS&slreturn=20130119223832]THE”>http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202543436520&THE_GOTO_LAW_SCHOOLS&slreturn=20130119223832)</p>
<p>it is important to note, however, that both usc and ucla are PEERS in just about every sense of the word. however, the biggest difference (and the reason why usc has better placement) is because its class size is about 100 students fewer. firms in california will hire roughly the same amount of grads from both schools, so usc’s percentage will naturally be higher since they have 100 less students competing for jobs. if the legal economy doesn’t recover, or tanks even further, the impact will be felt less at USC considering the class size and its stronger alumni network. because of this, i think USC better insulates their grads from the depressed legal market.</p>
<p>I hope you’ll pardon the headers. I need to do SOMETHING to keep myself entertained while I study for the bar exam.</p>
<p>Posture: I think the strategic question has been pretty well-settled on this thread. If we were speaking to the person in question, I would probably scold him quite severely – but we aren’t. If it’s okay, I’d like to separate out the discussion point we all seem to be dancing around.</p>
<p>(Btw, aries, I haven’t really traced it all through, but I think the social responsibility question gets mooted by the fact that the law schools will give those scholarships out to somebody else. At first impression, I don’t think the result is that he’ll take money from the government that would otherwise have been taken, net, from a law school.)</p>
<p>Distinguishing Precedent:
</p>
<p>padad, your encouragement is obviously the appropriate tack, and congratulations to your daughter.</p>
<p>It seems to me, though, that your daughter’s situation is not quite like the OP’s. Your daughter is pursuing her dreams, yes, but she is doing so in very sensible, extremely competent ways. Of course you should encourage her to go to law school! She’s gotten admitted to HYS with some scholarships to T14! Discouraging her wouldn’t just be unempathetic – it would be incorrect.</p>
<p>But the situation on this thread is pretty different. In this case, the student is taking on debt that is horrendously – and, to boot, obviously – unnecessary due to some aversion to retaking the LSAT. I can’t exactly speak to why, and from the thread it sounds like the OP is a little bit baffled herself.</p>
<p>If your daughter had a very strong chance at reducing her debt by six figures or more in exchange for a few hours of studying and a few hours of test-taking – telling her to retake would not be “discourag[ing] her from pursuing her dream.” It would be believing in her enough to suggest that she could do better at pursuing her dreams.</p>
<p>Conflicts of Interests (and Dreams): See, here’s the thing about when folks discuss pursuing their dreams: they forget that people have lots of dreams. Buying a house. Getting married. Raising children. Traveling. Taking care of their parents. Having hobbies. Tucking your four-year-old in at night. Others that we can’t imagine, and certainly don’t appreciate fully when we’re 22 or 29 or 84.</p>
<p>And despite that, I see many folks my age pursuing ONE dream to the exclusion of all others. Make no mistake: six figures of debt will affect your entire life. It restricts the jobs you can take and the jobs you can leave, even if you discover six months in that you hate them. It changes the way you think about marriage, about whom and when you can marry. It affects the house you live in and the car you buy. It alters how many children you can have, how many assets you can accumulate, at what age you’ll retire, and what vacations you can go on.</p>
<p>That’s what this young man seems to be signing up for.</p>
<p>This is a more extreme scenario of course, but this woman’s family really should have encouraged her NOT to “pursue her dream.”
[Bar</a> exam was the test of time | bandy, exam, law - Life - The Orange County Register](<a href=“Bar exam was the test of time – Orange County Register”>Bar exam was the test of time – Orange County Register)</p>
<p>On Information and Belief: So yes, it is important to “believe in him” and “encourage” him. But telling him that he need not plan it out is a funny sort of belief, isn’t it? It’s a belief not that he will prove himself capable but rather than he will prove serendipitous.</p>
<p>Here’s the thing: I believe that this young man is more capable than he seems to believe. I believe that he is capable of studying, of retaking, of planning out his life so that one of his dreams does not crush the others. I believe, basically, that he has a very good shot at a much, much better life with a very, very small investment. He’s apparently not willing to do this, for reasons I can’t entirely fathom. Behavioral economics suggests that human beings are loss-averse and myopic; perhaps one of these explains his thinking.</p>
<p>I am getting doddering in my old age. He’s not here, and I had promised not to scold him. </p>
<p>In loco parentis: And that’s entirely the point. As a side character on one of my favorite television shows said: “We are what we are. And you can fight it if you want, but you’re just gonna fight with yourself.” We can strategize and scold and insult (and really I think we have been quite mild) as much as we like on this board, and it will make not a whit of difference because he’s not here.</p>
<p>I suspect that the metaphorical horse is out of the barn, and that continuing to fret and nag and scold will only cause him to dig his heels in more. Right now, he wants to go to law school. If we keep pressing him, he will sort of want to go to law school but mostly he will be invested in proving that his way was right all along. Inducing THAT kind of mood is rarely very wise.</p>
<p>So here is my recommendation: raise the idea of retaking the LSAT, withdrawing if his score improves, and reapplying – but raise it ONCE, and quietly, and then never breathe a word about it ever again.</p>
<p>This way, there’s a small chance that the idea will stay percolating in his mind, and that when it reemerges he will feel like it’s his idea and he might really think about it. And if he opts against it – well, that’s probably what he was going to do anyway, and at least this way he will not resent you for trying to discourage him. (Which of course is not what you were doing, but that’s how it would have FELT.)</p>
<p>And you know what? It might well BE okay. In the grand scheme of things, he’s still going to a great law school, he seems to be a smart kid, and God has a special providence for 168s and Californians.</p>
<p>bdm, if I ever need a lawyer, I’m going to come looking for you. What a great post.</p>
<p>(I also have a very cute daughter who’s recently single … )</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My guess, and it is only that, is that the son knows that he doesn’t have to retake, and that the money is not so important because mommy and daddy will “help” him out.</p>
<p>LawFuture: so you answered my question in the affirmative. </p>
<p>BlueDevilMike: good luck with the bar. Remember, even if you completely forget the rule, write down any rule that sounds close to the law and do the analysis accordingly. 
</p>
<p>PADad - there’s risks, and then there is almost certain failure. Part of good parenting, IMHO, is helping children to navigate between those - to not be so risk-averse that one gives up fabulous opportunities, but not to stick one’s head in the clouds. </p>
<p>“Moreover, if she needs my help financially, it won’t be a big deal.” </p>
<p>That, I think, is the fundamental distinction between your D and other kids. Some parents are unable to pay; some are unwilling to pay; some simply cannot help out to the tune of current sticker-price tuition. The answer to “what if things go very wrong” is fundamentally different for your D than for other kids, so something that is risky for one kid isn’t for your D.</p>
<p>(This is NOT a bad thing; I would only say that a kid whose parents cannot/will not help out shouldn’t act like a kid whose parents can help out. Aping the customs of the upper class has landed many a middle-class kid into trouble, whether it be through credit card debt, mortgage debt, car loans, or, here, risk-taking in one’s career.)</p>
<p>“Btw, aries, I haven’t really traced it all through, but I think the social responsibility question gets mooted by the fact that the law schools will give those scholarships out to somebody else.”</p>
<p>I think I was not clear, or you missed my big problem. The OP’s son wants to do public interest law, which will not enable him to repay his loans at the rate of more than a few thousand dollars a year. His options for reducing his debt load are, inter alia:
*Taking the $120,000 scholarship at a top 20 law school (e.g. USC);
*Studying for and retaking the LSAT to try for merit aid at T30s;
*Deferring a year to try for more merit money; or
*Figuring out where the heck he wants to live so that he won’t have to take on an extra hundred thousand dollars in debt to pay for portability.</p>
<p>Yet his mother thinks that it’s okay for him to do NONE of those things, presumably because her son will pay the exact same amount of money whatever he goes. That the taxpayers could pick up thirty grand or so for USC, or a quarter-million for Berkeley, is not something that she seems to care about. It’s legal! she trumpets triumphantly. </p>
<p>If it were the son’s money on the line, the OP would be having an entirely different discussion here. If she were having this chat with members of the general public - perhaps a trucker married to a waitress, both of whom work overtime to pull down $60k a year between the two of them, and are trying to help their kids through community college or beautician school - the earful she would get would have her on her knees, thanking me for my civility.</p>
<p>Right right, but I think the scholarship that he’s not going to earn because he’s refusing to retake the LSAT will just get passed along to somebody else who in turn won’t need taxpayer loan repayment. Granted, OP’s son thinks that he’s going into a field where he’ll use loan repayment, but incoming 1Ls change their minds on such matters very often.</p>
<p>BDM: Thank you for a very beautiful post and also for not scolding. For a young man, I’m assuming you are a young man, you have a lot of wisdom. You make some wonderful points that we will hold onto. Good luck with the bar and thank you for taking time out from your studying to give your perspective.</p>
<p>Blue: Is that really necessary? You made a really solid suggestion and I appreciate your advice. But speculating about my S’s motivations and situation is really not helpful and serves no purpose, except perhaps that you enjoyed it. If so, so be it.</p>
<p>The Brian: Thank you for clarifying.</p>
<p>Kwu: Leave it to a law person (maybe your not a law person but I guess there is some connection since you are on this forum) to argue against politeness. I can only suggest that you give politeness a try. You might find that people care more about what you have to say if you say it politely and kindly. One can be all, polite and direct and sincere. If you don’t believe me read BDM"s post above.</p>
<p>I have to tell you all that I started this thread to gather thoughts on which of the three schools would be the best choice period. I never intended to start a debate about loan forgiveness, retaking the LSAT, politeness or anything else. I was hoping to get a snapshot of the perspectives from people familiar with law and these three choices. Some of you have delivered and I thank you. I will tell you historically my S rarely listens to my advice and has always landed on his feet. This is not because I have bailed him out but because he has had a clear vision of where he wanted to be and has gotten there. It seems that some have made the assumption that he is going to go to Berkley and is taking on the debt. If that decision had been made there really would have been no reason for this thread. If there are any further thoughts on the choices presented please share them. But please refrain from scolding, insulting or speculating about things you have no basis to speculate on. Personally I am in the midst of one of the most painful challenges of my life and this has nothing to do with where my son goes to law school. On the contrary in a way that decision is my diversion, so please just try to be kind. If you can’t be kind and respectful then please stay silent. I do appreciate your thoughts but I am in no frame of mind to argue with you and negative comments regarding my parenting or my S, both of which you know nothing about just add to the negative energy that I am in a personal struggle to overcome.</p>
<p>Now back to regular programming if anyone has anything to add.</p>
<p>I would not have my son put all of his eggs in the public interest basket, even with loan forgiveness and IBR. </p>
<p>For loan forgiveness you are talking about not only 10 years of work but 10 years of consecutive loan payments (the amount forgiven becomes taxable on the back end). If your son is going to go the IBR route, is he prepared to possibly that he may be single for years (as his spouse’s income will be included in his IBR). D has friends who are engaged but not getting married because he is working public interest and IBR, while she works big law (and is paying down her own 6 figure debt).</p>
<p>Public interest/state government jobs are getting harder to find. My D has large number of friends who are here in NY doing public interest work for free because public interest firms not only want experience but with a commitment to public interest. She is currently working as a paid fellow in an office that has 7 newly minted JD’s volunteering their time with hopes of getting their foot in the door (with mom and dad footing the bill). </p>
<p>Her boss left big law to work public interest because he has political aspirations and also wants to have more of a work life balance because he and his wife now have a very young child (i told her that there was no way that he could have done this if he had massive debt hanging over his head). To her credit she has no undergrad debt and very little LS debt and is making enough $ to be self supportive.</p>
<p>If your son does not want to put down roots in California, unless he is admitted to Stanford, perhaps the California schools (and a really hard CA bar exam) should come off the list.</p>