Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.2K All Categories
- 27.1K LSAT
- 16.5K General
- 5.1K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 72 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2K Study Groups
- 108 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.4K Specific LSAT Dates
- 11 June 2024 LSAT
- 1 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 41 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 2 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.8K Not LSAT
- 3.9K Law School Admissions
- 11 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 580 Technical Problems
- 275 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Early Decision??
smseraj3
Alum Member
,
Comments
Duke and UVA will be out of play with those numbers, even considering ED.
Are you a URM?
My advice would be to retake the LSAT. If you want Duke or UVA it's best to aim at the high 160s or, better yet 170s, and have a chance at a decent scholarship.
.
I agree with @"Alex Divine" that you should retake. That being said, I think maybe you should look at Georgetown. I heard about some cases of non-URM students getting in with great personal statements (low LSAT scores).
I understand that you have a successful career, but I don't know if law schools would be interested in finding someone to coach undergraduate college debate teams. I think you should focus on writing about what makes you unique.
@akistotle
Thanks for your input. I will test this cycle and see if its worth it to retake, but im going to apply this cycle. I've written a strong PS and DS both of which are unique. I'll look into GT. Any other schools that you recommend?
Unfortunately, they are not going to admit you ED with the intention of having you coach their debate team, hate to break that to you. Also, chances are because your LSAT is on the low scale they will transfer your app to RD most likely.
And it will have no bearing on admissions. It's hard to hear, and I'm just trying to be helpful; but honestly, your softs are average at best compared to most T14 applicants.
If you're not going to retake because you just don't think you can improve, then you are mistaken. There is ALWAYS room for improvement with this test. Especially if you are scoring in the 150s. If you don't want to put the time and effort and give up after coming this far, that's on you. But if you have such a great GPA, there's no doubt you can achieve a higher LSAT score. 8 months also isn't all that long of a time to prep, at least for some people. For some people 3-5 months is enough, and other takes 2 years.
There are also very few law schools worth attending in the US with a 156 LSAT. It's a lot easier to retake, save possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars, and get into your dream school with great employment prospects. Not to mention it would be a crime to waste that 3.9x GPA.
Congrats on the great GPA and 22 point increase.... Keep going and don't stop until you get into UVA or Duke with a great scholarship! I believe in you
3.9/165 could get you into a lower T13 and a 3.9/170 you could be looking at HYS CCN!
Also, this is some solid advice, too!
I was trying to write, "I understand that you have a successful career" in the comment above. Sorry! (Fixed my previous comment)
I completely agree with @"Alex Divine"; I have to say that the chances with that score are very, very slim. I've only heard about the very unexceptional cases with Georgetown.
I would just add be wary of attending GT at sticker. DC is very expensive and GT is an expensive schools and their employment stats aren't the greatest. Still an excellent school, but it is not worth sticker or ED'ing there with your LSAT as it is now. $250k just sounds like a number until you want to start a family, buy a house, car, or not live like a college student until your 45, lol.
But GT is probably your best best with your current GPA/LSAT combo, as @akistotle said.
I agree with @Alex Divine that you don't have a realistic chance at a T14. I disagree with some of his other points. My post won't be as nicely structured...
1. Maybe a 156 is the best you can do. I would try to hit the books, and consider the September test. Deferring another year to potentially not get the score you need is not a good choice IMO.
2. There are some T1 schools you have a good shot at getting into. Assuming your GPA wasn't a gift courtesy of inflation, then you'll do great in law school and could transfer to a higher ranking school.
3. I don't see how Alex arrived at saving "hundreds of thousands of dollars". Even if you managed to pull up to a 165, you're not getting a full ride to any T14. I plugged those numbers in, and I did not see anyone getting over 100k. You should also consider that this could be potentially another year without income, and you're gambling on LSAT success.
Edit: I also wrote my post with the erroneous belief that you had a 3.9 GPA. I mixed you up with another post I had just read.
1) Deferring another year to potentially get the score you need is probably the best choice anyone could make. Deferring 2 years if that's that it takes is still a better option.
2) GPA doesn't really have a strong correlation to law school grades. It is also a horrible idea to attend a school with plans on transferring. One, you'll likely lose your scholarship. Two, there's absolutely no way to know how you will fare1L year. It's really setting yourself up for failure. Again, it would just make more sense to retake, and go to the school you want from the get go.
3) When I said "save hundred of thousands of dollars," I did not list a 165 as a score that would result in such a high scholarship. My exact wording was, "It's a lot easier to retake, save possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars, and get into your dream school with great employment prospects." So that could mean scoring a 174 and getting a full ride at many T14s. That's how I arrived at that number.
The bigger gamble to consider is attending a law school that accepts you with a 156, T1 or not, and leaves you with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt and possibly no job. I speak from experience. I've spent time in NYC (my home), DC, and other big cities where friends live. The amount of unemployed law grads is scary and staggering! If you can be bothered to retake a test that will probably determine such a big chunk of your financial future, you should reconsider the profession of law.
"absolutely no way to know how you will fare1L year" The same applies to potentially years of LSAT preparation.
Yeah I don't know why I focused on 165. But you should also consider the OPs background before making the assumption that any amount of work will result in being in the top x% of scorers. If he was working effectively and efficiently for those 8 months, I'm not sure how much he can improve on his score.
Transfer statistics aren't great, but they aren't exactly discouraging. Georgetown has pretty decent transfer statistics. I don't know how law schools grades, but if it's anything like undergraduate hardwork = good grades. If he doesn't get in after 1L, he always has the option of cutting his loses. I'd rather lose 50k+year of my time than an indefinite number of years stabbing away at the LSAT.
1) Throw in the towel when you can realize you've given up. If that's the case, you shouldn't be a lawyer anyway. There's always room for improvement. If 156 is the absolutely best you can do, that's fine; however, I'd suggest finding another profession. 8 months to increase 22+ points is quite amazing. The LSAT is the most important part of your LSAT app. If you can't respect that, even after spending 4 years for a 3.9 GPA, then law school may not be for you.
2) Transferring stats are absolutely more than discouraging and clearly you're ignorant on the subject. $50k and a year of your life isn't a small loss. It's potentially life ruining. I never said it would take an "indefinite" number of year, but even so, better that then ending up at a school with poor employment stats, high tuition, high debt, and no realistic way to pay it back. I think an extra 6 months or year prepping is a lot different then an indefinite amount of time.
Hard work doesn't equal good grades like in undergrad due to LS grading on a curve. In law school you're competing against your actual intellectual peers. Unlike in most UG universities where half are checked out.
I also never made any assumption that a certain amount of work would result in a top score. But it sure as hell makes more sense to try. People who can't work hard and do the proper prep and research to figure this out should consider another field of work. The legal market is absolutely awful right now. Retake the LSAT until you have a high enough score to get into a good school and a good price.
I get what you mean, @"Alex Divine", and I know you are saying this because you think seriously about this matter.
I'm sorry if you did not mean it, but by reading your comment, I got an impression that you are saying that someone shouldn't be a lawyer if the person can't score above a certain score on the LSAT. But I personally know some great lawyers who didn't graduate from top schools, and I don't think low-tier law schools are worthless.
Again, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but I wanted to clarify because I didn't want others to have the same impression. (I'm bad at RC so it might be just me.)
That being said, the risks involving attending law school that you mentioned are real, and I sincerely hope that @smseraj3 will prepare more and retake. I'm sure there is room for improvement, and there are still two months until the September LSAT!
I personally believe, like everyone in this forum, that if you keep working and studying that you can increase your LSAT score to put yourself in a better position to attend your desired schools with the possibility of scholarships.
But I completely understand where you're at. I too am not an elite 170+ scorer radiating with wisdom on all things law school. I gave my absolute all for 6 months while studying and took the June LSAT with every ounce of who I was and scored a 164. Me and my parents jumped around almost crying because of my score. But among the 7sage forum this score is average and sometimes seen as bad, depending on the person. But I know my abilities and after I left the testing facility I knew that whatever score I got I earned 100% and realistically would be unable to score better no matter how much money, time, and effort I threw at it. I have NEVER been more proud of myself and so thankful for 7sage and the community. But deciding not to take the LSAT again knowing that my abilities realistically do not warrant a retake is wise. You shouldnt have to "rethink the profession of law." Like what in the hell? I actually read that? And there are "very few" law schools worth attending with a 156 LSAT? What criteria make a school "worth attending?" I often notice a tone of elitism in these forums, and one would expect such in a community based solely on the LSAT and even more so amongst individuals striving for their best, often scoring above 170. Its a noble goal for an individual to be their best, and we all are striving to help ouselves and one another. But some comments in here are rude, coming not from a heart of kindness but rather a mindset of elitism, which isnt bad I suppose considering the profession we are trying to enter, but thats not how I choose to interact with people.
There are plenty of good law schools that you can attend, and with your softs, I would bet on you. Goodluck! Sorry that my comment did not, in any way, attempt to answer your questions.
Just because,
I wholely agree with Alex Divine. He knows what's he's talking about here. A lot of choices about law schools are going to come down to values and marginal cost vs marginal benefit type analysis. Wherever you fall on that curve is is to you but keep he larger picture in mind:
1) Law school is very expensive. The value of many law schools is dubious when the expected return is (probably) much less than most people think.
2) Law school will be very competitive. Your peers will be as smart as you, nearly as smart as you, or smarter than you and most people are just waiting for you to slip so then can capatilize on your failure. Welcome to the curve.
3) Doing well in law school requires a different skill set than in undergraduate studies. While they overlap in some respects, in many ways they don't. For example, in undergraduate education testing mainly ascertains your ability to recall factual knowledge. It rarely asks you to use that knowldege and reason about new problems. As such it's very difficult to know how you'll stack up. That makes transferring a possible options but not something you can really count on. You'll most likely be graduating from the school at which you maltriculate.
4) Law is a very elitist profession. No other profession (to my knowledge) has such an oversized opinion about where you completed your graduate studies. Pedigree is most things in law. And for every Fred Bartlit there are countless others who never even get their foot in the door. That doesn't mean that you can't make meaningful contributions if you attend one of the many good institutions that provide quality legal education and happen not to be ranked in the T14. But it does mean that you should be smart about how you spend your money and the kinds employment a median student at your institution can reasonable expect to acquire. This is critical when an institution like Baylor (sorry Baylor) charges as much as Yale.
As for the last thing on my mind, it seems to me that a lot of people think that any LAST score around a 175 or so coupled with a GPA around a 3.8 or so will net you a full ride at a lower T14. While I can't disprove this, my own expirence says this is not the case. I had just below those numbers (174, 3.74) and I got no full rides. Although, I did get several half rides or more. I checked LSN and found for people who had anything below a 176 and a 3.88 full rides were nearly non-existant, and even for people with those numbers or above it was relatively rare. So while LSN certainly isn't dispositive I don't think the T14 gives out as many free rides as people might think. (You might have, say, 50 between the Levys, Mordicais, Havrvey-Cross-Dillard's, Hamiltons, Darrows, Ruby's, and whatever other named full-ride fellowships there are).
I don't mean to be negative. Just understand that what you do now can really help or hurt you for a long time to come.
No, I think it was just read out of context. I certainly could have worded it better and the conversation started several comments above. I think if you can't get into a top tier school or a decent top regional school with a scholarship, pending extraordinary situations, i.e., your dad being Charles Kushner, then going to law school really might not be for you. It doesn't have to do with what score per say, but rather it's about the unwillingness to improve when there's still room for improvement and tons of crushing debt and unemployment to consider.
I'm glad you know great lawyers who didn't attend top schools. Some maybe be from a bygone era in the 90s where law school was law school for the most part and you could generally always find some sort of work in the legal field. Other's may have just worked hard and had some luck/connections. That's all excellent. They are also exceptions to the rule.
Come visit me for a weekend in NYC and let's go out to any given bar/ club and see how many people are out of work lawyers. It's mind boggling. Some went to NYU! Some Dozo, Fordham, etc., some from top schools in other states. The list goes on. Before I really networked and worked where I do know, I had no real comprehension of the massive unemployment of lawyers who all wish they either didn't go to law school at all or retook (very common) and went to a better school.
For everyone one person you meet you made it from one of these schools, you meet 100 others who are working at a job bothering me on FB to buy into some pyramid scheme, lol. Times [sic] is tough!
I think it's safe to say that if you're not willing to retake to improve your score to get into a school you want to go to, then yeah, maybe rethink law school. The LSAT is easier than law school, and law school is easier than the bar exam. And the bar exam is easier than practice. It only get's more challenging. Starting off with a good pedigree in one of the most elitist professions, with as little debt as possible, is probably the only prudent choice anymore.
Again, sorry for being unclear, I can totally see how you could have read it that way. That's not what I'm saying at all. I just want to bring awareness to people who may not understand the gravity of going to these schools, some may even considering themselves "T1" which arguably doesn't really exist. T20 is somewhat a reasonable benchmark, but otherwise there's not much difference between most of the other schools except location and regional employment stats.
Well said, @ajcrowel !
Congrats on your 164! Very respectable!
Re: What makes law schools worth attending? Employment stats generally speaking. Price, location, and national reach/reputation. I'm trying to be helpful, not rude. Facts don't have feelings. The law is a very elitist profession. Arguably more so than finance which is quite elitist, too.
"There are also very few law schools worth attending in the US with a 156 LSAT. It's a lot easier to retake, save possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars, and get into your dream school with great employment prospects. Not to mention it would be a crime to waste that 3.9x GPA.
Congrats on the great GPA and 22 point increase!.... Keep going and don't stop until you get into UVA or Duke with a great scholarship! I believe in you
3.9/165 could get you into a lower T13 and a 3.9/170 you could be looking at HYS CCN!"**
Doesn't sound very rude or elitist to me! I think everyone has been respectful, but it's hard to sugar coat things of this nature. Sometimes people just don't want to hear the answers to their questions. I also stand by my comment that there are very schools worth attending with a 156 LSAT. I base that opinion on employment stats and bar passage rates. Again, not all, but very few.
I was thinking more about value and what's that means to most people. I've come to believe that you can benefit on the whole from attending an institution where the median LSAT is a 156. But the value it provides has to be valuable for you. If you would be happy with the median outcome for the median cost of attendance minus your opportunity cost I think you should attend.
But one way to think could be thag the bigger picture here is this: it's relatively easier for the vast majority of people (particularly 19-25 year olds) to pick up 8 more points or whatever and move from say a 158 to a 166 on the LSAT and attend a place like William & Mary for a much for favorable cost than it is to save an extra 125K to put towards tuition. I might even go so far as to say that if you can save 125K faster than jump 8 points on the lsat (when you're in the middle or bottom of the curve) that you shouldn't go to law school at all, depending on your goals and how much you like your life of course.
These have been interesting comments to read through. As a fellow 156 scorer (yes, I'm retaking in September. My diagnostic scores leading up to the exam were decently higher so), I feel the need to weigh in on the conversation.
First, I believe there are schools out there I could get into right now that are worth attending. Grand it, they're schools I only have a 1/4 chance of getting in, but I believe are still worth it. For example, I could get into Washington & Lee, Indiana University, or Ohio State - all of which are in the top 50. I won't get money and it'll be tough to get in (hence, ahem, retake), but it's possible. I know a T14 is out of the question for me, but I'm okay with that. Honestly, I don't even really want to go ta T14 - I just want the score for one so I can get a scholarship at a top 50. I mainly care about getting into a top 50 (which is possible with a 156), and going to a school with a high bar pass rate, high employment rate 10 months out of graduation, and in a location where I would actually want to practice. I know even with a scholarship for the first year, I'll still be under a LOT of debt when I graduate. I'm not a fan of the debt aspect, but it is what it is. And ultimately, in the end I just want to practice law. Does that make it worth it to attend law school with a 156 even if I don't pull up my score? To me, that's a definite yes.
During my studying for the LSAT and prep for applications, I've had the benefit of being able to talk to an appellate judge for advice. When I first talked to him about my going to law school, he told me not to get all hung up on the T14 hype train. He told me I could go to a state school and get just as good of an education in law as any Ivy League, because the curriculum is so streamlined. The only schools he told me to stay away from were in California (and judging from that state's overall low bar pass rate, I can see why he'd say that). He told me what schools he likes to fish from for hiring his clerks, and which schools he just liked in general. Those schools varied in ranking form T14 to a top 100. Basically, a lot in choosing the schools just came down to where I want to practice, and area of specialty. Considering he's the guy hiring people for prestigious clerkships, I tend to listen to his advice about which schools to apply to.
Also, when I lived/worked in DC I came in contact with a lot of judges and clerks. I worked in a circuit court law library and so had a lot of contact with the judiciary and their clerks, as well as a lot of local attorneys who utilized the library. When I began thinking about law school even back then, I naturally looked into the educational backgrounds of many of the attorneys I knew. Surprisingly to me, none of the clerks I met went to an Ivy League or even a T20. A lot of them actually went to surprisingly low ranked schools (like top 90? 100? yikes) and yet still manage to practice law. The same surprising background applied to many of the local attorneys I worked with. Sure I met a few who went to Georgetown, but it wasn't a death sentence if you didn't go there. I also met a lot of attorneys who had the "I wish I had gone to a better school/didn't go to law at all" mentality. Honestly, from what I gathered they were just people who were unhappy in general, worked in corporate law, or divorce law; the school they attended didn't seem to change things too much.
The main point of my little essay here is really that a 156 isn't a death sentence to practicing law. It won't lead to a prestigious career in Manhattan, but it isn't a score that will keep a person from practicing. Like I said earlier, I'm still retaking in September because I'm personally not overly pleased with my 156. But I am happy that I'm in the lower end of the range of going to law school at all. It works with my career/life goals, and I think that matters more than anything else.
I appreciate the advice everyone! Im fine with constructive criticism. I honestly think 7sage's discussions are much more productive than many TLS forums. I know the T-14 comes with a lot of benefits, but i'm confident that I'll get into some T50 schools, which is honestly not as horrible as people make it sound. Thanks for your input and no hard feelings! LOL
@Katharine
The judge you clerked for probably graduated in a time when a law degree from basically any accredited university was a golden ticket to the middle class. I've had older attorneys basically give me the same spiel. It is the younger ones that graduated post-recession you should listen to vis-a-vis legal hiring. Hiring a clerk is also different than hiring at other legal positions.
"He told me I could go to a state school and get just as good of an education in law as any Ivy League, because the curriculum is so streamlined."
This I would have to strongly disagree with. The professors at top schools are some of the best in their field, and actually teach the theory of law. At lower ranked schools, many of them have become glorified 3 year bar review courses so as to protect their accreditation status from low bar passage rates. It's pretty horrifying.
Just to add, the term top 50 law school is a pretty meaningless distinction. At that point, it really all becomes about region, ties, and, of course, your grades. No one is going to hire you because you went to a school ranked 38 over 50.
I didn't say a 156 was a death sentence and that one shouldn't ever practice law with that score. Nor should anyone rely on anecdotes and boomer judges who give objectively wrong advice. You do not get the same quality of education at Ohio State as say, Stanford, and to think otherwise is preposterous. The doctrinal classes are generally the same, yes, but the quality of profs and what you'll focus on will be quite different. Perhaps most importantly are the opportunities, network, and unquantifiable things you get from top schools that matter a LOT.
Check out some of these schools you think are worth attending:
https://www.accreditation.com/schools/osu/ Ohio State -
75.4% employment score
12.3% under employment score
Cost of attendance: $181,730
Federal Clerkship 3.4%
https://www.lstreports.com/schools/wl/ Washington and Lee
56.6% employment rate
35% Underemployment score
Cost of attendance: $240,939
https://www.lstreports.com/schools/indiana/ Indiana
68.6% Employment Score
15.2% Under Employment Score
Cost of attendance: $194,533
Federal Clerkship 2.6%
Paying the amount of a small mortgage and 3 years of your life for a coin flip's chance at becoming a lawyer just seems imprudent to me. Even with a scholarship, one must include cost of living and the fact that the scholarship doesn't have any bearing on the hard stats. Not to mention, I have heard that many of these schools notoriously place those with conditional scholarships all in the same sections so inevitably many of them will lose them after 1L.
I'm not trying to put you down or step on your dreams, but I am trying to make sure you have all the information to make a smart and informed decision. Hubris can be strong with those of us who generally pursue law. We see those numbers and sometimes just assume we will be one of the 60% who get jobs, mostly low paying, and some temporary. It's the law school scam par excellence.
I harp on it a lot, but you don't hear so much about the people who didn't get jobs after law school because their embarrassed. So don't put too much stock into the ones who went to lower ranked schools that tell you otherwise, because the stats are out there.
I'm happy to hear you retaking! I think that is a great choice and I wish you all the luck in the world!
Good luck! There are definitely some great regional schools in the top 50. Just be wise and make sure you can get a good scholarship.
@"Alex Divine" Thank you for the response! I'm still researching all the schools I'm looking at, but the links and info you attached are actually really helpful. I haven't actually discovered the them on my own, so I'll be devouring them over the next few days. I'm certainly not going to go to law school on the flip of a coin; I've been thinking about it for years. That being said, I'm also trying to be careful to go to a school that gives me a fighting chance of helping me find a job.
To clarify though, I never clerked for the appellate judge - we're just close. And, the clerks who's backgrounds I was surprised to see weren't all that prestigious were in their mid-twenties having just graduated LS.
But seriously - your advice is solid. Thank you!
Edit: @"Alex Divine" that Law School Transparency website is awesome. I was going strictly off US News, but OMG. lstreports.com is the best! Thank you so much for pointing me to it!
Sure there's always room for improvement, does that equate to always being able to improve?
"clearly you're ignorant"... I was basing my comments on http://lawschooltransferguide.com/law-school-transfer-statistics/ and personally knowing people from T2s that transferred to Georgetown.
"$50k and a year of your life isn't a small loss."... I guess that's subjective; for me it wouldn't be a problem in the short term or long term. Sure 6 months or a year of studying is reasonable, but your posts come off as: don't bother going/applying to law school unless you're scoring in the top % percent.
3.
My experience is undergrad wasn't the same experience as yours. If you were willing to make some sacrifices in other aspects of life, you were in a great position to improve your class ranking. If he's at a 'crummy' school, I doubt he'll be competing with the best and brightest.
@"Alex Divine"
Thanks for the response. Just wanna point out that your numbers are a little off
LST has Washington and Lee's 2017 employment score at 76.8%, the number you mentioned (55.6%) is from 2013. Washington and Lee has a made some noise over the last few years. Plus I live and want to work in VA so its one of my top choices.
Just wanted to point that out. I've talked with a ton of lawyers and at the end of the day what I got from them was "go to a T-14 or decently ranked state school and kill it." I believe being at least the top 1/3rd of your class (which I know isn't easy) can help your employment prospects at any school.
No problem and always happy to help! I've made it my hobby looking into law schools and lurking law school forums since high school! LST is the way to go!
Just keep an open mind and now that you have the information, you'll be better off making the decision that is best for you
1) If there's room for improvement, then, yes. I'm not speaking metaphysically here or getting into a deep philosophical discussion. If there's room to improve it's my opinion you should try. Especially when the stakes are so high. Things like your life, career, happiness; these are generally things worth trying to improve on if there's room.
2) If $50k and a year of your life isn't a small loss for you, congrats. And my post probably does come off that way because that's generally how I feel. Of course, there are regional schools and some exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions.
3) Didn't know you knew about my undergrad experience? The thing is in law school, if you go to a "crummy" school, you'll be competing against those who are at about the same intelligence as you. This is difference from college because generally classes aren't graded on a scale in the same way law school classes are. Where there can only be a certain number of As, Bs, etc.
I'm just trying to spread information on schools and the dangers of attending lower ranked schools. I'm not really interested in debating personal beliefs. You haven't really added much constructive discussion to the discourse here aside from trying debate every point I make.
Oh shoot! Yeah, those stats were old and good for Washington and Lee's come up! Might not be all that bad a choice if you get a good scholarship and have ties and ultimately want to work in the area! Being top 3rd isn't even where you want to aim. Aim for the damn top! I mean top 10%+ or better. It won't be easy, but I believe in you!
Good luck!
I just want to commend @"Alex Divine" for his straight talk. Alex has distinguished himself on this forum as one of the nicest, most helpful people around, and he realizes that in some situations, tough talk, without any sugar-coating is the greatest kindness. Kudos, Alex!
Thank you, @uhinberg. It actually means a lot because sometimes I know it can come across as me sounding like an elitist ass, but that's never my intent. I only want people to realize how tough the legal market is and often intricate plans of transferring, decisions based on anecdotes, and hubris, all share the same ending: no job, high debt, and regret.
So thanks again for seeing through the tough talk and the kind words