Anonymous wrote:I think many of us who were torn between JD and MFA in creative writing went into journalism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I should point out here that not all MFAs are created equal. There are actually a lot of fully-funded programs where you work as a TA (for an admittedly small stipend) and your tuition is waived. I mean, you're not going to *make* a lot of money getting an MFA, but you can get one without going into debt. Unlike a JD -- there are very few ways to obtain a JD for free, even at lower ranked schools.

Getting into a fully funded MFA is usually very competitive, but it's generally based on the strength of sample work. So if you are a strong enough writer/actor/artists to gain admission to a fully funded program, then I absolutely think that makes more sense than getting a JD. There are lots of unhappy lawyers who have never made a ton of money and are stuck paying loans for a long time. Especially if their heart was actually in poetry or painting or something -- that's the person whose least likely to be able to thrive in the kind of jobs that will help you pay off your loans quickly. Many of these people would probably have been better off financially going into a much less lucrative field with no debt, which is what a fully funded MFA program would offer them.

You clearly didn't have good LSAT scores. There were tons of places offering free tuition, but those degrees would have been just as much of a waste of time (and time=money) as an MFA.

Sounds like you've got it all figured out. Enjoy your legal career.

Thanks. I enjoyed my legal career and the other careers that I have had after using it as a jump off point. A JD is extremely valuable outside of law.

^ I think this is exhibit A for why many of us wish we hadn't gone to law school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I should point out here that not all MFAs are created equal. There are actually a lot of fully-funded programs where you work as a TA (for an admittedly small stipend) and your tuition is waived. I mean, you're not going to *make* a lot of money getting an MFA, but you can get one without going into debt. Unlike a JD -- there are very few ways to obtain a JD for free, even at lower ranked schools.

Getting into a fully funded MFA is usually very competitive, but it's generally based on the strength of sample work. So if you are a strong enough writer/actor/artists to gain admission to a fully funded program, then I absolutely think that makes more sense than getting a JD. There are lots of unhappy lawyers who have never made a ton of money and are stuck paying loans for a long time. Especially if their heart was actually in poetry or painting or something -- that's the person whose least likely to be able to thrive in the kind of jobs that will help you pay off your loans quickly. Many of these people would probably have been better off financially going into a much less lucrative field with no debt, which is what a fully funded MFA program would offer them.

You clearly didn't have good LSAT scores. There were tons of places offering free tuition, but those degrees would have been just as much of a waste of time (and time=money) as an MFA.

Sounds like you've got it all figured out. Enjoy your legal career.

Thanks. I enjoyed my legal career and the other careers that I have had after using it as a jump off point. A JD is extremely valuable outside of law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I should point out here that not all MFAs are created equal. There are actually a lot of fully-funded programs where you work as a TA (for an admittedly small stipend) and your tuition is waived. I mean, you're not going to *make* a lot of money getting an MFA, but you can get one without going into debt. Unlike a JD -- there are very few ways to obtain a JD for free, even at lower ranked schools.

Getting into a fully funded MFA is usually very competitive, but it's generally based on the strength of sample work. So if you are a strong enough writer/actor/artists to gain admission to a fully funded program, then I absolutely think that makes more sense than getting a JD. There are lots of unhappy lawyers who have never made a ton of money and are stuck paying loans for a long time. Especially if their heart was actually in poetry or painting or something -- that's the person whose least likely to be able to thrive in the kind of jobs that will help you pay off your loans quickly. Many of these people would probably have been better off financially going into a much less lucrative field with no debt, which is what a fully funded MFA program would offer them.

You clearly didn't have good LSAT scores. There were tons of places offering free tuition, but those degrees would have been just as much of a waste of time (and time=money) as an MFA.

Sounds like you've got it all figured out. Enjoy your legal career.

Thanks. I enjoyed my legal career and the other careers that I have had after using it as a jump off point. A JD is extremely valuable outside of law.

^ I think this is exhibit A for why many of us wish we hadn't gone to law school.

You clearly made a poor choice. That is my point. It isn't for everyone. If you are on the fence between these two options, take a step back before you waste your time. Not sure why you don't want others to learn from your mistake.

you have all the answers, friend! alllll the answers!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I should point out here that not all MFAs are created equal. There are actually a lot of fully-funded programs where you work as a TA (for an admittedly small stipend) and your tuition is waived. I mean, you're not going to *make* a lot of money getting an MFA, but you can get one without going into debt. Unlike a JD -- there are very few ways to obtain a JD for free, even at lower ranked schools.

Getting into a fully funded MFA is usually very competitive, but it's generally based on the strength of sample work. So if you are a strong enough writer/actor/artists to gain admission to a fully funded program, then I absolutely think that makes more sense than getting a JD. There are lots of unhappy lawyers who have never made a ton of money and are stuck paying loans for a long time. Especially if their heart was actually in poetry or painting or something -- that's the person whose least likely to be able to thrive in the kind of jobs that will help you pay off your loans quickly. Many of these people would probably have been better off financially going into a much less lucrative field with no debt, which is what a fully funded MFA program would offer them.

You clearly didn't have good LSAT scores. There were tons of places offering free tuition, but those degrees would have been just as much of a waste of time (and time=money) as an MFA.

Sounds like you've got it all figured out. Enjoy your legal career.

Thanks. I enjoyed my legal career and the other careers that I have had after using it as a jump off point. A JD is extremely valuable outside of law.

^ I think this is exhibit A for why many of us wish we hadn't gone to law school.

You clearly made a poor choice. That is my point. It isn't for everyone. If you are on the fence between these two options, take a step back before you waste your time. Not sure why you don't want others to learn from your mistake.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I should point out here that not all MFAs are created equal. There are actually a lot of fully-funded programs where you work as a TA (for an admittedly small stipend) and your tuition is waived. I mean, you're not going to *make* a lot of money getting an MFA, but you can get one without going into debt. Unlike a JD -- there are very few ways to obtain a JD for free, even at lower ranked schools.

Getting into a fully funded MFA is usually very competitive, but it's generally based on the strength of sample work. So if you are a strong enough writer/actor/artists to gain admission to a fully funded program, then I absolutely think that makes more sense than getting a JD. There are lots of unhappy lawyers who have never made a ton of money and are stuck paying loans for a long time. Especially if their heart was actually in poetry or painting or something -- that's the person whose least likely to be able to thrive in the kind of jobs that will help you pay off your loans quickly. Many of these people would probably have been better off financially going into a much less lucrative field with no debt, which is what a fully funded MFA program would offer them.

You clearly didn't have good LSAT scores. There were tons of places offering free tuition, but those degrees would have been just as much of a waste of time (and time=money) as an MFA.

Sounds like you've got it all figured out. Enjoy your legal career.

Thanks. I enjoyed my legal career and the other careers that I have had after using it as a jump off point. A JD is extremely valuable outside of law.

^ I think this is exhibit A for why many of us wish we hadn't gone to law school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I should point out here that not all MFAs are created equal. There are actually a lot of fully-funded programs where you work as a TA (for an admittedly small stipend) and your tuition is waived. I mean, you're not going to *make* a lot of money getting an MFA, but you can get one without going into debt. Unlike a JD -- there are very few ways to obtain a JD for free, even at lower ranked schools.

Getting into a fully funded MFA is usually very competitive, but it's generally based on the strength of sample work. So if you are a strong enough writer/actor/artists to gain admission to a fully funded program, then I absolutely think that makes more sense than getting a JD. There are lots of unhappy lawyers who have never made a ton of money and are stuck paying loans for a long time. Especially if their heart was actually in poetry or painting or something -- that's the person whose least likely to be able to thrive in the kind of jobs that will help you pay off your loans quickly. Many of these people would probably have been better off financially going into a much less lucrative field with no debt, which is what a fully funded MFA program would offer them.

You clearly didn't have good LSAT scores. There were tons of places offering free tuition, but those degrees would have been just as much of a waste of time (and time=money) as an MFA.

Sounds like you've got it all figured out. Enjoy your legal career.

Thanks. I enjoyed my legal career and the other careers that I have had after using it as a jump off point. A JD is extremely valuable outside of law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here. To be clear, I am not ever suggesting that someone debating these two degrees should get a JD. They should not. But they should start from scratch and figure out what color their umbrella is before wasting so much time and energy on either the waste of time degree or the bad fit degree.

It sounds like you think an MFA is a waste of time no matter what, even if it's a competitive, fully-funded program. It also sounds like you made the right choice in pursuing a career in the law, which is filled with people like you who are aggressive and argumentative and love telling people they are wrong and stupid, but not everyone wants to work in that environment.

Anonymous wrote:PP here. To be clear, I am not ever suggesting that someone debating these two degrees should get a JD. They should not. But they should start from scratch and figure out what color their umbrella is before wasting so much time and energy on either the waste of time degree or the bad fit degree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I should point out here that not all MFAs are created equal. There are actually a lot of fully-funded programs where you work as a TA (for an admittedly small stipend) and your tuition is waived. I mean, you're not going to *make* a lot of money getting an MFA, but you can get one without going into debt. Unlike a JD -- there are very few ways to obtain a JD for free, even at lower ranked schools.

Getting into a fully funded MFA is usually very competitive, but it's generally based on the strength of sample work. So if you are a strong enough writer/actor/artists to gain admission to a fully funded program, then I absolutely think that makes more sense than getting a JD. There are lots of unhappy lawyers who have never made a ton of money and are stuck paying loans for a long time. Especially if their heart was actually in poetry or painting or something -- that's the person whose least likely to be able to thrive in the kind of jobs that will help you pay off your loans quickly. Many of these people would probably have been better off financially going into a much less lucrative field with no debt, which is what a fully funded MFA program would offer them.

You clearly didn't have good LSAT scores. There were tons of places offering free tuition, but those degrees would have been just as much of a waste of time (and time=money) as an MFA.

Sounds like you've got it all figured out. Enjoy your legal career.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I should point out here that not all MFAs are created equal. There are actually a lot of fully-funded programs where you work as a TA (for an admittedly small stipend) and your tuition is waived. I mean, you're not going to *make* a lot of money getting an MFA, but you can get one without going into debt. Unlike a JD -- there are very few ways to obtain a JD for free, even at lower ranked schools.

Getting into a fully funded MFA is usually very competitive, but it's generally based on the strength of sample work. So if you are a strong enough writer/actor/artists to gain admission to a fully funded program, then I absolutely think that makes more sense than getting a JD. There are lots of unhappy lawyers who have never made a ton of money and are stuck paying loans for a long time. Especially if their heart was actually in poetry or painting or something -- that's the person whose least likely to be able to thrive in the kind of jobs that will help you pay off your loans quickly. Many of these people would probably have been better off financially going into a much less lucrative field with no debt, which is what a fully funded MFA program would offer them.

You clearly didn't have good LSAT scores. There were tons of places offering free tuition, but those degrees would have been just as much of a waste of time (and time=money) as an MFA.