When is a law school no longer worth sticker?

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )

When is a law school no long worth sticker?

HYS only
22
10%
T6 (HYSCCN)
24
11%
T10
28
13%
T14
38
17%
T20
39
17%
T30
25
11%
T1 (Top 50)
21
9%
T2 (51-100)
18
8%
T3
5
2%
T4
4
2%
 
Total votes: 224

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: When is a law school no longer worth sticker?

Postby rayiner » Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:40 pm

jcl2 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:I'm of the opinion that going to a lower ranked school at half tuition is often a much worse risk than going to a t14 at full tuition, especially in this economy.

100K in debt for and needing to be top 10% at Forham and UIUC, or 200k needing to be top 40% at NU or Cornell.

A 90% chance you are going to be making 50K in an expensive area, with 100K in debt is a really terrible bet.


I disagree, 100k in debt, while not insignificant, is manageable on a 50k salary, 200k would not be. Since there is a significant chance of not getting biglaw in either situation I think the lower T14 for 200k is the bigger risk. If you will not be satisfied with anything other than biglaw, you should probably not go anywhere outside the T6 IMO.


It depends on how risk averse you are. The T14 is double the cost for quadruple the chance of biglaw. Statistically speaking, it's the winning strategy.

LSATfromNC
Posts: 735
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 3:29 pm

Re: When is a law school no longer worth sticker?

Postby LSATfromNC » Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:43 pm

Where is the none of the above option?

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: When is a law school no longer worth sticker?

Postby 09042014 » Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:44 pm

nycparalegal wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:I'm of the opinion that going to a lower ranked school at half tuition is often a much worse risk than going to a t14 at full tuition, especially in this economy.

100K in debt for and needing to be top 10% at Forham and UIUC, or 200k needing to be top 40% at NU or Cornell.

A 90% chance you are going to be making 50K in an expensive area, with 100K in debt is a really terrible bet.


What about less than 30k of debt from going to a state school, at half tuition?


Depends on which school of course, but its not a terrible bet if you don't mind working at a small firm.

I could find a job that pays 50-60K with my undergrad degree, so at that point I'd probably just not go into law. For someone who wants to be a states attorney, and has a crappy undergrad degree, its probably a great bet.

User avatar
jcl2
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 6:27 pm

Re: When is a law school no longer worth sticker?

Postby jcl2 » Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:11 pm

rayiner wrote:
jcl2 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:I'm of the opinion that going to a lower ranked school at half tuition is often a much worse risk than going to a t14 at full tuition, especially in this economy.

100K in debt for and needing to be top 10% at Forham and UIUC, or 200k needing to be top 40% at NU or Cornell.

A 90% chance you are going to be making 50K in an expensive area, with 100K in debt is a really terrible bet.


I disagree, 100k in debt, while not insignificant, is manageable on a 50k salary, 200k would not be. Since there is a significant chance of not getting biglaw in either situation I think the lower T14 for 200k is the bigger risk. If you will not be satisfied with anything other than biglaw, you should probably not go anywhere outside the T6 IMO.


It depends on how risk averse you are. The T14 is double the cost for quadruple the chance of biglaw. Statistically speaking, it's the winning strategy.


Certainly, if biglaw is your primary goal and you are willing to accept the risk to pursue that goal T14 is probably the better option. However, if you don't get big law you are completely screwed with 200k debt from a T14, whereas you will be OK with 100k debt if you don't make biglaw, and your options if you miss biglaw will be roughly similar whether you are at a T14 or a T30, if the T30 is where you want to practice you may even have an advantage for non-biglaw jobs.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: When is a law school no longer worth sticker?

Postby 09042014 » Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:15 pm

jcl2 wrote:
rayiner wrote:
jcl2 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:I'm of the opinion that going to a lower ranked school at half tuition is often a much worse risk than going to a t14 at full tuition, especially in this economy.

100K in debt for and needing to be top 10% at Forham and UIUC, or 200k needing to be top 40% at NU or Cornell.

A 90% chance you are going to be making 50K in an expensive area, with 100K in debt is a really terrible bet.


I disagree, 100k in debt, while not insignificant, is manageable on a 50k salary, 200k would not be. Since there is a significant chance of not getting biglaw in either situation I think the lower T14 for 200k is the bigger risk. If you will not be satisfied with anything other than biglaw, you should probably not go anywhere outside the T6 IMO.


It depends on how risk averse you are. The T14 is double the cost for quadruple the chance of biglaw. Statistically speaking, it's the winning strategy.


Certainly, if biglaw is your primary goal and you are willing to accept the risk to pursue that goal T14 is probably the better option. However, if you don't get big law you are completely screwed with 200k debt from a T14, whereas you will be OK with 100k debt if you don't make biglaw, and your options if you miss biglaw will be roughly similar whether you are at a T14 or a T30, if the T30 is where you want to practice you may even have an advantage for non-biglaw jobs.


Location is a big component. If you want to practice in the twin cities, taking the money at UMN is a good bet. Texas is better, because UT owns the market there. But if you are look at Chicago, LA, NYC, betting on WUSTL, UIUC, Fordham, or Hastings/Davis is a bad plan, ITE.

User avatar
jcl2
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 6:27 pm

Re: When is a law school no longer worth sticker?

Postby jcl2 » Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:42 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
jcl2 wrote:
rayiner wrote:
jcl2 wrote:
I disagree, 100k in debt, while not insignificant, is manageable on a 50k salary, 200k would not be. Since there is a significant chance of not getting biglaw in either situation I think the lower T14 for 200k is the bigger risk. If you will not be satisfied with anything other than biglaw, you should probably not go anywhere outside the T6 IMO.


It depends on how risk averse you are. The T14 is double the cost for quadruple the chance of biglaw. Statistically speaking, it's the winning strategy.


Certainly, if biglaw is your primary goal and you are willing to accept the risk to pursue that goal T14 is probably the better option. However, if you don't get big law you are completely screwed with 200k debt from a T14, whereas you will be OK with 100k debt if you don't make biglaw, and your options if you miss biglaw will be roughly similar whether you are at a T14 or a T30, if the T30 is where you want to practice you may even have an advantage for non-biglaw jobs.


Location is a big component. If you want to practice in the twin cities, taking the money at UMN is a good bet. Texas is better, because UT owns the market there. But if you are look at Chicago, LA, NYC, betting on WUSTL, UIUC, Fordham, or Hastings/Davis is a bad plan, ITE.


Agreed, but ITE going to a school ranked 7-14 and betting 200k on biglaw in Chicago, LA, or NYC may be a bad idea too. So not betting at all and taking good non-biglaw options and a small chance at biglaw with debt that will be manageable either way is not an unreasonable decision. For me it is really easy, I'm going to UW (the one in Seattle) with in-state tuition, I don't have any real biglaw aspirations, and I'm hoping to practice in the region where I am going to school; the lowest ranked school I would pay sticker at and choose over UW would be Berkeley. I agree that it would be a much more complicated decision if you were looking at, say, UIUC for 100k vs. NU for 200k if you want to work in Chicago.

User avatar
kurama20
Posts: 675
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 5:04 pm

Re: When is a law school no longer worth sticker?

Postby kurama20 » Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:49 pm

I have to say this whole "top 6" thing is worth sticker but the rest of the top 14 is not has got to be the most arbitrary and US News rankings fueled comment ever. There is no meaningful employment difference between NYU and any of MBVP for that to make any sort of sense. Depending on market choice CC won't be much different either (but I could still see someone saying that). If you truly want to say that only some of the top 14 schools are worth sticker, you are pretty much relegated to saying HYS only. Saying that HYS are the only top 14 schools worth sticker is a bit too worrisome an attitude imo, but at least it makes sense.

User avatar
Thirteen
Posts: 23849
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:53 pm

Re: When is a law school no longer worth sticker?

Postby Thirteen » Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:50 pm

I would pay sticker to go anywhere in the T14 and UT*, and would strongly consider paying sticker at UCLA, USC, or Vandy.

* I would receive in-state tuition at UT, so it would be considerably cheaper than the other schools in the 15-18 group.

jerjon2
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:11 pm

Re: When is a law school no longer worth sticker?

Postby jerjon2 » Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:12 pm

LSATfromNC wrote:Where is the none of the above option?


I forgot, I didn't think about it until after I had made the poll.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 20171lhopeful, poptart123 and 3 guests