GULC versus GW

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18426
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: GULC versus GW

Postby bk1 » Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:19 pm

bender18 wrote:But don't get me wrong. I understand what you're saying. It is still a risk to go to GW... even with a ~106k scholly.

And if we're going to get technical here, the scholly is worth less than that (if you're looking at present value) haha. :)


I feel that the risk outweighs the benefits so much that a worse school on a larger scholarship is generally a better idea.

Or, if one is location agnostic, that BU/BC at equal cost is a better idea.

User avatar
Grizz
Posts: 10583
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:31 pm

Re: GULC versus GW

Postby Grizz » Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:28 pm

bk1 wrote:Yes, being a school in DC basically shits on your chances to get biglaw compared to similar schools because DC is an infinitely tough mark.


I'd add that not only is DC tough, you don't really need DC "ties," as employers pretty much know why you want to be in DC (desire to do regulatory work, BIGFED, etc.). Furthermore, DC is a target for a lot of people from T17 type schools. Lastly, you don't open up another market by going to GW (because you don't need ties really for DC), and the GW name isn't prestigious enough that it will take you all over the place absent ties and good grades.

User avatar
scribelaw
Posts: 771
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 3:27 pm

Re: GULC versus GW

Postby scribelaw » Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:41 pm

I am biased, in that I'm a Georgetown 1L and really like it here, but I'd pick Georgetown.

You're going to be borrowing a large amount of money either way. The only two ways you'll have to pay it back are government/nonprofit, via loan forgiveness, or BigLaw. Georgetown has an excellent LRAP and will give you much stronger odds for BigLaw.

I don't discount the effect of debt. I picked Georgetown with $$$ over higher-ranked schools for that reason. But you're picking between two schools in the same market, which is a very competitive market. There is nothing wrong with GW, but Georgetown is a lot better.

(FWIW, I am not convinced Georgetown is worth sticker, but I also do not believe GW is worth borrowing $100-$110k. As between those two, I'd take Georgetown).

Good luck! It's a tough decision.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18426
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: GULC versus GW

Postby bk1 » Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:44 pm

scribelaw wrote:I am biased, in that I'm a Georgetown 1L and really like it here, but I'd pick Georgetown.

You're going to be borrowing a large amount of money either way. The only two ways you'll have to pay it back are government/nonprofit, via loan forgiveness, or BigLaw. Georgetown has an excellent LRAP and will give you much stronger odds for BigLaw.

I don't discount the effect of debt. I picked Georgetown with $$$ over higher-ranked schools for that reason. But you're picking between two schools in the same market, which is a very competitive market. There is nothing wrong with GW, but Georgetown is a lot better.

(FWIW, I am not convinced Georgetown is worth sticker, but I also do not believe GW is worth borrowing $100-$110k. As between those two, I'd take Georgetown).

Good luck! It's a tough decision.


Meh, I think GW at 100k debt is better than GULC with 200k debt. At least with 100k debt you can actually pay back your loans in 10 years on a 50k salary if you live like a hobo. With 200k, yeah not so much.

If it were something like 150k versus 200k then I could see it but I think the fact that 100k is feasible with a 50k salary weighs this towards GW.

User avatar
androstan
Posts: 2708
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:07 am

Re: GULC versus GW

Postby androstan » Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:17 pm

bk1 wrote:
Law Sauce wrote:4. With bimodal salary distribution, one is unlikely to get something other than biglaw or shitlaw. Yes, there midlaw does exist but it is rare. I wouldn't bank on getting midlaw. This is a pretty vague reason as most of the times it is hard to quantify how big midlaw is or how hard it is to get a job. I think it is pretty reasonable to assume that it is not very large and thus it is very hard to get, leading me to cross it out of my mind as factoring in the decision.


The bimodal distribution numerically (instead of graphically):

155-165: 11.18%
90-150: 16.76%
65-90: 13.41%
35-65: 58.67%

i.e. more shitlaw than midlaw, more midlaw than biglaw.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18426
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: GULC versus GW

Postby bk1 » Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:22 pm

androstan wrote:The bimodal distribution numerically (instead of graphically):

155-165: 11.18%
90-150: 16.76%
65-90: 13.41%
35-65: 58.67%

i.e. more shitlaw than midlaw, more midlaw than biglaw.


Is that for DC or nationally?

User avatar
androstan
Posts: 2708
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:07 am

Re: GULC versus GW

Postby androstan » Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:42 pm

bk1 wrote:
androstan wrote:The bimodal distribution numerically (instead of graphically):

155-165: 11.18%
90-150: 16.76%
65-90: 13.41%
35-65: 58.67%

i.e. more shitlaw than midlaw, more midlaw than biglaw.


Is that for DC or nationally?


Nationally. This is the most recent NALP data, displayed quantitatively instead of graphically.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18426
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: GULC versus GW

Postby bk1 » Fri Feb 11, 2011 7:32 pm

androstan wrote:Nationally. This is the most recent NALP data, displayed quantitatively instead of graphically.


I honestly doubt that is even close to the representation of first year salaries in DC.

User avatar
androstan
Posts: 2708
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:07 am

Re: GULC versus GW

Postby androstan » Fri Feb 11, 2011 7:48 pm

bk1 wrote:
androstan wrote:Nationally. This is the most recent NALP data, displayed quantitatively instead of graphically.


I honestly doubt that is even close to the representation of first year salaries in DC.


DC is that drastically different than what is represented by NALP?

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18426
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: GULC versus GW

Postby bk1 » Fri Feb 11, 2011 7:51 pm

androstan wrote:DC is that drastically different than what is represented by NALP?


I could be wrong, but I would definitely imagine so.

That NALP data has all the big firms in smaller markets where the market rate is less than 160k.

User avatar
LLB2JD
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:32 pm

Re: GULC versus GW

Postby LLB2JD » Fri Feb 11, 2011 7:57 pm

Trash that GULC letter. If it was by email. delete it and act like it never happened.

BeachandRun23
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 2:20 am

Re: GULC versus GW

Postby BeachandRun23 » Sat Feb 12, 2011 1:21 am

Im really surprised at the reponses in this thread. While that is a good scholly offer, GW gives everyone with a 167 or 168 lsat and a high gpa that offer. Last time I applied, I got it and I was pretty much an auto-reject at gulc.

User avatar
bender18
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:53 pm

Re: GULC versus GW

Postby bender18 » Sat Feb 12, 2011 1:38 am

I disagree with the concept that GW is somehow disadvantaged by being located in DC when compared to peer schools. There is both a 'networking' and 'placement in DC' advantage that GW gets by being located a couple of blocks away from the White House.

Plus, a ton of GW students take the New York bar (third after Virginia and Maryland). So I'm guessing that, just like Gtown, a significant number of GW students end up in the NYC legal market.

I think it makes sense for some people to take GW's boost in DC + T20 chance at NYC over T20 chance at DC and T20 chance at NYC from a place like WUSTL, assuming they're not interested in st. louis.

User avatar
Hannibal
Posts: 2213
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm

Re: GULC versus GW

Postby Hannibal » Sat Feb 12, 2011 5:30 pm

GW with 100k scholly is a great deal. Even if we assume you don't get a paying job for 1L or 2L, 100k in student loans isn't a huge burden. Roughly $1,200/month if you pay it over 10 years.

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8448
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: GULC versus GW

Postby thesealocust » Sat Feb 12, 2011 5:53 pm

androstan wrote:
bk1 wrote:
androstan wrote:Nationally. This is the most recent NALP data, displayed quantitatively instead of graphically.


I honestly doubt that is even close to the representation of first year salaries in DC.


DC is that drastically different than what is represented by NALP?


The bimodal chart is inaccurate. It represents data on salaries reported in such a way that it accounts for almost all of the biglaw salaries but only a much smaller fraction of the other-than-big-law salaries graduates get.

To get the whole picture you need to look at several sources.

Based on comparing the total number of entry level NLJ-250 and similar type jobs, to the total number of 6 figure jobs reported on the bi-modal chart, to the total number of law school graduates each year, it is much more likely that the 'bump' around 30-60K on the bimodal chart should be about 3 times its actual size, if ALL data rather than available self-reported data were included.

The More You Know(TM)

hefferlump
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:55 pm

Re: GULC versus GW

Postby hefferlump » Sun Feb 13, 2011 12:35 pm

I'm biased too: I'm a Georgetown 3L and absolutely love my school.

But, I think the OP should take the money from GW and run. $100K of debt that can be avoided is a LOT of money and I firmly believe that the best choices are the ones that give you the maximum ability to be flexible with your plans in life - keeping the debt down is a huge part of that.

I think that GULC students at least like to perceive that we're the top kids in town (hey, EVERYONE else trashes us...suck it T13!), but I honestly think that GW is a very good school - you're still the second best law school in a city that has more than enough opportunities for 100 times the law students. I've run into GW students at internships and they've been great; plus: Gee-Dub is fun to say. I can't imagine that the OP would be so significantly "damaged" by going there in a way that justifies the 100K of debt.

Then again, I feel like the wise, old 3L sage saying it, but my friends who are heading into biglaw are not the ones who are excited to start working. They know they've given up any chance of seeing friends and family and, possibly, even doing work that interests them for at least a few years - I think many of them would much rather have avoided the debt and not have to take these jobs.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18426
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: GULC versus GW

Postby bk1 » Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:40 am

Hannibal wrote:GW with 100k scholly is a great deal. Even if we assume you don't get a paying job for 1L or 2L, 100k in student loans isn't a huge burden. Roughly $1,200/month if you pay it over 10 years.


I wouldn't say it is a huge burden but it is a burden. With a 50k/year (pre tax) job I think paying off 100k (before interest) debt is definitely feasible. Lower than 50k/year and it starts to get dicey.

That being said I'm beginning to think 100k is just the right amount at which GW starts to be worthwhile.

User avatar
PomasThynchon
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:34 am

Re: GULC versus GW

Postby PomasThynchon » Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:49 pm

BeachandRun23 wrote:Im really surprised at the reponses in this thread. While that is a good scholly offer, GW gives everyone with a 167 or 168 lsat and a high gpa that offer. Last time I applied, I got it and I was pretty much an auto-reject at gulc.


I think difficulty of getting it is irrelevant to the cost/benefit analysis. It might not be uber impressive, but it's still good.

That said, damn you for shattering my illusions. I figured my 105k from GW was a good sign of my chances at GULC, but I guess not so much. There's always UCLA/USC I guess. Damn.

BeachandRun23
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 2:20 am

Re: GULC versus GW

Postby BeachandRun23 » Mon Feb 21, 2011 8:50 pm

PomasThynchon wrote:
BeachandRun23 wrote:Im really surprised at the reponses in this thread. While that is a good scholly offer, GW gives everyone with a 167 or 168 lsat and a high gpa that offer. Last time I applied, I got it and I was pretty much an auto-reject at gulc.


I think difficulty of getting it is irrelevant to the cost/benefit analysis. It might not be uber impressive, but it's still good.

That said, damn you for shattering my illusions. I figured my 105k from GW was a good sign of my chances at GULC, but I guess not so much. There's always UCLA/USC I guess. Damn.


It could be different for you but the point I was trying to make is that GW is giving this offer to some people they know dont really have a chance in hell at gulc. So when people are considering taking the offer over GULC its surprising just because GW is making the offer to people who wont even get into GULC.

But of course, this is largely irrelevant. Take the offer if you think its worth it.

bmore
Posts: 302
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 12:28 pm

Re: GULC versus GW

Postby bmore » Mon Feb 21, 2011 8:55 pm

Don't know if this has been said yet but GULC hasn't given out its schollys yet (or at least not most of them).

User avatar
PomasThynchon
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:34 am

Re: GULC versus GW

Postby PomasThynchon » Mon Feb 21, 2011 9:25 pm

BeachandRun23 wrote:
PomasThynchon wrote:
BeachandRun23 wrote:Im really surprised at the reponses in this thread. While that is a good scholly offer, GW gives everyone with a 167 or 168 lsat and a high gpa that offer. Last time I applied, I got it and I was pretty much an auto-reject at gulc.


I think difficulty of getting it is irrelevant to the cost/benefit analysis. It might not be uber impressive, but it's still good.

That said, damn you for shattering my illusions. I figured my 105k from GW was a good sign of my chances at GULC, but I guess not so much. There's always UCLA/USC I guess. Damn.


It could be different for you but the point I was trying to make is that GW is giving this offer to some people they know dont really have a chance in hell at gulc. So when people are considering taking the offer over GULC its surprising just because GW is making the offer to people who wont even get into GULC.

But of course, this is largely irrelevant. Take the offer if you think its worth it.


I'm not attacking you or questioning you or anything, but as a general question, I don't understand why GW would bother giving people without a snowball's chance in hell at GULC 105k. I mean, one would think that many people applying to GW are interested in GULC (or perhaps not, who knows?) but what is gained from that. That 105k will most likely keep a student from going to any other school in the 18-30 range without a competing offer/similar regional location, but does it really take that much money? I'm very debt averse, but many people I see have a do or die attitude regarding law, regardless of price. I personally think GW half price = GULC full price, but both are extremely unenviable. I know GULC gets derided a lot as being the "bottom" T14, but...it's got a name that can carry. But being debt averse, I'm not sure I'd go anywhere outside the T6 at sticker.

Anyway, back to the point, if I were GW, I'd give people who had a decent to good shot at GULC the 105k (i.e. people who would probably get into GULC, but most likely not offered any $$$, like the OP). I understand they're still fighting tooth and nail for the rank against 18-25 more than the T14 (rank maintenance, you know, can't see GW moving up anywhere except maybe beyond WUSTL in a good year), but...oh whatever. I just don't understand why they'd give so much to so many people without prospects even at the low end of the T14. I mean, realistically, GW is competing with the likes of WUSTL, ND, Emory, the 18-30 range, and wants to snare as many who would go to its peers and threaten its prized #20 spot, but you'd have to think that maybe they'd entice some applicants with prospects/numbers for the lower T14 to try to lower their median gap, if just a little bit. You want to be realistic about who you're going to snare, but I've seen a lot of people at my school take a nice fat check from GW and its peers over the low end of the T14, say, anything lower than Cornell this year, maybe even a little higher. But who knows. Just idle speculation.

For the record, I'm trying to get BU to match my GW offer (though hoping I get into one of my reaches and considering reapplying even with a BU match, because I don't want to die poor and alone). I would like to echo a poster in an earlier thread--I too would rather have Boston as my home market over DC.

BeachandRun23
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 2:20 am

Re: GULC versus GW

Postby BeachandRun23 » Mon Feb 21, 2011 9:57 pm

PomasThynchon wrote:I'm not attacking you or questioning you or anything, but as a general question, I don't understand why GW would bother giving people without a snowball's chance in hell at GULC 105k. I mean, one would think that many people applying to GW are interested in GULC (or perhaps not, who knows?) but what is gained from that. That 105k will most likely keep a student from going to any other school in the 18-30 range without a competing offer/similar regional location, but does it really take that much money? I'm very debt averse, but many people I see have a do or die attitude regarding law, regardless of price. I personally think GW half price = GULC full price, but both are extremely unenviable. I know GULC gets derided a lot as being the "bottom" T14, but...it's got a name that can carry. But being debt averse, I'm not sure I'd go anywhere outside the T6 at sticker.

Anyway, back to the point, if I were GW, I'd give people who had a decent to good shot at GULC the 105k (i.e. people who would probably get into GULC, but most likely not offered any $$$, like the OP). I understand they're still fighting tooth and nail for the rank against 18-25 more than the T14 (rank maintenance, you know, can't see GW moving up anywhere except maybe beyond WUSTL in a good year), but...oh whatever. I just don't understand why they'd give so much to so many people without prospects even at the low end of the T14. I mean, realistically, GW is competing with the likes of WUSTL, ND, Emory, the 18-30 range, and wants to snare as many who would go to its peers and threaten its prized #20 spot, but you'd have to think that maybe they'd entice some applicants with prospects/numbers for the lower T14 to try to lower their median gap, if just a little bit. You want to be realistic about who you're going to snare, but I've seen a lot of people at my school take a nice fat check from GW and its peers over the low end of the T14, say, anything lower than Cornell this year, maybe even a little higher. But who knows. Just idle speculation.

For the record, I'm trying to get BU to match my GW offer (though hoping I get into one of my reaches and considering reapplying even with a BU match, because I don't want to die poor and alone). I would like to echo a poster in an earlier thread--I too would rather have Boston as my home market over DC.


Makes sense. One other point is the GW offer isnt guaranteed. Only the housing stipend and first years scholly are guaranteed. So thats like 45k guaranteed, the other 60k depends on you maintaing a 3.0?gpa or better i think. Still not a bad offer, but they do weed some people out i would guess.

User avatar
PomasThynchon
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:34 am

Re: GULC versus GW

Postby PomasThynchon » Mon Feb 21, 2011 10:08 pm

BeachandRun23 wrote:
PomasThynchon wrote:I'm not attacking you or questioning you or anything, but as a general question, I don't understand why GW would bother giving people without a snowball's chance in hell at GULC 105k. I mean, one would think that many people applying to GW are interested in GULC (or perhaps not, who knows?) but what is gained from that. That 105k will most likely keep a student from going to any other school in the 18-30 range without a competing offer/similar regional location, but does it really take that much money? I'm very debt averse, but many people I see have a do or die attitude regarding law, regardless of price. I personally think GW half price = GULC full price, but both are extremely unenviable. I know GULC gets derided a lot as being the "bottom" T14, but...it's got a name that can carry. But being debt averse, I'm not sure I'd go anywhere outside the T6 at sticker.

Anyway, back to the point, if I were GW, I'd give people who had a decent to good shot at GULC the 105k (i.e. people who would probably get into GULC, but most likely not offered any $$$, like the OP). I understand they're still fighting tooth and nail for the rank against 18-25 more than the T14 (rank maintenance, you know, can't see GW moving up anywhere except maybe beyond WUSTL in a good year), but...oh whatever. I just don't understand why they'd give so much to so many people without prospects even at the low end of the T14. I mean, realistically, GW is competing with the likes of WUSTL, ND, Emory, the 18-30 range, and wants to snare as many who would go to its peers and threaten its prized #20 spot, but you'd have to think that maybe they'd entice some applicants with prospects/numbers for the lower T14 to try to lower their median gap, if just a little bit. You want to be realistic about who you're going to snare, but I've seen a lot of people at my school take a nice fat check from GW and its peers over the low end of the T14, say, anything lower than Cornell this year, maybe even a little higher. But who knows. Just idle speculation.

For the record, I'm trying to get BU to match my GW offer (though hoping I get into one of my reaches and considering reapplying even with a BU match, because I don't want to die poor and alone). I would like to echo a poster in an earlier thread--I too would rather have Boston as my home market over DC.


Makes sense. One other point is the GW offer isnt guaranteed. Only the housing stipend and first years scholly are guaranteed. So thats like 45k guaranteed, the other 60k depends on you maintaing a 3.0?gpa or better i think. Still not a bad offer, but they do weed some people out i would guess.


I'm sure law school isn't easy, but if you can't maintain a 3.0, seems like you're pwned regardless of $$ outside of HYS. Yeah, free housing is nothing to sniff at either. But I know next to nothing. I like to think my GW offer is a sign of good things to come from Vandy/Cornell/USC/UCLA/GULC/possibly Michigan (not holding my breath for UT Austin OOS) if I'm lucky, but I could just as easily be deluding myself. I know GW and its peers toss around a lot of money, but I doubt (or at least hope) most of it is for people without a prayer at better schools.

User avatar
nealric
Posts: 2398
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: GULC versus GW

Postby nealric » Mon Feb 21, 2011 10:52 pm

Yes, being a school in DC basically shits on your chances to get biglaw compared to similar schools because DC is an infinitely tough mark.


Or you could just interview with one of the hundreds of NY offices that interview at GULC :roll:

User avatar
bender18
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:53 pm

Re: GULC versus GW

Postby bender18 » Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:15 pm

So for anyone who has the 106k offer from GW and is accepted into Georgetown, how much money from Georgetown do you think it would take for you to turn down GW?




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests