CCNPBMV at sticker or U. of Illinois for free? Forum

[tea_drinker]

And getting Chicago big firm jobs from CCN regardless of one's class rank is definite?

I'd say that getting Chicago biglaw from UChi at median isn't unreasonable.

I'm not saying whether CCN at sticker is a better choice than Illinois for free, I am saying that if one really wants to do biglaw and/or clerkships then CCN is the definite choice between the two (and not too risky considering how many kids from those schools land it). That being said, if one truly wanted to absolutely make sure one avoided suffering under debt then Illinois for free is good deal but that would assume one was willing to forgo much of a chance at biglaw/clerkships.

I agree with you that getting Chicago biglaw from Uchi at median is more likely than from UIUC at median. However, I don't think getting Chicago biglaw from Uchi at median is a guarantee. That's why I think UIUC will provide just a good enough chance for OP given his law school performance is good, and in case he fails, he still has no debt.

[bk1]

This is one of my biggest continual questions on the TLS forums:

It seems like a lot of people are implicitly reasoning that top-10 (or CCN, or whatever the case may be) is better for certain purposes than, say, Illinois, because you need to be in the top half or top third of your class at CCN to attain that purpose, whereas you need to be in the top 5% at Illinois.

The missing assumption is that it's harder to be in the top 5% at Illinois than the top third or half at CCN.

But do we know that this is a valid assumption? Presumably the competition will be tougher at CCN. Maybe I need to be talking to somebody who spent a year at a sub-T20 school and transferred into a T10 school. Anybody fit that description?

Because if somebody's worried that they might struggle to be at the top of their class at the lower-ranked school, how can they be so sure that they won't struggle to say in the top third or half at the higher-ranked one?

If, for example, BigLaw requires top 50% at NYU or top 5% at Illinois (I'm making those numbers up— feel free to correct them with real data if you've got it), do I have a good reason to assume that the former is easier to attain than the latter?

(Obviously it's a different scenario if you want something that doesn't just require being top-5% at Illinois; like, say, something that you could be #1 in your class and still likely not get.)

TLS wisdom usually says:

1. You either get exams or you don't, thus the class rank you would get at any school will be about the same.

2. LSAT/GPA only account for about 20% of your law school grades, thus it is a poor idea to bank on those things to give you that much of a leg up at a lower school.

3. Transfer students tend to do just as well at their new school than they did at their old school (this includes many TTT to T14 transfer kids).

[somewhere]

This is one of my biggest continual questions on the TLS forums:

It seems like a lot of people are implicitly reasoning that top-10 (or CCN, or whatever the case may be) is better for certain purposes than, say, Illinois, because you need to be in the top half or top third of your class at CCN to attain that purpose, whereas you need to be in the top 5% at Illinois.

The missing assumption is that it's harder to be in the top 5% at Illinois than the top third or half at CCN.

But do we know that this is a valid assumption? Presumably the competition will be tougher at CCN. Maybe I need to be talking to somebody who spent a year at a sub-T20 school and transferred into a T10 school. Anybody fit that description?

Because if somebody's worried that they might struggle to be at the top of their class at the lower-ranked school, how can they be so sure that they won't struggle to say in the top third or half at the higher-ranked one?

If, for example, BigLaw requires top 50% at NYU or top 5% at Illinois (I'm making those numbers up— feel free to correct them with real data if you've got it), do I have a good reason to assume that the former is easier to attain than the latter?

(Obviously it's a different scenario if you want something that doesn't just require being top-5% at Illinois; like, say, something that you could be #1 in your class and still likely not get.)

TLS wisdom usually says:

1. You either get exams or you don't, thus the class rank you would get at any school will be about the same.

2. LSAT/GPA only account for about 20% of your law school grades, thus it is a poor idea to bank on those things to give you that much of a leg up at a lower school.

3. Transfer students tend to do just as well at their new school than they did at their old school (this includes many TTT to T14 transfer kids).

This is very interesting, thanks.

#3 isn't that shocking, since it seems intuitive enough that someone who works very, very hard at a lower-ranked school in order to be top of their class and transfer up will still work very, very hard and be pretty successful, wherever they go.

#1 and #2 surprise me somewhat more. Very interesting.

[FiveSermon]

Tell us whether it's CCN or MVP or B. There is a big difference between paying sticker at CCN vs MVP.

what?

What?

What is the big difference you refer?

Biglaw placement for one.

[bk1]

However, I don't think getting Chicago biglaw from Uchi at median is a guarantee. That's why I think UIUC will provide just a good enough chance for OP given his law school performance is good, and in case he fails, he still has no debt.

I'm not saying it's a guarantee, what I am saying is that UChi at sticker for Chicago biglaw is a calculated risk and not an insane one at that. Illinois for free will mitigate pretty much all risk but will also relegate biglaw and clerkships to the status of quite unlikely.

Is UChi at sticker a guarantee? Fuck no. Can UChi at sticker leave you drowning in debt and unable to pay it off? Yes it can. Is UChi at sticker a bad decision for those who want biglaw? I don't think it is a bad decision because I think the chances of getting it are high enough that the risk is justified. It comes down to risk preference and UChi isn't a bad decision compared to say Illinois at sticker which would be a bad decision.

[Hannibal]

It really hinges on how happy you'll be spending the rest of your life looking up to UChicago and Northwestern grads, as you'll be most likely stuck in the Midwest.

Once you're a lawyer, the prestige of your school counts less and less as your career goes on.

[masochist]

Tag.

I am in the same boat with UIUC (full tuition) vs Duke (?, but maybe sticker). Interestingly, most of the people I talk to in law school have said to go with Duke regardless of the cost, but most of the people I've talked to who graduated from law school in the last 4 years have said to go with UIUC. UIUC does very well regionally, and I am mostly talking to people who work in Chicago so my sample is biased. That said, 200K on a 10-year repayment plan is about 2300/mo. If I make anything less than 100K a year after I leave LS, my net income will end up declining as a result of earning a law degree.

If you are looking at law school from a net income perspective rather than a "I want to be a lawyer and I am trying to make it financially feasible" perspective then you are bound to be disappointed.

2300/mo has a pretty dramatic effect upon the financial feasibility of a lot of jobs.

[bk1]

2300/mo has a pretty dramatic effect upon the financial feasibility of a lot of jobs.

I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that comparing your net income 10 years out of law school to what it would have been had you stayed on your current career path is not the way to go about it.

[masochist]

2300/mo has a pretty dramatic effect upon the financial feasibility of a lot of jobs.

I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that comparing your net income 10 years out of law school to what it would have been had you stayed on your current career path is not the way to go about it.

10 years out isn't my concern, and I am actually not that worried about making more money than I currently make. What I am worried about is flexibility. T14 would certainly provide more of an opportunity for biglaw, but it basically makes lesser paying private sector jobs impossible to accept. A low debt load makes virtually any law job economically feasible, but lesser prestige makes getting certain law jobs much more difficult. Either way it seems like there is a not-insiginificant chance of regretting your decision. This is why it would have been easier if Yale had offered me a full ride. Damn you Yale!

not that I applied because I wouldn't have stood a chance of getting in anyway.

[bk1]

10 years out isn't my concern, and I am actually not that worried about making more money than I currently make. What I am worried about is flexibility. T14 would certainly provide more of an opportunity for biglaw, but it basically makes lesser paying private sector jobs impossible to accept. A low debt load makes virtually any law job economically feasible, but lesser prestige makes getting certain law jobs much more difficult. Either way it seems like there is a not-insiginificant chance of regretting your decision.

Then I misread your earlier statement.

I agree with all you have said, though I think there was a thread on which people regretted more often: taking the money or taking the prestige. It seemed like people argued you were less likely to regret taking the money.

[Kswizzie]

It really hinges on how happy you'll be spending the rest of your life looking up to UChicago and Northwestern grads, as you'll be most likely stuck in the Midwest.

Once you're a lawyer, the prestige of your school counts less and less as your career goes on.

Tell that to biglaw partners, federal judges and people in top in house positions who disproportionately come from top schools

[Hannibal]

It really hinges on how happy you'll be spending the rest of your life looking up to UChicago and Northwestern grads, as you'll be most likely stuck in the Midwest.

Once you're a lawyer, the prestige of your school counts less and less as your career goes on.

Tell that to biglaw partners, federal judges and people in top in house positions who disproportionately come from top schools

I think this is more because smart, driven people are more likely to go to a T14 school than the school itself.

[XxSpyKEx]

If you're interested in PI?

Federal clerkships?

Biglaw?

If you're not sure what you want yet?

If you want to live in Chicago? If you don't?

1. Define PI. If you are thinking DOJ type of PI, then CCN. If you are thinking normal non-profit, then Illinois

2. Fed Clerkship, if aiming for COA or SCOTUS, then CCN. If DC, then illinois will suffice

3. If Chicago big law, Illinois will suffice. If DC, NYC, or other markets, CCN are preferable.

4. If you are not sure, CCN

5. If you want to live in Chicago, Uchi. If you dont, CCN.

Obviously you haven't gone through the fed clerkship application and hiring process ITE yet.

[keg411]

#3 isn't that shocking, since it seems intuitive enough that someone who works very, very hard at a lower-ranked school in order to be top of their class and transfer up will still work very, very hard and be pretty successful, wherever they go.

There are also people who work very, very hard at all school levels (from TTTT to YHS) that end up below median. It's a mix of how well you write and how well you understand how to take a law school exam AS COMPARED TO your peers (which is, IMO, the part that makes grading seem the most arbitrary).

[somewhere]

There are also people who work very, very hard at all school levels (from TTTT to YHS) that end up below median. It's a mix of how well you write and how well you understand how to take a law school exam AS COMPARED TO your peers (which is, IMO, the part that makes grading seem the most arbitrary).

And that's also what makes me expect it would be harder to maintain higher rank at higher-ranked schools, where more of your classmates have long histories of exceptional academic success and are particularly adaptable to such academic tasks.

[bk1]

There are also people who work very, very hard at all school levels (from TTTT to YHS) that end up below median. It's a mix of how well you write and how well you understand how to take a law school exam AS COMPARED TO your peers (which is, IMO, the part that makes grading seem the most arbitrary).

And that's also what makes me expect it would be harder to maintain higher rank at higher-ranked schools, where more of your classmates have long histories of exceptional academic success and are particularly adaptable to such academic tasks.

When LSAT/GPA account for only 20% of what factors into grades, I wouldn't be so worried about that sort of thing.

[adt231]

What if we add a further factor to the question (which is relevant to most applicants worried about COA): Assume there is substantial UG debt (say, $70k).

1. Going to even CCN at sticker plus interest rates on UG and sticker loans will result in at least $300k+ in loans by the time one graduates. Even if you land a prestigious biglaw gig in NYC, you will HAVE to work biglaw for about 7 years JUST to pay it off!

2. Going to Illinois on full-tuition (since I don't think anyone goes for "free" - i.e. including room and board, fees, etc.) will result in about $145k+ in loans (60k+ for everything but tuition when in law school, + $70k for UG debt, plus interest on both when in school).

Paying off number two is not just 155k easier. it's probably more accurately a 250k difference since the interest will be THAT much more when you have so much debt (i.e. it exponentially increases). IF you land biglaw from illinois (which most in this thread correctly point out is VERY difficult to do given the state of the economy presently and in the expected future), you can pay this off in about 3-4 years.

If you go to CCN and land biglaw (which is definitely not a lock), then you HAVE to work 7ish years in biglaw to simply become broke. That, no matter how good you are, is very difficult to do unless you are Partner -- which is a VERY bad bet. More likely, if you work big law, you will do so for only 3-4 years and you will still owe $150k+!!!!!! It will take you at least

So:
Go to Illinois: (a) if really, really lucky, debt free in 4 years. (b) if average, won't be crippled by debt but will have the 10-15 year plan. (c) if you are really unlucky or at the bottom of your class, find a new career and you will be in debt for probably 10-15 years as well.

Go to CCN: (a) if lucky, debt free in 10 years (large biglaw salary and nice salary afterwards). (b) if average, MAYBE scenario a. plays out or maybe not (i.e. you don't land big law), then you are stuck with 10-15 years of debt. (c)if unlucky, you are in debt 20-25+ years because you will barely be able to pay off the interest on your 300k+ of debt. (d) take advantage of LRAP- get rid of LS debt after 10 years and contributing a substantial portion of it and then still you have to pay off your UG debt (which will take a while...)

Which do you think is a better option now? (I'm still unsure, but CCN at sticker seems way riskier and are the rewards really worth these risks? --- And for those of you thinking about sticker at MVPBDN, your odds are probably worse than CCN...)

[bk1]

With substantial UG debt I'd take the full ride to Illinois unless you can somehow bank on LRAP covering everything in 10 years at CCN (which seems iffy to me).

[somewhere]

With substantial UG debt I'd take the full ride to Illinois unless you can somehow bank on LRAP covering everything in 10 years at CCN (which seems iffy to me).

Why is that iffy? None of CCN have an annual or total cap on LRAP contributions, do they?

[bk1]

With substantial UG debt I'd take the full ride to Illinois unless you can somehow bank on LRAP covering everything in 10 years at CCN (which seems iffy to me).

Why is that iffy? None of CCN have an annual or total cap on LRAP contributions, do they?

It is iffy because I don't think the chances of getting a job that is covered by LRAP are high enough to justify your chances of ending up on the other end where you are absolutely screwed.