UT Austin vs. Michigan

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

UT Austin or Michigan

UT Austin
41
61%
Michigan
26
39%
 
Total votes: 67

rad lulz
Posts: 9844
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm

Re: UT Austin vs. Michigan

Postby rad lulz » Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:25 am

PunkedbyReality wrote:
NinerFan wrote:Surprised no one has said that the idea that one can say that they "Will do biglaw unless I strike out, in which case 55k PI job!" is flawed.


Yeah, it is kind of flawed from an NPV standpoint generally speaking, but for my situation it makes sense because I am going to pursue public service if I don't get BigLaw. So if I don't get my first option (BigLaw), then I'm going to go into public service/public interest. I'm just using the % of grads from each school who get BigLaw as a surrogate for my chances, and then the chances of me going 55K are 1- probability of BigLaw. This is flawed in the sense that there is a chance I take a job that pays me an amount between 55K and 160K, and that this will be a reasonable route once I'm in law school. But, from where I'm sitting right now, this appears to model my interests and the respective schools' placement probabilities fairly well.

There is a very real chance you get no job from either, so make sure to factor that in

User avatar
PunkedbyReality
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 4:59 pm

Re: UT Austin vs. Michigan

Postby PunkedbyReality » Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:31 am

Ti Malice wrote:
PunkedbyReality wrote:
Ti Malice wrote:What would your living situation in Austin be? Borrowing for rent just like you would in Ann Arbor?


Maybe, but it might also be possible for me to find a sweeter deal because I know a lot of people in Austin, or I could even stay with my parents who live in the suburbs.

Actually, I haven't really considered borrowing for rent. Do people usually take out outside loans to cover their living costs? I'd like to factor in these costs if I can.

Ti Malice, I really appreciated your insight on a past post of mine about which schools to apply to. Where would you go in this situation? Would you try and negotiate? And would you take NYU sticker over these two offers?


Yeah, people usually take out loans to cover living expenses, unless they're married with a working spouse or living with their parents. Schools calculate an overall cost of attendance for determining the maximum amount of federal loans you can receive, and this includes tuition, room and board, books, health insurance, etc.

UT vs. Michigan is a tough call here (putting aside NYU for now), and I think it hinges upon your living situation in Austin. Using this year's tuition and costs of attendance for each school, you would borrow ~$103K for UT over three years and ~$156K for UM if you lived on your own in each place (a few thousand more for both in reality, since tuition will rise). I would have to wait and see Michigan's placement numbers in another few weeks before I could give a firm opinion here one way or the other. The 2011 class didn't fare that well, though plenty of people say that was an anomaly; apparently UM's career office gave poor guidance on bidding strategy for that class. But I would like to see the 2012 numbers.

On the other hand, I think it's a very easy call for UT if you could live with your folks for free. I'm sure that doesn't sound much fun, but getting a UT JD for $54K (or a few thousand more) would seem like a no-brainer here.

As for NYU, paying sticker is just scary to me. That's $234K in loans before interest going by present tuition, which, again, is certain to rise. I don't think that's a better option than any of the above possibilities. Others may disagree.

By the way, I searched your old posts to see what I said before, and I was sorry to see that neither I nor anyone else saw/responded to your final question. I don't know if retaking the LSAT is still something you would consider at this point, but the truth is that no school outside of YHS would care if you had four LSAT scores.


For the LSAT situation, I kind of wish I would have because I was averaging 175 before I took my test. But, such is life I suppose, and I've resolved to be grateful for the options I have.

For the two schools, I hadn't really thought about living with my parents actually. It would be a blow to my social self-esteem, but it makes a lot of financial sense. I will wait on the placement numbers from Michigan, and unless they're significantly better than UT's, I will probably end up at UT. And I'm only considering NYU sticker because I have friends who have told me it's worth it. Chances are it won't be an issue either way.

My last question for you is on negotiating. It seems unlikely that Michigan will allow me to negotiate because they won't consider UT a peer school. Does this sound about right? Even still, do you think it would be advisable to try and negotiate for a little more money from UT in light of Michigan's offer?

Thanks again for your help, and for taking the time to think it about it all.

User avatar
WokeUpInACar
Posts: 5513
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:11 pm

Re: UT Austin vs. Michigan

Postby WokeUpInACar » Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:34 am

I'm pretty confident that you could get more money from UT with that offer. Then go to Michigan with UT's super low COA and try to get more there! Rinse, repeat, etc.

User avatar
PunkedbyReality
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 4:59 pm

Re: UT Austin vs. Michigan

Postby PunkedbyReality » Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:39 am

WokeUpInACar wrote:I'm pretty confident that you could get more money from UT with that offer. Then go to Michigan with UT's super low COA and try to get more there! Rinse, repeat, etc.


Haha. Can't really hurt I suppose.

User avatar
mg7
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: UT Austin vs. Michigan

Postby mg7 » Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:43 am

Just keep in mind that UT will only reconsider their initial scholarship offer once.

Also:
UT Law FinAid Website wrote:The scholarship committee reserves the right to decline to offer or increase our previous scholarship.

http://www.utexas.edu/law/finaid/schola ... match.html

User avatar
shifty_eyed
Posts: 1934
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:09 pm

Re: UT Austin vs. Michigan

Postby shifty_eyed » Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:46 am

mg7 wrote:Just keep in mind that UT says they will only reconsider their initial scholarship offer once.


I would wait until you have all your offers on the table before negotiating, but I don't see the harm in asking for more later. I think schools are going to be a lot more flexible this cycle with money.

User avatar
WokeUpInACar
Posts: 5513
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:11 pm

Re: UT Austin vs. Michigan

Postby WokeUpInACar » Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:47 am

mg7 wrote:Just keep in mind that UT will only reconsider their initial scholarship offer once.

Be prepared for this possibility, but don't let it stop you from asking again. Just because that's their official line doesn't mean they won't make exceptions during a cycle where they're scrambling to keep their medians and someone is above both of them.

User avatar
PunkedbyReality
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 4:59 pm

Re: UT Austin vs. Michigan

Postby PunkedbyReality » Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:49 am

mg7 wrote:Just keep in mind that UT will only reconsider their initial scholarship offer once.

Also:
UT Law FinAid Website wrote:The scholarship committee reserves the right to decline to offer or increase our previous scholarship.

http://www.utexas.edu/law/finaid/schola ... match.html


Did not know that. Thanks.

User avatar
shifty_eyed
Posts: 1934
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:09 pm

Re: UT Austin vs. Michigan

Postby shifty_eyed » Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:53 am

Also:
UT Law FinAid Website wrote:The scholarship committee reserves the right to decline to offer or increase our previous scholarship.



I am taking the bolded to mean that they might not give you money just because you submit competing offers if UT didn't originally offer you a scholarship, not that they will rescind their previous offer if they think you are being greedy. AMIRITE?

User avatar
WokeUpInACar
Posts: 5513
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:11 pm

Re: UT Austin vs. Michigan

Postby WokeUpInACar » Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:56 am

shifty_eyed wrote:Also:
UT Law FinAid Website wrote:The scholarship committee reserves the right to decline to offer or increase our previous scholarship.



I am taking the bolded to mean that they might not give you money just because you submit competing offers if UT didn't originally offer you a scholarship, not that they will rescind their previous offer if they think you are being greedy. AMIRITE?

Yeah I've never heard of a school revoking a scholarship offer without gross misconduct of some kind on the part of an applicant.

User avatar
bizzybone1313
Posts: 996
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:31 pm

Re: UT Austin vs. Michigan

Postby bizzybone1313 » Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:58 am

OP, what are your stats?

User avatar
NinerFan
Posts: 482
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: UT Austin vs. Michigan

Postby NinerFan » Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:54 pm

PunkedbyReality wrote:
NinerFan wrote:Surprised no one has said that the idea that one can say that they "Will do biglaw unless I strike out, in which case 55k PI job!" is flawed.


Yeah, it is kind of flawed from an NPV standpoint generally speaking, but for my situation it makes sense because I am going to pursue public service if I don't get BigLaw. So if I don't get my first option (BigLaw), then I'm going to go into public service/public interest. I'm just using the % of grads from each school who get BigLaw as a surrogate for my chances, and then the chances of me going 55K are 1- probability of BigLaw. This is flawed in the sense that there is a chance I take a job that pays me an amount between 55K and 160K, and that this will be a reasonable route once I'm in law school. But, from where I'm sitting right now, this appears to model my interests and the respective schools' placement probabilities fairly well.


It's also flawed that there's a real chance you get a job << 55k and a chance you get no job period. Each of these schools do report people who are flat-out unemployed. They also have people who are on short-term "fellowships" from the law school. Your calculations would be more accurate if you account for these outcomes, which is probably 10-20%+ likely.

Also, I would caution you on the idea that you can simply shoot for big law with PI as a backup. You'll be competing against those who have demonstrated their interest in PI from the beginning. With scarce few PI jobs, it's not easy to simply switch from one to the other.

I haven't looked very closely at either school's employment data, but shouldn't they offer 25-75 ranges on their salary? Seems like that would be a more accurate way to calculate potential future earnings, not just assuming 55k or 160k.

User avatar
PunkedbyReality
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 4:59 pm

Re: UT Austin vs. Michigan

Postby PunkedbyReality » Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:19 am

NinerFan wrote:
PunkedbyReality wrote:
NinerFan wrote:Surprised no one has said that the idea that one can say that they "Will do biglaw unless I strike out, in which case 55k PI job!" is flawed.


Yeah, it is kind of flawed from an NPV standpoint generally speaking, but for my situation it makes sense because I am going to pursue public service if I don't get BigLaw. So if I don't get my first option (BigLaw), then I'm going to go into public service/public interest. I'm just using the % of grads from each school who get BigLaw as a surrogate for my chances, and then the chances of me going 55K are 1- probability of BigLaw. This is flawed in the sense that there is a chance I take a job that pays me an amount between 55K and 160K, and that this will be a reasonable route once I'm in law school. But, from where I'm sitting right now, this appears to model my interests and the respective schools' placement probabilities fairly well.


It's also flawed that there's a real chance you get a job << 55k and a chance you get no job period. Each of these schools do report people who are flat-out unemployed. They also have people who are on short-term "fellowships" from the law school. Your calculations would be more accurate if you account for these outcomes, which is probably 10-20%+ likely.

Also, I would caution you on the idea that you can simply shoot for big law with PI as a backup. You'll be competing against those who have demonstrated their interest in PI from the beginning. With scarce few PI jobs, it's not easy to simply switch from one to the other.

I haven't looked very closely at either school's employment data, but shouldn't they offer 25-75 ranges on their salary? Seems like that would be a more accurate way to calculate potential future earnings, not just assuming 55k or 160k.


These are some solid considerations. After looking more closely at the employment data, specifically at the chance of being unemployed nine months after graduation, it looks like the chances are: Michigan 5% (+/-2 for fellowship style ambiguity) and UT Austin 10% (+/-2%).

I also think you make a good point about switching from corporate to PI seamlessly. Those with the demonstrated commitment to PI do have an advantage, and from what I've heard, PI is a really competitive route at Michigan these days. Since I'm not in school, I'm not sure where the point of no return is when it comes to going for a certain route. As in, I don't know when it's too late in the game to switch routes because prospects look grim for one. This kind of difficulty does seem to weigh in favor of going to the better school where you're chances of being less jobless are less. But, the debt debt will be more.

And I will play with the income ranges for my calculations. I personalized because I want to believe that I will be capable of making it in one of these two routes if I work. But, for pure probabilities' sake, it may be smart to just use the ranges. It is tough to model all of it because I don't know how good I will be at law school, or if I will perform differently at different school.

Making the best decision may be harder than getting in to schools.

User avatar
somewhatwayward
Posts: 1446
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: UT Austin vs. Michigan

Postby somewhatwayward » Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:31 pm

PunkedbyReality wrote:I received scholarships of $15,000 per year and $18,000 per year from UT and Michigan respectively; this also goes much farther at UT for me because I have in-state tuition of $33,000. Based on this information and the total costs provided on the website, I have done net present value (NPV) analysis on the cost of attending. My numbers are below. Here are my assumptions:

Chances of getting $160K starting salary:
UT - %30
Michigan - %40
I simply assumed that if I don't get a BigLaw salary then I would take a public service job with a starting salary of 55K.

EXPECTED VALUE WITH AN 8-YEAR OUTLOOK:
UT Austin: $308, 041
Michigan: $290,280

The value of UT is higher because it will cost so much less, but Michigan is not far behind because it provides roughly a 10% better chance of getting $160K starting. If I don't get BigLaw, then Michigan will put me in a tricky debt situation. But, Michigan is also a stronger school with more legitimate national reach. National reach and other qualitative criteria like this are making the decision a hard one. I would ideally like national reach, a collegial environment, and a moderate/liberal culture.

Where would you go?


You are pretty off with some stuff here. This is kinda long so before I get into it, I want to say I am not advocating Mich over UT. I think you should negotiate with UT using the T14 acceptances/scholarships (if Mich gave you 15K, seems like UT should give more than 18K), and then go to UT and live with your parents to keep costs down as much as possible.

Now onto the issues....first, you can't assume a 55K/year salary (whether in PI or not) if you miss big law. The most recent numbers show that 2/3 of UT's class reported a salary with the 25th percentile of those who reported at 57K. This means that 57K is about the median salary out of UT, so about half the grads make less than that (while about 1/3 make almost 3x the amount - welcome to the craziness of legal hiring). You can quibble about whether 57K is the median or the 40th percentile or whatever, but the point remains that you have a close to 50% chance of less than 57K (and they are not all 55K jobs down to the 1st percentile - see peak at 40K on a bimodal salary distribution chart). There are several reasons I assumed that the 1/3 who don't report have low/no salaries. First, common sense and human nature suggest that the people who don't report a salary either don't have one or are embarrassed by how low it is. Also, schools are allowed to track down salaries for people who don't respond, and it's pretty easy to track down the person working in big law and figure out their salary, all online, while it is harder to find the grad working as a cashier at BestBuy since they don't bother putting them on the website, and their salaries aren't plastered all over the Intenet. Plus, the schools obviously have an incentive to track down every last big law grad, and the numbers will reflect that.

I'm sorry if I sound a little harsh because you seem more informed than the people who come traipsing on here asking whether they should go to Cardozo at sticker bc of the shot it will give them at big law and say 'oh yeah I'm like totally cool with a 70-80K mid law job or an ADA position in the Manhattan DA's office if big law doesn't work out.' But you said that yur chances of getting the 55K/year PI job were 1-(chance of big law), and that is flat out wrong. You are not accounting for the possibility that you get no full-time long-term JD-required job (at least 17% of UT's class had this outcome) or a PI job or small firm job that pays 40K. If you recognize that there is a not insignificant chance that you end up with no legal job or a 40K/year insurance defense gig, then you truly understand the worst outcome. Perhaps a better way to say it is a 55K/year PI job is a good outcome, not a fallback option.

Also, a small point, but UMich's 40% big law is 33% more than UT's 30%, not 10%. 10% more would be if Mich was at 33% big law at which point we would all say they are essentially equivalent. I don't think this means you should go to Mich, but just sayin'....you're confirming the dreaed stereotype that law students are bad at math :D

Anyway, you're not in a terrible place, but think of these offers as the starting point for negotiation. Schools are going to be petty desperate this year come May with the gigantic drop in applicants. It is completely a students' market, so don't sell yourself short. Maximizing this advantage may require hardball negotiating where you basically (nicely) say I'd love to attend but it is not financially feasible for me at this price so I am withdrawing. I think this year that tactic will result in an increased offer pretty frequently. Obviously it is risky since the school could say 'fine, too bad.' But that is what I would do if I were applying now. If you think you can squeeze a few more points out of the LSAT, do it by all means. If you bumped your score in June you could go to UT and ask for more money or you could decide to reapply next year.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15464
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: UT Austin vs. Michigan

Postby Tiago Splitter » Thu Feb 21, 2013 5:28 pm

somewhatwayward wrote:Now onto the issues....first, you can't assume a 55K/year salary (whether in PI or not) if you miss big law. The most recent numbers show that 2/3 of UT's class reported a salary with the 25th percentile of those who reported at 57K. This means that 57K is about the median salary out of UT, so about half the grads make less than that (while about 1/3 make almost 3x the amount - welcome to the craziness of legal hiring). You can quibble about whether 57K is the median or the 40th percentile or whatever, but the point remains that you have a close to 50% chance of less than 57K (and they are not all 55K jobs down to the 1st percentile - see peak at 40K on a bimodal salary distribution chart). There are several reasons I assumed that the 1/3 who don't report have low/no salaries. First, common sense and human nature suggest that the people who don't report a salary either don't have one or are embarrassed by how low it is. Also, schools are allowed to track down salaries for people who don't respond, and it's pretty easy to track down the person working in big law and figure out their salary, all online, while it is harder to find the grad working as a cashier at BestBuy since they don't bother putting them on the website, and their salaries aren't plastered all over the Intenet. Plus, the schools obviously have an incentive to track down every last big law grad, and the numbers will reflect that.

As I said before in this thread, assuming 160K or 55K is not unreasonable. The OP has given himself an expected value out of Michigan of $97,000, and out of Texas it's $86,500. People immediately freak out when they see the OP say "I'll just land in a 55K public service job" and they are right to think that's bad. But the OP is essentially lumping all non-market paying BigLaw jobs into a different bucket where the average salary is 55K, and this seems to be a reasonable estimate from these schools.

WhatOurBodiesAreFor
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:23 pm

Re: UT Austin vs. Michigan

Postby WhatOurBodiesAreFor » Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:16 pm

somewhatwayward wrote:
PunkedbyReality wrote:I received scholarships of $15,000 per year and $18,000 per year from UT and Michigan respectively; this also goes much farther at UT for me because I have in-state tuition of $33,000. Based on this information and the total costs provided on the website, I have done net present value (NPV) analysis on the cost of attending. My numbers are below. Here are my assumptions:

Chances of getting $160K starting salary:
UT - %30
Michigan - %40
I simply assumed that if I don't get a BigLaw salary then I would take a public service job with a starting salary of 55K.

EXPECTED VALUE WITH AN 8-YEAR OUTLOOK:
UT Austin: $308, 041
Michigan: $290,280

The value of UT is higher because it will cost so much less, but Michigan is not far behind because it provides roughly a 10% better chance of getting $160K starting. If I don't get BigLaw, then Michigan will put me in a tricky debt situation. But, Michigan is also a stronger school with more legitimate national reach. National reach and other qualitative criteria like this are making the decision a hard one. I would ideally like national reach, a collegial environment, and a moderate/liberal culture.

Where would you go?


You are pretty off with some stuff here. This is kinda long so before I get into it, I want to say I am not advocating Mich over UT. I think you should negotiate with UT using the T14 acceptances/scholarships (if Mich gave you 15K, seems like UT should give more than 18K), and then go to UT and live with your parents to keep costs down as much as possible.

Now onto the issues....first, you can't assume a 55K/year salary (whether in PI or not) if you miss big law. The most recent numbers show that 2/3 of UT's class reported a salary with the 25th percentile of those who reported at 57K. This means that 57K is about the median salary out of UT, so about half the grads make less than that (while about 1/3 make almost 3x the amount - welcome to the craziness of legal hiring). You can quibble about whether 57K is the median or the 40th percentile or whatever, but the point remains that you have a close to 50% chance of less than 57K (and they are not all 55K jobs down to the 1st percentile - see peak at 40K on a bimodal salary distribution chart). There are several reasons I assumed that the 1/3 who don't report have low/no salaries. First, common sense and human nature suggest that the people who don't report a salary either don't have one or are embarrassed by how low it is. Also, schools are allowed to track down salaries for people who don't respond, and it's pretty easy to track down the person working in big law and figure out their salary, all online, while it is harder to find the grad working as a cashier at BestBuy since they don't bother putting them on the website, and their salaries aren't plastered all over the Intenet. Plus, the schools obviously have an incentive to track down every last big law grad, and the numbers will reflect that.

I'm sorry if I sound a little harsh because you seem more informed than the people who come traipsing on here asking whether they should go to Cardozo at sticker bc of the shot it will give them at big law and say 'oh yeah I'm like totally cool with a 70-80K mid law job or an ADA position in the Manhattan DA's office if big law doesn't work out.' But you said that yur chances of getting the 55K/year PI job were 1-(chance of big law), and that is flat out wrong. You are not accounting for the possibility that you get no full-time long-term JD-required job (at least 17% of UT's class had this outcome) or a PI job or small firm job that pays 40K. If you recognize that there is a not insignificant chance that you end up with no legal job or a 40K/year insurance defense gig, then you truly understand the worst outcome. Perhaps a better way to say it is a 55K/year PI job is a good outcome, not a fallback option.

Also, a small point, but UMich's 40% big law is 33% more than UT's 30%, not 10%. 10% more would be if Mich was at 33% big law at which point we would all say they are essentially equivalent. I don't think this means you should go to Mich, but just sayin'....you're confirming the dreaed stereotype that law students are bad at math :D

Anyway, you're not in a terrible place, but think of these offers as the starting point for negotiation. Schools are going to be petty desperate this year come May with the gigantic drop in applicants. It is completely a students' market, so don't sell yourself short. Maximizing this advantage may require hardball negotiating where you basically (nicely) say I'd love to attend but it is not financially feasible for me at this price so I am withdrawing. I think this year that tactic will result in an increased offer pretty frequently. Obviously it is risky since the school could say 'fine, too bad.' But that is what I would do if I were applying now. If you think you can squeeze a few more points out of the LSAT, do it by all means. If you bumped your score in June you could go to UT and ask for more money or you could decide to reapply next year.


+1. All graduates who didn't report are unemployed so if you don't get Biglaw there's only a 20% chance of making $55K, which means more often than not you'll end up as a cashier at Best Buy. Thus, DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL

User avatar
bizzybone1313
Posts: 996
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:31 pm

Re: UT Austin vs. Michigan

Postby bizzybone1313 » Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:41 pm

I'm from Texas. Attending UT would make me very, very nervous.

User avatar
somewhatwayward
Posts: 1446
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: UT Austin vs. Michigan

Postby somewhatwayward » Fri Feb 22, 2013 12:10 am

Tiago Splitter wrote:As I said before in this thread, assuming 160K or 55K is not unreasonable. The OP has given himself an expected value out of Michigan of $97,000, and out of Texas it's $86,500. People immediately freak out when they see the OP say "I'll just land in a 55K public service job" and they are right to think that's bad. But the OP is essentially lumping all non-market paying BigLaw jobs into a different bucket where the average salary is 55K, and this seems to be a reasonable estimate from these schools.


I said several times in my post that I think UT for cheap is okay. But my point is just that 55K in PI is not the worst outcome you can have. That is what I am objecting to. There's some unknown but not insignificant chance that you will be unemployed or in a very low-paying (probably miserable) job. OP should recognize that and not lump it all together under 55K/year. It is true that if debt is low, 40K is not the end of the world.

I understand that you are saying the average salary of the non-big-law jobs out if UT is around55K but I think prospective students shouldn't camouflage the bad outcomes like that. JMHO and it doesn't mean don't go to UT.

WhatOurBodiesAreMadeFor wrote:+1. All graduates who didn't report are unemployed so if you don't get Biglaw there's only a 20% chance of making $55K, which means more often than not you'll end up as a cashier at Best Buy. Thus, DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL


Look I know you are trying to rationalize your own decision to go to Mich at sticker (and I understand....I would be, too). Best Buy is hyperbole (to some extent....it wouldn't surprise me if some UT or other T20 grads were in retail). As I said before, schools are allowed to track down employment statuses and salaries for grads and that is way easier when the person is in big law, and obviously schools want to include every big law/other prestigious outcome in their stats, so the assumption that people who aren't reported are disproportionately unemployed is not unfounded.

User avatar
Richie Tenenbaum
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:17 am

Re: UT Austin vs. Michigan

Postby Richie Tenenbaum » Fri Feb 22, 2013 12:46 am

bizzybone1313 wrote:I'm from Texas. Attending UT would make me very, very nervous.


?

I'm a current 3L at UT, and I don't disagree that I would have been very nervous attending UT at sticker (esp. out of state sticker), but I dont think someone should "very, very nervous" about attending UT at instate rate with $$.

WhatOurBodiesAreFor
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:23 pm

Re: UT Austin vs. Michigan

Postby WhatOurBodiesAreFor » Fri Feb 22, 2013 1:44 am

somewhatwayward wrote:Look I know you are trying to rationalize your own decision to go to Mich at sticker (and I understand....I would be, too). Best Buy is hyperbole (to some extent....it wouldn't surprise me if some UT or other T20 grads were in retail). As I said before, schools are allowed to track down employment statuses and salaries for grads and that is way easier when the person is in big law, and obviously schools want to include every big law/other prestigious outcome in their stats, so the assumption that people who aren't reported are disproportionately unemployed is not unfounded.


Quick telling me what my feelings are. I know what my feelings are. I'm trying to figure out what the best decision is for me just like everyone else. It really does not follow that, just because I think T10 is sticker is OK, that I am stupid and trying to rationalize a stupid decision.

It sounds like you are a horribly unrepresentative sample. I'm guessing by your ivory tower-ism and your joined date that you're a 2/3L. I also guess that you non-HYS because you are butthurt enough to complain and preach to this forum how retail is an inevitability if one pays T14 sticker and that you are butthurt about not getting into HYS with those stellar numbers. There's probably a reason HYS didn't take you. Don't you generally have to be able to interact with people to land Biglaw? Clients probably won't take kindly to your telling them what their feelings are.

I refuse to believe that it is more than a very rare occurrence that a hard-working, sociable T14 grad ends up in the continuous stream of low-paying, very undesirable positions that you say happens to 25% of graduates. Quit filling up TLS with misinformation. Make it known that shit sometimes doesn't work out but add the necessary caveats and don't flood the boards with it. When 90% of the replies are very anti-T14 sticker it conveys the wrong message.

User avatar
Nelson
Posts: 2061
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:43 am

Re: UT Austin vs. Michigan

Postby Nelson » Fri Feb 22, 2013 1:49 am

WhatOurBodiesAreFor wrote:I refuse to believe that it is more than a very rare occurrence that a hard-working, sociable T14 grad ends up in the continuous stream of low-paying, very undesirable positions

Do you talk to 2Ls and 3Ls at your school ever? Because I don't know how a current law student could actually believe this.

WhatOurBodiesAreFor
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:23 pm

Re: UT Austin vs. Michigan

Postby WhatOurBodiesAreFor » Fri Feb 22, 2013 1:56 am

Nelson wrote:
WhatOurBodiesAreFor wrote:I refuse to believe that it is more than a very rare occurrence that a hard-working, sociable T14 grad ends up in the continuous stream of low-paying, very undesirable positions

Do you talk to 2Ls and 3Ls at your school ever? Because I don't know how a current law student could actually believe this.


Are you telling me that there is 10% of a T10 class that worked as hard as everyone else, has prior work experience, and is flexible and sociable yet will see a career of unescapable misery?

User avatar
Nelson
Posts: 2061
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:43 am

Re: UT Austin vs. Michigan

Postby Nelson » Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:01 am

WhatOurBodiesAreFor wrote:
Nelson wrote:
WhatOurBodiesAreFor wrote:I refuse to believe that it is more than a very rare occurrence that a hard-working, sociable T14 grad ends up in the continuous stream of low-paying, very undesirable positions

Do you talk to 2Ls and 3Ls at your school ever? Because I don't know how a current law student could actually believe this.


Are you telling me that there is 10% of a T10 class that worked as hard as everyone else, has prior work experience, is flexible, and is sociable, yet will see a career of miserable shitlaw?

10%? Many more than that will fail to get jobs that will make the cost/benefit work for sticker price. Do you really think that people strike out at OCI because they didn't work hard enough and weren't "flexible" (whatever that means)? Please. Everyone at a T14 is "sociable" and has enough work experience to get through an interview. The fact of the matter is that a big chunk of the class at a T14 will have roughly median grades and only a toss up chance at a job that will pay for sticker debt.

Edit: and to add substantive advice for OP, if you want to practice in TX, go to UT. Stay in the market where you want to work and keep your debt a heck of a lot more manageable.

WhatOurBodiesAreFor
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:23 pm

Re: UT Austin vs. Michigan

Postby WhatOurBodiesAreFor » Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:13 am

Nelson wrote:
WhatOurBodiesAreFor wrote:
Nelson wrote:
WhatOurBodiesAreFor wrote:I refuse to believe that it is more than a very rare occurrence that a hard-working, sociable T14 grad ends up in the continuous stream of low-paying, very undesirable positions

Do you talk to 2Ls and 3Ls at your school ever? Because I don't know how a current law student could actually believe this.


Are you telling me that there is 10% of a T10 class that worked as hard as everyone else, has prior work experience, is flexible, and is sociable, yet will see a career of miserable shitlaw?

10%? Much more than that will fail to get jobs that will make the cost/benefit work for sticker price. Do you really think that people strike out at OCI because they didn't work hard enough and weren't "flexible" (whatever that means)? Please. Everyone at a T14 is "sociable" and has enough work experience to get through an interview. The fact of the matter is that a big chunk of the class at a T14 will have roughly median grades and only a toss up chance at a job that will pay for sticker debt.


Answer my first question. Is there 10% of a T10 class that is headed for a terrible career by no fault of their own? Cost/Benefit analysis was not my question. People can live frugally if Biglaw doesn't work.

All kinds of people strike out because they are socially inept and/or have no prior work experience. Also plenty of people are no-offered because they limited their search too much and were too picky (not "flexible").

And you don't go bankrupt if you miss Biglaw. If you did, 40% of lower T14 grads would be bankrupt by your logic. What happens? LRAP; other loan assistance programs; or you live frugally. There is NOT "a toss up chance at a job that will (not sentence you to bankruptcy)"

BigZuck
Posts: 10853
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: UT Austin vs. Michigan

Postby BigZuck » Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:27 am

Don't know what this thread is. Disgustingly flagrant anti-Duke trolling turned into hockey bro avy who likes to argue but then avoids main points and flees the thread and then WTF???

But I will tag because I am interested in this topic and will ultimately make a very similar if not identical choice. Fwiw right now I am on the limiting debt and choosing the slightly lower ranked school/worse big law chance train. Spoke to some t14 alumni working in Texas big law recently and they said go to UT. Their odds at Texas big law were better at their t14 (cut offs were/are lower) but still the lessened debt load should be a huge consideration. BIG DEBT sucks according to them.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: carlos_danger, Google Adsense [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests