How much debt is too much for a regional T1? (Poll) Forum

[hephaestus]

Nice red herring. TLS is not full of elitists who look down on everyone else. However, people here don't want to see others destroy their futures because of bad information and reckless thinking.

I agree. TLS has been invaluable to me in this process and has seriously helped me get real about my expectations and melt any snowflakyness I may have once had. I do have a hard time seeing how someone running 40 K in debt for a JD is that reckless. I think 80% of people on here probably dropped more on an undergrad liberal arts degree with far worse prospects.
I myself majored in History.... great fuckin call there... where was my top history school page when I needed you?

Yeah, I think that 40k for Creighton is perfectly acceptable. The other schools, however, are not worth it on this price.
Unfortunately, the amount of bad data surrounding law school has led many people to make bad financial decisions. Hopefully LST et al. will help to counter that trend.

[Tier2Allstar]

Go hang out a while at an ID or PI firm and you'll see why we call it shitlaw.

::: BLINK:::
k?

[romothesavior]

You're imputing hypocrisy where none exists.

When you are writing and berating people about how not to make bad choices when selecting if/which law school they go to, but you've make a similar bad choice and continue to defend it, yeah, I consider that hypocrisy.

Going to an elite law school with a fair chance of biglaw doesn't change how risk vs reward should be evaluated.

This post is rank idiocy.

[somewhatwayward]

I always love the "Shit Law" looms crap people here throw out. This is exactly the elitist BS people are talking about. Not everybody aspires to Big Law. Even if Creighton doesn't place more than 2% in Big Law they do have higher employment scores and lower underemployment scores (by half) than a school like say... BU.
He posted a poll to ask a question I think its fair to give him your opinion but to just continue to drop the "shit law" bomb like it matters isn't helpful. According to LST about 38.5% of people at a school like BU for example would be lucky to practicing "shit law" right now.

I agree that we should get rid of "shit law looms" unless someone is being a total jerk or something. It makes people too defensive which further entrenches them in their irrational position.

I don't really focus on whether a job is "shit law" or not - it is about whether you have a good chance of getting a job where you can manage your debt. The options for that are 1) big law 2) PSLF/LRAP (if good LRAP) and 3) full-tuition scholarship/savings/family money. The truth about all these schools, except Creighton bc of the full scholarship, is that he will be unlikely to attain a job that pays enough to manage his debt. That is the bottom line.

If you've been around here awhile, you have seen 0Ls drag out the absurd rationalization of 'it's fine for me to go to this expensive T3 in a saturated market (ie, everywhere) because I don't want big law; I just want a nice 60K-80K job.' The whole "not everybody wants big law" thing is such a straw man. If there were a plethora of decent 60K-80K jobs out there, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Whether you want big law or not, you still have to have a plan of how you are going to finance law school. If you cross big law off the list, you are left with PSLF/LRAP and scholarships/savings/family money. (I am not including IBR bc it sucks and no one should be planning on using it; it is a safety net, not something to rely on to make someone feel better about borrowing six figures for a school with bad prospects). Relying on PSLF is risky because there aren't a ton of eligible jobs and they are competitive as people realize that they are the only way out other than big law. That leaves scholarships/savings/family money. That is why people are telling OP to retake/reapply>>>>>>>>>Creighton.

[ArchieHicox]

If you've been around here awhile, you have seen 0Ls drag out the absurd rationalization of 'it's fine for me to go to this expensive T3 in a saturated market (ie, everywhere) because I don't want big law; I just want a nice 60K-80K job.' The whole "not everybody wants big law" thing is such a straw man. If there were a plethora of decent 60K-80K jobs out there, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Whether you want big law or not, you still have to have a plan of how you are going to finance law school. If you cross big law off the list, you are left with PSLF/LRAP and scholarships/savings/family money. (I am not including IBR bc it sucks and no one should be planning on using it; it is a safety net, not something to rely on to make someone feel better about borrowing six figures for a school with bad prospects). Relying on PSLF is risky because there aren't a ton of eligible jobs and they are competitive as people realize that they are the only way out other than big law. That leaves scholarships/savings/family money. That is why people are telling OP to retake/reapply>>>>>>>>>Creighton.

This is what has bothered me with this entire thread. People are continually equating schools like SMU, UGA, and Tulane as Tier Three Trash. There are hundreds of school's worse than the previously mentioned three, and none of those schools would be at full tuition. In the case of Tulane, its with an almost 3/4 scholarship.

Arguments lose validity when you are throwing out just extreme exaggerations. In what world is SMU equal to Ava Marie/Cooley/Charlotte? SMU has a 25% BigLaw/Federal Clerkship rate. UGA is in the similar range.

[BmoreOrLess]

Arguments lose validity when you are throwing out just extreme exaggerations. In what world is SMU equal to Ava Marie/Cooley/Charlotte? SMU has a 25% BigLaw/Federal Clerkship rate. UGA is in the similar range.

Go to UGA's ASW and talk to current students that are outside of the top 15% or so. UGA was my #1 choice originally and what non-law review students had to say about hiring out of there was exactly why I chose not to shell out $100k to go to UGA.

[romothesavior]

100k+ is on the high end of what I would spend for UGA or Tulane without strong ties, but it's not outrageous or anything. I still think retake or Creighton is TCR but if you really want to bail on Omaha then knock yourself out. Just know you're going to have a heck of an uphill battle.

[Tier2Allstar]

What was your stipulation at Creighton? Mine was Top 40%.

[ArchieHicox]

What was your stipulation at Creighton? Mine was Top 40%.

Good Standing which according to the admissions people is a 2.0 GPA

[Tier2Allstar]

What was your stipulation at Creighton? Mine was Top 40%.

Good Standing which according to the admissions people is a 2.0 GPA

Bastards!

[Tom Joad]

I am from Nebraska and I want to go back there, so I pay attention to this stuff.

Given equal costs, I think I would take Creighton over UNL. Gives a lot of access to Omaha and it is reflected in Omaha hiring. That being said, at the best firms all the Creighton/UNL alums were on law review, so you have to rock out if you want the best outcome. And I think UNL places better outside of Omaha. So I look at it as more chance for a big success at Creighton, and better chances for a ok outcome at UNL.

I would probably avoid those other places besides Creighton since you have a good scholly there and lots of them are far away and people will look at you like an outsider weirdo.

[ArchieHicox]

I am from Nebraska and I want to go back there, so I pay attention to this stuff.

Given equal costs, I think I would take Creighton over UNL. Gives a lot of access to Omaha and it is reflected in Omaha hiring. That being said, at the best firms all the Creighton/UNL alums were on law review, so you have to rock out if you want the best outcome. And I think UNL places better outside of Omaha. So I look at it as more chance for a big success at Creighton, and better chances for a ok outcome at UNL.

I would probably avoid those other places besides Creighton since you have a good scholly there and lots of them are far away and people will look at you like an outsider weirdo.

I'm definitely thinking everything over and looking at all the choices. Creighton's scholarship is beyond generous, and it would position me well to have a lot of flexibility that I wouldn't have elsewhere. The thing is I cannot afford to be anything outside of the top of my class at Creighton. Probably the same elsewhere, but its even more important here.

Everyone I've talked to in Omaha seems to see Creighton/Nebraska as equals, and I know if I stay in Nebraska I want to be in Omaha. If I had to say now, I'm definitely leaning towards Creighton but I want to go visit the other choices before committing.

[Mick Haller]

Why isn't retake an option?

[somewhatwayward]

If you've been around here awhile, you have seen 0Ls drag out the absurd rationalization of 'it's fine for me to go to this expensive T3 in a saturated market (ie, everywhere) because I don't want big law; I just want a nice 60K-80K job.' The whole "not everybody wants big law" thing is such a straw man. If there were a plethora of decent 60K-80K jobs out there, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Whether you want big law or not, you still have to have a plan of how you are going to finance law school. If you cross big law off the list, you are left with PSLF/LRAP and scholarships/savings/family money. (I am not including IBR bc it sucks and no one should be planning on using it; it is a safety net, not something to rely on to make someone feel better about borrowing six figures for a school with bad prospects). Relying on PSLF is risky because there aren't a ton of eligible jobs and they are competitive as people realize that they are the only way out other than big law. That leaves scholarships/savings/family money. That is why people are telling OP to retake/reapply>>>>>>>>>Creighton.

This is what has bothered me with this entire thread. People are continually equating schools like SMU, UGA, and Tulane as Tier Three Trash. There are hundreds of school's worse than the previously mentioned three, and none of those schools would be at full tuition. In the case of Tulane, its with an almost 3/4 scholarship.

Arguments lose validity when you are throwing out just extreme exaggerations. In what world is SMU equal to Ava Marie/Cooley/Charlotte? SMU has a 25% BigLaw/Federal Clerkship rate. UGA is in the similar range.

You're taking what I said out of context. I was responding to someone else who was playing the "not everybody wants big law" card and the reference to "T3" in my rendition of it was hyperbole. Other than that one reference to T3, though, everything in that paragraph you quoted applies to every single law student, from Yale to Cooley: you have to have a plan for how you are going to pay for it, and there are basically three reasonable options as I described. Further, the lack of 60K-80K jobs applies to everyone as well. There just aren't that many, period. It is kind of a moot point because you couldn't service 100K+interest in debt on 60K-80K anyway.

You are right that SMU and UGA are noticeably better than Ave Maria or Cooley...better chance of prestigious employment and better chance of employment, period. But that doesn't really matter if at the end of the day the average graduate cannot obtain a job with a salary that repays his/her debt. The average grad at UGA or SMU is definitely in a better place than the average Ave Maria grad because s/he probably actually has a lawyer job, but it is likely that it pays in the $40K-60K range, which falls way short of what is needed to finance the debt you are planning to take. That is why Creighton is better, IMO, although not a great choice. You increase your chances of failing to get a legal job, and if you do it will likely be in that 40K-60K range, but you can manage 40K in debt on that. If you don't get a legal job, you can probably find another professional job in the 40K range.

In making your decision, it doesn't make sense to focus on the 25% who get big law and clerkships from UGA. You need to be looking at the worst case scenario or, at least, as I did above, the middle-of-the-road scenario. If your don't like the idea of giving up on big law and clerkships, you should sit out and retake for better schools.

[bk1]

I do have a hard time seeing how someone running 40 K in debt for a JD is that reckless. I think 80% of people on here probably dropped more on an undergrad liberal arts degree with far worse prospects.
I myself majored in History.... great fuckin call there... where was my top history school page when I needed you?

And it was a poor decision then. Just because many people made the mistake of paying a lot of money for a BA in a useless major does not mean that a JD for that amount of money all of a sudden becomes reasonable. Also, just because people have made poor school decisions (rad fully admits that he likely would not have gone to law school at all) does not mean that they cannot render good advice.

[Redfactor]

I do have a hard time seeing how someone running 40 K in debt for a JD is that reckless. I think 80% of people on here probably dropped more on an undergrad liberal arts degree with far worse prospects.
I myself majored in History.... great fuckin call there... where was my top history school page when I needed you?

And it was a poor decision then. Just because many people made the mistake of paying a lot of money for a BA in a useless major does not mean that a JD for that amount of money all of a sudden becomes reasonable. Also, just because people have made poor school decisions (rad fully admits that he likely would not have gone to law school at all) does not mean that they cannot render good advice.

Things being poor fiscal choices doesn't mean they are unreasonable. People buy new cars all the time. But that's not unreasonable. It only becomes unreasonable when you don't have means to pay off the debt.

40-60k can be paid off by most professional, non-law jobs. So while it may not be a fiscally sound decision, it is in no way unreasonable or of excessive risk. The likelihood that someone like OP going default on loans or requiring gov't student loan bailout programs on 40k-60k student loan debt is very low. OP would not be overextending himself/herself to debt.

OP may regret the decision, but shouldn't have to ask the government for help in making payments/changing the terms of the loan he/she signed.

[rad lulz]

,

[Tier2Allstar]

I do have a hard time seeing how someone running 40 K in debt for a JD is that reckless. I think 80% of people on here probably dropped more on an undergrad liberal arts degree with far worse prospects.
I myself majored in History.... great fuckin call there... where was my top history school page when I needed you?

And it was a poor decision then. Just because many people made the mistake of paying a lot of money for a BA in a useless major does not mean that a JD for that amount of money all of a sudden becomes reasonable. Also, just because people have made poor school decisions (rad fully admits that he likely would not have gone to law school at all) does not mean that they cannot render good advice.

It does not mean that it all of a sudden becomes unreasonable either

[Redfactor]

Things being poor fiscal choices doesn't mean they are unreasonable. People buy new cars all the time. But that's not unreasonable. It only becomes unreasonable when you don't have means to pay off the debt.

40-60k can be paid off by most professional, non-law jobs. So while it may not be a fiscally sound decision, it is in no way unreasonable or of excessive risk. The likelihood that someone like OP going default on loans or requiring gov't student loan bailout programs on 40k-60k student loan debt is very low. OP would not be overextending himself/herself to debt.

OP may regret the decision, but shouldn't have to ask the government for help in making payments/changing the terms of the loan he/she signed.

LOL just LOL if you think buying a new car on credit is even remotely analogous to taking out loans for a law degree

I'll let you cogitate for a bit on why that analogy is sublimely inapposite

It doesn't have to be a car, it can be any purchase that isn't needed and gives no promise of financial benefit. Car, boat, expensive clothes, fancy watch. I don't care.

I think you and I differ on things though. I feel that you're pretty hard lined about what makes sense. Fiscal decisions should be thought out and the smart play should be the one that wins. That's great advice. I am not knocking it.

I just believe that people should be able to do what they want with their money and time as long as they have the capability and willingness to absorb the negative reprocussions of their choices. If someone wants to live like a college student for the rest of their life because they went to a fancy school for law but can't find a high paying job, I don't care as long as they knew that was a possible outcome. I am all about personal responsibility.

It's when people default on loans or want to get on a program because they can't afford the terms of the loan THAT THEY SIGNED is when I have an issue with them going to x school for x price.

I just feel that, especially when people are talking about moderate student loan debt (40-60k), this forums tends to have a "the sky is falling" mentality because it doesn't make fiscal sense.

[Grond]

OP: you appear to dislike having conversations with soulless assholes (that use strange, off-putting jargon instead of speaking like normal people). I have some bad news for you about law school and the legal profession.

[bk1]

I do have a hard time seeing how someone running 40 K in debt for a JD is that reckless. I think 80% of people on here probably dropped more on an undergrad liberal arts degree with far worse prospects.
I myself majored in History.... great fuckin call there... where was my top history school page when I needed you?

And it was a poor decision then. Just because many people made the mistake of paying a lot of money for a BA in a useless major does not mean that a JD for that amount of money all of a sudden becomes reasonable. Also, just because people have made poor school decisions (rad fully admits that he likely would not have gone to law school at all) does not mean that they cannot render good advice.

It does not mean that it all of a sudden becomes unreasonable either

True, but nobody saying that it was unreasonable was comparing it to the price of a BA. The only person who did that was you who seems to have a more liberal view of what is constitutes a good financial choice for law school.

[bk1]

OP: you appear to dislike having conversations with soulless assholes (that use strange, off-putting jargon instead of speaking like normal people). I have some bad news for you about law school and the legal profession.