UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

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

Where you you go?

NU @ Sticker (290k)
12
38%
UT with $$ (110k)
20
63%
 
Total votes: 32

User avatar
rickgrimes69
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:56 am

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby rickgrimes69 » Thu Jun 27, 2013 5:20 pm

yackob wrote:USC/UCLA- Didn't apply because I wanted to try living outside of CA.


How has this not been harped on already? That was a deal-breaking mistake right there.

UT with $120k in debt is scary in a vacuum, and a downright awful decision for a kid from CA that doesn't want to work in TX.

NU at sticker is absolutely terrifying. I wouldn't pay $290k for any school ITE.

P.I. isn't happening from either school. Nor is appellate litigation. CA is more likely to happen from NU than UT, but honestly, neither school is great for that market.

Neither of these options is good for your goals, or for the price you're paying. Regardless of whether you retake, I would wait a year, troll hard for USC / UCLA, and pray that they give you a hefty scholarship.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby IAFG » Thu Jun 27, 2013 5:22 pm

rickgrimes69 wrote:
NU at sticker is absolutely terrifying. I wouldn't pay $290k for any school ITE.

I would pay sticker at NU over a lot of alternatives exactly because legal hiring is weak back to normal.

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby sundance95 » Thu Jun 27, 2013 5:22 pm

bk1 wrote:UT just is not on the same level as UVA that your advice is meh, imo.

Both options suck. Not sure which sucks more. NU will give you a better shot at places that won't care about ties (e.g. NYC). UT suffers since you probably would have a rough time gunning for TX and that's its best market. But 300k is a shit ton more than 100k. I'd probably go UT, though the likely credited option is neither.

Appellate litigation is a pipe dream. If you have an in demand science degree then UT for patent is probably not a bad idea.

Fair.

Also +1 on the appellate lit point. I ignored OP on that because many 0Ls want appellate lit without any real conception of what appellate practice is like or what other practice areas they might want. They just know that it's hard to get, and figure it must be what they want on that basis.

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby sundance95 » Thu Jun 27, 2013 5:24 pm

IAFG wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:
NU at sticker is absolutely terrifying. I wouldn't pay $290k for any school ITE.

I would pay sticker at NU over a lot of alternatives exactly because legal hiring is weak back to normal.

Whew. I don't understand this, but everyone's appetite for risk is different. $120K is a lot of debt, but at least it is serviceable with a $60-$70K salary. $300K isn't.

User avatar
rickgrimes69
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:56 am

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby rickgrimes69 » Thu Jun 27, 2013 5:26 pm

IAFG wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:
NU at sticker is absolutely terrifying. I wouldn't pay $290k for any school ITE.

I would pay sticker at NU over a lot of alternatives exactly because legal hiring is weak back to normal.


If by normal you mean pre-2007 levels, no it isn't. This is the new normal.

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

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby bk1 » Thu Jun 27, 2013 5:43 pm

jbagelboy wrote:by this, I'm assuming you mean that it's only a select few attorneys at large firms who work at the appellate level because there's much less $$ in it? Doesn't mean those jobs don't exist. If you do get a job at a V10 (or a major firm like Sidley in Chicago), you can be "that guy", but it helps to 1) clerk first and 2) carve out that niche for yourself early. I know two appellate lit attorneys at large firms, family friends, both clerked AIII and they would help me chart out their path if I was able to clerk too (or work at their firm). It is a real, legit practice area tho, just minuscule and very competitive. correct me if I'm wrong?

I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm not saying that international space bird law doesn't exist either. But the reality is that these jobs are ridiculously rare and competitive and I can say with absolutely certainty that the OP has only an insanely miniscule chance at working in that practice area.

y2zipper
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby y2zipper » Thu Jun 27, 2013 6:46 pm

sundance95 wrote:
IAFG wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:
NU at sticker is absolutely terrifying. I wouldn't pay $290k for any school ITE.

I would pay sticker at NU over a lot of alternatives exactly because legal hiring is weak back to normal.

Whew. I don't understand this, but everyone's appetite for risk is different. $120K is a lot of debt, but at least it is serviceable with a $60-$70K salary. $300K isn't.


Assuming 60-70k out of school is a little high, isn't it? I wouldn't want to pay off that same 120k on a 40k salary or if I didn't become a lawyer at all.

300k is big law or bust, no doubt, but with a low GPA maximizing your big law potential takes priority over location and debt minimization. Of course you could always just don't go, but UT isn't middle ground here because the OP doesn't want and isn't from Texas and it's still over 100k.

I didn't harp too much on the UCLA/USC because that just doesn't happen with a 2.7. Sitting out and reapplying there wouldn't hurt, and trying to live outside CA for a bit is well, absurd as far as reasoning goes.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby IAFG » Thu Jun 27, 2013 6:56 pm

sundance95 wrote:
IAFG wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:
NU at sticker is absolutely terrifying. I wouldn't pay $290k for any school ITE.

I would pay sticker at NU over a lot of alternatives exactly because legal hiring is weak back to normal.

Whew. I don't understand this, but everyone's appetite for risk is different. $120K is a lot of debt, but at least it is serviceable with a $60-$70K salary. $300K isn't.

It's really a personal thing, which is why I find these threads a bit silly.

I would pay sticker at any T13 over what my prelaw job prospects were, knowing what I do now. When I think of the people I know from NU who graduated without a job, even they almost all had pretty good outcomes. I would rather have a good shot at a firm job and the sorts of backup plans NU students end up with (but all the debt) than to have longer odds for biglaw and still a lot of debt. And realistically, after all the interest tolls, even a full ride will leave most people with a lot of debt.

But that's just me.

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby sundance95 » Thu Jun 27, 2013 6:58 pm

y2zipper wrote:
sundance95 wrote:
IAFG wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:
NU at sticker is absolutely terrifying. I wouldn't pay $290k for any school ITE.

I would pay sticker at NU over a lot of alternatives exactly because legal hiring is weak back to normal.

Whew. I don't understand this, but everyone's appetite for risk is different. $120K is a lot of debt, but at least it is serviceable with a $60-$70K salary. $300K isn't.


Assuming 60-70k out of school is a little high, isn't it? I wouldn't want to pay off that same 120k on a 40k salary or if I didn't become a lawyer at all.

/shrug. I really don't think 60 is crazy for right out of school, and certainly not within a few years of graduation. We're talking about Texas, not Thomas Jefferson.

y2zipper wrote:300k is big law or bust, no doubt, but with a low GPA maximizing your big law potential takes priority over location and debt minimization. Of course you could always just don't go, but UT isn't middle ground here because the OP doesn't want and isn't from Texas and it's still over 100k.

This makes no sense to me. When you graduate, your debt owed is your debt owed no matter what your UGPA was.

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

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby bk1 » Thu Jun 27, 2013 7:14 pm

sundance95 wrote:
y2zipper wrote:300k is big law or bust, no doubt, but with a low GPA maximizing your big law potential takes priority over location and debt minimization. Of course you could always just don't go, but UT isn't middle ground here because the OP doesn't want and isn't from Texas and it's still over 100k.

This makes no sense to me. When you graduate, your debt owed is your debt owed no matter what your UGPA was.

I think the logic is that as a splitter the only places you can get a significant scholarship to are SPS (i.e. WUSTL on down) so you were essentially forced to take a T14 at sticker. It's not a crazy argument, it's just no longer true considering now splitter friendly the T18 have become. OP fucked up not applying to USC/UCLA.

User avatar
rickgrimes69
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:56 am

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby rickgrimes69 » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:38 pm

IAFG wrote:
sundance95 wrote:
IAFG wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:
NU at sticker is absolutely terrifying. I wouldn't pay $290k for any school ITE.

I would pay sticker at NU over a lot of alternatives exactly because legal hiring is weak back to normal.

Whew. I don't understand this, but everyone's appetite for risk is different. $120K is a lot of debt, but at least it is serviceable with a $60-$70K salary. $300K isn't.

It's really a personal thing, which is why I find these threads a bit silly.

I would pay sticker at any T13 over what my prelaw job prospects were, knowing what I do now. When I think of the people I know from NU who graduated without a job, even they almost all had pretty good outcomes. I would rather have a good shot at a firm job and the sorts of backup plans NU students end up with (but all the debt) than to have longer odds for biglaw and still a lot of debt. And realistically, after all the interest tolls, even a full ride will leave most people with a lot of debt.

But that's just me.


I'm curious as to how graduating with $290k in debt and no job results in a "good outcome." What is your definition of good?

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby IAFG » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:43 pm

rickgrimes69 wrote:
I'm curious as to how graduating with $290k in debt and no job results in a "good outcome." What is your definition of good?

What do you think happens after grad, that everyone who didn't have a job lined up grabs a solo cup and hits Mich Ave to panhandle?

User avatar
rickgrimes69
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:56 am

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby rickgrimes69 » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:45 pm

IAFG wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:
I'm curious as to how graduating with $290k in debt and no job results in a "good outcome." What is your definition of good?

What do you think happens after grad, that everyone who didn't have a job lined up grabs a solo cup and hits Mich Ave to panhandle?


Answer the question, brosef. How is someone with $290k in debt who missed the biglaw boat supposed to pay back their loans?

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby IAFG » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:51 pm

rickgrimes69 wrote:
IAFG wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:
I'm curious as to how graduating with $290k in debt and no job results in a "good outcome." What is your definition of good?

What do you think happens after grad, that everyone who didn't have a job lined up grabs a solo cup and hits Mich Ave to panhandle?


Answer the question, brosef. How is someone with $290k in debt who missed the biglaw boat supposed to pay back their loans?

LRAP, IBR and PAYE.

People I know who graduated without a job lined up ended up in midlaw, local gov't, working at a company but not as a lawyer, etc.

User avatar
rickgrimes69
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:56 am

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby rickgrimes69 » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:58 pm

IAFG wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:
IAFG wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:
I'm curious as to how graduating with $290k in debt and no job results in a "good outcome." What is your definition of good?

What do you think happens after grad, that everyone who didn't have a job lined up grabs a solo cup and hits Mich Ave to panhandle?


Answer the question, brosef. How is someone with $290k in debt who missed the biglaw boat supposed to pay back their loans?

LRAP, IBR and PAYE.

People I know who graduated without a job lined up ended up in midlaw, local gov't, working at a company but not as a lawyer, etc.


1. Tax bomb
2. I wouldn't consider taking out $290k in debt and signing up for 25 years of middling wages to be a "good outcome."
3. Same for working at a non-lawyer job.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby IAFG » Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:03 pm

rickgrimes69 wrote:
1. Tax bomb
2. I wouldn't consider taking out $290k in debt and signing up for 25 years of middling wages to be a "good outcome."
3. Same for working at a non-lawyer job.

I would rather have a 70% chance at 6 figure firm work/a clerkship and a 30% chance of local gov't + IBR than 30% chance of 6 figs and 70% chance of trying to grab an NU student's back up plan. What am I willing to pay for that? I'd probably be priced out at 400k.

User avatar
rickgrimes69
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:56 am

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby rickgrimes69 » Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:22 pm

IAFG wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:
1. Tax bomb
2. I wouldn't consider taking out $290k in debt and signing up for 25 years of middling wages to be a "good outcome."
3. Same for working at a non-lawyer job.

I would rather have a 70% chance at 6 figure firm work/a clerkship and a 30% chance of local gov't + IBR than 30% chance of 6 figs and 70% chance of trying to grab an NU student's back up plan.


Irrelevant given that NU's placement stats aren't nearly that good. Only 75% got a lawyer job at all, much less one that pays six figures. Only ~55% of last year's grads got a firm job of 100+ or a fed clerkship. Let's also not forget about the ~13.5% un/underemployed. The actual odds of success are far less likely than your portrayal of them.

Edit: Assuming that the same individual is deciding between NU at sticker and a lower ranked quality school with $$$$, gunning for a "back up plan" with a fraction of the debt is likely a substantially better decision. You don't need to make six figures if you go to school for free.

What am I willing to pay for that? I'd probably be priced out at 400k.


That is absolutely ridiculous and makes me think that you don't understand how interest works.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby IAFG » Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:53 pm

rickgrimes69 wrote:
IAFG wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:
1. Tax bomb
2. I wouldn't consider taking out $290k in debt and signing up for 25 years of middling wages to be a "good outcome."
3. Same for working at a non-lawyer job.

I would rather have a 70% chance at 6 figure firm work/a clerkship and a 30% chance of local gov't + IBR than 30% chance of 6 figs and 70% chance of trying to grab an NU student's back up plan.


Irrelevant given that NU's placement stats aren't nearly that good. Only 75% got a lawyer job at all, much less one that pays six figures. Only ~55% of last year's grads got a firm job of 100+ or a fed clerkship. Let's also not forget about the ~13.5% un/underemployed. The actual odds of success are far less likely than your portrayal of them.

Edit: Assuming that the same individual is deciding between NU at sticker and a lower ranked quality school with $$$$, gunning for a "back up plan" with a fraction of the debt is likely a substantially better decision. You don't need to make six figures if you go to school for free.



Looking at the 2012 stats and again considering clerks, I'm about right. 65% of those reporting their salaries were clerking or else making 6 figures. I don't really care about the lawyer job stat; we have a lot of JDMBAs and a few JDs who opt out of law. Not really an indicator of placement power.

That is absolutely ridiculous and makes me think that you don't understand how interest works.


I'd pay $400k for an investment that paid out the average NU attorney's lifetime earning potential, and borrow the money to do it. Nothing "ridiculous" about it.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9653
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby jbagelboy » Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:05 pm

IAFG wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:
IAFG wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:
1. Tax bomb
2. I wouldn't consider taking out $290k in debt and signing up for 25 years of middling wages to be a "good outcome."
3. Same for working at a non-lawyer job.

I would rather have a 70% chance at 6 figure firm work/a clerkship and a 30% chance of local gov't + IBR than 30% chance of 6 figs and 70% chance of trying to grab an NU student's back up plan.


Irrelevant given that NU's placement stats aren't nearly that good. Only 75% got a lawyer job at all, much less one that pays six figures. Only ~55% of last year's grads got a firm job of 100+ or a fed clerkship. Let's also not forget about the ~13.5% un/underemployed. The actual odds of success are far less likely than your portrayal of them.

Edit: Assuming that the same individual is deciding between NU at sticker and a lower ranked quality school with $$$$, gunning for a "back up plan" with a fraction of the debt is likely a substantially better decision. You don't need to make six figures if you go to school for free.



Looking at the 2012 stats and again considering clerks, I'm about right. 65% of those reporting their salaries were clerking or else making 6 figures. I don't really care about the lawyer job stat; we have a lot of JDMBAs and a few JDs who opt out of law. Not really an indicator of placement power.

That is absolutely ridiculous and makes me think that you don't understand how interest works.


I'd pay $400k for an investment that paid out the average NU attorney's lifetime earning potential, and borrow the money to do it. Nothing "ridiculous" about it.


I'm pretty sure rickgrimes point is that if you borrowed $400K federal dollars, that could be over a million by the time you pay it back on a <100K/yr salary. your opportunity cost given the placement numbers, in whatever 5-10% float of range you pick to interpret them, combined with your after tax earning potential and that debt figure, is just higher than what you stand to gain, objectively.

There are always intangibles: if your life is only complete having said you were a sidley attorney in chitown & practicing law itself is worth more money to you than the financial burden, with NU is your only T13 option, then sure you can always justify it

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby IAFG » Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:08 pm

jbagelboy wrote:
I'm pretty sure rickgrimes point is that if you borrowed $400K federal dollars, that could be over a million by the time you pay it back on a <100K/yr salary. your opportunity cost given the placement numbers, in whatever 5-10% float of range you pick to interpret them, combined with your after tax earning potential and that debt figure, is just higher than what you stand to gain, objectively.

There are always intangibles: if your life is only complete having said you were a sidley attorney & practicing law itself is worth more money to you than the financial burden, with NU is your only T13 option, then sure you can always justify it

Well I am relying to some extent on IBR/PAYE. That said, if you keep just a $100k job for all of your working life post-law school, you still come out ahead over loans + interest + opportunity cost for an administrative job.

User avatar
rickgrimes69
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:56 am

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby rickgrimes69 » Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:07 pm

IAFG wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:
IAFG wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:
1. Tax bomb
2. I wouldn't consider taking out $290k in debt and signing up for 25 years of middling wages to be a "good outcome."
3. Same for working at a non-lawyer job.

I would rather have a 70% chance at 6 figure firm work/a clerkship and a 30% chance of local gov't + IBR than 30% chance of 6 figs and 70% chance of trying to grab an NU student's back up plan.


Irrelevant given that NU's placement stats aren't nearly that good. Only 75% got a lawyer job at all, much less one that pays six figures. Only ~55% of last year's grads got a firm job of 100+ or a fed clerkship. Let's also not forget about the ~13.5% un/underemployed. The actual odds of success are far less likely than your portrayal of them.

Edit: Assuming that the same individual is deciding between NU at sticker and a lower ranked quality school with $$$$, gunning for a "back up plan" with a fraction of the debt is likely a substantially better decision. You don't need to make six figures if you go to school for free.



Looking at the 2012 stats and again considering clerks, I'm about right. 65% of those reporting their salaries were clerking or else making 6 figures.


No, it's about 55%, like I said. I don't know how you came up with 65%, or why you're ignoring LST, but since you insist on making me do the math...

All of the figures are taken directly from Northwestern's ABA Employment questionnaire from the link you provided.

127 (501+) + 11 (251 - 500) + 7 (101-250) = 145 students in Biglaw. 145 / 290 295 graduates = 49.8%

19 in Federal Clerkships / 290 295 graduates = 6.5%

49.8% + 6.5% = 56.3%. Like I said, about 55% (I rounded a little before).

I don't really care about the lawyer job stat; we have a lot of JDMBAs and a few JDs who opt out of law. Not really an indicator of placement power.


That is a terrible, awful, no-good, very bad argument, and you know it. People don't "opt-out" of law after sinking three years and $300k into it.

That is absolutely ridiculous and makes me think that you don't understand how interest works.


I'd pay $400k for an investment that paid out the average NU attorney's lifetime earning potential, and borrow the money to do it. Nothing "ridiculous" about it.


Ignoring, for a moment, your implication that NU is somehow undervalued (!), you really, honestly, don't seem to understand how interest works, or the implications of having that much debt. First, go plug in the numbers to the Georgetown debt calculator. $400k of debt at graduation balloons to over one million dollars over 25 years. Even if you get Biglaw and try to pay it off in 10 years, your loan payments will approach $5,800 per month. For ten years. That's absolute insanity. No school is worth that - not HYS, and certainly not NU.

This is why: besides the fact that nobody wants to get locked into a decade of Biglaw, think about what that kind of debt prevents you from doing. Getting married and starting a family? No clue how you plan to do any of that when you're working 70-80 hours a week for ten years, and can't afford a wedding or a kid because over half your paycheck goes straight to loans. Want to buy a house? Good luck finding non-predatory rates with half a mil of non-dischargeable debt dragging down your credit. Saving for a rainy day? What's savings, and what's a rainy day when you live to work and work to live?

$400k isn't just a lot of money to pay back, it's nearly impossible to pay back in a reasonable time frame, even for those students who have "positive" outcomes. And, as noted above, only about half the class even has that opportunity to begin with - the rest will be stuck living paycheck to paycheck for 25 years, praying that the government fixes the Tax Bomb before their comeuppance. I don't know about you, but that sure doesn't sound like a "good" outcome to me.

edit: typos
Last edited by rickgrimes69 on Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:00 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby IAFG » Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:13 pm

rickgrimes69 wrote:
IAFG wrote:
I don't really care about the lawyer job stat; we have a lot of JDMBAs and a few JDs who opt out of law. Not really an indicator of placement power.


That is a terrible, awful, no-good, very bad argument, and you know it. People don't "opt-out" of law after sinking three years and $300k into it.

I am not going to go through numbers tonight, but you're just wrong here, and I think we can take my word as an NU grad who personally watched people turn down firms for business over your insistence that people value sunk costs more than nonlegal opportunities.

User avatar
rickgrimes69
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:56 am

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby rickgrimes69 » Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:26 pm

IAFG wrote:
rickgrimes69 wrote:
IAFG wrote:
I don't really care about the lawyer job stat; we have a lot of JDMBAs and a few JDs who opt out of law. Not really an indicator of placement power.


That is a terrible, awful, no-good, very bad argument, and you know it. People don't "opt-out" of law after sinking three years and $300k into it.

I am not going to go through numbers tonight, but you're just wrong here, and I think we can take my word as an NU grad who personally watched people turn down firms for business over your insistence that people value sunk costs more than nonlegal opportunities.


I'm sure there are a couple people out there who had something awesome and non-legal fall into their lap. Crazier things have happened. But I highly doubt that very many of the 12% of last year's grads that went into "business" are receiving six figure salaries comparable to Biglaw - not many jobs will pay a new grad that kind of cheddar right out the gate. In fact, I'd wager a good portion of them are working at Starbucks. And what I flat out won't believe is that those "opt-out"ers had any amount of significant debt, because with $300k hanging over your head, you're working Biglaw because you have to, not because you want to.

And none of this even addresses the 13.5% who are un/underemployed, the ~10% working in small firms, or the ~10% working in what is likely non-desirable P.I. / Govt / Academia.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby IAFG » Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:37 pm

rickgrimes69 wrote:
I'm sure there are a couple people out there who had something awesome and non-legal fall into their lap. Crazier things have happened. But I highly doubt that very many of the 12% of last year's grads that went into "business" are receiving six figure salaries comparable to Biglaw - not many jobs will pay a new grad that kind of cheddar right out the gate. In fact, I'd wager a good portion of them are working at Starbucks. And what I flat out won't believe is that those "opt-out"ers had any amount of significant debt, because with $300k hanging over your head, you're working Biglaw because you have to, not because you want to.

And none of this even addresses the 13.5% who are un/underemployed, the ~10% working in small firms, or the ~10% working in what is likely non-desirable P.I. / Govt / Academia.

Half our JDMBAs do business, according to D-Rod. So that's a big chunk of that 12%. Remember, they're Kellogg grads. They're not scrounging around for an HR administrator position. It's a class of what, 300 people? So 12% is 36 people. Not exactly a smoking gun when, what, 20 of them are the JDMBAs who are doing business.

I am not saying everyone at NU gets the job of their dreams. For sure, some people are underemployed. I am saying it's a bet I would make over and over again. And I say that because the people I know in my husband's class, and in my own class, when they graduated unemployed or underemployed, still ended up finding things that I would have considered a better outcome than my pre-law prospects.

User avatar
bananasplit19
Posts: 686
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:53 pm

Re: UT $$ vs. NU for aspiring litigator from CA

Postby bananasplit19 » Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:48 pm

We seem to have...wandered off the topic and OP. I think the $400K figure was made parenthetically by IAFG, or at least as not enough of a main point to really devote so many posts to, yeah?

OP, I'm a CA kid about to commit to sticker from NU. I've asked knowledgeable people, I've crunched the numbers myself, and while it's not pretty, it's doable. It certainly doesn't warrant the fire-and-brimstone doomsaying that's rightfully thrown about for full sticker at a non-T13. It's certainly not a fantastic option (what is, really?), but my opinion is, it's viable. Certainly more viable than UT when you don't want to practice in Texas, that's for sure. I vote for NU.

HOWEVER: NU's LRAP isn't so hot compared to peer schools, so you may need to re-align your PI focus if you go to NU, at least for the first few years. You can lateral into PI from BigLaw after eliminating/making a dent in your debt, and ultimately still become a help-people sort of lawyer at the end of the day.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest