jbagelboy wrote:Title is deceptive . You'll graduate debt free, not sticker. Go to the best school you get in to where money is no issue
I think this is a pretty fucked up way of viewing things. Just because one's parents offer to help with their education costs doesn't mean that one should necessarily abuse this resource. If you can save your parents $100k+, why the hell wouldn't you? Chances are that your parents worked pretty damn hard to make that much.
Wealth is highly bracketed at this level. Even wealthy families in America typically struggle with $240,000 in liquid cash, so when parents have expressed their ability to cover such costs, they are often in an income/inheritance bracket where the scholarship savings make negligent difference relative to increase in education/employment opportunities for the student (the same way I don't worry about ordering fondant & espresso once I've already thrown down $250 at chardenous des pres). Elite education is the most prominent 21st century american cultural pedigree - its the only category where the 1% vastly outspends the 5%.
Im not saying you are necessary wrong, but I would ask you to consider the following. Typical middle or working class values, which you so magnanimously espouse, hardly extend to circumstances with families who can "afford to help out with [todays] law school;" of course, there are fringe situations where the family wants to help and can cover it barely with heavy financially burden - in these cases I couldnt agree more the student should do what they can to support themselves independently, which changes the calculus of choice and obviates the "best school" (for employment) doctrine. Most likely, however, these arent the present facts. In higher brackets, the money was often inherited or invested, not "earned," in the Weberian sense you allude to, or if we are discussing working professionals whose salaries are imputed in financing law school, they are happy to spend on superior education -- bourgeois sensitivities and so forth. So its not really a "why the hell wouldnt you save the change," abuse of resources question.
Tangents aside, my only point was that "sticker at UVA" is a deceptive title because it conjures risk and a balancing of specific opportunity costs which are not actually present; it also erroneously suggests that the OP is forced with a comparably difficult choice as the majority of students. And yes, broad strokes, where debt is not a potential consequence people should still be choosing law schools based on their best option for getting a job (with some limited float for meaningful environmental factors).
What school is best for Boston biglaw is a legitimate question either way.