ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
Bikeflip
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Bikeflip » Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:16 pm

Paul Campos wrote:I've made this suggestion a couple of times before and will make it again, as it seems especially germane to this excellent conversation:

Discussions of this type need to take into account as explicitly as possible the likely opportunity cost which will be incurred by the prospective law student. I get emails on a regular basis from people who are making $60K or more in stable jobs featuring good benefits, who are thinking about going to law school. Such people are in a radically different position than people with non-marketable undergrad degrees, working ten dollar an hour retail jobs with no benefits and zero job security.

This is an obvious point, but it's not one of the pieces of information people are asked to provide by the message stickied at the top of the forum.



Needs to be read again by all.

User avatar
Dr. Review
Posts: 1797
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:51 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Dr. Review » Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:33 pm

Bikeflip wrote:
Paul Campos wrote:I've made this suggestion a couple of times before and will make it again, as it seems especially germane to this excellent conversation:

Discussions of this type need to take into account as explicitly as possible the likely opportunity cost which will be incurred by the prospective law student. I get emails on a regular basis from people who are making $60K or more in stable jobs featuring good benefits, who are thinking about going to law school. Such people are in a radically different position than people with non-marketable undergrad degrees, working ten dollar an hour retail jobs with no benefits and zero job security.

This is an obvious point, but it's not one of the pieces of information people are asked to provide by the message stickied at the top of the forum.



Needs to be read again by all.

Now in OP

User avatar
RobertGolddust
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:09 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby RobertGolddust » Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:50 pm

And if you miss biglaw you're more likely to start at $45-50K?


I thought lawyers working in private firms made around 70k with bonuses? Why would anyone go to law school to make 50k, that seems pretty ridiculous. To be honest, I wouldn't want to practice law for that pay.

Ideally $60,000-$70,000 in loans


I'm looking at 15k a year MAX with instate tuition. so really about 45k in debt, which I think my dad will pay off eventually.

User avatar
Dr. Review
Posts: 1797
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:51 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Dr. Review » Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:53 pm

RobertGolddust wrote:
And if you miss biglaw you're more likely to start at $45-50K?


I thought lawyers working in private firms made around 70k with bonuses? Why would anyone go to law school to make 50k, that seems pretty ridiculous. To be honest, I wouldn't want to practice law for that pay.


http://www.nalp.org/salarydistrib

User avatar
deadpanic
Posts: 1169
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 5:09 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby deadpanic » Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:54 pm

Can we add American and Catholic to Do Not Attend, Even If Free category?

Pretty much the DC version of Cardozo/Brooklyn/NYLS.

timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby timbs4339 » Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:55 pm

http://www.nalp.org/salarydistrib
http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/21/new-la ... 1-to-2011/

Remember to adjust for COL in the area (so a lawyer at a small firm in NYC is going to be making more than in Arizona). Mean is not the number you need to look at given that a small percentage make outsized salaries in biglaw.

Reminder: That curve DOES NOT include people who are unemployed or people working part-time or temp jobs, which is a large category of JDs.

RobertGolddust wrote:I thought lawyers working in private firms made around 70k with bonuses? Why would anyone go to law school to make 50k, that seems pretty ridiculous. To be honest, I wouldn't want to practice law for that pay.


Because they assume that lawyers all make 70-100K with bonuses, and the law schools do nothing to dissuade them from thinking that, and the anonymous people online who tell them otherwise are all just bitter losers who failed at life.
Last edited by timbs4339 on Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:58 pm, edited 3 times in total.

californiauser
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 1:10 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby californiauser » Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:55 pm

deadpanic wrote:Can we add American and Catholic to Do Not Attend, Even If Free category?

Pretty much the DC version of Cardozo/Brooklyn/NYLS.


and USF, Santa, Clara and Hastings?

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

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby rad lulz » Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:56 pm

m
Last edited by rad lulz on Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
RobertGolddust
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:09 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby RobertGolddust » Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:57 pm

Because they assume that lawyers all make 70K with bonuses, and the law schools do nothing to dissuade them from thinking that, and the anonymous people online who tell them otherwise are all just bitter losers who failed at life.


Pretty much what I was thinking. But still, 50 k. Why not become a teacher or something?

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

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby rad lulz » Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:58 pm

californiauser wrote:
deadpanic wrote:Can we add American and Catholic to Do Not Attend, Even If Free category?

Pretty much the DC version of Cardozo/Brooklyn/NYLS.


and USF, Santa, Clara and Hastings?

Yeah I wouldn't attend any of those

Uc Hastings is a trap skool

User avatar
RobertGolddust
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:09 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby RobertGolddust » Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:58 pm

http://www.nalp.org/salarydistrib


Does this include bonus? If not, what's a typical bonus look like for a first year professional at a small firm?

User avatar
Dr. Review
Posts: 1797
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:51 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Dr. Review » Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:58 pm

rad lulz wrote:
deadpanic wrote:Can we add American and Catholic to Do Not Attend, Even If Free category?

Pretty much the DC version of Cardozo/Brooklyn/NYLS.

American is one of the worst law schools in America

Done.

User avatar
prezidentv8
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby prezidentv8 » Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:59 pm

rad lulz wrote:
californiauser wrote:
deadpanic wrote:Can we add American and Catholic to Do Not Attend, Even If Free category?

Pretty much the DC version of Cardozo/Brooklyn/NYLS.


and USF, Santa, Clara and Hastings?

Yeah I wouldn't attend any of those

Uc Hastings is a trap skool


DAT FORMER PRESTIGE

timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby timbs4339 » Tue Jan 28, 2014 7:00 pm

RobertGolddust wrote:
Because they assume that lawyers all make 70K with bonuses, and the law schools do nothing to dissuade them from thinking that, and the anonymous people online who tell them otherwise are all just bitter losers who failed at life.


Pretty much what I was thinking. But still, 50 k. Why not become a teacher or something?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias

There aren't many TV shows about flashy, rich teachers with perfect teeth.

User avatar
Dr. Review
Posts: 1797
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:51 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Dr. Review » Tue Jan 28, 2014 7:01 pm

californiauser wrote:
deadpanic wrote:Can we add American and Catholic to Do Not Attend, Even If Free category?

Pretty much the DC version of Cardozo/Brooklyn/NYLS.


and USF, Santa, Clara and Hastings?

Adding Santa Clara and Hastings because they might trap some uninformed 0Ls. I don't know that I even want to dignify USF with a spot on the list.

User avatar
Bikeflip
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby Bikeflip » Tue Jan 28, 2014 7:03 pm

timbs4339 wrote:
RobertGolddust wrote:I thought lawyers working in private firms made around 70k with bonuses? Why would anyone go to law school to make 50k, that seems pretty ridiculous. To be honest, I wouldn't want to practice law for that pay.


Because they assume that lawyers all make 70K with bonuses, and the law schools do nothing to dissuade them from thinking that, and the anonymous people online who tell them otherwise are all just bitter losers who failed at life.



Law schools loved the fact the people assumed attorneys would at least start at $70K. At $70K, you can repay your loans! Your salary will go up! So spend $100K on your education to come to law school! Even our professors drive BMWs, so of course you will!

Then things like lawschooltransparency.com came around and shed even more light on NALP's bimodal salary. As word that many new (would-be) lawyers are hurting financially spreads, LSATs and law school enrollment are both declining.
Last edited by Bikeflip on Tue Jan 28, 2014 7:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3402
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby ManoftheHour » Tue Jan 28, 2014 7:05 pm

rad lulz wrote:
californiauser wrote:
deadpanic wrote:Can we add American and Catholic to Do Not Attend, Even If Free category?

Pretty much the DC version of Cardozo/Brooklyn/NYLS.


and USF, Santa, Clara and Hastings?

Yeah I wouldn't attend any of those

Uc Hastings is a trap skool


That shiTTTThole waitlisted me. :(

timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby timbs4339 » Tue Jan 28, 2014 7:09 pm

Bikeflip wrote:
timbs4339 wrote:
RobertGolddust wrote:I thought lawyers working in private firms made around 70k with bonuses? Why would anyone go to law school to make 50k, that seems pretty ridiculous. To be honest, I wouldn't want to practice law for that pay.


Because they assume that lawyers all make 70K with bonuses, and the law schools do nothing to dissuade them from thinking that, and the anonymous people online who tell them otherwise are all just bitter losers who failed at life.



Law schools loved the fact the people assumed attorneys would at least start at $70K. At $70K, you can repay your loans! Your salary will go up! So spend $100K on your education to come to law school! Even our professors drive BMWs, so of course you will!

Then things like lawschooltransparency.com came around and shed even more light on NALP's bimodal salary. As word that many new (would-be) lawyers are hurting financially spreads, LSATs and law school enrollment are both declining.


I don't think this has really changed that much. Thanks to the wonderful regulatory capture of the ABA SLE, they are able to hide salary data from their own statistics, so people can fill in the blank. And fill in the blank is (as demonstrated ITT) much higher than the true data.

fatheranderson15
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:08 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby fatheranderson15 » Tue Jan 28, 2014 7:09 pm

So where would you guys put UCLA/USC? Reasonable alternative at 50%, or only good for free/near free?

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

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby rad lulz » Tue Jan 28, 2014 7:12 pm

fatheranderson15 wrote:So where would you guys put UCLA/USC? Reasonable alternative at 50%, or only good for free/near free?

More

You need almost a full tuition scholarship if you're takin out debt for CoL

C0NFUSED0L
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 7:22 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby C0NFUSED0L » Tue Jan 28, 2014 7:35 pm

I'm relatively new to the site, but it has been extremely informative and interesting for the few weeks I have been lurking.

Wanted to get thoughts on my current situation.

(I know if I had posted this a few months ago, I would be seeing a ton of "RETAKE" advice, but here goes.)

166 LSAT, 4.0X GPA

GOALS: honestly unsure, but the biglaw lifestyle doesn't sound overly appealing. Willing to find any place that fits for me.

REGIONAL TIES: live and work in NYC, minor connections, but nothing serious. Currently working for a lawyer, but the operation is small and I do not know exactly how helpful this may be down the road (for networking purposes).

SCHOOLS: into Cardozo on full scholarship, Fordham on half (both guaranteed I THINK), also admitted to UCLA, GW, and BU with no scholly's.

waiting to hear back from T14's including MVP/CCN (not so hopeful for any, but an upcoming interview with Chicago can't hurt, right?)

Parents are by no means rich, but they seem to be willing to cover my rent within reason (i would guess about 800/mo, but that doesn't go all that far in NYC)



Hope I can get some good responses. Regardless, this site has been eye opening and I find you guys to be thoughtful and entertaining, so keep up the good work. TIA.

timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby timbs4339 » Tue Jan 28, 2014 7:37 pm

C0NFUSED0L wrote:I'm relatively new to the site, but it has been extremely informative and interesting for the few weeks I have been lurking.

Wanted to get thoughts on my current situation.

(I know if I had posted this a few months ago, I would be seeing a ton of "RETAKE" advice, but here goes.)

166 LSAT, 4.0X GPA

GOALS: honestly unsure, but the biglaw lifestyle doesn't sound overly appealing. Willing to find any place that fits for me.

REGIONAL TIES: live and work in NYC, minor connections, but nothing serious. Currently working for a lawyer, but the operation is small and I do not know exactly how helpful this may be down the road (for networking purposes).

SCHOOLS: into Cardozo on full scholarship, Fordham on half (both guaranteed I THINK), also admitted to UCLA, GW, and BU with no scholly's.

waiting to hear back from T14's including MVP/CCN (not so hopeful for any, but an upcoming interview with Chicago can't hurt, right?)

Parents are by no means rich, but they seem to be willing to cover my rent within reason (i would guess about 800/mo, but that doesn't go all that far in NYC)



Hope I can get some good responses. Regardless, this site has been eye opening and I find you guys to be thoughtful and entertaining, so keep up the good work. TIA.


Umm. Retake. Yea. Retake. Even if you don't want biglaw, HYS can open up a lot of doors that Fordham won't. You can also get all kinds of money at the T14.

You're not going to get a different response.

Edited a second time: Retake.
Last edited by timbs4339 on Tue Jan 28, 2014 7:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
prezidentv8
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby prezidentv8 » Tue Jan 28, 2014 7:38 pm

C0NFUSED0L wrote:SCHOOLS: into Cardozo on full scholarship, Fordham on half (both guaranteed I THINK), also admitted to UCLA, GW, and BU with no scholly's.

waiting to hear back from T14's including MVP/CCN (not so hopeful for any, but an upcoming interview with Chicago can't hurt, right?)


Cardozo - if you must
Fordham - no
UCLA - no
GW - IT'S A TRAP
BU - no

User avatar
presh
Posts: 8007
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:00 am

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby presh » Tue Jan 28, 2014 7:39 pm

@CONFUSED0L

You're going to have way too much debt out of all of those schools for it to be worth it. Your best bets now are:

1) Retake - I know you don't want to hear it, but you are only about 4 points away from much, much better options.

2) Go to a good regional school with a full scholarship if you have ties to anywhere that is not NY and you are in fact willing to live and work there long term.

C0NFUSED0L
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 7:22 pm

Re: ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

Postby C0NFUSED0L » Tue Jan 28, 2014 7:44 pm

Timb: I don't plan on re-taking.

I appreciate the advice, but within the context of what I already have, what do you think?

Prez: My thoughts are, if I go to Cardozo on a full scholarship, and my rent is covered, it seems like my COA would be at or less than 10K/year.

I know Cardozo is not well respected on this site, but for someone like me, who doesn't have biglaw in my dreams, it feels like a relatively safe bet. If i'm not top 20 percent, I wont be spending my life paying off a quarter million dollars. If I do very well, then I will hopefully be set up for a good job with minimal debt.

Is my thought process at least correct?

PS- why is fordham a straight up no? just curious.....

also, I have no plans of going to GW for sticker, but what makes it more of a trap than BU?




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests