ITT: Practicing attorneys tell you your top choice is bad

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
Nomo
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:06 am

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

Postby Nomo » Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:19 pm

Otunga wrote:Are Virginia and Cornell more or less peers for Boston biglaw placement? I tend to be primarily focused on obtaining Boston biglaw with ambivalence towards NYC. If given comparable COA at each school, is there reason to give an edge to either?


Boston biglaw is small and hard to get. I wouldn't base a decision on the likelihood that you'll be able to get to Boston. Concentrate on which school can get you NY biglaw and try to lateral to Boston after 3-5 years.

Nomo
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:06 am

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

Postby Nomo » Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:21 pm

krsone wrote:Goal(s): PI or Criminal (DA's office or public defender's) in Texas.

Regional Ties: Experience and references with a national org related to criminal law that has connections throughout country and TX, but personally I have none to TX beyond my wife.

School(s):
Houston - near full scholarship
SMU - little over half
UCLA- Sticker
UNC- half
Washington & Lee- half

Other pertinent information: I am coming from outside of TX and am not from TX. No loans, good amount of money saved up so if I were to take Houston, living expenses are covered. Other schools wouldn't hurt, but I'd like to minimize debt given my humble aspirations. I might prefer Houston over Dallas as a place to live and given the cost of living differences. Tell me what I already suspect.


Go to Houston.

User avatar
Otunga
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:56 pm

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

Postby Otunga » Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:31 pm

Nomo wrote:
Otunga wrote:Are Virginia and Cornell more or less peers for Boston biglaw placement? I tend to be primarily focused on obtaining Boston biglaw with ambivalence towards NYC. If given comparable COA at each school, is there reason to give an edge to either?


Boston biglaw is small and hard to get. I wouldn't base a decision on the likelihood that you'll be able to get to Boston. Concentrate on which school can get you NY biglaw and try to lateral to Boston after 3-5 years.


Thing is that my ambivalence towards NYC changes to "fuck working in NYC" at times. If I had to order aspirations, I'd so as in the following: Boston biglaw > New England non-shitlaw > NYC biglaw. (from an area 50 mins outside of Boston)

Nomo
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:06 am

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

Postby Nomo » Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:31 pm

Otunga wrote:
Nomo wrote:
Otunga wrote:Are Virginia and Cornell more or less peers for Boston biglaw placement? I tend to be primarily focused on obtaining Boston biglaw with ambivalence towards NYC. If given comparable COA at each school, is there reason to give an edge to either?


Boston biglaw is small and hard to get. I wouldn't base a decision on the likelihood that you'll be able to get to Boston. Concentrate on which school can get you NY biglaw and try to lateral to Boston after 3-5 years.


Thing is that my ambivalence towards NYC changes to "fuck working in NYC" at times. If I had to order aspirations, I'd so as in the following: Boston biglaw > New England non-shitlaw > NYC biglaw. (from an area 50 mins outside of Boston)


Depending on your definition of shitlaw there might not be much in between biglaw and shitlaw. There are a few firms that pay 120, 135, etc. and hardly any that pay between 70-100k. Most people coming out of school who don't get biglaw end up in firms of less than 10 attorneys making 50 or 60k. How many midlaw Boston firms can you find on NALP? How many hired new attorneys last year and how many did they hire? I don't know what you'll find; but I do know the top 10% at BU and BC are going to gun hard for those jobs. And I know you won't be the only T14 student who would take 100k in Boston over 160k in NY, not by a long shot.

User avatar
Otunga
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:56 pm

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

Postby Otunga » Mon Mar 17, 2014 6:23 pm

Nomo wrote:Depending on your definition of shitlaw there might not be much in between biglaw and shitlaw. There are a few firms that pay 120, 135, etc. and hardly any that pay between 70-100k. Most people coming out of school who don't get biglaw end up in firms of less than 10 attorneys making 50 or 60k. How many midlaw Boston firms can you find on NALP? How many hired new attorneys last year and how many did they hire? I don't know what you'll find; but I do know the top 10% at BU and BC are going to gun hard for those jobs. And I know you won't be the only T14 student who would take 100k in Boston over 160k in NY, not by a long shot.


Good advice. PI was to be included in the non-shitlaw, but it's not like that adds a lot of jobs since that's arguably more competitive than biglaw depending on the field.

I read Con Law recently and it paints a shitty picture of....shitlaw, so yes, I tend to agree with your implicit point that NYC biglaw shouldn't be arbitrarily rejected if the opportunity is there.

throwaway1901
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:34 pm

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

Postby throwaway1901 » Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:27 pm

Goal(s): Clerkship--> PI or Plaintiff Side work
Regional Ties: All ties in SoCal
School(s):
NYU - $220k COA
UCLA - $160k COA
USC - $170k COA
UCI - $50k COA (can live with relatives)

Other pertinent information: $15k in undergrad loans

Nomo
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:06 am

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

Postby Nomo » Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:41 pm

throwaway1901 wrote:Goal(s): Clerkship--> PI or Plaintiff Side work
Regional Ties: All ties in SoCal
School(s):
NYU - $220k COA
UCLA - $160k COA
USC - $170k COA
UCI - $50k COA (can live with relatives)

Other pertinent information: $15k in undergrad loans


It sounds like you don't really want a clerkship so much as you want a clerkship to open up opportunities at fancy PI orgs or fancy Plaintiff side firms.

The problem is there are very few fancy plaintiff firms that hire new grads or even grads out of clerkships. Its an unlikely goal from any of these schools, even with a federal clerkship. A firm with less than 10 attorneys doing personal injury type plaintiffs work is realistic from any of these schools.

Biglaw is the only way to pay your debts in less than 20 years from UCLA and USC; biglaw may be the only way to ever pay your debts from NYU without some sort of IBR option (and you can't bank on that these days).

throwaway1901
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:34 pm

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

Postby throwaway1901 » Mon Mar 17, 2014 10:04 pm

Nomo wrote:
throwaway1901 wrote:Goal(s): Clerkship--> PI or Plaintiff Side work
Regional Ties: All ties in SoCal
School(s):
NYU - $220k COA
UCLA - $160k COA
USC - $170k COA
UCI - $50k COA (can live with relatives)

Other pertinent information: $15k in undergrad loans


It sounds like you don't really want a clerkship so much as you want a clerkship to open up opportunities at fancy PI orgs or fancy Plaintiff side firms.

The problem is there are very few fancy plaintiff firms that hire new grads or even grads out of clerkships. Its an unlikely goal from any of these schools, even with a federal clerkship. A firm with less than 10 attorneys doing personal injury type plaintiffs work is realistic from any of these schools.

Biglaw is the only way to pay your debts in less than 20 years from UCLA and USC; biglaw may be the only way to ever pay your debts from NYU without some sort of IBR option (and you can't bank on that these days).

Not fancy, but I do expect the clerkship to open at least a few more doors for me if I manage to snag one. FWIW, I am also interested in working for the government, either state or federal. I don't know if that changes anything.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

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

Postby JCougar » Tue Mar 18, 2014 2:21 am

Nomo wrote:
throwaway1901 wrote:Goal(s): Clerkship--> PI or Plaintiff Side work
Regional Ties: All ties in SoCal
School(s):
NYU - $220k COA
UCLA - $160k COA
USC - $170k COA
UCI - $50k COA (can live with relatives)

Other pertinent information: $15k in undergrad loans


It sounds like you don't really want a clerkship so much as you want a clerkship to open up opportunities at fancy PI orgs or fancy Plaintiff side firms.

The problem is there are very few fancy plaintiff firms that hire new grads or even grads out of clerkships. Its an unlikely goal from any of these schools, even with a federal clerkship. A firm with less than 10 attorneys doing personal injury type plaintiffs work is realistic from any of these schools.

Biglaw is the only way to pay your debts in less than 20 years from UCLA and USC; biglaw may be the only way to ever pay your debts from NYU without some sort of IBR option (and you can't bank on that these days).


For what you want to do, it sounds like NYU is your only option. But for PI, you should plan on working at least two years in volunteer/low-pay/school-funded fellowships. Good plaintiff firms very rarely hire straight out of law school. The question is whether you'll be comfortable accruing interest for two years (at over $1000/month) with your NYU loans while they are most likely in forbearance. You should probably budget another $30,000 of interest on top of your estimates because of that.

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 Mar 18, 2014 2:32 am

JCougar wrote:
Nomo wrote:
throwaway1901 wrote:Goal(s): Clerkship--> PI or Plaintiff Side work
Regional Ties: All ties in SoCal
School(s):
NYU - $220k COA
UCLA - $160k COA
USC - $170k COA
UCI - $50k COA (can live with relatives)

Other pertinent information: $15k in undergrad loans


It sounds like you don't really want a clerkship so much as you want a clerkship to open up opportunities at fancy PI orgs or fancy Plaintiff side firms.

The problem is there are very few fancy plaintiff firms that hire new grads or even grads out of clerkships. Its an unlikely goal from any of these schools, even with a federal clerkship. A firm with less than 10 attorneys doing personal injury type plaintiffs work is realistic from any of these schools.

Biglaw is the only way to pay your debts in less than 20 years from UCLA and USC; biglaw may be the only way to ever pay your debts from NYU without some sort of IBR option (and you can't bank on that these days).


For what you want to do, it sounds like NYU is your only option. But for PI, you should plan on working at least two years in volunteer/low-pay/school-funded fellowships. Good plaintiff firms very rarely hire straight out of law school. The question is whether you'll be comfortable accruing interest for two years (at over $1000/month) with your NYU loans while they are most likely in forbearance. You should probably budget another $30,000 of interest on top of your estimates because of that.



I assume you mean for the clerkship part? It certainly isn't necessary for the PI/Plaintiff's stuff........

Nomo
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:06 am

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

Postby Nomo » Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:48 pm

prezidentv8 wrote:
JCougar wrote:
Nomo wrote:
throwaway1901 wrote:Goal(s): Clerkship--> PI or Plaintiff Side work
Regional Ties: All ties in SoCal
School(s):
NYU - $220k COA
UCLA - $160k COA
USC - $170k COA
UCI - $50k COA (can live with relatives)

Other pertinent information: $15k in undergrad loans


It sounds like you don't really want a clerkship so much as you want a clerkship to open up opportunities at fancy PI orgs or fancy Plaintiff side firms.

The problem is there are very few fancy plaintiff firms that hire new grads or even grads out of clerkships. Its an unlikely goal from any of these schools, even with a federal clerkship. A firm with less than 10 attorneys doing personal injury type plaintiffs work is realistic from any of these schools.

Biglaw is the only way to pay your debts in less than 20 years from UCLA and USC; biglaw may be the only way to ever pay your debts from NYU without some sort of IBR option (and you can't bank on that these days).


For what you want to do, it sounds like NYU is your only option. But for PI, you should plan on working at least two years in volunteer/low-pay/school-funded fellowships. Good plaintiff firms very rarely hire straight out of law school. The question is whether you'll be comfortable accruing interest for two years (at over $1000/month) with your NYU loans while they are most likely in forbearance. You should probably budget another $30,000 of interest on top of your estimates because of that.



I assume you mean for the clerkship part? It certainly isn't necessary for the PI/Plaintiff's stuff........


By my calculations your interest at NYU will begin to accrue at about $1,700/mo. At least it won't capitalize if you're in a financial hardship and on IBR (you will be). Still, it better be a really high paying plaintiff's firm to cover that. . . Biglaw is the only realistic option. That or praying that whatever future reforms we get for PSLF don't effect your graduating class.

Cthon
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 1:15 pm

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

Postby Cthon » Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:02 pm

Nomo wrote:
krsone wrote:Goal(s): PI or Criminal (DA's office or public defender's) in Texas.

Regional Ties: Experience and references with a national org related to criminal law that has connections throughout country and TX, but personally I have none to TX beyond my wife.

School(s):
Houston - near full scholarship
SMU - little over half
UCLA- Sticker
UNC- half
Washington & Lee- half

Other pertinent information: I am coming from outside of TX and am not from TX. No loans, good amount of money saved up so if I were to take Houston, living expenses are covered. Other schools wouldn't hurt, but I'd like to minimize debt given my humble aspirations. I might prefer Houston over Dallas as a place to live and given the cost of living differences. Tell me what I already suspect.


Go to Houston.

Could you actually explain the reasoning behind your opinion? (Though I assume its because he got a near full scholarship)

I'm considering SMU, since I could see myself working/living in Dallas(even for the rest of my life). I've gotten 24K(they cost 42K) and am from Texas. At the moment, I'm holding out for UT and T14s (AA URM, 164 latest LSAT, 3.27). Have no clear goals for what type of law I want to practice.

Am not even slightly debt-averse.

Opinion?

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 Mar 18, 2014 7:04 pm

In the OP, why are WUSTL/ND listed as reasonable at half scholly but UCLA/USC are reasonable if they're near free? High COL?

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

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

Postby JCougar » Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:26 pm

ManoftheHour wrote:In the OP, why are WUSTL/ND listed as reasonable at half scholly but UCLA/USC are reasonable if they're near free? High COL?


Considering that going to WUSTL/ND for three years will probably save you $30K in COL debt, that's definitely a non-negligible factor. Plus, sticker at USC is $6K/year higher in the first place than these two ($2K higher at UCLA). So over three years, even with comparable scholarships, you save nearly $50K by going to WUSTL/ND over USC for only a couple percentage points worth of placement power.

UCLA is could be worth going to on a 50% scholly, though, if you have a way to somehow live cheaply in the LA area.

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 Mar 18, 2014 7:27 pm

JCougar wrote:
ManoftheHour wrote:In the OP, why are WUSTL/ND listed as reasonable at half scholly but UCLA/USC are reasonable if they're near free? High COL?


Considering that going to WUSTL/ND for three years will probably save you $30K in COL debt, that's definitely a non-negligible factor. Plus, sticker at USC is $6K/year higher in the first place than these two ($2K higher at UCLA). So over three years, even with comparable scholarships, you save nearly $50K by going to WUSTL/ND over USC for only a couple percentage points worth of placement power.

UCLA is could be worth going to on a 50% scholly, though, if you have a way to somehow live cheaply in the LA area.


Gotcha!

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

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

Postby JCougar » Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:55 pm

prezidentv8 wrote:
JCougar wrote:
Nomo wrote:
throwaway1901 wrote:Goal(s): Clerkship--> PI or Plaintiff Side work
Regional Ties: All ties in SoCal
School(s):
NYU - $220k COA
UCLA - $160k COA
USC - $170k COA
UCI - $50k COA (can live with relatives)

Other pertinent information: $15k in undergrad loans


It sounds like you don't really want a clerkship so much as you want a clerkship to open up opportunities at fancy PI orgs or fancy Plaintiff side firms.

The problem is there are very few fancy plaintiff firms that hire new grads or even grads out of clerkships. Its an unlikely goal from any of these schools, even with a federal clerkship. A firm with less than 10 attorneys doing personal injury type plaintiffs work is realistic from any of these schools.

Biglaw is the only way to pay your debts in less than 20 years from UCLA and USC; biglaw may be the only way to ever pay your debts from NYU without some sort of IBR option (and you can't bank on that these days).


For what you want to do, it sounds like NYU is your only option. But for PI, you should plan on working at least two years in volunteer/low-pay/school-funded fellowships. Good plaintiff firms very rarely hire straight out of law school. The question is whether you'll be comfortable accruing interest for two years (at over $1000/month) with your NYU loans while they are most likely in forbearance. You should probably budget another $30,000 of interest on top of your estimates because of that.



I assume you mean for the clerkship part? It certainly isn't necessary for the PI/Plaintiff's stuff........


It is if it's the kind of PI/Plaintiff work that you would be looking to get after a clerkship. I'm assuming that that refers to a Federal clerkship, although I could be wrong.

User avatar
thisiswater
Posts: 995
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 1:51 am

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

Postby thisiswater » Wed Mar 19, 2014 2:33 pm

Goal(s): Biglaw or corporate in-house

Regional Ties: Texas

School: SMU PT with 17k a year. Good standing so 2.0 required. Would mean my total cost (without interest accumulation) would be right around 84k

Other pertinent information: I chose SMU PT because I currently am working in Dallas in a corporate legal department and I like my job/want to keep it. I make 65ish a year depending on bonuses so I would plan on paying some of that expense out of pocket, but I would still have loans.
I did apply places other than SMU but at this point it is definitely my first choice. I'm just worried it is too expensive.

In case anyone reads here but not my additional post below, with 10k out of pocket every year I should graduate with less than 50k in loans. Still interested in opinions on that number.
Last edited by thisiswater on Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.

RandomLawStudent14
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 2:27 pm

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

Postby RandomLawStudent14 » Wed Mar 19, 2014 3:19 pm

Goal(s): PI/Mid-law/In-house, most likely in the midwest

Regional Ties: Plains states

Schools and COA (before scholarship negotiation):
UVA - 125k
WUSTL - 90k
Penn - 155k
Chicago - 265k
Northwestern - 125k (estimate)

Other pertinent information: roughly 50k in undergrad debt (including interest accrued while in law school)

User avatar
ExBiglawAssociate
Posts: 2092
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:06 pm

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

Postby ExBiglawAssociate » Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:32 pm

thisiswater wrote:Goal(s): Biglaw or corporate in-house

Regional Ties: Texas

School: SMU PT with 17k a year. Good standing so 2.0 required. Would mean my total cost (without interest accumulation) would be right around 84k

Other pertinent information: I chose SMU PT because I currently am working in Dallas in a corporate legal department and I like my job/want to keep it. I make 65ish a year depending on bonuses so I would plan on paying some of that expense out of pocket, but I would still have loans.
I did apply places other than SMU but at this point it is definitely my first choice. I'm just worried it is too expensive.


Do not do this. Even with a biglaw salary, it takes a long time to pay back 84k.

User avatar
Trig
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 3:36 pm

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

Postby Trig » Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:41 pm

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:
thisiswater wrote:Goal(s): Biglaw or corporate in-house

Regional Ties: Texas

School: SMU PT with 17k a year. Good standing so 2.0 required. Would mean my total cost (without interest accumulation) would be right around 84k

Other pertinent information: I chose SMU PT because I currently am working in Dallas in a corporate legal department and I like my job/want to keep it. I make 65ish a year depending on bonuses so I would plan on paying some of that expense out of pocket, but I would still have loans.
I did apply places other than SMU but at this point it is definitely my first choice. I'm just worried it is too expensive.


Do not do this. Even with a biglaw salary, it takes a long time to pay back 84k.


How much debt do you think is absolutely too much debt even when gunning for biglaw? Does this debt level increase the better the school one attends? Thanks!

User avatar
thisiswater
Posts: 995
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 1:51 am

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

Postby thisiswater » Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:45 pm

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:
thisiswater wrote:Goal(s): Biglaw or corporate in-house

Regional Ties: Texas

School: SMU PT with 17k a year. Good standing so 2.0 required. Would mean my total cost (without interest accumulation) would be right around 84k

Other pertinent information: I chose SMU PT because I currently am working in Dallas in a corporate legal department and I like my job/want to keep it. I make 65ish a year depending on bonuses so I would plan on paying some of that expense out of pocket, but I would still have loans.
I did apply places other than SMU but at this point it is definitely my first choice. I'm just worried it is too expensive.


Do not do this. Even with a biglaw salary, it takes a long time to pay back 84k.


I just did some budgets and I think 10 out of pocket per year is reasonable for me so I would end up under 50 in debt. Sorry, I moved too quickly on posting in here.

Nomo
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:06 am

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

Postby Nomo » Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:47 pm

RandomLawStudent14 wrote:Goal(s): PI/Mid-law/In-house, most likely in the midwest

Regional Ties: Plains states

Schools and COA (before scholarship negotiation):
UVA - 125k
WUSTL - 90k
Penn - 155k
Chicago - 265k
Northwestern - 125k (estimate)

Other pertinent information: roughly 50k in undergrad debt (including interest accrued while in law school)


Northwestern; but realize there isn't a ton of midlaw out there.

Nomo
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:06 am

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

Postby Nomo » Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:58 pm

Trig wrote:
Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:
thisiswater wrote:Goal(s): Biglaw or corporate in-house

Regional Ties: Texas

School: SMU PT with 17k a year. Good standing so 2.0 required. Would mean my total cost (without interest accumulation) would be right around 84k

Other pertinent information: I chose SMU PT because I currently am working in Dallas in a corporate legal department and I like my job/want to keep it. I make 65ish a year depending on bonuses so I would plan on paying some of that expense out of pocket, but I would still have loans.
I did apply places other than SMU but at this point it is definitely my first choice. I'm just worried it is too expensive.


Do not do this. Even with a biglaw salary, it takes a long time to pay back 84k.


How much debt do you think is absolutely too much debt even when gunning for biglaw? Does this debt level increase the better the school one attends? Thanks!


I would say 250k at HYS (thanks in large part to their LRAP programs), but many people who get into HYS have better options elsewhere. I would say the rest of the T-14 ranges from 120-180k depending on the school. 90-100k for Texas, Vanderbilt, UCLA, USC. About 50-70k for the rest of the strong regionals (schools that have more than 75% employed full-time in long-term legal positions). Everywhere else should be less than 20k. This is a rough estimation. And these are the maximum amounts that could be worth it. Individuals who already have decent jobs or employment prospects should probably shouldn't go this far into debt. And these are amounts of debt (not amounts of money you should borrow) - always consider interest, origination fees, and tuition increases in deciding what kind of debt you'll have.

User avatar
bound
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 4:49 pm

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

Postby bound » Wed Mar 19, 2014 5:53 pm

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:
thisiswater wrote:Goal(s): Biglaw or corporate in-house

Regional Ties: Texas

School: SMU PT with 17k a year. Good standing so 2.0 required. Would mean my total cost (without interest accumulation) would be right around 84k

Other pertinent information: I chose SMU PT because I currently am working in Dallas in a corporate legal department and I like my job/want to keep it. I make 65ish a year depending on bonuses so I would plan on paying some of that expense out of pocket, but I would still have loans.
I did apply places other than SMU but at this point it is definitely my first choice. I'm just worried it is too expensive.


Do not do this. Even with a biglaw salary, it takes a long time to pay back 84k.



I was told earlier in the thread that SMU at <$100K would be okay with texas ties/plans to work in Texas.

Nomo
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:06 am

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

Postby Nomo » Wed Mar 19, 2014 6:10 pm

Austinbound wrote:
Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:
thisiswater wrote:Goal(s): Biglaw or corporate in-house

Regional Ties: Texas

School: SMU PT with 17k a year. Good standing so 2.0 required. Would mean my total cost (without interest accumulation) would be right around 84k

Other pertinent information: I chose SMU PT because I currently am working in Dallas in a corporate legal department and I like my job/want to keep it. I make 65ish a year depending on bonuses so I would plan on paying some of that expense out of pocket, but I would still have loans.
I did apply places other than SMU but at this point it is definitely my first choice. I'm just worried it is too expensive.


Do not do this. Even with a biglaw salary, it takes a long time to pay back 84k.



I was told earlier in the thread that SMU at <$100K would be okay with texas ties/plans to work in Texas.


There's no absolutely right answer. Plug 84k at 7.5% interest in a loan calculator and see what you're payments would be on a 10, 15, and 20 year repayment schedule. Consider the full range of employment options you might have and the likelihood of each. Also consider the time you're going to lose trying to work and do law school (3 years of your life isn't nothing). Consider the money you're going to spend on school that you otherwise could be investing (maybe at 5% or so). Put all this in a chart. Agonize over it for a few days. Ask trusted friends what they think. Agonize a little longer and decide. Would I do SMU part-time if I already had a 65k part-time job? No. Because I'd probably come out of school making less than I made before. But, its really up to you - maybe you hate your current job and are willing to take a paycut to be a lawyer. Just do your research and do it well.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: townizm and 4 guests