Michigan vs. Davis vs. Arizona Forum

[mtn663]

Location does matter. I went to Tucson and decided I didn't want to live there for three years studying. I think that matters. Arizona would also lock me in location-wise more than I'd like. Their employment outcomes also don't suggest that their grads get public interest gigs. There is no certainty about Arizona. After visiting Arizona, I'm not considering it anymore. On paper, Arizona seemed to be a really good option.

fair enough, though Arizona placed a higher percentage of grads in PI in 2012 (13/149) than did Davis (11/202)...

Davis w/60k debt is defensible I guess... I'm assuming UCLA/USC are definitively out of the picture.

Why is it OK and apparently the TLS favorite to advise OP and others similarly situated to pass their student debt on to taxpayers, essentially allowing law schools to simultaneously set the absurd price for education and tout re-payment plans, WHEN HE HAS PERFECTLY GOOD ALTERNATIVES?

I get the frustration with the system, but a law student going to, e.g., Arizona for free is just taking the money the school gets up front from those paying sticker, many of whom will end up jobless and on PAYE. not sure how telling specific individuals not to consider PAYE/PSLF really helps change anything, though of course they should think about the risks of those programs going away...

[yeslekkkk]

Location does matter. I went to Tucson and decided I didn't want to live there for three years studying. I think that matters. Arizona would also lock me in location-wise more than I'd like. Their employment outcomes also don't suggest that their grads get public interest gigs. There is no certainty about Arizona. After visiting Arizona, I'm not considering it anymore. On paper, Arizona seemed to be a really good option.

fair enough, though Arizona placed a higher percentage of grads in PI in 2012 (13/149) than did Davis (11/202)...

Davis w/60k debt is defensible I guess... I'm assuming UCLA/USC are definitively out of the picture.

Why is it OK and apparently the TLS favorite to advise OP and others similarly situated to pass their student debt on to taxpayers, essentially allowing law schools to simultaneously set the absurd price for education and tout re-payment plans, WHEN HE HAS PERFECTLY GOOD ALTERNATIVES?

I get the frustration with the system, but a law student going to, e.g., Arizona for free is just taking the money the school gets up front from those paying sticker, many of whom will end up jobless and on PAYE. not sure how telling specific individuals not to consider PAYE/PSLF really helps change anything, though of course they should think about the risks of those programs going away...

I was actually just thinking the same thing, but you beat me to it. Anyone who accepts a scholarship is in a way passing on the debt to tax payers. A student paying sticker is subsidizing that scholarship. That's not really ethical either and keeping tuition high and forcing students to use IBR/PAYE.


I didn't apply to UCLA and USC was the one school who straight out rejected me. It was weird. I'd prefer to live in Davis as a student than LA anyways. I was looking at 2013 stats. Only 3 from Arizona got PI, but 13 in Davis did. It just didn't seem like Arizona had a real advantage.

[Sgt Brody.]

just curious, I am applying next cycle, and USC/UCLA are my top options. Were u accepted to both?. Because, I have a similar gpa and just trying to see if i stand a chance. Thank you! You can pm me if you want too.