H v. T10 for appellate lit Forum

[Pneumonia]

Would choosing HLS over C/C/Lower T-14 make a significant difference in the post-Biglaw job search? I can imagine the network might help, but how much is that network advantage worth?

I asked this same thing and a couple of well respected posters here said no. I think that might be as good of info as you're gonna get. Even the older posters around here are still in BigLaw (if that's where they began), so there's just not much consensus.

If anything I think HLS would help you enter non-law fields post BigLaw. Some have also argued that H is an advantage for Bigfed stuff, but that might be outside the scope of what you're asking.

ETA just to clarify, you don't have to take loans for living expenses? Even if not, your numbers in the poll seem a little low.

[DetroitRed]

Would choosing HLS over C/C/Lower T-14 make a significant difference in the post-Biglaw job search? I can imagine the network might help, but how much is that network advantage worth?

Just go to Harvard. It's the answer you're fishing for.

The direct answer to your question is "whatever it is worth, it is not worth 200k."

Not fishing for an answer, dude, just looking for honest opinions.

Your actual answer is what I suspected. Thanks.

ETA: my figures include living expenses, origination fees, interest accrued over three years, etc.

I'm not a totally naive 0L. Give me some credit.

[smaug]

Does it include interest that you would incur by the time you finish repayment? (it doesn't, right? that's another real cost)

(but, good job including those things)

[Pneumonia]

Does it include interest that you would incur by the time you finish repayment? (it doesn't, right? that's another real cost)

(but, good job including those things)

It's good to be aware that interest will continue to accrue, but since the rates are going to be the same, among other reasons, the most common figure to use is debt at graduation.

[smaug]

Does it include interest that you would incur by the time you finish repayment? (it doesn't, right? that's another real cost)

(but, good job including those things)

It's good to be aware that interest will continue to accrue, but since the rates are going to be the same, among other reasons, the most common figure to use is debt at graduation.

Except the interest that you'll accrue on nothing is nothing. Kinda funny how math works, right?

(also, that's kinda foolish, given the way that interest works. it isn't linear.)

[Nebby]

Just lol @ this thread.

"I want to practice UN law... I mean appellate lit."

[Pneumonia]

Except the interest that you'll accrue on nothing is nothing. Kinda funny how math works, right?

(also, that's kinda foolish, given the way that interest works. it isn't linear.)

Idk whose alt you are, but if you read my post carefully you'll perceive that I was giving information rather than advocating a specific method of specifying debt. The fact is that most people reading and responding to these threads use the "debt at (the beginning of) repayment" metric. Its also the method used in the post sticked at the top of the forum.

One practicality of the "debt at repayment" metric is that it saves people from having to explain the non-linearity of interest to hapless 0L's over and over, and also from having people post and be questioned on assumed interest rates, assumed salary, assumed extra payments toward principle and all that.

The point being that if OP posted or polled 10yr figures that included accumulated interest people would be likely to assume they were the "debt at repayment" figures instead and give advice accordingly.

[smaug]

I wasn't complaining, so there's no need to get super defensive. The 0L balked at my 200k figure. I was just pointing out that yeah, he's actually going to pay more than 200k to drop H bombs to reap the long term benefits of a Harvard degree and use the Harvard network.

[radio1nowhere]

*post deleted. not worth the argument.*

[Desert Fox]

yea I thought "I included interest, etc." and was off by like 50k.

[DetroitRed]

I wasn't complaining, so there's no need to get super defensive. The 0L balked at my 200k figure. I was just pointing out that yeah, he's actually going to pay more than 200k to drop H bombs to reap the long term benefits of a Harvard degree and use the Harvard network.

Lol, so you mean interest doesn't stop accruing after graduation?

Where did you go to law school, brave alt?

ETA: If you paid more than 60k, I'm going to be deeply upset.

(And no, I don't mean 60k at graduation.)

[84651846190]

Posting so that I can keep tabs on this thread! Appellate lit is also my dream job (well, getting into the federal judiciary is my dreamiest dream job, but one thing at a time).

lol. so frickin cute

[smaug]

I wasn't complaining, so there's no need to get super defensive. The 0L balked at my 200k figure. I was just pointing out that yeah, he's actually going to pay more than 200k to drop H bombs to reap the long term benefits of a Harvard degree and use the Harvard network.

Lol, so you mean interest doesn't stop accruing after graduation?

Where did you go to law school, brave alt?

ETA: If you paid more than 60k, I'm going to be deeply upset.

(And no, I don't mean 60k at graduation.)

You get that I was the first person to talk to you in this thread, right?

[DetroitRed]

I wasn't complaining, so there's no need to get super defensive. The 0L balked at my 200k figure. I was just pointing out that yeah, he's actually going to pay more than 200k to drop H bombs to reap the long term benefits of a Harvard degree and use the Harvard network.

Lol, so you mean interest doesn't stop accruing after graduation?

Where did you go to law school, brave alt?

ETA: If you paid more than 60k, I'm going to be deeply upset.

(And no, I don't mean 60k at graduation.)

You get that I was the first person to talk to you in this thread, right?

Yeah. I'm just razzing you.

Look, I'm an adult. I'm capable of rationally evaluating choices and determining which is best for me. I asked some simple questions about the employment probabilities at a few schools, and for the most part I've gotten pretty goods answers.

What I really can't stand is the condescension that permeates this part of TLS. Yes, I am a 0L, but 0L ≠ abject naïveté. Surely there are some 0Ls that "want to practice UN Law," and certainly there are others that are generally grounded yet may not understand the unlikelihood of what they're aspiring to (e.g. me), but offering advice > being a douche any day of the week. In fact, if you want people to follow your advice, which is why people generally give advice in the first place, it helps to convey that advice in a way that doesn't turn the recipient off to your message.

That wasn't directed at you, Mr. Taverner

[Nebby]

Real advice: Appellate lit is possible from any of these schools. There's a lot more working against you than the school. You should look up some Appellate shops and just peruse the resumes of those lawyers. It'll give you an idea of what I mean; no two lawyers will have had the same path to that job. Use their experiences as guides.

[052220152]

I wasn't complaining, so there's no need to get super defensive. The 0L balked at my 200k figure. I was just pointing out that yeah, he's actually going to pay more than 200k to drop H bombs to reap the long term benefits of a Harvard degree and use the Harvard network.

Lol, so you mean interest doesn't stop accruing after graduation?

Where did you go to law school, brave alt?

ETA: If you paid more than 60k, I'm going to be deeply upset.

(And no, I don't mean 60k at graduation.)

You get that I was the first person to talk to you in this thread, right?

Yeah. I'm just razzing you.

Look, I'm an adult. I'm capable of rationally evaluating choices and determining which is best for me. I asked some simple questions about the employment probabilities at a few schools, and for the most part I've gotten pretty goods answers.

What I really can't stand is the condescension that permeates this part of TLS. Yes, I am a 0L, but 0L ≠ abject naïveté. Surely there are some 0Ls that "want to practice UN Law," and certainly there are others that are generally grounded yet may not understand the unlikelihood of what they're aspiring to (e.g. me), but offering advice > being a douche any day of the week. In fact, if you want people to follow your advice, which is why people generally give advice in the first place, it helps to convey that advice in a way that doesn't turn the recipient off to your message.

That wasn't directed at you, Mr. Taverner

yea bro but your goals are just a quarter step down from "UN law" dog. so in your case 0L = abject naivete whatever that means.

[notgreat]

I don't know your background DR, but my guess is that you haven't done the work that an appellate lawyer does.

Before I came to law school I was very interested in appellate lit and trial lit. I went to lunch with a number of successful trial lawyers in my area and asked them a number of questions about their practice. It seemed perfect for me and I came into law school confident that that was what I wanted to do.

Then I had to right trial memos and briefs as a 1L and wanted to kill myself. This fall I wrote some appellate briefs and wanted to kill myself only a little less. Alternatively, I came in thinking I would hate M&A, because I heard it was glorified comma-jockeying. But I really like the comma jockeying now after doing some transactional drafting.

You may think you know what you want to do right now, but if you haven't done the work, then you are by definition naive. You may be less naive then a lot of other OLs. You may have done all you can to inform yourself of what certain lawyers do. You might think you have the right skills or temperament, but you really won't know until you try it. There's nothing wrong with this. But try to keep an open mind and not make decisions based on unicorn outcomes that you may not even end up enjoying.

[radio1nowhere]

*post deleted. not worth the argument.*

[nothingtosee]

My thought: there is absolutely nothing wrong with setting unicorn goals, as long as you are fully aware of the unlikelihood of achieving those goals. No politician starts with much chance of becoming U.S. president, and no law graduate is "likely" to become a Supreme Court justice, but you can't get to those places unless you work towards it. On the same token, falling short of super high goals isn't a failure; it may very well be that striving to achieve those high goals will get someone further than if they set clearly reachable goals and then go no further.

Basically: some lawyers do appellate lit, and DetroitRed wants to be one of those people, so he is asking how best to maximize that (admittedly slim) chance. Seems straightforward to me. I'm disappointed at ill will displayed by a few TLS users on this thread.

Without any regard for how detrimental a home mortgage worth of debt is to one's (and one's family's) life.

[Desert Fox]

My thought: there is absolutely nothing wrong with setting unicorn goals, as long as you are fully aware of the unlikelihood of achieving those goals. No politician starts with much chance of becoming U.S. president, and no law graduate is "likely" to become a Supreme Court justice, but you can't get to those places unless you work towards it. On the same token, falling short of super high goals isn't a failure; it may very well be that striving to achieve those high goals will get someone further than if they set clearly reachable goals and then go no further.

Basically: some lawyers do appellate lit, and DetroitRed wants to be one of those people, so he is asking how best to maximize that (admittedly slim) chance. Seems straightforward to me. I'm disappointed at ill will displayed by a few TLS users on this thread.

(guy who lives in a world without cost-benefit analysis)

[nothingtosee]

My thought: there is absolutely nothing wrong with setting unicorn goals, as long as you are fully aware of the unlikelihood of achieving those goals. No politician starts with much chance of becoming U.S. president, and no law graduate is "likely" to become a Supreme Court justice, but you can't get to those places unless you work towards it. On the same token, falling short of super high goals isn't a failure; it may very well be that striving to achieve those high goals will get someone further than if they set clearly reachable goals and then go no further.

Basically: some lawyers do appellate lit, and DetroitRed wants to be one of those people, so he is asking how best to maximize that (admittedly slim) chance. Seems straightforward to me. I'm disappointed at ill will displayed by a few TLS users on this thread.

Serious question: If someone said, "I want to maximize my chance of winning Powerball so I'm going to go get a payday loan to buy more tickets," how would you respond? Why would you respond differently in that situation? Is there a difference between the two, and if so, can you articulate the difference?

[FSK]

Powerball is a bad analogy. Results in that game are win and loose. Taking on extra debt to maximize chances at unicorn outcome still leaves you in a good position. The only thing sacrificed is a ton of money. I can understand someone valuing their financial well being very lowly - especially if they plan to remain childless and don't value material possessions. For them, a 5% increase in the likelihood of their desired outcome might be worth even more than the increased law school debt. Who knows?

I think part of the hate here comes from the fact that OP doesn't even understand what actually appellate lit career paths look like.

[smaug]

Yes, I am a 0L, but 0L ≠ abject naïveté.

It does in many contexts, and you haven't done much to show you're not naïve here.

Beyond the naïveté surrounding legal hiring, part of it is that we're all pretty piss-poor at evaluating things like "it costs $200,000 to be paid over ten years, starting three years from now." I know I certainly didn't. It didn't matter as much, because I didn't have a free ride on the table, but I truly wish I could go back and time and choose a lower debt option, especially one that's free.

The other thing that makes you naïve is that you don't really know what it feels like to have 200k in future payments hanging over your head until you get close to graduation. It doesn't feel good. You can be excited about your job, excited about your personal life, and still feel stressed and uncertain because hey, how long is it going to take you to make those payments anyway. What happens if (when) you like your job less? What happens when you want to get married and move to a different market? What happens if you're presented with an amazing career opportunity with low base salary?

So, if there's anything I'm unapologetic about, it's about being condescending toward 0Ls who are cavalier about six figure debt. A Harvard degree will get you a job. Unfortunately being biglaw secure at about 170k in debt at graduation isn't an amazing outcome. Getting a biglaw job with no debt, though? That sounds pretty amazing.

[DetroitRed]

Yes, I am a 0L, but 0L ≠ abject naïveté.

It does in many contexts, and you haven't done much to show you're not naïve here.

Beyond the naïveté surrounding legal hiring, part of it is that we're all pretty piss-poor at evaluating things like "it costs $200,000 to be paid over ten years, starting three years from now." I know I certainly didn't. It didn't matter as much, because I didn't have a free ride on the table, but I truly wish I could go back and time and choose a lower debt option, especially one that's free.

The other thing that makes you naïve is that you don't really know what it feels like to have 200k in future payments hanging over your head until you get close to graduation. It doesn't feel good. You can be excited about your job, excited about your personal life, and still feel stressed and uncertain because hey, how long is it going to take you to make those payments anyway. What happens if (when) you like your job less? What happens when you want to get married and move to a different market? What happens if you're presented with an amazing career opportunity with low base salary?

So, if there's anything I'm unapologetic about, it's about being condescending toward 0Ls who are cavalier about six figure debt. A Harvard degree will get you a job. Unfortunately being biglaw secure at about 170k in debt at graduation isn't an amazing outcome. Getting a biglaw job with no debt, though? That sounds pretty amazing.

Never once have I been "cavalier" about the idea of six figure debt. I've only asked about the marginal benefit of an HLS degree. I think part of the problem in this thread is that, rather than responding to what I've actually posted (especially once I walked back the appellate lit part), y'all post-Ls (or attorneys, in some cases) are attacking a straw man. There are plenty of people on this site who talk about the benefits of HLS degrees in politics or other remotely likely goals. They don't get half the flak I've gotten, yet their questions are way more ridiculous.

Dude, I get the concept of debt, and I can count past my ten thousands. I don't need people (who likely never had these options in the first place) to come at me with "LOL U HAVE NO CONCEPT OF DEBT" or "LOL NAIVE 1L." If I ask the question, "What is the marginal benefit of an HLS degree in X context," I want an answer to that question. If you aren't in a position to answer that question, or for whatever reason don't want to, hold your peace.

ETA: In fact, I've never even indicated a preference among these choices, let alone one whose tone could be considered "cavalier." My original question just asked which would be best, not "show me why HLS isn't the best." A lot of these posts are directed against a total straw man, and it really discredits your advice when (1) its delivered with such unwarranted condescension, and (2) its oblique to my question in the first place.

[Cogburn87]

I don't need people (who likely never had these options in the first place) to come at me with "LOL U HAVE NO CONCEPT OF DEBT" or "LOL NAIVE 1L."

This was definitely the card to play here. Well done.