Columbia ($$) vs Duke ($$) vs Georgetown ($$$) Forum

[KobetheGOAT]

Award amts:

C = 70k
D = 81k
G = 127.5k

Translates to COA (w/o loan&interest payments...would have to add 30-40k to these amts to account for that) of:

C = 214k
D = 171k
G = 138k

COA will be financed through loans.

Goals/Ties:

Want to do BigLaw for a couple of years but eventually want to get into international relations, whether that be through govt, NGO, international organizations. Have specific subset of IR that I want to get into. Also have family ties in SoCal, would eventually want to come back to California down the road.

Top choice is Columbia and it actually has everything I'm looking for in a law school, even in regards to my specific area of interest. I think the financial difference between Columbia and Duke is small enough for me to swallow. I guess the last hurdle is asking myself whether Columbia is worth 80k more than GULC. I'm inclined to say yes given GULC's latest horrific employment stats, but I just wanted some more perspectives. Thanks all!

Edit: clarification in parenthesis

[lymenheimer]

Meh, I think if it were bigger you'd still be able to swallow.

[rpupkin]

$215K of loan debt is rough. Is retaking an option?

[jbagelboy]

Given these options, Columbia is the strongest choice. It's worth more than Duke or Georgetown at those price differentials.

You have to decide your comfort level with debt. $200k is a lot, but if you're going to justify a high cost anywhere, it would be at CLS and its peer group. Law school may not be the right choice given the cost, but within the universe of these choices, I think you have a pretty clear winner.

[KobetheGOAT]

$215K of loan debt is rough. Is retaking an option?

Theoretically yes but realistically no. Already the damn test 3 times and I'm not confident that I'd do significantly better. So I'd have to wait to take the test again, which pushes back my timeline all the more...and given that Columbia has been one of my dream schools, I don't know if I would want to risk reapplying and for some odd reason I don't get in that time.

[Phil Brooks]

Law school is not the best path to get into international relations. It is extremely difficult to get a BigLaw job that involves "international law," and even harder to parlay such a difficult-to-get job into a career in international relations.

If Columbia is your "dream" school and you really want to do IR then doing a master's/PhD at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs is a better option. If you want a break from school before pursuing several more years of education then I would consider entry-level jobs at think-tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations, or at consulting firms like McLarty & Associates, Albright Stonebridge Group, etc.

Good luck.

[rpupkin]

Law school is not the best path to get into international relations. It is extremely difficult to get a BigLaw job that involves "international law," and even harder to parlay such a difficult-to-get job into a career in international relations.

If Columbia is your "dream" school and you really want to do IR then doing a master's/PhD at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs is a better option. If you want a break from school before pursuing several more years of education then I would consider entry-level jobs at think-tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations, or at consulting firms like McLarty & Associates, Albright Stonebridge Group, etc.

Good luck.

I'm inclined to agree. The above options sound better than taking on $200K+ of debt to get a JD.

[KobetheGOAT]

Law school is not the best path to get into international relations. It is extremely difficult to get a BigLaw job that involves "international law," and even harder to parlay such a difficult-to-get job into a career in international relations.

If Columbia is your "dream" school and you really want to do IR then doing a master's/PhD at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs is a better option. If you want a break from school before pursuing several more years of education then I would consider entry-level jobs at think-tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations, or at consulting firms like McLarty & Associates, Albright Stonebridge Group, etc.

Good luck.

I'm inclined to agree. The above options sound better than taking on $200K+ of debt to get a JD.

Yea I already considered the MA route and talked to people who have gone that route. While more directly relevant, the MA doesn't offer as great of job prospects as a JD from Columbia might, and even if you do find a job, it's not very high paying, not the unicorn job that one would hope for going into the program, and you can only go so far with a terminal Master's. A PhD is obviously a great option in all regards, but I don't think I want the PhD lifestyle / I'm not sure if I'm cut out for a PhD if I'm honest with myself. I actually met a couple people at ASW's who decided to get a JD after doing the Master's because of similar reasons listed above. Moreover, a 2-year COA at SIPA is 160k w/o factoring in loan payments, so it's not cheap by any means. And without a clear cut way out of that debt, that's just as daunting if not more than tacking on 50k to do the JD, which at least gives you the means to pay off the debt, at least from a financial standpoint.

If I could've had it my way, I would've gotten a gig at McKinsey/Bain/BCG out of undergrad and then eventually try to move into IR, but that didn't work out. And I had applied for places like CFR, Brookings, etc. both during and after college but they're pretty damn competitive too, and even after an entry-level gig, you won't get anywhere without an advanced degree.

All that to say, there are obviously pros and cons with both routes but that's how I came to determining that a JD gives me the best bang for the buck among the possible options.

[rpupkin]

Fair enough, OP. It sounds like you've thought this through.

It's just all so sad. I know I'm being a downer, but chances are that you'll end up in big law in NYC for years, slowly paying down debt while hating your job. You'll probably never end up anywhere close to IR, and you'll wonder why on earth you thought it was a good idea to take on $215K of debt to go to law school.

Sorry to pick on you, OP. The more I work in this profession, the more I realize that the vast majority of folks should never have gone to law school in the first place. You'll likely--not certainly, but likely--end up like one of those people. And when/if you do, carrying massive student loan debt is going to sting.

[Phil Brooks]

I respect the amount of thought you've put into this, but your plan violates the rule of thumb: go to law school only if you want a career as a lawyer. You are not doing this; you have chosen a different career, and are "backing into" law school through a process of elimination. This is not a good idea.

Your real obstacle is not the cost of law school, but that you have chosen an end goal (IR) that is very difficult to attain, from any field. Washington is crawling with permanent interns who wanted to "do IR" (http://www.washingtonian.com/2013/02/06 ... nt-intern/). Trying to avoid their fate by taking on $200k in debt is hardly any better.

If you are dead set on law school --> IR, the only thing that comes to mind is trying to find a biglaw firm that does investor-state arbitration. This is the only legal field I can think of that is related (albeit loosely) to IR. For example, Hughes Hubbard is representing Ukrainian investors who are suing Russia over what Russia did in Crimea (http://www.hugheshubbard.com/NewsDocume ... Claims.pdf). White & Case brought a claim on behalf of holders of Argentine bonds (http://www.whitecase.com/news/white-cas ... bonds-case). It is a hard field to break into, but you can do it if you start targeting now. Project development finance is another option (Milbank Tweed and Shearman & Sterling are good firms). Making the jump from these to some unicorn IR job, however, is tough.

I still think you'd be better off trying to join one of these "political business consulting" firms that help businesses deal with governments in overseas markets. As consulting firms (as opposed to think-tanks), they pay good money. Again, McLarty Associates & Albright Stonebridge come to mind.