,,

Discuss various money matters here. Loans (federal and private), scholarships, lottery winnings, or other school finance related information and queries.
Mal Reynolds
Posts: 12630
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:16 am

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby Mal Reynolds » Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:59 am

EdgarWinter wrote:Because declining marginal utility of money is why going to law school at sticker is (like somebody said earlier) borderline insane for most people.

Declining marginal utility of money is basically the idea that each additional dollar/unit of cash that you acquire is worth somewhat less to you than the one before it. If you make only $5k/year then a $5k raise is extra-great because it lets you not starve to death or whatever. On the the other hand, if you're already making $200,000 you probably don't give much of a shit.

People arguing for how great an investment law school is should factor this in--rational decision-making criteria is utility, not money per se. What people should be measuring is not the money-outcomes of law school but rather their own utility outcomes from law school (which are derived from the money ones). Thing is that it's not a perfect translation when you're dealing with such large disparities of cash (biglaw and subsequent high-power career ($160k*) vs strike-out (let's say $50k if you're lucky)).

You can't just go (160+50)/2==expected payout of law school is $105k/yr and act like that is a useful measure, because you want to base decisions not on money averages but on utility ones. And your utility average is going to be way below the utility that a simple $105k would leave you with. This is why ToTransferOrNot's execution example makes sense--potentially having a life of barely any cash after loan payments overbalances the potential upsides to not striking out even if simple monetary calculations seem to point out otherwise. (That said all this crap about "diversification" is beside the point imo).

*yes I know that's only first year salary but let's face it your career avg will probably not be much higher than that given that you'll probably exit biglaw sooner rather than later).


I took an intro to economics course one time too.

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby RedBirds2011 » Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:01 am

EdgarWinter wrote:Because declining marginal utility of money is why going to law school at sticker is (like somebody said earlier) borderline insane for most people.

Declining marginal utility of money is basically the idea that each additional dollar/unit of cash that you acquire is worth somewhat less to you than the one before it. If you make only $5k/year then a $5k raise is extra-great because it lets you not starve to death or whatever. On the the other hand, if you're already making $200,000 you probably don't give much of a shit.

People arguing for how great an investment law school is should factor this in--rational decision-making criteria is utility, not money per se. What people should be measuring is not the money-outcomes of law school but rather their own utility outcomes from law school (which are derived from the money ones). Thing is that it's not a perfect translation when you're dealing with such large disparities of cash (biglaw and subsequent high-power career ($160k*) vs strike-out (let's say $50k if you're lucky)).

You can't just go (160+50)/2==expected payout of law school is $105k/yr and act like that is a useful measure, because you want to base decisions not on money averages but on utility ones. And your utility average is going to be way below the utility that a simple $105k would leave you with. This is why ToTransferOrNot's execution example makes sense--potentially having a life of barely any cash after loan payments overbalances the potential upsides to not striking out even if simple monetary calculations seem to point out otherwise. (That said all this crap about "diversification" is beside the point imo).

*yes I know that's only first year salary but let's face it your career avg will probably not be much higher than that given that you'll probably exit biglaw sooner rather than later).




Dear fucking god people...

You are taking "is law school a good decision for me" to absolutely retarded and unprecedented levels.

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby dingbat » Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:04 am

EdgarWinter wrote:Because declining marginal utility of money is why going to law school at sticker is (like somebody said earlier) borderline insane for most people.

Declining marginal utility of money is basically the idea that each additional dollar/unit of cash that you acquire is worth somewhat less to you than the one before it. If you make only $5k/year then a $5k raise is extra-great because it lets you not starve to death or whatever. On the the other hand, if you're already making $200,000 you probably don't give much of a shit.

People arguing for how great an investment law school is should factor this in--rational decision-making criteria is utility, not money per se. What people should be measuring is not the money-outcomes of law school but rather their own utility outcomes from law school (which are derived from the money ones). Thing is that it's not a perfect translation when you're dealing with such large disparities of cash (biglaw and subsequent high-power career ($160k*) vs strike-out (let's say $50k if you're lucky)).

You can't just go (160+50)/2==expected payout of law school is $105k/yr and act like that is a useful measure, because you want to base decisions not on money averages but on utility ones. And your utility average is going to be way below the utility that a simple $105k would leave you with. This is why ToTransferOrNot's execution example makes sense--potentially having a life of barely any cash after loan payments overbalances the potential upsides to not striking out even if simple monetary calculations seem to point out otherwise. (That said all this crap about "diversification" is beside the point imo).

*yes I know that's only first year salary but let's face it your career avg will probably not be much higher than that given that you'll probably exit biglaw sooner rather than later).
You are now conflating utility with happiness/quality of life.
You are right in what marginal utility is, but it has no bearing on what you're trying to say, which is that the outcomes should be measured in terms of quality of life / happiness. This is not the same thing. More importantly, this is different for everyone and difficult to gauge (how do you know how happy/miserable you will actually be under the different outcome scenarios? some people get biglaw, make big bucks, and are miserable, while others strike out, get shitty jobs, but are happy anyway).
As such, it is easier to evaluate whether law school is worth it or not in economic terms.

Or, you could move to Bhutan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness

EdgarWinter
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 7:47 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby EdgarWinter » Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:11 am

@ Mal Reynolds: it's the simple things that everybody forgets. Don't take the wind out of my sails :(.

@RedBirds what I wrote isn't difficult, is...uh, true, and should clarify the discussion by making nebulous examples of "downsides" or w/e unnecessary. Sorry if that's rough for you. I feel like this could have saved a few pages if written earlier.

@Dingbat you are way off if you don't think rational economic decisions and marginal utility are entirely based on happiness outcomes. I think you should reread a micro textbook if you don't think that's the case. Adding uncertainty about what random-ass life event might make you more or less unhappy in given situations is an unnecessary complication*. More money=more utility, but the slope of the line is less than one. Ergo everything I said in my last post. Lol at "economic terms" being anything other than marginal utility theory.

*if you want to make the argument that biglaw=more work=less utility than other career options that's fine, but everybody else is simplifying out this reality and so for the purposes of an easy model I am too. It still works if you adjust for that.

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby RedBirds2011 » Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:16 am

EdgarWinter wrote:@ Mal Reynolds: it's the simple things that everybody forgets. Don't take the wind out of my sails :(.

@RedBirds what I wrote isn't difficult, is...uh, true, and should clarify the discussion by making nebulous examples of "downsides" or w/e unnecessary. Sorry if that's rough for you. I feel like this could have saved a few pages if written earlier.

@Dingbat you are way off if you don't think rational economic decisions and marginal utility are entirely based on happiness outcomes. I think you should reread a micro textbook if you don't think that's the case. Adding uncertainty about what random-ass life event might make you more or less unhappy in given situations is an unnecessary complication. More money=more utility, but the slope of the line is less than one. Ergo everything I said in my last post. Lol at "economic terms" being anything other than marginal utility theory.



Dude...no...just fucking no. It has nothing to do whether it's difficult or not. As Mal said, I too took an Econ class once.


If youre thinking about law school in terms like that, then I recommend HIGHLY you do something else. In terms of sheer pay off>>>go get a job>>>apply to top business school>>>profit.

User avatar
birdlaw117
Posts: 2167
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:19 am

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby birdlaw117 » Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:18 am

Mal Reynolds wrote:
EdgarWinter wrote:Because declining marginal utility of money is why going to law school at sticker is (like somebody said earlier) borderline insane for most people.

Declining marginal utility of money is basically the idea that each additional dollar/unit of cash that you acquire is worth somewhat less to you than the one before it. If you make only $5k/year then a $5k raise is extra-great because it lets you not starve to death or whatever. On the the other hand, if you're already making $200,000 you probably don't give much of a shit.

People arguing for how great an investment law school is should factor this in--rational decision-making criteria is utility, not money per se. What people should be measuring is not the money-outcomes of law school but rather their own utility outcomes from law school (which are derived from the money ones). Thing is that it's not a perfect translation when you're dealing with such large disparities of cash (biglaw and subsequent high-power career ($160k*) vs strike-out (let's say $50k if you're lucky)).

You can't just go (160+50)/2==expected payout of law school is $105k/yr and act like that is a useful measure, because you want to base decisions not on money averages but on utility ones. And your utility average is going to be way below the utility that a simple $105k would leave you with. This is why ToTransferOrNot's execution example makes sense--potentially having a life of barely any cash after loan payments overbalances the potential upsides to not striking out even if simple monetary calculations seem to point out otherwise. (That said all this crap about "diversification" is beside the point imo).

*yes I know that's only first year salary but let's face it your career avg will probably not be much higher than that given that you'll probably exit biglaw sooner rather than later).


I took an intro to economics course one time too.

NJPitcher
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby NJPitcher » Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:19 am

I'll unnecessarily grant you that dollars diminish in value and still say that law school at a T10, even at sticker, makes economic sense. Those would have to be some extremely diminished dollars for that math to not still come out positive over the course of a career.

EdgarWinter
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 7:47 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby EdgarWinter » Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:22 am

I majored in it. In any case involving uncertain outcomes this analysis is how a rational person should think. I dunno why it seems so abhorrent to folks. I'm happy for all of you with your intro to econ courses but if you don't get this then I think your prof should have failed you lol.

I'm pretty sure law school is for me. I guess I should just avoid talking about anything remotely related to math while I'm there.

*NJPitcher at T10 levels and assuming biglaw hiring rebounds you might be right. I guess I'm more interested in not the "is-sticker-worth-it" debate but rather just pointing out something everybody else is ignoring that ought to be taken into account.

User avatar
birdlaw117
Posts: 2167
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:19 am

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby birdlaw117 » Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:32 am

EdgarWinter wrote:I majored in it. In any case involving uncertain outcomes this analysis is how a rational person should think. I dunno why it seems so abhorrent to folks. I'm happy for all of you with your intro to econ courses but if you don't get this then I think your prof should have failed you lol.

I'm pretty sure law school is for me. I guess I should just avoid talking about anything remotely related to math while I'm there.

*NJPitcher at T10 levels and assuming biglaw hiring rebounds you might be right. I guess I'm more interested in not the "is-sticker-worth-it" debate but rather just pointing out something everybody else is ignoring that ought to be taken into account.

It's not that what you're saying is wrong, it's that it isn't very helpful/doesn't really apply.

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby dingbat » Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:36 am

EdgarWinter wrote:Dingbat you are way off if you don't think rational economic decisions and marginal utility are entirely based on happiness outcomes.

rational economic decisions are made unemotionally and are therefore not entirely based on happiness outcomes
Marginal utility on the other hand is related to emotion (I'd qualify this statement, but that would derail this discussion)
You said that
EdgarWinter wrote:potentially having a life of barely any cash after loan payments overbalances the potential upsides to not striking out
, which is
EdgarWinter wrote:Adding uncertainty about what random-ass life event might make you more or less unhappy in given situations
so it's a little odd that you are now saying that this is an unneccesary complication.

EdgarWinter wrote: Lol at "economic terms" being anything other than marginal utility theory.
without getting into an argument about semantics, I take "economic terms" to mean looking at paying money to go to law school from a monetary perspective, leaving emotion out of it.
Marginal utility theory doesn't really apply, because we're not talking about going to law school and then getting an LLM (i.e. more education)
If you're talking about the marginal utility of earnings, which is an unrelated issue. Whether someone will be that much more happy making more money has nothing to do with whether or not going to law school is a good investment.
Not everyone goes to law school in order to go to biglaw and make big bucks while working 18 hour days in order to bill enough to make partner. Some people don't care about income and will be perfectly happy making next to nothing providing legal services for a cause they believe in. For that reason alone, happiness should be taken out of the equation, so if you're talking about utility iro metaphysical issues, again, it is not appropriate.

The economic analysis is to determine the expected return and the likelihood of the possible outcomes. It is then up to the individual to determine if it is worth it.
For example, if you determine that the expected IRR is 6% with a 20% chance of outperforming and a 80% chance of underperforming, then only a handful of people will be willing to take the risk.
On the other hand, if the expected IRR is 18%, with a 70% chance of outperforming and a 5% chance of total loss (unemployment), then I'd say most people would be willing to take that risk, although a handful of people will not.
Last edited by dingbat on Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

EdgarWinter
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 7:47 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby EdgarWinter » Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:46 am

Birdlaw It applies because it demonstrates why people doing calculations of

[(monetary payoff from biglaw*probability of biglaw)-(monetary costs of striking out and being poor*probability of striking out and being poor)]>(monetary payoff of alternative to law school)=I should totally go to law school!

are sometimes wrong because the high-money payoff provides less utility and the low-money strikeout scenario causes a loss of more utility than that math would suggest. That math is what everybody ITT has been doing, so pointing out how it's wrong is useful imo. Sorry if this discussion has put people off topic.

Dingbat I'm sorry I'm not going to engage your WoT. I really don't think you understand what I'm talking about. Do read things over again ;).

Anyway gotta catch a flight tomorrow so I'm going to bed. G'night all and sorry (to, given the line above, everybody but Dingbat I guess lol) if I was snarky earlier.

User avatar
birdlaw117
Posts: 2167
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:19 am

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby birdlaw117 » Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:50 am

I can't think of a situation where you would be comparing two situations measuring the same thing (in this case money), and starting at the same point where diminishing marginal utility would change which one wins. I'm pretty sure it would only change how much one scenario beats the other by.

The issue I have is that you're saying that striking out = a LOSS of that utility, but really it is just a smaller gain. It's only a loss in comparison to getting biglaw.

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby dingbat » Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:53 am

EdgarWinter wrote:Dingbat I'm sorry I'm not going to engage your WoT. I really don't think you understand what I'm talking about. Do read things over again ;).

Anyway gotta catch a flight tomorrow so I'm going to bed. G'night all and sorry (to, given the line above, everybody but Dingbat I guess lol) if I was snarky earlier.

Actually, I don't think you understand what you're talking about.

Although, if you're trying to say that people should stop focusing on the math and instead focus on the "utility", being a metaphysical issue (happiness? Fulfillment?) then, yeah, I guess you're right, even if you're missing the point (talking about whether it makes sense financially vs whether it makes sense emotionally)

Good night

User avatar
Samara
Posts: 3245
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:26 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby Samara » Wed Jun 13, 2012 8:22 am

EdgarWinter wrote:Birdlaw It applies because it demonstrates why people doing calculations of

[(monetary payoff from biglaw*probability of biglaw)-(monetary costs of striking out and being poor*probability of striking out and being poor)]>(monetary payoff of alternative to law school)=I should totally go to law school!

are sometimes wrong because the high-money payoff provides less utility and the low-money strikeout scenario causes a loss of more utility than that math would suggest. That math is what everybody ITT has been doing, so pointing out how it's wrong is useful imo. Sorry if this discussion has put people off topic.

Dingbat I'm sorry I'm not going to engage your WoT. I really don't think you understand what I'm talking about. Do read things over again ;).

Anyway gotta catch a flight tomorrow so I'm going to bed. G'night all and sorry (to, given the line above, everybody but Dingbat I guess lol) if I was snarky earlier.

The problem is that if you are paying sticker, the primary (in some cases, only) reason you are going to biglaw is to pay down the loans. Roughly speaking, you are able to pay down the loans in the amount of time you can be there before deciding what the next step in your career will be. When the loans are paid off, you are free to exit to whatever you want, presumably whatever maximizes your utility or whatever. So, it doesn't make sense to apply marginal utility because every marginal dollar you make in biglaw goes toward paying down your loans and thus doesn't provide less utility.

Presumably, you are exiting to something that provides high utility and is most accessible through the biglaw path. If you plan to exit to something that you could have achieved without going to biglaw first, like certain types of PI or business jobs, then yeah, marginal utility might come into play a little bit. However, there are plenty of reasons other than marginal utility for that person to not go to school for sticker price.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby rayiner » Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:13 am

Samara wrote:
EdgarWinter wrote:Birdlaw It applies because it demonstrates why people doing calculations of

[(monetary payoff from biglaw*probability of biglaw)-(monetary costs of striking out and being poor*probability of striking out and being poor)]>(monetary payoff of alternative to law school)=I should totally go to law school!

are sometimes wrong because the high-money payoff provides less utility and the low-money strikeout scenario causes a loss of more utility than that math would suggest. That math is what everybody ITT has been doing, so pointing out how it's wrong is useful imo. Sorry if this discussion has put people off topic.

Dingbat I'm sorry I'm not going to engage your WoT. I really don't think you understand what I'm talking about. Do read things over again ;).

Anyway gotta catch a flight tomorrow so I'm going to bed. G'night all and sorry (to, given the line above, everybody but Dingbat I guess lol) if I was snarky earlier.

The problem is that if you are paying sticker, the primary (in some cases, only) reason you are going to biglaw is to pay down the loans. Roughly speaking, you are able to pay down the loans in the amount of time you can be there before deciding what the next step in your career will be. When the loans are paid off, you are free to exit to whatever you want, presumably whatever maximizes your utility or whatever. So, it doesn't make sense to apply marginal utility because every marginal dollar you make in biglaw goes toward paying down your loans and thus doesn't provide less utility.

Presumably, you are exiting to something that provides high utility and is most accessible through the biglaw path. If you plan to exit to something that you could have achieved without going to biglaw first, like certain types of PI or business jobs, then yeah, marginal utility might come into play a little bit. However, there are plenty of reasons other than marginal utility for that person to not go to school for sticker price.


Also, the marginal utility calculation is very very different for different people, which is why I think it makes sense to just look at things objectively. I'm one of those people who is going to die 6 months after they retire, so discounting for hours worked makes no sense for me. I would've been working the same hours for less money in engineering.

jurisx
Posts: 242
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 9:01 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby jurisx » Sun Jun 17, 2012 5:46 pm

rayiner wrote:
Samara wrote:
EdgarWinter wrote:Birdlaw It applies because it demonstrates why people doing calculations of

[(monetary payoff from biglaw*probability of biglaw)-(monetary costs of striking out and being poor*probability of striking out and being poor)]>(monetary payoff of alternative to law school)=I should totally go to law school!

are sometimes wrong because the high-money payoff provides less utility and the low-money strikeout scenario causes a loss of more utility than that math would suggest. That math is what everybody ITT has been doing, so pointing out how it's wrong is useful imo. Sorry if this discussion has put people off topic.

Dingbat I'm sorry I'm not going to engage your WoT. I really don't think you understand what I'm talking about. Do read things over again ;).

Anyway gotta catch a flight tomorrow so I'm going to bed. G'night all and sorry (to, given the line above, everybody but Dingbat I guess lol) if I was snarky earlier.

The problem is that if you are paying sticker, the primary (in some cases, only) reason you are going to biglaw is to pay down the loans. Roughly speaking, you are able to pay down the loans in the amount of time you can be there before deciding what the next step in your career will be. When the loans are paid off, you are free to exit to whatever you want, presumably whatever maximizes your utility or whatever. So, it doesn't make sense to apply marginal utility because every marginal dollar you make in biglaw goes toward paying down your loans and thus doesn't provide less utility.

Presumably, you are exiting to something that provides high utility and is most accessible through the biglaw path. If you plan to exit to something that you could have achieved without going to biglaw first, like certain types of PI or business jobs, then yeah, marginal utility might come into play a little bit. However, there are plenty of reasons other than marginal utility for that person to not go to school for sticker price.


Also, the marginal utility calculation is very very different for different people, which is why I think it makes sense to just look at things objectively. I'm one of those people who is going to die 6 months after they retire, so discounting for hours worked makes no sense for me. I would've been working the same hours for less money in engineering.

How did those people pass basic college math?

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby rayiner » Sun Jun 17, 2012 7:06 pm

jurisx wrote:
rayiner wrote:Also, the marginal utility calculation is very very different for different people, which is why I think it makes sense to just look at things objectively. I'm one of those people who is going to die 6 months after they retire, so discounting for hours worked makes no sense for me. I would've been working the same hours for less money in engineering.

How did those people pass basic college math?


The thing is, what we're talking about here isn't basic college math. You're talking about the response of the utility function to changes along multiple dimensions. It's at least multivariable calculus and probably requires differential equations to model correctly.

Mal Reynolds
Posts: 12630
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:16 am

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby Mal Reynolds » Sun Jun 17, 2012 7:13 pm

rayiner wrote:
jurisx wrote:
rayiner wrote:Also, the marginal utility calculation is very very different for different people, which is why I think it makes sense to just look at things objectively. I'm one of those people who is going to die 6 months after they retire, so discounting for hours worked makes no sense for me. I would've been working the same hours for less money in engineering.

How did those people pass basic college math?


The thing is, what we're talking about here isn't basic college math. You're talking about the response of the utility function to changes along multiple dimensions. It's at least multivariable calculus and probably requires differential equations to model correctly.


I agree but also made a convincing point on this subject qualitatively.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby rayiner » Sun Jun 17, 2012 7:34 pm

Half-hearted forays into looking at the pay-off of law school in terms of utility functions suffers from one huge problem: people in this thread dramatically overvalue the various factors that make positive outcomes in law of less utility than they seem, and dramatically undervalue the various factors that make the alternative outcomes of less utility than they seem.

For example, even a post big-law exit into a $75k state government job comes with huge advantages in terms of things like benefits and health insurance. Your chances at a career post-JD that will offer this critical benefit are much higher than your chances with just a BA. I know engineers several years out who got good jobs out of my very good engineering undergrad (during the boom) that make solid money but without health insurance.

Moreover, you cannot account for the diminished utility of heavier hours in big law without also accounting for the same in the baseline. Out of my friends from undergrad, who are in professions like engineering, accounting, etc, all work substantial hours. Maybe not big law hours, but not the 9-5 that accountants in your parents' day worked either. And these are the good professions! The ones most people get with BA's are objectively worse. Long hours (the unemployment rate is high because companies can squeeze their existing employees for more hours--consultants call it "productivity"), lack of health insurance, lack of discretion in how to perform the job, lack of job security, etc.

It makes no sense to have a conversation about whether the working conditions of post-JD employment devalue the objective monetary value of those outcomes without also talking about how god-awful the working conditions are in other jobs in Reagan's America.

User avatar
manofjustice
Posts: 1323
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:01 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby manofjustice » Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:17 am

Rayiner as usual makes sense. But we need to bottom-line it and (hopefully) agree: at this point, in the final analysis, law school costs too much and (as a corollary) BigLaw salaries are minimally acceptable. Either the former has to go down, or the latter should at least keep strict pace with inflation.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby IAFG » Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:25 am

manofjustice wrote:But we need to bottom-line it and (hopefully) agree: at this point, in the final analysis, law school costs too much and (as a corollary) BigLaw salaries are minimally acceptable. Either the former has to go down, or the latter should at least keep strict pace with inflation.

This is a ridiculous statement. Maybe biglaw is "minimally acceptable" in DC or NY, but big lawyers in TX and Chicago and tertiaries have really nothing to complain about, even if they paid sticker.

User avatar
manofjustice
Posts: 1323
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:01 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby manofjustice » Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:44 am

IAFG wrote:
manofjustice wrote:But we need to bottom-line it and (hopefully) agree: at this point, in the final analysis, law school costs too much and (as a corollary) BigLaw salaries are minimally acceptable. Either the former has to go down, or the latter should at least keep strict pace with inflation.

This is a ridiculous statement. Maybe biglaw is "minimally acceptable" in DC or NY, but big lawyers in TX and Chicago and tertiaries have really nothing to complain about, even if they paid sticker.


It is a ridiculous statement that lawyers who pay the greatest law school tuition in the history of the world don't have anything to complain about because they work in TX.

At least we agree on the fundamental point: the pay isn't necessarily fantastic, given the price of law school. It's hard to say otherwise if you suggest the pay is "maybe...minimally acceptable in DC and NY"--the two largest BigLaw markets by far. Bringing up Texas and Chicago isn't enough to break this view. Besides, they're generally paid less in bonus and base in Texas, and in bonus in Chicago.

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby RedBirds2011 » Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:49 am

manofjustice wrote:
IAFG wrote:
manofjustice wrote:But we need to bottom-line it and (hopefully) agree: at this point, in the final analysis, law school costs too much and (as a corollary) BigLaw salaries are minimally acceptable. Either the former has to go down, or the latter should at least keep strict pace with inflation.

This is a ridiculous statement. Maybe biglaw is "minimally acceptable" in DC or NY, but big lawyers in TX and Chicago and tertiaries have really nothing to complain about, even if they paid sticker.


It is a ridiculous statement that lawyers who pay the greatest law school tuition in the history of the world don't have anything to complain about because they work in TX.

At least we agree on the fundamental point: the pay isn't necessarily fantastic, given the price of law school. It's hard to say otherwise if you suggest the pay is "maybe...minimally acceptable in DC and NY"--the two largest BigLaw markets by far. Bringing up Texas and Chicago isn't enough to break this view. Besides, they're generally paid less in bonus and base in Texas, and in bonus in Chicago.



LOL at biglaw pay being minimally acceptable. Biglaw paychecks are unprecedented for first year worker pay. You should talk to doctors.

User avatar
manofjustice
Posts: 1323
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:01 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby manofjustice » Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:51 am

Didn't we just get done debating a budget that explained we can keep about 40K or something of our BigLaw paycheck?? How is that "nothing to complain about."

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby RedBirds2011 » Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:54 am

manofjustice wrote:Didn't we just get done debating a budget that explained we can keep about 40K or something of our BigLaw paycheck?? How is that "nothing to complain about."



You've never held a real job have you. Either that or you just expecting to be paid tons of money just because you know, you deserve it.




Return to “Financial Aid”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: chromefox and 1 guest