Why do people find sticker price at T2 schools acceptable? Forum

[romothesavior]

is this a serious question? Because if it is, the answer is simple. Not everyone scores highly on the LSAT giving them the option of attending a T1 school. A T2 school turns into their best bet...and many T2 schools are difficult to get in even with a decent LSAT score. Paying sticker for a T2 school would be a better option than receiving money from a T3 school.
I find a lot of people on this forum are a bit snotty when it comes to people applying outside of the T1 arena. Get over it people...not everyone scores in the 160's+ range on their LSAT. Geez.

No offense, but this is a dumb comment. Outside of Tier 1 (maybe even outside of top-30 or even top-14), just about every school has similar big law placement, national portability, prestige, clerkship placement, etc. etc. And that is to say, not much at all. Some have better placement than others, sure. But is turning down a big scholarship at your local Tier 3 for sticker at a Tier 2 a good idea? Does that Tier 2 offer much better opportunities that make it worth an additional 100k?

Also, OP and others (myself included) are not saying going to a Tier 2 is a horrible decision. We are simply saying that going there at sticker price is a bad idea, especially considering that if you're good enough to get into a Tier 2, you are probably good enough to get big scholly money at a regionally comprable Tier 3. There are exceptions, but they are few and far between.

[afterglow99]

Because the LSAT is, at best, a mediocre prediction of 1L grades and ability to successfully practice law. This whole BS thrown around here over how "you have a 90% shot of not making the top 10% of the class" isn't true. If you know your strengths, work ethic, etc there's nothing wrong with going to a T2 and banking on doing well. Law school exams are way easier than the LSAT anyway.

Yes the LSAT is an IMPERFECT predictor of success. But let's take the LSAT completely out of it and imagine a school where everyone comes in with the same score. You may "know your strengths" but what you don't know is the strengths of your classmates. Most of the people coming in to a T2 law school will have been reasonably strong students with reasonable intelligence.

Whether law school exams are "easier" than the LSAT is irrelevant, because they're CURVED. The only thing that matters is how you stack up against your peers, and honestly unless you're coming in with either an extra-high UGPA or an extra-high LSAT, and preferably both, you have no basis to predict that you'll do better than 90% of classmates and might as well be rolling the dice.

If you've outworked and outperformed your peers academically up to law school (especially if you went to a top undergrad that DID curve), there's no reason to think that this is going to change. It's obviously not a sure thing, but for some people it's worth the gamble. I was more trying to establish that people here seem to assume that 1L performance is random and disregard factors like work ethic, diligence, writing ability, etc.

If you spend more time with the material than everyone, chances are you will be rewarded, especially if this has been true for you academically in the past. While it's true that you can't be sure how others are going to perform, you can be reasonably sure that your peers aren't going to be spending 45 hrs+ a week wrestling with the material from day one.

With that said, I agree with the main idea that 45k/yr for a private T2 is ridiculous. Still, 20-25k for a state T2 flagship could be a good deal for some with a reasonable expectation of good grades.

[soullesswonder]

If you've outworked and outperformed your peers academically up to law school, there's no reason to think that it is going to change.

By this logic, J.J. Redick, Adam Morrison, Emeka Okafor, and Hasheem Thabeet should all be NBA all-stars. Oddly enough, when you put a bunch of winners together in a class and make them compete, some of them are going to lose. Unless you've got something like 10-15 LSAT points and .3 UGPA on the median, you aren't really that much better (and if you are, WTH are you doing in that particular school?). Law school is not like undergrad or grad school or even other professional schools - it's an entirely different game and judging the ability of any one candidate to transition is a crapshoot. The pro sports analogy really does apply here - all things considered, physical freaks have a bigger upside and you kind of know who's going to be a first-round or middle-round pick, but even the best scouts have a long string of prospects who they misjudged.

[FunkyJD]

If you've outworked and outperformed your peers academically up to law school, there's no reason to think that it is going to change.

By this logic, J.J. Redick, Adam Morrison, Emeka Okafor, and Hasheem Thabeet should all be NBA all-stars. Oddly enough, when you put a bunch of winners together in a class and make them compete, some of them are going to lose. Unless you've got something like 10-15 LSAT points and .3 UGPA on the median, you aren't really that much better (and if you are, WTH are you doing in that particular school?). Law school is not like undergrad or grad school or even other professional schools - it's an entirely different game and judging the ability of any one candidate to transition is a crapshoot. The pro sports analogy really does apply here - all things considered, physical freaks have a bigger upside and you kind of know who's going to be a first-round or middle-round pick, but even the best scouts have a long string of prospects who they misjudged.

What the hell? You mean Mark Prior isn't going to the Baseball Hall of Fame? But he owned college baseball.

[gulceatransfer]

Please explain how 2 and 3 are dumb. I do not understand your last post. Are you assuming entry at a T-2 guarantees significant scholarship $ at a TTT in the same market?

Simple.
1) Most can't get into a T-1, but can get into T-2.
2) Many that can get in at a T-1 don't live (or want to live) where they might be accepted.
3) Many don't live (or want to live) where a TTT may be offering scholarship.
4) People seeking to practice law typically want to get the best possible education in order to do so.

To say that paying sticker is an inherently bad idea for a T-2 over the course of 30-40 year career (even assuming a class ranking outside top-10%), is much too broad of a brush to paint the picture. The reality is that the majority of graduates at T-2 will go on to have successful careers, even if they might make less coming out of the gate than someone attending a T-1 and may have more debt that if they attended a TTT or lower.

2 and 3 are just dumb (you're going for an education and there are enough law schools in this country that you should have no problem finding a T1 or TTT close by to anyone important in your life. 4 is also dumb since even the profs at TTT schools have terrific credentials. Aside from some "practical" aspects of the curriculum such as clinics and LRW, there is very little difference in the quality of the education - and in a narrow sense some lower-ranked schools might be "better" b/c their emphasis on black letter law is more useful to a young associate than some seminar on "Law and the gender dynamics of Twilight"

[afterglow99]

If you've outworked and outperformed your peers academically up to law school, there's no reason to think that it is going to change.

By this logic, J.J. Redick, Adam Morrison, Emeka Okafor, and Hasheem Thabeet should all be NBA all-stars. Oddly enough, when you put a bunch of winners together in a class and make them compete, some of them are going to lose. Unless you've got something like 10-15 LSAT points and .3 UGPA on the median, you aren't really that much better (and if you are, WTH are you doing in that particular school?). Law school is not like undergrad or grad school or even other professional schools - it's an entirely different game and judging the ability of any one candidate to transition is a crapshoot. The pro sports analogy really does apply here - all things considered, physical freaks have a bigger upside and you kind of know who's going to be a first-round or middle-round pick, but even the best scouts have a long string of prospects who they misjudged.

Having .3 UG GPA on the median is exactly what I'm talking about. If you've been pulling this since HS (assuming you went to a very competitive HS and college) I still don't see why it's unreasonable to think you can continue to outperform many of your peers. Im just trying to say there are situations, albeit only some, where this expectation isn't that crazy.

And cmon, the basketball analogy is really flawed. You're speaking of THE most competitive basketball league in the world. We're talking about T2 law schools that really aren't very hard at all to get into to. I'm not speaking of assuming you could outperform your peers at HYS, because there you really are looking at a bunch of "winners." You're assuming simply getting into ANY law school automatically means you're at the top in terms of factors that contribute to good grades and good lawyering.

(I'm not trying to diss T2s - I go to one and have no complaints.)

[soullesswonder]

Please explain how 2 and 3 are dumb. I do not understand your last post. Are you assuming entry at a T-2 guarantees significant scholarship $ at a TTT in the same market?

Simple.
1) Most can't get into a T-1, but can get into T-2.
2) Many that can get in at a T-1 don't live (or want to live) where they might be accepted.
3) Many don't live (or want to live) where a TTT may be offering scholarship.
4) People seeking to practice law typically want to get the best possible education in order to do so.

To say that paying sticker is an inherently bad idea for a T-2 over the course of 30-40 year career (even assuming a class ranking outside top-10%), is much too broad of a brush to paint the picture. The reality is that the majority of graduates at T-2 will go on to have successful careers, even if they might make less coming out of the gate than someone attending a T-1 and may have more debt that if they attended a TTT or lower.

2 and 3 are just dumb (you're going for an education and there are enough law schools in this country that you should have no problem finding a T1 or TTT close by to anyone important in your life. 4 is also dumb since even the profs at TTT schools have terrific credentials. Aside from some "practical" aspects of the curriculum such as clinics and LRW, there is very little difference in the quality of the education - and in a narrow sense some lower-ranked schools might be "better" b/c their emphasis on black letter law is more useful to a young associate than some seminar on "Law and the gender dynamics of Twilight"

My point is that "I don't want to live there" isn't a valid excuse when there are so many law schools located all around the country. So maybe a T1 that admits you is too far away from family/friends or is in a urban location that doesn't agree with you. Fine...there is likely another T1 that will admit you that can address those concerns. Same goes for a TTT, and while I wouldn't give a guarantee odds are that if you can get in at a T2 you can indeed get $$ from a T3 in the same market.

If you've outworked and outperformed your peers academically up to law school, there's no reason to think that it is going to change.

By this logic, J.J. Redick, Adam Morrison, Emeka Okafor, and Hasheem Thabeet should all be NBA all-stars. Oddly enough, when you put a bunch of winners together in a class and make them compete, some of them are going to lose. Unless you've got something like 10-15 LSAT points and .3 UGPA on the median, you aren't really that much better (and if you are, WTH are you doing in that particular school?). Law school is not like undergrad or grad school or even other professional schools - it's an entirely different game and judging the ability of any one candidate to transition is a crapshoot. The pro sports analogy really does apply here - all things considered, physical freaks have a bigger upside and you kind of know who's going to be a first-round or middle-round pick, but even the best scouts have a long string of prospects who they misjudged.

Having .3 UG GPA on the median is exactly what I'm talking about. If you've been pulling this since HS (assuming you went to a very competitive HS and college) I still don't see why it's unreasonable to think you can continue to outperform many of your peers. Im just trying to say there are situations, albeit only some, where this expectation isn't that crazy.

And cmon, the basketball analogy is really flawed. You're speaking of THE most competitive basketball league in the world. We're talking about T2 law schools that really aren't very hard at all to get into to. I'm not speaking of assuming you could outperform your peers at HYS, because there you really are looking at a bunch of "winners." You're assuming simply getting into ANY law school automatically means you're at the top in terms of factors that contribute to good grades and good lawyering.

(I'm not trying to diss T2s - I go to one and have no complaints.)

No, the basketball analogy is just fine - there's still a substantial difference in skill level among individual teams, even in the NBA. But even if you throw out the NBA, there are plenty of former BMOCs struggling to stay in the D-league. Bottom Line: success at one level does not automatically translate to success at the next.

More importantly, you haven't even addressed my point that law school is a much bigger transition than the one from HS to UG, and I should clarify that even if your LSAT and GPA blow away your competition, I would say that grading is too arbitrary to believe that you can be confident of being much better than top third or top quarter. For T2s, that's not good enough for BigLaw, so in order to get those jobs you need to be both good enough to put yourself in contention AND lucky enough to have professors that like your exam styles

With regards to the "winners" comment - it's all relative. Yeah, your T2 colleagues may not be the absolute best, but if you're paying sticker there you didn't go out and set the world on fire, either. And EVERYONE thinks that they're better than their raw stats, so your confidence may be as misplaced as the next guy's.

[PoliticalJunkie]

Paying for an education... idiots......

[gulceatransfer]

This whole thread is about why people pay for T-2. My only point is that many people are set on their plans to live and work in a certain place (often for reasons other than friends/family). Conventional wisdom says if you are not in the T-20 or so (national OCI), go to school where you want to work, take bar, live, etc. Often, the only choice may be a T-2 where no TTT's offer significant scholarship.

Please explain how 2 and 3 are dumb. I do not understand your last post. Are you assuming entry at a T-2 guarantees significant scholarship $ at a TTT in the same market?

Simple.
1) Most can't get into a T-1, but can get into T-2.
2) Many that can get in at a T-1 don't live (or want to live) where they might be accepted.
3) Many don't live (or want to live) where a TTT may be offering scholarship.
4) People seeking to practice law typically want to get the best possible education in order to do so.

To say that paying sticker is an inherently bad idea for a T-2 over the course of 30-40 year career (even assuming a class ranking outside top-10%), is much too broad of a brush to paint the picture. The reality is that the majority of graduates at T-2 will go on to have successful careers, even if they might make less coming out of the gate than someone attending a T-1 and may have more debt that if they attended a TTT or lower.

2 and 3 are just dumb (you're going for an education and there are enough law schools in this country that you should have no problem finding a T1 or TTT close by to anyone important in your life. 4 is also dumb since even the profs at TTT schools have terrific credentials. Aside from some "practical" aspects of the curriculum such as clinics and LRW, there is very little difference in the quality of the education - and in a narrow sense some lower-ranked schools might be "better" b/c their emphasis on black letter law is more useful to a young associate than some seminar on "Law and the gender dynamics of Twilight"

My point is that "I don't want to live there" isn't a valid excuse when there are so many law schools located all around the country. So maybe a T1 that admits you is too far away from family/friends or is in a urban location that doesn't agree with you. Fine...there is likely another T1 that will admit you that can address those concerns. Same goes for a TTT, and while I wouldn't give a guarantee odds are that if you can get in at a T2 you can indeed get $$ from a T3 in the same market.

If you've outworked and outperformed your peers academically up to law school, there's no reason to think that it is going to change.

By this logic, J.J. Redick, Adam Morrison, Emeka Okafor, and Hasheem Thabeet should all be NBA all-stars. Oddly enough, when you put a bunch of winners together in a class and make them compete, some of them are going to lose. Unless you've got something like 10-15 LSAT points and .3 UGPA on the median, you aren't really that much better (and if you are, WTH are you doing in that particular school?). Law school is not like undergrad or grad school or even other professional schools - it's an entirely different game and judging the ability of any one candidate to transition is a crapshoot. The pro sports analogy really does apply here - all things considered, physical freaks have a bigger upside and you kind of know who's going to be a first-round or middle-round pick, but even the best scouts have a long string of prospects who they misjudged.

Having .3 UG GPA on the median is exactly what I'm talking about. If you've been pulling this since HS (assuming you went to a very competitive HS and college) I still don't see why it's unreasonable to think you can continue to outperform many of your peers. Im just trying to say there are situations, albeit only some, where this expectation isn't that crazy.

And cmon, the basketball analogy is really flawed. You're speaking of THE most competitive basketball league in the world. We're talking about T2 law schools that really aren't very hard at all to get into to. I'm not speaking of assuming you could outperform your peers at HYS, because there you really are looking at a bunch of "winners." You're assuming simply getting into ANY law school automatically means you're at the top in terms of factors that contribute to good grades and good lawyering.

(I'm not trying to diss T2s - I go to one and have no complaints.)

No, the basketball analogy is just fine - there's still a substantial difference in skill level among individual teams, even in the NBA. But even if you throw out the NBA, there are plenty of former BMOCs struggling to stay in the D-league. Bottom Line: success at one level does not automatically translate to success at the next.

More importantly, you haven't even addressed my point that law school is a much bigger transition than the one from HS to UG, and I should clarify that even if your LSAT and GPA blow away your competition, I would say that grading is too arbitrary to believe that you can be confident of being much better than top third or top quarter. For T2s, that's not good enough for BigLaw, so in order to get those jobs you need to be both good enough to put yourself in contention AND lucky enough to have professors that like your exam styles

With regards to the "winners" comment - it's all relative. Yeah, your T2 colleagues may not be the absolute best, but if you're paying sticker there you didn't go out and set the world on fire, either. And EVERYONE thinks that they're better than their raw stats, so your confidence may be as misplaced as the next guy's.

[soullesswonder]

This whole thread is about why people pay for T-2. My only point is that many people are set on their plans to live and work in a certain place (often for reasons other than friends/family). Conventional wisdom says if you are not in the T-20 or so (national OCI), go to school where you want to work, take bar, live, etc. Often, the only choice may be a T-2 where no TTT's offer significant scholarship.

There's no evidence to support that this is "often the only choice".

[gulceatransfer]

Evidence? This is not some sort of trial. There is no "winner" here. Dude is merely giving a reasoned opinion* as to why some people choose a T-2, and defending it from allegations that it is "dumb."

*"That's just like...your opinion, man."**

**name the movie and I will concede that anyone paying to attend a school ranked anywhere 51-100 has no reason for doing so.

[ck3]

I think people misunderstand the anti-T2 sentiment as "snobbishness" when it's largely just pragmatism. The job market is just atrocious for T2 grads right now so it's very hard to justify going $200K into debt for no guarantee of a job at all and a strong possibility of starting at 50K or less

Anti-T2ism was around far before the recession ... It has deep roots in snobbiness!

If it does, who cares? The important thing is to make a rational decision about your future.

I agree but keep in mind the future for most workers covers 40+ years so you have to consider more than just the first year salary or even the first year employment prospects or the current economy. So if you get a job for 45K and struggle during the recession, when the recession is over you will have a JD and experience and you may be able to significantly better your situation and deal with the long term debt. Not saying that this gets rid of the risk, but stating that it is much more of a complicated decision than just looking at the current employment prospects and starting salaries.

[soullesswonder]

Evidence? This is not some sort of trial. There is no "winner" here. Dude is merely giving a reasoned opinion* as to why some people choose a T-2, and defending it from allegations that it is "dumb."

*"That's just like...your opinion, man."**

**name the movie and I will concede that anyone paying to attend a school ranked anywhere 51-100 has no reason for doing so.

The Big Lebowski isn't nearly obscure enough to make that a challenge. And no, it's not a trial, but the very weak premise of your argument (with no statistical data and a whole lot of anecdotal evidence to the contrary) does nothing to show that the T-2 sticker choice is generally "reasonable". Yeah, it's just an opinion, but it's hardly well considered.

*I wasn't trying to use legal terminology, btw - I was using the layman's version of "evidence"

[akili]

This whole thread is about why people pay for T-2. My only point is that many people are set on their plans to live and work in a certain place (often for reasons other than friends/family). Conventional wisdom says if you are not in the T-20 or so (national OCI), go to school where you want to work, take bar, live, etc. Often, the only choice may be a T-2 where no TTT's offer significant scholarship.

There's no evidence to support that this is "often the only choice".

I don't know about often, but if you want to live in Oregon, L&C and U of O are your best choices outside T-14 + UW.

[soullesswonder]

This whole thread is about why people pay for T-2. My only point is that many people are set on their plans to live and work in a certain place (often for reasons other than friends/family). Conventional wisdom says if you are not in the T-20 or so (national OCI), go to school where you want to work, take bar, live, etc. Often, the only choice may be a T-2 where no TTT's offer significant scholarship.

There's no evidence to support that this is "often the only choice".

I don't know about often, but if you want to live in Oregon, L&C and U of O are your best choices outside T-14 + UW.

True, but Oregon's in-state tuition is only 22k.

[gulceatransfer]

It was a bit too easy. Should have gone with "Nein dizbatcher says zere iss problem mit deine kable."

"Often" may have been too strong of a word choice, but I doubt 99.9% of the posts here have any sort of credible research behind them. Unfortunatly I too have none on this particular subject, and can only draw upon what I have seen in my own experience. Happy Friday everyone.

[Zannie1986]

If I didn't know about TLS, I may have read the employment information released by schools, and not understanding how misleading it is, felt that paying sticker was well worth the payoff in the long run. Granted, it's dumb not to do your own research.

I hear people always say on here 'well if you just do your research...' but personally, I am ignorant of what research I am supposed to be performing...I'm NOT supposed to go to the schools' website, or believe anything the school says...am I supposed to trust ILRG.com or some kind of ABA stats thing? Or is that also information that is 'tainted' because it's what the schools give? So I feel like lack of understanding of LEGIT resources is something that holds me back from understanding what I'm getting into, sometimes.

Edit: I also know how people put weight on OCI stuff, but I am under the impression that really had to do with firm recruiting, which isn't really my intended scene (interested in PI)

[270910]

PSA: I know people with top of the line, full-ride numbers who wound up substantially below median. I know splitters and barely-admits by the numbers who rocked out and got the top of the class. I know everyone in-between.

There is, within a single law school, only an extraordinarily rough correlation between LSAT + UGPA and law school performance.

That's just the way it is. Sorry. Taking one individual (in most cases, yourself) and trying to gauge your future class rank based on work ethic, UGPA, or LSAT is foolish. Law school is a VERY bizarre competition. Many who do well don't even know why. If you can figure out how to succeed in law school and on law school exams, you'll wipe the floor with people regardless of relative LSAT and GPA.

That feet, it's worth pointing out, is both difficult and rare as a first semester law student.

[blsingindisguise]

PSA: I know people with top of the line, full-ride numbers who wound up substantially below median. I know splitters and barely-admits by the numbers who rocked out and got the top of the class. I know everyone in-between.

There is, within a single law school, only an extraordinarily rough correlation between LSAT + UGPA and law school performance.

That's just the way it is. Sorry. Taking one individual (in most cases, yourself) and trying to gauge your future class rank based on work ethic, UGPA, or LSAT is foolish. Law school is a VERY bizarre competition. Many who do well don't even know why. If you can figure out how to succeed in law school and on law school exams, you'll wipe the floor with people regardless of relative LSAT and GPA.

That feet, it's worth pointing out, is both difficult and rare as a first semester law student.

I agree with this to an extent, and it's all the more reason why you SHOULDN'T go into law school imagining you'll do well just because you always did well before.

[A'nold]

This logic is just hard for me b/c I went into law school thinking I should be at the top of the class based on this and that. This prediction came true, and I am as far from arrogant or self-confident as any law student you will ever meet.

I know it could have "just so happened" that I had a 1-5% chance of this coming true, but I never win at games of luck.

[blsingindisguise]

I went to law school with a poor academic record and ended up in the top 5% of my class. I don't think it was luck of course, but I did have a high LSAT. And I also know lots of driven people who came in with good previous grades and that "I'm going to succeed" mentality and didn't do especially well.

[270910]

I am as far from arrogant or self-confident as any law student you will ever meet.

A'nold, you know I love you like a long-lost internet brother and could find no character defect in you even if I wanted to - but you do realize after grades your head swelled to ten times the size of a watermelon, right?

I mean, with respect to grades, it's sort of the legitimate example of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Sure, if you got good grades, then your stats / enormous wang / clinical lack of dependancy on sleep / dashing good looks may have carried the day. But the numerous examples of people with those things who neither kicked ass nor took names combined with the people who had poor stats ent...

Why am I re-hashing that, you know where I stand

[erniesto]

Just to clarify, in my original post I did not present an explicit opinion on paying sticker at a T2. I also want to emphasize that all ideas must be able to be defended with logic (evidence) or they must be considered non-rational.

I want to return to some points made towards justifying paying complete tuition.

~Some T2 schools are very good public interest schools and once you land a public interest position, you enroll in IBR. But will IBR will be around for 10 years? Does a top public interest school in Tier 2 place well in desired public interest positions, or significantly better than a lower cost Tier 3? Will someone with a high debt burden out of these public schools be able to change practice areas if they so choose and with what repercussions?

~There are some markets which do not have lower cost law schools, ie: Seattle, thus forcing someone who wanted to practice in this market to pay a high tuition at a lesser ranked school. But is it financially responsible, given these rare markets' small size? Is there no correlation between market size and the number of schools placing in that market? Is lateraling into said market an undesirable option?

[twert]

i think the number one reason people pay sticker for a t2 is that they are under the impression that the degree carries a prestige that it probably does not. loyola, nova, usd, santa clara, miami, marquette, are good schools and locals are impressed by the name and prospective students think that being in the top 100 is significant. the argument that they are the best schools in their market catches a lot of people too. i only recently became convinced that loyola doesn't really offer anything chapman doesn't, at least not anything worth the price.

[fwaam]

I live in an area that's dominated by the local T-2 school, and people pay sticker to go there all the time and end up doing quite well for themselves (granted, it's public, which makes a huge difference in price given that most students there are in-state). It's just silly to think that because your starting salary is $50,000 that you're going to be making $50,000/year for the rest of your life. That's like pointing out that the average college graduate with no advanced degrees doesn't have a huge starting salary, and arguing that there's no point in taking out loans to go to college in that case. It's about long-term payoff.

Plus, as my boss points out every time the subject of the multiple schools that have admitted me comes up, "most people only get into one!" Those of us who have choices are lucky. Not everybody is so lucky.