Anyone regret taking scholarship over higher ranked school? Forum

[TheStrand]

Ok, think about how long it would take you to pay off a 40k loan. Depending on how long you take to pay it and the interest, that's around $500/month for 8-9 years. You could easily be putting this into retirement/survival, whatever. Now imagine while you are paying that off, you are paying interest on a 120k loan.

It's a big fucking difference.

Your ability to pay 40k = easy. Your ability to pay off 120k = difficult. Your ability to pay off 160k = difficult. You are in some hardship past a certain point (I would argue 100k, others might say 120k, but it's not going to be 40k) which restricts your ability to do what you want. You having 160k in debt is going to be just as restrictive of your job opportunities as you having 120k. There's going to be very few, if any, jobs after grad where you're going to say "man, if only I had 120k in debt I could take that. But alas I have 160k; there are many many jobs where you will say "man if only I had 40k in loans, I could work there, but I have 120k and I can't afford to ). We are not saying that the time to pay off 40k and the time to pay off 120k is the same (unsure why you reference only paying interest on 120k versus actually paying back 40k; i don't think anybody is going to argue if they had 120k they would only pay interest), or that it is easy. We are saying the opposite.

To summarize, we are not strictly talking about 40k in debt. We are talking about the difference between owing 120k and owing 160k.

[bk1]

Ok, think about how long it would take you to pay off a 40k loan. Depending on how long you take to pay it and the interest, that's around $500/month for 8-9 years. You could easily be putting this into retirement/survival, whatever. Now imagine while you are paying that off, you are paying interest on a 120k loan.

It's a big fucking difference.

Your ability to pay 40k = easy. Your ability to pay off 120k = difficult. Your ability to pay off 160k = difficult. You are in some hardship past a certain point (I would argue 100k, others might say 120k, but it's not going to be 40k) which restricts your ability to do what you want. You having 160k in debt is going to be just as restrictive of your job opportunities as you having 120k. There's going to be very few, if any, jobs after grad where you're going to say "man, if only I had 120k in debt I could take that. But alas I have 160k; there are many many jobs where you will say "man if only I had 40k in loans, I could work there, but I have 120k and I can't afford to ). We are not saying that the time to pay off 40k and the time to pay off 120k is the same (unsure why you reference only paying interest on 120k versus actually paying back 40k; i don't think anybody is going to argue if they had 120k they would only pay interest), or that it is easy. We are saying the opposite.

To summarize, we are not strictly talking about 40k in debt. We are talking about the difference between owing 120k and owing 160k.

Agreed, in fact this is pretty much what I have said many times before.

[Hannibal]

Ok, think about how long it would take you to pay off a 40k loan. Depending on how long you take to pay it and the interest, that's around $500/month for 8-9 years. You could easily be putting this into retirement/survival, whatever. Now imagine while you are paying that off, you are paying interest on a 120k loan.

It's a big fucking difference.

Your ability to pay 40k = easy. Your ability to pay off 120k = difficult. Your ability to pay off 160k = difficult. You are in some hardship past a certain point (I would argue 100k, others might say 120k, but it's not going to be 40k) which restricts your ability to do what you want. You having 160k in debt is going to be just as restrictive of your job opportunities as you having 120k. There's going to be very few, if any, jobs after grad where you're going to say "man, if only I had 120k in debt I could take that. But alas I have 160k; there are many many jobs where you will say "man if only I had 40k in loans, I could work there, but I have 120k and I can't afford to ). We are not saying that the time to pay off 40k and the time to pay off 120k is the same (unsure why you reference only paying interest on 120k versus actually paying back 40k; i don't think anybody is going to argue if they had 120k they would only pay interest), or that it is easy. We are saying the opposite.

To summarize, we are not strictly talking about 40k in debt. We are talking about the difference between owing 120k and owing 160k.

This only makes sense if you think the length of time you are in debt does not have any psychological impact. You will be paying more money, for longer. Obviously the difference between 40k and 120k is roughly double the impact of 120k to 160k. Is the same comparable between 80k and 120k?

[bk1]

This only makes sense if you think the length of time you are in debt does not have any psychological impact. You will be paying more money, for longer.

I'm gonna go with tk on this, I'm a bit confused by what you're trying to say.

So you're saying that with 40k debt, you can afford to take a lower paying job (i.e. something like 40k/year), but you will still be indebted as long as if you were making 160k/year with 160k debt? Thus 40k debt still sucks?

[Hannibal]

This only makes sense if you think the length of time you are in debt does not have any psychological impact. You will be paying more money, for longer.

I'm gonna go with tk on this, I'm a bit confused by what you're trying to say.

So you're saying that with 40k debt, you can afford to take a lower paying job (i.e. something like 40k/year), but you will still be indebted as long as if you were making 160k/year with 160k debt? Thus 40k debt still sucks?

I'm referring to 40k as the difference between 120k and 160k, not 40k itself. The 40k on top of the 120k adds more than a 40k debt alone would to someone $0 in debt since they'd be paying the interest on the loan dollars below it.

Yeah, I'm arguing that 40k debt is not something to be taken likely. It seemed like the argument the Loyola people were making was that boom and bust is the best way to go (30% stipulation), I'm arguing that it's better to have a tapered boom and tapered bust.

[paulinaporizkova]

Good insight above.

For the LA market in particular, does the rank and prestige of USC outweigh the debt? It would cost me roughly $110,000 more to attend USC than it would Loyola (assuming I get accepted to USC). I do not expect a scholarship from the Trojans. I've also gotten into Hastings, but if it were between Hastings at sticker and Loyola at scholly price, I would take Loyola. I should add that the Loyola scholarship is contingent upon me staying in the top 30%

LLS student here

If you come to Loyola, you will have a financial incentive to work hard. Not so at USC. Therefore, I think you will probably do better grade wise if you come to Loyola. The rest will take care of itself.

If you are deciding between Hastings and Loyola, I think you should definitely pick Loyola if you intend to practice in the LA market (even if you get a scholarship to Hastings).

wouldn't you have a greater financial incentive to work hard if you went to USC because you had to take on more debt to attend?

Edit: I see vanwinkle and others have already ripped this logic apart

[Aqualibrium]

I'm referring to 40k as the difference between 120k and 160k, not 40k itself. The 40k on top of the 120k adds more than a 40k debt alone would to someone $0 in debt since they'd be paying the interest on the loan dollars below it.

Yeah, I'm arguing that 40k debt is not something to be taken likely. It seemed like the argument the Loyola people were making was that boom and bust is the best way to go (30% stipulation), I'm arguing that it's better to have a tapered boom and tapered bust.

But the person with 120k vs 160k doesn't have a psychological change in position. They are still up to their eyeballs in debt. They still need a big law job to adequately service the debt load.

Whether you go to a school with 120k in debt and a scholarship, or you go to that same school with 160k in debt at sticker, you end up in the same place. The scholarship adds nothing but a false sense of financial security. The reality is, you have no financial security. You are fucked in the ass in either position. The 40k extra marginally changes your position, if at all.

[rundoxierun]

This only makes sense if you think the length of time you are in debt does not have any psychological impact. You will be paying more money, for longer.

I'm gonna go with tk on this, I'm a bit confused by what you're trying to say.

So you're saying that with 40k debt, you can afford to take a lower paying job (i.e. something like 40k/year), but you will still be indebted as long as if you were making 160k/year with 160k debt? Thus 40k debt still sucks?

I'm referring to 40k as the difference between 120k and 160k, not 40k itself. The 40k on top of the 120k adds more than a 40k debt alone would to someone $0 in debt since they'd be paying the interest on the loan dollars below it.

Yeah, I'm arguing that 40k debt is not something to be taken likely. It seemed like the argument the Loyola people were making was that boom and bust is the best way to go (30% stipulation), I'm arguing that it's better to have a tapered boom and tapered bust.

Im not sure your point is relevant. The argument the others are making is that (just as an example) the difference in debt between 40k and 80k is more significant than the difference between 120k and 160k. At a certain point your only option for paying back debt in reasonable time is via a biglaw job. Biglaw job is hard to get and missing out can be bad at high debt levels. With lower debt missing out isnt so bad.

[bk1]

I'm referring to 40k as the difference between 120k and 160k, not 40k itself. The 40k on top of the 120k adds more than a 40k debt alone would to someone $0 in debt since they'd be paying the interest on the loan dollars below it.

Yeah, I'm arguing that 40k debt is not something to be taken likely. It seemed like the argument the Loyola people were making was that boom and bust is the best way to go (30% stipulation), I'm arguing that it's better to have a tapered boom and tapered bust.

This is true, but I only think that the difference between 120k and 160k matters when you are talking about schools with comparative placement. When you're talking about 120k at GULC versus 160k at Penn, I think that the 40k difference is worth it. If it were 120k at NU versus 160k at Penn, I wouldn't be as sure.

[Hannibal]

Im not sure your point is relevant. The argument the others are making is that (just as an example) the difference in debt between 40k and 80k is more significant than the difference between 120k and 160k. At a certain point your only option for paying back debt in reasonable time is via a biglaw job. Biglaw job is hard to get and missing out can be bad at high debt levels. With lower debt missing out isnt so bad.

Yeah I just went off to work for a few mins and realized I was arguing against nobody in particular. Sorry bout that.

And I see BK. Agreed.

[Aqualibrium]

This has all spiraled out of control.

His (Hannibal's) original point: Scholarship stipulations are of the devil. PERIOD.

My original point: Scholarship stips, when reasonable, aren't a bad thing. Schools don't have to give scholarships at all. Many grad/professional programs with similar tuition costs give very very few. As long as stips are reasonable, they are a good trade off IMO.

His point: Yes they do have to give scholarships; US News drives them to in order to stay competitive. When students rely on the financial assistance in making a decision to give schools the benefit of their numbers, they should be allowed to keep their scholarships no matter what.

My counterpoint: Most people don't get scholarships that put a meaningful dent in their debt load. By my definition, such a scholarship would at the very least keep you under 100k in debt. Even fewer students get 75%+ scholarships. As a result of this fact, the sense of financial security many people carry into law school is misguided. At 100k+ in debt with a scholarship, the difference in outcomes/options/attitude between you and someone paying sticker is marginal at best. You could lose your scholarship and not be in a significantly different position than if you had retained it at that level of debt.

[JazzOne]

I'm also answering with the benefit of hindsight. I chose a scholarship in a school in my hometown over sticker at a lower T14 and it turned out to be a great decision. I got to stay close to my family and friends (and I certainly needed their support throughout), did fairly well in my first year, and will be a biglaw SA. For me personally, I would have felt a lot more pressure if I paid sticker, and I really didn't need that extra pressure on top of law school.

+1

I do not regret taking a full ride at UT over T14. Then again, my goals were pretty modest. I just wanted to do some interesting work and make a decent salary, and I was content to stay in Texas. So, a biglaw SA with a firm that pays above market is more than I bargained for, and I couldn't be happier. That said, legal hiring is a train wreck, and TCR is don't go to law school.

[sarahlawg]

This has all spiraled out of control.

His (Hannibal's) original point: Scholarship stipulations are of the devil. PERIOD.

My original point: Scholarship stips, when reasonable, aren't a bad thing. Schools don't have to give scholarships at all. Many grad/professional programs with similar tuition costs give very very few. As long as stips are reasonable, they are a good trade off IMO.

His point: Yes they do have to give scholarships; US News drives them to in order to stay competitive. When students rely on the financial assistance in making a decision to give schools the benefit of their numbers, they should be allowed to keep their scholarships no matter what.

My counterpoint: Most people don't get scholarships that put a meaningful dent in their debt load. By my definition, such a scholarship would at the very least keep you under 100k in debt. Even fewer students get 75%+ scholarships. As a result of this fact, the sense of financial security many people carry into law school is misguided. At 100k+ in debt with a scholarship, the difference in outcomes/options/attitude between you and someone paying sticker is marginal at best. You could lose your scholarship and not be in a significantly different position than if you had retained it at that level of debt.

I had stipulations on my full ride in UG and never though twice about it... if they're giving me money based on merit, then they should be able to have expectations surrounding that scholarship. However, I have heard the grading in LS is a bit arbitrary and have heard the argument that it doesn't matter how hard you work, some people get the grades and others don't? Something like that. Something like you can do whatever you can to keep your grade up, but it's really not that much in your power because of the curve system. In that way, I think the stipulations are unfair. If it's not that way, then keep them.

[Revolver066]

Good insight above.

For the LA market in particular, does the rank and prestige of USC outweigh the debt? It would cost me roughly $110,000 more to attend USC than it would Loyola (assuming I even get accepted to USC). I do not expect a scholarship from the Trojans. I've also gotten into Hastings, but if it were between Hastings at sticker and Loyola at scholly price, I would take Loyola. I should add that the Loyola scholarship is contingent upon me staying in the top 30%

I think I'm going to be in the same exact situation next year. Right now, I'm leaning on taking USC (if i get in, which is a HUGE if), but honestly my mind changes every week or so. I don't expect much from Loyola though seeing as I'm a splitter, so that may make my decision easier.

[Danteshek]

Loyola with good grades = less debt
Loyola with bad grades = same debt
USC with good grades = same debt
USC with bad grades = same debt

Whatever floats your boat, man