Will biglaw cover sticker debt? Forum

[Mickey Quicknumbers]

It helps to be SPRINGBONUSSECURE.

Well played.

As for OP's question, as others have indicated, yes, you can EASILY pay off sticker with biglaw $$. Much faster than 10 years if you're smart about it. But the challenge remains getting and keeping the biglaw job--something that isn't always, or even usually in your control (see, e.g., Latham & Watkins, circa spring 2009; OCI fall 2009, etc.).

I have nightmares weekly that I get Lathamed halfway through my first year. Then again, there's always the option to expatriate, set up a little shave-ice stand on a beach somewhere, and sleep in a hammock under a banana tree in the rain forest. Actually, that doesn't sound so bad. Does anybody know which countries won't deport US citizens back to the US?

http://www.askmen.com/top_10/travel_150 ... p_ten.html

[glitched]

I just want a good life with a good wife, good kids, and good friends. Whatever gets me there...

Isn't this what everyone wants?

no - that's what everyone says they want. but what many people actually want is money and prestige (lol maybe these two factors determine the good wife part. kidding... kinda).

but i have a question: once you officially make it into biglaw as a first year associate, will your law school affect at all your road to partner or will it be dependent on talent from there on?

[FiveSermon]

I just want a good life with a good wife, good kids, and good friends. Whatever gets me there...

Isn't this what everyone wants?

no - that's what everyone says they want. but what many people actually want is money and prestige (lol maybe these two factors determine the good wife part. kidding... kinda).

but i have a question: once you officially make it into biglaw as a first year associate, will your law school affect at all your road to partner or will it be dependent on talent from there on?

People want money and prestige because money usually leads to good things and an easier life...It's rational to want money if you want a good life.

[glitched]

I just want a good life with a good wife, good kids, and good friends. Whatever gets me there...

Isn't this what everyone wants?

no - that's what everyone says they want. but what many people actually want is money and prestige (lol maybe these two factors determine the good wife part. kidding... kinda).

but i have a question: once you officially make it into biglaw as a first year associate, will your law school affect at all your road to partner or will it be dependent on talent from there on?

People want money and prestige because money usually leads to good things and an easier life...It's rational to want money if you want a good life.

i agree with you on that. but some* people aren't like that.

[glitched]

but i have a question: once you officially make it into biglaw as a first year associate, will your law school affect at all your road to partner or will it be dependent on talent from there on?

[09042014]

I find it hard to believe anyone pays off sticker at a t14 in fewer than 5 years. Maybe if you are at a Dallas firm at 160k.

[jtemp320]

Yea, I understand UofC places way better, but that's with the super rough economy, so in my opinion I would take the most recent stats as an outlier. With $90K, you're looking at graduating law school with only ~$60K debt. That's not biglaw or bust numbers. Your job options are Biglaw at $160K (albeit a smaller chance) all the way down to PI at $50K/yr paying off a $700/mo debt. You have much more latitude in choosing your QoL. That's just me..

But apparently I missed the whole debate glitched. I'm sorry but I'm not going to peruse through every poster's prior topics and discussions.

Unless you have some money stashed up or additional aid I don't think 90k in scholarships is going to get you out of UCLA with only 60k of debt. 30k of debt (at least) from tuition and probably 20k of debt a year (at least) from COL - very conservatively thats 90k or so of debt. Getting pretty close to big law or bust territory or solid job that will allow you to rely on LRAP - UChi will give you much better possibilities for both...that said if it was a full ride I'd say take it and never look back

[Sean1269]

The biglaw or bust attitude is a "bust" in itself. It is reserved for 0L's who have yet to realize that they're brilliance gained from acing political science or sociology is by no means a guarantee "good" finish at a "good" school. So, if you are a 0L and reading this, chances are you won't finish at the top of your class, no matter how smart you THINK you are. Law school is not about intelligence, it's about how good you are at taking law school exams. Furthermore, if you are a 0L and reading this, understand that biglaw is not everything, most of your professors either worked or at could have worked in biglaw, they are not there for a reason.


Second case and point (in addition to #1 which was MINIMIZE DEBT) - do NOT go to law school with the attitude of biglaw or bust, I will make 160K per year and pay my loans down. You will probably be disappointed with either not getting the job, or you will probably be disappointed when have the biglaw job and realize you cannot quit 2,3,4 years later (or alternatively, you got lathamed).

Change your attitude if you are biglaw or bust, you will only hurt yourself.

[FiveSermon]

The biglaw or bust attitude is a "bust" in itself. It is reserved for 0L's who have yet to realize that they're brilliance gained from acing political science or sociology is by no means a guarantee "good" finish at a "good" school. So, if you are a 0L and reading this, chances are you won't finish at the top of your class, no matter how smart you THINK you are. Law school is not about intelligence, it's about how good you are at taking law school exams. Furthermore, if you are a 0L and reading this, understand that biglaw is not everything, most of your professors either worked or at could have worked in biglaw, they are not there for a reason.


Second case and point (in addition to #1 which was MINIMIZE DEBT) - do NOT go to law school with the attitude of biglaw or bust, I will make 160K per year and pay my loans down. You will probably be disappointed with either not getting the job, or you will probably be disappointed when have the biglaw job and realize you cannot quit 2,3,4 years later (or alternatively, you got lathamed).

Change your attitude if you are biglaw or bust, you will only hurt yourself.

1. You don't need to graduate top of your class from most t14 schools to get biglaw. Unless top of the class is around top 40%. While this is no guarantee it puts you in position to interview and get biglaw.

2. Most professors went to law school in an age where it didn't cost 60k a year and in a time when Finding Law Related Jobs to pay off debts were easy. That isn't now. ITE if you aren't going to school on 100k+ scholarship you will most likely be burdened with 60-90k debt easily. Try paying off 6 figure debt on 50k a year.

[Sean1269]

The biglaw or bust attitude is a "bust" in itself. It is reserved for 0L's who have yet to realize that they're brilliance gained from acing political science or sociology is by no means a guarantee "good" finish at a "good" school. So, if you are a 0L and reading this, chances are you won't finish at the top of your class, no matter how smart you THINK you are. Law school is not about intelligence, it's about how good you are at taking law school exams. Furthermore, if you are a 0L and reading this, understand that biglaw is not everything, most of your professors either worked or at could have worked in biglaw, they are not there for a reason.


Second case and point (in addition to #1 which was MINIMIZE DEBT) - do NOT go to law school with the attitude of biglaw or bust, I will make 160K per year and pay my loans down. You will probably be disappointed with either not getting the job, or you will probably be disappointed when have the biglaw job and realize you cannot quit 2,3,4 years later (or alternatively, you got lathamed).

Change your attitude if you are biglaw or bust, you will only hurt yourself.

1. You don't need to graduate top of your class from most t14 schools to get biglaw. Unless top of the class is around top 40%. While this is no guarantee it puts you in position to interview and get biglaw.

2. Most professors went to law school in an age where it didn't cost 60k a year and in a time when finding law related jobs to pay off debts were easy. That isn't now. ITE if you aren't going to school on 100k+ scholarship you will most likely be burdened with 60-90k debt easily. Try paying off 6 figure debt on 50k a year.

The above assumes that:

a) if you don't get 160K, the alternative is 50K
b) that an interview gets you biglaw
c) that you will in the top 40%
d) that you get to keep your biglaw job

Those are great assumptions. For a good number of people, lucky people, smart people, people with family connections etc. the above ends up being true, (except for A). The different between 60K in debt v. 160K in debt is large. Do not be fooled otherwise. 60K sounds like a lot of debt, and it truthfully is, but it is a lot less than 160K. Try paying of 160-200K with a 160K a year job (which of course assumes you got the job, and that you got to keep it). There are jobs that pay between 50K and 160K.

If you wanted my advice, and this is strictly personal advice, I would argue to minimize debt as much as you reasonably can. It is sad to see people pay sticker, at be 60K+ in debt after their first year. That is a lot of money. I don't think anyone would argue with me on that. If you have a personal preference for working biglaw, i.e. you were an accountant at a biglaw firm and you know the lifestyle, understand the lifestyle, and have a real concept of what debt is, then do it.

On another note, also strictly personal advice, don't go to law school with a lot of assumptions. Don't assume you will go to a T2/T3/T4 and assume you will transfer, don't assume you will be in the top 40% at a T14, don't assume you will get more schollys your second year, don't assume the alumni of a school will "hook" you up, and don't assume you will make the schools STATED median wage. Like the age old saying goes, prepare for the worst, hope for the best. Your time in law school will be more enjoyable, or at least less crappy, if you aren't worried about crushing debt.

[FiveSermon]

The biglaw or bust attitude is a "bust" in itself. It is reserved for 0L's who have yet to realize that they're brilliance gained from acing political science or sociology is by no means a guarantee "good" finish at a "good" school. So, if you are a 0L and reading this, chances are you won't finish at the top of your class, no matter how smart you THINK you are. Law school is not about intelligence, it's about how good you are at taking law school exams. Furthermore, if you are a 0L and reading this, understand that biglaw is not everything, most of your professors either worked or at could have worked in biglaw, they are not there for a reason.


Second case and point (in addition to #1 which was MINIMIZE DEBT) - do NOT go to law school with the attitude of biglaw or bust, I will make 160K per year and pay my loans down. You will probably be disappointed with either not getting the job, or you will probably be disappointed when have the biglaw job and realize you cannot quit 2,3,4 years later (or alternatively, you got lathamed).

Change your attitude if you are biglaw or bust, you will only hurt yourself.

1. You don't need to graduate top of your class from most t14 schools to get biglaw. Unless top of the class is around top 40%. While this is no guarantee it puts you in position to interview and get biglaw.

2. Most professors went to law school in an age where it didn't cost 60k a year and in a time when finding law related jobs to pay off debts were easy. That isn't now. ITE if you aren't going to school on 100k+ scholarship you will most likely be burdened with 60-90k debt easily. Try paying off 6 figure debt on 50k a year.

The above assumes that:

a) if you don't get 160K, the alternative is 50K
b) that an interview gets you biglaw
c) that you will in the top 40%
d) that you get to keep your biglaw job

Did you even read?

a) Not true in all cases but if you miss biglaw or a good clerkship, most people will end up in shitlaw. Look at numbers. Law salaries are bimodal.
b) I never said this or assumed it. I said one would be in a position to interview. Position to interview is somehow assuming one gets biglaw? Look kid, even the worst of T14 schools place 40% of their students into biglaw. If you are top 40% at a t14 you aren't in a horrible position to get a biglaw job. A guarantee? No. There would have to be a guarantee in my statement for assumption b to hold. At least attempt to refute with relevant points.
c) 40% chance at top 40. Not great but not bad.
d) Oh really. Unless you have a crystal ball and can predict another impending financial crisis most people who get biglaw jobs don't get fired.

TL;DR version. T14 is no guarantee but for most schools it gives you 40-50% shot at biglaw. 40-50% of kids at these schools are getting biglaw jobs -- facts do not lie.

Above post idiotically assumes this statement as some kind of pseudo guarantee of biglaw for T14 kids.

[Fark-o-vision]

The biglaw or bust attitude is a "bust" in itself. It is reserved for 0L's who have yet to realize that they're brilliance gained from acing political science or sociology is by no means a guarantee "good" finish at a "good" school. So, if you are a 0L and reading this, chances are you won't finish at the top of your class, no matter how smart you THINK you are. Law school is not about intelligence, it's about how good you are at taking law school exams. Furthermore, if you are a 0L and reading this, understand that biglaw is not everything, most of your professors either worked or at could have worked in biglaw, they are not there for a reason.


Second case and point (in addition to #1 which was MINIMIZE DEBT) - do NOT go to law school with the attitude of biglaw or bust, I will make 160K per year and pay my loans down. You will probably be disappointed with either not getting the job, or you will probably be disappointed when have the biglaw job and realize you cannot quit 2,3,4 years later (or alternatively, you got lathamed).

Change your attitude if you are biglaw or bust, you will only hurt yourself.

1. You don't need to graduate top of your class from most t14 schools to get biglaw. Unless top of the class is around top 40%. While this is no guarantee it puts you in position to interview and get biglaw.

2. Most professors went to law school in an age where it didn't cost 60k a year and in a time when finding law related jobs to pay off debts were easy. That isn't now. ITE if you aren't going to school on 100k+ scholarship you will most likely be burdened with 60-90k debt easily. Try paying off 6 figure debt on 50k a year.

The above assumes that:

a) if you don't get 160K, the alternative is 50K
b) that an interview gets you biglaw
c) that you will in the top 40%
d) that you get to keep your biglaw job

Those are great assumptions. For a good number of people, lucky people, smart people, people with family connections etc. the above ends up being true, (except for A). The different between 60K in debt v. 160K in debt is large. Do not be fooled otherwise. 60K sounds like a lot of debt, and it truthfully is, but it is a lot less than 160K. Try paying of 160-200K with a 160K a year job (which of course assumes you got the job, and that you got to keep it). There are jobs that pay between 50K and 160K.

If you wanted my advice, and this is strictly personal advice, I would argue to minimize debt as much as you reasonably can. It is sad to see people pay sticker, at be 60K+ in debt after their first year. That is a lot of money. I don't think anyone would argue with me on that. If you have a personal preference for working biglaw, i.e. you were an accountant at a biglaw firm and you know the lifestyle, understand the lifestyle, and have a real concept of what debt is, then do it.

On another note, also strictly personal advice, don't go to law school with a lot of assumptions. Don't assume you will go to a T2/T3/T4 and assume you will transfer, don't assume you will be in the top 40% at a T14, don't assume you will get more schollys your second year, don't assume the alumni of a school will "hook" you up, and don't assume you will make the schools STATED median wage. Like the age old saying goes, prepare for the worst, hope for the best. Your time in law school will be more enjoyable, or at least less crappy, if you aren't worried about crushing debt.

Bimodal distribution is garbage. Your post then becomes garbage.

Most people end up at either shit law or biglaw salary. As many end up with a salary in between. So, while you are more likely to earn 50K than 90K, you're as likely to earn any number between 50-K and 160K as you are either one of them.

It's an LSAT problem, kids. We've all figured them out.

[Sean1269]

The biglaw or bust attitude is a "bust" in itself. It is reserved for 0L's who have yet to realize that they're brilliance gained from acing political science or sociology is by no means a guarantee "good" finish at a "good" school. So, if you are a 0L and reading this, chances are you won't finish at the top of your class, no matter how smart you THINK you are. Law school is not about intelligence, it's about how good you are at taking law school exams. Furthermore, if you are a 0L and reading this, understand that biglaw is not everything, most of your professors either worked or at could have worked in biglaw, they are not there for a reason.


Second case and point (in addition to #1 which was MINIMIZE DEBT) - do NOT go to law school with the attitude of biglaw or bust, I will make 160K per year and pay my loans down. You will probably be disappointed with either not getting the job, or you will probably be disappointed when have the biglaw job and realize you cannot quit 2,3,4 years later (or alternatively, you got lathamed).

Change your attitude if you are biglaw or bust, you will only hurt yourself.

1. You don't need to graduate top of your class from most t14 schools to get biglaw. Unless top of the class is around top 40%. While this is no guarantee it puts you in position to interview and get biglaw.

2. Most professors went to law school in an age where it didn't cost 60k a year and in a time when finding law related jobs to pay off debts were easy. That isn't now. ITE if you aren't going to school on 100k+ scholarship you will most likely be burdened with 60-90k debt easily. Try paying off 6 figure debt on 50k a year.

The above assumes that:

a) if you don't get 160K, the alternative is 50K
b) that an interview gets you biglaw
c) that you will in the top 40%
d) that you get to keep your biglaw job

Did you even read?

a) Not true in all cases but if you miss biglaw or a good clerkship, most people will end up in shitlaw. Look at numbers. Law salaries are bimodal.
b) I never said this or assumed it. I said one would be in a position to interview. Position to interview is somehow assuming one gets biglaw? Look kid, even the worst of T14 schools place 40% of their students into biglaw. If you are top 40% at a t14 you aren't in a horrible position to get a biglaw job. A guarantee? No. There would have to be a guarantee in my statement for assumption b to hold. At least attempt to refute with relevant points.
c) 40% chance at top 40. Not great but not bad.
d) Oh really. Unless you have a crystal ball and can predict another impending financial crisis most people who get biglaw jobs don't get fired.

TL;DR version. T14 is no guarantee but for most schools it gives you 40-50% shot at biglaw. 40-50% of kids at these schools are getting biglaw jobs -- facts do not lie.

Above post idiotically assumes this statement as some kind of pseudo guarantee of biglaw for T14 kids.

Have you ever considered the possible reasoning for a bimodal distribution, I would argue that that it is bimodal because there are an abundance of T3/T4 kids who are taking the shitlaw jobs, and of course, some others who really just want to work those jobs for the fun of it.

I will concede that T14 is the best place to get biglaw there is really no argument here. However, if you looked at the post as a whole, it was a warning to those who are expecting biglaw out of a t14. I think you may have missed the big picture of my post, that yes while 40-50% of these people will get biglaw jobs, there are 40-50% who don't get biglaw jobs. So don't expect to be one of those 40-50% when you're a 0L.

The safer bet in my opinion is to minimize your debt, so in case you're not as good at taking ls tests as you think you are, you won't be burdened under a crushing debt. Re your crystal ball comment. There have been instances of double dip recessions several years apart, for instance, the recessions (depressions) of 1929-1933, and then the second one in 1937. That's only one example. So no, I do not have a crystal ball, but I know that there have been instances of double dip recessions.

I will admit that my view is largely pessimistic (that you don't get biglaw, you get fired, you hate it, etc.). I don't think it is unwarranted though, it is sad to see law school grads, or students for that matter, living under a burden of debt that equal a mortgage on a house in some areas with their only hope of paying it off being......BIGLAW

[FiveSermon]

Have you ever considered the possible reasoning for a bimodal distribution, I would argue that that it is bimodal because there are an abundance of T3/T4 kids who are taking the shitlaw jobs, and of course, some others who really just want to work those jobs for the fun of it.

I will concede that T14 is the best place to get biglaw there is really no argument here. However, if you looked at the post as a whole, it was a warning to those who are expecting biglaw out of a t14. I think you may have missed the big picture of my post, that yes while 40-50% of these people will get biglaw jobs, there are 40-50% who don't get biglaw jobs. So don't expect to be one of those 40-50% when you're a 0L.

The safer bet in my opinion is to minimize your debt, so in case you're not as good at taking ls tests as you think you are, you won't be burdened under a crushing debt. Re your crystal ball comment. There have been instances of double dip recessions several years apart, for instance, the recessions (depressions) of 1929-1933, and then the second one in 1937. That's only one example. So no, I do not have a crystal ball, but I know that there have been instances of double dip recessions.

I will admit that my view is largely pessimistic (that you don't get biglaw, you get fired, you hate it, etc.). I don't think it is unwarranted though, it is sad to see law school grads, or students for that matter, living under a burden of debt that equal a mortgage on a house in some areas with their only hope of paying it off being......BIGLAW

Some people don't view biglaw as their only way of paying it off but also as the only way of making 100k+ in a reasonable amount of time as a lawyer. And for most people it is.

And it's not only T3/T4 kids that are taking shitlaw jobs. It's everywhere including T14/T1/T2/T3/T4. Don't assume that by going to some low ranked T1 school or some T2 on a half scholly that you will strike something called midlaw and make 70-80k a year. Even if you get a 70k scholarship for most schools you will still graduate with another 70-80k in debt. Have fun paying that off on a 50k year salary when you go to a school that only offers 10% shot at anything better than doc review.

And yes it is that bad imo. Unless you go to HYS or CCN, even if it's a T14 you probably need $$ to feel safe about your future.

[glitched]

lol so actually i got 30k+20k (need) so its 50k for this year - I'm instate so I will have no debt for at least the first year. i don't know if i'll get 20k again the last two years... but my estimate of loans will be around 15k? total guess.


And after listening to some of the arguments, it is starting to make a lot of sense for me to go to UCLA. I mean I want to practice in LA for sure after school, i am somewhat interested in entertainment/media law, my family is all here, my friends are all here, and my chances at Biglaw aren't bad.. just statistically worse than Uchi. I just wonder if it going to Uchi will higher my chances of staying at biglaw (by making partner) or if it becomes all about talent at that point in my career.

damn... i wish i had more time and a lot more information to make quite possibly one of the biggest financial decisions of my life...

[FiveSermon]

lol so actually i got 30k+20k (need) so its 50k for this year - I'm instate so I will have no debt for at least the first year. i don't know if i'll get 20k again the last two years... but my estimate of loans will be around 15k? total guess.


And after listening to some of the arguments, it is starting to make a lot of sense for me to go to UCLA. I mean I want to practice in LA for sure after school, i am somewhat interested in entertainment/media law, my family is all here, my friends are all here, and my chances at Biglaw aren't bad.. just statistically worse than Uchi. I just wonder if it going to Uchi will higher my chances of staying at biglaw (by making partner) or if it becomes all about talent at that point in my career.

damn... i wish i had more time and a lot more information to make quite possibly one of the biggest financial decisions of my life...

All information says that once you get your first job it doesn't matter where you went to school. And I'm sure no one would hold going to UCLA against you...Biglaw lawyers are prickish but that's too much.

Edit: If you want to stay in California I think UCLA is the clear choice here.

[glitched]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH WHAT DO I DO MAN!??!?!?!



(lol i shouldve gone to medical school....jk)

[Anonymous User]

lol so actually i got 30k+20k (need) so its 50k for this year - I'm instate so I will have no debt for at least the first year. i don't know if i'll get 20k again the last two years... but my estimate of loans will be around 15k? total guess.


And after listening to some of the arguments, it is starting to make a lot of sense for me to go to UCLA. I mean I want to practice in LA for sure after school, i am somewhat interested in entertainment/media law, my family is all here, my friends are all here, and my chances at Biglaw aren't bad.. just statistically worse than Uchi. I just wonder if it going to Uchi will higher my chances of staying at biglaw (by making partner) or if it becomes all about talent at that point in my career.

damn... i wish i had more time and a lot more information to make quite possibly one of the biggest financial decisions of my life...

All information says that once you get your first job it doesn't matter where you went to school. And I'm sure no one would hold going to UCLA against you...Biglaw lawyers are prickish but that's too much.

Edit: If you want to stay in California I think UCLA is the clear choice here.

This is, of course, entirely dependent on when you leave your first job. If you were a Lathamed 1st/2nd year, that shit still counts because there isn't exactly a body of work on which to rely.

[paulinaporizkova]

wassup Deadmau5

[Malcolm8X]

Yea, I understand UofC places way better, but that's with the super rough economy, so in my opinion I would take the most recent stats as an outlier. With $90K, you're looking at graduating law school with only ~$60K debt. That's not biglaw or bust numbers. Your job options are Biglaw at $160K (albeit a smaller chance) all the way down to PI at $50K/yr paying off a $700/mo debt. You have much more latitude in choosing your QoL. That's just me..

But apparently I missed the whole debate glitched. I'm sorry but I'm not going to peruse through every poster's prior topics and discussions.

Unless you have some money stashed up or additional aid I don't think 90k in scholarships is going to get you out of UCLA with only 60k of debt. 30k of debt (at least) from tuition and probably 20k of debt a year (at least) from COL - very conservatively thats 90k or so of debt. Getting pretty close to big law or bust territory or solid job that will allow you to rely on LRAP - UChi will give you much better possibilities for both...that said if it was a full ride I'd say take it and never look back

Let me up my numbers because your analysis is right. About $90K of debt seems a better estimate for UCLA. Even at $90K, interest will balloon that to $110K by the time you graduate. UofC at sticker would be about $190K plus an interest balloon to $215K.

With that said, I don't know what OP should do. To know would be to insinuate that I can predict what the hiring market will be 3 years from now. The thing is, nobody knows what it's gonna look like. But personally, I'm starting to feel that it's better to err on the side of caution.

[Patriot1208]

I just want a good life with a good wife, good kids, and good friends. Whatever gets me there...

Isn't this what everyone wants?

No, a good marriage is an oxymoron

[drylo]

Have you ever considered the possible reasoning for a bimodal distribution, I would argue that that it is bimodal because there are an abundance of T3/T4 kids who are taking the shitlaw jobs, and of course, some others who really just want to work those jobs for the fun of it.

I will concede that T14 is the best place to get biglaw there is really no argument here. However, if you looked at the post as a whole, it was a warning to those who are expecting biglaw out of a t14. I think you may have missed the big picture of my post, that yes while 40-50% of these people will get biglaw jobs, there are 40-50% who don't get biglaw jobs. So don't expect to be one of those 40-50% when you're a 0L.

The safer bet in my opinion is to minimize your debt, so in case you're not as good at taking ls tests as you think you are, you won't be burdened under a crushing debt. Re your crystal ball comment. There have been instances of double dip recessions several years apart, for instance, the recessions (depressions) of 1929-1933, and then the second one in 1937. That's only one example. So no, I do not have a crystal ball, but I know that there have been instances of double dip recessions.

I will admit that my view is largely pessimistic (that you don't get biglaw, you get fired, you hate it, etc.). I don't think it is unwarranted though, it is sad to see law school grads, or students for that matter, living under a burden of debt that equal a mortgage on a house in some areas with their only hope of paying it off being......BIGLAW

Some people don't view biglaw as their only way of paying it off but also as the only way of making 100k+ in a reasonable amount of time as a lawyer. And for most people it is.

And it's not only T3/T4 kids that are taking shitlaw jobs. It's everywhere including T14/T1/T2/T3/T4. Don't assume that by going to some low ranked T1 school or some T2 on a half scholly that you will strike something called midlaw and make 70-80k a year. Even if you get a 70k scholarship for most schools you will still graduate with another 70-80k in debt. Have fun paying that off on a 50k year salary when you go to a school that only offers 10% shot at anything better than doc review.

And yes it is that bad imo. Unless you go to HYS or CCN, even if it's a T14 you probably need $$ to feel safe about your future.

I agree with the bolded (in the post you quoted).

Yes, a good chunk (around 50%, for simplicity's sake) of grads at T14 (used in the loose sense for all schools in that range of NLJ 250 placement) will at least have the chance to end up at an NLJ 250 firm.

But NLJ 250 =/= $160k. So there are not necessarily 40-50% of grads at many schools earning $160k--although, granted, a lot of that is self-selection into other markets. This changes the calculus that you seem to be pushing in two ways: (1) 50% of students at these schools are not all making $160k; and (2) all of those grads who end up at one of the many NLJ 250 firms that doesn't pay $160k totally throw off your bimodal distribution analysis. Yes, there is largely bimodal distribution in the legal field. But there are hundreds of law schools out there that figure into that bimodal analysis. And there are a lot of people earning between 50k and 160k. These people, like the 160k people, are going to come disproportionately from top law schools. Thus, "biglaw or bust" is based on erroneous premises.

[drylo]

NLJ 250 =/= $160k.

Except that cost-adjusted, it often does. In other words, $145k biglaw in Atlanta or $130k in a truly secondary city gives you the same amount of take-home pay/buying power as $160k in NYC. I am not suggesting that all non-160k jobs = all 160k jobs, but rather that many on the left side of that equation are compensated equally to many on the right side.

No, I agree with you. Although $130k is pretty high, higher than most secondary markets I have paid attention to--there are a lot that are between $100-$120k. Regardless, you are right that the cost of living adjustments still even out (or perhaps more than even out) for quality of life purposes, but the actual number on your paycheck is relevant if you are trying to pay off debt (or pay for your children's education, or anything else that does not have a locally-set price).

All of that COL stuff aside, though, I was also addressing the bimodal point--which FiveSermon took to mean that (a) an insignificant number of people make between $50k and $160k; and (b) that if you are at a top school, you are most likely to make either $160k or $50k. This is patently false... $100k, $110k, $120k, $130k, $145k--all of these are between those two "modes" (although the $145 may fall kind of on the edge of the bell curve IIRC).

[BeenDidThat]

It helps to be SPRINGBONUSSECURE.

Well played.

As for OP's question, as others have indicated, yes, you can EASILY pay off sticker with biglaw $$. Much faster than 10 years if you're smart about it. But the challenge remains getting and keeping the biglaw job--something that isn't always, or even usually in your control (see, e.g., Latham & Watkins, circa spring 2009; OCI fall 2009, etc.).

I have nightmares weekly that I get Lathamed halfway through my first year. Then again, there's always the option to expatriate, set up a little shave-ice stand on a beach somewhere, and sleep in a hammock under a banana tree in the rain forest. Actually, that doesn't sound so bad. Does anybody know which countries won't deport US citizens back to the US?

Probably NK and Iran.

As for your tropical dreams...watch out for this guy:

[FiveSermon]

Have you ever considered the possible reasoning for a bimodal distribution, I would argue that that it is bimodal because there are an abundance of T3/T4 kids who are taking the shitlaw jobs, and of course, some others who really just want to work those jobs for the fun of it.

I will concede that T14 is the best place to get biglaw there is really no argument here. However, if you looked at the post as a whole, it was a warning to those who are expecting biglaw out of a t14. I think you may have missed the big picture of my post, that yes while 40-50% of these people will get biglaw jobs, there are 40-50% who don't get biglaw jobs. So don't expect to be one of those 40-50% when you're a 0L.

The safer bet in my opinion is to minimize your debt, so in case you're not as good at taking ls tests as you think you are, you won't be burdened under a crushing debt. Re your crystal ball comment. There have been instances of double dip recessions several years apart, for instance, the recessions (depressions) of 1929-1933, and then the second one in 1937. That's only one example. So no, I do not have a crystal ball, but I know that there have been instances of double dip recessions.

I will admit that my view is largely pessimistic (that you don't get biglaw, you get fired, you hate it, etc.). I don't think it is unwarranted though, it is sad to see law school grads, or students for that matter, living under a burden of debt that equal a mortgage on a house in some areas with their only hope of paying it off being......BIGLAW

Some people don't view biglaw as their only way of paying it off but also as the only way of making 100k+ in a reasonable amount of time as a lawyer. And for most people it is.

And it's not only T3/T4 kids that are taking shitlaw jobs. It's everywhere including T14/T1/T2/T3/T4. Don't assume that by going to some low ranked T1 school or some T2 on a half scholly that you will strike something called midlaw and make 70-80k a year. Even if you get a 70k scholarship for most schools you will still graduate with another 70-80k in debt. Have fun paying that off on a 50k year salary when you go to a school that only offers 10% shot at anything better than doc review.

And yes it is that bad imo. Unless you go to HYS or CCN, even if it's a T14 you probably need $$ to feel safe about your future.

I agree with the bolded (in the post you quoted).

Yes, a good chunk (around 50%, for simplicity's sake) of grads at T14 (used in the loose sense for all schools in that range of NLJ 250 placement) will at least have the chance to end up at an NLJ 250 firm.

But NLJ 250 =/= $160k. So there are not necessarily 40-50% of grads at many schools earning $160k--although, granted, a lot of that is self-selection into other markets. This changes the calculus that you seem to be pushing in two ways: (1) 50% of students at these schools are not all making $160k; and (2) all of those grads who end up at one of the many NLJ 250 firms that doesn't pay $160k totally throw off your bimodal distribution analysis. Yes, there is largely bimodal distribution in the legal field. But there are hundreds of law schools out there that figure into that bimodal analysis. And there are a lot of people earning between 50k and 160k. These people, like the 160k people, are going to come disproportionately from top law schools. Thus, "biglaw or bust" is based on erroneous premises.

It isn't a perfect bimodal distribution. But the bimodal distribution goes from something like 100k+ and then 60k and below. Either way if you strike out at biglaw you will be making shitlaw money most likely.