Top Law Schools

---why--- wrote:

ScaredWorkedBored wrote:If you don't actually want to practice law, you should drop out. But then again, people in that situation shouldn't have gone to law school in the first place.

Where you planning on making a career of practicing law or not? Career lawyers who are any good at all won't be earning $60K for life.

This is just wrong. Plenty of public interest lawyers make around this (many less).
.

Now you are just whining. You don't want to be poor but you want to do public interest, where no one ever gets rich, presumably because it's more "respectable" than other legal work now that you don't have BigLaw. I think maybe it's time you either stop thinking about prestige or stop thinking about money.

Second, the "why did you go to law school if you didn't really want to be a lawyer" people are just so mislead. Not everyone in this world goes into a profession with deep love of the grind. Plus, how many 1ls really want to be a lawyer? We make educated guesses about these sorts of things. We have no idea what being a lawyer really means

So you wanted $160,000/year for monkey work and didn't get it. You know you never deserved it in the first place and don't think you can obtain it any other way.

Sack up. No one is coming to help you.

Anonymous User wrote:

dresden doll wrote:Am I missing something here? OP has stated he had 2 callbacks, no? So he didn't exactly strike out at the OCI - he just didn't get as many options out of it as he might have liked. Presumably, callbacks typically turn into offers, so why not do those callbacks and see if either results in an offer?

This whole thread seems predicated on the notion that OP got nothing out of the OCI. With 2 callbacks, that doesn't seem quite accurate.

In prior years, the standard notion was that a callback gave you 50/50 on an offer. I know that the two firms I've done callbacks with (I'm not the OP) are obviously doing far more callbacks than they have slots for offers.

I have read speculations that the likelihood of callbacks turning into offers has increased ITE since firms don't care to expend money/resources for too many superfluous callbacks. Also, it has been said that firms expect higher yield and have therefore scaled down on the number of callbacks they're doing. I am by no means an expert, but those notions seemed to make sense to me.

In OP's position, I'd at least ride out those callbacks and see whether either results in an offer before making the final decision whether to drop out or not.

---why--- wrote: Second, the "why did you go to law school if you didn't really want to be a lawyer" people are just so mislead. Not everyone in this world goes into a profession with deep love of the grind. Plus, how many 1ls really want to be a lawyer? We make educated guesses about these sorts of things. We have no idea what being a lawyer really means

I didn't see this earlier, but it's worth pointing out that lots and lots of folks work as paralegals or legal assistants before law school precisely because it gives them a taste of what being a lawyer means.

And no, a deep love of the grind isn't necessary for success in any profession, but at least a baseline enjoyment of the subject is probably a good idea. And you are aware of what those Biglaw firms expect in return for their $160K, right? Very, very long hours doing low level tasks. If the grind is unappealing, then Biglaw is going to be a world of hurt for you, fat paycheck or not.

thesealocust wrote: Let's assume throw CoL to the wind and live in New York City, shall we?


Subtract it from our net pay above and we get after taxes and loans actual, spendable income of *drum roll* 2020.22 per month for living, eating, and shopping

ZOMG YOU'RE LOANZ WILL NEVAR BE PAID OFF AND U WILL STARTVE

NOBODY IN AMERICA NOW OR EVER HAS EVER SURVIVED ON SUCH A PALTRY SUM!11!11!! LOANZ WILL NEVER EVER BE PAID OFF.

Look, I understand you might not like math... but try it sometimes before you make yourself look /too/ stupid on the internet.

[OS, do I get a gold star?]

..so after you pay your NYC rent you only owe the bank like $500 + overdraft fees.

DCD wrote: ..so after you pay your NYC rent you only owe the bank like $500 + overdraft fees.

*facepalm*

--LinkRemoved--

DCD wrote:

thesealocust wrote: Let's assume throw CoL to the wind and live in New York City, shall we?


Subtract it from our net pay above and we get after taxes and loans actual, spendable income of *drum roll* 2020.22 per month for living, eating, and shopping

ZOMG YOU'RE LOANZ WILL NEVAR BE PAID OFF AND U WILL STARTVE

NOBODY IN AMERICA NOW OR EVER HAS EVER SURVIVED ON SUCH A PALTRY SUM!11!11!! LOANZ WILL NEVER EVER BE PAID OFF.

Look, I understand you might not like math... but try it sometimes before you make yourself look /too/ stupid on the internet.

[OS, do I get a gold star?]

..so after you pay your NYC rent you only owe the bank like $500 + overdraft fees.

Yes, because nobody in NYC lives on a 30k/year salary.

DCD wrote:

thesealocust wrote: Let's assume throw CoL to the wind and live in New York City, shall we?


Subtract it from our net pay above and we get after taxes and loans actual, spendable income of *drum roll* 2020.22 per month for living, eating, and shopping

ZOMG YOU'RE LOANZ WILL NEVAR BE PAID OFF AND U WILL STARTVE

NOBODY IN AMERICA NOW OR EVER HAS EVER SURVIVED ON SUCH A PALTRY SUM!11!11!! LOANZ WILL NEVER EVER BE PAID OFF.

Look, I understand you might not like math... but try it sometimes before you make yourself look /too/ stupid on the internet.

[OS, do I get a gold star?]

..so after you pay your NYC rent you only owe the bank like $500 + overdraft fees.

No. You won't be living like a baller, but I essentially live on that now. (To be fair, my parents pay for voice lessons and a few other discretionary expenses that I could live without.) I can't go raid Bergdorf Goodman, but I'd still give my QoL at least a 175.

It all comes down to how much OP (or anyone else) really wants to do this.

DCD wrote:

thesealocust wrote: Let's assume throw CoL to the wind and live in New York City, shall we?


Subtract it from our net pay above and we get after taxes and loans actual, spendable income of *drum roll* 2020.22 per month for living, eating, and shopping

ZOMG YOU'RE LOANZ WILL NEVAR BE PAID OFF AND U WILL STARTVE

NOBODY IN AMERICA NOW OR EVER HAS EVER SURVIVED ON SUCH A PALTRY SUM!11!11!! LOANZ WILL NEVER EVER BE PAID OFF.

Look, I understand you might not like math... but try it sometimes before you make yourself look /too/ stupid on the internet.

[OS, do I get a gold star?]

..so after you pay your NYC rent you only owe the bank like $500 + overdraft fees.

Holy attitude of entitlement, batman!

IM SO SMART IM GOING TO REBUT YOUR JOKE WITH SUPER SERIOUS AND ANGRY RESPONSES.. LOOK HOW COOL I AM

edit: and for the record: 1300 apartment+ 200 utilities+ transportation around the city=around 150

2020-1650 = 370/month for food, clothes, and everything else.. I guess you could make it work with food stamps..

DCD wrote:IM SO SMART IM GOING TO REBUT YOUR JOKE WITH SUPER SERIOUS AND ANGRY RESPONSES.. LOOK HOW COOL I AM

What are you, five?

DCD wrote:IM SO SMART IM GOING TO REBUT YOUR JOKE WITH SUPER SERIOUS AND ANGRY RESPONSES.. LOOK HOW COOL I AM

edit: and for the record: 1300 apartment+ 200 utilities+ transportation around the city=around 150

2020-1650 = 370/month for food, clothes, and everything else.. I guess you could make it work with food stamps..

Whoa, your utilities are $200? I think you need to call Con Ed stat and find out what's up with that. Even with my former roommate blasting the AC 24/7, we never got anywhere near that high in a 750 sq ft apartment.

EDIT: I think this joke failed precisely because people in this thread were attempting to show OP that lack of biglaw + student loans in NYC =/= a death sentence.

DCD wrote:IM SO SMART IM GOING TO REBUT YOUR JOKE WITH SUPER SERIOUS AND ANGRY RESPONSES.. LOOK HOW COOL I AM

edit: and for the record: 1300 apartment+ 200 utilities+ transportation around the city=around 150

2020-1650 = 370/month for food, clothes, and everything else.. I guess you could make it work with food stamps..

Are you taking cabs everywhere or something?

$89 dollar monthly MetroCard.

And if your utilities are actually $200 I would call your landlord or ConEd. There's no reason they should be that high unless there's a problem with the building or the metering.

dresden doll wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

dresden doll wrote:Am I missing something here? OP has stated he had 2 callbacks, no? So he didn't exactly strike out at the OCI - he just didn't get as many options out of it as he might have liked. Presumably, callbacks typically turn into offers, so why not do those callbacks and see if either results in an offer?

This whole thread seems predicated on the notion that OP got nothing out of the OCI. With 2 callbacks, that doesn't seem quite accurate.

In prior years, the standard notion was that a callback gave you 50/50 on an offer. I know that the two firms I've done callbacks with (I'm not the OP) are obviously doing far more callbacks than they have slots for offers.

I have read speculations that the likelihood of callbacks turning into offers has increased ITE since firms don't care to expend money/resources for too many superfluous callbacks. Also, it has been said that firms expect higher yield and have therefore scaled down on the number of callbacks they're doing. I am by no means an expert, but those notions seemed to make sense to me.

You'd think that would be the logical response, but I have been on several callbacks at this point, and from what I can tell, they are calling back WAYYYYY more people than is needed to fill their shrunken summer classes. I have quite a few callbacks and I'm still terrified of not getting an offer out of one of them.

I have read speculations that the likelihood of callbacks turning into offers has increased ITE since firms don't care to expend money/resources for too many superfluous callbacks. Also, it has been said that firms expect higher yield and have therefore scaled down on the number of callbacks they're doing. I am by no means an expert, but those notions seemed to make sense to me.



You'd think that would be the logical response, but I have been on several callbacks at this point, and from what I can tell, they are calling back WAYYYYY more people than is needed to fill their shrunken summer classes. I have quite a few callbacks and I'm still terrified of not getting an offer out of one of them.

how do you know that they are calling back way more people? Just curious, since I am also in the same situation. I am fortunate to have more cbs in the pipeline, but I have been on 3 already and haven't heard yet from any of them... granted one was yesterday, but the other two I have not yet heard from. I know one said they would take their time until they finish all schools' OCI's, but this waiting makes me so so nervous.

I know of another firm that is doing rolling offers, but of course, I can't go see them for another two weeks. Great.

Still amazed me how many people don't actually read what other people write. If you want to talk to yourself, you don't need an internet forum.

1. Because I "can" make 40k does not mean that I do make 40k. Try not to mess that up on the LSAT.

2. I have listened to the suggestions. In fact, I have done most of them. To say I am not trying is wrong.

3. Callbacks do not equal offers. I will once again say that I know ZERO people that have offers.

4. I do have work experience. I just don't have relevant work experience.

5. I am not whining. I am thinking about alternatives to the position I am in now. If you are in law school right now, or thinking about going, and have not THOUGHT about doing something else, you are lying or stupid.

etwake wrote:

tetrahydrocannabinol wrote:
This is the dumbest post I have ever read. WHO THE FUCK PLANS ON PAYING OFF STUDENT LOANS FOR 30 YEARS?!!?!??!?!? I mean seriously, forget about getting a house, having kids and everything else because you take home a pitiful $2K a month to live off prior to paying additional loans on your home mortgage and other things you need to buy in life. I guess if you plan on being homeless and living out of a cardboard box, like reasonable_man probably does, then it is all good, but otherwise hell no this isn't a good deal.

???? This is the most reasonable post I've seen so far. Most people I know that spend $150k on a house take out a 30 year mortgage, so what's the problem with taking out $180k in students loans and paying it off over 30 years? If you're only making $60k/yr to start out, then you're options are limited. $2,200 is not a whole lot of money, but its not impossible to live off of for a few years, until you can work your way up the pay scale (Which, believe it or not, your starting pay could possibly increase over time)

Yeah the problem is that you are also going to want tangible things like a house in real life. If you are only keeping $2K a month and then on top of that want to take out another $200K for a home, good fucking luck with that plan. Also, with a house you have something tangible. If it becomes to much you can sell it and in good times you will make a profit off of it. Good luck selling that piece of paper Columbia gives you for $150K.

I find it interesting that rayineer's cost/benefit analysis leads to the thought that OP should stay in school with the break-even point at $70K a year. And at $70K a year, OP will still be only keeping $25K a year to live off of. Well more realistically, with no work experience, OP is likely to make $40K-$60K at graduation (I don't have the link to that chart with bimodal distribution, but the lower peak runs around $40K-60K). I am not even going to attempt to do the math on this correctly, but let's say OP makes $55K a year at graduation (probably more realistic then $70K), then that $25K a year that was left over at $70K a year will probably become close to $13K a year to live off of. Good luck paying rent and living expenses off that.

EDIT- Why-- we are not assuming you make $40K a year but that you can make $40K a year if you were to drop out of law school right today. If you were making $40K a year somehow in addition to law school then you would not be in much of a bind at all because your loans would be substantially reduced and paying off something like $60K over 10 years wouldn't be that bad when making around $50K a year (which is realistically around what you will make at graduation).

Slightly off topic, but people over-exaggerate the bimodality of the salary distribution. Yes, it is very bimodal, but the curve doesn't hit the baseline between the two points and there is a lot of space between them. What does this mean? 30% of lawyers are not making 105k, but ~30% are somewhere between the two modes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to engage in the kvetching as much as the next guy (yes, I do feel entitled to a biglaw job), but you can complain without distortions

tetrahydrocannabinol wrote:

etwake wrote:

tetrahydrocannabinol wrote:
This is the dumbest post I have ever read. WHO THE FUCK PLANS ON PAYING OFF STUDENT LOANS FOR 30 YEARS?!!?!??!?!? I mean seriously, forget about getting a house, having kids and everything else because you take home a pitiful $2K a month to live off prior to paying additional loans on your home mortgage and other things you need to buy in life. I guess if you plan on being homeless and living out of a cardboard box, like reasonable_man probably does, then it is all good, but otherwise hell no this isn't a good deal.

???? This is the most reasonable post I've seen so far. Most people I know that spend $150k on a house take out a 30 year mortgage, so what's the problem with taking out $180k in students loans and paying it off over 30 years? If you're only making $60k/yr to start out, then you're options are limited. $2,200 is not a whole lot of money, but its not impossible to live off of for a few years, until you can work your way up the pay scale (Which, believe it or not, your starting pay could possibly increase over time)

Yeah the problem is that you are also going to want tangible things like a house in real life. If you are only keeping $2K a month and then on top of that want to take out another $200K for a home, good fucking luck with that plan. Also, with a house you have something tangible. If it becomes to much you can sell it and in good times you will make a profit off of it. Good luck selling that piece of paper Columbia gives you for $150K.

Your against student loans because you cannot physically touch an education?????!?!?! Hrm... following that logic, the $10k I put into the Dow 6 months ago is useless as well.

You're wrong. You make a very bold assumption that the value of a physical asset (house, car, gold coins, etc...) will be worth more 2,3,or 10 years down the line than a JD from Columbia. You're not going to be making $60k a year forever, its your BASE SALARY. Realistically, you're going to get raises. You're going to settle down with a significant other, adding his/her income to yours.

Think of it like this. The likelihood that you're going to be making 6-figures 5 years down the line is MUCH greater if you finish your JD at Columbia. The likelihood that the value of you're home is going to skyrocket from $600k to $1mil (keeping the ratio's similar), not likely at all. Find me a car that's going to be worth $60k now and $100k 5 years from now. Not gonna happen. Assuming that something is more valuable because you can physically touch it is absurd.

Oblomov wrote:Slightly off topic, but people over-exaggerate the bimodality of the salary distribution. Yes, it is very bimodal, but the curve doesn't hit the baseline between the two points and there is a lot of space between them. What does this mean? 30% of lawyers are not making 105k, but ~30% are somewhere between the two modes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to engage in the kvetching as much as the next guy (yes, I do feel entitled to a biglaw job), but you can complain without distortions

Graph interpretation win. Thank you. I mean, I was a fashion merchandising major and I managed to figure this out. I know I'll be at the pole on the left (IE $40-60k), so I am calm and prepared for it, but that seriously isn't all there is to life without biglaw, even for brand new attorneys. People should talk to reasonable man instead of trashing him.

etwake wrote:

tetrahydrocannabinol wrote:

etwake wrote:

tetrahydrocannabinol wrote:
This is the dumbest post I have ever read. WHO THE FUCK PLANS ON PAYING OFF STUDENT LOANS FOR 30 YEARS?!!?!??!?!? I mean seriously, forget about getting a house, having kids and everything else because you take home a pitiful $2K a month to live off prior to paying additional loans on your home mortgage and other things you need to buy in life. I guess if you plan on being homeless and living out of a cardboard box, like reasonable_man probably does, then it is all good, but otherwise hell no this isn't a good deal.

???? This is the most reasonable post I've seen so far. Most people I know that spend $150k on a house take out a 30 year mortgage, so what's the problem with taking out $180k in students loans and paying it off over 30 years? If you're only making $60k/yr to start out, then you're options are limited. $2,200 is not a whole lot of money, but its not impossible to live off of for a few years, until you can work your way up the pay scale (Which, believe it or not, your starting pay could possibly increase over time)

Yeah the problem is that you are also going to want tangible things like a house in real life. If you are only keeping $2K a month and then on top of that want to take out another $200K for a home, good fucking luck with that plan. Also, with a house you have something tangible. If it becomes to much you can sell it and in good times you will make a profit off of it. Good luck selling that piece of paper Columbia gives you for $150K.

Your against student loans because you cannot physically touch an education?????!?!?! Hrm... following that logic, the $10k I put into the Dow 6 months ago is useless as well.

You're wrong. You make a very bold assumption that the value of a physical asset (house, car, gold coins, etc...) will be worth more 2,3,or 10 years down the line than a JD from Columbia. You're not going to be making $60k a year forever, its your BASE SALARY. Realistically, you're going to get raises. You're going to settle down with a significant other, adding his/her income to yours.

Think of it like this. The likelihood that you're going to be making 6-figures 5 years down the line is MUCH greater if you finish your JD at Columbia. The likelihood that the value of you're home is going to skyrocket from $600k to $1mil (keeping the ratio's similar), not likely at all. Find me a car that's going to be worth $60k now and $100k 5 years from now. Not gonna happen. Assuming that something is more valuable because you can physically touch it is absurd.

Nice elitist argument. So basically you are saying where you went to school is going to determine where you can get a job in 5 years as oppose to what you did and your accomplishments. Here's a hint: nobody gives a fuck 5 years down the road. Your GPA and school are largely irrelevant and no one will ask you things like why you chose to go to X school down the road. Your not automatically going to get hired at some good smaller firm 5 years down the road because you went to Columbia as oppose to some other school. The degree for the most part just helps you get that first gig, which leads to better employment prospects down the road. While it is possible that OP does extremely well as a lawyer at smaller firm, it is just a possible that OP makes a shitty lawyer and has trouble finding work elsewhere. Succeeding down the road to hopefully help you pay off your student loans is a shitty thing to hedge on, whereas simply making bank at the beginning and clearing out those loans in 5 years is much better (even if you end up being a shitty ass lawyer and get canned, at least you don't have debt to worry about and additionally likely have money saved up).

tetrahydrocannabinol wrote:

etwake wrote:

tetrahydrocannabinol wrote:

etwake wrote:

???? This is the most reasonable post I've seen so far. Most people I know that spend $150k on a house take out a 30 year mortgage, so what's the problem with taking out $180k in students loans and paying it off over 30 years? If you're only making $60k/yr to start out, then you're options are limited. $2,200 is not a whole lot of money, but its not impossible to live off of for a few years, until you can work your way up the pay scale (Which, believe it or not, your starting pay could possibly increase over time)

Yeah the problem is that you are also going to want tangible things like a house in real life. If you are only keeping $2K a month and then on top of that want to take out another $200K for a home, good fucking luck with that plan. Also, with a house you have something tangible. If it becomes to much you can sell it and in good times you will make a profit off of it. Good luck selling that piece of paper Columbia gives you for $150K.

Your against student loans because you cannot physically touch an education?????!?!?! Hrm... following that logic, the $10k I put into the Dow 6 months ago is useless as well.

You're wrong. You make a very bold assumption that the value of a physical asset (house, car, gold coins, etc...) will be worth more 2,3,or 10 years down the line than a JD from Columbia. You're not going to be making $60k a year forever, its your BASE SALARY. Realistically, you're going to get raises. You're going to settle down with a significant other, adding his/her income to yours.

Think of it like this. The likelihood that you're going to be making 6-figures 5 years down the line is MUCH greater if you finish your JD at Columbia. The likelihood that the value of you're home is going to skyrocket from $600k to $1mil (keeping the ratio's similar), not likely at all. Find me a car that's going to be worth $60k now and $100k 5 years from now. Not gonna happen. Assuming that something is more valuable because you can physically touch it is absurd.

Nice elitist argument. So basically you are saying where you went to school is going to determine where you can get a job in 5 years as oppose to what you did and your accomplishments. Here's a hint: nobody gives a fuck 5 years down the road. Your GPA and school are largely irrelevant and no one will ask you things like why you chose to go to X school down the road. Your not automatically going to get hired at some good smaller firm 5 years down the road because you went to Columbia as oppose to some other school. The degree for the most part just helps you get that first gig, which leads to better employment prospects down the road. While it is possible that OP does extremely well as a lawyer at smaller firm, it is just a possible that OP makes a shitty lawyer and has trouble finding work elsewhere. Succeeding down the road to hopefully help you pay off your student loans is a shitty thing to hedge on, whereas simply making bank at the beginning and clearing out those loans in 5 years is much better (even if you end up being a shitty ass lawyer and get canned, at least you don't have debt to worry about).

Um.... did you read the title? Its thinking about dropping out, not thinking about transferring down.

teaadntoast wrote:

DCD wrote:
And if your utilities are actually $200 I would call your landlord or ConEd. There's no reason they should be that high unless the building has some kind of structural problem.

What kind of "structural problem" causes high utilities?

teaadntoast wrote:
And if your utilities are actually $200 I would call your landlord or ConEd. There's no reason they should be that high unless the building has some kind of structural problem.

[/quote]

ok.. so I was off.. youll have 470-520/month to buy all your groceries, go to the doctor, go to the dentist, take a girl out to lunch...

just barely surviving =/= living

helfer snooterbagon wrote:

teaadntoast wrote:

DCD wrote:
And if your utilities are actually $200 I would call your landlord or ConEd. There's no reason they should be that high unless the building has some kind of structural problem.

What kind of "structural problem" causes high utilities?

Insufficient insulation, windows not sealing properly, walls not sealing properly (yes, I have lived in a place that had a space between the floor and one of the side walls, once,) leaky faucets, leaky/blocked pipes, malfunctioning appliances (fridge, dishwasher, etc.) Mostly the first ones relating to air flow.