alllucknotalent wrote:my 2 cents-
I have little sympathy for people smart enough to get into law school that argue they aren't smart enough to understand the risks associated with taking out loans. If our "brightest minds" can't understand this concept, then how can it be expected that the average person understood the concept during the housing bubble...
I swallowed my pride and took at full ride at TTT instead of taking full tuition at the T25-50 range and don't regret it... I ranked in top 10% after 1L and still stayed because of loan money. I went to law school to become a lawyer and knew the job market was terrible and the risks associated because of it. I had nothing beyond my own self confidence to expect to do this well but now I sit in an equal or better hiring ability as probably 50-75% of the people that could have been my peers at T25-50 range while having 150k less in debt.
Not saying that everyone could do this, but when you go to a school where your LSAT is 10-15 points higher than the median (which many people who attend T25-100 would be at many TTT's, mine was 12 points higher) you have to think that you have at least a decent shot to get the magic area around the top 10-20% associated with my TTT and decent jobs compared to the what I will generously call top 25-50% to get the same job prospects.
You know your experience isn't typical. Just because your LSAT seems to correlate with your grades, that doesn't mean it does for everyone. And even if it did, you realize that 80 to 90% of your class is in trouble with finding a job and debt. What do you think they should do or should have done?
Just going to preface everything with I don't think we have overly conflicting opinions on the job market so not going to create an argument out of something that isn't there. But seriously, I don't know if you are trying to make me sound like more of a dick than I likely already came off, but I will simply answer that it is none of my business to say anything to people who don't have jobs. I would say that most people at my school came with different hopes/expectations for themself than I had for myself and they understand their personal situation a lot better than I do.
With that said, the overall doom and gloom isn't that bad here because of the lowered expectations/hopes many of my classmates had coming in. People knew the market was bad and many wanted to do public interest and/or criminal work like an assistant state's attorney to start anyway. Combine that with a fairly low state public tuition, slightly better than expected number of people who got decent unconnected paying jobs, and then the oddly high amount of people in our class that have a job waiting on them with relatives, there are actually only a minority of students here that regret their choice to attend here.
But to turn back to what I was trying to say, what would be the flaw in decision making of similarly situated potential law student to what I was (22-25 year old, mid 160's LSAT, 3~ GPA) choosing full ride at a lower ranked school than attending a T25-50 at sticker?
First, I understand that I was, to some extent, lucky with how things worked out grade wise. Regardless of how it actually turned out, I am more of interested in understanding the flaw in what I was trying to explain about my decision making process for going to law school. I am actually confident that there must be an obvious argument against it but due to my likely personal biases and/or being burned out from having just taken a midterm, I couldn't come up with one off the fly. Besides that, I would rather hear different perspectives on my choice because I find decision making processes interesting (and again, I by no means am arguing that I clearly made the right choice but I more of am wondering why choosing $$$>rank was the wrong choice since I didn't know my lucky outcome).
Lets say I come down to my lowly ranked school and was unsuccessful (I guess median?), why would I have been better off going to a T25-50 school? I think it is fairly inarguable that if I had done poorly at my current school, I wouldn't have been able to reasonably wonder if I would have ranked higher at a school with students that have a much higher baseline for potential law ability. So in the negative outcome situation, I wasted a year of life either way to find out that law isn't for me but I would save 50k by going to my current school to find that out.
I always looked at it simply that since the risk of being unsuccessful was going to be somewhat unpredictable, it would be best to minimize what I risking on this bet to be a sucessful lawyer. The hedge here was that it wouldn't cost me much if things didn't work out here because I would still be a 24 year old college grad with options, which of course would be exactly what I would be if things didn't work out at the higher ranked school, except I would be in a lot more debt.
this post is already far too long, I can add to the above thought process if anyone is intersted