Lowest Ranked School You Would Attend at Sticker? Forum

[Br3v]

For some of kapital's quality jargon analysis see this thread.

You're derailing this thread, but, that's a perfect example of me explaining economics and you saying "NO-NO-NO-NO". It's also a very good example of how TLS has changed (the absolute 'doom-and-gloom' crowd has become smaller).

It hasn't become smaller, there are just fewer people poasting "Should I go to Nova Southeastern or Barry Law" threads.

Word.

I think it is a combo of a "new generation" of TLS'ers who are more educated now (due reading people like Romo's and DF's responses on should I go to Barry threads) and the economy transitioning into its new norm which isn't as good as it was in the past, but it is better than it was 3 years ago.

[JCougar]

For some of kapital's quality jargon analysis see this thread.

Holy shit.

Kapital seems to be the result of packing a ton of facts and jargon about labor economics into a mind that hasn't yet begun to master common sense.

[kapital98]

Look, whatever analysis you were using doesn't matter: you were telling someone with a 2.82 GPA and a 155 LSAT to go to law school. This might be okay advice with a full tuition scholarship+fess, but what TTTT would give someone like that a full tuition scholarship?

ETA: I do agree that the non monetary value of being a lawyer should be included in any cost benefit analysis.

I was trying to give the OP the best advice with the available information. My assumption was that he was going to go regardless of the score. That's also why in my first post I quoted an above poster trying to explain how to keep debt low. I understand why someone would say "don't go" but I wanted to help the poster as much as possible assuming he's set on going.

FYI, Romo and Rad always bring up this thread to try to derail my ideas. I stick by the analysis in the thread but this is hardly the place to debate such topics.

[hume85]

Look, whatever analysis you were using doesn't matter: you were telling someone with a 2.82 GPA and a 155 LSAT to go to law school. This might be okay advice with a full tuition scholarship+fess, but what TTTT would give someone like that a full tuition scholarship?

ETA: I do agree that the non monetary value of being a lawyer should be included in any cost benefit analysis.

I was trying to give the OP the best advice with the available information. My assumption was that he was going to go regardless of the score. That's also why in my first post I quoted an above poster trying to explain how to keep debt low. I understand why someone would say "don't go" but I wanted to help the poster as much as possible assuming he's set on going.

FYI, Romo and Rad always bring up this thread to try to derail my ideas. I stick by the analysis in the thread but this is hardly the place to debate such topics.

Fair enough.

[dingbat]

FYI, Romo and Rad always bring up this thread to try to derail my ideas. I stick by the analysis in the thread but this is hardly the place to debate such topics.

After reading that thread, all I can say is that my eyes are burning. I'm glad to see you learned to talk normally and not just spout consultant word of the day lingo

[perfecttender]

My point is that just because you get a law degree that doesn't mean you get to become a lawyer in any meaningful sense of the word. A large percentage of current grads will never actually be part of the profession. A poster in this thread said that for somebody who puts a high enough value on being a lawyer any ABA law school is worth sticker. This would only be true if graduating from law school ensured that you would be a lawyer, in the same way that graduating from medical school does in fact pretty much guarantee that you'll be a doctor.

This is a fair point that is not always considered. Not everyone passes the bar. And once you fail the first time, the passage rates thereafter are horrible.

But even if you pass and work at a big firm, being a lawyer is not at all glamorous. Two months in and I'm dead exhausted. I have already gained weight and am stressed much of the day. I had around $50k of debt post law school and currently make market rate. Still, when you consider taxes and the amount of hours you work, the hourly rate is not that good (my summary of my hourly wage here: REDACTED). At any rate, best of luck with your decision.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

My point is that just because you get a law degree that doesn't mean you get to become a lawyer in any meaningful sense of the word. A large percentage of current grads will never actually be part of the profession. A poster in this thread said that for somebody who puts a high enough value on being a lawyer any ABA law school is worth sticker. This would only be true if graduating from law school ensured that you would be a lawyer, in the same way that graduating from medical school does in fact pretty much guarantee that you'll be a doctor.

This is a fair point that is not always considered. Not everyone passes the bar. And once you fail the first time, the passage rates thereafter are horrible.

But even if you pass and work at a big firm, being a lawyer is not at all glamorous. Two months in and I'm dead exhausted. I have already gained weight and am stressed much of the day. I had around $50k of debt post law school and currently make market rate. Still, when you consider taxes and the amount of hours you work, the hourly rate is not that good (my summary of my hourly wage here: REDACTED). At any rate, best of luck with your decision.

Great blog perfecttender. I actually just submitted an "ask me anything" question.

[somewhatwayward]

My point is that just because you get a law degree that doesn't mean you get to become a lawyer in any meaningful sense of the word. A large percentage of current grads will never actually be part of the profession. A poster in this thread said that for somebody who puts a high enough value on being a lawyer any ABA law school is worth sticker. This would only be true if graduating from law school ensured that you would be a lawyer, in the same way that graduating from medical school does in fact pretty much guarantee that you'll be a doctor.

In a cost-benefit analysis the possibility of unemployment would essentially be a risk premium. You would multiple the probability of risk to expected income and this would created the expected benefit.

So, assuming no intrinsic value from the profession and a 50% chance of unemployment:

$50,000 * (1-.5) = $25,000 benefit per year.

Now, assuming intrinsic value, this can be much higher. ex:

($50,000 * .5) + $50,000 = $75,000

You would then compare that $75,000 to expected debt over "x" amount of years.

Your comment is already part of a cost-benefit analysis. I do agree with you that many 0L's do not properly consider the costs of legal education relative to the benefits. But many of the people that attend lower ranked schools at sticker do take into account these costs and benefits.

This analysis is useless to any individual applying to law school.....assuming a 50% chance of employment at a 50K/year job, that individual will either have the job and be making 50K or not have the job and be making 0K (or 18K working at Radio Shack). The fact that in the aggregate the first year "value" is 25K is irrelevant to any one individual since no one will have that outcome. That is why I think using this type of analysis in a thread asking about whether any particular person would pay sticker somewhere is just another way to justify a bad decision.

[dingbat]

My point is that just because you get a law degree that doesn't mean you get to become a lawyer in any meaningful sense of the word. A large percentage of current grads will never actually be part of the profession. A poster in this thread said that for somebody who puts a high enough value on being a lawyer any ABA law school is worth sticker. This would only be true if graduating from law school ensured that you would be a lawyer, in the same way that graduating from medical school does in fact pretty much guarantee that you'll be a doctor.

In a cost-benefit analysis the possibility of unemployment would essentially be a risk premium. You would multiple the probability of risk to expected income and this would created the expected benefit.

So, assuming no intrinsic value from the profession and a 50% chance of unemployment:

$50,000 * (1-.5) = $25,000 benefit per year.

Now, assuming intrinsic value, this can be much higher. ex:

($50,000 * .5) + $50,000 = $75,000

You would then compare that $75,000 to expected debt over "x" amount of years.

Your comment is already part of a cost-benefit analysis. I do agree with you that many 0L's do not properly consider the costs of legal education relative to the benefits. But many of the people that attend lower ranked schools at sticker do take into account these costs and benefits.

This analysis is useless to any individual applying to law school.....assuming a 50% chance of employment at a 50K/year job, that individual will either have the job and be making 50K or not have the job and be making 0K (or 18K working at Radio Shack). The fact that in the aggregate the first year "value" is 25K is irrelevant to any one individual since no one will have that outcome. That is why I think using this type of analysis in a thread asking about whether any particular person would pay sticker somewhere is just another way to justify a bad decision.

There are many issues with that analysis, but what you're highlighting is not one of them (except maybe in its simplicity). Doing a probabilistic analysis of expected outcomes is actually a really good idea. Then taking a cold hard look and seeing, for example, that someone's chosen school's grads have a weighted average salary of $35k, with only 25% of students doing better than that, and a total cost of $200k is fairly informative. To then see that of the 75% of students not getting that salary, the breakdown is 20% at $25k per year, 25% at $20k per year and 30% are unemployed, should be fairly persuasive that only a hobo would be better off.

[suralin]

My point is that just because you get a law degree that doesn't mean you get to become a lawyer in any meaningful sense of the word. A large percentage of current grads will never actually be part of the profession. A poster in this thread said that for somebody who puts a high enough value on being a lawyer any ABA law school is worth sticker. This would only be true if graduating from law school ensured that you would be a lawyer, in the same way that graduating from medical school does in fact pretty much guarantee that you'll be a doctor.

In a cost-benefit analysis the possibility of unemployment would essentially be a risk premium. You would multiple the probability of risk to expected income and this would created the expected benefit.

So, assuming no intrinsic value from the profession and a 50% chance of unemployment:

$50,000 * (1-.5) = $25,000 benefit per year.

Now, assuming intrinsic value, this can be much higher. ex:

($50,000 * .5) + $50,000 = $75,000

You would then compare that $75,000 to expected debt over "x" amount of years.

Your comment is already part of a cost-benefit analysis. I do agree with you that many 0L's do not properly consider the costs of legal education relative to the benefits. But many of the people that attend lower ranked schools at sticker do take into account these costs and benefits.

This analysis is useless to any individual applying to law school.....assuming a 50% chance of employment at a 50K/year job, that individual will either have the job and be making 50K or not have the job and be making 0K (or 18K working at Radio Shack). The fact that in the aggregate the first year "value" is 25K is irrelevant to any one individual since no one will have that outcome. That is why I think using this type of analysis in a thread asking about whether any particular person would pay sticker somewhere is just another way to justify a bad decision.

There are many issues with that analysis, but what you're highlighting is not one of them (except maybe in its simplicity). Doing a probabilistic analysis of expected outcomes is actually a really good idea. Then taking a cold hard look and seeing, for example, that someone's chosen school's grads have a weighted average salary of $35k, with only 25% of students doing better than that, and a total cost of $200k is fairly informative. To then see that of the 75% of students not getting that salary, the breakdown is 20% at $25k per year, 25% at $20k per year and 30% are unemployed, should be fairly persuasive that only a hobo would be better off.

This (dingbat's post). Probabilistic expected value is, at least in principle, one of the best tools in making a rational decision. All it is, is the asymptotic limit of the sample mean as sample size increases to infinity (law of large numbers); in other words, it is the long-run average of the results of many independent repetitions of a decision (e.g., going to lawl school). Just because there may not be an actual discrete person with the average expected income does not render such an analysis useless, in the previous previous poaster's words. Of course, it may be hard to practically, and accurately, quantify all the things that should go into a cost-benefit analysis--which is likely the problem with kapital98's--but that is not a mark against the epistemic effectiveness of such analyses in principle.

[dingbat]

There are many issues with that analysis, but what you're highlighting is not one of them (except maybe in its simplicity). Doing a probabilistic analysis of expected outcomes is actually a really good idea. Then taking a cold hard look and seeing, for example, that someone's chosen school's grads have a weighted average salary of $35k, with only 25% of students doing better than that, and a total cost of $200k is fairly informative. To then see that of the 75% of students not getting that salary, the breakdown is 20% at $25k per year, 25% at $20k per year and 30% are unemployed, should be fairly persuasive that only a hobo would be better off.

This (dingbat's post). Probabilistic expected value is, at least in principle, one of the best tools in making a rational decision. All it is, is the asymptotic limit of the sample mean as sample size increases to infinity (law of large numbers); in other words, it is the long-run average of the results of many independent repetitions of a decision (e.g., going to lawl school). Just because there may not be an actual discrete person with the average expected income does not render such an analysis useless, in the previous previous poaster's words. Of course, it may be hard to practically, and accurately, quantify all the things that should go into a cost-benefit analysis--which is likely the problem with kapital98's--but that is not a mark against the epistemic effectiveness of such analyses in principle.

I just had issues with the gibberish presentation. I think what's going on in kapital98's head is probably correct, but what's coming out of his/her mouth (keyboard) is indecipherable.
As an aside, if you (or anyone else) want a draft model for quantifying this, just shoot me a PM. I was working on it last summer, but got side-tracked by work and then school obligations

[romothesavior]

My point is that just because you get a law degree that doesn't mean you get to become a lawyer in any meaningful sense of the word. A large percentage of current grads will never actually be part of the profession. A poster in this thread said that for somebody who puts a high enough value on being a lawyer any ABA law school is worth sticker. This would only be true if graduating from law school ensured that you would be a lawyer, in the same way that graduating from medical school does in fact pretty much guarantee that you'll be a doctor.

This is a fair point that is not always considered. Not everyone passes the bar. And once you fail the first time, the passage rates thereafter are horrible.

I don't think he was referencing bar passage. I think he was referring to the well-documented fact that approximately 50% of graduates in this economy work in full-time, bar-passage required, permanent jobs. Many grads, even if they pass the bar, never work as lawyers.

[perfecttender]

My point is that just because you get a law degree that doesn't mean you get to become a lawyer in any meaningful sense of the word. A large percentage of current grads will never actually be part of the profession. A poster in this thread said that for somebody who puts a high enough value on being a lawyer any ABA law school is worth sticker. This would only be true if graduating from law school ensured that you would be a lawyer, in the same way that graduating from medical school does in fact pretty much guarantee that you'll be a doctor.

This is a fair point that is not always considered. Not everyone passes the bar. And once you fail the first time, the passage rates thereafter are horrible.

I don't think he was referencing bar passage. I think he was referring to the well-documented fact that approximately 50% of graduates in this economy work in full-time, bar-passage required, permanent jobs. Many grads, even if they pass the bar, never work as lawyers.

even worse

[somewhatwayward]

In a cost-benefit analysis the possibility of unemployment would essentially be a risk premium. You would multiple the probability of risk to expected income and this would created the expected benefit.

So, assuming no intrinsic value from the profession and a 50% chance of unemployment:

$50,000 * (1-.5) = $25,000 benefit per year.

Now, assuming intrinsic value, this can be much higher. ex:

($50,000 * .5) + $50,000 = $75,000

This analysis is useless to any individual applying to law school.....assuming a 50% chance of employment at a 50K/year job, that individual will either have the job and be making 50K or not have the job and be making 0K (or 18K working at Radio Shack). The fact that in the aggregate the first year "value" is 25K is irrelevant to any one individual since no one will have that outcome. That is why I think using this type of analysis in a thread asking about whether any particular person would pay sticker somewhere is just another way to justify a bad decision.

There are many issues with that analysis, but what you're highlighting is not one of them (except maybe in its simplicity). Doing a probabilistic analysis of expected outcomes is actually a really good idea. Then taking a cold hard look and seeing, for example, that someone's chosen school's grads have a weighted average salary of $35k, with only 25% of students doing better than that, and a total cost of $200k is fairly informative. To then see that of the 75% of students not getting that salary, the breakdown is 20% at $25k per year, 25% at $20k per year and 30% are unemployed, should be fairly persuasive that only a hobo would be better off.

This (dingbat's post). Probabilistic expected value is, at least in principle, one of the best tools in making a rational decision. All it is, is the asymptotic limit of the sample mean as sample size increases to infinity (law of large numbers); in other words, it is the long-run average of the results of many independent repetitions of a decision (e.g., going to lawl school). Just because there may not be an actual discrete person with the average expected income does not render such an analysis useless, in the previous previous poaster's words. Of course, it may be hard to practically, and accurately, quantify all the things that should go into a cost-benefit analysis--which is likely the problem with kapital98's--but that is not a mark against the epistemic effectiveness of such analyses in principle.

Probabilistic expected value that includes a breakdown like dingbat provided in his response to me (eg, 30% chance of 0K, 30% of 40K, 30% of 50K, 10% of 100K; expected value = $37K (math done in head so sorry if off)) is more valuable in my opinion than just saying the expected value is $37K. I see what you are saying that this is basically the best we can do since it is impossible to look into the future to know whether you will be the one who gets the job. I hope $37K expected value would scare anyone off. But if that number is higher, say, $80K, but there is still a 20 or 30% chance of unemployment, I think the expected value alone without the breakdown can mislead people (not to mention the 5 million cognitive biases that kick in and sometimes even justify going to the $37K school). I guess it is the same as wanting to see the standard deviation in addition to the mean.

[dingbat]

Probabilistic expected value that includes a breakdown like dingbat provided in his response to me (eg, 30% chance of 0K, 30% of 40K, 30% of 50K, 10% of 100K; expected value = $37K (math done in head so sorry if off)) is more valuable in my opinion than just saying the expected value is $37K. I see what you are saying that this is basically the best we can do since it is impossible to look into the future to know whether you will be the one who gets the job. I hope $37K expected value would scare anyone off. But if that number is higher, say, $80K, but there is still a 20 or 30% chance of unemployment, I think the expected value alone without the breakdown can mislead people (not to mention the 5 million cognitive biases that kick in and sometimes even justify going to the $37K school). I guess it is the same as wanting to see the standard deviation in addition to the mean.

Couldn't agree more. Of course, you'll still have some turd who thinks a 10% chance of making more than $20k is better than flipping burgers at McDonalds, whatever the price.
I also have to add someone else's argument that if the choice is unemployment or 3 more years of studying, it's a completely rational decision to attend, placement statistics be damned.

We can't stop every lemming from running off a cliff, but for those who are willing to listen, we can do our best to provide the clearest picture possible

[kapital98]

My point is that just because you get a law degree that doesn't mean you get to become a lawyer in any meaningful sense of the word. A large percentage of current grads will never actually be part of the profession. A poster in this thread said that for somebody who puts a high enough value on being a lawyer any ABA law school is worth sticker. This would only be true if graduating from law school ensured that you would be a lawyer, in the same way that graduating from medical school does in fact pretty much guarantee that you'll be a doctor.

In a cost-benefit analysis the possibility of unemployment would essentially be a risk premium. You would multiple the probability of risk to expected income and this would created the expected benefit.

So, assuming no intrinsic value from the profession and a 50% chance of unemployment:

$50,000 * (1-.5) = $25,000 benefit per year.

Now, assuming intrinsic value, this can be much higher. ex:

($50,000 * .5) + $50,000 = $75,000

You would then compare that $75,000 to expected debt over "x" amount of years.

Your comment is already part of a cost-benefit analysis. I do agree with you that many 0L's do not properly consider the costs of legal education relative to the benefits. But many of the people that attend lower ranked schools at sticker do take into account these costs and benefits.

This analysis is useless to any individual applying to law school.....assuming a 50% chance of employment at a 50K/year job, that individual will either have the job and be making 50K or not have the job and be making 0K (or 18K working at Radio Shack). The fact that in the aggregate the first year "value" is 25K is irrelevant to any one individual since no one will have that outcome. That is why I think using this type of analysis in a thread asking about whether any particular person would pay sticker somewhere is just another way to justify a bad decision.

There are many issues with that analysis, but what you're highlighting is not one of them (except maybe in its simplicity). Doing a probabilistic analysis of expected outcomes is actually a really good idea. Then taking a cold hard look and seeing, for example, that someone's chosen school's grads have a weighted average salary of $35k, with only 25% of students doing better than that, and a total cost of $200k is fairly informative. To then see that of the 75% of students not getting that salary, the breakdown is 20% at $25k per year, 25% at $20k per year and 30% are unemployed, should be fairly persuasive that only a hobo would be better off.

I agree with what Dingbat is saying (even if he doesn't necessarily agree with everything I'm saying). My numbers were just to prove the qualitative benefit of legal employment. The risk calculation was part of an example of how to quantify qualitative numbers. To be conservative, I assumed below median and (well below) mean starting salary.

You can always break it down further but it doesn't elaborate much. It also doesn't change the underlying analysis of risk because I've already taken out the outlier of biglaw. If you look at salary distribution of legal jobs it's basically a standard deviation without biglaw (bi-modal with biglaw).

[dingbat]

I agree with what Dingbat is saying (even if he doesn't necessarily agree with everything I'm saying).

It's not that I disagree with what you said, just that I didn't understand it.
I even said that I think you're right

[Doorkeeper]

I think this question is very stats dependent.

[BarbellDreams]

I don't usually post in these threads anymore but kapital sounds so much like me when I was a 0L its ridiculous. I don't necessarily disagree with everything that you're saying, but you're gonna lol really hard at yourself when you're an unemployed 3L at graduation if you follow your own advice in some of the threads I have been reading. I will remind you of your "intrinsic value" when you're working in shitlaw for 40K per year and your 1st loan payment slip comes. Getting to tell friends and family that you're an attorney and putting "Esq." on your business card won't equal out to a grand a month. Best of luck.

[Puffin]

For some of kapital's quality jargon analysis see this thread.

Holy shit.

Kapital seems to be the result of packing a ton of facts and jargon about labor economics into a mind that hasn't yet begun to master common sense.

Cannot believe I bothered to read that.

[nebula666]

The best school in the state in which you want to work.

[NoodleyOne]

The best school in the state in which you want to work.

This is true. If those states are Connecticut, California, or Massachusetts.

[dingbat]

The best school in the state in which you want to work.

This is true. If those states are Connecticut, California, or Massachusetts.

Who on earth would go to Y and want to work in Connecticut?

[NoodleyOne]

The best school in the state in which you want to work.

This is true. If those states are Connecticut, California, or Massachusetts.

Who on earth would go to Y and want to work in Connecticut?

...
Fair point.

[Funkycrime]

Probably Penn or Berkeley. MAYBE Duke because I like the school, but I wouldn't feel good doing it.