Take the money and Run; YS - CCNH? Forum

[DrStudMuffin]

Parsing the "experiential" difference between HYS and CCN sounds pretty darn silly from outside the t14. They're all elite schools; they all offer amazing experiences; to say that there's any remotely significant difference sounds like splitting the tiniest of hairs. I mean, I'm not going to knock anyone for going to HYS at whatever cost, I didn't have that opportunity, but insisting on some kind of objectively better experience at HYS than CCN sounds a lot like an attempt to justify the cost beyond "I wanted HYS." (This argument aid occurred already, but saying that classmates at HYS are "more impressive" than classmates at CCN is sort of like saying that the president is "more impressive" than the vice-president.) I recognize that there are certain very elite jobs where HYS gives an edge, but that's a different argument than saying the HYS experience is different enough from other elite schools to make the difference.

Its contrived nonsense to think that students who got into HYS are more "impressive" than the students you would find at CCN. In many cases, they are separated by an LSAT point or 2. And saying its an objectively better "experience" is equally contrived. This all sounds like something a 0L would cook up to try and justify a choice.

I actually feel pretty confident saying that, generally, the students at Yale are more intellectually/professionally impressive than those at NYU. Whether this is worth paying anything for is an entirely different question.*

*I say this as someone who didn't apply to Yale.

[quijotesca1011]

...

[jbagelboy]

Yea, I wouldn't pay $100,000 to feel marginally relevant to a single SCOTUS brief or oral argument as some 2L, no matter the significance of the subject or controversy. So technically you're correct, we each make a value judgment. But you must realize you are taking an incredibly entitled attitude: materially speaking, $100K could lift hundreds of Americans out of poverty every year. It could feed every 2-7 year old child in a Johannesburg slum-suburb for a month; and you are placing that on par with an intellectual ego boost. I know we consume and waste inordinate quantities of wealth every day in this country, but that's a whole other level of psychological perversion, regardless of the independent value you place on your academic persuasions.

I agree with you completely that it is entitled to be able to make this decision, but I think your comparison is a little harsh and out of place, simply given that I haven't heard an awful lot of people on TLS talking about how they are going to donate that $100,000 that they save to charity… they are talking about how much more they are going to be making on the other end without having to pay student loans, which presumably in most cases is going to go to luxury spending in most cases. So I mean, pick your excess, pick your "perversion", but we are talking about whether you want to spend 100K on the 'luxury good' of a certain prestige degree or 100K on the (probably luxury purchases) of a more expensive housing, a car payment, consumer goods further down the line (for example). At least that's my guess from most of the postings I've seen on TLS.

That's a very valid point, which is why I included my caveat about general waste and consumption. For many grads though, $100K off their loans is not the difference between a Gallardo and an Aventador. They will struggle with far more plebeian problems - like how to make both rent, loan payments, and put their kid in pre-K. Still, the suggestion that involvement in a single clinic could be even subjectively valued at six figures by anyone made even my bourgeois overly-intellectually coddled sensitivities do a backflip.

[abl]

Parsing the "experiential" difference between HYS and CCN sounds pretty darn silly from outside the t14. They're all elite schools; they all offer amazing experiences; to say that there's any remotely significant difference sounds like splitting the tiniest of hairs. I mean, I'm not going to knock anyone for going to HYS at whatever cost, I didn't have that opportunity, but insisting on some kind of objectively better experience at HYS than CCN sounds a lot like an attempt to justify the cost beyond "I wanted HYS." (This argument aid occurred already, but saying that classmates at HYS are "more impressive" than classmates at CCN is sort of like saying that the president is "more impressive" than the vice-president.) I recognize that there are certain very elite jobs where HYS gives an edge, but that's a different argument than saying the HYS experience is different enough from other elite schools to make the difference.

The fact that it sounds silly from your perspective isn't evidence that it's not true. I think a better analogy than President vs. Vice President (which is maybe like the Y-SH distinction) is President as compared to a member in the House of Representative. Some representatives will be just as impressive as the president. Some may even be more so. But by and large, you will see a difference in the quality of politician between these two groups. Now, I -- being nowhere near the politician as any of them -- may fairly categorize them all as being phenomenal. But that doesn't mean that it's splitting hairs to say that presidents are generally meaningfully better politicians than representatives.

Having looked at hundreds of resumes from these six schools for purposes of clerkship hiring, I can vouch that there is a noticeable difference in the sorts of things people from YS have accomplished both before and during law school (in particular) as compared to CCN. Sure, they've all done pretty incredible things. But that doesn't mean that one group isn't meaningfully different from the other.

[buffalo_]

Yea, I wouldn't pay $100,000 to feel marginally relevant to a single SCOTUS brief or oral argument as some 2L, no matter the significance of the subject or controversy. So technically you're correct, we each make a value judgment. But you must realize you are taking an incredibly entitled attitude: materially speaking, $100K could lift hundreds of Americans out of poverty every year. It could feed every 2-7 year old child in a Johannesburg slum-suburb for a month; and you are placing that on par with an intellectual ego boost. I know we consume and waste inordinate quantities of wealth every day in this country, but that's a whole other level of psychological perversion, regardless of the independent value you place on your academic persuasions.

I agree with you completely that it is entitled to be able to make this decision, but I think your comparison is a little harsh and out of place, simply given that I haven't heard an awful lot of people on TLS talking about how they are going to donate that $100,000 that they save to charity… they are talking about how much more they are going to be making on the other end without having to pay student loans, which presumably in most cases is going to go to luxury spending in most cases. So I mean, pick your excess, pick your "perversion", but we are talking about whether you want to spend 100K on the 'luxury good' of a certain prestige degree or 100K on the (probably luxury purchases) of a more expensive housing, a car payment, consumer goods further down the line (for example). At least that's my guess from most of the postings I've seen on TLS.

That's a very valid point, which is why I included my caveat about general waste and consumption. For many grads though, $100K off their loans is not the difference between a Gallardo and an Aventador. They will struggle with far more plebeian problems - like how to make both rent, loan payments, and put their kid in pre-K. Still, the suggestion that involvement in a single clinic could be even subjectively valued at six figures by anyone made even my bourgeois overly-intellectually coddled sensitivities do a backflip.

Pre-k? Sounds bougie.

[muskies970]

I didn't go to law school only to make more money. And I'm doing what I wanted to do. But let me tell you, once you get over ~$150k in non-dischargeable loans, you don't have the option to care about much other than money. I can't even imagine what $300k would do to you.

So, what are the other considerations?

I would love to hear them. I could use the lulz

Late to the game, what if one wants to be a professor or do public interest. Also some people may generally enjoy legal work, even if you all do not.

Most doctors, engineers, programmers, etc.. that I know do not enter the field for the money, they do it because the career aligns with their interests and talents. Just because you all hate legal research/ work and only view a job as a means to accumulate money does not mean everyone does.

[Power_of_Facing]

Parsing the "experiential" difference between HYS and CCN sounds pretty darn silly from outside the t14. They're all elite schools; they all offer amazing experiences; to say that there's any remotely significant difference sounds like splitting the tiniest of hairs. I mean, I'm not going to knock anyone for going to HYS at whatever cost, I didn't have that opportunity, but insisting on some kind of objectively better experience at HYS than CCN sounds a lot like an attempt to justify the cost beyond "I wanted HYS." (This argument aid occurred already, but saying that classmates at HYS are "more impressive" than classmates at CCN is sort of like saying that the president is "more impressive" than the vice-president.) I recognize that there are certain very elite jobs where HYS gives an edge, but that's a different argument than saying the HYS experience is different enough from other elite schools to make the difference.

Its contrived nonsense to think that students who got into HYS are more "impressive" than the students you would find at CCN. In many cases, they are separated by an LSAT point or 2. And saying its an objectively better "experience" is equally contrived. This all sounds like something a 0L would cook up to try and justify a choice.

I actually feel pretty confident saying that, generally, the students at Yale are more intellectually/professionally impressive than those at NYU. Whether this is worth paying anything for is an entirely different question.*

*I say this as someone who didn't apply to Yale.

What is the basis behind your confidence?

[jbagelboy]

Yea, I wouldn't pay $100,000 to feel marginally relevant to a single SCOTUS brief or oral argument as some 2L, no matter the significance of the subject or controversy. So technically you're correct, we each make a value judgment. But you must realize you are taking an incredibly entitled attitude: materially speaking, $100K could lift hundreds of Americans out of poverty every year. It could feed every 2-7 year old child in a Johannesburg slum-suburb for a month; and you are placing that on par with an intellectual ego boost. I know we consume and waste inordinate quantities of wealth every day in this country, but that's a whole other level of psychological perversion, regardless of the independent value you place on your academic persuasions.

I agree with you completely that it is entitled to be able to make this decision, but I think your comparison is a little harsh and out of place, simply given that I haven't heard an awful lot of people on TLS talking about how they are going to donate that $100,000 that they save to charity… they are talking about how much more they are going to be making on the other end without having to pay student loans, which presumably in most cases is going to go to luxury spending in most cases. So I mean, pick your excess, pick your "perversion", but we are talking about whether you want to spend 100K on the 'luxury good' of a certain prestige degree or 100K on the (probably luxury purchases) of a more expensive housing, a car payment, consumer goods further down the line (for example). At least that's my guess from most of the postings I've seen on TLS.

That's a very valid point, which is why I included my caveat about general waste and consumption. For many grads though, $100K off their loans is not the difference between a Gallardo and an Aventador. They will struggle with far more plebeian problems - like how to make both rent, loan payments, and put their kid in pre-K. Still, the suggestion that involvement in a single clinic could be even subjectively valued at six figures by anyone made even my bourgeois overly-intellectually coddled sensitivities do a backflip.

Pre-k? Sounds bougie.

idk man. maybe if we all had good pre-k we could be more like abl.

[muskies970]

Also, as this thread/ website is cluttered with recent grads 1-3 years out I think there is a HUGE bias towards short term mentality. Most debt will be paid off within 10years, which assuming the individual went to law school between the ages of 22-25 means by the time they're 32-35 they will no longer have debt.

That leave ~30 years of career with no debt, but the connections, prestige, and other advantages of a higher ranked school.

Debt sucks in the short term, but I would like to hear more perspective from people 10-15 years out who have paid off their debt

[jbagelboy]

Also, as this thread/ website is cluttered with recent grads 1-3 years out I think there is a HUGE bias towards short term mentality. Most debt will be paid off within 10years, which assuming the individual went to law school between the ages of 22-25 means by the time they're 32-35 they will no longer have debt.

That leave ~30 years of career with no debt, but the connections, prestige, and other advantages of a higher ranked school.

Debt sucks in the short term, but I would like to hear more perspective from people 10-15 years out who have paid off their debt

Note that anyone who graduated from law school 10-15 years ago was paying off half or even a third of the amount of debt people take for sticker now. The whole point is that the industry is changing and the costs are no longer as justified as they may have been in the past; older attorneys who realize this counsel heavily against taking on heavy debt for school.

[aboutmydaylight]

Also, as this thread/ website is cluttered with recent grads 1-3 years out I think there is a HUGE bias towards short term mentality. Most debt will be paid off within 10years, which assuming the individual went to law school between the ages of 22-25 means by the time they're 32-35 they will no longer have debt.

That leave ~30 years of career with no debt, but the connections, prestige, and other advantages of a higher ranked school.

Debt sucks in the short term, but I would like to hear more perspective from people 10-15 years out who have paid off their debt

That's true but these people basically don't exist because school was significantly cheaper back then, and jobs were significantly easier to get. There's basically no comparable population.

[daryldixon]

Also, as this thread/ website is cluttered with recent grads 1-3 years out I think there is a HUGE bias towards short term mentality. Most debt will be paid off within 10years, which assuming the individual went to law school between the ages of 22-25 means by the time they're 32-35 they will no longer have debt.

That leave ~30 years of career with no debt, but the connections, prestige, and other advantages of a higher ranked school.

Debt sucks in the short term, but I would like to hear more perspective from people 10-15 years out who have paid off their debt

Those people don't exist because if you went to law school 10+ years ago the cost was much lower. Lawyers have never taken on the amount of debt that students today are being asked to take on. COA at Columbia is 83k per year! It was half that 15 years ago.

(scooped by two people)

[DrStudMuffin]

Parsing the "experiential" difference between HYS and CCN sounds pretty darn silly from outside the t14. They're all elite schools; they all offer amazing experiences; to say that there's any remotely significant difference sounds like splitting the tiniest of hairs. I mean, I'm not going to knock anyone for going to HYS at whatever cost, I didn't have that opportunity, but insisting on some kind of objectively better experience at HYS than CCN sounds a lot like an attempt to justify the cost beyond "I wanted HYS." (This argument aid occurred already, but saying that classmates at HYS are "more impressive" than classmates at CCN is sort of like saying that the president is "more impressive" than the vice-president.) I recognize that there are certain very elite jobs where HYS gives an edge, but that's a different argument than saying the HYS experience is different enough from other elite schools to make the difference.

Its contrived nonsense to think that students who got into HYS are more "impressive" than the students you would find at CCN. In many cases, they are separated by an LSAT point or 2. And saying its an objectively better "experience" is equally contrived. This all sounds like something a 0L would cook up to try and justify a choice.

I actually feel pretty confident saying that, generally, the students at Yale are more intellectually/professionally impressive than those at NYU. Whether this is worth paying anything for is an entirely different question.*

*I say this as someone who didn't apply to Yale.

What is the basis behind your confidence?

I would say it is part basic common sense, part having met a decent number of Yale students through a friend, and part objective based on admissions data.

Certainly at an individual level it will vary wildly, but at the population level I think this is reasonable.

[muskies970]

Also, as this thread/ website is cluttered with recent grads 1-3 years out I think there is a HUGE bias towards short term mentality. Most debt will be paid off within 10years, which assuming the individual went to law school between the ages of 22-25 means by the time they're 32-35 they will no longer have debt.

That leave ~30 years of career with no debt, but the connections, prestige, and other advantages of a higher ranked school.

Debt sucks in the short term, but I would like to hear more perspective from people 10-15 years out who have paid off their debt

Note that anyone who graduated from law school 10-15 years ago was paying off half or even a third of the amount of debt people take for sticker now. The whole point is that the industry is changing and the costs are no longer as justified as they may have been in the past; older attorneys who realize this counsel heavily against taking on heavy debt for school.

Agreed, but my point about this conversation being short sited stands and has not been rebutted... Doctors don't even finish med school until they're 28-30, and THEN have debts to pay off.

LOL no one should go to med school either.

[quijotesca1011]

...

[t-14orbust]

Also, as this thread/ website is cluttered with recent grads 1-3 years out I think there is a HUGE bias towards short term mentality. Most debt will be paid off within 10years, which assuming the individual went to law school between the ages of 22-25 means by the time they're 32-35 they will no longer have debt.

That leave ~30 years of career with no debt, but the connections, prestige, and other advantages of a higher ranked school.

Debt sucks in the short term, but I would like to hear more perspective from people 10-15 years out who have paid off their debt

Note that anyone who graduated from law school 10-15 years ago was paying off half or even a third of the amount of debt people take for sticker now. The whole point is that the industry is changing and the costs are no longer as justified as they may have been in the past; older attorneys who realize this counsel heavily against taking on heavy debt for school.

Agreed, but my point about this conversation being short sited stands and has not been rebutted... Doctors don't even finish med school until they're 28-30, and THEN have debts to pay off.

LOL no one should go to med school either.

US Med Grads have pretty much guaranteed stable employment though. Lawlyers do not

[muskies970]

Also, as this thread/ website is cluttered with recent grads 1-3 years out I think there is a HUGE bias towards short term mentality. Most debt will be paid off within 10years, which assuming the individual went to law school between the ages of 22-25 means by the time they're 32-35 they will no longer have debt.

That leave ~30 years of career with no debt, but the connections, prestige, and other advantages of a higher ranked school.

Debt sucks in the short term, but I would like to hear more perspective from people 10-15 years out who have paid off their debt

Note that anyone who graduated from law school 10-15 years ago was paying off half or even a third of the amount of debt people take for sticker now. The whole point is that the industry is changing and the costs are no longer as justified as they may have been in the past; older attorneys who realize this counsel heavily against taking on heavy debt for school.

Agreed, but my point about this conversation being short sited stands and has not been rebutted... Doctors don't even finish med school until they're 28-30, and THEN have debts to pay off.

LOL no one should go to med school either.

US Med Grads have pretty much guaranteed stable employment though. Lawlyers do not

Lawlyers from the T14 do

[sublime]

..

[californiauser]

Also, as this thread/ website is cluttered with recent grads 1-3 years out I think there is a HUGE bias towards short term mentality. Most debt will be paid off within 10years, which assuming the individual went to law school between the ages of 22-25 means by the time they're 32-35 they will no longer have debt.

That leave ~30 years of career with no debt, but the connections, prestige, and other advantages of a higher ranked school.

Debt sucks in the short term, but I would like to hear more perspective from people 10-15 years out who have paid off their debt

I'd be willing to wager money that 90%+ of the current law students with 100k+ debt will not have it all paid off ten years from graduation.

[aboutmydaylight]

Also, as this thread/ website is cluttered with recent grads 1-3 years out I think there is a HUGE bias towards short term mentality. Most debt will be paid off within 10years, which assuming the individual went to law school between the ages of 22-25 means by the time they're 32-35 they will no longer have debt.

That leave ~30 years of career with no debt, but the connections, prestige, and other advantages of a higher ranked school.

Debt sucks in the short term, but I would like to hear more perspective from people 10-15 years out who have paid off their debt

Note that anyone who graduated from law school 10-15 years ago was paying off half or even a third of the amount of debt people take for sticker now. The whole point is that the industry is changing and the costs are no longer as justified as they may have been in the past; older attorneys who realize this counsel heavily against taking on heavy debt for school.

Agreed, but my point about this conversation being short sited stands and has not been rebutted... Doctors don't even finish med school until they're 28-30, and THEN have debts to pay off.

LOL no one should go to med school either.

9/10 practicing physicians wouldn't recommend it to new students. So yea this vitriol isn't exclusive to law at this point. Its a classic economic problem when you need an outcome to maximize social welfare but individually its a bad decision. The big difference is there's actually a projected shortage of doctors, while the supply of attorneys is too high.

[buffalo_]

Also, as this thread/ website is cluttered with recent grads 1-3 years out I think there is a HUGE bias towards short term mentality. Most debt will be paid off within 10years, which assuming the individual went to law school between the ages of 22-25 means by the time they're 32-35 they will no longer have debt.

That leave ~30 years of career with no debt, but the connections, prestige, and other advantages of a higher ranked school.

Debt sucks in the short term, but I would like to hear more perspective from people 10-15 years out who have paid off their debt

I'd be willing to wager money that 90%+ of the current law students with 100k+ debt will not have it all paid off ten years from graduation.

I'll take that deal. But when I lose, I will "owe" you the money. This debt is non-dischargable. And I will not be required to pay more than 10% of my income each year toward it.

[daryldixon]

Agreed, but my point about this conversation being short sited stands and has not been rebutted... Doctors don't even finish med school until they're 28-30, and THEN have debts to pay off.

LOL no one should go to med school either.

The average salary for doctors is much higher than lawyers.

Also the median salary increase for an average JD graduate over an average person with a college degree is $610,000 (before tax) over their entire lifetime. After tax that figure should be less than 400k. If you are going into 250k-300k of debt to get your JD you are going to have to pay more than your salary increase in loan payments over your lifetime.

Source: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... port_says/

[Power_of_Facing]

Its contrived nonsense to think that students who got into HYS are more "impressive" than the students you would find at CCN. In many cases, they are separated by an LSAT point or 2. And saying its an objectively better "experience" is equally contrived. This all sounds like something a 0L would cook up to try and justify a choice.

I actually feel pretty confident saying that, generally, the students at Yale are more intellectually/professionally impressive than those at NYU. Whether this is worth paying anything for is an entirely different question.*

*I say this as someone who didn't apply to Yale.

What is the basis behind your confidence?

I would say it is part basic common sense, part having met a decent number of Yale students through a friend, and part objective based on admissions data.

Certainly at an individual level it will vary wildly, but at the population level I think this is reasonable.

"Objective admissions data" sets (as I understand them) do not reflect qualitative differences in employment, and insofar as they suggest a discrepancy between CCN and Y in terms of intellectual impressiveness, it is entirely on the basis of LSAT performance and GPA. While this shouldn't be discounted, I don't think it is enough evidence to place the belief that CCN students are generally less impressive than their counterparts at Y in the realm of "basic common sense."

I say this as a slighted CCN student who didn't apply to Yale.

[muskies970]

Agreed, but my point about this conversation being short sited stands and has not been rebutted... Doctors don't even finish med school until they're 28-30, and THEN have debts to pay off.

LOL no one should go to med school either.

The average salary for doctors is much higher than lawyers.

Also the median salary increase for an average JD graduate over an average person with a college degree is $610,000 (before tax) over their entire lifetime. After tax that figure should be less than 400k. If you are going into 250k-300k of debt to get your JD you are going to have to pay more than your salary increase in loan payments over your lifetime.

Source: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... port_says/

I'm not talking about averages, I'm talking about someone from the T14 taking sticker.

[muskies970]

Also, as this thread/ website is cluttered with recent grads 1-3 years out I think there is a HUGE bias towards short term mentality. Most debt will be paid off within 10years, which assuming the individual went to law school between the ages of 22-25 means by the time they're 32-35 they will no longer have debt.

That leave ~30 years of career with no debt, but the connections, prestige, and other advantages of a higher ranked school.

Debt sucks in the short term, but I would like to hear more perspective from people 10-15 years out who have paid off their debt

I'd be willing to wager money that 90%+ of the current law students with 100k+ debt will not have it all paid off ten years from graduation.

If it's for people at the T14 I would bet it is much higher than average. I don't think sticker is great for everyone especially at lower ranked schools. However for school's that offer 10 year PI repayment programs and T14 school's with good employment outcomes sticker may be justified.