Take the money and Run; YS - CCNH? Forum

[aboutmydaylight]

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/

Yea but no one here advocates 250-300k debt for an "average" law school, however you want to define it. A common problem I see here is that people use arguments against the law profession as a whole to support a significantly smaller "elite" portion of the profession. A T14 degree on average likely has a significantly higher ROI.

[quijotesca1011]

...

[sublime]

..

[DrStudMuffin]

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.

Well, it's more than just LSAT/GPA medians. The acceptance rate at Yale is substantially lower than at NYU, and if we assume that Yale's admissions squad tries to assemble a class of impressive individuals, then these people should theoretically be more accomplished than those at NYU. Obviously acceptance rates are limited in their ability to show student quality for a variety of factors, but the chasm between Yale and NYU is pretty vast.

This argument is bolstered by the fact that Yale rejects scores of ridiculously high numbered applicants every year, so they're not just taking students solely based on LSAT and GPA. (Yale actually releases this data, see: http://www.lsac.org/officialguide/2013/lsac_3987.asp) A glance at LSN graphs shows that NYU will accept anyone with a pulse over certain GPA/LSAT thresholds.

You're correct in saying that the admissions data doesn't explicitly say anything in regard to prior employment, but I think the fact that students with insanely high numbers get rejected every year says something about Yale's ability to select accomplished individuals.

The piece about my having met a number of impressive Yale students is purely anecdotal, but it was enough to convince me that they aren't just admitting a bunch of high LSAT/GPA people with Asperger's.

ETA: I just want to reiterate that I'm not talking about paying money for this marginal difference in student quality.

[waferthinmint]

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

Perspective from a Columbia grad associate at my firm who is 10 years out: She paid sticker at CLS (which then was prob just over half what it is now), worked in PI for 10 years and had her loans paid off through LRAP, and she unequivocally told me to go to Berkeley with scholly over NYU assuming sticker at NYU because at the time I didn't know my NYU award offer. Her reasoning: Debt is Real.

My conjectures on the reasons behind her reasoning: Even though she "lovedlovedloved Columbia," is now debt-free 10 years out, is earning good pay (not Biglaw, but decent) at our boutique firm, and recently bought a condo, she went through years of making LESS THAN I WAS MAKING IN MY FIRST JOB OUT OF COLLEGE and having to have her bf subsidize her food costs. And being broke in NYC when you're no longer in your twenties, that's tough (her words).

Caveats: I don't know how her response would change now that I'm in at her beloved Columbia and getting aid awards from "the CCN." I don't know why she went PI/LRAP and why she changed from PI to private now. But I think she enjoyed her PI work.

[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.

Your original post just sounded to me like it was suggesting like people who are accepting scholarships are nobly eschewing privilege and prestige, which I don't really think is what is going on. On TLS, at least, they are generally doing so with the intentions of going to BigLaw and making a large salary without loans (I'm talking about the intentions and motivations behind that decision). Which is fine, I'm not at all critiquing that, I just think it's pretty harsh to suggest that someone choosing to take on an additional $100K in loans is thereby 'perverse.' In terms of motivations, I still maintain it's a question of the 'luxury' of the degree v. the 'luxury' of lifestyle. Indeed, if we extend your comparison, the same $100K that goes to fund a scholarship could also be redirected in different charity endeavors towards these causes that you mention, "lifting hundreds of Americans out of poverty every year...feed every 2-7 year old child in a Johannesburg slum-suburb for a month"… I think the only thing we could really label 'perverse' is possible the cost of tuition.

You could indeed argue that those who choose to avoid major debt are more realistic, and those who take it on more naïve. That argument I'll accept and personally worry about myself. But you going in informed, realizing that it will require sacrifices and struggle in the short-term, and aware of the risks, depending on your career path it can be a question of different priorities. What's more, I don't see anything morally perverse in people who choose to take on loans and then work hard to pay them off.

All that said, I wholeheartedly agree with you that no one clinical experience could ever be worth six figures. And I don't think I agree that the difference in experience alone between HYS and CCN for example could ever justify that sort of debt. But I do think that once you start to take in a variety of factors - experience, career goals, etc. - it can be more complex than the general consensus of this thread.

Right - as I said I appreciate the problematic extension of that logic to it's erroneous end. I think my comments must be taken in context, or dismissed altogether.

I applaud abl's and other's inclusion of less immediately quantifiable factors in what has become an overly-crude actuarial exercise - within reason. I'm just opposed to the tone, approach and bizarre assumptions implicit in one reading of that inclusion.

[NYSprague]

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

Perspective from a Columbia grad associate at my firm who is 10 years out: She paid sticker at CLS (which then was prob just over half what it is now), worked in PI for 10 years and had her loans paid off through LRAP, and she unequivocally told me to go to Berkeley with scholly over NYU assuming sticker at NYU because at the time I didn't know my NYU award offer. Her reasoning: Debt is Real.

My conjectures on the reasons behind her reasoning: Even though she "lovedlovedloved Columbia," is now debt-free 10 years out, is earning good pay (not Biglaw, but decent) at our boutique firm, and recently bought a condo, she went through years of making LESS THAN I WAS MAKING IN MY FIRST JOB OUT OF COLLEGE and having to have her bf subsidize her food costs. And being broke in NYC when you're no longer in your twenties, that's tough (her words).

Caveats: I don't know how her response would change now that I'm in at her beloved Columbia and getting aid awards from "the CCN." I don't know why she went PI/LRAP and why she changed from PI to private now. But I think she enjoyed her PI work.

If you want to look up past tuition amounts, there is a site called lawschooltuitionbubble which has the data on tuition from all schools starting with 1999. He has also calculated the amount in 2012 dollars.

Tuition at Columbia 2001 -2002 was $31,596 (in 2012 dollars that is $40,977)
2002-2003 was $33,484 (in 2012 dollars that is $42,743)
2003-2004 was $39,172 (in 2012 dollars that is $44,221)
Tuition for 2013-2014: $55,916

I don't know if there is any data on total COA out there anywhere.

Here is the link to the data for NY
--LinkRemoved--

here is the link to the data for all schools:
--LinkRemoved--

here is the link to the site:
http://lawschooltuitionbubble.wordpress.com/

[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

Perspective from a Columbia grad associate at my firm who is 10 years out: She paid sticker at CLS (which then was prob just over half what it is now), worked in PI for 10 years and had her loans paid off through LRAP, and she unequivocally told me to go to Berkeley with scholly over NYU assuming sticker at NYU because at the time I didn't know my NYU award offer. Her reasoning: Debt is Real.

My conjectures on the reasons behind her reasoning: Even though she "lovedlovedloved Columbia," is now debt-free 10 years out, is earning good pay (not Biglaw, but decent) at our boutique firm, and recently bought a condo, she went through years of making LESS THAN I WAS MAKING IN MY FIRST JOB OUT OF COLLEGE and having to have her bf subsidize her food costs. And being broke in NYC when you're no longer in your twenties, that's tough (her words).

Caveats: I don't know how her response would change now that I'm in at her beloved Columbia and getting aid awards from "the CCN." I don't know why she went PI/LRAP and why she changed from PI to private now. But I think she enjoyed her PI work.

This makes no sense... She did PI so her salary wasn't impacted by her debt at all...

[moopness]

Here's what I don't get: A 90K scholly at Columbia with the rest of CoA being paid with loans amounts to (using Georgetown's calculator) $197,902 of total debt at repayment, or total payments (over 10 years) of $251,874. But strangley enough, with IBR a sticker loan would amount to total debt payments amounting to $253,464 with loan forgiveness of $189,011...which is basically the same as a half-scholly. What am I doing wrong? This can't be right...

These are obscene, absolutely, completely and utterly obscene debt loads. It's crazy that going to a top 6 law school WITH a half scholly STILL amounts to a ridiculously bad outcome for the student. I know others will say something along the lines of "but if most people going to these schools are taking out these types of loans, then it must be ok." But the only thing that this is indicative of is the astronomically high cost of attending law school for astronomically low benefits. It just seems unbelievable that I'm going to be spending my 20s in Law school taking on huge amounts of debt, all of my 30s paying that debt off, only to arrive at my 40s with zero net worth

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

This is the analysis I recommend:
Don't go unless
1. you get into a T14, and you will end up with less than $150k total debt (including COA + interest)
OR
2. you have a full ride to a school in a region where you are willing to practice.
3. If neither 1 or 2 apply either retake or don't go to law school.

[cotiger]

Here's what I don't get: A 90K scholly at Columbia with the rest of CoA being paid with loans amounts to (using Georgetown's calculator) $197,902 of total debt at repayment, or total payments (over 10 years) of $251,874. But strangley enough, with IBR a sticker loan would amount to total debt payments amounting to $253,464 with loan forgiveness of $189,011...which is basically the same as a half-scholly. What am I doing wrong? This can't be right...

These are obscene, absolutely, completely and utterly obscene debt loads. It's crazy that going to a top 6 law school WITH a half scholly STILL amounts to a ridiculously bad outcome for the student. I know others will say something along the lines of "but if most people going to these schools are taking out these types of loans, then it must be ok." But the only thing that this is indicative of is the astronomically high cost of attending law school for astronomically low benefits. It just seems unbelievable that I'm going to be spending my 20s in Law school taking on huge amounts of debt, all of my 30s paying that debt off, only to arrive at my 40s with zero net worth

Might I suggest a slightly lower ranked school with a larger scholarship?

[jbagelboy]

Here's what I don't get: A 90K scholly at Columbia with the rest of CoA being paid with loans amounts to (using Georgetown's calculator) $197,902 of total debt at repayment, or total payments (over 10 years) of $251,874. But strangley enough, with IBR a sticker loan would amount to total debt payments amounting to $253,464 with loan forgiveness of $189,011...which is basically the same as a half-scholly. What am I doing wrong? This can't be right...

These are obscene, absolutely, completely and utterly obscene debt loads. It's crazy that going to a top 6 law school WITH a half scholly STILL amounts to a ridiculously bad outcome for the student. I know others will say something along the lines of "but if most people going to these schools are taking out these types of loans, then it must be ok." But the only thing that this is indicative of is the astronomically high cost of attending law school for astronomically low benefits. It just seems unbelievable that I'm going to be spending my 20s in Law school taking on huge amounts of debt, all of my 30s paying that debt off, only to arrive at my 40s with zero net worth

it's not that much. generate your own figures. it costs like $78-80K to go to CLS a year living in morning side. I'm assuming your scholly is like 36/36/18? SA will be $30K. So it's like 44 + 46 + 36 + interest = 50 + 49 + 36 = ~$135K.

My actual costs and debt are way closer to my own estimations based on my projected living costs than the school budget or calculators

[moopness]

Here's what I don't get: A 90K scholly at Columbia with the rest of CoA being paid with loans amounts to (using Georgetown's calculator) $197,902 of total debt at repayment, or total payments (over 10 years) of $251,874. But strangley enough, with IBR a sticker loan would amount to total debt payments amounting to $253,464 with loan forgiveness of $189,011...which is basically the same as a half-scholly. What am I doing wrong? This can't be right...

These are obscene, absolutely, completely and utterly obscene debt loads. It's crazy that going to a top 6 law school WITH a half scholly STILL amounts to a ridiculously bad outcome for the student. I know others will say something along the lines of "but if most people going to these schools are taking out these types of loans, then it must be ok." But the only thing that this is indicative of is the astronomically high cost of attending law school for astronomically low benefits. It just seems unbelievable that I'm going to be spending my 20s in Law school taking on huge amounts of debt, all of my 30s paying that debt off, only to arrive at my 40s with zero net worth

it's not that much. generate your own figures. it costs like $78-80K to go to CLS a year living in morning side. I'm assuming your scholly is like 36/36/18? SA will be $30K. So it's like 44 + 46 + 36 + interest = 50 + 49 + 36 = ~$135K.

My actual costs and debt are way closer to my own estimations based on my projected living costs than the school budget or calculators

This...is incredibly reassuring. Thanks dude. Hopefully my cost ends up being around that number :/

[aboutmydaylight]

A lot of people are neglecting the fact that school budgets have to be set above most people's actual COA because they're used to determine loan eligibility. Basically, the cost of someone going over loan eligibility (unable to pay for tuition/col) is much greater than the school overestimating COA in their budget. As a result basically every school over budgets. Its not unreasonable or unheard of to cut ~5k from the figures the school puts out. That may only be a small fraction of your loan but everything counts with 6 figure debt.

[muskies970]

This is the analysis I recommend:
Don't go unless
1. you get into a T14, and you will end up with less than $150k total debt (including COA + interest)
OR
2. you have a full ride to a school in a region where you are willing to practice.
3. If neither 1 or 2 apply either retake or don't go to law school.

I agree with that, unless you get HYS or another T14 school with a solid PI LRAP and you are 10000% set on PI.

[worldtraveler]

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

Perspective from a Columbia grad associate at my firm who is 10 years out: She paid sticker at CLS (which then was prob just over half what it is now), worked in PI for 10 years and had her loans paid off through LRAP, and she unequivocally told me to go to Berkeley with scholly over NYU assuming sticker at NYU because at the time I didn't know my NYU award offer. Her reasoning: Debt is Real.

My conjectures on the reasons behind her reasoning: Even though she "lovedlovedloved Columbia," is now debt-free 10 years out, is earning good pay (not Biglaw, but decent) at our boutique firm, and recently bought a condo, she went through years of making LESS THAN I WAS MAKING IN MY FIRST JOB OUT OF COLLEGE and having to have her bf subsidize her food costs. And being broke in NYC when you're no longer in your twenties, that's tough (her words).

Caveats: I don't know how her response would change now that I'm in at her beloved Columbia and getting aid awards from "the CCN." I don't know why she went PI/LRAP and why she changed from PI to private now. But I think she enjoyed her PI work.

This makes no sense... She did PI so her salary wasn't impacted by her debt at all...

It makes total sense. Even if you're not paying it, it's hanging over your head and hindering your mobility. You have to stay in a PI career even if you don't want to. And LRAP usually doesn't cover 100% of debt payments.

[Dafaq]

As a Texan who wants to work in Texas it wasn’t difficult to pass up modest scholarships at T6 schools. But when it came to Texas law schools I struggled about going to UT (30% discount) over Baylor and Tech offering 60% discounts. For whatever reason I didn’t look into A&M or SMU where I probably could have gone for nearly nothing. Those less costly schools make sense now. I know a few of their grads who paid sticker and received good offers….I could have ridden for next to nothing. What the hell was I thinking?

Think about it, every dime of your SA paychecks were yours to keep. Starting in Sept you’ll have to hand over $500 a week for years to come.

[twenty]

I don't like any hard and fast rules in terms of what debt levels you should take out for PI-a-la-"I-can-go-for-sticker-right?"-law. It's pretty obvious which people are trying to justify their bad choices with "OH YEAH I MEAN I WANT A FERDERREL CLERKSHIP SO YALE RIGHT?" and the "PI" tag is no different. You have a guy who's been working at a legal aid society for the past two years, will have a paid part-time gig with the group during his summers, and wants to return post-bar as an attorney; okay, yeah, cool. You have a guy who goes "I want biglaw but I also want DOJ or HUD whichever is most prestigious I don't know right now can I do both? D: " Huge surprise when this guy ends up in a firm or unemployed after making a financially bad decision.

[jbagelboy]

A lot of people are neglecting the fact that school budgets have to be set above most people's actual COA because they're used to determine loan eligibility. Basically, the cost of someone going over loan eligibility (unable to pay for tuition/col) is much greater than the school overestimating COA in their budget. As a result basically every school over budgets. Its not unreasonable or unheard of to cut ~5k from the figures the school puts out. That may only be a small fraction of your loan but everything counts with 6 figure debt.

Very true. It varies by school - sometimes the living costs are a little more or less exaggerated than at others.

There are some general patterns across the T14 though; if you're under 26, you'll usually qualify under ACA and skip $2-2.5K right there. Most schools are budgeting books between $1000 and $1500 a year.. after first semester most people stop buying textbooks at all, that's way more than necessary. And if you live with roommates, you can always go a few hundred dollars less per month shy of the posted CoL (for example at CLS estimated rent is $1333, lots of people have apartment shares at $950-1100; conversely, some of the more aristocratic kids live in $3200 1BDR's). A lot of schools include laptop charges in their CoA calculations, and I'm guessing most students already own laptops (although I had to buy a new one this year, but that's unusual). And almost every law school as a "Personal" budget of up to $4000.. which, as the name suggests, is personal, i.e., discretionary. I think given all the free food and events at the school, even the "board"/food budget is a little high.

This is not to suggest anyone should deceive themselves about the perils of six figure debt burdens. I'm just saying you can be realistic/honest with yourself about costs. And it could actually be more than "a small fraction"; if you take all the deductions above, could be upwards of $10K a year or nearly $35K by graduation relative to the post-interest figure

[d cooper]

conversely, some of the more aristocratic kids live in $3200 1BDR's

[jbagelboy]

Here's what I don't get: A 90K scholly at Columbia with the rest of CoA being paid with loans amounts to (using Georgetown's calculator) $197,902 of total debt at repayment, or total payments (over 10 years) of $251,874. But strangley enough, with IBR a sticker loan would amount to total debt payments amounting to $253,464 with loan forgiveness of $189,011...which is basically the same as a half-scholly. What am I doing wrong? This can't be right...

These are obscene, absolutely, completely and utterly obscene debt loads. It's crazy that going to a top 6 law school WITH a half scholly STILL amounts to a ridiculously bad outcome for the student. I know others will say something along the lines of "but if most people going to these schools are taking out these types of loans, then it must be ok." But the only thing that this is indicative of is the astronomically high cost of attending law school for astronomically low benefits. It just seems unbelievable that I'm going to be spending my 20s in Law school taking on huge amounts of debt, all of my 30s paying that debt off, only to arrive at my 40s with zero net worth

it's not that much. generate your own figures. it costs like $78-80K to go to CLS a year living in morning side. I'm assuming your scholly is like 36/36/18? SA will be $30K. So it's like 44 + 46 + 36 + interest = 50 + 49 + 36 = ~$135K.

My actual costs and debt are way closer to my own estimations based on my projected living costs than the school budget or calculators

This...is incredibly reassuring. Thanks dude. Hopefully my cost ends up being around that number :/

I mean, don't go entirely off my back of the envelope numbers - complete a serious financial inquiry - but also don't just type in the school budget and accept that as your debt; they are providing a borrowing limit, not a base figure. Overborrowing is another serious problem for grad students.

[Nyclawyer618]

Is there a more refined distinction between sticker v. non-sticker? In other words do very small grants/scholarships constitute sticker?

[cotiger]

Is there a more refined distinction between sticker v. non-sticker? In other words do very small grants/scholarships constitute sticker?

I mean, if you get $30k from Columbia, you're paying (inflation adjusted) sticker of C/O 2009.

If you're only getting $15k, that's C/O 2012's sticker.

So..

[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

Perspective from a Columbia grad associate at my firm who is 10 years out: She paid sticker at CLS (which then was prob just over half what it is now), worked in PI for 10 years and had her loans paid off through LRAP, and she unequivocally told me to go to Berkeley with scholly over NYU assuming sticker at NYU because at the time I didn't know my NYU award offer. Her reasoning: Debt is Real.

My conjectures on the reasons behind her reasoning: Even though she "lovedlovedloved Columbia," is now debt-free 10 years out, is earning good pay (not Biglaw, but decent) at our boutique firm, and recently bought a condo, she went through years of making LESS THAN I WAS MAKING IN MY FIRST JOB OUT OF COLLEGE and having to have her bf subsidize her food costs. And being broke in NYC when you're no longer in your twenties, that's tough (her words).

Caveats: I don't know how her response would change now that I'm in at her beloved Columbia and getting aid awards from "the CCN." I don't know why she went PI/LRAP and why she changed from PI to private now. But I think she enjoyed her PI work.

This makes no sense... She did PI so her salary wasn't impacted by her debt at all...

It makes total sense. Even if you're not paying it, it's hanging over your head and hindering your mobility. You have to stay in a PI career even if you don't want to. And LRAP usually doesn't cover 100% of debt payments.

she enjoyed her PI work.

[fluffythepenguin]

FUN FACT: 300k in debt is closer to half of $1,000,000 pre-tax.