Take the money and Run; YS - CCNH? Forum

[waferthinmint]

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.

Her salary was affected by her debt in the sense that perhaps she was inclined to go into PI to take advantage of LRAP as a way to discharge her loans, whereas, had she had less-than-sticker debt, she may have taken another route that paid more than, I kid you not, $2x,000 A YEAR IN NYC. She said garbage collectors got paid more than she. eta: Again, I didn't go into the particulars of why she went into PI and why she says DEBT IS REAL DON'T DO IT, but when I put two and two together, this is the explanation I come up with.

eta: It may have been $3x,000. But definitely less than $40k. So, yeah, did she enjoy it? Sure. Would she do things the same way if she were to do it all over again (taking CLS at sticker, doing LRAP)? Maybe not. It could be a different story if she'd had a PI job that didn't pay so little. I don't know.

[sighsigh]

Sticker is only not worth it because the ideal employment path is too uncertain. There are just too many opportunities to fall off the golden tightrope of biglaw into the lava pool of sh*tlaw, doc review or unemployment below.

If the expected path of the typical elite law student was guaranteed (i.e. elite law school => biglaw associate => good exit-option [in-house, midlaw, etc.]), with no chance of underemployment or unemployment in any respect, then sticker would TOTALLY be worth it. Multiple decades of earnings would easily justify the handful of years it takes to pay off the student debt.

If med school at sticker => primary care position is worth it, then law school at sticker => the above path would definitely be worth it - if it were guaranteed. But obviously, it isn't. And so, I agree with the OP.

[muskies970]

Her salary was affected by her debt in the sense that perhaps she was inclined to go into PI to take advantage of LRAP as a way to discharge her loans, whereas, had she had less-than-sticker debt, she may have taken another route that paid more than, I kid you not, $2x,000 A YEAR IN NYC. She said garbage collectors got paid more than she. eta: Again, I didn't go into the particulars of why she went into PI and why she says DEBT IS REAL DON'T DO IT, but when I put two and two together, this is the explanation I come up with.

eta: It may have been $3x,000. But definitely less than $40k. So, yeah, did she enjoy it? Sure. Would she do things the same way if she were to do it all over again (taking CLS at sticker, doing LRAP)? Maybe not. It could be a different story if she'd had a PI job that didn't pay so little. I don't know.

Please stop making dumb arguments. Please. You can't say at the same time that she went into PI to take advantage of LRAP AND that she did it because she enjoyed/ wanted that type of work. Anyone who goes into PI only for taking advantage of LRAP should never have gone to law school I agree. ETA: most of the people I know going into PI are fine making small salaries, they aren't working for the money they're doing it because that's what they love and how they want to spend their lives. They'd rather make 30-50k doing what they see as meaningful work as a lawyer in the public interest then say, working as a garbage collector...

Furthermore, her debt would have been ~$150k leaving CLS, which if she did Biglaw (which is really easy to get from Columbia if she actually wanted it instead of PI) could easily have been paid off in less than 5 years with tons of extra money.

Bad anecdote is bad.

[muskies970]

Sticker is only not worth it because the ideal employment path is too uncertain. There are just too many opportunities to fall off the golden tightrope of biglaw into the lava pool of sh*tlaw, doc review or unemployment below.

If the expected path of the typical elite law student was guaranteed (i.e. elite law school => biglaw associate => good exit-option [in-house, midlaw, etc.]), with no chance of underemployment or unemployment in any respect, then sticker would TOTALLY be worth it. Multiple decades of earnings would easily justify the handful of years it takes to pay off the student debt.

If med school at sticker => primary care position is worth it, then law school at sticker => the above path would definitely be worth it - if it were guaranteed. But obviously, it isn't. And so, I agree with the OP.

Any data to support that?

[twenty]

Any data to support that?

To support what, that people fall off the tightrope? Yes, search for the terms "stealth layoff" or "Lathamed" or "Brown Rudnick" or "Vale" for stories of people whose biglaw adventures did not go quite as planned even though they did everything/most things right.

[muskies970]

Any data to support that?

To support what, that people fall off the tightrope? Yes, search for the terms "stealth layoff" or "Lathamed" or "Brown Rudnick" or "Vale" for stories of people whose biglaw adventures did not go quite as planned even though they did everything/most things right.

Not that it happens at all, but that it happens at such a significant rate that it isn't worth the risk.

[twenty]

You'll be pretty hard pressed to find any hard data saying "this percentage of people that started off with a 2L SA were forcibly separated due to circumstances beyond their control." Qualitatively speaking, there's enough narrative empiric that shows that it does happen to people, that it doesn't happen to "most people", and that the people who it does happen to are fairly screwed.

"Isn't worth the risk" is one of those nebulous factors that's hard to take into account. What's worth the risk is going to be significantly different for a K-JD who'll be a shift manager at Starbucks in two years with his 2.8 social studies major and 175 LSAT than for a guy trying to choose between big money at a lower ranked school and sticker at a higher-ranked one.

[muskies970]

You'll be pretty hard pressed to find any hard data saying "this percentage of people that started off with a 2L SA were forcibly separated due to circumstances beyond their control." Qualitatively speaking, there's enough narrative empiric that shows that it does happen to people, that it doesn't happen to "most people", and that the people who it does happen to are fairly screwed.

"Isn't worth the risk" is one of those nebulous factors that's hard to take into account. What's worth the risk is going to be significantly different for a K-JD who'll be a shift manager at Starbucks in two years with his 2.8 social studies major and 175 LSAT than for a guy trying to choose between big money at a lower ranked school and sticker at a higher-ranked one.

exactly, which is why this thread is stoopid

[jk148706]

Serious question, genuinely interested in this:

What about a person who has a SO who will 1. be working throughout law school to help keep COA down and 2. Continue to work after I get out of law school

So, obviously #1 is good to keep down some debt, but I'm a little more interested in #2 here. If I know my SO is going to work and have decent income after I'm out of LS, does that justify my taking on a but more debt (at a t14 where I'd be receiving little scholly $ and my goals are big law )

Tyia

Eta: SO does not have debt

[NYSprague]

Her salary was affected by her debt in the sense that perhaps she was inclined to go into PI to take advantage of LRAP as a way to discharge her loans, whereas, had she had less-than-sticker debt, she may have taken another route that paid more than, I kid you not, $2x,000 A YEAR IN NYC. She said garbage collectors got paid more than she. eta: Again, I didn't go into the particulars of why she went into PI and why she says DEBT IS REAL DON'T DO IT, but when I put two and two together, this is the explanation I come up with.

eta: It may have been $3x,000. But definitely less than $40k. So, yeah, did she enjoy it? Sure. Would she do things the same way if she were to do it all over again (taking CLS at sticker, doing LRAP)? Maybe not. It could be a different story if she'd had a PI job that didn't pay so little. I don't know.

Please stop making dumb arguments. Please. You can't say at the same time that she went into PI to take advantage of LRAP AND that she did it because she enjoyed/ wanted that type of work. Anyone who goes into PI only for taking advantage of LRAP should never have gone to law school I agree. ETA: most of the people I know going into PI are fine making small salaries, they aren't working for the money they're doing it because that's what they love and how they want to spend their lives. They'd rather make 30-50k doing what they see as meaningful work as a lawyer in the public interest then say, working as a garbage collector...

Furthermore, her debt would have been ~$150k leaving CLS, which if she did Biglaw (which is really easy to get from Columbia if she actually wanted it instead of PI) could easily have been paid off in less than 5 years with tons of extra money.

Bad anecdote is bad.

In 2003, biglaw was paying $125,000 to start in NYC, but the bonuses were much higher, so I don't know what she would have made if she went into biglaw instead. I know her expenses would have been considerably lower for living in NYC.

I'm bored so I was looking to figure this out. NALP has a link of salaries from 1996 to 2011. They may have a more recent one as well.

http://www.nalp.org/new_associate_sal_oct2011

[Power_of_Facing]

Prudent advice from 2013:

Take it from someone who made the other decision: take CCN with $$$ over HYS with $.

If you want biglaw, you're almost as likely to get it from CCN as from HYS. You're starting adult life now, so you need to start thinking about things like having a family, buying a house, and planning for retirement. Don't delay your life by several years just so you can have a slightly better school on your resume. Beyond your first job, there's basically no evidence that having gone to HYS helps you more than having gone to CCN. People who make hiring decisions are not your parents. What impresses them is your ability to contribute to the bottom line, not the H-bomb. I'm one year into law school and while I'm fortunate to be where I am, I would've been in an even better position had I gone to CCN on pace to graduate with far less debt. As it is, if I get no-offered or laid off early on in my career, I'm in deep financial trouble. The vast majority of people who enter biglaw leave within a few years. I don't care if your school has 100% employment rate; statistically, you're gone in a few years. Don't assume you're special.

I know this doesn't apply to you, OP, but here it is: If you don't want biglaw, you're probably still going into biglaw. Look into the annoying paperwork and restrictions involved in your school's LRAP (that your school won't tell you about); talk to your biglaw friends who are getting wined and dined at their summer associate positions and (because they're annoying law students) can't shut up about them; consider the lack of job security (most PI people don't get their jobs until after graduation, if at all), financial uncertainty, and bad credit you'll be facing as a young adult trying to start a family. Are you sure you still don't want biglaw? When the law school herd mentality catches up with you, will you really be among the few who stick to the PI path? If you think you're going into government or academia, god help you because you're almost definitely wrong. And even if you do stay away from biglaw, you're still at the mercy of your school's LRAP program. HYS probably won't eliminate LRAP (though you can never be sure), but they are chipping away and will chip away at their programs. Don't make a poor financial decision because you're starry-eyed.

If you may want to clerk, consider the fact that the prestigious clerkships are difficult to get even for the best students, even at HYS. Yes, you'll have a better shot at them coming out of HYS, but if you don't have good grades (yes, grades, even at HYS), the clerk who reads your application won't even give it a second glance before she recycles it. If you want any old clerkship, do you really need HYS? Is it worth the debt?

And while this wasn't my situation, I know some people choose HYS over CCN with $$$ because their parents want them to choose HYS and are willing to pay for it. I don't want to sound crass, but once your parents are gone, you're probably getting their money. Think very carefully before you let them waste their (and eventually your) money because they're starry-eyed.

[abl]

Prudent advice from 2013:

Take it from someone who made the other decision: take CCN with $$$ over HYS with $.

If you want biglaw, you're almost as likely to get it from CCN as from HYS. You're starting adult life now, so you need to start thinking about things like having a family, buying a house, and planning for retirement. Don't delay your life by several years just so you can have a slightly better school on your resume. Beyond your first job, there's basically no evidence that having gone to HYS helps you more than having gone to CCN. People who make hiring decisions are not your parents. What impresses them is your ability to contribute to the bottom line, not the H-bomb. I'm one year into law school and while I'm fortunate to be where I am, I would've been in an even better position had I gone to CCN on pace to graduate with far less debt. As it is, if I get no-offered or laid off early on in my career, I'm in deep financial trouble. The vast majority of people who enter biglaw leave within a few years. I don't care if your school has 100% employment rate; statistically, you're gone in a few years. Don't assume you're special.

I know this doesn't apply to you, OP, but here it is: If you don't want biglaw, you're probably still going into biglaw. Look into the annoying paperwork and restrictions involved in your school's LRAP (that your school won't tell you about); talk to your biglaw friends who are getting wined and dined at their summer associate positions and (because they're annoying law students) can't shut up about them; consider the lack of job security (most PI people don't get their jobs until after graduation, if at all), financial uncertainty, and bad credit you'll be facing as a young adult trying to start a family. Are you sure you still don't want biglaw? When the law school herd mentality catches up with you, will you really be among the few who stick to the PI path? If you think you're going into government or academia, god help you because you're almost definitely wrong. And even if you do stay away from biglaw, you're still at the mercy of your school's LRAP program. HYS probably won't eliminate LRAP (though you can never be sure), but they are chipping away and will chip away at their programs. Don't make a poor financial decision because you're starry-eyed.

If you may want to clerk, consider the fact that the prestigious clerkships are difficult to get even for the best students, even at HYS. Yes, you'll have a better shot at them coming out of HYS, but if you don't have good grades (yes, grades, even at HYS), the clerk who reads your application won't even give it a second glance before she recycles it. If you want any old clerkship, do you really need HYS? Is it worth the debt?

And while this wasn't my situation, I know some people choose HYS over CCN with $$$ because their parents want them to choose HYS and are willing to pay for it. I don't want to sound crass, but once your parents are gone, you're probably getting their money. Think very carefully before you let them waste their (and eventually your) money because they're starry-eyed.

That's all sorts of wrong. LRAP paperwork? Chipping away at LRAP? "Any old clerkship?" The poster sounds like a disillusioned 1L -- not like someone who's actually had any of these experiences.

[star fox]

Serious question, genuinely interested in this:

What about a person who has a SO who will 1. be working throughout law school to help keep COA down and 2. Continue to work after I get out of law school

So, obviously #1 is good to keep down some debt, but I'm a little more interested in #2 here. If I know my SO is going to work and have decent income after I'm out of LS, does that justify my taking on a but more debt (at a t14 where I'd be receiving little scholly $ and my goals are big law )

Tyia

Eta: SO does not have debt

They need to be accepting of the debt you are taking on. It could potentially impact them too.

[NYSprague]

Serious question, genuinely interested in this:

What about a person who has a SO who will 1. be working throughout law school to help keep COA down and 2. Continue to work after I get out of law school

So, obviously #1 is good to keep down some debt, but I'm a little more interested in #2 here. If I know my SO is going to work and have decent income after I'm out of LS, does that justify my taking on a but more debt (at a t14 where I'd be receiving little scholly $ and my goals are big law )

Tyia

Eta: SO does not have debt

They need to be accepting of the debt you are taking on. It could potentially impact them too.

Are you married? If you divorce SO gets a part of your career for putting you through school. If you aren't married and break up, you are going to cover your debt alone. Don't borrow more.

[rickgrimes69]

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.

Until you strike out, don't get PI, and have already missed the Biglaw boat; or until the GOP axes PSLF after winning in 2016; or until a school changes their LRAP in response to declining tuition revenue from smaller classes; etc. etc.

PI or bust? You need to be just as concerned about debt as the biglaw kids, if not more so.

[09042014]

Nobody who isn't a trustafarian is actually PI or BUST. Getting a PI job is very hard and people fail and have to go into private practice. Even the most dedicated PI people I knew resorted to looking for ANYTHING when push comes to shove.

[Saddle Up]

What I don’t get is this. People paying sticker at a TT while others are turning down a free ride at the same TT. Seems like an enormous disconnect.

[twenty]

What I don’t get is this. People paying sticker at a TT while others are turning down a free ride at the same TT. Seems like an enormous disconnect.

What are you even saying?

[Saddle Up]

Simple enough. There are those who wouldn’t accept a free ride to a TT while others are paying $ticker for the privilege to attend.

To simplify it even further. Someone with a 170/4.0 could likely ride free at over half the law schools but won’t.

[twenty]

Yeah, no one's saying attend a TT at sticker.

edit> and if there was someone that was, they're in the vast, vast minority of opinions on the matter.

[waferthinmint]

Her salary was affected by her debt in the sense that perhaps she was inclined to go into PI to take advantage of LRAP as a way to discharge her loans, whereas, had she had less-than-sticker debt, she may have taken another route that paid more than, I kid you not, $2x,000 A YEAR IN NYC. She said garbage collectors got paid more than she. eta: Again, I didn't go into the particulars of why she went into PI and why she says DEBT IS REAL DON'T DO IT, but when I put two and two together, this is the explanation I come up with.

eta: It may have been $3x,000. But definitely less than $40k. So, yeah, did she enjoy it? Sure. Would she do things the same way if she were to do it all over again (taking CLS at sticker, doing LRAP)? Maybe not. It could be a different story if she'd had a PI job that didn't pay so little. I don't know.

Please stop making dumb arguments. Please. You can't say at the same time that she went into PI to take advantage of LRAP AND that she did it because she enjoyed/ wanted that type of work. Anyone who goes into PI only for taking advantage of LRAP should never have gone to law school I agree. ETA: most of the people I know going into PI are fine making small salaries, they aren't working for the money they're doing it because that's what they love and how they want to spend their lives. They'd rather make 30-50k doing what they see as meaningful work as a lawyer in the public interest then say, working as a garbage collector...

Furthermore, her debt would have been ~$150k leaving CLS, which if she did Biglaw (which is really easy to get from Columbia if she actually wanted it instead of PI) could easily have been paid off in less than 5 years with tons of extra money.

Bad anecdote is bad.

Lol, I admit it's not my best argument, but have you never heard anyone (read: every single law school) bring up LRAP for PI as a reason not to worry about exorbitant debt? And do they always preface it by saying, "Now, we are only addressing those who are going into PI for sure, who know that's what they will love and who are not in it for the money"? No, they direct LRAP-speak to the freaked-out 0Ls who care a lot about the money, because the assumption is that LRAP can tip them over the edge and into debt-land.

And come on, how can you call an anecdote bad? That's like calling the earth rotating on it's axis "bad." What happens in reality is neither good nor bad for the purposes of an argument. It just is.

I proffered my value-neutral anecdote for the take-away that if you are weighing whether to take law school at sticker price because you are swayed by the thought, "Well, I am interested in PI work--I may not be 100% save-the-planet-or-die convicted, but I do want to do meaningful work and would think I would enjoy PI, I also want to go to this law school but they are not giving me any grants, and hey look going PI at this sticker-price school would allow me to attend it and get rid of all my debts via LRAP, so HELL I'M GOING FOR IT AND PAYING STICKER"--don't do that.

It may not be this exactly, even: just in whatever analysis you are running in your mind, be really wary of an easy justification for paying sticker. Because this associate, whom one would assume would be the poster child of sticker price-payers, loved her PI work, loved her law school, got all her debt paid off, never once said "Yeah, I paid sticker at Columbia, but it was WORTH IT." She regretted having paid sticker for law school and advised me to TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN.

[neprep]

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.

That last "36" is coming from 84 (COA three years out) — 18 (scholly) — 30(SA)? Interesting, I remember DF saying that no one ever uses SA money to pay tuition.

In any case, can you really make a dent of 30K with SA money? After taxes isn't it more like 20K, and after living expenses for the summer isn't it more like 14K? (Even if you get a tax return, I'm guessing you still can't count on all 30K being used for tuition.)

I'm not challenging the point. In fact I hope it's true! Just getting some clarity.

[buffalo_]

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.

That last "36" is coming from 84 (COA three years out) — 18 (scholly) — 30(SA)? Interesting, I remember DF saying that no one ever uses SA money to pay tuition.

In any case, can you really make a dent of 30K with SA money? After taxes isn't it more like 20K, and after living expenses for the summer isn't it more like 14K? (Even if you get a tax return, I'm guessing you still can't count on all 30K being used for tuition.)

I'm not challenging the point. In fact I hope it's true! Just getting some clarity.

I read on TLS somewhere that Harvard estimates 15K of an SA can go toward tuition (after taxes and living expenses). If people aren't putting the money toward that, then that's their choice. But it certainly seems possible, even reasonable to assume you can contribute 12-15K.

[Pneumonia]

Yeah nep taxes won't be that much either. Your point still stands though.

[TheSpanishMain]

Simple enough. There are those who wouldn’t accept a free ride to a TT while others are paying $ticker for the privilege to attend.

To simplify it even further. Someone with a 170/4.0 could likely ride free at over half the law schools but won’t.

Yeah, well, some people are stupid and shouldn't be lawyers. If someone's numbers are such that even a TTT won't give them money, then they probably fall into that camp.

I tend to think that sticker anywhere is dumb, but there's no question it's much dumber at a TTT than at a good school.