noBass wrote:rickgrimes69 wrote:jenesaislaw wrote:Don't go to law school. Go do something else for a few years.elizcbeth wrote:I honestly dont know anything about taxes so I left it out for ease. What would be a good percentage to use in order to calculate take home pay? 20%?
The point is that rather than apply critical thinking skills (aka google), you just decided it wasn't important and not worth factoring into your equation at all. IMO that demonstrates a pretty severe lack of real world experience.elizcbeth wrote:rickgrimes69 wrote:jenesaislaw wrote:Don't go to law school. Go do something else for a few years.elizcbeth wrote:I honestly dont know anything about taxes so I left it out for ease. What would be a good percentage to use in order to calculate take home pay? 20%?
But I have! I hope this isn't another don't go to law school at all argument... I know how much they take out of MY paycheck. How much do they take out for someone who gets paid $160000? A proportionate amount? *shrug*
Gotcha. Thanks for that! It was really just an oversight. I didn't know a good approximate tax rate so I forgot about it, and then I got too lazy to fix it after it was all uploaded. Failrickgrimes69 wrote:The point is that rather than apply critical thinking skills (aka google), you just decided it wasn't important and not worth factoring into your equation at all. IMO that demonstrates a pretty severe lack of real world experience.
Exactly x 100,000,000 x the marginal rate.rickgrimes69 wrote:The point is that rather than apply critical thinking skills (aka google), you just decided it wasn't important and not worth factoring into your equation at all. IMO that demonstrates a pretty severe lack of real world experience.
Let's not start making up numbers now.jenesaislaw wrote:Exactly x 100,000,000 x the marginal rate.rickgrimes69 wrote:The point is that rather than apply critical thinking skills (aka google), you just decided it wasn't important and not worth factoring into your equation at all. IMO that demonstrates a pretty severe lack of real world experience.
For real though, the posts you're seeing here share a similar bottom line: somebody who doesn't bother to figure out tax implications shouldn't throw 240k (I think you underestimated your COA, btw) at a degree. Thinking you'd pay it off in 3 years in any scenario is flat crazy. On a ten year plan, you're looking at 35k-40k (depending on the actual COA) per year. That's almost half of your take home. To do it 3 years, your payment (on 246k) would be $7600/month. That's your entire take home before you pay rent, eat, etc.
I doubt we are going to see a significant downturn in hiring in the near future, unless the economy implodes again (which means we are probably screwed no matter what we are doing) most law firms have reduced their employee levels to far more sustainable numbers post-2008 and they aren't going to want to get back into the 2008 situation anytime soon, so the conservative hiring model is going to continue. Unless we have a massive economic bubble develop again (which, given the current economic state seems unlikely) and law firms start hiring like crazy in the next few years, you probably can feel pretty comfortable that NU is going to stay at the 50% mark at least. If you are comfortable with that number, than going to law school now isn't a terrible decision.elizcbeth wrote:Ok, thanks everyone. I really appreciate your feedback. Although I don't think that just because I overlooked take home pay in my calculations means that I am not intelligent enough for NU, it was still a huge oversight.
After recalculating my numbers, it looks like NU is only worth it if employment figures stay basically the same, which I don't trust that it will. I'm not sure if it's reasonable to assume that NU will continue to feed almost 50% of their class into $160000 jobs. Still at square one. Maybe I should just quit now and go to business school. haha Jokes.
Has anyone made a similar choice? How did it turn out?
Also keep in mind that if you assume NU's employment figures may drop, you should assume Davis' numbers could drop too, except that they were much worse than NU's to begin with. I voted NU because between the two options given, I felt it would be better to have a job and eventually be able to pay off loans than to be underemployed/unemployed. And keep in mind that a 10 year repayment doesn't mean you have to do biglaw for 10 years. Basically what I'm saying is, NU at sticker is scary and not for everybody, but every negative you've mentioned about NU, you can say about UC Davis and add "but worse." Even with the scholarship from Davis, its employment numbers still make it a risky bet, IMO.chasgoose wrote:I doubt we are going to see a significant downturn in hiring in the near future, unless the economy implodes again (which means we are probably screwed no matter what we are doing) most law firms have reduced their employee levels to far more sustainable numbers post-2008 and they aren't going to want to get back into the 2008 situation anytime soon, so the conservative hiring model is going to continue. Unless we have a massive economic bubble develop again (which, given the current economic state seems unlikely) and law firms start hiring like crazy in the next few years, you probably can feel pretty comfortable that NU is going to stay at the 50% mark at least. If you are comfortable with that number, than going to law school now isn't a terrible decision.elizcbeth wrote:Ok, thanks everyone. I really appreciate your feedback. Although I don't think that just because I overlooked take home pay in my calculations means that I am not intelligent enough for NU, it was still a huge oversight.
After recalculating my numbers, it looks like NU is only worth it if employment figures stay basically the same, which I don't trust that it will. I'm not sure if it's reasonable to assume that NU will continue to feed almost 50% of their class into $160000 jobs. Still at square one. Maybe I should just quit now and go to business school. haha Jokes.
Has anyone made a similar choice? How did it turn out?
$7600 as take homejenesaislaw wrote:Which numbers do you dispute?
very insightful people, capable of telling whether or not you're at the right stage in your life to attend law school by analyzing a single one of your posts.elizcbeth wrote:Ok, thanks everyone. I really appreciate your feedback. Although I don't think that just because I overlooked take home pay in my calculations means that I am not intelligent enough for NU, it was still a huge oversight.
That's 96.2k for the year, which is the estimate given above. Might be off by 1k a month, which isn't insubstantial but still not leaving enough to pay down 246k in 3 years.Tiago Splitter wrote:$7600 as take homejenesaislaw wrote:Which numbers do you dispute?
jenesaislaw wrote:That's 96.2k for the year, which is the estimate given above. Might be off by 1k a month, which isn't insubstantial but still not leaving enough to pay down 246k in 3 years.Tiago Splitter wrote:$7600 as take homejenesaislaw wrote:Which numbers do you dispute?
I think you missed this part. I can see where you got confused though.elizcbeth wrote: 9. I am also ok with paying aggresively for ~3 years and then very slowly after that.
Thanks for letting us know.GueritaPeloChino wrote:I'm glad i found this thread.
