Rely on Columbia LRAP or go for the cheap? Forum

[2014]

How is anyone pushing for Columbia right now? DF's satire should have been the only even remotely pro-Columbia view in this situation.

[twenty]

CLS LRAP covers you at 108k.

I should have been more specific -- no school is going to pay your PAYE bit every month at an 108k salary. At NYU, it's justifiable to stay on LRAP up to 103k, but that's the very tippy-top of the pyramid. You definitely do not want to be on CLS' LRAP at 108k+

[09042014]

However, if your goal is BigLaw at V10 -> FedGov (which is probably a more likely path) then CLS will help you more at the top of the vault rankings. You can get NYC BigLaw out of both.

JFC. Assuming OP has any legitimate bases for his stated preferences. Fed gov = litigation (maybe regulatory, but 0Ls don't know jackshit about regulatory practice). Columbia's advantage for V10 transactional (if it exists) is totally meaningless to someone who (purportedly) doesn't want to work in corporate practice. Something tells me that OP's stated preference for national security work means that he isn't particularly interested in financial services regulation (pretty much the only gov't exit option from transactional practice).

Show me the big advantage Columbia has in DC litigation that's worth $150k+.

OTOH, Michigan only had 49% biglaw for c/o 2013. That's scary. The chances of getting biglaw out of Mich, let alone DC biglaw, are not that great.

eta: that said, I'm not necessarily arguing Columbia is worth the extra money here. But I'm not sure it's accurate to say that Michigan and Columbia will give OP comparable shots at competitive litigation firms.

49%

vs

75%

Assuming biglaw is worth 2 million dollars (because that is what your first fives year of salary is worth)

That's the difference between 980k and 1.5m. So for only 150k, you get an extra 520k. You'd be stupid not to do CLS.

[McAvoy]

49%

vs

75%

Assuming biglaw is worth 2 million dollars (because that is what your first fives year of salary is worth)

That's the difference between 980k and 1.5m. So for only 150k, you get an extra 520k. You'd be stupid not to do CLS.

Especially when you're playing with free money.

[twenty]

49%

vs

75%

Assuming biglaw is worth 2 million dollars (because that is what your first fives year of salary is worth)

That's the difference between 980k and 1.5m. So for only 150k, you get an extra 520k. You'd be stupid not to do CLS.

there's so much prestige here I can't even stand it.

[jbagelboy]

How is anyone pushing for Columbia right now? DF's satire should have been the only even remotely pro-Columbia view in this situation.

LRAP aside, OPs parents are of the Serves set. Why not go to the school that provides the best shot at the best outcome. OP probably wont get bigfed regardless, but when they land median or slightly below they'd sure as shit be glad mom and dad made/inherited enough to send them to cls.

[Nelson]

How is anyone pushing for Columbia right now? DF's satire should have been the only even remotely pro-Columbia view in this situation.

LRAP aside, OPs parents are of the Serves set. Why not go to the school that provides the best shot at the best outcome. OP probably wont get bigfed regardless, but when they land median or slightly below they'd sure as shit be glad mom and dad made/inherited enough to send them to cls.

It's doubtful that OP's parents are wealthy enough that 100k is nothing. Lots of parents will make bad financial decisions. If 0Ls shouldn't pay six figures for law school, parents shouldn't either. It's a bad investment.

[jbagelboy]

How is anyone pushing for Columbia right now? DF's satire should have been the only even remotely pro-Columbia view in this situation.

LRAP aside, OPs parents are of the Serves set. Why not go to the school that provides the best shot at the best outcome. OP probably wont get bigfed regardless, but when they land median or slightly below they'd sure as shit be glad mom and dad made/inherited enough to send them to cls.

It's doubtful that OP's parents are wealthy enough that 100k is nothing. Lots of parents will make bad financial decisions. If 0Ls shouldn't pay six figures for law school, parents shouldn't either. It's a bad investment.

I agree OP should not do this if it will have real consequences on their QoL. If its a strain, then take the cheaper school.

Usually families with 20-25yr old kids put through college and $200k liquid aren't tight on funds though.

Objectively of course columbia isnt worth $150k more than michigan

[Nelson]

How is anyone pushing for Columbia right now? DF's satire should have been the only even remotely pro-Columbia view in this situation.

LRAP aside, OPs parents are of the Serves set. Why not go to the school that provides the best shot at the best outcome. OP probably wont get bigfed regardless, but when they land median or slightly below they'd sure as shit be glad mom and dad made/inherited enough to send them to cls.

It's doubtful that OP's parents are wealthy enough that 100k is nothing. Lots of parents will make bad financial decisions. If 0Ls shouldn't pay six figures for law school, parents shouldn't either. It's a bad investment.

I agree OP should not do this if it will have real consequences on their QoL. If its a strain, then take the cheaper school.

Usually families with 20-25yr old kids put through college and $200k liquid aren't tight on funds though.

Objectively of course columbia isnt worth $150k more than michigan

Meh, more parents could "afford" to pay for law school tuition out of their income if they cannibalized their retirement than parents who could afford it in the sense of having 100k lying around (outside of retirement funds). And a lot of parents are dumb enough to make that trade off for their kids. I go to school with some.

[2014]

Unless it is in a trust with legal stipulations that it be used for educational expenses, OP should just ask his parents to write him a 150k check, invest it conservatively, and go to Michigan.

[lastsamurai]

OTOH, Michigan only had 49% biglaw for c/o 2013. That's scary. The chances of getting biglaw out of Mich, let alone DC biglaw, are not that great.

eta: that said, I'm not necessarily arguing Columbia is worth the extra money here. But I'm not sure it's accurate to say that Michigan and Columbia will give OP comparable shots at competitive litigation firms.

I'm more concerned with Michigan's LST underemployment score than its Big Law score.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/compare/ ... /columbia/

I also don't know the breakdown of "competitive litigation firms" to the others, but I don't think that OP is really interested in Big Law at all, so I'm not sure how relevant that is.

OP - you had already chosen UVA over Michigan, right? In that case, I think this becomes a UVA vs CLS issue, and I'd take CLS with the lesser cost differential

[09042014]

OTOH, Michigan only had 49% biglaw for c/o 2013. That's scary. The chances of getting biglaw out of Mich, let alone DC biglaw, are not that great.

eta: that said, I'm not necessarily arguing Columbia is worth the extra money here. But I'm not sure it's accurate to say that Michigan and Columbia will give OP comparable shots at competitive litigation firms.

I'm more concerned with Michigan's LST underemployment score than its Big Law score.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/compare/ ... /columbia/

I also don't know the breakdown of "competitive litigation firms" to the others, but I don't think that OP is really interested in Big Law at all, so I'm not sure how relevant that is.

OP - you had already chosen UVA over Michigan, right? In that case, I think this becomes a UVA vs CLS issue, and I'd take CLS with the lesser cost differential

At least half of that difference is caused by CLS hiring it's own students. Why the hell doesn't LST consider that underemployment?

[jbagelboy]

OTOH, Michigan only had 49% biglaw for c/o 2013. That's scary. The chances of getting biglaw out of Mich, let alone DC biglaw, are not that great.

eta: that said, I'm not necessarily arguing Columbia is worth the extra money here. But I'm not sure it's accurate to say that Michigan and Columbia will give OP comparable shots at competitive litigation firms.

I'm more concerned with Michigan's LST underemployment score than its Big Law score.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/compare/ ... /columbia/

I also don't know the breakdown of "competitive litigation firms" to the others, but I don't think that OP is really interested in Big Law at all, so I'm not sure how relevant that is.

OP - you had already chosen UVA over Michigan, right? In that case, I think this becomes a UVA vs CLS issue, and I'd take CLS with the lesser cost differential

At least half of that difference is caused by CLS hiring it's own students. Why the hell doesn't LST consider that underemployment?

Wut? 6.6% school funded vs 3.5% school funded. 3% difference in school funded positions. 12% difference in underemployment; 13% difference in employment score.

[09042014]

OTOH, Michigan only had 49% biglaw for c/o 2013. That's scary. The chances of getting biglaw out of Mich, let alone DC biglaw, are not that great.

eta: that said, I'm not necessarily arguing Columbia is worth the extra money here. But I'm not sure it's accurate to say that Michigan and Columbia will give OP comparable shots at competitive litigation firms.

I'm more concerned with Michigan's LST underemployment score than its Big Law score.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/compare/ ... /columbia/

I also don't know the breakdown of "competitive litigation firms" to the others, but I don't think that OP is really interested in Big Law at all, so I'm not sure how relevant that is.

OP - you had already chosen UVA over Michigan, right? In that case, I think this becomes a UVA vs CLS issue, and I'd take CLS with the lesser cost differential

At least half of that difference is caused by CLS hiring it's own students. Why the hell doesn't LST consider that underemployment?

Wut? 6.6% school funded vs 3.5% school funded. 3% difference in school funded positions. 12% difference in underemployment; 13% difference in employment score.

Michigan's only effects it's employment score by .8% while Columbia's effects it's by 6.6%. Presumably because Michigan's programs are mostly not full time and/or bar passage required.

That takes the 13% down to 7.2% or roughly half.

[jbagelboy]

Wut? 6.6% school funded vs 3.5% school funded. 3% difference in school funded positions. 12% difference in underemployment; 13% difference in employment score.

Michigan's only effects it's employment score by .8% while Columbia's effects it's by 6.6%. Presumably because Michigan's programs are mostly not full time and/or bar passage required.

That takes the 13% down to 7.2% or roughly half.

I know you're trying to prove a point, but for a stem bro, you're awfully careless with numbers/percentages.

[lecsa]

Wut? 6.6% school funded vs 3.5% school funded. 3% difference in school funded positions. 12% difference in underemployment; 13% difference in employment score.

Michigan's only effects it's employment score by .8% while Columbia's effects it's by 6.6%. Presumably because Michigan's programs are mostly not full time and/or bar passage required.

That takes the 13% down to 7.2% or roughly half.

I know you're trying to prove a point, but for a stem bro, you're awfully careless with numbers/percentages.

He's right isn't he?

As for UVA - it hired 17% of its own graduates to get a "lowish" LST unemployment rate. No clue why LST includes school fellowships as employment (and this is why ATL rankings are better in that respect). I believe UVA has the second highest real unemployment rate in the T14 behind Georgetown and is the shadiest T-14.

[lecsa]

I'm more concerned with Michigan's LST underemployment score than its Big Law score.
OP - you had already chosen UVA over Michigan, right? In that case, I think this becomes a UVA vs CLS issue, and I'd take CLS with the lesser cost differential

Um, what? UVA hired 16-17% of its own graduates and therefore has the highest/second highest unemployment rate in the T-14 behind GULC. UVA's the second worst T-14 behind Georgetown.

Jesus fck are all 0Ls this stupid.

[jbagelboy]

Wut? 6.6% school funded vs 3.5% school funded. 3% difference in school funded positions. 12% difference in underemployment; 13% difference in employment score.

Michigan's only effects it's employment score by .8% while Columbia's effects it's by 6.6%. Presumably because Michigan's programs are mostly not full time and/or bar passage required.

That takes the 13% down to 7.2% or roughly half.

I know you're trying to prove a point, but for a stem bro, you're awfully careless with numbers/percentages.

He's right isn't he?

As for UVA - it hired 17% of its own graduates to get a "lowish" LST unemployment rate. No clue why LST includes school fellowships as employment (and this is why ATL rankings are better in that respect). I believe UVA has the second highest real unemployment rate in the T14 behind Georgetown and is the shadiest T-14.

I don't really want to get into it here because I'll be seen as supporting CLS @ >$200K, which (unless wealthy parents are in play) is not my position.

If you really want to talk about underemployment, first, even a shitty school funded job is better than literally no full time paid work. Second, some Columbia "school funded" fellowships are no joke - there are at least a few cognizable recent stone+ on that list (eligible for V10). Before you call bullshit look at some of the Karpatkin, Chadbourne, Leebron, ect. fellows, they're serious.

But really even if we're going to be dense enough to pretend all these fellowships are interchangeable with fluffing lattes at peet's, 7.2 is not half of 13.

[IAFG]

holy shit what kind of neurotic dickbag won't let 7.2 as roughly half of 13 slide

[lecsa]

He's right isn't he?

As for UVA - it hired 17% of its own graduates to get a "lowish" LST unemployment rate. No clue why LST includes school fellowships as employment (and this is why ATL rankings are better in that respect). I believe UVA has the second highest real unemployment rate in the T14 behind Georgetown and is the shadiest T-14.

I don't really want to get into it here because I'll be seen as supporting CLS @ >$200K, which (unless wealthy parents are in play) is not my position.

If you really want to talk about underemployment, first, even a shitty school funded job is better than literally no full time paid work. Second, some Columbia "school funded" fellowships are no joke - there are at least a few cognizable recent stone+ on that list (eligible for V10). Before you call bullshit look at some of the Karpatkin, Chadbourne, Leebron, ect. fellows, they're serious.

But really even if we're going to be dense enough to pretend all these fellowships are interchangeable with fluffing lattes at peet's, 7.2 is not half of 13.

Because these UVA fellowships last a year and pay only 30k. That's basically unemployed IMO since it's not a desirable outcome in the least.

But you're right, it's not fluffing lattes at peet's, since if you do the latter (work at peet's) you actually get health insurance and might get paid more in the cumulative including benefits. If you're just on a stupid fellowship at UVA you don't get healthcare, etc.

Not all fellowships are bullshit, just most.

[jbagelboy]

holy shit what kind of neurotic dickbag won't let 7.2 as roughly half of 13 slide

not the point but my b

[BanjoCalhoun]

UVA is definitely the worst option here in its cost to outcomes ratio.

Discussion seems to be getting off track from OP's dilemma but it also would be useful to know the actual extent to which the parents might be subsidizing school. Affordability for the family is absolutely understandable to not want to share on TLS but 100k for some families is the difference between affording groceries or not and for others it's just coming out of the inheritance... Michigan looks best for the former and Columbia for the latter so advice would probably hinge on that. But that UM scholarship is still objectively awesome.

[09042014]

Michigan's only effects it's employment score by .8% while Columbia's effects it's by 6.6%. Presumably because Michigan's programs are mostly not full time and/or bar passage required.

That takes the 13% down to 7.2% or roughly half.

I know you're trying to prove a point, but for a stem bro, you're awfully careless with numbers/percentages.

He's right isn't he?

As for UVA - it hired 17% of its own graduates to get a "lowish" LST unemployment rate. No clue why LST includes school fellowships as employment (and this is why ATL rankings are better in that respect). I believe UVA has the second highest real unemployment rate in the T14 behind Georgetown and is the shadiest T-14.

I don't really want to get into it here because I'll be seen as supporting CLS @ >$200K, which (unless wealthy parents are in play) is not my position.

If you really want to talk about underemployment, first, even a shitty school funded job is better than literally no full time paid work. Second, some Columbia "school funded" fellowships are no joke - there are at least a few cognizable recent stone+ on that list (eligible for V10). Before you call bullshit look at some of the Karpatkin, Chadbourne, Leebron, ect. fellows, they're serious.

But really even if we're going to be dense enough to pretend all these fellowships are interchangeable with fluffing lattes at peet's, 7.2 is not half of 13.

If you are going to use rough categories of jobs to rank outcomes you have to take the bad with the good. Sure a couple of those fellowships are probably legit, but most are just stop gap measures. Some of the 101+ firm numbers are people doing staff attorney jobs. Some of the federal clerkships are magistrate or non A3, some of the academia is non tenure. None of it is exact.

Also, who cares if school funded is better than nothing. We are comparing real jobs vs. underemployment. School funded job is definitely underemployed.

And just because a stone scholar is on that doesn't necessarily mean they are there on purpose or that the fellowship is prefstigious. Many people with PI aims could get big law, but graduate unemployed because PI is hard to get. That's not CLS only, the same shit happens at all schools.

[Anon. E. Moose]

OP here. Thanks for the input everyone - I think I have a soft spot for UVA that was affecting my judgement! I have family who've attended UVA, I love central VA, I grew up in-state, etc. but the reality check is good. I think I'm deciding between Michigan and Columbia now (though for the reasons above and others I'd have preferred UVA over Michigan at a more reasonable price).

My parents are financially secure and are willing to accept an extended payment schedule if I go into PI - these loans won't break them. They want me to make the best choice and they know 6-8% interest with federal loans is crazy high, but out of fairness to my siblings they aren't making a "grant" of the money to me, and I will be paying them back.

It's not out of the realm of possibility that I could be getting married within the next couple years - with even a bit of spousal support and a bit of 2L summer income, Columbia might be more on the order of 150K loans at graduation (though Michigan would be probably 40K or so).

It sounds like TLS is saying Michigan by about 2-1 over Columbia. Would lower absolute debt numbers make Columbia more palatable for any of you? Or is the difference still too large to justify for you guys?

[dixiecupdrinking]

I know you're trying to prove a point, but for a stem bro, you're awfully careless with numbers/percentages.

He's right isn't he?

As for UVA - it hired 17% of its own graduates to get a "lowish" LST unemployment rate. No clue why LST includes school fellowships as employment (and this is why ATL rankings are better in that respect). I believe UVA has the second highest real unemployment rate in the T14 behind Georgetown and is the shadiest T-14.

I don't really want to get into it here because I'll be seen as supporting CLS @ >$200K, which (unless wealthy parents are in play) is not my position.

If you really want to talk about underemployment, first, even a shitty school funded job is better than literally no full time paid work. Second, some Columbia "school funded" fellowships are no joke - there are at least a few cognizable recent stone+ on that list (eligible for V10). Before you call bullshit look at some of the Karpatkin, Chadbourne, Leebron, ect. fellows, they're serious.

But really even if we're going to be dense enough to pretend all these fellowships are interchangeable with fluffing lattes at peet's, 7.2 is not half of 13.

If you are going to use rough categories of jobs to rank outcomes you have to take the bad with the good. Sure a couple of those fellowships are probably legit, but most are just stop gap measures. Some of the 101+ firm numbers are people doing staff attorney jobs. Some of the federal clerkships are magistrate or non A3, some of the academia is non tenure. None of it is exact.

Also, who cares if school funded is better than nothing. We are comparing real jobs vs. underemployment. School funded job is definitely underemployed.

And just because a stone scholar is on that doesn't necessarily mean they are there on purpose or that the fellowship is prefstigious. Many people with PI aims could get big law, but graduate unemployed because PI is hard to get. That's not CLS only, the same shit happens at all schools.

Stone at Columbia means you were like top third for any independent year. You can nail 3L after getting straight B-'s your first two years and be a Stone scholar. It's basically meaningless. No way that Stone means you could have gotten a V10 job.

That said, I have no doubt that many students on school funded scholarships at CLS are people who could have gone to biglaw if they wanted it. It's the same at NYU.