Please Delete Forum

[Tls2016]

Bumping because of additional information. The following are my new projected COAs for the three schools I'm still considering:
Harvard: $218,000 ($27,500 in grant aid for year one, assuming similar aid in subsequent years)
Duke: ~$160,000 (in process of negotiating for more discount)
WUSTL: ~$0 (full tuition plus significant stipend)

Any further commentary is greatly appreciated!

Harvard. Debt sucks ass but id say H is worth 50k more than Duke. As for those saying sit a year out, id understand that appeal if you had a bad cycle but theres no guarantee youd do better. Shame about Michigan. Did you try writing a LOCI?

I think your k-JD status is hurting you. I don't think you should go to any of these schools at this price.

$50,000 more for Harvard is still $50,000 and you don't want to end up in a big city big law job just to repay the debt you didn't want to borrow in the first place. For your goals there is no reason to chase Harvard and lock yourself into a life you already clearly know you don't want.

You have very specific requirements. If I were you I would just go to the best local school in the city/state you want to live for free, even if you have to re apply. Go to WUSTL if you can maybe get the job you want from there.

You want biglaw but not a big city. No way you can guarantee that will happen. The best course is to avoid debt and live somewhere you want to end up.

You should get some life experience, work for a year or two and reapply.

[fliptrip]

Annnnd, OP has gone ghost. Where are you OP? Come back, tell us more.

[Indifference]

Bumping because of additional information. The following are my new projected COAs for the three schools I'm still considering:
Harvard: $218,000 ($27,500 in grant aid for year one, assuming similar aid in subsequent years)
Duke: ~$160,000 (in process of negotiating for more discount)
WUSTL: ~$0 (full tuition plus significant stipend)

Any further commentary is greatly appreciated!

If you do an SA that will reduce your need aid at H for the following year -- and not by a little.

[whysoseriousbiglaw]

Bumping because of additional information. The following are my new projected COAs for the three schools I'm still considering:
Harvard: $218,000 ($27,500 in grant aid for year one, assuming similar aid in subsequent years)
Duke: ~$160,000 (in process of negotiating for more discount)
WUSTL: ~$0 (full tuition plus significant stipend)

Any further commentary is greatly appreciated!

Harvard. Debt sucks ass but id say H is worth 50k more than Duke. As for those saying sit a year out, id understand that appeal if you had a bad cycle but theres no guarantee youd do better. Shame about Michigan. Did you try writing a LOCI?

I think your k-JD status is hurting you. I don't think you should go to any of these schools at this price.

$50,000 more for Harvard is still $50,000 and you don't want to end up in a big city big law job just to repay the debt you didn't want to borrow in the first place. For your goals there is no reason to chase Harvard and lock yourself into a life you already clearly know you don't want.

You have very specific requirements. If I were you I would just go to the best local school in the city/state you want to live for free, even if you have to re apply. Go to WUSTL if you can maybe get the job you want from there.

You want biglaw but not a big city. No way you can guarantee that will happen. The best course is to avoid debt and live somewhere you want to end up.

You should get some life experience, work for a year or two and reapply.

Agree with this. Harvard and law school will always be there. OP should work a real job for a couple of years before deciding on going to law school.

A degree is just that - a stupid degree. Paying back a shitload of debt will take YEARS out of your life and may tie you down into doing something you never wanted nor planned on doing.

Also OP, we're one of the couple of posters ITT who have actually done biglaw - IMO it sucks big balls and I wouldn't have done it again, given a second chance.

[FloridaCoastalorbust]

I'm an old dude (at least as far as TLS is concerned). One of the things I've learned about myself is that 22 year old me had absolutely zero idea what 32 year old me wants or needs. I'm not an entirely different person at 32, but different enough that I'm confidently going to extrapolate into my future and also understand 32 year old me has no idea what 42 or 52 year old me will want either.

I'm saying this to caution you about closing doors and opportunities to yourself at 22. You may be right, and in 50 years you may still be in St. Louis...happy and content. But, given the chance you may change over the years, allow yourself some flexibility...your 32 year old self may be grateful for the flexibility that comes with a nationally recognized law degree. Maybe you'll meet a significant other from a different region and need to get a job close to their family. Maybe you'll end up with a child who has an exceptional disability that needs treatment only offered in a big city. Maybe you'll discover an interest in paragliding and move to Colorado to pursue your passion. Who knows where you will be in a few years.

These kind of flexibility options will be closed to you at WUSTL. It is a regional school with a regional employment outlook. Just because you want to be in that region at 22 doesn't mean you will want or be able to remain in that region at 32. Nobody has a crystal ball. Consequently, I would suggest you choose one of your options in the T14 that will afford you some flexibility in the future. If debt remains a major concern (as it should be) perhaps Duke is your best bet. But I wouldn't categorically rule out Harvard either.

Good luck dude.

this person has some of the best advice you could ever read. you really ought to follow it. of the three options i agree that duke is the best bet, although it seems you should think about reapplying after getting work experience to get a named scholarship at UVA, Michigan, etc.

Edited to add: Assuming you sit out at least a year - which the majority, myself included, rightly suggests - you really should hire an admissions consultant like Mike Spivey. You have very good stats but got waitlisted at Michigan. That's nuts, considering they give Darrows, myself included, to people with substantially worse stats. There is something wrong with the way you sold yourself to law schools. So you should identify the weak spot, address it, reapply, and profit.

[whysoseriousbiglaw]

I'm an old dude (at least as far as TLS is concerned). One of the things I've learned about myself is that 22 year old me had absolutely zero idea what 32 year old me wants or needs. I'm not an entirely different person at 32, but different enough that I'm confidently going to extrapolate into my future and also understand 32 year old me has no idea what 42 or 52 year old me will want either.

I'm saying this to caution you about closing doors and opportunities to yourself at 22. You may be right, and in 50 years you may still be in St. Louis...happy and content. But, given the chance you may change over the years, allow yourself some flexibility...your 32 year old self may be grateful for the flexibility that comes with a nationally recognized law degree. Maybe you'll meet a significant other from a different region and need to get a job close to their family. Maybe you'll end up with a child who has an exceptional disability that needs treatment only offered in a big city. Maybe you'll discover an interest in paragliding and move to Colorado to pursue your passion. Who knows where you will be in a few years.

These kind of flexibility options will be closed to you at WUSTL. It is a regional school with a regional employment outlook. Just because you want to be in that region at 22 doesn't mean you will want or be able to remain in that region at 32. Nobody has a crystal ball. Consequently, I would suggest you choose one of your options in the T14 that will afford you some flexibility in the future. If debt remains a major concern (as it should be) perhaps Duke is your best bet. But I wouldn't categorically rule out Harvard either.

Good luck dude.

this person has some of the best advice you could ever read. you really ought to follow it. of the three options i agree that duke is the best bet, although it seems you should think about reapplying after getting work experience to get a named scholarship at UVA, Michigan, etc.

Except when you're 32 and still saddled with debt and have a baby, and you're broke and your baby momma doesn't have a job and/or works for shit pay...you'll wish you never went to law school and got into so much debt in the first place. And you'll be a used, fat, balding piece of shit 32 year old in biglaw hating your life everyday and wanting to kill yourself, but you can't because of your debt/family relying on you.

Look dudes, I'm basically 30 and in biglaw and regret not telling my 22 year old self to not go to law school and definitely, most definitely, not go into biglaw. And I'm not a fat, used, balding piece of shit, unlike most of my coworkers. Oh, and I'm far from broke.

So OP's best option here is to work a couple of years and NOT GO TO LAW SCHOOL PERIOD and then reapply with more money and then work some other non-biglaw job that doesn't suck the life out of you on a daily basis like a succubus. Otherwise, he will end up like most biglawyers - fat, used, balding, broke pieces of shit.

[happy2014]

If I were in your shoes, I would choose Harvard/ Duke. As a poster mentioned above, do not place yourself in a box. I know we all have to be realistic about our aspirations, market where we'll practice, etc. but this is your last chance to live life.

Here's my final take:

1. If you want to go to WUSTL, go. Your decision. I do not think, however, it's the best considering Duke is almost giving you a full ride. $10,000 x 3= 30,000 (tuition) + 20,000 x 3 (living costs)=60,000. You can make a budget and stick to it. $90,000 in debt not so bad.

3. Harvard is tempting but I understand your worry about debt. Go to Duke.

I am actually in your shoes. $0 in debt from Top 10 undergrad. You just have to realize there is a silver lining among the confusion.

[whysoseriousbiglaw]

If I were in your shoes, I would choose Harvard/ Duke. As a poster mentioned above, do not place yourself in a box. I know we all have to be realistic about our aspirations, market where we'll practice, etc. but this is your last chance to live life.

Here's my final take:

1. If you want to go to WUSTL, go. Your decision. I do not think, however, it's the best considering Duke is almost giving you a full ride. $10,000 x 3= 30,000 (tuition) + 20,000 x 3 (living costs)=60,000. You can make a budget and stick to it. $90,000 in debt not so bad.

3. Harvard is tempting but I understand your worry about debt. Go to Duke.

I am actually in your shoes. $0 in debt from Top 10 undergrad. You just have to realize there is a silver lining among the confusion.

Isn't his COA at Duke 160k? What are you going on about?

[jnwa]

I'm an old dude (at least as far as TLS is concerned). One of the things I've learned about myself is that 22 year old me had absolutely zero idea what 32 year old me wants or needs. I'm not an entirely different person at 32, but different enough that I'm confidently going to extrapolate into my future and also understand 32 year old me has no idea what 42 or 52 year old me will want either.

I'm saying this to caution you about closing doors and opportunities to yourself at 22. You may be right, and in 50 years you may still be in St. Louis...happy and content. But, given the chance you may change over the years, allow yourself some flexibility...your 32 year old self may be grateful for the flexibility that comes with a nationally recognized law degree. Maybe you'll meet a significant other from a different region and need to get a job close to their family. Maybe you'll end up with a child who has an exceptional disability that needs treatment only offered in a big city. Maybe you'll discover an interest in paragliding and move to Colorado to pursue your passion. Who knows where you will be in a few years.

These kind of flexibility options will be closed to you at WUSTL. It is a regional school with a regional employment outlook. Just because you want to be in that region at 22 doesn't mean you will want or be able to remain in that region at 32. Nobody has a crystal ball. Consequently, I would suggest you choose one of your options in the T14 that will afford you some flexibility in the future. If debt remains a major concern (as it should be) perhaps Duke is your best bet. But I wouldn't categorically rule out Harvard either.

Good luck dude.

this person has some of the best advice you could ever read. you really ought to follow it. of the three options i agree that duke is the best bet, although it seems you should think about reapplying after getting work experience to get a named scholarship at UVA, Michigan, etc.

Except when you're 32 and still saddled with debt and have a baby, and you're broke and your baby momma doesn't have a job and/or works for shit pay...you'll wish you never went to law school and got into so much debt in the first place. And you'll be a used, fat, balding piece of shit 32 year old in biglaw hating your life everyday and wanting to kill yourself, but you can't because of your debt/family relying on you.

Look dudes, I'm basically 30 and in biglaw and regret not telling my 22 year old self to not go to law school and definitely, most definitely, not go into biglaw. And I'm not a fat, used, balding piece of shit, unlike most of my coworkers. Oh, and I'm far from broke.

So OP's best option here is to work a couple of years and NOT GO TO LAW SCHOOL PERIOD and then reapply with more money and then work some other non-biglaw job that doesn't suck the life out of you on a daily basis like a succubus. Otherwise, he will end up like most biglawyers - fat, used, balding, broke pieces of shit.

damn. not gunna get into that. I was just gunna point out that names schollys arent as straightforward as people make them seem. There are tons of people on TLS with similar numbers that didnt get named scholly offers. Also is there a guarantee that OP gets Harvard again if he reapplies? If hes basically assured to get it again then yeah its probably worth sitting out.

[ManoftheHour]

I don't understand how those are your only options. Maybe reapply? You should be able to snag a few full rides at schools in-between.

But I agree with what others have said. I'm extremely debt adverse too. But in a vacuum, I'd probably take H over Duke for that difference. WUSTL isn't a horrible option and it's a decent school (especially for free), but I think those numbers are too good to have you end up at WUSTL.

I hope your negotiation goes well OP. Hopefully Duke will throw more $$$. Would make it an easy choice.

[fliptrip]

Except when you're 32 and still saddled with debt and have a baby, and you're broke and your baby momma doesn't have a job and/or works for shit pay...you'll wish you never went to law school and got into so much debt in the first place. And you'll be a used, fat, balding piece of shit 32 year old in biglaw hating your life everyday and wanting to kill yourself, but you can't because of your debt/family relying on you.

I'm over 30 as well, and if you're in the bolded situation, you made a lot more poor choices than just going to law school.

[fliptrip]

If I were in your shoes, I would choose Harvard/ Duke. As a poster mentioned above, do not place yourself in a box. I know we all have to be realistic about our aspirations, market where we'll practice, etc. but this is your last chance to live life.

Here's my final take:

1. If you want to go to WUSTL, go. Your decision. I do not think, however, it's the best considering Duke is almost giving you a full ride. $10,000 x 3= 30,000 (tuition) + 20,000 x 3 (living costs)=60,000. You can make a budget and stick to it. $90,000 in debt not so bad.

3. Harvard is tempting but I understand your worry about debt. Go to Duke.

I am actually in your shoes. $0 in debt from Top 10 undergrad. You just have to realize there is a silver lining among the confusion.

Someone help me understand this whole "debt aversion" condition. If you're averse to debt then you're not going to be feeling that much more terrific about being $160k in debt versus being $210k in debt. Either way, its a career choice affecting shit-ton of money.

[ManoftheHour]

Someone help me understand this whole "debt aversion" condition. If you're averse to debt then you're not going to be feeling that much more terrific about being $160k in debt versus being $210k in debt. Either way, its a career choice affecting shit-ton of money.

This is exactly why I, as an extremely debt adverse person, would still go with H over Duke at those numbers. At that point, in a vacuum, it'd be worth it.

[fliptrip]

Someone help me understand this whole "debt aversion" condition. If you're averse to debt then you're not going to be feeling that much more terrific about being $160k in debt versus being $210k in debt. Either way, its a career choice affecting shit-ton of money.

This is exactly why I, as an extremely debt adverse person, would still go with H over Duke at those numbers. At that point, in a vacuum, it'd be worth it.

This makes a lot of sense to me. The moment you wade into the debt, you might as well go far enough to give yourself the best chances/options.

OP, honestly, it doesn't look like you can make a wrong choice other than borrowings some massive sum to go to Harvard and deciding somewhere downstream that you're just not into the whole law and lawyer thing and be stuck doing it for a while. Even if you end up in that case, it will not be for the rest of your life, even if the misery in the moments will be very real.

You won't hurt anything by taking a couple of years to try adult life and see what you want to do at that point.

[whysoseriousbiglaw]

Except when you're 32 and still saddled with debt and have a baby, and you're broke and your baby momma doesn't have a job and/or works for shit pay...you'll wish you never went to law school and got into so much debt in the first place. And you'll be a used, fat, balding piece of shit 32 year old in biglaw hating your life everyday and wanting to kill yourself, but you can't because of your debt/family relying on you.

I'm over 30 as well, and if you're in the bolded situation, you made a lot more poor choices than just going to law school.

Right, the main one being doing biglaw. I'm not any of those, except 30 and hating my life in biglaw (thank you genes)...but I will say many of my coworkers are. It's not unusual because biglaw takes up most of your waking hours and you won't have any time to work out/eat healthily and if you have those genes, you will be bald. Stress doesn't help either for gaining weight/being bald, etc. I've seen people gain like 100 pounds in a period of 2 years in this job. There are perpetually single people who are 30/35+ in this job. It's just sad - they have no lives and their health is shit.

[ManoftheHour]

Except when you're 32 and still saddled with debt and have a baby, and you're broke and your baby momma doesn't have a job and/or works for shit pay...you'll wish you never went to law school and got into so much debt in the first place. And you'll be a used, fat, balding piece of shit 32 year old in biglaw hating your life everyday and wanting to kill yourself, but you can't because of your debt/family relying on you.

I'm over 30 as well, and if you're in the bolded situation, you made a lot more poor choices than just going to law school.

I personally would have underlined and bolded "have a baby, and you're broke and your baby momma doesn't have a job and/or works for shit pay" too.

[whysoseriousbiglaw]

Except when you're 32 and still saddled with debt and have a baby, and you're broke and your baby momma doesn't have a job and/or works for shit pay...you'll wish you never went to law school and got into so much debt in the first place. And you'll be a used, fat, balding piece of shit 32 year old in biglaw hating your life everyday and wanting to kill yourself, but you can't because of your debt/family relying on you.

I'm over 30 as well, and if you're in the bolded situation, you made a lot more poor choices than just going to law school.

I personally would have underlined and bolded "have a baby, and you're broke and your baby momma doesn't have a job and/or works for shit pay" too.

a lot of male biglawyers are married to women who don't work and/or have low incomes. It's because the cost of childcare in places like NYC, etc. are ridiculous (think 60-70k a year for a nanny; 40-50k for daycare), so there's no point in them working.

[ManoftheHour]

a lot of male biglawyers are married to women who don't work and/or have low incomes. It's because the cost of childcare in places like NYC, etc. are ridiculous (think 60-70k a year for a nanny; 40-50k for daycare), so there's no point in them working.

Wow. That's absolutely insane.

[Tls2016]

I'm an old dude (at least as far as TLS is concerned). One of the things I've learned about myself is that 22 year old me had absolutely zero idea what 32 year old me wants or needs. I'm not an entirely different person at 32, but different enough that I'm confidently going to extrapolate into my future and also understand 32 year old me has no idea what 42 or 52 year old me will want either.

I'm saying this to caution you about closing doors and opportunities to yourself at 22. You may be right, and in 50 years you may still be in St. Louis...happy and content. But, given the chance you may change over the years, allow yourself some flexibility...your 32 year old self may be grateful for the flexibility that comes with a nationally recognized law degree. Maybe you'll meet a significant other from a different region and need to get a job close to their family. Maybe you'll end up with a child who has an exceptional disability that needs treatment only offered in a big city. Maybe you'll discover an interest in paragliding and move to Colorado to pursue your passion. Who knows where you will be in a few years.

These kind of flexibility options will be closed to you at WUSTL. It is a regional school with a regional employment outlook. Just because you want to be in that region at 22 doesn't mean you will want or be able to remain in that region at 32. Nobody has a crystal ball. Consequently, I would suggest you choose one of your options in the T14 that will afford you some flexibility in the future. If debt remains a major concern (as it should be) perhaps Duke is your best bet. But I wouldn't categorically rule out Harvard either.

Good luck dude.

This is terrible advice. It's also condescending to ignore what OP clearly wants in life. How can you advise someone who doesn't want debt or big cities that he might change his mind in 10 years so Harvard is a good idea.

Besides drowning OP in debt he doesn't want for prestige he doesn't want, you are ignoring the difficulty of moving markets 7plus years out of law school.

[ponderingmeerkat]

I'm an old dude (at least as far as TLS is concerned). One of the things I've learned about myself is that 22 year old me had absolutely zero idea what 32 year old me wants or needs. I'm not an entirely different person at 32, but different enough that I'm confidently going to extrapolate into my future and also understand 32 year old me has no idea what 42 or 52 year old me will want either.

I'm saying this to caution you about closing doors and opportunities to yourself at 22. You may be right, and in 50 years you may still be in St. Louis...happy and content. But, given the chance you may change over the years, allow yourself some flexibility...your 32 year old self may be grateful for the flexibility that comes with a nationally recognized law degree. Maybe you'll meet a significant other from a different region and need to get a job close to their family. Maybe you'll end up with a child who has an exceptional disability that needs treatment only offered in a big city. Maybe you'll discover an interest in paragliding and move to Colorado to pursue your passion. Who knows where you will be in a few years.

These kind of flexibility options will be closed to you at WUSTL. It is a regional school with a regional employment outlook. Just because you want to be in that region at 22 doesn't mean you will want or be able to remain in that region at 32. Nobody has a crystal ball. Consequently, I would suggest you choose one of your options in the T14 that will afford you some flexibility in the future. If debt remains a major concern (as it should be) perhaps Duke is your best bet. But I wouldn't categorically rule out Harvard either.

Good luck dude.

This is terrible advice. It's also condescending to ignore what OP clearly wants in life. How can you advise someone who doesn't want debt or big cities that he might change his mind in 10 years so Harvard is a good idea.

Besides drowning OP in debt he doesn't want for prestige he doesn't want, you are ignoring the difficulty of moving markets 7plus years out of law school.

Fucking spare me, dude. It's not condescending to present a different perspective to OP that encourages him to consider alternate viewpoints and evaluate different courses of action. I did that respectfully and maturely...period, dot. And, quite frankly, why the hell else would you post on a forum like this? The point of crowd-sourcing your perspectives is to get a broad spectrum of inputs including those you aren't considering yourself.

Secondly, this strawman "for prestige he doesn't want" is objectively absurd. Not a single person is saying he should attend anywhere for the maturbatory benefits of Harvard or Duke prestige. We are suggesting he consider the lifelong value of portability, flexibility, alumni networks, etc. These have tangible value (whether they're worth $160K or not is up to the OP) and need to be factored in this decision.

Finally, the reason this thread is running long is because this isn't a black-and-white situation. If it was, it would have received three "retake" responses and disappeared...like most threads do around here. Point being, despite your best efforts to reject the existence of grey in this situation, it definitely exists. Look, I'm sympathetic to the "attend the good school cheaply as opposed to taking on debt for the great school" perspective. Seriously. I went to a military service academy for my undergrad as opposed to financing a couple ivy-league options in part because of this logic. It makes sense in general, but that doesn't make it orthodoxy for every situation.

It would be helpful if OP knew who the spouse is going to be, what his/her family situation entails, what health factors are in play, how many kids they will have, how healthy they will be, etc. Absent this kind of information, OP can't possibly "know thyself" because his self is going to change dramatically in the next decade. So, what can we know here? We can know OP will be employed, as an attorney, if he graduates from Harvard. We also know he will have a lot of debt if he does, which will require him to live frugally and aggressively pay off that debt. But, you know what, I think OPs smart enough and capable enough to manage that. Yea, he won't be immediately upper-middle class the day of graduation, and he might need to temper his youthful exuberance to tell a passive-aggressive senior associate to "go fuck himself", but the odds of being unemployed go to zero. And his ability to feed/care/protect/provide for his family will be solidified, permanently. Those kind of near-guarantees are rare these days, in this employment market, and I think a little "suck it up, buttercup" for that is worth it.

[whysoseriousbiglaw]

I'm an old dude (at least as far as TLS is concerned). One of the things I've learned about myself is that 22 year old me had absolutely zero idea what 32 year old me wants or needs. I'm not an entirely different person at 32, but different enough that I'm confidently going to extrapolate into my future and also understand 32 year old me has no idea what 42 or 52 year old me will want either.

I'm saying this to caution you about closing doors and opportunities to yourself at 22. You may be right, and in 50 years you may still be in St. Louis...happy and content. But, given the chance you may change over the years, allow yourself some flexibility...your 32 year old self may be grateful for the flexibility that comes with a nationally recognized law degree. Maybe you'll meet a significant other from a different region and need to get a job close to their family. Maybe you'll end up with a child who has an exceptional disability that needs treatment only offered in a big city. Maybe you'll discover an interest in paragliding and move to Colorado to pursue your passion. Who knows where you will be in a few years.

These kind of flexibility options will be closed to you at WUSTL. It is a regional school with a regional employment outlook. Just because you want to be in that region at 22 doesn't mean you will want or be able to remain in that region at 32. Nobody has a crystal ball. Consequently, I would suggest you choose one of your options in the T14 that will afford you some flexibility in the future. If debt remains a major concern (as it should be) perhaps Duke is your best bet. But I wouldn't categorically rule out Harvard either.

Good luck dude.

This is terrible advice. It's also condescending to ignore what OP clearly wants in life. How can you advise someone who doesn't want debt or big cities that he might change his mind in 10 years so Harvard is a good idea.

Besides drowning OP in debt he doesn't want for prestige he doesn't want, you are ignoring the difficulty of moving markets 7plus years out of law school.

Fucking spare me, dude. It's not condescending to present a different perspective to OP that encourages him to consider alternate viewpoints and evaluate different courses of action. I did that respectfully and maturely...period, dot. And, quite frankly, why the hell else would you post on a forum like this? The point of crowd-sourcing your perspectives is to get a broad spectrum of inputs including those you aren't considering yourself.

Secondly, this strawman "for prestige he doesn't want" is objectively absurd. Not a single person is saying he should attend anywhere for the maturbatory benefits of Harvard or Duke prestige. We are suggesting he consider the lifelong value of portability, flexibility, alumni networks, etc. These have tangible value (whether they're worth $160K or not is up to the OP) and need to be factored in this decision.

Finally, the reason this thread is running long is because this isn't a black-and-white situation. If it was, it would have received three "retake" responses and disappeared...like most threads do around here. Point being, despite your best efforts to reject the existence of grey in this situation, it definitely exists. Look, I'm sympathetic to the "attend the good school cheaply as opposed to taking on debt for the great school" perspective. Seriously. I went to a military service academy for my undergrad as opposed to financing a couple ivy-league options in part because of this logic. It makes sense in general, but that doesn't make it orthodoxy for every situation.

It would be helpful if OP knew who the spouse is going to be, what his/her family situation entails, what health factors are in play, how many kids they will have, how healthy they will be, etc. Absent this kind of information, OP can't possibly "know thyself" because his self is going to change dramatically in the next decade. So, what can we know here? We can know OP will be employed, as an attorney, if he graduates from Harvard. We also know he will have a lot of debt if he does, which will require him to live frugally and aggressively pay off that debt. But, you know what, I think OPs smart enough and capable enough to manage that. Yea, he won't be immediately upper-middle class the day of graduation, and he might need to temper his youthful exuberance to tell a passive-aggressive senior associate to "go fuck himself", but the odds of being unemployed go to zero. And his ability to feed/care/protect/provide for his family will be solidified, permanently. Those kind of near-guarantees are rare these days, in this employment market, and I think a little "suck it up, buttercup" for that is worth it.

The bolded isn't true at all. I know my firm has fired at least one Harvard and one Columbia grad when they were biglaw juniors for poor performance reasons, not to mention pushing out most people who are 6th years or higher (which by the way, is common at many, if not most, big law firms). Just because you get into a certain school doesn't mean you will actually be a good lawyer. Some of the worst attorneys at my firm have been Columbia grads. The issue is if you have a ton of debt AND you get fired, you are probably fucked for life. Although I'd argue if you graduate with that much debt, even if you are employed, you are probably fucked for life.

[A. Nony Mouse]

It would be helpful if OP knew who the spouse is going to be, what his/her family situation entails, what health factors are in play, how many kids they will have, how healthy they will be, etc. Absent this kind of information, OP can't possibly "know thyself" because his self is going to change dramatically in the next decade. So, what can we know here? We can know OP will be employed, as an attorney, if he graduates from Harvard. We also know he will have a lot of debt if he does, which will require him to live frugally and aggressively pay off that debt. But, you know what, I think OPs smart enough and capable enough to manage that. Yea, he won't be immediately upper-middle class the day of graduation, and he might need to temper his youthful exuberance to tell a passive-aggressive senior associate to "go fuck himself", but the odds of being unemployed go to zero. And his ability to feed/care/protect/provide for his family will be solidified, permanently. Those kind of near-guarantees are rare these days, in this employment market, and I think a little "suck it up, buttercup" for that is worth it.

I get the point behind this advice, but I feel like this paragraph relies on a ton of assumptions about what the OP's life is going to look like in 10 years. It also seems a little overly cautious to make every decision at this point in OP's life based on entirely hypothetical choices about a family that doesn't exist and won't for probably a decade, if ever. That seems a little hamstring-y; life/careers are so non-linear, making choices now based on hypothetical assumptions about where you'll be in a decade seems overly constrictive.

[ponderingmeerkat]

The bolded isn't true at all. I know my firm has fired at least one Harvard and one Columbia grad when they were biglaw juniors for poor performance reasons, not to mention pushing out most people who are 6th years or higher (which by the way, is common at many, if not most, big law firms). Just because you get into a certain school doesn't mean you will actually be a good lawyer. Some of the worst attorneys at my firm have been Columbia grads. The issue is if you have a ton of debt AND you get fired, you are probably fucked for life. Although I'd argue if you graduate with that much debt, even if you are employed, you are probably fucked for life.

I don't have the foggiest idea how your point addresses mine. Sure, people get pushed out, people get fired, people leave jobs all the time. The churn is real in corporate America. So what? That piece of anecdata in no way suggests these people are now long-term unemployed or unemployable. A Columbia grad with 2 years of big-law experience is going to get picked up...somewhere. Probably won't be at Cwavath or Skadden, but she's not standing in the soup kitchen feed line.

So, unless you have data (you don't) to back up your implied assertion that Harvard/Columbia grads are at risk of consistent, persistent, long-term unemployment, my point still stands. Even if OP has growing pains and struggles to adjust to life in one particular firm or at one particular location (as happens all the time with young professionals across many different industries/locations), he will have a huge advantage in flexibility and portability that WUSTL won't be able to provide. His odds of persistent unemployment will be zero (or as close to it as you as you can find these days) and no amount of anecdotal "I heard this one guy at this one place had this one bad thing happen to him once" is going to change that fact.

[whysoseriousbiglaw]

The bolded isn't true at all. I know my firm has fired at least one Harvard and one Columbia grad when they were biglaw juniors for poor performance reasons, not to mention pushing out most people who are 6th years or higher (which by the way, is common at many, if not most, big law firms). Just because you get into a certain school doesn't mean you will actually be a good lawyer. Some of the worst attorneys at my firm have been Columbia grads. The issue is if you have a ton of debt AND you get fired, you are probably fucked for life. Although I'd argue if you graduate with that much debt, even if you are employed, you are probably fucked for life.

I don't have the foggiest idea how your point addresses mine. Sure, people get pushed out, people get fired, people leave jobs all the time. The churn is real in corporate America. So what? That piece of anecdata in no way suggests these people are now long-term unemployed or unemployable. A Columbia grad with 2 years of big-law experience is going to get picked up...somewhere. Probably won't be at Cwavath or Skadden, but she's not standing in the soup kitchen feed line.

So, unless you have data (you don't) to back up your implied assertion that Harvard/Columbia grads are at risk of consistent, persistent, long-term unemployment, my point still stands. Even if OP has growing pains and struggles to adjust to life in one particular firm or at one particular location (as happens all the time with young professionals across many different industries/locations), he will have a huge advantage in flexibility and portability that WUSTL won't be able to provide. His odds of persistent unemployment will be zero (or as close to it as you as you can find these days) and no amount of anecdotal "I heard this one guy at this one place had this one bad thing happen to him once" is going to change that fact.

Your statement: "but the odds of being unemployed go to zero. And his ability to feed/care/protect/provide for his family will be solidified, permanently"
My statement: I know unemployed Harvard/Columbia grads who are shitty lawyers.

Obviously that directly contradicts your statement.

Anyway aren't you a 0L? Just STFU please about biglaw and money - you don't have money or biglaw. Taking out 300k debt or whatever for Harvard law is just fucking stupid and if you're too dumb to realize that, then you deserve to be poor for life.

I'm not saying he should definitely go to WUSTL over Harvard. I personally wouldn't do any of these choices. I'm saying taking out 300k debt for A DEGREE (lol) is just fucking stupid and financially irresponsible. And I say this from the POV of someone who has done biglaw for years and someone who likely has and will have a lot more money than you (and clearly financial sense). If you take out 300k debt for a DEGREE (lol) you are just a fucking retard, especially if you have no idea what it is like to actually work in biglaw (newsflash: it sucks).

[ponderingmeerkat]

I get the point behind this advice, but I feel like this paragraph relies on a ton of assumptions about what the OP's life is going to look like in 10 years. It also seems a little overly cautious to make every decision at this point in OP's life based on entirely hypothetical choices about a family that doesn't exist and won't for probably a decade, if ever. That seems a little hamstring-y; life/careers are so non-linear, making choices now based on hypothetical assumptions about where you'll be in a decade seems overly constrictive.

Sure, they are assumptions. I'd argue they are reasonable assumptions.

55.7% of Americans over 18 are married. The vast majority of college graduates get married (at a rate twice that of the high-school only demographic). http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... -educated/

The median age to get married is 28 for men and 26 for women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_ ... ted_States The median age for first time mothers/fathers is 30/32 respectively (google it).

So, your claim that OP "probably" won't have a family within the next decade is completely contradicted by the data. Absent any additional info, I can confidently claim he/she will probably get married and will have a first child within the next decade. It's just demographics and statistics.

Telling an OP it's advisable to take this info into consideration isn't "hamstring-y" or "overly cautious". It's simply an acknowledgement of the facts as they stand. And, quite frankly, I view OP's WUSTL option as the hamstring-y, overly cautious choice for someone who has Harvard with some $ as one of the available options.