All non tier 1 people, why are you going to law school? Forum

[Patriot1208]

I want so badly to believe you are just trollin us (and you probably are), but I know there are tons of naive 0Ls out there who think this way, so there is a good chance you are real.

Good luck, and may god have mercy on your soul. You're gonna need it with 200k in loans at your TTT.

why does he have to be a troll? and why does he have to be going to a TTT instead of a Top 50 or 100? Can't a guy have a genuine desire to go mid or petite law?

In other words...why do you have to be a such a douche?

It's fine if he has a genuine desire for small family law. Other people in this thread have expressed that same opinion and no one has jumped on them. The difference is that this guy is telling us that because he is smart, he can go to a tier 2 or TTT, work in small law, and be succesful enough to easily pay off 200k in loans. Paying off 200k in loans, in small law, is almost impossible to do. It's just the lack of rational, economic thinkg that is disconcerting about that post.

and where does he say he plans on going to a TTT?! And where did he say he's going to take out 200 k in loans? he said DOESN'T NEED to take out 200 k (the typical cost of an elite, tier 1 school) in loans to be successful as an attorney, which means he's probably going to go to a decent in state school instead of harvard or yale

This is the "alll non tier 1" thread. So, we assume it's a tier 2 or TTT. And, his last sentence is incomprehensible but I assumed it was going to be somehting along the lines that 200k in loans isn't going to stop him.

ETA even if i'm misunderstanding what he is saying, there are plenty of people out there who do fit the mold of what we are talking about.

[Patriot1208]

FYI, there's a tax bomb at the end of the 25 year IBR program. The amount of debt that's forgiven gets tacked onto your federal (and probably state/local, but not sure) taxes. Do you really wanna pay the taxes on a 200k gift?

Is this true? That makes IBR practically useless for a lot of people, it would seem.

[rman1201]

FYI, there's a tax bomb at the end of the 25 year IBR program. The amount of debt that's forgiven gets tacked onto your federal (and probably state/local, but not sure) taxes. Do you really wanna pay the taxes on a 200k gift?

Unless you're only paying the interest, it won't be a '200k gift'. And still, getting away with paying 30% (or whatever the tax is) on the entire remaining principal is a pretty sweet deal.

ETA: After calculating the interest, a 200k gift probably is about right.

[Veyron]

Its almost like people are intent on disproving the prisoner's dilemma.

Sure vicious competition might make sense in a one time game, but repeat play makes cooperation make sense in most instances.

Iterated prisoner's dilemma - sure you get rogue players, but with tit-for-tat reprisals they suffer.

I'm not sure how game theory would deal with this but it doesn't perfectly fit the model of an iterated game, the rounds are not of equal value, the first round is by far the most important.

[smittelman6]

FYI, there's a tax bomb at the end of the 25 year IBR program. The amount of debt that's forgiven gets tacked onto your federal (and probably state/local, but not sure) taxes. Do you really wanna pay the taxes on a 200k gift?

Unless you're only paying the interest, it won't be a '200k gift'. And still, getting away with paying 30% (or whatever the tax is) on the entire remaining principal is a pretty sweet deal.

ETA: After calculating the interest, a 200k gift probably is about right.

after 25 years of payments you think the amount forgiven woul still be 200k? that seems high... i would think as long as you're paying more than the interest, the amount forgiven would have to be under the original loan. in either case, yes, i would much rather pay the taxes on a 200k or 150k gift than pay 200k or 150k...

[AreJay711]

FYI, there's a tax bomb at the end of the 25 year IBR program. The amount of debt that's forgiven gets tacked onto your federal (and probably state/local, but not sure) taxes. Do you really wanna pay the taxes on a 200k gift?

Unless you're only paying the interest, it won't be a '200k gift'. And still, getting away with paying 30% (or whatever the tax is) on the entire remaining principal is a pretty sweet deal.

ETA: After calculating the interest, a 200k gift probably is about right.

after 25 years of payments you think the amount forgiven woul still be 200k? that seems high... i would think as long as you're paying more than the interest, the amount forgiven would have to be under the original loan. in either case, yes, i would much rather pay the taxes on a 200k or 150k gift than pay 200k or 150k...

... so you'd rather pay 70k in one year (plus tax on interest if you were actually making no payments) than spread it out over 25 years?

[rman1201]

FYI, there's a tax bomb at the end of the 25 year IBR program. The amount of debt that's forgiven gets tacked onto your federal (and probably state/local, but not sure) taxes. Do you really wanna pay the taxes on a 200k gift?

Unless you're only paying the interest, it won't be a '200k gift'. And still, getting away with paying 30% (or whatever the tax is) on the entire remaining principal is a pretty sweet deal.

ETA: After calculating the interest, a 200k gift probably is about right.

after 25 years of payments you think the amount forgiven woul still be 200k? that seems high... i would think as long as you're paying more than the interest, the amount forgiven would have to be under the original loan. in either case, yes, i would much rather pay the taxes on a 200k or 150k gift than pay 200k or 150k...

At 7% interest it would take $1,166 a month just to pay the interest on a 200k loan, and the IBR payments are usually less than that... so I imagine the ending balance could even be higher than 200k.

Edit:
And at $50k income your IBR payments would be $420 a month - so I imagine the ending balance would indeed be higher as you are only paying 2.5% a year, and this isn't enough to cover any sort of loan interest rate.
http://www.ibrinfo.org/calculator.php

[rman1201]

FYI, there's a tax bomb at the end of the 25 year IBR program. The amount of debt that's forgiven gets tacked onto your federal (and probably state/local, but not sure) taxes. Do you really wanna pay the taxes on a 200k gift?

Unless you're only paying the interest, it won't be a '200k gift'. And still, getting away with paying 30% (or whatever the tax is) on the entire remaining principal is a pretty sweet deal.

ETA: After calculating the interest, a 200k gift probably is about right.

after 25 years of payments you think the amount forgiven woul still be 200k? that seems high... i would think as long as you're paying more than the interest, the amount forgiven would have to be under the original loan. in either case, yes, i would much rather pay the taxes on a 200k or 150k gift than pay 200k or 150k...

... so you'd rather pay 70k in one year (plus tax on interest if you were actually making no payments) than spread it out over 25 years?

The taxes wouldn't be demanded upfront, a payment plan would be necessary
(http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/art ... 47,00.html)

Interesting Edit: assuming the healthcare act isn't repealed, if anyone here does wait until after 2014 to start law school, the forgiveness for private sector will become 20 years instead of 25.
http://www.finaid.org/loans/ibr.phtml

[lisjjen]

Haven't been on here for a while, but it seems like the usual T14ers harumphing to each other, waiting for someone who is actually about to go to a T2 or TTT and is stupid enough to post anything. At this point, the less fortunate member gets eviscerated, and then the rest of the posters go on their merry way.

[rman1201]

Haven't been on here for a while, but it seems like the usual T14ers harumphing to each other, waiting for someone who is actually about to go to a T2 or TTT and is stupid enough to post anything. At this point, the less fortunate member gets eviscerated, and then the rest of the posters go on their merry way.

Do you see something I don't? The entire past page has been econ nerds saying something about game theory and me rambling about taxes/IBR

[lisjjen]

I want so badly to believe you are just trollin us (and you probably are), but I know there are tons of naive 0Ls out there who think this way, so there is a good chance you are real.

Good luck, and may god have mercy on your soul. You're gonna need it with 200k in loans at your TTT.

You're not seeing stuff like this? Not that Romo isn't one of my favorite posters on here - in fact I generally like all the regulars ITT. It's just that there's not a whole lot of incentive for people going to a TTT to speak up.

[Skyhook]

Do you see something I don't? The entire past page has been econ nerds saying something about game theory and me rambling about taxes/IBR

I take offense to that!
God damn it, Jim, I'm a scientist not an economist!

(BTW, the prisoner's dilemma is illustrative in all kinds of situations. Co-operative genes, etc.)

[gwuorbust]

Haven't been on here for a while, but it seems like the usual T14ers harumphing to each other, waiting for someone who is actually about to go to a T2 or TTT and is stupid enough to post anything. At this point, the less fortunate member gets eviscerated, and then the rest of the posters go on their merry way.

I love how "you can do much better. here's how. retake and go to a better school." always ends up being considered evisceration . . .

. . . and last time I check neither rad, romo or myself went to a t-14. but who's counting.

[romothesavior]

I want so badly to believe you are just trollin us (and you probably are), but I know there are tons of naive 0Ls out there who think this way, so there is a good chance you are real.

Good luck, and may god have mercy on your soul. You're gonna need it with 200k in loans at your TTT.

You're not seeing stuff like this? Not that Romo isn't one of my favorite posters on here - in fact I generally like all the regulars ITT. It's just that there's not a whole lot of incentive for people going to a TTT to speak up.

First of all, I appreciate it. I like you too. *bro hug*

But in all seriousness, there are many people ITT who have given their reasons for going to lower ranked schools that I haven't responded to, and in a lot of ways, I think they're making a fine decision. Having a guaranteed job due to family with their own practices or going somewhere cheap where you want to practice are both good reasons. There are some good reasons for picking a tier 2/3 school. Unfortunately, there are far more bad reasons than good. And the attitude of people like loyalrebel are very typical, and it is a shame. I don't doubt that he's a smart guy with a lot of drive and motivation (as are many people at lower tiered schools), but they get sucked into these places thanks to bad data and bad reasons for going, and they rationalize it by thinking they are special snowflakes who can overcome the odds. Then they get burned, and the cycle repeats itself the next year.

If only a few people come on TLS, read and internalize the warnings, and re-take/reapply/don't go, I consider it is a success.

[dr123]

I'm not applying till next year but I'm really leaning towards my local LS because I already work in the legal field here, the school is less than 10k a year, and it's the only school in a very insular market that doesn't attract t14 grads. If I decide that I want to stay where I am right now I see no reason why I would go to anyother school

[gwuorbust]

I'm not applying till next year but I'm really leaning towards my local LS because I already work in the legal field here, the school is less than 10k a year, and it's the only school in a very insular market that doesn't attract t14 grads. If I decide that I want to stay where I am right now I see no reason why I would go to anyother school

this would be an example of a good reason to go to lower ranked law school.

[rman1201]

beaten to it

[beach_terror]

I haven't read much of this here thread, but I go to a T2. Taking questions, accepting hateful comments, and uncalled and unwarranted speculation about my intellect is encouraged.

[lisjjen]

Retake isn't some magical ticket to HLS. I know you always hear about people on TLS who say they retook the LSAT and did great - and I won't deny their personal experience, but they aren't a representative sample. When it comes to admissions, I have more faith in Dean Z than the average poster.

TLS: Suppose an applicant with a 3.5 GPA gets a 168 on the LSAT. His heart is set on Michigan but he missed the ED deadline. Should he retake the LSAT?

He should not retake the LSAT unless he has some very good reason for thinking the 168 was an aberration — and that’s going to be very hard to be sure about. Once you get above a 165 — and we’re talking science here, this is straight from the incredibly big brains at the Law School Admissions Council — your chances are very high that you will decrease your score on a retake. It’s the law of regression to the mean.

TLS: I feel like I mostly hear of people going up, though?

Yeah, I don’t think they tell you when they go down. They go down. And again, if you have a 168, and you take it again and get a 169, that’s not going to help you.

[gwuorbust]

beaten to it

you owe me a soda! and I like how our statement were almost exactly the same.

[rman1201]

Retake isn't some magical ticket to HLS. I know you always hear about people on TLS who say they retook the LSAT and did great - and I won't deny their personal experience, but they aren't a representative sample. When it comes to admissions, I have more faith in Dean Z than the average poster.

TLS: Suppose an applicant with a 3.5 GPA gets a 168 on the LSAT. His heart is set on Michigan but he missed the ED deadline. Should he retake the LSAT?

He should not retake the LSAT unless he has some very good reason for thinking the 168 was an aberration — and that’s going to be very hard to be sure about. Once you get above a 165 — and we’re talking science here, this is straight from the incredibly big brains at the Law School Admissions Council — your chances are very high that you will decrease your score on a retake. It’s the law of regression to the mean.

TLS: I feel like I mostly hear of people going up, though?

Yeah, I don’t think they tell you when they go down. They go down. And again, if you have a 168, and you take it again and get a 169, that’s not going to help you.

When's the last time people blasted a 168 to retake?
Regression works both ways, if someone scores very low and retakes, odds are they'll score higher the next time.

[lolschool2011]

[romothesavior]

Retake isn't some magical ticket to HLS. I know you always hear about people on TLS who say they retook the LSAT and did great - and I won't deny their personal experience, but they aren't a representative sample. When it comes to admissions, I have more faith in Dean Z than the average poster.

TLS: Suppose an applicant with a 3.5 GPA gets a 168 on the LSAT. His heart is set on Michigan but he missed the ED deadline. Should he retake the LSAT?

He should not retake the LSAT unless he has some very good reason for thinking the 168 was an aberration — and that’s going to be very hard to be sure about. Once you get above a 165 — and we’re talking science here, this is straight from the incredibly big brains at the Law School Admissions Council — your chances are very high that you will decrease your score on a retake. It’s the law of regression to the mean.

TLS: I feel like I mostly hear of people going up, though?

Yeah, I don’t think they tell you when they go down. They go down. And again, if you have a 168, and you take it again and get a 169, that’s not going to help you.

It depends. Did that 168 come from hard work and studying? Then take your 3.5/168 and enjoy a T1 on a big scholly.

Did it come with light studying and half-assing? Then you better retake.

[lisjjen]

When's the last time people blasted a 168 to retake?
Regression works both ways, if someone scores very low and retakes, odds are they'll score higher the next time.

168 is the example in the interview. I was citing a source.

Here's another source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_to_the_mean and a statistic: the average LSAT is 151.

Plain and simple, I've never met a real person who did significantly better on their LSAT by retaking it, and I've met a lot who've retaken.

It depends. Did that 168 come from hard work and studying? Then take your 3.5/168 and enjoy a T1 on a big scholly.

Did it come with light studying and half-assing? Then you better retake.

+1

[rman1201]

When's the last time people blasted a 168 to retake?
Regression works both ways, if someone scores very low and retakes, odds are they'll score higher the next time.

168 is the example in the interview. I was citing a source.

Here's another source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_to_the_mean and a statistic: the average LSAT is 151.

Plain and simple, I've never met a real person who did significantly better on their LSAT by retaking it, and I've met a lot who've retaken.

It depends. Did that 168 come from hard work and studying? Then take your 3.5/168 and enjoy a T1 on a big scholly.

Did it come with light studying and half-assing? Then you better retake.

+1

And what I'm saying is the whole point of that source is that "A high deviation from the mean will likely result in a lower result next time", but with lower scores (even if they aren't quite below the average - I feel the average is artificially lower due to all the test takers going into it blindly) there's not the same statistical chance of a lower or equivalent score. Of course what romo said is 100% correct as well, but the Dean argument presented is made entirely on statistical grounds, so those are the premises I'm sticking to.