Is NYU at sticker worth it? Forum

[Bronck]

+1. Trying to ascertain whether aspiring career biglaw lawyers really get pushed/fired/w/e you want to call it before year 5. Seems like a lot of this is your choice for the first 5 years, so someone committed to 4-5 years of biglaw should be fine paying sticker at a place like NYU. Someone who wants a biglaw career has even less of a choice ITE -- they should largely be shooting for the best placing school they can get into.

I don't think this is a very good way to think about it. There's a big difference between sitting here and saying: "Oh yes, I will be able to last 5 years in biglaw. I'm committed to it after all." and actually practicing in that environment for 5 years. There's a reason the attrition rate is so high.

You also seem to be making the assumption that going to NYU at sticker yields biglaw. The economy is slowly picking up (~80% of OCI participants at NYU got at least one offer in 2011), but it's by no means a guarantee. I think it's rayiner who has pointed out repeatedly that ITE, people are getting 3-4 CBs --> 1 offer, which is markedly different from before the crash.

So, yes, it's nice to maximize biglaw options, but at the same time, one should be weighing other options as well (e.g., lower T14 with $).

[rayiner]

+1. Trying to ascertain whether aspiring career biglaw lawyers really get pushed/fired/w/e you want to call it before year 5. Seems like a lot of this is your choice for the first 5 years, so someone committed to 4-5 years of biglaw should be fine paying sticker at a place like NYU. Someone who wants a biglaw career has even less of a choice ITE -- they should largely be shooting for the best placing school they can get into.

I don't think this is a very good way to think about it. There's a big difference between sitting here and saying: "Oh yes, I will be able to last 5 years in biglaw. I'm committed to it after all." and actually practicing in that environment for 5 years. There's a reason the attrition rate is so high.

You also seem to be making the assumption that going to NYU at sticker yields biglaw. The economy is slowly picking up (~80% of OCI participants at NYU got at least one offer in 2011), but it's by no means a guarantee. I think it's rayiner who has pointed out repeatedly that ITE, people are getting 3-4 CBs --> 1 offer, which is markedly different from before the crash.

So, yes, it's nice to maximize biglaw options, but at the same time, one should be weighing other options as well (e.g., lower T14 with $).

The problem is that lower T14's aren't really throwing full rides at NYU admits. NYU this year seems to be admitting most people who are 171+/3.5+. Those numbers are getting like $50k-$75k at lower T14. With that amount of money, you're still a fat $200k in the hole, and your odds of big law go down from maybe 80-85% to 70%. That's not a slam-dunk decision, not when you still desperately need big law to pay off those loans.

[dixiecupdrinking]

Probably no school is "worth" sticker these days. For some people it is, for some it isn't. That depends on, among other things, your goals, your economic background, your other admissions/scholarship offers and your risk aversion. NYU is more worth sticker price than most schools, not as much as some. I don't really know how anyone can say much more about this question. As posed, there isn't an answer to it.

[Bronck]

The problem is that lower T14's aren't really throwing full rides at NYU admits. NYU this year seems to be admitting most people who are 171+/3.5+. Those numbers are getting like $50k-$75k at lower T14. With that amount of money, you're still a fat $200k in the hole, and your odds of big law go down from maybe 80-85% to 70%. That's not a slam-dunk decision, not when you still desperately need big law to pay off those loans.

Yeah, that's a great point. Assuming a 3.5% increase in tuition each year and taking into account interest:

w/ a 50k scholly, students at Penn, UVA and Mich are looking at 210k, 200k, and 185k in debt, respectively.
w/ a 75k scholly, students at Penn, UVA and Mich are looking at 180k, 170k, and 155k in debt, respectively.

NYU at sticker, assuming the same parameters above, is 270k. So with a 50k scholly at MVP it ranges anywhere from 60-85k more expensive, and with a 75k scholly at MVP anywhere from 90k-115k more expensive.

That's tough. On one hand, you're going to need biglaw from any of the above choices to pay off the debt (point to NYU for the 10-15% cushion), but on the other hand you have to take into consideration how many years it would take back to repay those loans (and by extension, the attrition rate in biglaw, the drop in pay after exiting out, etc).

[jenesaislaw]

what is COA at NYU for 3 years (generally curious about the high living expenses of NYC)

according to law school transparency Non-Discounted Cost Class of 2015: $272,724 --LinkRemoved--

according to the NYU fin aid email i got its a little closer to 210k but i think that is because they dont take debt and interest into account but i could be completely guessing

don't know if i trust those LST numbers. they quote Chicago COA as more expensive than NYC...

We use the numbers schools provide publicly.

And izy, you're exactly right. The COA schools advertise rarely, if ever, account for interest and projected increases in cost of living and tuition. Our numbers use a very conservative 3% for tuition increases and 2% for cost of living increases.

[annet]

FYI - Here was my analysis:

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 1&t=179998

That's a really interesting analysis - thank you for putting in the time to crunch the numbers.

[DerekTokaz]

Before handing NYU $150,000 in tuition, ask NYU to release all the information in its NALP report. There's no reason you should be spending that much money without knowing exactly what you're getting yourself in to.

Here's a recap of LST's efforts to get NYU to release all the data: --LinkRemoved--

Just to be perfectly clear, NYU has the data in hand and refuses to publish it. You can see exactly what information they're withholding by going here: --LinkRemoved--

The areas in dark gray are what NYU knows but won't tell anyone.

[drbarry987]

Is it worth it from a financial perspective? If that's teh Q then this all comes down to three questions (1) are you a striver (2) what's your tolerance for risk, and (3) are you OK with being a dillgent, attention to detail bro for ~60 hours a week with variable hours (aka willing to work in M&A/capital markets)? If your answers are yes/high/yes then it's probably a good call. NYU is the second best school in arguably the financial capital of the planet, which as a product of this has a legal market that is 6X the size of the Bay Area (SF+SV) legal market. NYU is only of only 6 schools that gives you a decent shot (decent meaning 1/3 gives you a chance at V10) at starting your career at one of the top corporate law firms in the US. I think NYU is putting like 26 kids in DPW this summer and it and CLS both post near double didget+ SA numbers into each of CSM/STB/Skadden/DPW each year.

I have no idea what the average salary is after 3-5 years in the M&A goup at one of those V10 firms but I know of someone who recently did NYU V20 M&A for 4 years-->250k all in, in house at a bank/tech company working 9-6 with very very occasional weekends.

Bottom line is that for your average polysci striver dude who missed the boat on BIGCONSULTING and BIGIBD due to ITE and is willing to grind it out, then it's worth it. For nyc BIGLIT, maybe it's not (do to less lucrative exit ops). For PI, I have no idea.

[TheProsecutor]

Is it worth it from a financial perspective? If that's teh Q then this all comes down to three questions (1) are you a striver (2) what's your tolerance for risk, and (3) are you OK with being a dillgent, attention to detail bro for ~60 hours a week with variable hours (aka willing to work in M&A/capital markets)? If your answers are yes/high/yes then it's probably a good call. NYU is the second best school in arguably the financial capital of the planet, which as a product of this has a legal market that is 6X the size of the Bay Area (SF+SV) legal market. NYU is only of only 6 schools that gives you a decent shot (decent meaning 1/3 gives you a chance at V10) at starting your career at one of the top corporate law firms in the US. I think NYU is putting like 26 kids in DPW this summer and it and CLS both post near double didget+ SA numbers into each of CSM/STB/Skadden/DPW each year.

I have no idea what the average salary is after 3-5 years in the M&A goup at one of those V10 firms but I know of someone who recently did NYU V20 M&A for 4 years-->250k all in, in house at a bank/tech company working 9-6 with very very occasional weekends.

Bottom line is that for your average polysci striver dude who missed the boat on BIGCONSULTING and BIGIBD due to ITE and is willing to grind it out, then it's worth it. For nyc BIGLIT, maybe it's not (do to less lucrative exit ops). For PI, I have no idea.

3rd year - 185k
4th year - 210k
5th year - 230k

That's before bonus.

[dixiecupdrinking]

Before handing NYU $150,000 in tuition, ask NYU to release all the information in its NALP report. There's no reason you should be spending that much money without knowing exactly what you're getting yourself in to.

Here's a recap of LST's efforts to get NYU to release all the data: --LinkRemoved--

Just to be perfectly clear, NYU has the data in hand and refuses to publish it. You can see exactly what information they're withholding by going here: --LinkRemoved--

The areas in dark gray are what NYU knows but won't tell anyone.

This is pretty silly. You want to know 25/75 salary percentiles broken down according to every single subcategory of job? I mean, seriously? Clerkships? Firms over 250+?

[DerekTokaz]

Before handing NYU $150,000 in tuition, ask NYU to release all the information in its NALP report. There's no reason you should be spending that much money without knowing exactly what you're getting yourself in to.

Here's a recap of LST's efforts to get NYU to release all the data: --LinkRemoved--

Just to be perfectly clear, NYU has the data in hand and refuses to publish it. You can see exactly what information they're withholding by going here: --LinkRemoved--

The areas in dark gray are what NYU knows but won't tell anyone.

This is pretty silly. You want to know 25/75 salary percentiles broken down according to every single subcategory of job? I mean, seriously? Clerkships? Firms over 250+?

NYU already has this data. It' really just a matter of scanning a few pages and posting it online.

For clerkships it is a bit silly, as there's very little variance in pay. But for the 250+ range, you'd be surprised. If you work at one of the secondary offices of a big firm, you're still counted as working in BigLaw, but you might only be making $100,000 a year instead of $160,000. 20% of NYU grads went to work somewhere other than New York, California, or DC.

Odds are NYU's 25th salary percentiles for the 251-500 and 501+ categories are going to be $160k, but before giving the school $50,000 a year in tuition, I think it's fair to ask. Don't we hear that all the time, that it's up to prospective students to thoroughly research the school before deciding to go? Well, the school has to first publish the data.

[chasgoose]

Before handing NYU $150,000 in tuition, ask NYU to release all the information in its NALP report. There's no reason you should be spending that much money without knowing exactly what you're getting yourself in to.

Here's a recap of LST's efforts to get NYU to release all the data: --LinkRemoved--

Just to be perfectly clear, NYU has the data in hand and refuses to publish it. You can see exactly what information they're withholding by going here: --LinkRemoved--

The areas in dark gray are what NYU knows but won't tell anyone.

This is pretty silly. You want to know 25/75 salary percentiles broken down according to every single subcategory of job? I mean, seriously? Clerkships? Firms over 250+?

NYU already has this data. It' really just a matter of scanning a few pages and posting it online.

For clerkships it is a bit silly, as there's very little variance in pay. But for the 250+ range, you'd be surprised. If you work at one of the secondary offices of a big firm, you're still counted as working in BigLaw, but you might only be making $100,000 a year instead of $160,000. 20% of NYU grads went to work somewhere other than New York, California, or DC.

Odds are NYU's 25th salary percentiles for the 251-500 and 501+ categories are going to be $160k, but before giving the school $50,000 a year in tuition, I think it's fair to ask. Don't we hear that all the time, that it's up to prospective students to thoroughly research the school before deciding to go? Well, the school has to first publish the data.

Most people who go to the secondary markets that pay less than market go there by choice. Getting a job in a secondary market is typically harder than getting one in NYC. Also, in many secondary markets w/ lower than $160k salaries, whatever salary they DO pay goes a lot further in its market than $160k does in NYC. This shouldn't worry anyone. Paying down your loans while making $125k in Phoenix, for example, is going to be less difficult than doing so in NYC with $160k.

[TheProsecutor]

Before handing NYU $150,000 in tuition, ask NYU to release all the information in its NALP report. There's no reason you should be spending that much money without knowing exactly what you're getting yourself in to.

Here's a recap of LST's efforts to get NYU to release all the data: --LinkRemoved--

Just to be perfectly clear, NYU has the data in hand and refuses to publish it. You can see exactly what information they're withholding by going here: --LinkRemoved--

The areas in dark gray are what NYU knows but won't tell anyone.

This is pretty silly. You want to know 25/75 salary percentiles broken down according to every single subcategory of job? I mean, seriously? Clerkships? Firms over 250+?

NYU already has this data. It' really just a matter of scanning a few pages and posting it online.

For clerkships it is a bit silly, as there's very little variance in pay. But for the 250+ range, you'd be surprised. If you work at one of the secondary offices of a big firm, you're still counted as working in BigLaw, but you might only be making $100,000 a year instead of $160,000. 20% of NYU grads went to work somewhere other than New York, California, or DC.

Odds are NYU's 25th salary percentiles for the 251-500 and 501+ categories are going to be $160k, but before giving the school $50,000 a year in tuition, I think it's fair to ask. Don't we hear that all the time, that it's up to prospective students to thoroughly research the school before deciding to go? Well, the school has to first publish the data.

Most people who go to the secondary markets that pay less than market go there by choice. Getting a job in a secondary market is typically harder than getting one in NYC. Also, in many secondary markets w/ lower than $160k salaries, whatever salary they DO pay goes a lot further in its market than $160k does in NYC. This shouldn't worry anyone. Paying down your loans while making $125k in Phoenix, for example, is going to be less difficult than doing so in NYC with $160k.

If you're thinking about it only based on first year salaries, that is a bit short-sighted. Salaries in NYC/DC/CHI rise much much higher much quicker than salaries in secondary markets. So even taking into account COL, you're much better off in biglaw in the long run than a secondary market.

[jenesaislaw]

Talk about missing the point. At the risk of sounding like a broken record here, the entry-level market follows a bi-modal salary distribution. If a school only provides salary quartiles for the whole class, then the typical applicant won't know where the salaries are concentrated.

For example, NYU had 403 salaries reported (out of 480 employed graduates). Its class salary quartiles were $67963, $160,000, and $160000, with a mean of $129,500.

Do you think that's enough to understand the salary outcomes of NYU's graduates? Leaving NYU out of the picture, do you think those 6 data points are enough at other schools? WashU? Cardozo? Touro?

It is beyond comprehension to me that somebody would be willing to make such an enormous investment without wanting to know what's driving the statements about the investment's value. Not only ITE, but with the incredible amount of attention given to schools' lack of transparency. It might not seem important to you to have it confirmed that the people at 501+ firms are making $160k or that clerks are making $60k, but it's just a part of the picture you'd be after if you were a sophisticated consumer.

[rickgrimes69]

Before handing NYU $150,000 in tuition, ask NYU to release all the information in its NALP report. There's no reason you should be spending that much money without knowing exactly what you're getting yourself in to.

Here's a recap of LST's efforts to get NYU to release all the data: --LinkRemoved--

Just to be perfectly clear, NYU has the data in hand and refuses to publish it. You can see exactly what information they're withholding by going here: --LinkRemoved--

The areas in dark gray are what NYU knows but won't tell anyone.

This is pretty silly. You want to know 25/75 salary percentiles broken down according to every single subcategory of job? I mean, seriously? Clerkships? Firms over 250+?

NYU already has this data. It' really just a matter of scanning a few pages and posting it online.

For clerkships it is a bit silly, as there's very little variance in pay. But for the 250+ range, you'd be surprised. If you work at one of the secondary offices of a big firm, you're still counted as working in BigLaw, but you might only be making $100,000 a year instead of $160,000. 20% of NYU grads went to work somewhere other than New York, California, or DC.

Odds are NYU's 25th salary percentiles for the 251-500 and 501+ categories are going to be $160k, but before giving the school $50,000 a year in tuition, I think it's fair to ask. Don't we hear that all the time, that it's up to prospective students to thoroughly research the school before deciding to go? Well, the school has to first publish the data.

Most people who go to the secondary markets that pay less than market go there by choice. Getting a job in a secondary market is typically harder than getting one in NYC. Also, in many secondary markets w/ lower than $160k salaries, whatever salary they DO pay goes a lot further in its market than $160k does in NYC. This shouldn't worry anyone. Paying down your loans while making $125k in Phoenix, for example, is going to be less difficult than doing so in NYC with $160k.

This is basically my plan. I'm from Minnesota, and while MN biglaw only pays $105-120 starting, that will go a lot farther in MN than $160 will in NYC.

Edit: Hopefully

[jenesaislaw]

That's still about 25k/year of debt service no matter where you are. That number is based on a quick look at your post history, as it looks like you'll have about 170k of debt if you're debt-financing (54k over 3 years at Duke, right?).

Not saying it's a good or bad decision, but it's shockingly close to the line.

[dixiecupdrinking]

Talk about missing the point. At the risk of sounding like a broken record here, the entry-level market follows a bi-modal salary distribution. If a school only provides salary quartiles for the whole class, then the typical applicant won't know where the salaries are concentrated.

For example, NYU had 403 salaries reported (out of 480 employed graduates). Its class salary quartiles were $67963, $160,000, and $160000, with a mean of $129,500.

Do you think that's enough to understand the salary outcomes of NYU's graduates? Leaving NYU out of the picture, do you think those 6 data points are enough at other schools? WashU? Cardozo? Touro?

It is beyond comprehension to me that somebody would be willing to make such an enormous investment without wanting to know what's driving the statements about the investment's value. Not only ITE, but with the incredible amount of attention given to schools' lack of transparency. It might not seem important to you to have it confirmed that the people at 501+ firms are making $160k or that clerks are making $60k, but it's just a part of the picture you'd be after if you were a sophisticated consumer.

Well, it's obviously not "beyond comprehension" to you unless Vanderbilt was providing this information when you decided to go there in 2008.

I think that your website is providing something valuable, and increased pressure on law schools to be transparent can only be a positive thing. I do think, however, that you guys, Campos, etc., can start to sound like fanatics about the whole thing. Whether a school is worth attending is a different, albeit related, issue from whether a school should be releasing more granular employment data.

[rayiner]

Talk about missing the point. At the risk of sounding like a broken record here, the entry-level market follows a bi-modal salary distribution. If a school only provides salary quartiles for the whole class, then the typical applicant won't know where the salaries are concentrated.

For example, NYU had 403 salaries reported (out of 480 employed graduates). Its class salary quartiles were $67963, $160,000, and $160000, with a mean of $129,500.

Do you think that's enough to understand the salary outcomes of NYU's graduates? Leaving NYU out of the picture, do you think those 6 data points are enough at other schools? WashU? Cardozo? Touro?

I definitely think law schools should publish more detailed salary distributions. That being said, I find it interesting that even for schools that do report very detailed salary distributions, you don't show anything on LST beyond the extremely coarse 25-50-75 distributions. So what's the point of going beyond?

[jenesaislaw]

Two things.

1) The law school applicant world has changed and with it so should our expectations about applicant behavior. The holes in/problems with employment data are now much more accessible -- especially to anybody who reads TLS, the legal media, or happens to have heard or read stories in the popular press. You now know that there is much more going than meets the eyes. Hard as it is to believe, people once took the 95% employment rates at face value. They actually trusted that schools were giving them the full picture.

2) Vanderbilt's disclosure policy is exactly what motivated us to found LST, in a positive way. --LinkRemoved-- My incoming class in 2008 had a leg up on the knowledge front, though of course we got blindsided like everybody by the market crash a few months after we enrolled.

[jenesaislaw]

I definitely think law schools should publish more detailed salary distributions. That being said, I find it interesting that even for schools that do report very detailed salary distributions, you don't show anything on LST beyond the extremely coarse 25-50-75 distributions. So what's the point of going beyond?

Let's not exaggerate. There are two ways schools currently go beyond the 25-50-75 distributions. First, and this is an extremely bad practice, schools provide the bookend salaries by category, i.e. the minimum and maximum salaries. I think schools only do this because it's easy, as the Symplicity reports include the min/max. (Some schools only provide the maximum.)

Second, schools provide distributions by salary band. I actually really, really like this, as I've told your dean. I suspect you bring this up primarily because Northwestern does this.

It's something I think would be useful for all schools to do, though I would make a few alterations. The problem is that there are only two schools that do anything like this: Northwestern and William Mitchell. If you know of others, let me know. I may have forgotten or the school may be doing something new.

In any case, the "point of going beyond" has zero to do with what LST shows. That's not how your dean measures your school's disclosure, and it's not how he ought to. In the future we can consider adding special information, but we're extremely limited in staff and can only do so much.

[TUP]

Most people who go to the secondary markets that pay less than market go there by choice. Getting a job in a secondary market is typically harder than getting one in NYC. Also, in many secondary markets w/ lower than $160k salaries, whatever salary they DO pay goes a lot further in its market than $160k does in NYC. This shouldn't worry anyone. Paying down your loans while making $125k in Phoenix, for example, is going to be less difficult than doing so in NYC with $160k.

This is basically my plan. I'm from Minnesota, and while MN biglaw only pays $105-120 starting, that will go a lot farther in MN than $160 will in NYC.

Edit: Hopefully

Be careful with this and run the numbers before jumping in. There's a thread on here with an MN big law attorney that strongly recommended against sticker for the MN market considering the salaries.

Looking at the numbers, most firms start at 110 with a few at 120, but raises are EXTREMELY compressed relative to NYC. Data is sparse, but I think it can be less than inflation in some years. And while MN is definitely cheaper than NYC, a decent apartment is still in the $1k or more range, plus expenses to own a car. Paying down $4k/month in MN seems a lot more difficult than NYC.

[rickgrimes69]

Most people who go to the secondary markets that pay less than market go there by choice. Getting a job in a secondary market is typically harder than getting one in NYC. Also, in many secondary markets w/ lower than $160k salaries, whatever salary they DO pay goes a lot further in its market than $160k does in NYC. This shouldn't worry anyone. Paying down your loans while making $125k in Phoenix, for example, is going to be less difficult than doing so in NYC with $160k.

This is basically my plan. I'm from Minnesota, and while MN biglaw only pays $105-120 starting, that will go a lot farther in MN than $160 will in NYC.

Edit: Hopefully

Be careful with this and run the numbers before jumping in. There's a thread on here with an MN big law attorney that strongly recommended against sticker for the MN market considering the salaries.

Looking at the numbers, most firms start at 110 with a few at 120, but raises are EXTREMELY compressed relative to NYC. Data is sparse, but I think it can be less than inflation in some years. And while MN is definitely cheaper than NYC, a decent apartment is still in the $1k or more range, plus expenses to own a car. Paying down $4k/month in MN seems a lot more difficult than NYC.

I've ran the numbers, and you're correct - at sticker, it would be pretty difficult. But I got a 54k scholly and have enough saved up to cover living expenses for my 1L, so I'm looking at a loan principle of maybe $150k. Paying it off in 5 years would require monthly payments of roughly $3000, which is hefty, but doable: with a starting salary of $110k I'd be pulling in about $5500 / month after taxes, leaving me ~$2500 / month to cover living expenses. IMO, that's a completely livable wage for Minnesota, and I'd be debt free in 5 years. 10 years would knock ~$1200 off my monthly payments if I wanted more breathing room, but also doubles the amount I pay in interest - just an option should I discover my salary wouldn't cut it.

(If anybody can think of a reason why my numbers are wrong, please let me know).

Edit: I should clarify, I'm not against the idea of working in NYC temporarily. I actually live there now and love the city, and I'm fairly confident I could grind out NYC biglaw for 2-3 years. I'm just not all that convinced that I would be paying off my loans any faster or receiving a higher QOL (don't laugh, MN is nice!), and I'd be working many more hours in a much more stressful environment, so I guess I don't really see much of a benefit. And I'd want to lateral over to the MN market eventually anyways and am somewhat paranoid about getting stuck in NYC. Am I missing a piece of the puzzle?