. Forum

[Ramius]

Just playing devil's advocate here, but how would your wealthy relative feel if they paid $200k for your legal eduation and you still end up getting that $40k/year job? Because, from those schools, that's a realistic outcome if you're employed at all. It's more likely than a $160k job. Would they still feel like not waiting a year was the right thing to do?

[jbagelboy]

Just playing devil's advocate here, but how would your wealthy relative feel if they paid $200k for your legal eduation and you still end up getting that $40k/year job? Because, from those schools, that's a realistic outcome if you're employed at all. It's more likely than a $160k job. Would they still feel like not waiting a year was the right thing to do?

Actually, there's about a ~70% chance OP would wind up paying $200,000 and spending 3 yrs to make $40-50K pre-tax coming out of school.

More frighteningly, this fate and the current state of the legal market imply a non-negligible chance that OP's relative would never recover the value of their investment over a lifetime of work, because the future earning power differential between the JD and BA for 35 years could feasibly be less than present value of tuition at these schools (which could be 400-500K value in 2050, depending on inflation). In other words, a total net loss for both you and your relative.

[kimkardashian]

.

[BigZuck]

Just playing devil's advocate here, but how would your wealthy relative feel if they paid $200k for your legal eduation and you still end up getting that $40k/year job? Because, from those schools, that's a realistic outcome if you're employed at all. It's more likely than a $160k job. Would they still feel like not waiting a year was the right thing to do?

I honestly don't know. The same relative paid $120,000 (60k a year) for my sister to get a master's degree for teaching at a fancy linguistics grad school, and she only makes like $22k a year now. The relative doesn't upset about it, although she has wistfully mentioned that, looking back, my sister should have probably chosen to go to a less expensive grad school. Obviously it would be nice if my sister made more, but the general consensus is that she's happy, employed, and well-educated, so it is what it is. The relative only wants the best for us.

How is GW's median private sector starting salary listed as $160,000 on USNWR if 70% of people get a $40k job? I believe what you all are sayig about the high likelihood of me getting a job that pays $40k (if I get employed at all), but I'm just curious as to how they managed to fudge that statistic.

It's based on what grads report I'm guessing. People who get paid more are more likely to report.

Good to hear the relative only wants what's best for you. That means he/she will be 100% on board with the retake/reapply plan. Because that's what's best for you.

[Mullens]

The number you are citing from GW only includes the 41.7% of graduates who reported their salaries.

[cotiger]

Just playing devil's advocate here, but how would your wealthy relative feel if they paid $200k for your legal eduation and you still end up getting that $40k/year job? Because, from those schools, that's a realistic outcome if you're employed at all. It's more likely than a $160k job. Would they still feel like not waiting a year was the right thing to do?

I honestly don't know. The same relative paid $120,000 (60k a year) for my sister to get a master's degree for teaching at a fancy linguistics grad school, and she only makes like $22k a year now. The relative doesn't upset about it, although she has wistfully mentioned that, looking back, my sister should have probably chosen to go to a less expensive grad school. Obviously it would be nice if my sister made more, but the general consensus is that she's happy, employed, and well-educated, so it is what it is. The relative only wants the best for us.

How is GW's median private sector starting salary listed as $160,000 on USNWR if 70% of people get a $40k job? I believe what you all are sayig about the high likelihood of me getting a job that pays $40k (if I get employed at all), but I'm just curious as to how they managed to fudge that statistic.

Because that's the median of the people who reported. Notice that only half of their private practice grads report a salary. Compare that to a place like Columbia, where 304/309 of their private practice grads reported. People tend to report back eagerly when they're raking in the big bucks and not so much when they're making shit.

eta: scooped

[kimkardashian]

.

[cotiger]

Well I didn't really want to go this much into my personal life but there's a reason I have to graduate in 2017 and no later than that. It's kind of complicated but basically because my partner is in the military, and he has certain timed deployments that we already know about now, we want to get married and move to wherever that deployment is in 2017, and if I graduate in 2018 or later, it's going to mess with that and I won't be able to move in with him until 2020 due to a spouse/dependent rule. We're not willing to wait that long to get married for several reasons. So retaking/taking off a year is just not in the cards for me.

And I don't know, if 41% grads are making a median of $160,000, I don't think me betting on being somewhere in that 81.7% employed 41% is so far-fetched that it should literally prevent me from going to law school. Not sure if I did the math right, but does that mean 33% of the class is making the median $160k? I think I can accept those odds (especially if BU/BC has even higher odds than that). Plus the legal market could be better in three years.

30% max of the class is making $160k. Of those 30%, quite a few are going to be making less than the $160k market rate. And some of those 30% will be doing doc review (way lower pay), not working as associates.

That's quite a hefty gamble. And if it does pay off? Congrats! You've earned the right to pay back $60,000/year for five years.

[kimkardashian]

.

[Mullens]

For GW I found it in ABA disclosures on the GW website.

[cotiger]

Well I didn't really want to go this much into my personal life but there's a reason I have to graduate in 2017 and no later than that. It's kind of complicated but basically because my partner is in the military, and he has certain timed deployments that we already know about now, we want to get married and move to wherever that deployment is in 2017, and if I graduate in 2018 or later, it's going to mess with that and I won't be able to move in with him until 2020 due to a spouse/dependent rule. We're not willing to wait that long to get married for several reasons. So retaking/taking off a year is just not in the cards for me.

And I don't know, if 41% grads are making a median of $160,000, I don't think me betting on being somewhere in that 81.7% employed 41% is so far-fetched that it should literally prevent me from going to law school. Not sure if I did the math right, but does that mean 33% of the class is making the median $160k? I think I can accept those odds (especially if BU/BC has even higher odds than that). Plus the legal market could be better in three years.

30% max of the class is making $160k. Of those 30%, quite a few are going to be making less than the $160k market rate. And some of those 30% will be doing doc review (way lower pay), not working as associates.

That's quite a hefty gamble. And if it does pay off? Congrats! You've earned the right to pay back $60,000/year for five years.

Ah okay. I understand what everyone is saying and I appreciate everyone's assistance in helping me grasp the realities of my future employment prospects. However, I don't think it's going to change my mind about going to law school this year and not retaking the LSAT/taking a year off. I guess the only thing I can do is visit GW, BU and BC and see which one I like best based on location if nothing else (e.g. rank, employment rate, etc.) makes any one of these schools stand out from the others.

Sorry for my ignorance, but how did you all find out that only 41% reported their starting salaries? I'm trying to find it for myself for BU and BC but I'm not having any luck.

There's an easier way. Go to these pages:
http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=gw
http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=bu
http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=bc

Add together the "large firm score" and "federal clerkship rate". This number gives you the maximum number of people who will make $160k. These schools, though, place a significant number of grads into smaller biglaw firms that pay less than market. Also, unfortunately, doc review workers are included in that stat. So the true number will be somewhat less than simply adding those two together.

For all practical purposes, everyone not included in that stat is making $40-$60k

[kimkardashian]

.

[kimkardashian]

.

[BmoreOrLess]

I see your point, but I just don't know what I'd do over the next year if I didn't go to law school in fall 2014. Plus my relative doesn't want me to take a year off and retake unless I found a job that pays at least 40k a year, and quite frankly I don't know if that's even possible with an English BA. We have another relative a few years older than me who refused to go to grad school until he got the scores he wanted, so he moved back home after undergrad and retook year after year. He ended up being completely unemployed for 3 years until he finally gave and went to a state school. For this reason, I think my family would freak out if I told them I also wanted to take time off and retake. I mean, it's not exactly the same scenario since he was going for a different type of grad school, but still, my family wouldn't be happy with me.

Apply for jobs at State Street in Boston for some banking operations stuff. Kill two birds with one stone by getting some WE and ties to Boston.

[objctnyrhnr]

BC is the obvious play...

[Nomo]

And I don't know, if 41% grads are making a median of $160,000, I don't think me betting on being somewhere in that 81.7% employed 41% is so far-fetched that it should literally prevent me from going to law school. Not sure if I did the math right, but does that mean 33% of the class is making the median $160k? I think I can accept those odds (especially if BU/BC has even higher odds than that). Plus the legal market could be better in three years.

There used to be a graph, showing that legal salaries are biomodal. That a group of people makes 160k, and that virtually everyone who makes less than that is between 25k and 60k - with a big group in the 40 to 60k range. I think that graph would be instructive here. Its easy to think "hey, if 20 or 30 percent make 160k, then the next 20 or 30 percent is probably making 10k; and after that a bunch of people making 90k." But, the truth is that hardly anybody who doesn't land a 160k job lands a job worth more than 60k.

[kimkardashian]

.

[cotiger]

BC is the obvious play...

What if I could negotiate more money from GW? or BU?

do that first. then ask.

[objctnyrhnr]

BC is the obvious play...

What if I could negotiate more money from GW? or BU?

It would come down to the number, but BC is still a stronger bet IMO. You might look at [fuck]tarded USNWR and say but BC is 36 right now or whatever...but a closer examination reveals that a large percentage of the reason that BC is only 36 because it's 58 in money spent per student and because it fell slightly in number of total law review citations from faculty-published articles (literally who cares). In terms of employment outcome, amount of disposable income for graduates ten years out, and prestige with judges and lawyers (people who matter), BC is the strongest school...this especially is evident when you realize that the biggest employer of GW grads post-grad is GW. Add that to the fact that DC is a saturated market and GW is unquestionably not the best school that feeds into the region, it is too big and falls behind another huge school as well.

By contrast, BC is still considered the best school in Boston by the vast majority of people who matter (harvard is not an effective counter example because I believe only 11% of them stay in the area).

my 2 cents

[underwood15]

BC is the obvious play...

What if I could negotiate more money from GW? or BU?

It would come down to the number, but BC is still a stronger bet IMO. You might look at [fuck]tarded USNWR and say but BC is 36 right now or whatever...but a closer examination reveals that a large percentage of the reason that BC is only 36 because it's 58 in money spent per student and because it fell slightly in number of total law review citations from faculty-published articles (literally who cares). In terms of employment outcome, amount of disposable income for graduates ten years out, and prestige with judges and lawyers (people who matter), BC is the strongest school...this especially is evident when you realize that the biggest employer of GW grads post-grad is GW. Add that to the fact that DC is a saturated market and GW is unquestionably not the best school that feeds into the region, it is too big and falls behind another huge school as well.

By contrast, BC is still considered the best school in Boston by the vast majority of people who matter (harvard is not an effective counter example because I believe only 11% of them stay in the area).

my 2 cents

I agree entirely.

[fenton]

Well I didn't really want to go this much into my personal life but there's a reason I have to graduate in 2017 and no later than that. It's kind of complicated but basically because my partner is in the military, and he has certain timed deployments that we already know about now, we want to get married and move to wherever that deployment is in 2017, and if I graduate in 2018 or later, it's going to mess with that and I won't be able to move in with him until 2020 due to a spouse/dependent rule. We're not willing to wait that long to get married for several reasons. So retaking/taking off a year is just not in the cards for me.

And I don't know, if 41% grads are making a median of $160,000, I don't think me betting on being somewhere in that 81.7% employed 41% is so far-fetched that it should literally prevent me from going to law school. Not sure if I did the math right, but does that mean 33% of the class is making the median $160k? I think I can accept those odds (especially if BU/BC has even higher odds than that). Plus the legal market could be better in three years.

So your plan is to go to one of these very regional law schools and as soon as you graduate up and move to wherever your fiance gets deployed? Disregard all the employment data that everyone in this thread has given you because it doesn't apply to you. Your chances of getting a biglaw job or federal clerkship wherever your fiance happens to get deployed in 2017 are very close to zero (unless it happens to be Boston or DC). If you don't get big law right out of school you never will (unless you get a fed clerkship) and that means you will have to fight hard to find a job that pays better than ~$50k.

[kimkardashian]

.

[kimkardashian]

.

[objctnyrhnr]

BC is the obvious play...

What if I could negotiate more money from GW? or BU?

It would come down to the number, but BC is still a stronger bet IMO. You might look at [fuck]tarded USNWR and say but BC is 36 right now or whatever...but a closer examination reveals that a large percentage of the reason that BC is only 36 because it's 58 in money spent per student and because it fell slightly in number of total law review citations from faculty-published articles (literally who cares). In terms of employment outcome, amount of disposable income for graduates ten years out, and prestige with judges and lawyers (people who matter), BC is the strongest school...this especially is evident when you realize that the biggest employer of GW grads post-grad is GW. Add that to the fact that DC is a saturated market and GW is unquestionably not the best school that feeds into the region, it is too big and falls behind another huge school as well.

By contrast, BC is still considered the best school in Boston by the vast majority of people who matter (harvard is not an effective counter example because I believe only 11% of them stay in the area).

my 2 cents

Thank you for this. I was leaning more towards GW when I started this thread but nowadays I'm leaning towards BC. Above the Law seems to really favor BC above GW as well. It's reassuring for me to read your post and know that I'm not I'm not doing a disservice to myself by choosing a lower-ranked school.

I just negotiated $3k more from BC (making it $28k a year), still working on negotiating more money from GW and BU though. Is it rude of me to ask to negotiate a second time with BC? I emailed them asking who I should contact regarding merit scholarship negotiation, and they emailed me back saying that they increased my scholarship by $3k, which is awesome!!, but unfortunately I never got the chance to tell them my acceptance information (that I got into GW, BU, and W&M (those are peer schools right?) with partial scholarships, Fordham with partial scholarship, and Cardozo and Northeastern with full scholarships). Such an awkward situation; I don't want to seem greedy...

Look if you're going to go to BC regardless, I think it's a little rude to take merit money away from other people at GW and BU...depends how you view "karama."

Regarding negotiating again with BC, I do not think your acceptances will make any difference. The thing that could make a difference is how many merit-aid people put down first deposits. So what you could do, if you want to chance it, is put down a first deposit at both BC and one of the other two...then tell BC about it a week or two after first deposits are due, in the hopes of increasing your aid at BC. After that though, you'll be kind of maxed out.

If it were me, however, I would probably let it go after that last 3k. If they were able to give you more, they would have. The 3k strikes me as a gesture of goodwill from BC.

[objctnyrhnr]

Well I didn't really want to go this much into my personal life but there's a reason I have to graduate in 2017 and no later than that. It's kind of complicated but basically because my partner is in the military, and he has certain timed deployments that we already know about now, we want to get married and move to wherever that deployment is in 2017, and if I graduate in 2018 or later, it's going to mess with that and I won't be able to move in with him until 2020 due to a spouse/dependent rule. We're not willing to wait that long to get married for several reasons. So retaking/taking off a year is just not in the cards for me.

And I don't know, if 41% grads are making a median of $160,000, I don't think me betting on being somewhere in that 81.7% employed 41% is so far-fetched that it should literally prevent me from going to law school. Not sure if I did the math right, but does that mean 33% of the class is making the median $160k? I think I can accept those odds (especially if BU/BC has even higher odds than that). Plus the legal market could be better in three years.

So your plan is to go to one of these very regional law schools and as soon as you graduate up and move to wherever your fiance gets deployed? Disregard all the employment data that everyone in this thread has given you because it doesn't apply to you. Your chances of getting a biglaw job or federal clerkship wherever your fiance happens to get deployed in 2017 are very close to zero (unless it happens to be Boston or DC). If you don't get big law right out of school you never will (unless you get a fed clerkship) and that means you will have to fight hard to find a job that pays better than ~$50k.

Well my SO gets to submit a list of where he prefers to get deployed, so he would put down Boston/DC stations on the list. I think there's five slots. He is definitely not guaranteed to get one of the spots on his list, but they take it into consideration, especially if the person is married. Either way, we plan to get married right after I graduate, and I'm going to work wherever I want/can get hired (presumably DC, Boston, or maybe NYC), and hopefully he gets deployed to that area. If not, we'll live apart during the first few years of marriage (I really don't want this though) and later we'll figure out whether I'm going to move to him or he's going to move to me. I was just bringing up the whole military thing to explain why I don't want to take a year off. The location of where I work is a little less relevant because he's going to try and move there no matter what if my job pays more than his (he'll be an officer which is like $40k to $50k I think).

Annoyingly he is also considering grad school all of a sudden (he's at a military academy right now), which would throw off all of this timing and make everything irrelevant. Ughhhhhhhh but I can't stop him from going to grad school of course.

Anyway, knowing all that and just accepting the fact that I'm not going to change my mind about retaking the LSAT/taking a year off, I guess the question I'm asking is... Which school (GW BC BU) would give me the best chance of getting a (preferably >$50k) job? Regardless of tuition price and location of the job (as in I'm willing to pay whatever and work wherever).

As strong as BC is in Boston, I do not think it is as intensely regional as other people are saying. If you look at the ABA data, a decent % end up in NYC and DC as well. That being said, I probably would not go there if you want to practice in TX or something. My point, though, if that you won't be "strictly limited" to boston, the way you might if you went to a Boston TTTT like Suffolk or something.