Is Columbia worth sticker? Forum

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

$60k with semi-reasonable hours is about the cutoff where I think someone shouldn't even bother thinking about law school in any context besides T14 full ride. That's enough money to be doing fine in most circumstances.

Worth noting: I count at least five CLS students/grads ITT, all of whom think someone with someone with a halfway decent job should run, not walk, away from sticker. You can make it six, though I suspect none of the others have the same burning hatred for this lying extortionist sorry excuse for a law school.

[Tls2016]

$60k with semi-reasonable hours is about the cutoff where I think someone shouldn't even bother thinking about law school in any context besides T14 full ride. That's enough money to be doing fine in most circumstances.

Worth noting: I count at least five CLS students/grads ITT, all of whom think someone with someone with a halfway decent job should run, not walk, away from sticker. You can make it six, though I suspect none of the others have the same burning hatred for this lying extortionist sorry excuse for a law school.

I agree. Off topic: I'm really sorry you hate Columbia so much. It's a shame because as I recall you were reasonably excited about going to law school.

[kaiser]

Well OP, the fact that you have so many actual Columbia students telling you that CLS at sticker is a bad idea should really be telling to you.

[jbagelboy]

$60k with semi-reasonable hours is about the cutoff where I think someone shouldn't even bother thinking about law school in any context besides T14 full ride. That's enough money to be doing fine in most circumstances.

Worth noting: I count at least five CLS students/grads ITT, all of whom think someone with someone with a halfway decent job should run, not walk, away from sticker. You can make it six, though I suspect none of the others have the same burning hatred for this lying extortionist sorry excuse for a law school.

Lol, like any other law school is really better

Like, yea, it seems from the outside like yls would be chill, but honestly they have their fair share of issues and unhappy students.

[Tls2016]

I just checked Columbia tuition.
For the class of 2006-2007: tuition was $41,226
Now tuition alone is $60,624. It's 30% more over 10 years.

What hasn't increased? Biglaw starting salaries. Actually, bonuses for first years ($15,000)are lower by half than the 2006 bonus. ($30,000) The December 2007 bonus was $35,000 even after salary went to $160,000.

OP: you just can't justify this decision.

http://abovethelaw.com/2007/01/breaking ... -salaries/

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

$60k with semi-reasonable hours is about the cutoff where I think someone shouldn't even bother thinking about law school in any context besides T14 full ride. That's enough money to be doing fine in most circumstances.

Worth noting: I count at least five CLS students/grads ITT, all of whom think someone with someone with a halfway decent job should run, not walk, away from sticker. You can make it six, though I suspect none of the others have the same burning hatred for this lying extortionist sorry excuse for a law school.

I agree. Off topic: I'm really sorry you hate Columbia so much. It's a shame because as I recall you were reasonably excited about going to law school.

Ehh, I could say I never stopped being "reasonably excited" about law school, although it was more like "long since begrudgingly accepted that it was the best option for me." But I've been planning on becoming a lawyer since I was 14, and I wound up falling into a favorable financial position, so my experience can't be generalized for 99% of prospective students.

I would draw a distinction between two Columbias. The Highly Prestigious Institution Of Columbia Law School is awesome. That place allowed me (and others like me) to get a $160k job despite really not having academic success at any level, places as many students in high-paying jobs as HYS (although without the same reach), and is a subway ride from all of the most fun things in the world (and having free time in your twenties in NYC is incredible). And the admin knows that that stuff is awesome and consequently gets away with Columbia Law School As It's Actually Run, which robs you of as much money as it can without being investigated by Congress, makes students jump through pointless and unnecessary hoops for its own goals, and generally treats its students like shit, knowing it can because thousands of applicants would chop off a limb for the chance to lick the bottom of their shoes. I'm sure it's that way at most schools though.

Just generally going to school at sticker is dumb. It's weird that TLS rarely discusses how incredibly easy it is to get a full ride somewhere. Off the top of my head: WUSTL, Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan State, Indiana, Villanova, Cardozo, UConn, and Arizona all give stip-free full rides out like candy to essentially anyone above their median(s), and I'm sure there's a few I missed. Many of those schools should be go-tos for a decent number of applicants but instead TLS wastes its breath on "ED UVA."

[krads153]

I just checked Columbia tuition.
For the class of 2006-2007: tuition was $41,226
Now tuition alone is $60,624. It's 30% more over 10 years.

What hasn't increased? Biglaw starting salaries. Actually, bonuses for first years ($15,000)are lower by half than the 2006 bonus. ($30,000) The December 2007 bonus was $35,000 even after salary went to $160,000.

OP: you just can't justify this decision.

http://abovethelaw.com/2007/01/breaking ... -salaries/

Not to mention rent has gone up like 50% in NYC/SF in the same time period, and those salaries have not been adjusted for inflation, so in terms of real dollars the pay is trash compared to the current tuition/high COL/etc.

[Chill_Out]

Don't do it, OP.

Don't do it.

[abl]

Columbia is definitely worth sticker for some people in some circumstances. $270k is a lot of debt, but it's by no means unmanageable with a Columbia degree. Anyone who tells you that Columbia can never be worth sticker under any circumstances is wrong.

The question, though, is whether Columbia at sticker is worth it for you given your particular set of circumstances. What are your other law school options? What are your career goals besides maximizing your career/school investments? How much do you value prestige vs the nature of work that you do vs disposable income vs debt (etc.). How much do you enjoy your current job and how excited are you about the prospects of working in a biglaw firm (or in some other law-related career)? It's impossible for anyone on this board to give you any reasonable feedback on whether Columbia at sticker is a good decision for you without having some sense of these considerations.

[rpupkin]

Columbia is definitely worth sticker for some people in some circumstances. $270k is a lot of debt, but it's by no means unmanageable with a Columbia degree. Anyone who tells you that Columbia can never be worth sticker under any circumstances is wrong.

Why don't you give us an example of the circumstances in which CLS would be worth 270K of debt?

[abl]

Columbia is definitely worth sticker for some people in some circumstances. $270k is a lot of debt, but it's by no means unmanageable with a Columbia degree. Anyone who tells you that Columbia can never be worth sticker under any circumstances is wrong.

Why don't you give us an example of the circumstances in which CLS would be worth 270K of debt?

Columbia is definitely worth $270k in federal debt. Whether it's the best option for the OP--which is a different question--is going to depend on the OP's interests, needs, and priorities, as well as the OP's other options.

It's easy to think of 1,000 examples of when Columbia might be the best option. For example, the OP might really want to go to law school and may have no cheaper options (and no good prospects of landing a cheaper T20 options in reapplying)--say, because she's a geographically limited splitter.

[Tls2016]

Columbia is definitely worth sticker for some people in some circumstances. $270k is a lot of debt, but it's by no means unmanageable with a Columbia degree. Anyone who tells you that Columbia can never be worth sticker under any circumstances is wrong.

Why don't you give us an example of the circumstances in which CLS would be worth 270K of debt?

Columbia is definitely worth $270k in federal debt. Whether it's the best option for the OP--which is a different question--is going to depend on the OP's interests, needs, and priorities, as well as the OP's other options.

It's easy to think of 1,000 examples of when Columbia might be the best option. For example, the OP might really want to go to law school and may have no cheaper options (and no good prospects of landing a cheaper T20 options in reapplying)--say, because she's a geographically limited splitter.

I know you know there are many law schools in and near NYC. I don't see geographical limitation as a good reason.

It's just too much money to borrow. If you have family money or maybe financing from the military maybe sticker is defensible.

[abl]

Please consider this: Your question is -

Is attending law school worth 7-9 years of making virtually nothing?

It's a math problem, right? What's the OP's disposable income on a biglaw salary paying off $270k in debt plus interest on a seven-year schedule? How does that compare with the OP's disposable income in her current job making $85k or whatever? I could be wrong, but I'd be surprised if the biglaw route with debt didn't yield more disposable income. I'm not saying it's the right decision. I'm just pointing out that your assumptions here are misleading.

[Tls2016]

Please consider this: Your question is -

Is attending law school worth 7-9 years of making virtually nothing?

It's a math problem, right? What's the OP's disposable income on a biglaw salary paying off $270k in debt plus interest on a seven-year schedule? How does that compare with the OP's disposable income in her current job making $85k or whatever? I could be wrong, but I'd be surprised if the biglaw route with debt didn't yield more disposable income. I'm not saying it's the right decision. I'm just pointing out that your assumptions here are misleading.

No it's not misleading and it's not just math. You can't assume biglaw for seven years before the guy even takes a law school class. You have to include the job demands, lifestyle and even benefits. (No pension in biglaw)
NYC just keeps getting more and more expensive. Maybe OP lives in a more affordable place? You have to look at the whole picture.

[abl]

Columbia is definitely worth sticker for some people in some circumstances. $270k is a lot of debt, but it's by no means unmanageable with a Columbia degree. Anyone who tells you that Columbia can never be worth sticker under any circumstances is wrong.

Why don't you give us an example of the circumstances in which CLS would be worth 270K of debt?

Columbia is definitely worth $270k in federal debt. Whether it's the best option for the OP--which is a different question--is going to depend on the OP's interests, needs, and priorities, as well as the OP's other options.

It's easy to think of 1,000 examples of when Columbia might be the best option. For example, the OP might really want to go to law school and may have no cheaper options (and no good prospects of landing a cheaper T20 options in reapplying)--say, because she's a geographically limited splitter.

I know you know there are many law schools in and near NYC. I don't see geographical limitation as a good reason.

It's just too much money to borrow. If you have family money or maybe financing from the military maybe sticker is defensible.

That's ridiculous. It'd be horrible advice to tell someone who really wants to go to law school and is limited to NYC that she should turn down Columbia at sticker and re-apply for a chance of getting big financial aid to, what, Fordham? NYLS? The fact that other law schools in NY exist doesn't matter. What matters is whether other law schools in NY likely to give the candidate substantial financial aid such that they'd be a better choice than Columbia exist. I'm not sure that they do. This also assumes that the applicant is not a splitter (or some other candidate who may not realistically expect big aid at Fordham) and can turn down the Columbia offer and re-apply.

The fact that $270k is a lot of money isn't a good argument. You will almost certainly at some point in your life invest in a house worth around that much. And I suspect you're not going to at that point argue that $270k is "just too much money to borrow" as a reason against purchasing a house.

[Tls2016]

Columbia is definitely worth sticker for some people in some circumstances. $270k is a lot of debt, but it's by no means unmanageable with a Columbia degree. Anyone who tells you that Columbia can never be worth sticker under any circumstances is wrong.

Why don't you give us an example of the circumstances in which CLS would be worth 270K of debt?

Columbia is definitely worth $270k in federal debt. Whether it's the best option for the OP--which is a different question--is going to depend on the OP's interests, needs, and priorities, as well as the OP's other options.

It's easy to think of 1,000 examples of when Columbia might be the best option. For example, the OP might really want to go to law school and may have no cheaper options (and no good prospects of landing a cheaper T20 options in reapplying)--say, because she's a geographically limited splitter.

I know you know there are many law schools in and near NYC. I don't see geographical limitation as a good reason.

It's just too much money to borrow. If you have family money or maybe financing from the military maybe sticker is defensible.

That's ridiculous. It'd be horrible advice to tell someone who really wants to go to law school and is limited to NYC that she should turn down Columbia at sticker and re-apply for a chance of getting big financial aid to, what, Fordham? NYLS? The fact that other law schools in NY exist doesn't matter. What matters is whether other law schools in NY likely to give the candidate substantial financial aid such that they'd be a better choice than Columbia exist. I'm not sure that they do. This also assumes that the applicant is not a splitter (or some other candidate who may not realistically expect big aid at Fordham) and can turn down the Columbia offer and re-apply.

The fact that $270k is a lot of money isn't a good argument. You will almost certainly at some point in your life invest in a house worth around that much. And I suspect you're not going to at that point argue that $270k is "just too much money to borrow" as a reason against purchasing a house.

A house is a real tangible asset that you can buy and sell. You can also get out of the debt in bankruptcy if you need to do so.
A law degree is just a piece of paper you can't buy or sell. And you are saddled with your student loan debt no matter what happens, barring close to complete disability.

Realistically everyone can take a year and reapply. Or even just not go to law school because it's too expensive. There are so many other potential careers in NYC, going to law school isn't necessary.

[abl]

Please consider this: Your question is -

Is attending law school worth 7-9 years of making virtually nothing?

It's a math problem, right? What's the OP's disposable income on a biglaw salary paying off $270k in debt plus interest on a seven-year schedule? How does that compare with the OP's disposable income in her current job making $85k or whatever? I could be wrong, but I'd be surprised if the biglaw route with debt didn't yield more disposable income. I'm not saying it's the right decision. I'm just pointing out that your assumptions here are misleading.

No it's not misleading and it's not just math. You can't assume biglaw for seven years before the guy even takes a law school class. You have to include the job demands, lifestyle and even benefits. (No pension in biglaw)
NYC just keeps getting more and more expensive. Maybe OP lives in a more affordable place? You have to look at the whole picture.

Like I said: "I'm just pointing out that your assumptions here are misleading." The OP's choice isn't between an option that entails "7-9 years of making virtually nothing" and her current job. To say that it is, well, is somewhere between incredibly misleading and flat out wrong.

I totally agree that there are other considerations. I'm not actually arguing that the OP should take out $270k in debt to go to Columbia.

[abl]

The fact that $270k is a lot of money isn't a good argument. You will almost certainly at some point in your life invest in a house worth around that much. And I suspect you're not going to at that point argue that $270k is "just too much money to borrow" as a reason against purchasing a house.

A house is a real tangible asset that you can buy and sell. You can also get out of the debt in bankruptcy if you need to do so.
A law degree is just a piece of paper you can't buy or sell. And you are saddled with your student loan debt no matter what happens, barring close to complete disability.

See, that's a different argument. My point was that "$270k is a lot of money" is a bad reason not to go to Columbia at sticker. If your point was, instead, that $270k is too much money to invest in a non-tangible asset, well you should have said that. But, I suspect that's not your argument either. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you really mean is that Columbia Law School, as an investment, isn't a good way to spend $270k. If that's your point, then lay out some support. How would Columbia increase the OP's earning potential over the course of her career? What other better ways would you suggest the OP use the money not spent on servicing this debt?

[landshoes]

The fact that $270k is a lot of money isn't a good argument. You will almost certainly at some point in your life invest in a house worth around that much. And I suspect you're not going to at that point argue that $270k is "just too much money to borrow" as a reason against purchasing a house.

A house is a real tangible asset that you can buy and sell. You can also get out of the debt in bankruptcy if you need to do so.
A law degree is just a piece of paper you can't buy or sell. And you are saddled with your student loan debt no matter what happens, barring close to complete disability.

See, that's a different argument. My point was that "$270k is a lot of money" is a bad reason not to go to Columbia at sticker. If your point was, instead, that $270k is too much money to invest in a non-tangible asset, well you should have said that. But, I suspect that's not your argument either. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you really mean is that Columbia Law School, as an investment, isn't a good way to spend $270k. If that's your point, then lay out some support. How would Columbia increase the OP's earning potential over the course of her career? What other better ways would you suggest the OP use the money not spent on servicing this debt?

It's only a bad argument in a vacuum. We all understand the context here. It's not a house.

[Paul Campos]

It's strange how everyone recognizes that assuming someone will finish in the top 10% of their class is ridiculous, while at the same time lots of people talk as if it's reasonable to make plans on the basis of the assumption that somebody is going to be among the 10% or so of associates that last seven years or more in BL.

[abl]

It's strange how everyone recognizes that assuming someone will finish in the top 10% of their class is ridiculous, while at the same time lots of people talk as if it's reasonable to make plans on the basis of the assumption that somebody is going to be among the 10% or so of associates that last seven years or more in BL.

So adjust the numbers accordingly. It's not hard. Probably the most common place that biglaw associates go post-biglaw is midlaw, right? And the average time in biglaw is, what, four years? Three years? Like I said: this is a math problem. Make your assumptions as specific as you want and do the math. I imagine that the result will not be that attending law school is "worth 7-9 years of making virtually nothing."

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Only it's not just a math problem. Or at least it can be difficult to quantify.

You can't just add up years of marginal income gains minus debt and say that's what the degree is "worth." Biglaw is, by all accounts, a significantly worse job than the "replacement level" position that people would otherwise have--longer hours, more stress, a worse atmosphere etc.--and it's hard to say exactly how much money is worth your misery for the length of your Biglaw tenure, especially when you really don't have a good estimate of how miserable you're gonna be. You can sort of begin to quantify how bad that is by watching the waves of associates giving up $250k-$300k to go work in-house for $125-175k, even when they still have debt outstanding. Heck, a third of an associate class is gone by the third year, and the overwhelming majority of those departures are voluntary. Add in the fact that essentially none of them regret leaving and many in fact wish they'd left sooner and your estimate of the value of the enterprise has to go way down.

[BigZuck]

Only it's not just a math problem. Or at least it can be difficult to quantify.

You can't just add up years of marginal income gains minus debt and say that's what the degree is "worth." Biglaw is, by all accounts, a significantly worse job than the "replacement level" position that people would otherwise have--longer hours, more stress, a worse atmosphere etc.--and it's hard to say exactly how much money is worth your misery for the length of your Biglaw tenure, especially when you really don't have a good estimate of how miserable you're gonna be. You can sort of begin to quantify how bad that is by watching the waves of associates giving up $250k-$300k to go work in-house for $125-175k, even when they still have debt outstanding. Heck, a third of an associate class is gone by the third year, and the overwhelming majority of those departures are voluntary. Add in the fact that essentially none of them regret leaving and many in fact wish they'd left sooner and your estimate of the value of the enterprise has to go way down.

COUNTERPOINT: Boomers gonna boom, invest in yourself, something something prestige and follow your dreams

abl post, basically

[krads153]

Only it's not just a math problem. Or at least it can be difficult to quantify.

You can't just add up years of marginal income gains minus debt and say that's what the degree is "worth." Biglaw is, by all accounts, a significantly worse job than the "replacement level" position that people would otherwise have--longer hours, more stress, a worse atmosphere etc.--and it's hard to say exactly how much money is worth your misery for the length of your Biglaw tenure, especially when you really don't have a good estimate of how miserable you're gonna be. You can sort of begin to quantify how bad that is by watching the waves of associates giving up $250k-$300k to go work in-house for $125-175k, even when they still have debt outstanding. Heck, a third of an associate class is gone by the third year, and the overwhelming majority of those departures are voluntary. Add in the fact that essentially none of them regret leaving and many in fact wish they'd left sooner and your estimate of the value of the enterprise has to go way down.

COUNTERPOINT: Boomers gonna boom, invest in yourself, something something prestige and follow your dreams

abl post, basically

ABL sounds like he thinks making a biglaw salary is "making it in big in life and upper middle class" even though you took out 300k debt for it and the money is kind of shit for the high COL... He probably also spends like 3k on suits. ljl. No clue about money.

[BigZuck]

Only it's not just a math problem. Or at least it can be difficult to quantify.

You can't just add up years of marginal income gains minus debt and say that's what the degree is "worth." Biglaw is, by all accounts, a significantly worse job than the "replacement level" position that people would otherwise have--longer hours, more stress, a worse atmosphere etc.--and it's hard to say exactly how much money is worth your misery for the length of your Biglaw tenure, especially when you really don't have a good estimate of how miserable you're gonna be. You can sort of begin to quantify how bad that is by watching the waves of associates giving up $250k-$300k to go work in-house for $125-175k, even when they still have debt outstanding. Heck, a third of an associate class is gone by the third year, and the overwhelming majority of those departures are voluntary. Add in the fact that essentially none of them regret leaving and many in fact wish they'd left sooner and your estimate of the value of the enterprise has to go way down.

COUNTERPOINT: Boomers gonna boom, invest in yourself, something something prestige and follow your dreams

abl post, basically

ABL sounds like he thinks making a biglaw salary is "making it in big in life and upper middle class" even though you took out 300k debt for it and the money is kind of shit for the high COL... He probably also spends like 3k on suits. ljl. No clue about anything, including money (making real money and having real money).

He'll tell you all about his educational and career background, just give him a sec