Take the money and Run; YS - CCNH? Forum

[buffalo_]

I think part of the problem with people taking sticker is that most people don't want to say no when they're accepted at an institution they want to attend (Harvard, Northwestern, etc.) even when the offer is a poor one. The other issue is that people have a hard time just saying no to law school, especially when preftige is involved.

A lot of people have also never actually lived out in the real world to understand what it means to live on a particular salary. I've also noticed that many law students overestimate what they'll be making in big law after tax. It's difficult for them to really grasp that even when you're making $160K a year you won't even see $100K of that in your bank account. You even make too much to qualify for the student loan deduction! So, even if you're extremely hardcore and only live on $40-$50k across the year in an expensive place like NYC you'll still only be able to put $50k a year towards your loans, much of which will actually be payments to interest and not principal. A lot of folks are also irrationally throwing away a lot of money to hedge their risks around ~10% at the maximum. To put it in simple to understand terms, if you just turned down $10K of savings at one school for a 10% better opportunity to have a "good" outcome you're paying $1,000 per percent increase in chance of a good outcome. I wish more students looked at it this way.

Our parents took jobs because it provided a certain set of benefits (salary, insurance, etc.), but we grew up in a world where we should be artists and marine biologists. The reality is that at the end of the day you have to provide for yourself, and maybe even a family, and to do that in our society requires $$$$. I don't think that's a justification to become a lawyer or go to law school; I think it is it the exact opposite. If the cards are just not in your favor then maybe you ought to do something else. There is absolutely nothing wrong with not becoming a lawyer.

Is this bad? I actually kind of think this would be a damn good investment. I think its much more than $1k per percent increase of getting a good outcome. A "good" outcome could be worth A TON more than a bad outcome.

If BigLaw -> in-house nets $150k per year average over a 40 year career that's $6MM. Even if you say that's unrealistic, at $100k per year average (an extremely conservative estimate as it means you must be substantially below $100k right after big law and then never grow to be substantially above it) that's $4MM over your career. Compare this to a "bad" outcome with a genereous $75k per year career average, you would earn $3MM. So a "good" outcome nets $1MM-$3MM more. If the price of insurance to guarantee that return was $100K ($1k per percent * 100%) then I think it would be a no-brainier purchase.

[cotiger]

I think part of the problem with people taking sticker is that most people don't want to say no when they're accepted at an institution they want to attend (Harvard, Northwestern, etc.) even when the offer is a poor one. The other issue is that people have a hard time just saying no to law school, especially when preftige is involved.

A lot of people have also never actually lived out in the real world to understand what it means to live on a particular salary. I've also noticed that many law students overestimate what they'll be making in big law after tax. It's difficult for them to really grasp that even when you're making $160K a year you won't even see $100K of that in your bank account. You even make too much to qualify for the student loan deduction! So, even if you're extremely hardcore and only live on $40-$50k across the year in an expensive place like NYC you'll still only be able to put $50k a year towards your loans, much of which will actually be payments to interest and not principal. A lot of folks are also irrationally throwing away a lot of money to hedge their risks around ~10% at the maximum. To put it in simple to understand terms, if you just turned down $10K of savings at one school for a 10% better opportunity to have a "good" outcome you're paying $1,000 per percent increase in chance of a good outcome. I wish more students looked at it this way.

Our parents took jobs because it provided a certain set of benefits (salary, insurance, etc.), but we grew up in a world where we should be artists and marine biologists. The reality is that at the end of the day you have to provide for yourself, and maybe even a family, and to do that in our society requires $$$$. I don't think that's a justification to become a lawyer or go to law school; I think it is it the exact opposite. If the cards are just not in your favor then maybe you ought to do something else. There is absolutely nothing wrong with not becoming a lawyer.

Is this bad? I actually kind of think this would be a damn good investment. I think its much more than $1k per percent increase of getting a good outcome. A "good" outcome could be worth A TON more than a bad outcome.

If BigLaw -> in-house nets $150k per year average over a 40 year career that's $6MM. Even if you say that's unrealistic, at $100k per year average (an extremely conservative estimate as it means you must be substantially below $100k right after big law and then never grow to be substantially above it) that's $4MM over your career. Compare this to a "bad" outcome with a genereous $75k per year career average, you would earn $3MM. So a "good" outcome nets $1MM-$3MM more. If the price of insurance to guarantee that return was $100K ($1k per percent * 100%) then I think it would be a no-brainier purchase.

People aren't valuing a 10 pct pt increase at 10k. Cf Ruby v YHS. Ice just picked random numbers.

[buffalo_]

I think part of the problem with people taking sticker is that most people don't want to say no when they're accepted at an institution they want to attend (Harvard, Northwestern, etc.) even when the offer is a poor one. The other issue is that people have a hard time just saying no to law school, especially when preftige is involved.

A lot of people have also never actually lived out in the real world to understand what it means to live on a particular salary. I've also noticed that many law students overestimate what they'll be making in big law after tax. It's difficult for them to really grasp that even when you're making $160K a year you won't even see $100K of that in your bank account. You even make too much to qualify for the student loan deduction! So, even if you're extremely hardcore and only live on $40-$50k across the year in an expensive place like NYC you'll still only be able to put $50k a year towards your loans, much of which will actually be payments to interest and not principal. A lot of folks are also irrationally throwing away a lot of money to hedge their risks around ~10% at the maximum. To put it in simple to understand terms, if you just turned down $10K of savings at one school for a 10% better opportunity to have a "good" outcome you're paying $1,000 per percent increase in chance of a good outcome. I wish more students looked at it this way.

Our parents took jobs because it provided a certain set of benefits (salary, insurance, etc.), but we grew up in a world where we should be artists and marine biologists. The reality is that at the end of the day you have to provide for yourself, and maybe even a family, and to do that in our society requires $$$$. I don't think that's a justification to become a lawyer or go to law school; I think it is it the exact opposite. If the cards are just not in your favor then maybe you ought to do something else. There is absolutely nothing wrong with not becoming a lawyer.

Is this bad? I actually kind of think this would be a damn good investment. I think its much more than $1k per percent increase of getting a good outcome. A "good" outcome could be worth A TON more than a bad outcome.

If BigLaw -> in-house nets $150k per year average over a 40 year career that's $6MM. Even if you say that's unrealistic, at $100k per year average (an extremely conservative estimate as it means you must be substantially below $100k right after big law and then never grow to be substantially above it) that's $4MM over your career. Compare this to a "bad" outcome with a genereous $75k per year career average, you would earn $3MM. So a "good" outcome nets $1MM-$3MM more. If the price of insurance to guarantee that return was $100K ($1k per percent * 100%) then I think it would be a no-brainier purchase.

People aren't valuing a 10 pct pt increase at 10k. Cf Ruby v YHS. Ice just picked random numbers.

That's fair enough, but what is a fair valuation? On TLS, wisdom is go where you get the full scholly. But splitters (myself included) don't have predictable or even similar cycles. For example, I received a full scholarship from a T60 school, but then T14 and T20 were wild.$55k at a T40. $90k at another T40. $0k from a T20, $60k from a lower T14. $30k from a T6. $0k from another T6.

I think with splitters the choice of Top school at sticker or lower T14 full scholly (or even substantial scholarship) just don't exist. Super splitters get YP on both application and aid offers at lower T14s or they just don't want to give out money to them. Top 6 don't give out much either because you only help one median and hurt the other. You are basically as good as someone right at median.

So is $30k difference between lower T14 and top T14 worth it? I think so.

But TLS just says to me, "Don't go at all."


P.S. TLS Logic:

1. Retake
2. Can't retake? Did you get into lower T14? Take the T25 with full scholly.
3. You got into T6? Go to lower T14 with scholly.
4. You got into HS? Go to CCN with scholly.
5. You got into YLS? Go to HS with scholly.
6. None of the above? Don't go.

ETA: The problem is that "in" at one school doesn't automatically mean "in with scholarship" at another school.

[TheSpanishMain]

P.S. TLS Logic:

1. Retake
2. Can't retake? Did you get into lower T14? Take the T25 with full scholly.
3. You got into T6? Go to lower T14 with scholly.
4. You got into HS? Go to CCN with scholly.
5. You got into YLS? Go to HS with scholly.
6. None of the above? Don't go.

This logic looks pretty spot on to me, actually. Number 6 should maybe be: Wealthy parents? Veteran's benefits? Substantial outside scholarships? Working spouse to cover CoL? If none of the above, don't go. I'd also change "T25" to "best regional in the region you want to live and work."

[kaiser]

P.S. TLS Logic:

1. Retake
2. Can't retake? Did you get into lower T14? Take the T25 with full scholly.
3. You got into T6? Go to lower T14 with scholly.
4. You got into HS? Go to CCN with scholly.
5. You got into YLS? Go to HS with scholly.
6. None of the above? Don't go.

ETA: The problem is that "in" at one school doesn't automatically mean "in with scholarship" at another school.

Actually, this is a great approach to choosing schools. And while you are correct that "in" at one school doesn't necessarily mean you got full scharship at the "lower" choice, it is usually a fairly safe bet that an HYS admit will have solid $$ from CCN, and a CCN admit will have solid money from lower T10 or T14. Only real exceptions are splitters, and people with pretty extenuating circumstances. For example, I was waitlisted or rejected by pretty much every T10, since they didn't want to take a chance on me, yet I got into U Chicago. But I'm the exception to the general rule.

[MKC]

Also, with regard to splitters, I'm pretty sure Northwestern pays for 170+s for anybody with a GPA above about a 2.7.

[buffalo_]

This logic looks pretty spot on to me, actually. Number 6 should maybe be: Wealthy parents? Veteran's benefits? Substantial outside scholarships? Working spouse to cover CoL? If none of the above, don't go. I'd also change "T25" to "best regional in the region you want to live and work."

Fixed.

TLS Logic:
1. Retake
2. Can't retake? Did you get into lower T14? Go to best regional with full scholly.
3. You got into T6? Go to lower T14 with scholly.
4. You got into HS? Go to CCN with scholly.
5. You got into YLS? Go to HS with scholly.
6. Rich parents/spouse and don't need to take out loans? Okay fine, pay sticker.
7. None of the above? Don't go.

[Power_of_Facing]

This logic looks pretty spot on to me, actually. Number 6 should maybe be: Wealthy parents? Veteran's benefits? Substantial outside scholarships? Working spouse to cover CoL? If none of the above, don't go. I'd also change "T25" to "best regional in the region you want to live and work."

Fixed.

TLS Logic:
1. Retake
2. Can't retake? Did you get into lower T14? Go to best regional with full scholly.
3. You got into T6? Go to lower T14 with scholly.
4. You got into HS? Go to CCN with scholly.
5. You got into YLS? Go to HS with scholly.
6. Rich parents/spouse and don't need to take out loans? Okay fine, pay sticker.
7. None of the above? Don't go.

YLS is going to be pretty empty in the coming years should TLS continue to increase its notoriety.

[francesfarmer]

Also, with regard to splitters, I'm pretty sure Northwestern pays for 170+s for anybody with a GPA above about a 2.7.

Define the term "pays." NU only gave me $30k. Is that enough off sticker to justify the cost? I don't think so.

[Plainsman11011]

So, who should go to YLS? Anyone?

[buffalo_]

So, who should go to YLS? Anyone?

See options 6 and 7.

Updated again:

TLS Logic:
1. Retake
2. Can't retake? Did you get into lower T14? Go to best regional with full scholly.
3. You got into T6? Go to lower T14 with scholly.
4. You got into HS? Go to CCN with scholly.
5. You got into YLS? Go to HS with scholly.
6. You got into YLS on a full scholarship? Yay, you can go to law school now.
7. You have rich parents/spouse and don't need to take out loans? Okay fine, pay sticker.
8. None of the above? Don't go

[jk148706]

Also, with regard to splitters, I'm pretty sure Northwestern pays for 170+s for anybody with a GPA above about a 2.7.

Nah, I wasn't even admitted

[Power_of_Facing]

So, who should go to YLS? Anyone?

Current HS law professors seeking an LLM (and tacitly YLS ties) to qualify themselves for Supreme Court nominations.

[phillywc]

Also, with regard to splitters, I'm pretty sure Northwestern pays for 170+s for anybody with a GPA above about a 2.7.

Nah, I wasn't even admitted

I haven't even heard. I wasn't even held! I applied well before December.

[francesfarmer]

Its threads like these that scare me away from TLS for months at a time (and I'm going to a T6 for not even close to sticker)

[d cooper]

Re: extreme splitters. From purely a numbers perspective, sticker at a T14 can be justified. At that point a lot of it will come down to opportunity cost and what your options are.

For many people it may be the only way to see $60k+ a year in net income. Assuming the standard repayment plan is great in a vacuum, but in these situations the extended or IBR plans are typically better. Yes, you pay more over time with these plans, but at T14 median you still stand a great chance of seeing more each year/in your lifetime than you ever would have pre-LS, even after loans.

If you're in finance, accounting, consulting, engineering, etc., the decision becomes a lot more difficult and the stakes are higher. Same if you have a 3.5+ (or even 3.0+). A lot of splitters have much less to lose.

[UVAIce]

Our parents took jobs because it provided a certain set of benefits (salary, insurance, etc.), but we grew up in a world where we should be artists and marine biologists.

fuck you

It's true though. It seemingly always creeps into conversations about career paths that you should do what you "want" to do and what makes you happy. I mean, that's great if the job that makes you happy pays a large enough of a salary to support your lifestyle. And when I mean lifestyle I don't mean bottles and models; I mean pay for cost of living (rent, groceries, etc.), put some money into savings (retirement will hopefully happen sometime), and a little bit of money for leisure (no reason to live the life of a robot).

What I think is utterly ludicrous is borrowing $300K on the off chance that you think you want to be a lawyer and might get a job as one when you graduate.

[Theopliske8711]

I think this is TCR:

Here's some better advice: try to avoid stuff that you hate. I admit that this is less uplifting, but it's generally more achievable and produces reasonable results. You might not ever get your dream job, or your dream house, or your dream partner, because that's just the way the lottery of life works. But with a little bit of effort, you might be able to avoid a soul-crushing job, a two-hour commute, and an empty relationship. Maybe. It's worth a try, anyway.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... d-bransons

[Power_of_Facing]

I think this is TCR:

Here's some better advice: try to avoid stuff that you hate. I admit that this is less uplifting, but it's generally more achievable and produces reasonable results. You might not ever get your dream job, or your dream house, or your dream partner, because that's just the way the lottery of life works. But with a little bit of effort, you might be able to avoid a soul-crushing job, a two-hour commute, and an empty relationship. Maybe. It's worth a try, anyway.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... d-bransons

http://web.mit.edu/jmorzins/www/C-H-speech.html

[TheSpanishMain]

So, who should go to YLS? Anyone?

My (0L opinion): people who want incredibly weird, elusive, possibly imaginary jobs. People who receive family support and/or need based aid. Firmly committed PI folks who are certain they'll be covered by Yale's LRAP (or whatever Yale calls it.)

If you borrow 250k to go to Yale, you'll get that Big Law job, no question. But you almost certainly would've gotten it by taking CCN with a scholarship, too, and now you're much deeper in debt and have shackled yourself to Big Law for that much longer.

[UVAIce]

I think part of the problem with people taking sticker is that most people don't want to say no when they're accepted at an institution they want to attend (Harvard, Northwestern, etc.) even when the offer is a poor one. The other issue is that people have a hard time just saying no to law school, especially when preftige is involved.

A lot of people have also never actually lived out in the real world to understand what it means to live on a particular salary. I've also noticed that many law students overestimate what they'll be making in big law after tax. It's difficult for them to really grasp that even when you're making $160K a year you won't even see $100K of that in your bank account. You even make too much to qualify for the student loan deduction! So, even if you're extremely hardcore and only live on $40-$50k across the year in an expensive place like NYC you'll still only be able to put $50k a year towards your loans, much of which will actually be payments to interest and not principal. A lot of folks are also irrationally throwing away a lot of money to hedge their risks around ~10% at the maximum. To put it in simple to understand terms, if you just turned down $10K of savings at one school for a 10% better opportunity to have a "good" outcome you're paying $1,000 per percent increase in chance of a good outcome. I wish more students looked at it this way.

Our parents took jobs because it provided a certain set of benefits (salary, insurance, etc.), but we grew up in a world where we should be artists and marine biologists. The reality is that at the end of the day you have to provide for yourself, and maybe even a family, and to do that in our society requires $$$$. I don't think that's a justification to become a lawyer or go to law school; I think it is it the exact opposite. If the cards are just not in your favor then maybe you ought to do something else. There is absolutely nothing wrong with not becoming a lawyer.

Is this bad? I actually kind of think this would be a damn good investment. I think its much more than $1k per percent increase of getting a good outcome. A "good" outcome could be worth A TON more than a bad outcome.

If BigLaw -> in-house nets $150k per year average over a 40 year career that's $6MM. Even if you say that's unrealistic, at $100k per year average (an extremely conservative estimate as it means you must be substantially below $100k right after big law and then never grow to be substantially above it) that's $4MM over your career. Compare this to a "bad" outcome with a genereous $75k per year career average, you would earn $3MM. So a "good" outcome nets $1MM-$3MM more. If the price of insurance to guarantee that return was $100K ($1k per percent * 100%) then I think it would be a no-brainier purchase.

First, I would say that an extra $1,000 for a 1% better return is a pretty good deal in the law school context. It was just an easy round number to demonstrate my point that I think it is a smart thing to talk about the difference between attending two different law schools in terms of $ as a % of good outcomes. It is, admittedly, a rough metric. For example, if you really want academia and you know it go to Yale, but if all you want is to work big law in NYC, etc., then it makes sense to talk in these terms. I also think you're a little optimistic in lifetime returns. It probably isn't appropriate to use historical data from the last 25 years to forecast for the next 25. It is also difficult to value the freedom of choice in terms of career opportunities when you're not burdened by debt. Not to mention the fact that you can start putting away serious savings at an earlier date, etc.


But, to use your example, what if you were paying an additional $10k per % shot at a good outcome? 20K? Things aren't so rosy, especially when you consider that no school will give you a 100% shot at your dreams, not even Yale. And let's be honest, this kind of evaluation is more likely to be used by the student choosing Columbia over Chicago or UVA over Duke, not Yale over school X.

[kaiser]

So, who should go to YLS? Anyone?

My (0L opinion): people who want incredibly weird, elusive, possibly imaginary jobs. People who receive family support and/or need based aid. Firmly committed PI folks who are certain they'll be covered by Yale's LRAP (or whatever Yale calls it.)

If you borrow 250k to go to Yale, you'll get that Big Law job, no question. But you almost certainly would've gotten it by taking CCN with a scholarship, too, and now you're much deeper in debt and have shackled yourself to Big Law for that much longer.

In general, this is right. The debt load from YLS most certainly would be idiotic if you intend to go with private practice. For those super elusive unicorn jobs, the most prestigious PI, a concrete desire to clerk and transition into academia, etc. Yale would be a totally rational choice. But absent some pretty narrow circumstances, the debt load simply isn't justified (assuming mommy and daddy aren't footing the bill for you).

[Cicero76]

I can't decide whether we're through the looking glass or down the rabbit hole.

[patogordo]

this is all speculation until we hear from someone who goes to yale, though

[09042014]

So, who should go to YLS? Anyone?

My (0L opinion): people who want incredibly weird, elusive, possibly imaginary jobs. People who receive family support and/or need based aid. Firmly committed PI folks who are certain they'll be covered by Yale's LRAP (or whatever Yale calls it.)

If you borrow 250k to go to Yale, you'll get that Big Law job, no question. But you almost certainly would've gotten it by taking CCN with a scholarship, too, and now you're much deeper in debt and have shackled yourself to Big Law for that much longer.

In general, this is right. The debt load from YLS most certainly would be idiotic if you intend to go with private practice. For those super elusive unicorn jobs, the most prestigious PI, a concrete desire to clerk and transition into academia, etc. Yale would be a totally rational choice. But absent some pretty narrow circumstances, the debt load simply isn't justified (assuming mommy and daddy aren't footing the bill for you).

I love this rationale. "Well as long as you want some stupid job that probably doesn't exist, and you probably couldn't get if it did, ANY AMOUNT IS OKAY!"