WUSTL + full scholly vs. Michigan vs. Duke, both sticker Forum

[sundance95]

And if you're dealing with high school players who have a 1/2 shot of making the NBA, this analogy makes sense.

--ImageRemoved--

Yeah man, I'm pissed.

Chill out bro

[NU_Jet55]

Can someone please explain WTF is up with all this anti-WUSTL trolling? It's everywhere.

Not sure how saying that M and D place better in the East Coast and Chicago qualifies as anti-WUSTL trolling.

"Are you saying Michigan and Duke are peer schools with WUSTL? Michigan and Duke won't even entertain the idea of giving OP money just because WUSTL is offering a full ride."

^^

So...you are saying WUSTL is a peer school with Michigan and Duke?

I believe the OP was pointing out that this poster was saying that Michigan and Duke believe they are so far out of WUSTL's league that they would scoff at the idea of offering a prospective student additional funds to stay financially competitive for said prospective student.

I don't think the OP is incorrect in noting the strong anti-WUSTL sentiment in this post.

[beachbum]

And if you're dealing with high school players who have a 1/2 shot of making the NBA, this analogy makes sense.

--ImageRemoved--

Yeah man, I'm pissed.

Chill out bro

Sarcasm. Unless your post was also sarcasm, in which case: touche.

[JCougar]

Can someone please explain WTF is up with all this anti-WUSTL trolling? It's everywhere.

I think the reason is twofold:
1) The general TLS sentiment is biglaw or bust. Wash U is not a biglaw powerhouse.
2) Location: TLS has a severe pro-coastal, anti-midwestern bias.

True dat.

It's amazing how at least 50% of the "biglaw or bust people" will have quit biglaw after 4 years because it sucks so bad, and another 40% will be shown the door in another year or two. Granted, you can pay off a lot of loans in that time span and buy some nice stuff, but you're not going to have a ton of time to spend that kind of money.

There's a few people who will really enjoy their biglaw jobs, but the statistics don't lie...less than 1 in 10 stick around long enough to make partner at most of those firms...sometimes far less.

As far as living in NY or DC...given the hours you have to work and the cost of living, it makes Biglaw even less worth it out there. I'll take Chicago for the same pay any day. Market in St. Louis and Milwaukee is about $110-$125K. That kind of money will go twice as far as NYC biglaw when you realize you don't have to pay $25K/year just in rent alone for a small apartment, and another $500/month on cab fare/parking just to get around. Not to mention the taxes are lower.

[sundance95]

Sarcasm. Unless your post was also sarcasm, in which case: touche.

Sarcasm.

[Grizz]

Somewhere in this middle, hopefully with money?

[beachbum]

Can someone please explain WTF is up with all this anti-WUSTL trolling? It's everywhere.

I think the reason is twofold:
1) The general TLS sentiment is biglaw or bust. Wash U is not a biglaw powerhouse.
2) Location: TLS has a severe pro-coastal, anti-midwestern bias.

True dat.

It's amazing how at least 50% of the "biglaw or bust people" will have quit biglaw after 4 years because it sucks so bad, and another 40% will be shown the door in another year or two. Granted, you can pay off a lot of loans in that time span and buy some nice stuff, but you're not going to have a ton of time to spend that kind of money.

There's a few people who will really enjoy their biglaw jobs, but the statistics don't lie...less than 1 in 10 stick around long enough to make partner at most of those firms...sometimes far less.

As far as living in NY or DC...given the hours you have to work and the cost of living, it makes Biglaw even less worth it out there. I'll take Chicago for the same pay any day. Market in St. Louis and Milwaukee is about $110-$125K. That kind of money will go twice as far as NYC biglaw when you realize you don't have to pay $25K/year just in rent alone for a small apartment, and another $500/month on cab fare/parking just to get around. Not to mention the taxes are lower.

In all fairness, though, it seems that relatively few people (at least, based on TLS) gun for BigLaw with hopes of making partner. In my experience, the general sentiment is do BigLaw for a few years (3-5?) to get some loans paid off and to boost your resume, then transfer out (in-house, smaller firm, or some other option).

[fatduck]

Can someone please explain WTF is up with all this anti-WUSTL trolling? It's everywhere.

I think the reason is twofold:
1) The general TLS sentiment is biglaw or bust. Wash U is not a biglaw powerhouse.
2) Location: TLS has a severe pro-coastal, anti-midwestern bias.

True dat.

It's amazing how at least 50% of the "biglaw or bust people" will have quit biglaw after 4 years because it sucks so bad, and another 40% will be shown the door in another year or two. Granted, you can pay off a lot of loans in that time span and buy some nice stuff, but you're not going to have a ton of time to spend that kind of money.

There's a few people who will really enjoy their biglaw jobs, but the statistics don't lie...less than 1 in 10 stick around long enough to make partner at most of those firms...sometimes far less.

As far as living in NY or DC...given the hours you have to work and the cost of living, it makes Biglaw even less worth it out there. I'll take Chicago for the same pay any day. Market in St. Louis and Milwaukee is about $110-$125K. That kind of money will go twice as far as NYC biglaw when you realize you don't have to pay $25K/year just in rent alone for a small apartment, and another $500/month on cab fare/parking just to get around. Not to mention the taxes are lower.

In all fairness, though, it seems that relatively few people (at least, based on TLS) gun for BigLaw with hopes of making partner. In my experience, the general sentiment is do BigLaw for a few years (3-5?) to get some loans paid off and to boost your resume, then transfer out (in-house, smaller firm, or some other option).

the fun part is when you get V10, hate it, lateral to a smaller firm, still hate it

[JCougar]

Can someone please explain WTF is up with all this anti-WUSTL trolling? It's everywhere.

I think the reason is twofold:
1) The general TLS sentiment is biglaw or bust. Wash U is not a biglaw powerhouse.
2) Location: TLS has a severe pro-coastal, anti-midwestern bias.

True dat.

It's amazing how at least 50% of the "biglaw or bust people" will have quit biglaw after 4 years because it sucks so bad, and another 40% will be shown the door in another year or two. Granted, you can pay off a lot of loans in that time span and buy some nice stuff, but you're not going to have a ton of time to spend that kind of money.

There's a few people who will really enjoy their biglaw jobs, but the statistics don't lie...less than 1 in 10 stick around long enough to make partner at most of those firms...sometimes far less.

As far as living in NY or DC...given the hours you have to work and the cost of living, it makes Biglaw even less worth it out there. I'll take Chicago for the same pay any day. Market in St. Louis and Milwaukee is about $110-$125K. That kind of money will go twice as far as NYC biglaw when you realize you don't have to pay $25K/year just in rent alone for a small apartment, and another $500/month on cab fare/parking just to get around. Not to mention the taxes are lower.

In all fairness, though, it seems that relatively few people (at least, based on TLS) gun for BigLaw with hopes of making partner. In my experience, the general sentiment is do BigLaw for a few years (3-5?) to get some loans paid off and to boost your resume, then transfer out (in-house, smaller firm, or some other option).

Right, but if you have the no-debt option, you can just skip the Biglaw step and go straight into a better job.

I'm not totally sure that other jobs consider Biglaw all that good of work experience. It really depends on what they have you doing. Biglaw is a huge bureaucracy, and from what I hear, you don't get a ton of client interaction or experience doing things yourself until well after the 3-year mark.

[Verity]

So...you are saying WUSTL is a peer school with Michigan and Duke?

I believe the OP was pointing out that this poster was saying that Michigan and Duke believe they are so far out of WUSTL's league that they would scoff at the idea of offering a prospective student additional funds to stay financially competitive for said prospective student.

I don't think the OP is incorrect in noting the strong anti-WUSTL sentiment in this post.

Right. Any time a school offers admission, they want that person to attend. WUSTL may not be a peer school of M or D, but the latter two don't just give you the finger if you tell them about a full-ride offer from anywhere that makes you double think that debt burden.

[romothesavior]

I dunno, I think +~25% is more than a slightly better shot. Barring other factors, we're talking top of your class versus median to be competitive for BigLaw.

I'd imagine few people are getting biglaw at median ITE from D or M.

OP, this is a really tough one... Missing biglaw and being 180-200k in debt from Duke or Michigan would be horrifying. Your debt from WUSTL would only be 50-60k or so, which is very manageable. But obviously you sacrifice a lot in terms of job prospects by taking WUSTL, and you give yourself less leeway with grades. So you have to ask yourself which is more important to you: the better biglaw opportunities coupled with the higher risk of Michigan or Duke, or fewer biglaw opportunities with lower risk from WUSTL? I personally would probably take WUSTL w/full scholly, but I'm obviously biased since I'm a WUSTL student and my career goals are more aligned towards St. Louis and the Midwest.

Also, what about rad law's suggestion? What about a school in between with a big scholarship, like Vandy? Is that not an option?

[Verity]

I dunno, I think +~25% is more than a slightly better shot. Barring other factors, we're talking top of your class versus median to be competitive for BigLaw.

I'd imagine few people are getting biglaw at median ITE from D or M.

OP, this is a really tough one... Missing biglaw and being 180-200k in debt from Duke or Michigan would be horrifying. Your debt from WUSTL would only be 50-60k or so, which is very manageable. But obviously you sacrifice a lot in terms of job prospects by taking WUSTL, and you give yourself less leeway with grades. So you have to ask yourself which is more important to you: the better biglaw opportunities coupled with the higher risk of Michigan or Duke, or fewer biglaw opportunities with lower risk from WUSTL? I personally would probably take WUSTL w/full scholly, but I'm obviously biased since I'm a WUSTL student and my career goals are more aligned towards St. Louis and the Midwest.

Also, what about rad law's suggestion? What about a school in between with a big scholarship, like Vandy? Is that not an option?

Pending at Cornell and Georgetown. Didn't apply to UT, UCLA, USC, Vandy. Don't really want to go to any of them.

By the way, how does WUSTL fare in Chicago? If things look promising, I might entertain living there.

[JCougar]

By the way, how does WUSTL fare in Chicago? If things look promising, I might entertain living there.

WUSTL fares as well as any non T14 in Chicago ITE. Top 1/3rd here should land you Chicago interviews from some of the less prestigious NLJ 250 firms (whether you get the job or not is up to you), and top 10% can get you virtually any Chicago job if everything else goes right. Kirkland and Ellis still maintains its connections here, although ITE they haven't been doing OCI. But I know people who missed out on law review who still got a job at K&E. Still, there is at least 1 WUSTL grad working at K&E from the latest class of 2010...whereas before, they were hiring 2 per year. It's really WUSTL's strongest market, but you are competing with Illinois and Notre Dame, as well as Northwestern and U of Chicago. I'm not totally sure, but you might even be able to pull off Chicago midlaw if you're between median and top third. There's not a lot of midlaw jobs in general, though, but if you really want to do corporate work, there are Chicago midlaw firms that have been doing OK ITE. You hear on TLS that midlaw doesn't exist, but there is some of it out there. I know a Loyola Chicago grad working at one right now whose grades weren't spectacular doing commercial litigation and banking law. You won't get those from OCI, though...you gotta do networking. WUSTL is pretty well known in the Chicagoland area.

One thing you'll learn once you actually get into law school is that the "OCI or bust" mentality of TLS is in some ways asinine. It can become a self-fulfilling prophecy if you buy into it, though. But there's plenty of options for you if you do the networking work and the extracurricular activities. There's been a few very intelligent posters on here in the past that have posted networking guides and explained how to get your foot into the door outside of OCI. The career services office here is awesome, and while they can't work miracles, they do everything in their power to help you out.

[pereira6]

Somewhere in this middle, hopefully with money?

I'll quote it again because everyone seems to miss this.

TITCR, if it's available. UCLA? Texas?

[NU_Jet55]

Somewhere in this middle, hopefully with money?

I'll quote it again because everyone seems to miss this.

TITCR, if it's available. UCLA? Texas?

Scroll up a couple posts, buddy.

[pereira6]

Somewhere in this middle, hopefully with money?

I'll quote it again because everyone seems to miss this.

TITCR, if it's available. UCLA? Texas?

Scroll up a couple posts, buddy.

My b. Thought I read them all.

[InvictusFortis]

As far as living in NY or DC...given the hours you have to work and the cost of living, it makes Biglaw even less worth it out there. I'll take Chicago for the same pay any day. Market in St. Louis and Milwaukee is about $110-$125K. That kind of money will go twice as far as NYC biglaw when you realize you don't have to pay $25K/year just in rent alone for a small apartment, and another $500/month on cab fare/parking just to get around. Not to mention the taxes are lower.

I've done the numbers. Big law @ 160k in NY (including state, city, and federal taxes) brings you to a net of ~$98,000, if you are unable to write anything off. If I had to choose between living in Milwaukee at $118,000 minus taxes and Manhattan at roughly $98,000...Call me crazy but, I'd choose Manhattan.

Even in the face of 160,000 debt. I know people who live a comfortable lifestyle at a salary of $60,000 minus taxes, and that is living in the city.

[NU_Jet55]

I've done the numbers. Big law @ 160k in NY (including state, city, and federal taxes) brings you to a net of ~$98,000, if you are unable to write anything off. If I had to choose between living in Milwaukee at $118,000 minus taxes and Manhattan at roughly $98,000...Call me crazy but, I'd choose Manhattan.

Even in the face of 160,000 debt. I know people who live a comfortable lifestyle at a salary of $60,000 minus taxes, and that is living in the city.

Fixt.

[quadsixm]

I've done the numbers. Big law @ 160k in NY (including state, city, and federal taxes) brings you to a net of ~$98,000, if you are unable to write anything off. If I had to choose between living in Milwaukee at $118,000 minus taxes and Manhattan at roughly $98,000...Call me crazy but, I'd choose Manhattan.

Even in the face of 160,000 debt. I know people who live a comfortable lifestyle at a salary of $60,000 minus taxes, and that is living in the city.

I don't know about that. I lived for several years in West Los Angeles making $70-80K pretax, and no loan payments. It was by no means a "comfortable lifestyle." It involved a studio that looked like a motel, seedy neighbors, and pretty strict budgeting. I can only presume that the cost of living would be as bad, if not worse, in Manhattan.

[Blindmelon]

I've done the numbers. Big law @ 160k in NY (including state, city, and federal taxes) brings you to a net of ~$98,000, if you are unable to write anything off. If I had to choose between living in Milwaukee at $118,000 minus taxes and Manhattan at roughly $98,000...Call me crazy but, I'd choose Manhattan.

Even in the face of 160,000 debt. I know people who live a comfortable lifestyle at a salary of $60,000 minus taxes, and that is living in the city.

Also, how many jobs in Milwaukee pay 118,000$? A LOT LESS than those that pay 160k in NYC. I love the assumptions that people have choice between 160k in NYC and 120k in a secondary market. These jobs are fewer and often more competitive.

Also, random, but midlaw does not automatically = better work/life balance.

[NU_Jet55]

I've done the numbers. Big law @ 160k in NY (including state, city, and federal taxes) brings you to a net of ~$98,000, if you are unable to write anything off. If I had to choose between living in Milwaukee at $118,000 minus taxes and Manhattan at roughly $98,000...Call me crazy but, I'd choose Manhattan.

Even in the face of 160,000 debt. I know people who live a comfortable lifestyle at a salary of $60,000 minus taxes, and that is living in the city.

Also, how many jobs in Milwaukee pay 118,000$? A LOT LESS than those that pay 160k in NYC. I love the assumptions that people have choice between 160k in NYC and 120k in a secondary market. These jobs are fewer and often more competitive.

Also, random, but midlaw does not automatically = better work/life balance.

Also, how many people apply for biglaw jobs in NYC? A LOT MORE than apply for the 120k jobs in Milwaukee. Holy shit it works both ways. That's crazy. I love how people just assume since there are more jobs in one place it will easier to get jobs in that place.

[Reedie]

I don't know about that. I lived for several years in West Los Angeles making $70-80K pretax, and no loan payments. It was by no means a "comfortable lifestyle." It involved a studio that looked like a motel, seedy neighbors, and pretty strict budgeting. I can only presume that the cost of living would be as bad, if not worse, in Manhattan.

I don't want to be a Jerk here, but....what the heck were you doing with your money? I lived in West Los Angeles, making less than 20k a year, and was able to afford a decent apartment, a car, and not live like a total monk. I did need a roommate to make it work (2bdrm with two people).

Edit: Let's do the math conservatively:

Take home on 70-80k, lets say 3000/month. That's a conservative estimate.
Rent: 1000 a month. That's not a super conservative estimate, but is totally doable on the westside. With roommate it can be less. Without roommate it might go up a bit if you don't work to find a good apartment.

Utilities: No need for heat or AC on the westside, so electricity ought not to be too much. 200 a month should cover it with internet, easily.

Food: Groceries should be coverable by 200 bucks a month easily.

Car payment+insurance+gas: 500 a month should be more than enough.

So that means, that rent+food+car=2 grand a month.

That leaves you a thousand dollars a month to buy clothing, electronics, go out to eat, etc as you see fit. That isn't enough? And all of this is based on super conservative estimates.

[romothesavior]

Jesus people, let's stop the bickering.

OP, if you want to go to WUSTL, you'll likely get a decent job as a lawyer and have low debt. At Michigan and Duke, you'll also likely get a job as a lawyer and you'll have a lot better biglaw chances, but your debt will be huge. It all comes down to that. Do you simply want to be a lawyer, or do you want to be a biglaw lawyer? I know this is a huge oversimplification, but I think the answer to this question will help you with your decision. If biglaw is absolutely the most important thing to you, then go to Michigan or Duke. If you just want to be a lawyer with a comfortable lifestyle (especially in the midwest), then I'd take the lower debt at WUSTL.

PS. I really think you made a mistake not applying to Vanderbilt.

[JCougar]

As far as living in NY or DC...given the hours you have to work and the cost of living, it makes Biglaw even less worth it out there. I'll take Chicago for the same pay any day. Market in St. Louis and Milwaukee is about $110-$125K. That kind of money will go twice as far as NYC biglaw when you realize you don't have to pay $25K/year just in rent alone for a small apartment, and another $500/month on cab fare/parking just to get around. Not to mention the taxes are lower.

I've done the numbers. Big law @ 160k in NY (including state, city, and federal taxes) brings you to a net of ~$98,000, if you are unable to write anything off. If I had to choose between living in Milwaukee at $118,000 minus taxes and Manhattan at roughly $98,000...Call me crazy but, I'd choose Manhattan.

Even in the face of 160,000 debt. I know people who live a comfortable lifestyle at a salary of $60,000 minus taxes, and that is living in the city.

Are you factoring in the fact that your rent will be three times the cost in Manhattan and transportation/parking will be miserable?

I'm not saying that NYC sucks...because there's plenty of fun to be had there. But you have to subtract another $15K at least from that $98K for rent above and beyond what you'd pay anywhere else, and probably another $5K for parking and cab fares, plus another $15K for just making the minimum payments on $200K of loans. So you're down to $63K already, and that's not even considering all your rent. It's a decent living, but it's not exactly livin' large.

[InvictusFortis]

I've done the numbers. Big law @ 160k in NY (including state, city, and federal taxes) brings you to a net of ~$98,000, if you are unable to write anything off. If I had to choose between living in Milwaukee at $118,000 minus taxes and Manhattan at roughly $98,000...Call me crazy but, I'd choose Manhattan.

Even in the face of 160,000 debt. I know people who live a comfortable lifestyle at a salary of $60,000 minus taxes, and that is living in the city.

Fixt.

Quit trollin because you goto WUSTL--your biased opinion is unhelpful.