Top Law Schools

Here's the information I'm working with and deciding whether or not the debt vs. the job prospects are worth the risk.

According to law school transparency, the average starting salary of a median level Loyola graduate is $100,000

According to us news, the average amount of debt for a Loyola graduate is aprox. $135,000.

Assuming I graduate in the 50th percentile of my class and take on the average level of debt, $135,000 would the risk be worth the reward?

At $100,000 per year you get taxed at 28%, so take home would be $72,000.

Assuming I would pay $20,000 per year on my debt it would take 8 or 9 years to pay off my debt with interest included.

So, what do you guys think? I've heard things like "Loyola at sticker is suicide" "drop out if you don't make the top 10% first year.". Anyone with real insight or advice, or other links to posts similar to mine?

You're reading LST wrong. The median salary of all people who reported private sector salary is 100k. That's only 40% of the grads. So only 20% of the class makes 100k or more. Keep in mind that LST currently shows class of 2009 who did OCI in 2007 (before the crash), so LST data is outdated.

So no, don't go to LLS at sticker. Heck you shouldn't even go to it at 135k debt.

Reasons why I shouldn't go at sticker? Pretend you're a real lawyer, and lets hear your argument?

I'll play

You are taking on a lot of debt especially factoring in COL and interest. You have a very small chance of getting a job that will allow you to pay it off in a timely fashion (read Biglaw). So therefore you are taking on a ton of debt when chances are you are going to be making 40-50k, that is assuming you get a job in the legal field at all.

That is what I would refer to as a bad investment.

harocutter wrote:Reasons why I shouldn't go at sticker?

Because current cost of attendance would put you $250,000 in debt once you graduate and you would struggle to pay that off on a $30-60k small firm salary (the median outcome from LLS) on top of the fact that around 1/3 of the class doesn't even have full time permanent jobs as lawyers.

harocutter wrote:Reasons why I shouldn't go at sticker? Pretend you're a real lawyer, and lets hear your argument?

Because you can likely do better.

Sure, worse decisions have been made (aTTTending at TTT @ sticker or at all). But, you only get to pick your school once. Why go now if you can put your self in a better position? (Loyola with $$$, UC I/D/H, UCLA/USC). This decision will of course affect the rest of your life.

Please use prudency in this sitution. By the way what are your stats (LSAT/GPA)?

Stats: 2.8 GPA LSAT 166


Ok I hear you all, but I have my cost of living paid for so I would only be taking out loans to cover the cost of tuition. Which would put me around $135,000. So...does that help my situation/decision?

I was thinking about UCI, but I was unsure that my stats would get me in there....

Retake?

I mean is it really that bad?

harocutter wrote:Stats: 2.8 GPA LSAT 166


Ok I hear you all, but I have my cost of living paid for so I would only be taking out loans to cover the cost of tuition. Which would put me around $135,000. So...does that help my situation/decision?

I was thinking about UCI, but I was unsure that my stats would get me in there....

Retake?

I mean is it really that bad?

Problem is, that GPA puts you in a bad position for good CA schools. You might want to consider retaking to get into some splitter friendly T14s. Do you think you can improve?

Yea I think I can improve, but how much is the question? I think the average is like 2.7 points for retake.

bk187 wrote:You're reading LST wrong. The median salary of all people who reported private sector salary is 100k. That's only 40% of the grads. So only 20% of the class makes 100k or more. Keep in mind that LST currently shows class of 2009 who did OCI in 2007 (before the crash), so LST data is outdated.

So no, don't go to LLS at sticker. Heck you shouldn't even go to it at 135k debt.

While the OP certainly misread the stats, you're also misleading the OP (though the point is still the same). You're assuming that every single graduate that did not report their salary is making less than the listed median. I'm sure the vast majority are, but that doesn't mean 100% are.

chimp wrote: Problem is, that GPA puts you in a bad position for good CA schools. You might want to consider retaking to get into some splitter friendly T14s. Do you think you can improve?

Alternatively if you spend your time finding the cure to cancer instead of studying the LSAT you could have a chance at Berk.

In all seriousness though, California is a tough place for splitters. Even if retaking doesn't get you into better schools for your region, a higher LSAT could net more scholarship money at schools at Loyola, so you could be looking at a more manageable debt load.

harocutter wrote:Here's the information I'm working with and deciding whether or not the debt vs. the job prospects are worth the risk.

According to law school transparency, the average starting salary of a median level Loyola graduate is $100,000

bk187 wrote:You're reading LST wrong. The median salary of all people who reported private sector salary is 100k. That's only 40% of the grads. So only 20% of the class makes 100k or more. Keep in mind that LST currently shows class of 2009 who did OCI in 2007 (before the crash), so LST data is outdated.

So no, don't go to LLS at sticker. Heck you shouldn't even go to it at 135k debt.

harocutter wrote:Reasons why I shouldn't go at sticker? Pretend you're a real lawyer, and lets hear your argument?

You just heard the argument. The premises you used to arrive at your conclusion are very, very faulty.

Real Madrid wrote:While the OP certainly misread the stats, you're also misleading the OP (though the point is still the same). You're assuming that every single graduate that did not report their salary is making less than the listed median. I'm sure the vast majority are, but that doesn't mean 100% are.

It's likely close enough to 100% that the few exceptions don't change anything. Even if it wasn't we don't have any data. It makes more sense to assume all those people are fucked than to assume any of them are living the high life.

So no, it's not misleading.

Real Madrid wrote:
While the OP certainly misread the stats, you're also misleading the OP (though the point is still the same). You're assuming that every single graduate that did not report their salary is making less than the listed median. I'm sure the vast majority are, but that doesn't mean 100% are.

I'm sure everyone who didn't report is just too busy counting their 160K starting associate salary and poppin' bottles with models

i'm also considering loyola at sticker. i've spoken with a number of alumni and current students as well as the financial aid office and i'm pretty sure that i will be attending. there are many other ways of getting money and from those that I have spoken with, finding a job has not been an issue. i would suggest contacting loyola and asking them to put you in touch with alumni and students directly. these boards can only give you so much aid..i think its better to speak with people who have actually attended the school and been successful or unsuccessful afterwards.

39.5% of Loyola's 2010 class had no long-term employment of any kind nine months after graduation. 9.5% more were listed as being in "business and industry," which outside of elite law schools almost invariably means "low wage non-legal employment." That's half the class. Of the other half, nearly 60% were either soloing or working for very small firms (ten lawyers or less). The real median salary for that group was probably around $40K-$50K. Maybe 15% of the class got a job that arguably justified attending at sticker.

Well informed people on this site sincerely struggle with the question of whether it's worth attending any law school right now outside the top [very small number; 13 at most; perhaps 6, maybe even 3] at sticker. The only people for whom it might make sense to attend a place like Loyola at sticker are

(a) Rich kids

(b) People who are already hooked up with a good post-law school employment option even before they go to law school and just need a license.

Needless to say there tends to be a lot of overlap between (a) and (b).