California or Bust and Slightly Less Debt-Averse... Forum

[bk1]

I made it, pm me your email if you want it

I love the charts above.

However, I don't think the payments are realistic. 4K is a ridiculous amount to commit to a loan payment. It is doable but that leaves you very little to live comfortably and I doubt anyone could sustain that payment schedule and lifestyle for more than a year or two.

50k post-taxes is not enough to live comfortably? I dunno, my lawl student self is skeptical of that but I've never been a biglaw associate (or worked comparable hours) so maybe I'm wrong.

[twinkletoes16]

I made it, pm me your email if you want it

I love the charts above.

However, I don't think the payments are realistic. 4K is a ridiculous amount to commit to a loan payment. It is doable but that leaves you very little to live comfortably and I doubt anyone could sustain that payment schedule and lifestyle for more than a year or two.

50k post-taxes is not enough to live comfortably? I dunno, my lawl student self is skeptical of that but I've never been a biglaw associate (or worked comparable hours) so maybe I'm wrong.

Yeah that seems like a fine number to me. Granted if someone had kids or something that would be more difficult but 1) I wouldn't be having kids any time soon 2) I would presumably have a significant other's salary to help with kids. All speculation but again- living on less than 15k/year.

[RELIC]

I made it, pm me your email if you want it

I love the charts above.

However, I don't think the payments are realistic. 4K is a ridiculous amount to commit to a loan payment. It is doable but that leaves you very little to live comfortably and I doubt anyone could sustain that payment schedule and lifestyle for more than a year or two.

50k post-taxes is not enough to live comfortably? I dunno, my lawl student self is skeptical of that but I've never been a biglaw associate (or worked comparable hours) so maybe I'm wrong.

I guess it is all dependent on the city (i.e. cost of living) and the individual but 50k after tax is not that much for a working professional. There is a different feeling of entitlement when you are working 60+ hours a week and are making big money. I used to make right at 100k before going to law school and I saved a ton but I also spent a ton. Lots of eating out (because I did not have time to cook) and just general living expenses were much higher. Now as a student I spend about 1.5k a month including all expenses. Everything is relative but a big law professional will have a hard time literally giving half their take-home pay to loans.

[bk1]

I guess it is all dependent on the city (i.e. cost of living) and the individual but 50k after tax is not that much for a working professional. There is a different feeling of entitlement when you are working 60+ hours a week and are making big money. I used to make right at 100k before going to law school and I saved a ton but I also spent a ton. Lots of eating out (because I did not have time to cook) and just general living expenses were much higher. Now as a student I spend about 1.5k a month including all expenses. Everything is relative but a big law professional will have a hard time literally giving half their take-home pay to loans.

I definitely think it's possible. You're right, CoL is probably the factor. If you're dropping 20k/year on rent that's different than dropping 35k/year on rent.

[Cobretti]

If you guys want to play around with it all of the pink cells are inputs. you can adjust how much you want to pay per month, how many years you think you'll have dat big law salary, etc.

5 years was pretty generous. if i make it 2 years the payback periods for nu and berk are 6 years (180k total spent) and 13 years (412k total spent)

if you need more than 50k post taxes to live on you can lower the 4k to whatever, but that's obviously gonna push it out a lot more too.

[jenesaislaw]

I wish they did. You get 285k here
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/admission ... geid=61621

With 76880 or w.e as coa in year 1

LST is a bit more aggressive in calculating cost but not by much

So the idea is to just make up a random percentage to increase tuition by?

If you mean:

is LST making up a random percentage to increase tuition by? No, it seems they're doing it based on general inflation rates and the trends from the past few years.

are law schools making up random percentages to increase their tuition by? Yes. Looking at UC law schools' tuition from even 5 years ago is a whole different world.

Here to address the questions about the LST data.

The two numbers on LST for cost are from 2011-2012 and reflect (a) tuition & fess and (b) indirect costs. I have documentation that shows that these numbers are correct.

But as you can see by visiting Berkeley's site, tuition and fees are less this year. Hard to believe, so I called Berkeley's communications director. She confirmed my numbers last year and explained the discrepancy.

In prior years, Berkeley included the health insurance fee under "Tuition and Fees." This year, they included it under "Cost of Living." This accounts for why it looks like tuition and fees went down. The reality is that tuition was flat this year. That's right, Berkeley did not raise tuition. (Okay, they raised it $8.) The school did not brag about this to the press because they realize it's not something to herald; the school is still very expensive.

As for our non-discounted cost of attendance number, we are actually pretty conservative. Across the board, we increase tuition by 3% each year and cost of living by 2%. Note: We're going to add more nuance to these increases this year once the ABA gets around to sending me the data I've requested.

In Berkeley's case, this means the estimates are going to be off by a bit because the school did not raise tuition. This is exceptionally rare -- in fact, if anybody can name another school that did this besides Akron (and they only reduced it for out-of-staters), I would love to know it.

You can view the terms we use for the N-D COA here: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?r=guides&show=9 You can also read about the methodology on any state report cost page (Ex. here), the national cost page, or in reform central.

[comeonletsgo]

Heyyyyy!

Just to let you know, I qualify for in-state at UCLA because I graduated from a California high school. I know you did too, so you should qualify for in-state at UCLA (and Berkeley, if they have the same requirements). I know that that probably doesn't make that much of a difference, but I just wanted to throw that out there.

Also, knowing you personally, I think you'd kill it at UCLA. The 3Ls there that I know all have offers. Obviously, this is all anecdotal as well.

Keep me updated!

[imjustjoking22]

I'm biased and also can't comment on how smart UCLA is at that COA (haven't kept up on numbers) but I'd easily go Mich > Boalt at those numbers as a fellow Californian looking to go back. I've had no trouble heading back for the summer, and have heard the same thing from a number of my classmates, and you can live *quite* cheaply in Michigan if you want (though the feel of A2 is, IMO, very similar to CA).

ETA Northwestern is also a good choice at that price, but (sorry I didn't look to see if you've visited) worth checking the two out first. I was really thinking NU at one point, but did not click at all when I visited, and being happy there matters too.

[RELIC]

Here to address the questions about the LST data.

The two numbers on LST for cost are from 2011-2012 and reflect (a) tuition & fess and (b) indirect costs. I have documentation that shows that these numbers are correct.

But as you can see by visiting Berkeley's site, tuition and fees are less this year. Hard to believe, so I called Berkeley's communications director. She confirmed my numbers last year and explained the discrepancy.

In prior years, Berkeley included the health insurance fee under "Tuition and Fees." This year, they included it under "Cost of Living." This accounts for why it looks like tuition and fees went down. The reality is that tuition was flat this year. That's right, Berkeley did not raise tuition. (Okay, they raised it $8.) The school did not brag about this to the press because they realize it's not something to herald; the school is still very expensive.

As for our non-discounted cost of attendance number, we are actually pretty conservative. Across the board, we increase tuition by 3% each year and cost of living by 2%. Note: We're going to add more nuance to these increases this year once the ABA gets around to sending me the data I've requested.

In Berkeley's case, this means the estimates are going to be off by a bit because the school did not raise tuition. This is exceptionally rare -- in fact, if anybody can name another school that did this besides Akron (and they only reduced it for out-of-staters), I would love to know it.

You can view the terms we use for the N-D COA here: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?r=guides&show=9 You can also read about the methodology on any state report cost page (Ex. here), the national cost page, or in reform central.

Thanks for the update. I know that tuition increases were the norm in the past but a bunch of law schools have reached unsustainable levels of tuition already. I have heard of several schools either holding their tuition steady or lowering it in response to a lower amount of applications and a crappy legal job market.

For instance: http://uanews.org/story/ua-law-students ... in-2013-14

[JamMasterJ]

Don't take out more than 100K if your not willing to do biglaw in NY

[imjustjoking22]

Don't take out more than 100K if your not willing to do biglaw in NY

This seems to me like very questionable advice.


Take a biglaw job in texas and live like a king.

[JamMasterJ]

Don't take out more than 100K if your not willing to do biglaw in NY

This seems to me like very questionable advice.


Take a biglaw job in texas and live like a king.

not being willing to take ny biglaw cuts your prospects a ton, regardless of whether you have strong ties to another major market.

[imjustjoking22]

Don't take out more than 100K if your not willing to do biglaw in NY

This seems to me like very questionable advice.


Take a biglaw job in texas and live like a king.

not being willing to take ny biglaw cuts your prospects a ton, regardless of whether you have strong ties to another major market.

Eh, seems like mostly blanket statement bs to me.

[Tiago Splitter]

Just do TX BigLaw isn't much different from saying just do a COA clerkship.

[twinkletoes16]

Bumping this to add a 150k Cornell scholarship. Does this make a difference?

[sinfiery]

I am under the impression you can really eek out some COL savings from Cornell.
May be worth it over NU if you can graduate with like 50k in debt.

[Rahviveh]

I am under the impression you can really eek out some COL savings from Cornell.
May be worth it over NU if you can graduate with like 50k in debt.

Its probably more like 90-100k at Cornell, perhaps more.

And the housing there is very overpriced. COL isn't as low as you think. Plus you're living in Ithaca instead of Chi

[sinfiery]

Oh, even small towns in NY are radically different from TX I guess.

If you are more comfortable with NYC biglaw, I'd go Cornell, if Chi biglaw, NU.

[jbagelboy]

Bumping this to add a 150k Cornell scholarship. Does this make a difference?

wow congrats!!!

[untar614]

Bumping this to add a 150k Cornell scholarship. Does this make a difference?

If you were open to NY biglaw i'd say take that absolutely. However, I'm not sure how easy Cali is to get from Cornell. Seems like everyone goeas there to get to NYC. Pure speculation, but the diificulties in traveling anywhere due to the lack of a major airport nearby may be a hindrance. But if not and California (or somewhere else you'd be ok with) is attainable, then it sounds good if you don't mind living in Ithaca for 3 years.

ETA: have you tried telling NU about it yet to see if they'll match it? They don't have to know that you don't want NYC biglaw

[twinkletoes16]

Just do TX BigLaw isn't much different from saying just do a COA clerkship.

If I have a sibling and his/her entire family in TX and I've lived there before, are those ties? Is rather do Tx biglaw (Dallas) than NYC biglaw.

[untar614]

Just do TX BigLaw isn't much different from saying just do a COA clerkship.

If I have a sibling and his/her entire family in TX and I've lived there before, are those ties? Is rather do Tx biglaw (Dallas) than NYC biglaw.

I don't fully have a grasp on the whole ties thing, but here's what I've gathered from talking to recent grads in TX:
It's all about convincing firms that that's where you want to be. It's not like you hand them a "ties resume" and they evaluate these against each other. When you interview, they are likely to ask you something along the lines of "why Texas?" and you have to be convincing.

I'd kinda like to work in Texas too, but decided against UT because overall job prospects are more important to me. I have some family there, but it may be hard to spin. My parents plan to move there eventually, but until they do, dunno how well I'd be able to play it.

ETA: Some students have told me the Houston market has been opening up to move in the direction of how the NYC and Chicago markets are so that they are becoming less concerned about ties. No idea how accurate this is though.