How the Heck Do You Pay Back Sticker? Forum

[dixiecupdrinking]

could a Big Law in NYC associate realistically have the time in the day to commute from the outer areas into Manhattan?

I do think that people have skewed perspectives, but I also think the oppressive hours necessitate expenses that would be luxuries for other people

It takes what, 25 min to get from Pelham to GCT? The real problem is that Metro North/PATH don't run as late as biglaw associates realistically need them to.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're working late/past public transit hours, won't firms pay for a car to take you home? I thought that was pretty standard, but maybe just in my current industry. My current firm pays fo ra car for me if I work past 9PM.

Apparently they will. For some reason I assumed this was only for Manhattan. I stand corrected.

Also PATH is 24 hours and the commuter trains run every 30 minutes or so until past midnight and then every hour or so until even later. Pretty much any public transit commute you can think of, at any time of day or night, someone in NYC is doing it. Though there are obviously times you would rather not have to hang around GCT for 45 minutes waiting for a train.

[09042014]

Manhattan BIGLAW

We'll give you a free cabride to your house, after we've worked you 15 hours a day, so you can get back to your tiny apartment.

[KingofSplitters55]

How do you pay sticker?

How do people pay for private colleges?

Maybe people should have asked their parents to withhold their aid till law school (while going to a cheap state school at full ride and getting near a 4.0 there) instead of having them giving out a $40k/yr subsidy for 4 years for one's BA in Classics...

...and maybe people shouldn't go K to JD but rather work a few years first and save up 30K or something...

...and maybe retake enough to get a scholarship at a T6 or T10...

With all these things, law school really isn't that expensive at all. One could easily graduate from say Columbia Law debt-free (as 25% of their class does).

If you're paying sticker, that's the real problem.

[jbagelboy]

How do you pay sticker?

How do people pay for private colleges?

Maybe people should have asked their parents to withhold their aid till law school (while going to a cheap state school at full ride and getting near a 4.0 there) instead of having them giving out a $40k/yr subsidy for 4 years for one's BA in Classics...

...and maybe people shouldn't go K to JD but rather work a few years first and save up 30K or something...

...and maybe retake enough to get a scholarship at a T6 or T10...

With all these things, law school really isn't that expensive at all. One could easily graduate from say Columbia Law debt-free (as 25% of their class does).

If you're paying sticker, that's the real problem.

Some of this is pretty misinformed and problematic, except for the retake part. Most people whose parents will pay full tuition at a private college are affluent enough to lend some support in law school too. Similarly, those families who can't afford any support in law school likely couldn't pay $50K/year for undergrad, so your scenarios are erroneous. Broad strokes, that's not how personal family finance works. (There are circumstances, similar to my own, where family will support in undergrad but stop there, but this this support is rarely interchangeable with law school anyway since it imputes a standing on principle).

And there's no reason to disparage an elite/exclusive private college education. I wouldn't trade mine for anything. Moreover, less affluent families receive very generous financial aid at top private schools, making them MORE affordable than state colleges. Is it ludicrously expensive at first blush, yes, but those are unresolved market forces irrelevant to the point at issue here. Also, again, what is it with TLS and the total philistine fetishism against "Classics" and other humanities majors?

There's a more fundamental flaw in the private/public example here: state schools might be less rigorous on average than some private institutions, but they definitely don't hand out as many A's. It's a flawed assumption that you could more easily get a 4.0 at your state flagship than Brown, Pomona, Harvard, Northwestern, ect.

As for working between college and law school, while I support taking time off for personal growth, work experience, and all the other substantial value that time can have, it's ridiculous hard to save $30,000 on a post-BA salary unless you are in the rare circumstance of living at home and entering a prestigious profession or getting a CPA license. I was in consulting, and even there, saving $30K would have taken several years. My friends in IB would still struggle with that savings figure given high CoL where those jobs are, primarily NYC and SF.

And as for your example, none of the Columbia law grads graduating debt free followed the steps you laid out. I have many friends in that 25%; they are privileged students from very wealthy families who undoubtedly paid for their college education regardless of cost; they didn't save that money, and the vast majority of them aren't on a very significant scholarship anyway since only about 50 kids out of the 350 class will have a half tuition scholarship or more. Schools like Columbia and Harvard attract students from these similarly elite backgrounds.

Suggesting that the average middle class student could simply follow this advice and avoid substantial debt at a T6 is dangerous. Law school is still very, very expensive.

[Lincoln]

Quality poast.

[KingofSplitters55]

Quality poast.

Agreed. Thank you for that well thought-out response jbagelboy. Learn something new everyday.

[buddyt]

Solid post.

Also, again, what is it with TLS and the total philistine fetishism against "Classics" and other humanities majors?

Can't speak for TLS, but to me you shouldn't go to college just for the sake of going. You should go to college to develop a skill that will allow you to make more money than you otherwise would have been able to make. The market doesn't value humanities majors, so going to college to get a humanities degree doesn't make a lot of sense. Add in the ungodly cost of tuition and it becomes a no-brainer.

[Lincoln]

Solid post.

Also, again, what is it with TLS and the total philistine fetishism against "Classics" and other humanities majors?

Can't speak for TLS, but to me you shouldn't go to college just for the sake of going. You should go to college to develop a skill that will allow you to make more money than you otherwise would have been able to make. The market doesn't value humanities majors, so going to college to get a humanities degree doesn't make a lot of sense. Add in the ungodly cost of tuition and it becomes a no-brainer.

A lot of humanities majors become excellent lawyers, which, if I'm not mistaken, is what most of the people on this site are or are wanting to become. And believe it or not, there are many people who don't frame big decisions in life (and whether to get an education I think qualifies) in terms of whether it would "allow you to make more money than you otherwise would have been able to make".

[cotiger]

Solid post.

Also, again, what is it with TLS and the total philistine fetishism against "Classics" and other humanities majors?

Can't speak for TLS, but to me you shouldn't go to college just for the sake of going. You should go to college to develop a skill that will allow you to make more money than you otherwise would have been able to make. The market doesn't value humanities majors, so going to college to get a humanities degree doesn't make a lot of sense. Add in the ungodly cost of tuition and it becomes a no-brainer.

If post-high school education is all about developing a skill that will allow you to make more money, then isn't TCR to skip college and become a plumber or electrician? Their median income is the same as the median income for full-time employed with Bachelor's or higher, just without the huge expense of four years of tuition, COL, and foregone income.

[snagglepuss]

Solid post.

Also, again, what is it with TLS and the total philistine fetishism against "Classics" and other humanities majors?

Can't speak for TLS, but to me you shouldn't go to college just for the sake of going. You should go to college to develop a skill that will allow you to make more money than you otherwise would have been able to make. The market doesn't value humanities majors, so going to college to get a humanities degree doesn't make a lot of sense. Add in the ungodly cost of tuition and it becomes a no-brainer.

If post-high school education is all about developing a skill that will allow you to make more money, then isn't TCR to skip college and become a plumber or electrician?

That is TCR. TLS is a collective composed mostly of worthless humanities majors (myself included) and failed STEM majors. These are the same people terrified of actually working with their hands, so law school at any cost is preferable to taking up a trade.

[buddyt]

If post-high school education is all about developing a skill that will allow you to make more money, then isn't TCR to skip college and become a plumber or electrician? Their median income is the same as the median income for full-time employed with Bachelor's or higher, just without the huge expense of four years of tuition, COL, and foregone income.

If the choice is between a humanities major and being a plumber or electrician then yes, skipping college is definitely credited. But there are still some degrees that will generally allow you to make more money like STEM, accounting, etc.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Some of this is pretty misinformed and problematic, except for the retake part. Most people whose parents will pay full tuition at a private college are affluent enough to lend some support in law school too. Similarly, those families who can't afford any support in law school likely couldn't pay $50K/year for undergrad, so your scenarios are erroneous. Broad strokes, that's not how personal family finance works. (There are circumstances, similar to my own, where family will support in undergrad but stop there, but this this support is rarely interchangeable with law school anyway since it imputes a standing on principle).

And there's no reason to disparage an elite/exclusive private college education. I wouldn't trade mine for anything. Moreover, less affluent families receive very generous financial aid at top private schools, making them MORE affordable than state colleges. Is it ludicrously expensive at first blush, yes, but those are unresolved market forces irrelevant to the point at issue here. Also, again, what is it with TLS and the total philistine fetishism against "Classics" and other humanities majors?

There's a more fundamental flaw in the private/public example here: state schools might be less rigorous on average than some private institutions, but they definitely don't hand out as many A's. It's a flawed assumption that you could more easily get a 4.0 at your state flagship than Brown, Pomona, Harvard, Northwestern, ect.

As for working between college and law school, while I support taking time off for personal growth, work experience, and all the other substantial value that time can have, it's ridiculous hard to save $30,000 on a post-BA salary unless you are in the rare circumstance of living at home and entering a prestigious profession or getting a CPA license. I was in consulting, and even there, saving $30K would have taken several years. My friends in IB would still struggle with that savings figure given high CoL where those jobs are, primarily NYC and SF.

And as for your example, none of the Columbia law grads graduating debt free followed the steps you laid out. I have many friends in that 25%; they are privileged students from very wealthy families who undoubtedly paid for their college education regardless of cost; they didn't save that money, and the vast majority of them aren't on a very significant scholarship anyway since only about 50 kids out of the 350 class will have a half tuition scholarship or more. Schools like Columbia and Harvard attract students from these similarly elite backgrounds.

Suggesting that the average middle class student could simply follow this advice and avoid substantial debt at a T6 is dangerous. Law school is still very, very expensive.

Bagelboy and I talked about this the other day. We disagree on this issue. I'm generally LJL about my state school degree while he takes an exalted view of his presTTTigious degree and how intellectually enriching it is or whatever. He's big on copping DAT WELL-ROUNDED LIBERAL ARTS EDUCATION THO and I think the credited move is to go to the most clownshit UG you can find, cop that 3.9 simply for not being a mouthbreather, murdering the LSAT because it's secretly really easy, and then hoping the H-bomb can stomach the proleness of your degree.

I went to the cheapest school in the USNWR top 50 and sort of accidentally lucked in to a baller degree. Total COA: $50k w/o any scholarships, not flame. For non-law, I think ITE a decent public school > all except HYPSM. Especially true for law, except the strategic play is usually the shittiest school that they'll take. Having an HYP UG degree in law school is an enormous waste, given that the only degree that matters for legal hiring is one you could have copped from a sTTTate U while spending way less time in the library and way more time with 19 year-old SEC/B1G/PAC-10 girls.

Nonetheless, definitely worth noting that your public school probably has way stiffer GPA curves than private schools. Getting a 3.8 at Berkeley is harder than getting a 3.8 at Stanford. I'm only talking about going to a seriously mouthbreather school in the context of getting a sweet GPA. But still, the average demographic profile of a T14 student is an upper-middle-class person whose parents covered a $200k UG and just honestly can't do much more about a $300k sticker price. As we've covered, paying $200k for a BA that holds no weight in law school is LJL, but it will persist as long as the Boomer mentality of "go to the highest ranked school you get into and pay anything for it" persists. Rare is the young buck TLS poster who tells his parents to fuck off, picks a UG for relatively idiosyncratic reasons, then lucks into it being mad cheap so those same fucked-off parents have enough savings to cover his ass when he can't cop dat CCN scholly.

A few points to address...

Maybe people should have asked their parents to withhold their aid till law school (while going to a cheap state school at full ride and getting near a 4.0 there)

This would only be TCR if you knew at 17 that you would be going to law school. That's true of very few people. Hell, I was one of the minority that it WAS true for, and I wasn't savvy enough to make this play. It worked out to be that way for me, but definitely not because of awesome planning on my part.

instead of having them giving out a $40k/yr subsidy for 4 years for one's BA in Classics...

Lazy repeating of trope that humanities degrees are SPS without considering the context. Getting a degree in history/english/philosophy is only a fuckwit move if you expect them to get you a job. For law-school bound students, the calculus runs exactly the other way: A humanities degree is 1) likely to land you with a better GPA than a STEM degree, improving your chances at any school, and 2) actually way better preparation for law school because you'll learn to make cogent arguments and write constructively, which is something you don't pick up balancing orgo equations.

...and maybe people shouldn't go K to JD but rather work a few years first and save up 30K or something...

Working to save money if you are absolutely sure you are going to law school is absolutely 100% an awful financial move. You're giving up years of six-figure salaries to work when your earning potential isn't maximized. As jbb covered, law school costs way more than $30k. If this is taking you years to save up, you're moving at a snails pace when TCR would be to get into biglaw ASAP. If you can save $30k in one year, you probably have alternative employment options that make law school way too low of a marginal benefit to justify the cost.

One could easily graduate from say Columbia Law debt-free (as 25% of their class does).

Of the people that graduate debt-free, the breakdown probably looks like this: 70% top 1-2% family income, 20% full ride 8% other fortuitous circumstances that make a lot of money available to students (this is the group I'm in), 2% DILIGENT SCRIMPERS who made $300k happen at 25 by the sheer power of their bootstraps.

[jselson]

Solid post.

Also, again, what is it with TLS and the total philistine fetishism against "Classics" and other humanities majors?

Can't speak for TLS, but to me you shouldn't go to college just for the sake of going. You should go to college to develop a skill that will allow you to make more money than you otherwise would have been able to make. The market doesn't value humanities majors, so going to college to get a humanities degree doesn't make a lot of sense. Add in the ungodly cost of tuition and it becomes a no-brainer.

If post-high school education is all about developing a skill that will allow you to make more money, then isn't TCR to skip college and become a plumber or electrician?

That is TCR. TLS is a collective composed mostly of worthless humanities majors (myself included) and failed STEM majors. These are the same people terrified of actually working with their hands, so law school at any cost is preferable to taking up a trade.

I got my UG degree in English and Art History, and I've worked in construction, and I wouldn't change either experience for the world.

[buddyt]

For law-school bound students, the calculus runs exactly the other way: A humanities degree is 1) likely to land you with a better GPA than a STEM degree, improving your chances at any school, and 2) actually way better preparation for law school because you'll learn to make cogent arguments and write constructively, which is something you don't pick up balancing orgo equations.

I think it's tough for someone to know with confidence that they are "law school bound" when there are so many better career choices in ROI terms. Because of that, I think it's better to protect yourself by going STEM, even if it means getting a lower GPA (which can be largely compensated for, apart from HYS, by a high LSAT).

[cotiger]

If post-high school education is all about developing a skill that will allow you to make more money, then isn't TCR to skip college and become a plumber or electrician? Their median income is the same as the median income for full-time employed with Bachelor's or higher, just without the huge expense of four years of tuition, COL, and foregone income.

If the choice is between a humanities major and being a plumber or electrician then yes, skipping college is definitely credited. But there are still some degrees that will generally allow you to make more money like STEM, accounting, etc.

Right, but if we're now talking about a very high g (general intelligence) person rather than a median college person, then the intellectual curiosity stimulated by "DAT WELL-ROUNDED LIBERAL ARTS EDUCATION" has serious benefits.

Doing something purely for the money is depressing and lame and will not lead to a satisfying life unless you are one of those (relatively rare IMO) people who get their primary thrills from raking in the dough.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I think it's tough for someone to know with confidence that they are "law school bound" when there are so many better career choices in ROI terms. Because of that, I think it's better to protect yourself by going STEM, even if it means getting a lower GPA (which can be largely compensated for, apart from HYS, by a high LSAT).

For me knowing that law school was an option was what led me to pick up TWO market-worthless humanities majors. If I hadn't gone to law school I would have absolutely majored in Econ.

Also that at the T14 level from every UG except maybe the very best, law school has probably the best long-term ROI with the exception of med school.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Doing something purely for the money is depressing and lame and will not lead to a satisfying life unless you are one of those (relatively rare IMO) people who get their primary thrills from raking in the dough.

(describes 60% of TLS)

[buddyt]

Doing something purely for the money is depressing and lame and will not lead to a satisfying life unless you are one of those (relatively rare IMO) people who get their primary thrills from raking in the dough.

I agree, but you gotta do what you gotta do to pay the bills, and the right degree can help you do that. Paying tens of thousands a year just for DAT RIGOROUS INTELLECTUAL STIMULATION seems silly to me, unless you've got time/money to burn and some other way to pay the bills.

[cotiger]

He's big on copping DAT WELL-ROUNDED LIBERAL ARTS EDUCATION THO and I think the credited move is to go to the most clownshit UG you can find, cop that 3.9 simply for not being a mouthbreather, murdering the LSAT because it's secretly really easy, and then hoping the H-bomb can stomach the proleness of your degree.

Gotta go with jbagelboy here. Your ideal scenario seems so... soulless and mercenary and ick. Also, it seems to require that you decide on law school at age 17, which is neither common nor advisable.

[PepperJack]

I don't know if I'd consider big law burn out to big of a factor. Likely, these people leave once their debts are paid off and they don't want to work that much. A small number of female attorneys plan on just working till their loans are paid off, and they get married. I think once the difference between 200k and 100k isn't life changing, people will opt for the quality of life of a 40 hour week. A study I read found the average income of black attorneys in private practice from a T-10 school was substantially higher a few years out from LS than for whites. See David L. Chambers, Richard O. Lempert & Terry K. Adams, Michigan’s Minority Graduates in Practice: The River Runs Through Law School, 25 Law. & Soc. Inquiry 395, 459 (2000). The logic is that because colored students are more likely to be from disadvantaged families, and require more loans, they're more likely to stay in big law as long as possible.

I would love to hear about the chances of getting fired. I enjoy working hard, if I like what I'm doing and am in a good work environment. Practically, as long as I make it 4-5 years my debt is paid off. Is it low odds - high odds to make it that long? Are there statistics of likelihood of getting laid off year by year?

[cotiger]

Doing something purely for the money is depressing and lame and will not lead to a satisfying life unless you are one of those (relatively rare IMO) people who get their primary thrills from raking in the dough.

(describes 60% of TLS)

Eh, my impression of TLS is not so much bloodthirsty. More just conservative and looking for stability at a high income level. If they were really interested in $$$ they probably wouldn't be going into law.

[PepperJack]

Doing something purely for the money is depressing and lame and will not lead to a satisfying life unless you are one of those (relatively rare IMO) people who get their primary thrills from raking in the dough.

I agree, but you gotta do what you gotta do to pay the bills, and the right degree can help you do that. Paying tens of thousands a year just for DAT RIGOROUS INTELLECTUAL STIMULATION seems silly to me, unless you've got time/money to burn and some other way to pay the bills.

This presumes the material is intellectually stimulating. I have gotten very good grades at a top law school, and fail to see how applying the negligence doctrine to a fact pattern where someone accidentally drops a baby from a window when trying to rescue her from a fire is intellectually stimulating. I intellectually think about it, because it brings me good grades that I hope to transition to a future opportunity to have a great career.

Church doctrine or the Talmud translated into English is much more intellectually stimulating, as is philosophy if you don't want to do the whole God thing. The whole appeal of law is you get to do intellectually stimulating stuff to help another person/company for a lot of money while doing it in nice clothes, coming from a nice house and in a cool car. I don't know if I can spend 5 minutes talking to someone who finds Corporate Finance fascinatingly intellectually stimulating. In all honesty, the janitor wearing the cool Jordan sneakers talking about what he's gonna make for dinner is much more interesting to me.

[buddyt]

Doing something purely for the money is depressing and lame and will not lead to a satisfying life unless you are one of those (relatively rare IMO) people who get their primary thrills from raking in the dough.

I agree, but you gotta do what you gotta do to pay the bills, and the right degree can help you do that. Paying tens of thousands a year just for DAT RIGOROUS INTELLECTUAL STIMULATION seems silly to me, unless you've got time/money to burn and some other way to pay the bills.

This presumes the material is intellectually stimulating. I have gotten very good grades at a top law school, and fail to see how applying the negligence doctrine to a fact pattern where someone accidentally drops a baby from a window when trying to rescue her from a fire is intellectually stimulating. I intellectually think about it, because it brings me good grades that I hope to transition to a future opportunity to have a great career.

Church doctrine or the Talmud translated into English is much more intellectually stimulating, as is philosophy if you don't want to do the whole God thing. The whole appeal of law is you get to do intellectually stimulating stuff to help another person/company for a lot of money while doing it in nice clothes, coming from a nice house and in a cool car. I don't know if I can spend 5 minutes talking to someone who finds Corporate Finance fascinatingly intellectually stimulating.

I was talking about a humanities undergrad education, which people tell me is intellectually stimulating. Not sure if that stimulation is worth the price tag though, especially when you gotta pay the bills and the degree doesn't help you do that.

[midwest17]

Doing something purely for the money is depressing and lame and will not lead to a satisfying life unless you are one of those (relatively rare IMO) people who get their primary thrills from raking in the dough.

I agree, but you gotta do what you gotta do to pay the bills, and the right degree can help you do that. Paying tens of thousands a year just for DAT RIGOROUS INTELLECTUAL STIMULATION seems silly to me, unless you've got time/money to burn and some other way to pay the bills.

There's a large difference between paying the bills and maximizing income.

[cotiger]

Doing something purely for the money is depressing and lame and will not lead to a satisfying life unless you are one of those (relatively rare IMO) people who get their primary thrills from raking in the dough.

I agree, but you gotta do what you gotta do to pay the bills, and the right degree can help you do that. Paying tens of thousands a year just for DAT RIGOROUS INTELLECTUAL STIMULATION seems silly to me, unless you've got time/money to burn and some other way to pay the bills.

You don't need to have an accounting degree to be able to pay the bills. There are all kinds of things you can do out there in the world. There are very few degrees where you actually learn shit that you'll use in a job. Sometimes it feels like TLSers think that the only jobs that exist are those that you can get a UG degree in.

I guess it just comes down to a fundamentally different view of the purpose of higher education. To me, school is primarily about broadening your perspectives and sharpening your critical thinking skills. The point is to develop yourself as a person, not just as a job applicant.

ETA:

This.

There's a large difference between paying the bills and maximizing income.

If your primary motivation is to maximize income in your life, you're probably going to have an unsatisfactory time (unless you are a. one of those super money driven people and thus are not going to be an accountant or b. are driven by an extreme desire for stability)