UVA Law Worth Sticker (for Boston)? Forum

[hephaestus]

You're going to have a slightly higher margin for error at UVA. You'll want to be top 40% to be in good shape in Boston from UVA (i'm there). I would imagine that at BU/BC you'll have to be in the top 20%. That's too scary for me.

I agree that top 20% is a bit scary. What would you say about somebody wanting Boston at Penn (slightly higher than UVA) or Cornell (lower than UVA)? In general, does the requisite class rank correlate with the rank of the school?

Not really. The lower T14 place more or less the same. I can say as someone at Cornell that we did quite well with Boston this year as long as you had Boston ties. Some people got Boston offers with no ties but spectacular grades, but I imagine that's the case everywhere.

[persia1921]

Title is deceptive . You'll graduate debt free, not sticker. Go to the best school you get in to where money is no issue

I think this is a pretty fucked up way of viewing things. Just because one's parents offer to help with their education costs doesn't mean that one should necessarily abuse this resource. If you can save your parents $100k+, why the hell wouldn't you? Chances are that your parents worked pretty damn hard to make that much.

I agree. Plus boston biglaw is a small and competitive market. No guarantee you will end up there. You need to consider that you won't end up in Boston. Would you do NYC first, or is being in Boston more important?

Also consider that even getting NYC is competitive, the market is just much larger.

What if you don't get biglaw at all?

I would probably take big law in another market if I completely struck out in Boston. That being said if I was offered a mid law job in Boston I might take that. I can't imagine ties would be that much of a problem for me. That being said I'm not sure I really understand what "ties" mean. I grew up in the area, went to undergrad, and have family and friends already working in the legal market.

With all that said, my parents now live down South, so UVA is appealing as far as its "National reach" goes. Am I right in thinking that BU/BC wont have as good a reputation/placement ability in other markets?

Finally, I must admit I would not mind getting out of the area for a little while, I love it here, but getting out for a bit would be nice.

Thanks again for all the responses!

[jbagelboy]

Title is deceptive . You'll graduate debt free, not sticker. Go to the best school you get in to where money is no issue

I think this is a pretty fucked up way of viewing things. Just because one's parents offer to help with their education costs doesn't mean that one should necessarily abuse this resource. If you can save your parents $100k+, why the hell wouldn't you? Chances are that your parents worked pretty damn hard to make that much.

Wealth is highly bracketed at this level. Even wealthy families in America typically struggle with $240,000 in liquid cash, so when parents have expressed their ability to cover such costs, they are often in an income/inheritance bracket where the scholarship savings make negligent difference relative to increase in education/employment opportunities for the student (the same way I don't worry about ordering fondant & espresso once I've already thrown down $250 at chardenous des pres). Elite education is the most prominent 21st century american cultural pedigree - its the only category where the 1% vastly outspends the 5%.

Im not saying you are necessary wrong, but I would ask you to consider the following. Typical middle or working class values, which you so magnanimously espouse, hardly extend to circumstances with families who can "afford to help out with [todays] law school;" of course, there are fringe situations where the family wants to help and can cover it barely with heavy financially burden - in these cases I couldnt agree more the student should do what they can to support themselves independently, which changes the calculus of choice and obviates the "best school" (for employment) doctrine. Most likely, however, these arent the present facts. In higher brackets, the money was often inherited or invested, not "earned," in the Weberian sense you allude to, or if we are discussing working professionals whose salaries are imputed in financing law school, they are happy to spend on superior education -- bourgeois sensitivities and so forth. So its not really a "why the hell wouldnt you save the change," abuse of resources question.

Tangents aside, my only point was that "sticker at UVA" is a deceptive title because it conjures risk and a balancing of specific opportunity costs which are not actually present; it also erroneously suggests that the OP is forced with a comparably difficult choice as the majority of students. And yes, broad strokes, where debt is not a potential consequence people should still be choosing law schools based on their best option for getting a job (with some limited float for meaningful environmental factors).

What school is best for Boston biglaw is a legitimate question either way.

[phillywc]

Title is deceptive . You'll graduate debt free, not sticker. Go to the best school you get in to where money is no issue

I think this is a pretty fucked up way of viewing things. Just because one's parents offer to help with their education costs doesn't mean that one should necessarily abuse this resource. If you can save your parents $100k+, why the hell wouldn't you? Chances are that your parents worked pretty damn hard to make that much.

Wealth is highly bracketed at this level. Even wealthy families in America typically struggle with $240,000 in liquid cash, so when parents have expressed their ability to cover such costs, they are often in an income/inheritance bracket where the scholarship savings make negligent difference relative to increase in education/employment opportunities for the student (the same way I don't worry about ordering fondant & espresso once I've already thrown down $250 at chardenous des pres). Elite education is the most prominent 21st century american cultural pedigree - its the only category where the 1% vastly outspends the 5%.

Im not saying you are necessary wrong, but I would ask you to consider the following. Typical middle or working class values, which you so magnanimously espouse, hardly extend to circumstances with families who can "afford to help out with [todays] law school;" of course, there are fringe situations where the family wants to help and can cover it barely with heavy financially burden - in these cases I couldnt agree more the student should do what they can to support themselves independently, which changes the calculus of choice and obviates the "best school" (for employment) doctrine. Most likely, however, these arent the present facts. In higher brackets, the money was often inherited or invested, not "earned," in the Weberian sense you allude to, or if we are discussing working professionals whose salaries are imputed in financing law school, they are happy to spend on superior education -- bourgeois sensitivities and so forth. So its not really a "why the hell wouldnt you save the change," abuse of resources question.

Tangents aside, my only point was that "sticker at UVA" is a deceptive title because it conjures risk and a balancing of specific opportunity costs which are not actually present; it also erroneously suggests that the OP is forced with a comparably difficult choice as the majority of students. And yes, broad strokes, where debt is not a potential consequence people should still be choosing law schools based on their best option for getting a job (with some limited float for meaningful environmental factors).

What school is best for Boston biglaw is a legitimate question either way.

I have nothing to add but enjoyed this post.

[cotiger]

Elite education is the most prominent 21st century american cultural pedigree - its the only category where the 1% vastly outspends the 5%.

Top 5% ($180k household income) is most assuredly paying sticker for UG and is not opting for state schools. Unless you're also including major donations..

As for the pedigree thing, while I agree with you, that whole thing really annoys me due to the meritocratic fantasy that allows those who play that game to feel like it signifies much beyond being pretty smart but mostly very well connected. Tying it back into a previous thread where someone (you?) made the point that top consulting firms and the like will only really show up at a select few schools just further reinforces that feedback loop.

[x] and yet amazingly had a full third of their classes go to literally three schools: HYP. It was at that point that I (thankfully) disabused myself of the notion that the prestige of a college really indicates much about the worthiness of an attendee, even at the highest levels.

I mean, 17% of Harvard College matriculants are from New England, which has 4.5% of the US population. LOL. Must be something in the water that makes them super-duper smart..

[Madmen321]

But op or rather his/her parents are still paying "Sticker Price." Regardless of who's paying, doesn't "Sticker" just mean the full cost of tuition? That said, I admit that on this website "Sticker" does generally carry the assumption that one is financing his/her education with loans, but I'm not sure I would go as far to say the title was intended to be deceptive.

[sah]

Elite education is the most prominent 21st century american cultural pedigree - its the only category where the 1% vastly outspends the 5%.

Top 5% ($180k household income) is most assuredly paying sticker for UG and is not opting for state schools. Unless you're also including major donations..

As for the pedigree thing, while I agree with you, that whole thing really annoys me due to the meritocratic fantasy that allows those who play that game to feel like it signifies much beyond being pretty smart but mostly very well connected. Tying it back into a previous thread where someone (you?) made the point that top consulting firms and the like will only really show up at a select few schools just further reinforces that feedback loop.

I remember being a brat back in HS and looking up National Merit and SAT stats for a lot of the northeastern boarding schools. They had lower numbers and fewer URMs, and yet amazingly had a full third of their classes go to literally three schools: HYP. It was at that point that I (thankfully) disabused myself of the notion that the prestige of a college really indicates much about the worthiness of an attendee, even at the highest levels.

I mean, 17% of Harvard College matriculants are from New England, which has 4.5% of the US population. LOL. Must be something in the water that makes them super-duper smart..

Yup. This. I was accepted to a "top UG" from a middle class high school. I was shocked I got in and was sure that most of my classmates would be way smarter than me, but I was thankful for the opportunity.

4 years later, I ended up graduating top 5%. At least half the class is just rich kids who really aren't very smart. It was sort of shocking.

[gaucholaw]

I'm guessing they'll give you 45k, I got 60k applying ED with similar numbers

[Pishee77]

Persia….are you Persian?

Not that it matters but I know that middle-eastern parents do usually go out of their way for their children (from experience). I think you should go to the best school you get into. If your parents can afford it and won't be bankrupt because of it, then you should go and repay them with your success.

Don't limit yourself to UVA either, apply to a good chunk of schools since you're a reverse splitter…with applications down cycles are becoming less predictable (not by a lot but you know never know).