Top Law Schools

.

I'd take Michigan.

I've posed a similar question in the past, and none of these schools seem relevant for the PNW (where I live, so this is relevant to my interests).

Of the three, definitely Michigan. Colder winters but better jobs.

.

dree wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:Of the three, definitely Michigan. Colder winters but better jobs.

That's what I'm thinking. I'm used to cold winters, so I'll survive.

Does anyone have thoughts on retaking the LSAT in June in hopes of increasing the Michigan scholarship?

Yup, do it. And if you score decently higher and they don't want to up it then reapply next year. If you don't score higher then enjoy Michigan.

You're underestimating your debt. Michigan would result in ~$125,000 debt at graduation. UCLA would result in ~$80,000, and Vanderbilt (assuming 40/40/30?) would be ~$45,000. Though Vandy actually could come down further to around $25,000 using a more reasonable COL estimation than the school provides. Unless Nashville is like crazy expensive and I just missed it.

Vandy is awfully appealing here. Only $25k debt from a school that places almost 40% of its grads in biglaw/fedclerk? Sounds pretty nice.

Michigan is also defensible. It'll boost your biglaw/fedclerk chances to over 50% and will also be more mobile than Vandy.

Drawbacks to each, though: A good chunk of Vandy's placement is in the very ties-friendly south, and blowing through $75k in savings and then taking on an additional $125k in debt is suuper expensive for what Michigan gives you.

cotiger wrote:You're underestimating your debt. Michigan would result in ~$125,000 debt at graduation. UCLA would result in ~$80,000, and Vanderbilt (assuming 40/40/30?) would be ~$45,000. Though Vandy actually could come down further to around $25,000 using a more reasonable COL estimation than the school provides. Unless Nashville is like crazy expensive and I just missed it.

Vandy is awfully appealing here. Only $25k debt from a school that places almost 40% of its grads in biglaw/fedclerk? Sounds pretty nice.

Michigan is also defensible. It'll boost your biglaw/fedclerk chances to over 50% and will also be more mobile than Vandy.

Drawbacks to each, though: A good chunk of Vandy's placement is in the very ties-friendly south, and blowing through $75k in savings and then taking on an additional $125k in debt is suuper expensive for what Michigan gives you.

Nashville is actually more expensive than you'd expect. Don't expect to be living in the south cheaply living in Nashville. I lived there. I was surprised how much things cost there (and I'm from California). Also, the city taxes all goods around 9% (if I remember correctly). It really adds up. They even tax on food in grocery stores (7% I believe). The items all cost more than you'd expect in the first place, tack on tax, and man, living is not cheap. Also, housing is not ultra cheap either. Housing near Vanderbilt is pretty pricey. I would probably go by the Vanderbilt budget for COL.

If you don't get a biglaw job that covers your bar expenses (there are even a few Vault firms that don't) you might also need a bar loan to cover you while you study for and take the bar. Bar classes and fees run another 2-3k and the interest rates are normally very high.

I would be hesitant to blow all of those personal savings. Its better than debt for sure, but 75k is a lot of money. Don't just look at the debt you'll have, look at what you're giving up.

As brazen as this may sound for TLS, $120,000 in debt (as an upper bound, OP said $90K) for Michigan is defensible. They have one of the better LRAP's of any law school (I'm withholding judgment on recent potential legislative adjustments to PLSF), and undisputed higher firm placement in "most" markets than UCLA or Vandy (might be a closer call in southern california or the deep south, respectively).

As far as personal experience is concerned, if I had attended Michigan, I would have been in a similar amount, if not more, debt. I found the figures disconcerting but far from entirely dissuading at the time, and while we may all reserve the right to change our views over time, it would be disingenuous to do so on a whim now.

voted michigan!

lowest col
best employment outcome

jbagelboy wrote:As brazen as this may sound for TLS, $120,000 in debt (as an upper bound, OP said $90K) for Michigan is defensible. They have one of the better LRAP's of any law school (I'm withholding judgment on recent potential legislative adjustments to PLSF), and undisputed higher firm placement in "most" markets than UCLA or Vandy (might be a closer call in southern california or the deep south, respectively).

As far as personal experience is concerned, if I had attended Michigan, I would have been in a similar amount, if not more, debt. I found the figures disconcerting but far from entirely dissuading at the time, and while we may all reserve the right to change our views over time, it would be disingenuous to do so on a whim now.

Michigan at 120k debt is defensible, the problem is that this guy is going to have 120k of debt AND 75k of lost savings.

Nomo wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:As brazen as this may sound for TLS, $120,000 in debt (as an upper bound, OP said $90K) for Michigan is defensible. They have one of the better LRAP's of any law school (I'm withholding judgment on recent potential legislative adjustments to PLSF), and undisputed higher firm placement in "most" markets than UCLA or Vandy (might be a closer call in southern california or the deep south, respectively).

As far as personal experience is concerned, if I had attended Michigan, I would have been in a similar amount, if not more, debt. I found the figures disconcerting but far from entirely dissuading at the time, and while we may all reserve the right to change our views over time, it would be disingenuous to do so on a whim now.

Michigan at 120k debt is defensible, the problem is that this guy is going to have 120k of debt AND 75k of lost savings.

No one saves $75K as a college student, unless they spanned college part time over 10 years, or started their own company as a student in which case law school is a stupid idea anyway. I don't know why people say this kind of thing online, maybe white guilt?; I make the (almost always reasonable) assumption that this means parental contribution, or money given by parents that didn't end up being used for UG tuition. No offense, OP, but frankly I don't care if I'm mistaken in one case out of a thousand.

.

dree wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:

Nomo wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:
No one saves $75K as a college student, unless they spanned college part time over 10 years, or started their own company as a student in which case law school is a stupid idea anyway. I don't know why people say this kind of thing online, maybe white guilt?; I make the (almost always reasonable) assumption that this means parental contribution, or money given by parents that didn't end up being used for UG tuition. No offense, OP, but frankly I don't care if I'm mistaken in one case out of a thousand.

No offense taken. You're absolutely right, it is parental/family contribution--money set aside for school in a college savings account. I was given the option of spending it on a prestigious undergrad or attending an in-state institution (nearly) for free. I'm fortunate that my parents had the foresight to advise me to spend my money on my last degree, rather than my first.

Oh, so it's not actually your money? Going from +$0 to -$125k net worth sounds acceptable to me for Michigan, whereas going from +$75k to -$125k produces a violently negative gut reaction. That change, plus the apparent expense of Nashville pushes me from slightly favoring Vandy to slightly favoring UMich. Michigan can totally be worth $80k more than Vandy, especially if you're really desiring biglaw.

jbagelboy wrote:As brazen as this may sound for TLS, $120,000 in debt (as an upper bound, OP said $90K) for Michigan is defensible.

With zero tuition or COL increases over the next three years and zero interest accruing on loans, OP would still be taking out over $94k in loans at Mich. But there will almost certainly be tuition increases, and of course interest on loans. Also, Michigan's stated COL is relatively low, so there's not as much wiggle room on living frugally to reduce estimated COA. OP should definitely be planning for around $120,000 of debt.

jbagelboy wrote:

Nomo wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:As brazen as this may sound for TLS, $120,000 in debt (as an upper bound, OP said $90K) for Michigan is defensible. They have one of the better LRAP's of any law school (I'm withholding judgment on recent potential legislative adjustments to PLSF), and undisputed higher firm placement in "most" markets than UCLA or Vandy (might be a closer call in southern california or the deep south, respectively).

As far as personal experience is concerned, if I had attended Michigan, I would have been in a similar amount, if not more, debt. I found the figures disconcerting but far from entirely dissuading at the time, and while we may all reserve the right to change our views over time, it would be disingenuous to do so on a whim now.

Michigan at 120k debt is defensible, the problem is that this guy is going to have 120k of debt AND 75k of lost savings.

No one saves $75K as a college student, unless they spanned college part time over 10 years, or started their own company as a student in which case law school is a stupid idea anyway. I don't know why people say this kind of thing online, maybe white guilt?; I make the (almost always reasonable) assumption that this means parental contribution, or money given by parents that didn't end up being used for UG tuition. No offense, OP, but frankly I don't care if I'm mistaken in one case out of a thousand.

Nailed it.

Also, cotiger seems to be correct about the debt being underreported in the initial post.

.

dree wrote:

cotiger wrote:You're underestimating your debt. Michigan would result in ~$125,000 debt at graduation. UCLA would result in ~$80,000, and Vanderbilt (assuming 40/40/30?) would be ~$45,000. Though Vandy actually could come down further to around $25,000 using a more reasonable COL estimation than the school provides. Unless Nashville is like crazy expensive and I just missed it.

Vandy is awfully appealing here. Only $25k debt from a school that places almost 40% of its grads in biglaw/fedclerk? Sounds pretty nice.

Michigan is also defensible. It'll boost your biglaw/fedclerk chances to over 50% and will also be more mobile than Vandy.

Drawbacks to each, though: A good chunk of Vandy's placement is in the very ties-friendly south, and blowing through $75k in savings and then taking on an additional $125k in debt is suuper expensive for what Michigan gives you.

I'm so glad I posted so I'm aware of this now. I had calculated the total cost of attendance as COL + Tuition for the three years, are there other expenses that I'm missing or did I just grossly underestimate cost of living?

you gotta factor in interest and increase in tuition

Michigan, no brainer.

Interested in this as well. Thoughts on how well UCLA places nationally? In Chicago for example?

Estreetshuffler wrote:Interested in this as well. Thoughts on how well UCLA places nationally? In Chicago for example?

I definitely wouldn't do it. It's an LA powerhouse, and to a lesser extent, a strong regional for the state of CA. I would imagine you would have to place quite high in the class to snag big law outside CA.

BigZuck wrote:

Estreetshuffler wrote:Interested in this as well. Thoughts on how well UCLA places nationally? In Chicago for example?

I definitely wouldn't do it. It's an LA powerhouse, and to a lesser extent, a strong regional for the state of CA. I would imagine you would have to place quite high in the class to snag big law outside CA.

Can a school that only sends a third of its students into biglaw really be called an LA powerhouse? Especially when a fifth of its students are undermployed 9 months after graduation?

Its not a bad school at all. I'm sure the students are really bright and hardworking. But, its not a powerhouse.

Keep in mind that you're going to need better 1L grades to get biglaw in smaller markets like Seattle (to what degree I'm not sure, but a significant degree). So to start you will probably have into lateral your way to smaller markets like Portland or Seattle for biglaw (likely from NYC). If you're not prepared to take NYC biglaw, then you may want to go with the lowest debt option, because the premium you pay for Michigan biglaw numbers don't really pan out for non-NYC biglaw.

I'm guessing you would need to be something like Top 20% at Michigan for Seattle biglaw vs. Medianish getting you NYC biglaw. Although, now that I think about the gap may be larger at Vandy, again guessing for Seattle Top 5% to Top 30% (anywhere). Point of the matter is, what are your goals and is location or biglaw more important?

Nomo wrote:

BigZuck wrote:

Estreetshuffler wrote:Interested in this as well. Thoughts on how well UCLA places nationally? In Chicago for example?

I definitely wouldn't do it. It's an LA powerhouse, and to a lesser extent, a strong regional for the state of CA. I would imagine you would have to place quite high in the class to snag big law outside CA.

Can a school that only sends a third of its students into biglaw really be called an LA powerhouse? Especially when a fifth of its students are undermployed 9 months after graduation?

Its not a bad school at all. I'm sure the students are really bright and hardworking. But, its not a powerhouse.

I don't think it's a big law powerhouse, in LA or anywhere else. And I never said it was.

I go to UT and I would consider it a TX powerhouse. Pretty good big law placement for the top of the class, and then a very good reputation at smaller firms and in PI organizations. It's very much at the top of the pecking order.

While UCLA does have USC right next door, given similar placement to UT I would imagine the school does just as well in So Cal as UT does in TX. I'm comfortable labeling UCLA as one of the very best regional schools in the country alongside USC, Vanderbilt, and UT.