BigZuck wrote:muskies970 wrote:This is a cost benefit calculus you have to make for yourself.
If you go to Northwestern, you have greater than a 50% chance, I would probably say closer to a 60-70% chance when you factor in clerkship percentages, self selection of those who don't do OCI for business jobs or PI/gov't, at gaining a biglaw or decent midlaw position (although I'm not sure exactly how hard it will be to get CA biglaw). You also have a less than 10% chance to be unemployed or employed ST/PT, so if you choose NW you will more than likely gain some type of employment that will make it POSSIBLE to pay off your loans. Although as others will incessantly point out it will be painstaking to do so in the short term(although you will have a NW degree for the rest of your life so I personally think the long term will pay off just painful short term).
If you go to UCLA, you have closer to a 30-35% chance at biglaw or decent midlaw, with around a 20% chance of being unemployed ST or PT. I would also take into account the fact that CA's legal market is plummeting, and from what I can tell a UCLA degree isn't as portable elsewhere.
So Northwestern if you want a little more certainty for any biglaw but realize paying off the loans is going to suck balls. If you're fine with about half as much chance for biglaw but think it's worth the odds for a little less ball sucking to not have to pay as much in loans either way, UCLA.
Given that your partner is in SoCal and you want to return there to work, winter sucks, and you can at least network with SoCal firms if your grades are at median or below to find a decent midlaw job, I'd go with UCLA probably.
Another way to look at it.
Top 1/3 at UCLA or NW= Biglaw but less debt at UCLA at least
Median at NW= at least some biglaw to pay off the debt (hopefully) but maybe not in cali.
Median at UCLA= probably not (but maybe) Biglaw but if you hustle hopefully a decent midlaw job to pay off loans. (I still think a midlaw salary of $100-120k would make it easier in the short term to pay off $100k less in starting loans)
Bottom third at NW, probably not (but maybe) biglaw, almost certainly not in Cali, and the full price (you'll be wishing you were at UCLA then.
Bottom third at UCLA, see median at UCLA except definitely not biglaw.
Midlaw? Can you give me an example of a midlaw firm that pays at least 100K and hires freshly minted grads? Bonus points if that firm hires the types of freshly minted grads who didn't have the qualifications to snag big law/federal clerkships.
I would be very surprised if you can point to some real firms that fit these categories. Technically they might exist, but I doubt they do so in anything approximating meaningful numbers. People need to stop saying things like "Just do midlaw bro" or "I don't NEED big law, I would be happy with midlaw" as if midlaw is a thing that is attainable for freshly minted grads.
STFU dude you're an idiot. Looking at LST you can see that lots of grads go into midlaw positions from these schools, and yes the starting salaries are around 100k. I personally know two 3L's at my school going into these positions, if you want me to do the research for the specific names I can, but that's a waste of my time. Not trying to dodge your question, but I don't get how you can just disagree to something so obvious
ETA: From UCLA 22% of grads go into firms between 2-10 and 250+ graduates. That's a meaningful amount.
From NALP
http://www.nalp.org/classof2011_salpressrel
Median Firm Salary: $130,000 $104,000 $85,000
Mean Firm Salary: $115,254 $106,444 $97,821
So yes while the number is decreasing slightly I was pretty close to 100k being right. and I'm presuming that UCLA grads will have a slightly better chance at the higher paying jobs then lower tier schools. And as I told the poster they'll have to hustle for the best jobs.
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/arti ... ize_firms/
Napt wrote:
Probably about $100k for first years and a bit more for laterals.
Lateraling to a smaller law firm doesn't seem like a very attractive exit option to me tbh. Same hours and worse pay.
ETA: I didn't look at SFMS at first. I'd expect Brown to be about $100k and SFMS to be around $75k.
Anonymous User wrote:I'm starting at a firm with a bit over 100 attys at $145k (for first years). There's just a lot of variance out there when you get out of the V100.
http://abovethelaw.com/2011/06/size-mat ... y-results/
The majority of survey respondents were
• junior associates (years 1-3)
• in firms 20 attorneys or less
• who had been at the firm for less than two years.
Attorneys in Pennsylvania reported base salaries between $77,000 and $130,000. The salaries do not necessarily correspond to class year. For example, a first year and a seventh year in Philadelphia earned $100,000.
• The highest reported salaries for small-firm attorneys came from D.C. The majority of responders reported base salaries between $150,000 and $200,000. The highest salary, $250,000, was earned by an of-counsel who billed 1800 hours.
• Not surprisingly, the small-firm attorneys in New York City reported the highest billable hours.
• The majority of junior associates in Chicago earned less than $100,000. There might be a light at the end of the tunnel for Chicago juniors, however. A fifth year reported a salary of $200,000 for billing 1500 hours. Please e-mail me and let me know where you work (and whether there is need for another mid-level).
• Associates in Los Angeles (years 1-5) reported salaries of $125,000 and under. Some were quite a bit under – a first year reported a salary of $40,000 and a fourth year of $25,000 (note: get out!).
• Of the ten San Franciscans who responded to the survey, eight make $100,000 or higher.
What was surprising, however, was the variation among associates at different small firms. For instance, of the fifth year associates in Manhattan (in firms of roughtly the same size) the salaries were $70,000, $125,000, $130,000, $135,000, $200,000 and $215,000. Why?
http://www.paralegals.org/associations/ ... v_2011.pdf
At a midsize law firm (35-75 lawyers), starting pay for lawyers with four to nine
years’ experience is expected to range from $115,750 to $168,500, a 5.5 percent
increase from 2011. Lawyers at small/midsize firms (10-35 lawyers) are likely to
see a rise of 4.9 percent to a range of $83,750 to $149,500.
That's not too bad 4 to 9 years out
http://www.nalp.org/new_associate_sal_oct2011
Year FIRM SIZE
2-10,11-25 26-50 51-100 101-250 251 or More
2011 — 73,000 — 86,000 91,000 110,000 130,000
Again, presuming a UCLA/Northwestern grad can do better than median if they hustle hard for the best firms.
http://www.ehow.com/about_6910501_law-f ... aries.html
According to the NALP, the median starting salary for new lawyers at firms with a staff consisting of 26 to 50 lawyers was $92,500 in 2009. This figure remains unchanged from the previous year and is the highest median starting salary for law firms in this size bracket since 1996. The median annual salary for new associates with firms with 51 to 100 lawyers was $104,000 in 2009, according to NALP findings, up nearly 10 percent over the previous year, when the figure for associates in this category was $95,000.
I am first seat deposited at both schools.
But I do want to experience new things, and moving out of state might be good for me in terms of growth? Am I crazy?