WUSTL $$$ v NU @ Sticker - Resolved 6/27/14 Forum

[workaholic82]

The debt differential here is significant. Graduating from WUSTL with over six figures in debt is crazy. You've only got an 18% shot at biglaw, and we're not talking biglaw positions with $160k salaries. We're talking midwest biglaw outside of Chicago. I would steer clear of this option.

However, I would also steer clear of NU with 250k+ in debt. That is way too much dischargeable debt. While you'll likely get a biglaw position from NU, you are going to be handicapped for the first three years with all the debt.

You may want to look at schools ranked between these two options that offer you better scholarships...or save up some cash over a year and re-apply.

As usual, you come in after a decision has been made and drop some stale wisdom that barely qualifies as 'informative'.
1) OP already has $35K in undergraduate loans, so they're only paying CoL & change at washington university. They'll graduate with substantial debt regardless of where they attend, or they'll have to start servicing the obligation immediately on a presumably part time or clerical salary. If OP wants to practice law within the next few years, this is the best way to overcome their deplorable college record.
2) OP is an extreme splitter, and has landed two of the most splitter friendly options. There just aren't schools "ranked between these two options" (not sure why you cite 'rankings') that would offer comparable scholarship to WashU or large firm employment to Northwestern. OP's only other option would be to attend a peer school to WashU with worse placement in the target market, such as Minnesota or GW, for similar (or in GW's case, more) debt. Can't see how that's an improvement.
3) Even your statements about NU display flawed analysis, but it's beside the point so I won't go into it.

In other words, your perspective ignores the facts, distorts the placement data, and gives specious, impossible advise, not to mention that OP has already made a decision.

Thanks JBagel. These were my thoughts exactly, but it's good to hear someone as discerning on this site as you say it.

[jbagelboy]

The debt differential here is significant. Graduating from WUSTL with over six figures in debt is crazy. You've only got an 18% shot at biglaw, and we're not talking biglaw positions with $160k salaries. We're talking midwest biglaw outside of Chicago. I would steer clear of this option.

However, I would also steer clear of NU with 250k+ in debt. That is way too much dischargeable debt. While you'll likely get a biglaw position from NU, you are going to be handicapped for the first three years with all the debt.

You may want to look at schools ranked between these two options that offer you better scholarships...or save up some cash over a year and re-apply.

As usual, you come in after a decision has been made and drop some stale wisdom that barely qualifies as 'informative'.
1) OP already has $35K in undergraduate loans, so they're only paying CoL & change at washington university. They'll graduate with substantial debt regardless of where they attend, or they'll have to start servicing the obligation immediately on a presumably part time or clerical salary. If OP wants to practice law within the next few years, this is the best way to overcome their deplorable college record.
2) OP is an extreme splitter, and has landed two of the most splitter friendly options. There just aren't schools "ranked between these two options" (not sure why you cite 'rankings') that would offer comparable scholarship to WashU or large firm employment to Northwestern. OP's only other option would be to attend a peer school to WashU with worse placement in the target market, such as Minnesota or GW, for similar (or in GW's case, more) debt. Can't see how that's an improvement.
3) Even your statements about NU display flawed analysis, but it's beside the point so I won't go into it.

In other words, your perspective ignores the facts, distorts the placement data, and gives specious, impossible advise, not to mention that OP has already made a decision.

Thanks JBagel. These were my thoughts exactly, but it's good to hear someone as discerning on this site as you say it.

NP. Now, Informative and others are correct in pointing out that $100K is a lot of debt to pay back without a large firm salary. But its unfair to suggest you have a 'better option' waiting out there in law. My hesitation would be over how much you value practicing some form of law at all, since biglaw admittedly remains unlikely out of a regional school; however, I think you're in the best position you could be in if you are committed to attending law school and becoming an attorney.

[workaholic82]

The debt differential here is significant. Graduating from WUSTL with over six figures in debt is crazy. You've only got an 18% shot at biglaw, and we're not talking biglaw positions with $160k salaries. We're talking midwest biglaw outside of Chicago. I would steer clear of this option.

However, I would also steer clear of NU with 250k+ in debt. That is way too much dischargeable debt. While you'll likely get a biglaw position from NU, you are going to be handicapped for the first three years with all the debt.

You may want to look at schools ranked between these two options that offer you better scholarships...or save up some cash over a year and re-apply.

As usual, you come in after a decision has been made and drop some stale wisdom that barely qualifies as 'informative'.
1) OP already has $35K in undergraduate loans, so they're only paying CoL & change at washington university. They'll graduate with substantial debt regardless of where they attend, or they'll have to start servicing the obligation immediately on a presumably part time or clerical salary. If OP wants to practice law within the next few years, this is the best way to overcome their deplorable college record.
2) OP is an extreme splitter, and has landed two of the most splitter friendly options. There just aren't schools "ranked between these two options" (not sure why you cite 'rankings') that would offer comparable scholarship to WashU or large firm employment to Northwestern. OP's only other option would be to attend a peer school to WashU with worse placement in the target market, such as Minnesota or GW, for similar (or in GW's case, more) debt. Can't see how that's an improvement.
3) Even your statements about NU display flawed analysis, but it's beside the point so I won't go into it.

In other words, your perspective ignores the facts, distorts the placement data, and gives specious, impossible advise, not to mention that OP has already made a decision.

Thanks JBagel. These were my thoughts exactly, but it's good to hear someone as discerning on this site as you say it.

NP. Now, Informative and others are correct in pointing out that $100K is a lot of debt to pay back without a large firm salary. But its unfair to suggest you have a 'better option' waiting out there in law. My hesitation would be over how much you value practicing some form of law at all, since biglaw admittedly remains unlikely out of a regional school; however, I think you're in the best position you could be in if you are committed to attending law school and becoming an attorney.

Yes, I understand. I assume if I finish top 10-20% and still want Biglaw, you feel the best option would be trying to transfer to the top T14 I can? At least that way I'd have save about $60,000.00 in first year tuition...

[jbagelboy]

I don't think you should attend with the intent to transfer. I know cuse has struggled with this. I don't actually support leaving a large scholarship from a strong regional school with solid large firm placement. If I were on a full ride at WUSTL and top 20% I would massmail the shit out of my target markets & NYC and snag as many OCI interviews as possible; I would also heed the advise of alumns working at large firms. Since I don't attend WashU or a peer it's tough for me to fully empathize. But regardless, the meat of the struggle is to beat out 80%+ of your classmates to make yourself eligible for firm work or a transfer; assuming the qualifications are similar from your description, I'd just take the firm job and skip transferring altogether.

Once you have an offer, the significance of where you went to school fades almost instantaneously to black. The WUSTL students at Jones Day Chicago are getting the same salary and same opportunities as the UChicago students. It's just a lot easier for the average UChi student to get that job.

[workaholic82]

I don't think you should attend with the intent to transfer. I know cuse has struggled with this. I don't actually support leaving a large scholarship from a strong regional school with solid large firm placement. If I were on a full ride at WUSTL and top 20% I would massmail the shit out of my target markets & NYC and snag as many OCI interviews as possible; I would also heed the advise of alumns working at large firms. Since I don't attend WashU or a peer it's tough for me to fully empathize. But regardless, the meat of the struggle is to beat out 80%+ of your classmates to make yourself eligible for firm work or a transfer; assuming the qualifications are similar from your description, I'd just take the firm job and skip transferring altogether.

Once you have an offer, the significance of where you went to school fades almost instantaneously to black. The WUSTL students at Jones Day Chicago are getting the same salary and same opportunities as the UChicago students. It's just a lot easier for the average UChi student to get that job.

Gotcha. I'd like to think my prior work experience and advanced age puts me at a slight advantage off the bat, but obviously without the grades it's not enough. I will simply work my ass off (but not so conspicuously as to be hated by all...). Thanks for the insight.