Michigan vs UCLA vs Cornell vs UVA Forum

[jrman26h]

which

[urbanist11]

*grabs popcorn*

[kingpin101]

Career aspirations of being a sports agent. In case I have a change of heart what school would set me up to be the most successful(financially)?

Scholarships so far:

30k a year from Michigan

I truly don't understand how you can mess up so much in so few lines.

[WheninLaw]

None of these. You should apply to Southwestern, it is rated #1 for sports law. You only get one shot, make it count.

Source: http://lawstreetmedia.com/schools/top-1 ... -law-2014/

[benwyatt]

Retake.

[Otunga]

90k total isn't enough. Even if we throw out the sports agent aspiration and just change that to "generic biglaw", it's still way too much debt for a non-trivial chance at a bad outcome.

[CTT]

I'm a current 3L at Michigan and love it. I think 30k a year is enough for most people to make law school a fine choice. You're basically talking about ending up with $125,000 of debt if you have to do all loans. That's assuming you can live off ~$20k / year for the first two and your summer associate money for the third. Not difficult in Ann Arbor. And if the choice is between that and no money at UVA, there's just no comparison.

On the other hand, being a legit sports agent is unlikely to happen, unless you get really lucky or already have a network in that world.

[GFox345]

90k total isn't enough. Even if we throw out the sports agent aspiration and just change that to "generic biglaw", it's still way too much debt for a non-trivial chance at a bad outcome.

This is absolutely absurd. According to the most recent T-14 rankings on this cite, about 7% of the class at Michigan receives a scholarship of half tuition or greater (90k total surely fits into this category). Do you really mean to suggest that going to a top 10 school is not worth it for over 90% of the class? Your point that a bad outcome is possible is certainly true, but if Michigan with 2/3 tuition scholarship is not worth it, then what is?

Surely, if this is too risky of a proposition, how could you ever suggest that someone pay sticker even at HYS (which is acknowledged as one of the best outcomes possible for an applicant on TLS)? A bad outcome is always possible, and depending on your definition of non-trivial, the decision to attend any law school runs the student a non-trivial risk of a bad outcome.

OP, I would strongly urge you to ignore this advice. It is totally off-base. TLS is a great resource when it comes to dissuading people from attending a TTT school without a massive scholarship, but please, please do not let neurotic, oblivious, and pathologically debt-averse people on this forum talk you out of a fantastic outcome. Not all risks are created equal, but there really is truth in the saying "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." Going to law school is a risk - period. And Michigan with a 2/3 scholarship is a risk worth taking.

[Otunga]

90k total isn't enough. Even if we throw out the sports agent aspiration and just change that to "generic biglaw", it's still way too much debt for a non-trivial chance at a bad outcome.

This is absolutely absurd. According to the most recent T-14 rankings on this cite, about 7% of the class at Michigan receives a scholarship of half tuition or greater (90k total surely fits into this category). Do you really mean to suggest that going to a top 10 school is not worth it for over 90% of the class? Your point that a bad outcome is possible is certainly true, but if Michigan with 2/3 tuition scholarship is not worth it, then what is?

Surely, if this is too risky of a proposition, how could you ever suggest that someone pay sticker even at HYS (which is acknowledged as one of the best outcomes possible for an applicant on TLS)? A bad outcome is always possible, and depending on your definition of non-trivial, the decision to attend any law school runs the student a non-trivial risk of a bad outcome.

OP, I would strongly urge you to ignore this advice. It is totally off-base. TLS is a great resource when it comes to dissuading people from attending a TTT school without a massive scholarship, but please, please do not let neurotic, oblivious, and pathologically debt-averse people on this forum talk you out of a fantastic outcome. Not all risks are created equal, but there really is truth in the saying "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." Going to law school is a risk - period. And Michigan with a 2/3 scholarship is a risk worth taking.

I do think going to law school makes sense for less than 10% of people generally, yes...not just at Michigan. And no, I wouldn't suggest somebody go to HYS at sticker, even if their family's wealthy (the money could be invested in a career with a better market).

I urge the OP to NOT ignore advice stating that 120k+ debt could easily leave them in a horrible situation. Hell, even if we stipulate that they obtain biglaw, one only has to cite the poor retention rates and (in broad terms) terrible lives of biglaw associates to still make it a bad outcome.

OP - if you at all think you could make a viable accountant, software engineer...or any other solid career that requires much less debt, then go for that option UNLESS you can manage to go to a top 14 law school free or close to it.

[GFox345]

90k total isn't enough. Even if we throw out the sports agent aspiration and just change that to "generic biglaw", it's still way too much debt for a non-trivial chance at a bad outcome.

This is absolutely absurd. According to the most recent T-14 rankings on this cite, about 7% of the class at Michigan receives a scholarship of half tuition or greater (90k total surely fits into this category). Do you really mean to suggest that going to a top 10 school is not worth it for over 90% of the class? Your point that a bad outcome is possible is certainly true, but if Michigan with 2/3 tuition scholarship is not worth it, then what is?

Surely, if this is too risky of a proposition, how could you ever suggest that someone pay sticker even at HYS (which is acknowledged as one of the best outcomes possible for an applicant on TLS)? A bad outcome is always possible, and depending on your definition of non-trivial, the decision to attend any law school runs the student a non-trivial risk of a bad outcome.

OP, I would strongly urge you to ignore this advice. It is totally off-base. TLS is a great resource when it comes to dissuading people from attending a TTT school without a massive scholarship, but please, please do not let neurotic, oblivious, and pathologically debt-averse people on this forum talk you out of a fantastic outcome. Not all risks are created equal, but there really is truth in the saying "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." Going to law school is a risk - period. And Michigan with a 2/3 scholarship is a risk worth taking.

I do think going to law school makes sense for less than 10% of people generally, yes...not just at Michigan. And no, I wouldn't suggest somebody go to HYS at sticker, even if their family's wealthy (the money could be invested in a career with a better market).

I urge the OP to NOT ignore advice stating that 120k+ debt could easily leave them in a horrible situation. Hell, even if we stipulate that they obtain biglaw, one only has to cite the poor retention rates and (in broad terms) terrible lives of biglaw associates to still make it a bad outcome.

OP - if you at all think you could make a viable accountant, software engineer...or any other solid career that requires much less debt, then go for that option UNLESS you can manage to go to a top 14 law school free or close to it.

Again, the set of major financial decisions that could lead to a horrible situation includes almost all major financial decisions. You have to take risks to be successful - period. In fact, often the most successful people are those that take risks often. It is incumbent on us as law school applicants to be reasonable risk-takers, and the standard for being “reasonable” is the real idea at issue here.
I may agree with the idea that going to law school is not a great decision for up to 90% of prospective students, but to suggest that this figure extends even to those who are attending top-10 Law Schools with enormous scholarships? Again, the outcome that Otunga is suggesting as a sort of bare-minimum to justify the decision to attend law school is achieved by less than 1% of applicants. I, for one, think it is a goal to aspire to, but it is just out-of-touch to reality to suggest that anything less is an irresponsible option to take.
At a school like Michigan, you have a very solid chance of landing Big Law, and an even better chance at landing a PI job if that is your choice. There are also smaller firms, especially in and around the Midwest, that relish the chance to hire Michigan grads - even those that finish below the median. I would submit that you have a very small chance of landing in a situation in which you are unable to repay your debt, and even if you do happen to land in a very difficult situation, Michigan has a wonderful LRAP that is designed for just such a situation.
The flip side is that you land BigLaw (in my time as a paralegal at a V5 firm, I have seen that the legends about the horrible lives of associates are true at times, but, on the whole, are very overblown as are the drawbacks of any other career that you hear about.) and make a ton of money or land a job in the career of your dreams using the credentials you’ve obtained by attending a top-notch law school, you repay your loans very quickly, and the world is, quite franky, your oyster.
Very, very few people are able to swing a full ride at a Top 14 school, and a far greater number than that - even those that go at sticker - enjoy great financial and personal success as a result of attending such a school. You need to understand that the outcome that you have already achieved is unquestionably worth taking. You can hide your head in the sand on this one because it’s all true. It is possible that this decision could lead to financial ruin, but again almost ANY major financial decision has the potential to lead to financial ruin, and so I, for one, don’t think that pointing out the possibility of a bad outcome is QED for the decision being a bad one.
You alone, in the end, can properly weigh the factors, but it is objectively incorrect to say that this is an irresponsible financial decision. Every decision calculated in order to achieve a good outcome has the potential to instead result in a bad one, but as these decisions come, this one has limited risk and a potentially very high reward.

[Otunga]

90k total isn't enough. Even if we throw out the sports agent aspiration and just change that to "generic biglaw", it's still way too much debt for a non-trivial chance at a bad outcome.

This is absolutely absurd. According to the most recent T-14 rankings on this cite, about 7% of the class at Michigan receives a scholarship of half tuition or greater (90k total surely fits into this category). Do you really mean to suggest that going to a top 10 school is not worth it for over 90% of the class? Your point that a bad outcome is possible is certainly true, but if Michigan with 2/3 tuition scholarship is not worth it, then what is?

Surely, if this is too risky of a proposition, how could you ever suggest that someone pay sticker even at HYS (which is acknowledged as one of the best outcomes possible for an applicant on TLS)? A bad outcome is always possible, and depending on your definition of non-trivial, the decision to attend any law school runs the student a non-trivial risk of a bad outcome.

OP, I would strongly urge you to ignore this advice. It is totally off-base. TLS is a great resource when it comes to dissuading people from attending a TTT school without a massive scholarship, but please, please do not let neurotic, oblivious, and pathologically debt-averse people on this forum talk you out of a fantastic outcome. Not all risks are created equal, but there really is truth in the saying "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." Going to law school is a risk - period. And Michigan with a 2/3 scholarship is a risk worth taking.

I do think going to law school makes sense for less than 10% of people generally, yes...not just at Michigan. And no, I wouldn't suggest somebody go to HYS at sticker, even if their family's wealthy (the money could be invested in a career with a better market).

I urge the OP to NOT ignore advice stating that 120k+ debt could easily leave them in a horrible situation. Hell, even if we stipulate that they obtain biglaw, one only has to cite the poor retention rates and (in broad terms) terrible lives of biglaw associates to still make it a bad outcome.

OP - if you at all think you could make a viable accountant, software engineer...or any other solid career that requires much less debt, then go for that option UNLESS you can manage to go to a top 14 law school free or close to it.

Again, the set of major financial decisions that could lead to a horrible situation includes almost all major financial decisions. You have to take risks to be successful - period. In fact, often the most successful people are those that take risks often. It is incumbent on us as law school applicants to be reasonable risk-takers, and the standard for being “reasonable” is the real idea at issue here.
I may agree with the idea that going to law school is not a great decision for up to 90% of prospective students, but to suggest that this figure extends even to those who are attending top-10 Law Schools with enormous scholarships? Again, the outcome that Otunga is suggesting as a sort of bare-minimum to justify the decision to attend law school is achieved by less than 1% of applicants. I, for one, think it is a goal to aspire to, but it is just out-of-touch to reality to suggest that anything less is an irresponsible option to take.
At a school like Michigan, you have a very solid chance of landing Big Law, and an even better chance at landing a PI job if that is your choice. There are also smaller firms, especially in and around the Midwest, that relish the chance to hire Michigan grads - even those that finish below the median. I would submit that you have a very small chance of landing in a situation in which you are unable to repay your debt, and even if you do happen to land in a very difficult situation, Michigan has a wonderful LRAP that is designed for just such a situation.
The flip side is that you land BigLaw (in my time as a paralegal at a V5 firm, I have seen that the legends about the horrible lives of associates are true at times, but, on the whole, are very overblown as are the drawbacks of any other career that you hear about.) and make a ton of money or land a job in the career of your dreams using the credentials you’ve obtained by attending a top-notch law school, you repay your loans very quickly, and the world is, quite franky, your oyster.
Very, very few people are able to swing a full ride at a Top 14 school, and a far greater number than that - even those that go at sticker - enjoy great financial and personal success as a result of attending such a school. You need to understand that the outcome that you have already achieved is unquestionably worth taking. You can hide your head in the sand on this one because it’s all true. It is possible that this decision could lead to financial ruin, but again almost ANY major financial decision has the potential to lead to financial ruin, and so I, for one, don’t think that pointing out the possibility of a bad outcome is QED for the decision being a bad one.
You alone, in the end, can properly weigh the factors, but it is objectively incorrect to say that this is an irresponsible financial decision. Every decision calculated in order to achieve a good outcome has the potential to instead result in a bad one, but as these decisions come, this one has limited risk and a potentially very high reward.

I get what you're saying - there's risk involved with any investment, sure. I just speak from the perspective of somebody that's turned to computer science and has accrued comparatively much less debt as a result. And so if OP is AT ALL inclined to pursue a career like that, then they should.

The gist of what I'm saying is that whenever you're taking out over 100k debt, and aren't super wealthy, that's a serious amount of risk compared to other viable alternatives. If OP is comfortable with that risk, then so be it.

Remember however that we're not just discussing law school in a vacuum here - if OP had to absolutely go to law school, then a 90k scholarship at Michigan leaves them better off than the vast majority of law students. However, they don't absolutely have to.

[GFox345]

90k total isn't enough. Even if we throw out the sports agent aspiration and just change that to "generic biglaw", it's still way too much debt for a non-trivial chance at a bad outcome.

This is absolutely absurd. According to the most recent T-14 rankings on this cite, about 7% of the class at Michigan receives a scholarship of half tuition or greater (90k total surely fits into this category). Do you really mean to suggest that going to a top 10 school is not worth it for over 90% of the class? Your point that a bad outcome is possible is certainly true, but if Michigan with 2/3 tuition scholarship is not worth it, then what is?

Surely, if this is too risky of a proposition, how could you ever suggest that someone pay sticker even at HYS (which is acknowledged as one of the best outcomes possible for an applicant on TLS)? A bad outcome is always possible, and depending on your definition of non-trivial, the decision to attend any law school runs the student a non-trivial risk of a bad outcome.

OP, I would strongly urge you to ignore this advice. It is totally off-base. TLS is a great resource when it comes to dissuading people from attending a TTT school without a massive scholarship, but please, please do not let neurotic, oblivious, and pathologically debt-averse people on this forum talk you out of a fantastic outcome. Not all risks are created equal, but there really is truth in the saying "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." Going to law school is a risk - period. And Michigan with a 2/3 scholarship is a risk worth taking.

I do think going to law school makes sense for less than 10% of people generally, yes...not just at Michigan. And no, I wouldn't suggest somebody go to HYS at sticker, even if their family's wealthy (the money could be invested in a career with a better market).

I urge the OP to NOT ignore advice stating that 120k+ debt could easily leave them in a horrible situation. Hell, even if we stipulate that they obtain biglaw, one only has to cite the poor retention rates and (in broad terms) terrible lives of biglaw associates to still make it a bad outcome.

OP - if you at all think you could make a viable accountant, software engineer...or any other solid career that requires much less debt, then go for that option UNLESS you can manage to go to a top 14 law school free or close to it.

Again, the set of major financial decisions that could lead to a horrible situation includes almost all major financial decisions. You have to take risks to be successful - period. In fact, often the most successful people are those that take risks often. It is incumbent on us as law school applicants to be reasonable risk-takers, and the standard for being “reasonable” is the real idea at issue here.
I may agree with the idea that going to law school is not a great decision for up to 90% of prospective students, but to suggest that this figure extends even to those who are attending top-10 Law Schools with enormous scholarships? Again, the outcome that Otunga is suggesting as a sort of bare-minimum to justify the decision to attend law school is achieved by less than 1% of applicants. I, for one, think it is a goal to aspire to, but it is just out-of-touch to reality to suggest that anything less is an irresponsible option to take.
At a school like Michigan, you have a very solid chance of landing Big Law, and an even better chance at landing a PI job if that is your choice. There are also smaller firms, especially in and around the Midwest, that relish the chance to hire Michigan grads - even those that finish below the median. I would submit that you have a very small chance of landing in a situation in which you are unable to repay your debt, and even if you do happen to land in a very difficult situation, Michigan has a wonderful LRAP that is designed for just such a situation.
The flip side is that you land BigLaw (in my time as a paralegal at a V5 firm, I have seen that the legends about the horrible lives of associates are true at times, but, on the whole, are very overblown as are the drawbacks of any other career that you hear about.) and make a ton of money or land a job in the career of your dreams using the credentials you’ve obtained by attending a top-notch law school, you repay your loans very quickly, and the world is, quite franky, your oyster.
Very, very few people are able to swing a full ride at a Top 14 school, and a far greater number than that - even those that go at sticker - enjoy great financial and personal success as a result of attending such a school. You need to understand that the outcome that you have already achieved is unquestionably worth taking. You can hide your head in the sand on this one because it’s all true. It is possible that this decision could lead to financial ruin, but again almost ANY major financial decision has the potential to lead to financial ruin, and so I, for one, don’t think that pointing out the possibility of a bad outcome is QED for the decision being a bad one.
You alone, in the end, can properly weigh the factors, but it is objectively incorrect to say that this is an irresponsible financial decision. Every decision calculated in order to achieve a good outcome has the potential to instead result in a bad one, but as these decisions come, this one has limited risk and a potentially very high reward.

I get what you're saying - there's risk involved with any investment, sure. I just speak from the perspective of somebody that's turned to computer science and has accrued comparatively much less debt as a result. And so if OP is AT ALL inclined to pursue a career like that, then they should.

The gist of what I'm saying is that whenever you're taking out over 100k debt, and aren't super wealthy, that's a serious amount of risk compared to other viable alternatives. If OP is comfortable with that risk, then so be it.

Remember however that we're not just discussing law school in a vacuum here - if OP had to absolutely go to law school, then a 90k scholarship at Michigan leaves them better off than the vast majority of law students. However, they don't absolutely have to.

I completely disagree with your idea that if the OP is at all inclined to pursue a career like that then they should. You may be right that there is less risk involved in pursuing a career in that field, but again, you have a long way to go from less risk = better option. In this case, I think you are being risk-averse to a flaw.

[kepfd24]

90k total isn't enough. Even if we throw out the sports agent aspiration and just change that to "generic biglaw", it's still way too much debt for a non-trivial chance at a bad outcome.

This is absolutely absurd. According to the most recent T-14 rankings on this cite, about 7% of the class at Michigan receives a scholarship of half tuition or greater (90k total surely fits into this category). Do you really mean to suggest that going to a top 10 school is not worth it for over 90% of the class? Your point that a bad outcome is possible is certainly true, but if Michigan with 2/3 tuition scholarship is not worth it, then what is?

Surely, if this is too risky of a proposition, how could you ever suggest that someone pay sticker even at HYS (which is acknowledged as one of the best outcomes possible for an applicant on TLS)? A bad outcome is always possible, and depending on your definition of non-trivial, the decision to attend any law school runs the student a non-trivial risk of a bad outcome.

OP, I would strongly urge you to ignore this advice. It is totally off-base. TLS is a great resource when it comes to dissuading people from attending a TTT school without a massive scholarship, but please, please do not let neurotic, oblivious, and pathologically debt-averse people on this forum talk you out of a fantastic outcome. Not all risks are created equal, but there really is truth in the saying "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." Going to law school is a risk - period. And Michigan with a 2/3 scholarship is a risk worth taking.

I do think going to law school makes sense for less than 10% of people generally, yes...not just at Michigan. And no, I wouldn't suggest somebody go to HYS at sticker, even if their family's wealthy (the money could be invested in a career with a better market).

I urge the OP to NOT ignore advice stating that 120k+ debt could easily leave them in a horrible situation. Hell, even if we stipulate that they obtain biglaw, one only has to cite the poor retention rates and (in broad terms) terrible lives of biglaw associates to still make it a bad outcome.

OP - if you at all think you could make a viable accountant, software engineer...or any other solid career that requires much less debt, then go for that option UNLESS you can manage to go to a top 14 law school free or close to it.

Again, the set of major financial decisions that could lead to a horrible situation includes almost all major financial decisions. You have to take risks to be successful - period. In fact, often the most successful people are those that take risks often. It is incumbent on us as law school applicants to be reasonable risk-takers, and the standard for being “reasonable” is the real idea at issue here.
I may agree with the idea that going to law school is not a great decision for up to 90% of prospective students, but to suggest that this figure extends even to those who are attending top-10 Law Schools with enormous scholarships? Again, the outcome that Otunga is suggesting as a sort of bare-minimum to justify the decision to attend law school is achieved by less than 1% of applicants. I, for one, think it is a goal to aspire to, but it is just out-of-touch to reality to suggest that anything less is an irresponsible option to take.
At a school like Michigan, you have a very solid chance of landing Big Law, and an even better chance at landing a PI job if that is your choice. There are also smaller firms, especially in and around the Midwest, that relish the chance to hire Michigan grads - even those that finish below the median. I would submit that you have a very small chance of landing in a situation in which you are unable to repay your debt, and even if you do happen to land in a very difficult situation, Michigan has a wonderful LRAP that is designed for just such a situation.
The flip side is that you land BigLaw (in my time as a paralegal at a V5 firm, I have seen that the legends about the horrible lives of associates are true at times, but, on the whole, are very overblown as are the drawbacks of any other career that you hear about.) and make a ton of money or land a job in the career of your dreams using the credentials you’ve obtained by attending a top-notch law school, you repay your loans very quickly, and the world is, quite franky, your oyster.
Very, very few people are able to swing a full ride at a Top 14 school, and a far greater number than that - even those that go at sticker - enjoy great financial and personal success as a result of attending such a school. You need to understand that the outcome that you have already achieved is unquestionably worth taking. You can hide your head in the sand on this one because it’s all true. It is possible that this decision could lead to financial ruin, but again almost ANY major financial decision has the potential to lead to financial ruin, and so I, for one, don’t think that pointing out the possibility of a bad outcome is QED for the decision being a bad one.
You alone, in the end, can properly weigh the factors, but it is objectively incorrect to say that this is an irresponsible financial decision. Every decision calculated in order to achieve a good outcome has the potential to instead result in a bad one, but as these decisions come, this one has limited risk and a potentially very high reward.

I get what you're saying - there's risk involved with any investment, sure. I just speak from the perspective of somebody that's turned to computer science and has accrued comparatively much less debt as a result. And so if OP is AT ALL inclined to pursue a career like that, then they should.

The gist of what I'm saying is that whenever you're taking out over 100k debt, and aren't super wealthy, that's a serious amount of risk compared to other viable alternatives. If OP is comfortable with that risk, then so be it.

Remember however that we're not just discussing law school in a vacuum here - if OP had to absolutely go to law school, then a 90k scholarship at Michigan leaves them better off than the vast majority of law students. However, they don't absolutely have to.

Otunga sorry but in all honesty I think you need to GTFO. You said so yourself - you decided to not get a JD degree. I don't need another perspective of someone who has accrued debt.

[Otunga]

90k total isn't enough. Even if we throw out the sports agent aspiration and just change that to "generic biglaw", it's still way too much debt for a non-trivial chance at a bad outcome.

This is absolutely absurd. According to the most recent T-14 rankings on this cite, about 7% of the class at Michigan receives a scholarship of half tuition or greater (90k total surely fits into this category). Do you really mean to suggest that going to a top 10 school is not worth it for over 90% of the class? Your point that a bad outcome is possible is certainly true, but if Michigan with 2/3 tuition scholarship is not worth it, then what is?

Surely, if this is too risky of a proposition, how could you ever suggest that someone pay sticker even at HYS (which is acknowledged as one of the best outcomes possible for an applicant on TLS)? A bad outcome is always possible, and depending on your definition of non-trivial, the decision to attend any law school runs the student a non-trivial risk of a bad outcome.

OP, I would strongly urge you to ignore this advice. It is totally off-base. TLS is a great resource when it comes to dissuading people from attending a TTT school without a massive scholarship, but please, please do not let neurotic, oblivious, and pathologically debt-averse people on this forum talk you out of a fantastic outcome. Not all risks are created equal, but there really is truth in the saying "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." Going to law school is a risk - period. And Michigan with a 2/3 scholarship is a risk worth taking.

I do think going to law school makes sense for less than 10% of people generally, yes...not just at Michigan. And no, I wouldn't suggest somebody go to HYS at sticker, even if their family's wealthy (the money could be invested in a career with a better market).

I urge the OP to NOT ignore advice stating that 120k+ debt could easily leave them in a horrible situation. Hell, even if we stipulate that they obtain biglaw, one only has to cite the poor retention rates and (in broad terms) terrible lives of biglaw associates to still make it a bad outcome.

OP - if you at all think you could make a viable accountant, software engineer...or any other solid career that requires much less debt, then go for that option UNLESS you can manage to go to a top 14 law school free or close to it.

Again, the set of major financial decisions that could lead to a horrible situation includes almost all major financial decisions. You have to take risks to be successful - period. In fact, often the most successful people are those that take risks often. It is incumbent on us as law school applicants to be reasonable risk-takers, and the standard for being “reasonable” is the real idea at issue here.
I may agree with the idea that going to law school is not a great decision for up to 90% of prospective students, but to suggest that this figure extends even to those who are attending top-10 Law Schools with enormous scholarships? Again, the outcome that Otunga is suggesting as a sort of bare-minimum to justify the decision to attend law school is achieved by less than 1% of applicants. I, for one, think it is a goal to aspire to, but it is just out-of-touch to reality to suggest that anything less is an irresponsible option to take.
At a school like Michigan, you have a very solid chance of landing Big Law, and an even better chance at landing a PI job if that is your choice. There are also smaller firms, especially in and around the Midwest, that relish the chance to hire Michigan grads - even those that finish below the median. I would submit that you have a very small chance of landing in a situation in which you are unable to repay your debt, and even if you do happen to land in a very difficult situation, Michigan has a wonderful LRAP that is designed for just such a situation.
The flip side is that you land BigLaw (in my time as a paralegal at a V5 firm, I have seen that the legends about the horrible lives of associates are true at times, but, on the whole, are very overblown as are the drawbacks of any other career that you hear about.) and make a ton of money or land a job in the career of your dreams using the credentials you’ve obtained by attending a top-notch law school, you repay your loans very quickly, and the world is, quite franky, your oyster.
Very, very few people are able to swing a full ride at a Top 14 school, and a far greater number than that - even those that go at sticker - enjoy great financial and personal success as a result of attending such a school. You need to understand that the outcome that you have already achieved is unquestionably worth taking. You can hide your head in the sand on this one because it’s all true. It is possible that this decision could lead to financial ruin, but again almost ANY major financial decision has the potential to lead to financial ruin, and so I, for one, don’t think that pointing out the possibility of a bad outcome is QED for the decision being a bad one.
You alone, in the end, can properly weigh the factors, but it is objectively incorrect to say that this is an irresponsible financial decision. Every decision calculated in order to achieve a good outcome has the potential to instead result in a bad one, but as these decisions come, this one has limited risk and a potentially very high reward.

I get what you're saying - there's risk involved with any investment, sure. I just speak from the perspective of somebody that's turned to computer science and has accrued comparatively much less debt as a result. And so if OP is AT ALL inclined to pursue a career like that, then they should.

The gist of what I'm saying is that whenever you're taking out over 100k debt, and aren't super wealthy, that's a serious amount of risk compared to other viable alternatives. If OP is comfortable with that risk, then so be it.

Remember however that we're not just discussing law school in a vacuum here - if OP had to absolutely go to law school, then a 90k scholarship at Michigan leaves them better off than the vast majority of law students. However, they don't absolutely have to.

Otunga sorry but in all honesty I think you need to GTFO. You said so yourself - you decided to not get a JD degree. I don't need another perspective of someone who has accrued debt.

Fine but how many have not accrued debt on this board? That's an odd thing to point out.

[Trippel]

Why did you already delete your original post with the scholarship info? Are you really afraid of being outed?

[kepfd24]

90k total isn't enough. Even if we throw out the sports agent aspiration and just change that to "generic biglaw", it's still way too much debt for a non-trivial chance at a bad outcome.

This is absolutely absurd. According to the most recent T-14 rankings on this cite, about 7% of the class at Michigan receives a scholarship of half tuition or greater (90k total surely fits into this category). Do you really mean to suggest that going to a top 10 school is not worth it for over 90% of the class? Your point that a bad outcome is possible is certainly true, but if Michigan with 2/3 tuition scholarship is not worth it, then what is?

Surely, if this is too risky of a proposition, how could you ever suggest that someone pay sticker even at HYS (which is acknowledged as one of the best outcomes possible for an applicant on TLS)? A bad outcome is always possible, and depending on your definition of non-trivial, the decision to attend any law school runs the student a non-trivial risk of a bad outcome.

OP, I would strongly urge you to ignore this advice. It is totally off-base. TLS is a great resource when it comes to dissuading people from attending a TTT school without a massive scholarship, but please, please do not let neurotic, oblivious, and pathologically debt-averse people on this forum talk you out of a fantastic outcome. Not all risks are created equal, but there really is truth in the saying "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." Going to law school is a risk - period. And Michigan with a 2/3 scholarship is a risk worth taking.

I do think going to law school makes sense for less than 10% of people generally, yes...not just at Michigan. And no, I wouldn't suggest somebody go to HYS at sticker, even if their family's wealthy (the money could be invested in a career with a better market).

I urge the OP to NOT ignore advice stating that 120k+ debt could easily leave them in a horrible situation. Hell, even if we stipulate that they obtain biglaw, one only has to cite the poor retention rates and (in broad terms) terrible lives of biglaw associates to still make it a bad outcome.

OP - if you at all think you could make a viable accountant, software engineer...or any other solid career that requires much less debt, then go for that option UNLESS you can manage to go to a top 14 law school free or close to it.

Again, the set of major financial decisions that could lead to a horrible situation includes almost all major financial decisions. You have to take risks to be successful - period. In fact, often the most successful people are those that take risks often. It is incumbent on us as law school applicants to be reasonable risk-takers, and the standard for being “reasonable” is the real idea at issue here.
I may agree with the idea that going to law school is not a great decision for up to 90% of prospective students, but to suggest that this figure extends even to those who are attending top-10 Law Schools with enormous scholarships? Again, the outcome that Otunga is suggesting as a sort of bare-minimum to justify the decision to attend law school is achieved by less than 1% of applicants. I, for one, think it is a goal to aspire to, but it is just out-of-touch to reality to suggest that anything less is an irresponsible option to take.
At a school like Michigan, you have a very solid chance of landing Big Law, and an even better chance at landing a PI job if that is your choice. There are also smaller firms, especially in and around the Midwest, that relish the chance to hire Michigan grads - even those that finish below the median. I would submit that you have a very small chance of landing in a situation in which you are unable to repay your debt, and even if you do happen to land in a very difficult situation, Michigan has a wonderful LRAP that is designed for just such a situation.
The flip side is that you land BigLaw (in my time as a paralegal at a V5 firm, I have seen that the legends about the horrible lives of associates are true at times, but, on the whole, are very overblown as are the drawbacks of any other career that you hear about.) and make a ton of money or land a job in the career of your dreams using the credentials you’ve obtained by attending a top-notch law school, you repay your loans very quickly, and the world is, quite franky, your oyster.
Very, very few people are able to swing a full ride at a Top 14 school, and a far greater number than that - even those that go at sticker - enjoy great financial and personal success as a result of attending such a school. You need to understand that the outcome that you have already achieved is unquestionably worth taking. You can hide your head in the sand on this one because it’s all true. It is possible that this decision could lead to financial ruin, but again almost ANY major financial decision has the potential to lead to financial ruin, and so I, for one, don’t think that pointing out the possibility of a bad outcome is QED for the decision being a bad one.
You alone, in the end, can properly weigh the factors, but it is objectively incorrect to say that this is an irresponsible financial decision. Every decision calculated in order to achieve a good outcome has the potential to instead result in a bad one, but as these decisions come, this one has limited risk and a potentially very high reward.

I get what you're saying - there's risk involved with any investment, sure. I just speak from the perspective of somebody that's turned to computer science and has accrued comparatively much less debt as a result. And so if OP is AT ALL inclined to pursue a career like that, then they should.

The gist of what I'm saying is that whenever you're taking out over 100k debt, and aren't super wealthy, that's a serious amount of risk compared to other viable alternatives. If OP is comfortable with that risk, then so be it.

Remember however that we're not just discussing law school in a vacuum here - if OP had to absolutely go to law school, then a 90k scholarship at Michigan leaves them better off than the vast majority of law students. However, they don't absolutely have to.

Otunga sorry but in all honesty I think you need to GTFO. You said so yourself - you decided to not get a JD degree. I don't need another perspective of someone who has accrued debt.

Fine but how many have not accrued debt on this board? That's an odd thing to point out.

Because you opted to not go to law school. I mean your posts are generally sooo salty

[CTT]

As someone who has gone to Michigan and accrued around that much debt, I'm very happy that I decided to go to law school. I've had a great three years –- including terrific experiences with clinics, doing research for awesome professors, in classes, and over the summers. Yes, working for a big law firm will suck. On the other hand, it's not worse than working for a high-pressure consulting or finance firm. It'll take a few years of doing that work to eliminate the debt. With that comes some valuable experience and a kick-ass resume that can help land you in a more tolerable legal practice. The thing that's made law school enjoyable for me is that I actually like the law. I law representing clients, trying to figure out the legally correct answer to their problems, and then trying to advocate for whatever defensible answer is best for them. I certainly might have been financially better off had I decided to go work for some Wall Street investment bank or a start-up (if it had succeeded), but that's a long way from a sure thing. And more importantly, it wasn't a combination of education and work that was going to make me happy.

If your plan is to take on the debt and pay it back in big law, it's important to appraise whether you're likely to have problems obtaining a big law job. As I've posted in the past: Michigan students in the 2016 and 2017 classes seem to be doing very well on that front. Most people who want and do not get big law jobs have some combination of no meaningful experience, really awful grades, and extreme awkwardness.

[Biglaw1990]

.

[fliptrip]

I know the debt aversion on TLS can seem really dogmatic, but it is really backed up by the numbers. At Mich, the most recent objective and publicly available reports say that you have a 54% chance of landing biglaw. Those are not great odds, but let's just assume you get it. You'll be making $160k, but you'll be carrying not $125k in debt, but rather $168k in debt per the Georgetown COA calculator.

At $160k, your takehome pay is $96k/year or about $8k/month.

If you service the $168k on a level 10 year payment plan, you're looking at payments of ~$1900/month. Sure, you're starting spending 25% of your income on debt service, which will go down with your anticipated salary increases, but you can make it on the remainder, right?

The problem is that the overwhelming odds are that you will not stick around in biglaw longer than 3 years. It's a place to visit, not a place to make a career, really. And, the jobs that you exit biglaw to go to will not pay as well generally. Like, going in-house is a career for sure, but you'll be taking a step back salary-wise. The range of salaries for in-house counsel with 0-3 years of experience according to Robert Half is $125k-$160k for a large company in an average market and $82k-$113k for a small company in an average market. This is not to mention the fact that you may not even like being a lawyer.

If you make it through year 3 in biglaw and you just made your level payments for those three years, you'll still owe $128,477! Even if you're really aggressive and pay an extra $1k a month towards your loans during this time, you still come out owing $89k.

This is your situation even with your $90k discount at Michigan and you achieving the optimal outcome. If that's what you're facing with a more than 50% tuition discount, imagine how much worse the situation would be at sticker at UVA!

[Aeon]

I know the debt aversion on TLS can seem really dogmatic, but it is really backed up by the numbers. At Mich, the most recent objective and publicly available reports say that you have a 54% chance of landing biglaw. Those are not great odds, but let's just assume you get it. You'll be making $160k, but you'll be carrying not $125k in debt, but rather $168k in debt per the Georgetown COA calculator.

Just to be clear: 54% of people going into BigLaw ≠ 54% chance of getting BigLaw. There is some self-selection going on. Michigan has a number of people who have the qualifications for BigLaw but opt for government, clerkships, or public interest employment instead.

Otherwise, your points on the debt load hit the nail on the head. Many underestimate the significance of the burden.

[fliptrip]

^^You're 100% right. Unfortunately, I just punted on this and excluded them because it's hard to identify those folks in the data as it is. Just to be clear, I think Michigan is a great school and good outcomes are available at reasonable risk from Michigan for sure. I love them even though they hate me...lol..

[Emperor of Ice-Cream]

Michigan is NOT a T10 and the employment prospects at Mich are nearly as bad as Georgetown. Please don't buy into the notion that M and V are peer schools because they aren't. I'm not advising you to leave money on the table and pay sticker, but you need to understand that your chance of landing Biglaw is not the same. I would go to Cornell if you want NYC Biglaw, and UVA if you want to go to a different market, since UVA will provide you with more mobility. Best of luck!

The above is silly hyperbole. Michigan puts as many students into as many markets as any school outside HYSCN, and it's class size is nearly half of GULC's. It has an objectively strong alumni base and reputation, and is in every other respect UVA's peer. Hiring partners and judges don't really distinguish between 7-14 anyway, as anyone who's been through OCI or the clerkship process knows, and assertions of 0Ls to the contrary don't change this.

If you know you only want NYC BL, then C might be your best bet. But if you want to keep PI/Gov jobs open, and you're not sure where you want to practice, then M is as good a choice as V (probably better if you want CA). V's a great school. M's a great school. C's a great school. The best thing you can do as a prospective law student is to choose the best school for your needs at the lowest price. Work on your interviewing, networking, and storytelling; don't get caught up in rankings and trying to determine your odds as a percentage at peer schools.

[Biglaw1990]

.

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

this should be between cornell and uva, assuming all else equal.

dont go to ucla. and dont go to michigan. michigan is a t14 in name only. it's a huge TTT in decline with one of the weakest employment numbers besides georgetown.

[cron1834]

A lot of ignorance in this thread. Leo not helping. Sorry, OP.