Michigan vs UCLA vs Cornell vs UVA
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:56 pm
which
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=260599
I truly don't understand how you can mess up so much in so few lines.jrman26h wrote: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
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?Otunga wrote: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.
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).GFox345 wrote: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?Otunga wrote: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.
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.
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.Otunga wrote: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).GFox345 wrote: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?Otunga wrote: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.
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 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.
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.GFox345 wrote: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.Otunga wrote: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).GFox345 wrote: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?Otunga wrote: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.
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 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.
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 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.Otunga wrote: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.GFox345 wrote: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.Otunga wrote: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).GFox345 wrote: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?Otunga wrote: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.
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 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.
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.
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 wrote: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.GFox345 wrote: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.Otunga wrote: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).GFox345 wrote: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?Otunga wrote: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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Fine but how many have not accrued debt on this board? That's an odd thing to point out.kepfd24 wrote: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 wrote: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.GFox345 wrote: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.Otunga wrote: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).GFox345 wrote: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?Otunga wrote: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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Because you opted to not go to law school. I mean your posts are generally sooo saltyOtunga wrote:Fine but how many have not accrued debt on this board? That's an odd thing to point out.kepfd24 wrote: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 wrote: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.GFox345 wrote: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.Otunga wrote: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).GFox345 wrote: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?Otunga wrote: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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.fliptrip wrote: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.
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.Biglaw1990 wrote: 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!