Sticker Price at Berkeley Forum

[aninnymous]

I'm in this same situation and haven't been able to accept or turn it down. Too big a thing to throw away but too much advice saying don't go. Currently looking at working another year at a good job, but not sure I could deal with the regret down the line...

Would need a retake for money and that sounds miserable

[emkay625]

What are your other options?

If you don't have other options, I vote sit out a year and apply more broadly next cycle.

[aninnymous]

Turned down a big scholarship from a regional 30-50 ranked school so it's B or reapply -- only to get money from B though, I wouldn't be interested in other schools.

[abl]

^ Berkeley adcomm account. By the way, I think you're forgetting something called "opportunity cost".

Nope. (Although again, it really shouldn't matter. If what I'm saying is right, it's right whether or not I'm a Berkeley adcomm [I'm not].)

I've done the math in other posts, as have others. It's not so surprising when you really think about it: a Berkeley JD will more than double the earnings potential for a typical student.

But like I said in my original post: Whether Berkeley at sticker makes sense for the OP depends on the OP's alternatives (law school and non-law school) and the OP's life/career goals and preferences.

[bruinfan10]

I don't think sticker price is a good thing any law school, except maybe HYS. Sticker price anywhere is so much freaking debt jesus.

i wouldn't go to hys at sticker. my outcome is better than average for a hys grad, and newsflash, there isn't some magical hys fairy that comes and makes biglaw better for those kids or 300k more palatable (unless it's mommy and daddy/trust fund). no school is worth sticker.

[rpupkin]

I don't think sticker price is a good thing any law school, except maybe HYS. Sticker price anywhere is so much freaking debt jesus.

i wouldn't go to hys at sticker. my outcome is better than average for a hys grad, and newsflash, there isn't some magical hys fairy that comes and makes biglaw better for those kids or 300k more palatable (unless it's mommy and daddy/trust fund). no school is worth sticker.

[andy2012]

If parents are able to pay for Berkeley at sticker, is it worth it for Bay Area kids to attend at sticker price or should they go to Columbia at sticker price?

[rpupkin]

If parents are able to pay for Berkeley at sticker, is it worth it for Bay Area kids to attend at sticker price or should they go to Columbia at sticker price?

So in this hypothetical, are the parents refusing to pay Columbia's tuition for some reason?

[andy2012]

If parents are willing to pay the sticker prices at both Berkeley and Columbia, which school should a Bay Area student attend if he wants to work in California?

Is it worth it to attend these schools if parents are willing to pay?

[rpupkin]

If parents are willing to pay the sticker prices at both Berkeley and Columbia, which school should a Bay Area student attend if he wants to work in California?

Is it worth it to attend these schools if parents are willing to pay?

If your parents are really well-off then, sure, why not? (If your parents are taking out a second mortgage on their only home to fund your law school education, that's a different story.)

As for whether to attend CLS or Berkeley: If you want big law, and if you're willing to work in SF or LA, then the schools are basically equal; go to the school where you'd rather spend three years. If you want California PI/government/boutique, and/or if you would really prefer to work in SF, then Berkeley.

[BigZuck]

Again, everyone here telling you it's not "worth it," is either basing their opinion on assumptions about your alternatives that may or may not be correct or is bad at math. The expected return on investment for $300k in debt to go to Berkeley is really pretty good. It's just likely that you have better options.

If you know you'll get a good outcome and you'll be able to ride out that good outcome and you'll be happy with that outcome then yeah, sure, it's worth it.

The OP probably will get a good outcome. Riding out that good outcome is somewhat less likely (though hard to quantify and perhaps the downside there is mitigated by PAYE). The OP doesn't know if they'll be happy with that outcome, it's nearly impossible to predict that.

It's obviously not that simple. Take, for example, a hypothetical lottery worth $1,000,000. Let's imagine you have a chance of buying a $50 ticket at 1/100 odds. If you win, you get the full million--a good outcome. If you lose, you get nada--not a good outcome. Should you buy the ticket? Any economist will tell you that the answer is a pretty clear yes. Despite the fact that your chances of winning are only 1% -- there's a 99% probability that you'll not get a good outcome -- you should buy the ticket. So no, it's not only worth it if the OP "knows" she'll get a good outcome and is "able to ride out that good outcome" and that she'll "be happy with that outcome." You're imposing a bizarrely stringent meaning on what constitutes "worth it."

Moreover, the implication in your quote is that it's only worth it to the OP if she gets biglaw and is able to ride out biglaw, and will be happy with biglaw. The reason why you've implied as much is that we all agree that this is a particularly unlikely scenario: although the OP's likely going to be able to get biglaw if she wants it, she probably will not be happy staying in biglaw long enough to pay off all of her debt. Fortunately, this is far from what's necessary for the decision to attend Berkeley at sticker economically to make sense. If the OP follows a more standard Berkeley grad path and does biglaw for 3 years followed by a midlaw/in house/government position, her decision to attend Berkeley at sticker will be easily economically justified over the course of her career. (My bet is that she starts profiting from this investment around year 10 -- e.g., relatively early on.)

Life is a gamble, invest in yourself, blah, blah, sure.

Yea, life is a gamble. Any feasible choice the OP makes wrt her career is going to come with a somewhat real risk that she's not going to like it. And I totally agree with you that it's probably a bad idea to invest $300,000 and three plus years of your life in figuring out if you like law if you haven't thought about it / researched it a fair bit. That's a pretty incredible investment of money and, more importantly, time in something that you're not pretty darn sure about. I think it's fair to assume for purposes of threads like this that the OP has done her due diligence wrt law as a profession and has made the educated decision that it is right for her.

You can be as dismissive as you want about the fact that we have to live our life making education guesses, and about the fact that it's hard to advance in society without taking educated risks and investing in yourself. For most people--although who knows how many on this board--getting to a comfortable income and profession requires as much. (If you're born wealthy, it may not be necessary.) You can "bla bla bla" this as much as you want, but it's not going to change anything.

But there's a risk of ruin that you can't fully wrap your mind around because you're blinded by your boomerism. I get that you're trying to turn it into a math problem but to me, even the average outcome that you say is good is iffy. 5 years from now maybe the OP has lateraled into a midlaw job and still has 100K debt. That's probably ok if the OP really wants to be a lawyer. What if the OP hates being a lawyer? That scenario isn't particularly unlikely. Hell, it might even be expected.

This whole boomerism shtick is tiring. It's not tiring because I'm in any way offended by the insult. It's tiring because it's such a piss-poor substitution for an argument. The fact that you seem to think that you can just dismiss a fellow poster's arguments by calling him a boomer is disappointing. You know I'm not a boomer. And if I were, why would it matter? I suspect you're better than this, and that you'll make a better lawyer than what your posts indicate. So seeing you take such a cheap and lazy approach in these threads time and time again is tiring. I could accuse you of having a young-millenial's myopic view of debt; and that your brief experience in the real world has corresponded with an economic downturn, and that has led you to take an overly risk-averse, pessimistic, and short-sighted view of life and career planning. But because I respect our fellow posters on this board, our profession (which is supposedly built on arguments), and, yes, you, I won't.

I think I'm probably one of the last posters on this site who needs a lesson in gambling, expected value, etc. But I could be wrong. Anyway I think there's a big, important factor that can't be accounted for in the math problem. Because that factor is near impossible to predict, I think it would be incredibly foolish to spend 300K to find out. 100K maybe? I dunno where I would draw the line. But definitely not 300K.

FWIW by "good outcome" I meant things that are also non-big law but I don't think it matters. Not sure why you brought up the 3 years in big law, 10 years later it's worth it thing, I think we were in agreement there on that (probably likely) trajectory. My point is that even if the OP gets to the point where it is economically worth that doesn't necessarily mean it'll be life worth it. There's a variable that I think is important and that you always ignore (or at least don't properly respect).

Anyway Mr. Esiason, I appreciate the admonition/lesson/pep talk/whatever that was, it was just the right mix of condescension and pedantry sprinkled with just a dash of "I know you can do better kid, I believe in you!" that can only come from someone with the high-minded ideals of the generation born between 1946 and 1964. Even though we don't always see eye to eye, I know you have my and a learned profession's best interests at heart.

As always, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here.

[mogwli]

Moreover, the implication in your quote is that it's only worth it to the OP if she gets biglaw and is able to ride out biglaw, and will be happy with biglaw. The reason why you've implied as much is that we all agree that this is a particularly unlikely scenario: although the OP's likely going to be able to get biglaw if she wants it, she probably will not be happy staying in biglaw long enough to pay off all of her debt. Fortunately, this is far from what's necessary for the decision to attend Berkeley at sticker economically to make sense. If the OP follows a more standard Berkeley grad path and does biglaw for 3 years followed by a midlaw/in house/government position, her decision to attend Berkeley at sticker will be easily economically justified over the course of her career. (My bet is that she starts profiting from this investment around year 10 -- e.g., relatively early on.)

Even trusting your bet here, which I think personally would take much more than 10 years w/ average 6.8% interest on loans on 300k wow!, you're forgetting the key about this entire thread.

This person probably has scholarships at other schools, or could retake the LSAT. Either option would give a much better debt to biglaw/whatever successful employment ratio than Berkeley at sticker. Think UCLA/USC with much more substantial scholarships. The quality of jobs available to graduates at any school only goes so high. So instead of turning a "profit" 10+ years down the road (and age does matter if you are ~30 graduating law school or ever want to start a family), you can turn a profit in 5 or less easily.

I know the point of your post wasn't to say that OP should just do Berkeley at sticker, but pointing out the math why it wasn't so simple. But practically it's still a dumb thing to bring up and only serves to mislead people into dumb decisions. No one should ever pay sticker for a school because they will ALWAYS have an another option with scholarship money or to retake.

[Shootin]

Berkeley at sticker is not that bad if you want biglaw in the bay area. Sure, its not ideal, but I struggle to see how HYS is so much better that some people would justify sticker there, but run like hell from it with Berkeley.

[abl]

I think I'm probably one of the last posters on this site who needs a lesson in gambling, expected value, etc. But I could be wrong. Anyway I think there's a big, important factor that can't be accounted for in the math problem. Because that factor is near impossible to predict, I think it would be incredibly foolish to spend 300K to find out. 100K maybe? I dunno where I would draw the line. But definitely not 300K.

FWIW by "good outcome" I meant things that are also non-big law but I don't think it matters. Not sure why you brought up the 3 years in big law, 10 years later it's worth it thing, I think we were in agreement there on that (probably likely) trajectory. My point is that even if the OP gets to the point where it is economically worth that doesn't necessarily mean it'll be life worth it. There's a variable that I think is important and that you always ignore (or at least don't properly respect).

Anyway Mr. Esiason, I appreciate the admonition/lesson/pep talk/whatever that was, it was just the right mix of condescension and pedantry sprinkled with just a dash of "I know you can do better kid, I believe in you!" that can only come from someone with the high-minded ideals of the generation born between 1946 and 1964. Even though we don't always see eye to eye, I know you have my and a learned profession's best interests at heart.

As always, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here.

Haha, fair. I think we probably mostly agree on this stuff, actually. And I was definitely in a salty mood yesterday.

[emkay625]

Turned down a big scholarship from a regional 30-50 ranked school so it's B or reapply -- only to get money from B though, I wouldn't be interested in other schools.

This is confusing to me. Did you only apply to Berkeley and this school in the 30-50 range? Why?

[bruinfan10]

Berkeley at sticker is not that bad if you want biglaw in the bay area. Sure, its not ideal, but I struggle to see how HYS is so much better that some people would justify sticker there, but run like hell from it with Berkeley.

it is that bad. just like hys at sticker is that bad. really inadvisable in either case absent family money.

[krads153]

Berkeley at sticker is not that bad if you want biglaw in the bay area. Sure, its not ideal, but I struggle to see how HYS is so much better that some people would justify sticker there, but run like hell from it with Berkeley.

it is that bad. just like hys at sticker is that bad. really inadvisable in either case absent family money.

+1

Only people who say it's not that bad are 0Ls and maybe law students who have never worked and paid off loans before...

[eph]

HYS at sticker can make sense for a lot of people, not just the trust fund set. Just one example from a recent US News article.

I thought that if I ended up at a firm, then I wouldn't miss the $100,000 in scholarships," says Kaercher, who graduated from Harvard Law School in 2010 and works as an attorney adviser at the IRS. "But if ended up going into the public sector and went to Harvard, then I'd qualify for this program."..."Harvard has one of the most generous programs that I've seen based on their formula," says the fifth-year attorney, who receives $8,849 in loan assistance every six months from Harvard to pay his $220,000 law school debt. "You don't have to work for a 501(c)(3) or anything like that in order to be eligible. You just have to not make that much money."..."LIPP functions very much like a backend scholarship

[Tiago Splitter]

Harvard at sticker for someone who wants to work in a firm is even stupider than going to Berkeley at sticker because the Harvard guy almost certainly could have paid little to no tuition for a different T-14.

The above anecdote is obviously worthless because you'll get LRAP and PSLF from every T-14 if you go the route of that Kaercher character. And the idea that you won't miss 100k (now more like 200k+) if you go the firm route? Come on.

[eph]

Harvard at sticker for someone who wants to work in a firm is even stupider than going to Berkeley at sticker because the Harvard guy almost certainly could have paid little to no tuition for a different T-14.

The above anecdote is obviously worthless because you'll get LRAP and PSLF from every T-14 if you go the route of that Kaercher character. And the idea that you won't miss 100k (now more like 200k+) if you go the firm route? Come on.

And yet every year, year after year, the people with the highest GPA's and LSAT's, and the most choices, flock to HYS.

[Tiago Splitter]

Harvard at sticker for someone who wants to work in a firm is even stupider than going to Berkeley at sticker because the Harvard guy almost certainly could have paid little to no tuition for a different T-14.

The above anecdote is obviously worthless because you'll get LRAP and PSLF from every T-14 if you go the route of that Kaercher character. And the idea that you won't miss 100k (now more like 200k+) if you go the firm route? Come on.

And yet every year, year after year, the people with the highest GPA's and LSAT's, and the most choices, flock to HYS. Fools?

Absolutely if they are looking for firm work.

[Shootin]

Berkeley at sticker is not that bad if you want biglaw in the bay area. Sure, its not ideal, but I struggle to see how HYS is so much better that some people would justify sticker there, but run like hell from it with Berkeley.

it is that bad. just like hys at sticker is that bad. really inadvisable in either case absent family money.

+1

Only people who say it's not that bad are 0Ls and maybe law students who have never worked and paid off loans before...

Broad generalizations like this are never useful. You end up being wrong about many cases, including this one.

[foxes]

Berkeley at sticker is not that bad if you want biglaw in the bay area. Sure, its not ideal, but I struggle to see how HYS is so much better that some people would justify sticker there, but run like hell from it with Berkeley.

it is that bad. just like hys at sticker is that bad. really inadvisable in either case absent family money.

+1

Only people who say it's not that bad are 0Ls and maybe law students who have never worked and paid off loans before...

Broad generalizations like this are never useful. You end up being wrong about many cases, including this one.

what are you talking about. i assume you're a 0l (edit: posting history confirms), because basically anyone who has gone to law school, including ppl at hys, will tell you hys at sticker is a bad idea. i go to hys and i will tell you hys at sticker is simply not worth it unless you are loaded. if you're talking about someone quoting a pi guy is usnews re lipp, just lol. paye is fine.

[Shootin]

Berkeley at sticker is not that bad if you want biglaw in the bay area. Sure, its not ideal, but I struggle to see how HYS is so much better that some people would justify sticker there, but run like hell from it with Berkeley.

it is that bad. just like hys at sticker is that bad. really inadvisable in either case absent family money.

+1

Only people who say it's not that bad are 0Ls and maybe law students who have never worked and paid off loans before...

Broad generalizations like this are never useful. You end up being wrong about many cases, including this one.

what are you talking about. i assume you're a 0l (edit: posting history confirms), because basically anyone who has gone to law school, including ppl at hys, will tell you hys at sticker is a bad idea. i go to hys and i will tell you hys at sticker is simply not worth it unless you are loaded. if you're talking about someone quoting a pi guy is usnews re lipp, just lol. paye is fine.

And what does 0l stand for? That could stand for someone straight out of UG or someone who has been working and paying loans for a while.. 0l does not mean a person who is not experienced with working and paying for loans. Its easy to say that X is not worth it when you have a better gig going for yourself. HYS (and berkeley) at sticker offer great employment prospects and both are pretty good options to advance your career. Obviously, it is much better to go to those places with big scholarship, but sticker is not the end of the world like you suggest.

[Mikey]

Berkeley at sticker is not that bad if you want biglaw in the bay area. Sure, its not ideal, but I struggle to see how HYS is so much better that some people would justify sticker there, but run like hell from it with Berkeley.

it is that bad. just like hys at sticker is that bad. really inadvisable in either case absent family money.

+1

Only people who say it's not that bad are 0Ls and maybe law students who have never worked and paid off loans before...

Broad generalizations like this are never useful. You end up being wrong about many cases, including this one.

what are you talking about. i assume you're a 0l (edit: posting history confirms), because basically anyone who has gone to law school, including ppl at hys, will tell you hys at sticker is a bad idea. i go to hys and i will tell you hys at sticker is simply not worth it unless you are loaded. if you're talking about someone quoting a pi guy is usnews re lipp, just lol. paye is fine.

And what does 0l stand for? That could stand for someone straight out of UG or someone who has been working and paying loans for a while.. 0l does not mean a person who is not experienced with working and paying for loans. Its easy to say that X is not worth it when you have a better gig going for yourself. HYS (and berkeley) at sticker offer great employment prospects and both are pretty good options to advance your career. Obviously, it is much better to go to those places with big scholarship, but sticker is not the end of the world like you suggest.

0L is someone who hasn't started law school yet but plans on it.