STUDY: People don't regret going to law schools outside the top 10.

[pancakes3]

I really don't care for these "satisfaction" surveys. Just publish the employment and salary numbers (hours worked too probably) and people will make their own decisions. We all adapt into our equilibrium of what we're "satisfied" with.

Debt sucks but if you're on PAYE, even if you're initially not ok with it, you make your living and you probably eventually are ok with it because - hey, what else are you going to do? We don't have debtors' prisons. It can only get but so bad.

Also, Boobs... shut up. Stop dropping your one anecdote about how you know someone who uniquely got screwed by a discretionary C at Penn as representative of a typical outcome at Penn. It's dumb, even for a 0L. I'm assuming you're a 0L because you dropped the "1st amendment, bro!"

[BoobGoddess]

I really don't care for these "satisfaction" surveys. Just publish the employment and salary numbers (hours worked too probably) and people will make their own decisions. We all adapt into our equilibrium of what we're "satisfied" with.

Debt sucks but if you're on PAYE, even if you're initially not ok with it, you make your living and you probably eventually are ok with it because - hey, what else are you going to do? We don't have debtors' prisons. It can only get but so bad.

Also, Boobs... shut up. Stop dropping your one anecdote about how you know someone who uniquely got screwed by a discretionary C at Penn as representative of a typical outcome at Penn. It's dumb, even for a 0L. I'm assuming you're a 0L because you dropped the "1st amendment, bro!"

It's disingenuous for you to suggest that I meant it as representative of the typical outcome. And I think you are smart enough to know that's not what I meant at all. I raised the issue because for many middle income or low income students, the best and worst case scenario should be considered:

Best case
Full scholarship at a T1, top of the class-->you will profit no matter what job you get
250K in debt at a T14, top of the class-->you will not earn enough in the first year to service your loans in full; if you get fired you're fu cked

Worst case
Full scholarship, bottom of the class at a T1-->no problem, you owe nothing; even if you got a minimum wage job, you'd make a profit
$250K in debt at Penn, bottom of the class-->fu cked!!!

I would argue that for middle/lower income students, they'd always be better off taking the money (if they can't afford to pay back tuition out of pocket). I mean if you're doing poorly at a T1, there's no conceivable way you'd do better at a T14, where student quality is much higher (as measured by LSAT/GPAs). And if you can't pass the bar coming out of a T1, you wouldn't pass it coming out of a T14.

I agree though that if you can afford a better school, by all means go. I couldn't and my posts are geared towards others in the same boat as me.

[Johann]

This is a well-designed and important study, but studies of this type are always subject to a serious limitation, which is response rate. The original pool of 4500 or so bar passers was itself the product of a 71% response rate among those people in the sample who could be located, which itself was a smaller percentage than the entire sample. Then about 30% of that original responding group didn't respond to the 2007 wave. So only around half of the original sample actually responded to the survey seven years out of law school. The problem of course is that non-response is not random: people who don't respond are going to have very different characteristics, on average, from people who do, but just how different is impossible to say (because they aren't responding).

It would be more accurate to say that a high percentage of people who graduated from law school in the late 1990s and passed the bar and were willing to respond subsequently to an in-depth survey about how they felt about their careers had largely positive feelings about those careers.

or you know hey 30% of people moved and the researchers couldnt track them for X number of years or keep up with them. what you are describing is a pretty basic concept that researchers already account for called "sampling bias." its a really basic concept that is easily accounted for or else every survey and study in the history of human kind would be "worthless" data as you are trying to argue.

Sampling error tells us the possible distance of a population's true attribute from a directly found sample attribute. You cannot assume any sample's measured properties (such as mean and standard deviation) is exactly like the population's properties. The sweet part of sampling error is that we can easily calculate how large it is. This is chiefly defined by the number of units in the sample. http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/rdrenka/Renka_papers/polls.htm

So by using a large enough sample size, which 4500 and 3700 or whatever n# in the 1000s we have is plenty large enough to know that even if the entire universe of all law student graduates was included, we know that the result from thsi study is within a sampling error of the correct answer. sampling errors are usually 3.5-5%. there's no reason it would be astronomically higher here, as people are implying.

look, either surveys, studies, and data are not perfect but useful and we use them all. or all surveys, studies, and data are subject to sampling biases that we should throw out and force to comport with our views we hold. this is the best data we have. to try and not use it or ignore it puts you on the same playing field as what you are all fighting against - law schools that used its view of the world rather than real, hard data that indicated otherwise. turns out law schools in 2007 painted too rosy a picture of what people's incomes would be and what size firm they would be working for. turns out people on this board and others fighting the law school narrative painted way too much of a doom and gloom perspective about the profession and how those people feel who actually graduate from these schools and spend their career in law.

the data is out. the sample is huge. it includes people from TTTs. it includes people with bad GPAs at all law schools. it includes people that were unemployed after graduating. it includes people that left law. the data conclusively holds that people do not regret their decisions.

now take the L instead of showing with every post why you guys are in school/the field of law and not the statistics field.

[pancakes3]

It's disingenuous for you to suggest that I meant it as representative of the typical outcome. And I think you are smart enough to know that's not what I meant at all. I raised the issue because for many middle income or low income students, the best and worst case scenario should be considered:

1) You do suggest it as representative. You harp on it and have said in multiple threads "I know people at Penn that..." Discretionary C's are rare. It's as dumb to make a decision on where to NOT attend Penn because someone getting a discretionary C as it is to make a decision TO attend a T2 because someone was top 10% and got biglaw. It's purely anecdotal, low probability, and should not factor into anyone's decision on what school to choose. Raising it at all means you're placing weight in that anecdote when really it's a nonsequitur at best.

2) All students are no-income students. There are 1%'rs whose parents can help but for the most part people finance law school on their own. Even if they have savings, it's 30k tops and a drop in the tuition bucket. And even if your parents ARE helping you, $250k cash out of pocket over 3 years will sting even literal millionaire parents. Best case and worst case need to be considered regardless of how much someone (or someone's parents) have.

3) The binary nature in which you're comparing best case and worst case is wrong. There are lots of other factors at play that TLS echoes time and again. the type of job you're looking for, where you want to work, cost of attendance, etc.

I agree that full ride from a non T14 is probably better than Penn at sticker but not if you're big law or bust. You can retake. You can choose to not attend law school all together. But really I'm just taking issue with you perpetuating the Penn story about how someone got a discretionary C. It's a dumb story and you need to stop telling it. And while I appreciate your fervor in giving advice, you need to give better advice.

[BoobGoddess]

It's disingenuous for you to suggest that I meant it as representative of the typical outcome. And I think you are smart enough to know that's not what I meant at all. I raised the issue because for many middle income or low income students, the best and worst case scenario should be considered:

1) You do suggest it as representative. You harp on it and have said in multiple threads "I know people at Penn that..." Discretionary C's are rare. It's as dumb to make a decision on where to NOT attend Penn because someone getting a discretionary C as it is to make a decision TO attend a T2 because someone was top 10% and got biglaw. It's purely anecdotal, low probability, and should not factor into anyone's decision on what school to choose. Raising it at all means you're placing weight in that anecdote when really it's a nonsequitur at best.

2) All students are no-income students. There are 1%'rs whose parents can help but for the most part people finance law school on their own. Even if they have savings, it's 30k tops and a drop in the tuition bucket. And even if your parents ARE helping you, $250k cash out of pocket over 3 years will sting even literal millionaire parents. Best case and worst case need to be considered regardless of how much someone (or someone's parents) have.

3) The binary nature in which you're comparing best case and worst case is wrong. There are lots of other factors at play that TLS echoes time and again. the type of job you're looking for, where you want to work, cost of attendance, etc.

I agree that full ride from a non T14 is probably better than Penn at sticker but not if you're big law or bust. You can retake. You can choose to not attend law school all together. But really I'm just taking issue with you perpetuating the Penn story about how someone got a discretionary C. It's a dumb story and you need to stop telling it. And while I appreciate your fervor in giving advice, you need to give better advice.

The binary I am talking about is one of profiting or not profiting and it holds true no matter what kind of job you are seeking.

I just do not know of a job that you can get with a JD where you'd be making 250K the first year to cover your debt (assuming you paid sticker). Even if you did, subtracting taxes and living costs, you'd still not be making enough to service your loan, so you would not be profitting the first year and very likely the second and third year. Meanwhile, interest will be accruing on the unpaid balance of your loan. This debt + biglaw game is essentially modern day indentured servitude, and it is my intention to expose it.

But if you took the money and ended with a government job that paid $50K, you get to keep all of it (thus you profit). Obviously if you got BigLaw and made $180K you would profit more.

But the binary will always hold true between full scholarship at a T1 and a T14 at sticker. You will always profit taking the money. There is no scenario in which you would imediately profit going to a T14 at sticker. And once you factor in the possibility of losing your job down the road or other kinds of hiccups/road bumps, it becomes all the more clear that money at a T1 will be better for low/middle income students.

[cavalier1138]

the data is out. the sample is huge. it includes people from TTTs. it includes people with bad GPAs at all law schools. it includes people that were unemployed after graduating. it includes people that left law. the data conclusively holds that people do not regret their decisions.

now take the L instead of showing with every post why you guys are in school/the field of law and not the statistics field.

Bull. Shit.

We already established that 97% of the initial group were practicing attorneys. That's way over the national average for graduates. We've already established that the study didn't differentiate between different tiers of school, just between T10 and everyone else. And we've already established that they didn't reveal the data points for how the group was dispersed over different schools.

So maybe before tossing around insults, actually read the study. Or maybe read up on confirmation bias, because it's clear that it's affecting your reading of the data.

[cavalier1138]

Full scholarship, bottom of the class at a T1-->no problem, you owe nothing; even if you got a minimum wage job, you'd make a profit

Wrong.

Full scholarship doesn't cover cost of living. You're still in at least $60k of debt.

T1 with low debt is better than T14 at sticker for most people (as long as they're not biglaw-or-bust), but you're flat-out wrong about the results difference.

[BoobGoddess]

Full scholarship, bottom of the class at a T1-->no problem, you owe nothing; even if you got a minimum wage job, you'd make a profit

Wrong.

Full scholarship doesn't cover cost of living. You're still in at least $60k of debt.

T1 with low debt is better than T14 at sticker for most people (as long as they're not biglaw-or-bust), but you're flat-out wrong about the results difference.

This is very true, Cav. Living costs should be considered. I think 60K living costs is overstated though. I don't live that large... in my city, I got an apartment under $800. You can also mitigate the cost of living by choosing a T1 in your home town.

[Johann]

the data is out. the sample is huge. it includes people from TTTs. it includes people with bad GPAs at all law schools. it includes people that were unemployed after graduating. it includes people that left law. the data conclusively holds that people do not regret their decisions.

now take the L instead of showing with every post why you guys are in school/the field of law and not the statistics field.

Bull. Shit.

We already established that 97% of the initial group were practicing attorneys. That's way over the national average for graduates. We've already established that the study didn't differentiate between different tiers of school, just between T10 and everyone else. And we've already established that they didn't reveal the data points for how the group was dispersed over different schools.

So maybe before tossing around insults, actually read the study. Or maybe read up on confirmation bias, because it's clear that it's affecting your reading of the data.

yes maybe you should learn how a representative sample works. you really think they just went to the T14 for 5k sample size and then decided to delineate based on T10 and the rest being from T14? you're a clown.

its also pretty likely that many of the 2000 grads went to law school to practice law compared to many 2010 grads and later going to law school because they graduated college without a job. it's very easily explainable why more law grads practiced law after graduating in 2000 than today - because they actually WANTED to become lawyers rather than being FORCED into law school by the economy. people graduating in 2000 started in 1998 when the economy was booming. there were plenty of good jobs for all. tech was booming. so yeah 97% of their bar passers probably did work as lawyers. why would you take the bar if you weren't going to practice law initially?

[cavalier1138]

the data is out. the sample is huge. it includes people from TTTs. it includes people with bad GPAs at all law schools. it includes people that were unemployed after graduating. it includes people that left law. the data conclusively holds that people do not regret their decisions.

now take the L instead of showing with every post why you guys are in school/the field of law and not the statistics field.

Bull. Shit.

We already established that 97% of the initial group were practicing attorneys. That's way over the national average for graduates. We've already established that the study didn't differentiate between different tiers of school, just between T10 and everyone else. And we've already established that they didn't reveal the data points for how the group was dispersed over different schools.

So maybe before tossing around insults, actually read the study. Or maybe read up on confirmation bias, because it's clear that it's affecting your reading of the data.

yes maybe you should learn how a representative sample works. you really think they just went to the T14 for 5k sample size and then decided to delineate based on T10 and the rest being from T14? you're a clown.

its also pretty likely that many of the 2000 grads went to law school to practice law compared to many 2010 grads and later going to law school because they graduated college without a job. it's very easily explainable why more law grads practiced law after graduating in 2000 than today - because they actually WANTED to become lawyers rather than being FORCED into law school by the economy. people graduating in 2000 started in 1998 when the economy was booming. there were plenty of good jobs for all. tech was booming. so yeah 97% of their bar passers probably did work as lawyers. why would you take the bar if you weren't going to practice law initially?

And again, you're ignoring that 97% of students at T3/T4 schools don't pass the bar. You're ignoring the massive difference in job outcomes and quality of life between a T1/T2 school and a T3/T4. And we have no idea how the study accounted for that, because according to their own criteria, they didn't do any delineation between the top 10 schools and the rest of the "non-elite".

Also, don't make fun of clowns. They'll mess you up.

[Johann]

ive actually been sitting on the data for a while sandbagging you guys. https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/IC ... sr-landing (click on the documentation: codebook).

44% from 21-100 ranking. 15% below 100 Tier 3. 13% T4. That's somewhere around 72% of the data from what TLS considers bad schools.

Values Label Frequency % Valid %
1 Top 10 417 9.2% 9.6%
2 Top 11- 20 526 11.6% 12.2%
3 Top 21- 100 1995 44.0% 46.1%
4 Tier 3 686 15.1% 15.9%
5 Tier 4 594 13.1% 13.7%
6 Degree from outside US 20 .4% .5%
7 Unaccredited school 89 2.0% 2.1%
. System missing 211 4.6%
Total 4538 100.0% 100.0%

but there it is moron. surprise surprise the only person on this board who cares about the real data actually went to look at the real data.

eta: ive gone through many of those 800 pages of data for both waves 1 and 2 (havent had time for wave 3). its actually a very fair sample that continues to track the same people proportionately throughout the study. It accounts for everyone like i have been saying all along: unemployed, TTTs, bad jobs good jobs, those that leave the law. really interesting data if you actually care about this sort of thing. but i assume you neither paul campos (who has made a side career out of this) cares enough to actually look at the best data we have on this issue but will ocntinue to spout your anecdotal shit all of these baords and whatever avenue anyone will listen to you on.

[pancakes3]

just because you're satisfied with your current life doesn't mean you wouldn't somehow be more satisfied with a different life. the same logic holds the other way. T14 grads here could possibly be satisfied with TTT outcomes.

I know that if I was able to successfully pull off a solo practice, I'd probably be much more satisfied than with BL/BigFed/In-House/other "good" prospects - but I'd never have the balls to go solo as long as those more stable options were on the table.

So really, these "satisfaction" surveys don't really amount to squat. You just have to tell people the reality of their career prospects, their debt load, and people will make the decisions that they make.

[Johann]

just because you're satisfied with your current life doesn't mean you wouldn't somehow be more satisfied with a different life. the same logic holds the other way. T14 grads here could possibly be satisfied with TTT outcomes.

I know that if I was able to successfully pull off a solo practice, I'd probably be much more satisfied than with BL/BigFed/In-House/other "good" prospects - but I'd never have the balls to go solo as long as those more stable options were on the table.

So really, these "satisfaction" surveys don't really amount to squat. You just have to tell people the reality of their career prospects, their debt load, and people will make the decisions that they make.

agreed. that will people account for their own relative definitions of success (i.e. someone making just overm inimum wage would be very happy maybe with 45K). TLS goes way beyond this though and shoves its risk averse persnoalities on people (i.e. have to be T14 or screwed).

[emkay625]

Full scholarship, bottom of the class at a T1-->no problem, you owe nothing; even if you got a minimum wage job, you'd make a profit

Wrong.

Full scholarship doesn't cover cost of living. You're still in at least $60k of debt.

T1 with low debt is better than T14 at sticker for most people (as long as they're not biglaw-or-bust), but you're flat-out wrong about the results difference.

This is very true, Cav. Living costs should be considered. I think 60K living costs is overstated though. I don't live that large... in my city, I got an apartment under $800. You can also mitigate the cost of living by choosing a T1 in your home town.

When you factor in other expenses, plus loan origination fees, interest, books, health insurance, etc., 60K is probably right on the money for someone taking out full COL.

Also, not everyone lives in a city with a T1. The majority of folks applying to law school most likely do not.

[cavalier1138]

agreed. that will people account for their own relative definitions of success (i.e. someone making just overm inimum wage would be very happy maybe with 45K). TLS goes way beyond this though and shoves its risk averse persnoalities on people (i.e. have to be T14 or screwed).

Ad hominem is truly the last refuge of the desperate. And thanks for finding that data, showing that less than a quarter of those surveyed were from T3/T4 and that they didn't follow up with any graduates from those schools who didn't pass the bar.

But to deal with this latest gem of a post: show a single thread where anyone has said "T14 or screwed" where it is not immediately followed by, "if you want biglaw."

[Johann]

agreed. that will people account for their own relative definitions of success (i.e. someone making just overm inimum wage would be very happy maybe with 45K). TLS goes way beyond this though and shoves its risk averse persnoalities on people (i.e. have to be T14 or screwed).

Ad hominem is truly the last refuge of the desperate. And thanks for finding that data, showing that less than a quarter of those surveyed were from T3/T4 and that they didn't follow up with any graduates from those schools who didn't pass the bar.

But to deal with this latest gem of a post: show a single thread where anyone has said "T14 or screwed" where it is not immediately followed by, "if you want biglaw."

well its a representative sample. so yeah TTTs and T4s shouldn't account for more than 25% because that's their representative portion relative to all law schools. That sample is still almost 1,000 which is a humongous sample size if you knew anything about stats. i don't have time to find posts outside of this thread because i have a job. i wish i didnt have to do my public service and come in here spending tens of hours every month rectifying the wrong you 0Ls do in slandering schools ranked 21-100 you know nothing about.

[Johann]

also, just so its not twisted, DePaul, Loyola, and Kent (70-100) all were within 2% of Northwestern's (T14) bar passage rate if you track the results over a 10 year period. Northern Illinois was also within close range (I forget the % off the top of my head, def within 5%, I think within 2 or 3 also) of Northwestern's bar passage rate and actually bested them in multiple years of the 10 year tracking study.

People that go to schools outside of the T14 can and do pass the bar just fine at very similar rates to T14s. That may be shocking to some on this board but will not be to people who understand 21-100s. I was using the term TTTs as I thought this board did to mean anything outside the T14 and best regionals (like Alabama/Iowa/UNC) so say maybe everything below 50. But in light of Cavalier's distinctions, I think it's important we rightfully only talk about TTTs as those schools ranked below 100. Everything else will now be in the 21-100 range and I will refer to it as such.

[cavalier1138]

agreed. that will people account for their own relative definitions of success (i.e. someone making just overm inimum wage would be very happy maybe with 45K). TLS goes way beyond this though and shoves its risk averse persnoalities on people (i.e. have to be T14 or screwed).

Ad hominem is truly the last refuge of the desperate. And thanks for finding that data, showing that less than a quarter of those surveyed were from T3/T4 and that they didn't follow up with any graduates from those schools who didn't pass the bar.

But to deal with this latest gem of a post: show a single thread where anyone has said "T14 or screwed" where it is not immediately followed by, "if you want biglaw."

well its a representative sample. so yeah TTTs and T4s shouldn't account for more than 25% because that's their representative portion relative to all law schools. That sample is still almost 1,000 which is a humongous sample size if you knew anything about stats. i don't have time to find posts outside of this thread because i have a job. i wish i didnt have to do my public service and come in here spending tens of hours every month rectifying the wrong you 0Ls do in slandering schools ranked 21-100 you know nothing about.

Again, find a thread where people are slandering schools ranked 21-100 for anything except biglaw-or-bust aspirations.

You're literally making this up.

[A. Nony Mouse]

It's disingenuous for you to suggest that I meant it as representative of the typical outcome. And I think you are smart enough to know that's not what I meant at all. I raised the issue because for many middle income or low income students, the best and worst case scenario should be considered:

Best case
Full scholarship at a T1, top of the class-->you will profit no matter what job you get
250K in debt at a T14, top of the class-->you will not earn enough in the first year to service your loans in full; if you get fired you're fu cked

Worst case
Full scholarship, bottom of the class at a T1-->no problem, you owe nothing; even if you got a minimum wage job, you'd make a profit
$250K in debt at Penn, bottom of the class-->fu cked!!!.

Why are you leaving out the option where someone gets money at a T14?

[lymenheimer]

It's disingenuous for you to suggest that I meant it as representative of the typical outcome. And I think you are smart enough to know that's not what I meant at all. I raised the issue because for many middle income or low income students, the best and worst case scenario should be considered:

Best case
Full scholarship at a T1, top of the class-->you will profit no matter what job you get
250K in debt at a T14, top of the class-->you will not earn enough in the first year to service your loans in full; if you get fired you're fu cked

Worst case
Full scholarship, bottom of the class at a T1-->no problem, you owe nothing; even if you got a minimum wage job, you'd make a profit
$250K in debt at Penn, bottom of the class-->fu cked!!!.

Why are you leaving out the option where someone gets money at a T14?

Because that wasn't one of Boob's options when he applied, so it can't be an option for anyone else.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Johann, the problem isn't someone who says "I can go to my local T3 for free and I want to be a DA or work for a small local firm," it's people who say they're going to pay $250k to go to their local T3 to get a biglaw job. Whatever the strengths and weaknesses of this survey, I don't think it's something to point to to support the latter path.

I do agree that TLS can overstate the effect of going to a lower ranked school at sticker - people mostly make their own happiness out of life, and such grads are going to figure out something to do with their life rather than sit in their parents' basement in misery. But you also can't deny that there aren't an awful lot of people - more recent grads than in the survey - who do regret their choices. Maybe they're just the squeaky wheels and the constant trope of "happy people don't come onto TLS and complain" is absolutely true. But we don't know that for certain either.

I went to a regional school and I'm very happy with my outcome, but that doesn't mean I don't think my outcome could have been better or that that doesn't influence how I would give advice. I regret not really figuring out how to take the LSAT and retaking again for money. If I could have my outcome with less debt that would be awesome. Even though ideally it's going to get forgiven - throwing money away on it is still throwing money away that I could use for something else.

[Johann]

I hate my job and my life more than any of my 50-100 or so USNWR21-100 friends that I regularly catch up with (except for maybe 1 other guy in biglaw). But I don't know if regret is still the right word on any given day. I turned down a shitty job to go to law school and law school was preferable to that. I might be a solo one day which would be an amazing outcome in my eyes. So I still dont check regret on the box. Hell even if I continue in my shitty job with my shitty life, I might have kids or be able to retire and not regret my choice. Yes, clearly the way people define regret is a big deal here, and the study swings on that.

My point is that once you are 5-10 years into a career you usually have a bit more perspective about a $200K investment over a lifetime and what the repayment plans actually look like, turning down a 150K job for work life balance and a 70K job, figuring out what career paths do and don't work for you and making your outcome better fit that idea, etc.

For sure, plenty of 0Ls here think about fat paychecks without the actual work, cancelled plans, divorces, health effects that those salaries really have. The point is as this study shows, people from these schools overwhelmingly succeed according to their ever changing view of success, which is really the best you could ever hope a career path would give you. My friends that left law don't regret going to law school because of the actual experiences that flow out of a 5 year journey (personal relationships, challenging yourself intellectually, personal growth, knowing you dedicated yourself to a goal of yours and then determined that goal wasn't maybe what you had idealized it to be, etc) that can never be captured by some 21 year old on this forum trying to push the 0L definition of success on someone citing skewed definitions of ROI that don't even include government repayment options.

And its laughable that these people would then tell me, someone who has actually lived it and watched my peers live it and have the data confirming my and their experiences, that I'm missing the point.

[A. Nony Mouse]

My friends that left law don't regret going to law school because of the actual experiences that flow out of a 5 year journey (personal relationships, challenging yourself intellectually, personal growth, knowing you dedicated yourself to a goal of yours and then determined that goal wasn't maybe what you had idealized it to be, etc) that can never be captured by some 21 year old on this forum trying to push the 0L definition of success on someone citing skewed definitions of ROI that don't even include government repayment options.

I agree with a lot of what you say, actually, but I don't think the bolded has anything to do with law school specifically. You get those things whatever the goal of your journey is - JD, PhD, MPP, art school, plumbing apprenticeship, whatever. Those are things that happen in life when you set a goal for your future and set out to achieve it. Those are not things that are specific to law school. I got all those things in a PhD program (and no debt). And no, I don't personally regret getting a PhD because I learned a ton and wouldn't be who I am now without it (and I also don't see the point in regretting anything if I can help it). But I would also almost never recommend anyone go get a PhD, and I think for many people it's a terrible idea.

So yeah, I guess that goes back to defining regret, or maybe more accurately, what value there is in a study saying people don't regret law school, for people considering school now.

[Johann]

My friends that left law don't regret going to law school because of the actual experiences that flow out of a 5 year journey (personal relationships, challenging yourself intellectually, personal growth, knowing you dedicated yourself to a goal of yours and then determined that goal wasn't maybe what you had idealized it to be, etc) that can never be captured by some 21 year old on this forum trying to push the 0L definition of success on someone citing skewed definitions of ROI that don't even include government repayment options.

I agree with a lot of what you say, actually, but I don't think the bolded has anything to do with law school specifically. You get those things whatever the goal of your journey is - JD, PhD, MPP, art school, plumbing apprenticeship, whatever. Those are things that happen in life when you set a goal for your future and set out to achieve it. Those are not things that are specific to law school. I got all those things in a PhD program (and no debt). And no, I don't personally regret getting a PhD because I learned a ton and wouldn't be who I am now without it (and I also don't see the point in regretting anything if I can help it). But I would also almost never recommend anyone go get a PhD, and I think for many people it's a terrible idea.

So yeah, I guess that goes back to defining regret, or maybe more accurately, what value there is in a study saying people don't regret law school, for people considering school now.

Right you get the experiences from everything, but you can only answer "what if law" question/desire with actually going to law school. As soon as someone considers the law school path and has done their homework to come to TLS, taken 3 LSATs, talked to a couple practicing attorneys/worked in a law firm, it's time to actually provide real advice rather than saying "you can't service a 200K debt load on a degree from Michigan State; don't go!"

We know the people who graduated from USNWR21-100s dont regret their choices. We don't know if the person who never got that law degree regrets their choice.

[cavalier1138]

Right you get the experiences from everything, but you can only answer "what if law" question/desire with actually going to law school. As soon as someone considers the law school path and has done their homework to come to TLS, taken 3 LSATs, talked to a couple practicing attorneys/worked in a law firm, it's time to actually provide real advice rather than saying "you can't service a 200K debt load on a degree from Michigan State; don't go!"

So you don't consider, "Don't take on debt you can't service," to be real advice?

No one's saying that Michigan State would be a bad choice for someone who wanted to work in a small firm in Michigan or open up their own office. But they aren't going to realistically service $200k of debt on those salaries. So why isn't it "real advice" to tell them that? Similarly, would it not be real advice to tell them to not go if they said they were only interested in working in biglaw? What about the civil rights office at the DOJ? Should they not be told that these goals are unrealistic from that school before they spend $200,000 on it?