T13 sticker vs T20 with $$$ Forum

[mandrewsf]

I have what could be best termed "generic big law" goals. My dream outcome would be big law or specialized trade boutique in DC, doing international trade work. So far I've been accepted to Michigan and WUSTL. My stats are borderline for Michigan, so I'm not expecting more than $, and from WUSTL I got $$$. I have yet to hear back from other schools (e.g. UVA, Duke) that send more people to my preferred geographical region, though similar to UMich I would doubt that those schools would give me more than $. But assuming that I only get into UMich and WUSTL, would it be worth it to pay close to sticker to UMich for a ~20-30% better chance at a Big Law outcome, or should I save the money and go to WUSTL instead? I've enough saved to cover CoL, so tuition is the only thing I have to worry about. Right now, I am leaning very strongly toward UMich, but it might be the prestige factor talking in my head, rather than a rational analysis of cost/benefits.

[purplegoldtornado]

Take the T13. But do negotiate your scholarship. Good luck.

[ignorantfoot96]

I have what could be best termed "generic big law" goals. My dream outcome would be big law or specialized trade boutique in DC, doing international trade work. So far I've been accepted to Michigan and WUSTL. My stats are borderline for Michigan, so I'm not expecting more than $, and from WUSTL I got $$$. I have yet to hear back from other schools (e.g. UVA, Duke) that send more people to my preferred geographical region, though similar to UMich I would doubt that those schools would give me more than $. But assuming that I only get into UMich and WUSTL, would it be worth it to pay close to sticker to UMich for a ~20-30% better chance at a Big Law outcome, or should I save the money and go to WUSTL instead? I've enough saved to cover CoL, so tuition is the only thing I have to worry about. Right now, I am leaning very strongly toward UMich, but it might be the prestige factor talking in my head, rather than a rational analysis of cost/benefits.

Personally, I would take Michigan for the general "guarantee" of big law. While nothing can be a guarantee, Michigan is pretty close if you work hard and do the steps. While WUSTL sends a fair amount to big law, even median at WUSTL would struggle to get big law.

[Fireworks2016]

I guess I'm more debt-averse than most, because I would almost certainly take the $$$ from WUSTL over Michigan. Even if Michigan "guarantees" BigLaw, having to pay back 200k+ plus interest sounds like a really bad time. I know people do it. It just couldn't be me.

[crazywafflez]

I don't think either is a really bad choice. If you're more debt adverse, go with WashU- if you want the guarantee of biglaw in any location (or just about) go to U of M.
If the T20 were in the market I wanted to practice in and I had limited connections there, I'd go there.
If you want to do biglaw in Chi or STL, maybe it is a toss up (Idk enough about WashU or its pull in the area to give you an honest answer on that); if you want to do biglaw in Atlanta, I think Mich is the right choice here.
But you can't go terribly wrong with either (albeit, that is a lot of debt and it will be painful- however, no clue what your COA will be from WashU after 3 years, so it's possible that will be high too and you've got a real chance of striking out if you're median).
Best of luck.

[objctnyrhnr]

On balance I think I would take u mich here. Once you get to mvp, you pretty much get to biglaw unless you really screw something up.

Wash u there is still room for error.

And it’s not hard to pay off loans on a biglaw salary. The downside is that more time passes before you can really get that nest egg going.

Let’s say that you could be positive that big law hiring was going to be super robust when you are doing OCI, maybe the risk is lessened. Wash u performs quite well in a good Econ.

Either way two good options. Congrats on that.

[Jchance]

What if you take T13 sticker and get no biglaw...
I'd take WU with $$$, to cover all my bases.

[mandrewsf]

Good points all. Though I do find Dean Z to be the shit despite WashU showing me plenty of love as well. And thinking about whether I want the rest of my life to be associated with Michigan or WashU makes me a little ... irrational, perhaps. Not keen on fielding questions for the rest of my life about whether I went to George Washington or UofWash. I'm also worried that given my goal of practicing in DC after graduation WashU's relatively less robust national network would make it harder for me to get the job I want. Though all of those concerns are rather nebulous when compared to the cold, hard cash that WashU has offered...

Well, I can still dream that UMich will make my life easier by giving me good money until they actually give me my fin aid offer.

[Sackboy]

As someone who entered biglaw with $150k in debt from a T13, I really can't recommend a T13 at sticker. If you don't end up not liking biglaw, handling $200k of debt is going cripple like 4yrs+ of your life. I would strongly recommend either taking the $$$ at WashU, because worst case scenario is you miss the biglaw boat but aren't financially crushed, and you can hopefully land gov't work in DC, or sitting out and retaking the LSAT to get more $$$ next cycle. I know sitting out and retaking isn't really a fun option, but attending Michigan for 1/2 price + having COL covered from savings would put you at a very bearable debt level that would let you leave biglaw quickly if you hate and generally pursue other options.

[throwthis678]

If you absolutely must have BL, go to Michigan. A significant portion of WashU's BL numbers are the STL firms that take WashU STL natives, then IP students. Top third for BL in NYC is what you need to be really competitive. WashU does not place well into Chicago BL at all, you need to be top of class with some sort of connection.

[nealric]

Hard to do at this point, but I think you just need to consider what your long term goals truly are and what you would be content doing after law school. If working for the state government or a smaller firm is a happy outcome, then WUSTL is likely a less stressful option. If you really want biglaw / in house, or [insert prestige position] as a long term proposition, you run a very high risk of disappointment at WUSTL.

People who are only in biglaw to pay back their sticker price loans are probably going to be miserable. But if you would be doing biglaw with or without the loans, it's a slightly different proposition. One complicating factor is that it's very difficult to know how well you will tolerate biglaw (or even law period) before doing it. There is risk with either decision, but the nature of the risk changes somewhat.

If it were me, I'd pick Michigan, but I'm not you. I also have the benefit of a biglaw-> in-house career working out well and without too much pain, and paying off my loans fairly quickly. I'm sure I have a certain survivorship bias. Tuition is also higher relative to biglaw salaires now than when I attended (and I thought it was crazy back then!). However, I'd say that most of my friends who did biglaw after law school are doing better than those who did not, even though most who started in biglaw are no longer in it. Your risk of missing out on biglaw is likely twice as acute going to WUSTL.

[Dcc617]

Taking out a ton of debt to get a job most people hate so that you can pay off all that debt isn't great.

[mandrewsf]

Hard to do at this point, but I think you just need to consider what your long term goals truly are and what you would be content doing after law school. If working for the state government or a smaller firm is a happy outcome, then WUSTL is likely a less stressful option. If you really want biglaw / in house, or [insert prestige position] as a long term proposition, you run a very high risk of disappointment at WUSTL.

People who are only in biglaw to pay back their sticker price loans are probably going to be miserable. But if you would be doing biglaw with or without the loans, it's a slightly different proposition. One complicating factor is that it's very difficult to know how well you will tolerate biglaw (or even law period) before doing it. There is risk with either decision, but the nature of the risk changes somewhat.

If it were me, I'd pick Michigan, but I'm not you. I also have the benefit of a biglaw-> in-house career working out well and without too much pain, and paying off my loans fairly quickly. I'm sure I have a certain survivorship bias. Tuition is also higher relative to biglaw salaires now than when I attended (and I thought it was crazy back then!). However, I'd say that most of my friends who did biglaw after law school are doing better than those who did not, even though most who started in biglaw are no longer in it. Your risk of missing out on biglaw is likely twice as acute going to WUSTL.

Fair points. I'm doing law-related work right now in the (fed) government and have been working daily with people who mostly have biglaw backgrounds/experiences, so I do have some idea of what practicing law is like and I do like it - though I am sure I'll not be a fan of the biglaw work culture. At the same time though, I also know from my coworkers that there's plenty to learn while in biglaw about how the practice of law really works, the competitive and stressful nature of practicing in biglaw notwithstanding. Right now my image of biglaw is that it's basically a harder version of law school (not that law school isn't hard enough already! C'est la vie) but that you at least get paid to go through it - and I hope to leverage that experience to eventually do the stuff that I want to do (policy stuff in international trade, either in public service, in international orgs or in a trade-exposed industry). So in that sense, I'm not going to biglaw just to pay back my debt. Do feel free to correct me if I am wrong though - I would really be nervous about biglaw if there's no realistic off-ramp.

[nealric]

Taking out a ton of debt to get a job most people hate so that you can pay off all that debt isn't great.

Sure, but I think that's too simplistic a way of looking at it.

I agree that simply going into biglaw to pay off debt is pretty miserable. If the only thing biglaw is getting you is money and nothing else, then it's indeed a pretty soulless and depressing existence. But biglaw is only the beginning of the road for most. You do it for 3-7 years and then begin what is far more likely to be a long term career path (be in in-house, nonprofit, government, etc.). Your post biglaw career is likely to be 30+ years. The key question is what's on the other side of biglaw as opposed to what's on the other side of non-biglaw options. The few biglaw long-haulers likely are likely the type that thrive in that environment anyways.

A lot depends on what kind of law practice really interest you (to the extent any 0L can really answer that question). If you want to be a trial lawyer who is constantly in court, biglaw is probably a terrible option. If you want to work with large business issues, it's pretty much a required stepping stone to anything else.