Financial Reality v TLS Bias Forum

[A. Nony Mouse]

TLS is very risk averse, but as a former academic, saying that law has a better job market than humanities academia (which I agree with) really isn't saying very much at all. Because indentured servitude is better than slavery still doesn't make it a good idea. /inflammatory analogy

But I think acr has an important point about why the mantra on TLS is "retake" - because for many people they could cut costs/reduce debt by retaking. I wish I'd retaken (well, a 3rd time; I took twice but didn't really know how best to study and why I should have really put in the work to get a higher score. This was a number of years ago now).

But in the end TLS is just a bunch of strangers on a chat board, and each individual has to make the choice about what risk they're willing to take.

Also, schools often do up scholarships/admit off wait lists based on June scores.

Wow!

wow what?

[thetravelinglawyer]

You're not comprehending what you're reading if that's your takeaway from TLS.

It is really, really tiresome when people do this. And they do it all the time. Like, all the time.

Just stop it. Cut it out.

First of all, you don't have to be rude to make your point. Second, maybe the fact that people do it all the time means that there's some truth to it. I've spent countless hours reading old threads while making my decision, and that's what I saw put out there over and over and over and over again. Not by everyone, but a lot, definitely a majority of the time.

[abl]

Also, what's your alternative? It sounds like you have a not super marketable PhD and have ruled out that industry. Other careers might be preferable to law from a strictly financial sense but what you're interested matters a lot too. Accounting sounds like hell for me, for example.

I think most folks here would agree that although a ~T30 with ~$125k debt is far from ideal, it's also far from necessarily disastrous. I think if you end up at a respectable regional in a region in which you want to practice with open eyes about what the debt will mean for you financially and what sorts of jobs you can reasonably expect (mostly respectable ones, if not big law), that can be a good outcome.

Finally, I want to note that I graduated several years ago with debt and have found paying it off to be LESS onerous than I expected. Even after sending in my monthly payments, I have more disposable income than I ever had previously. Maybe my expectations were super low (and I definitely have cheaper than average taste among my coworkers for things like restaurants and housing), but I've found things to be more than manageable. It's amazing how little of a seemingly large salary trickles down to you after taxes and debt service are subtracted--so don't expect to feel super rich for a while--but in the range you're talking about you're still likely to end up with more disposable income than most folks.

[Tls2016]

Yeah, as a 0L, I am contemplating all my offers and although taking on 1500k to any top 25 or T14 or even HYS is hard to swallow. I have a hard time believing that most students that attend a school that ranked between 1-35. Will have a miserable life that is crippled by never ending debt. Even if it is 200k, working a 30-year career cannot possibly crush someone's life goals that much, I think.

You would still be able to invest for retirement, afford children and take decent vacations. Maybe not max out all retirement accounts, place kids in private schools and/or pay for their college tuition, and instead of honeymoons in Rome, they have to settle for a resort in So-cal or Florida, but I hardly count that as a travesty.

Walk me through a few scenarios here maybe? For at least half those schools in that range biglaw can't be counted on. What jobs do you see after missing that boat that would leave you in a position to live this life?

I have no doubt that for half of those schools the students outside top third and for some top 25% would never sniff big law pay. I just have a feeling for those that do get a private firm job (I know it is a big assumption, and assuming students that go to top 35 schools will have at least 70% of their class get decent firm jobs), that their max earning potential will not be capped at 70k and will eventually hit the 100k point, whether it is immediately after law school or five years afterwards.

Also, if you think I am absolutely wrong, forgive and educate me please.

I used to post on TLS a while ago while I was still practicing corporate law at a biglaw firm (that I think is still V10.) This is obviously a new account.

I recall that the fight on TLS about debt was hard won based on experience of grads informing OLs. That experience was based in part on the reality of the job market, the reality of big law practice, the reality of cost of living in New York.

Note during this time PAYE was a reform added to allow people to not become suicidal when they couldn't pay their non dischargable student loan debt. Hiring has vastly improved since the recession of course but it isn't back. And in the meantime at least one big law firm failed.

I have no idea where you get the assumption that 70% of grads from your school will be making $100,000 in 5 years. Is there some long term study showing this? As I recall there is very little data on earnings beyond the first year.

I doubt this is true because of the well known bimodal nature of law salaries, the huge oversupply of lawyers and the lack of pressure to increase salaries even at the big law firms. I would love to see the data. (If you haven't seen the bimodal nature, there is a chart somewhere that shows it clearly.) edit: found the link to the NALP chart: http://www.nalp.org/salarydistrib

Without data that assumption is completely unfounded based on the job market. Read the Vale of Tears thread. Professor Campos used to have a site called inside the law school scam and he has a book too. That site may have some useful data for you. You might also read the Citibank reports on big law firms that show the financial pressure and flat demand for services. You might be surprised to know that high numbers of people leave law after a few years.

One issue 0Ls have with comprehending law school debt is the effect of the mandatory curve. Everyone expects to do well even if they say they are assuming median. But law school isn't like undergrad where effort equals grades and where you have more than one exam to determine grades. Keep in mind you can't really know how you will do before you start. You did know about the curve and your grade riding solely on one exam, right. A surprising number of people never get that until after their first semester.

By the way, I don't recall anyone ever saying that a full ride at a T14 is the only way to go. For one, there are very few full rides to T14s available. For another, T14 are emphasized because of best job prospects at median (or even lower). That's just reality. But for some job markets that are extremely insular, the local school might be a better choice. You need to read more carefully and think more analytically. People aren't going to write down their assumptions in every advice post.

[teenagewildlife]

Also, what's your alternative? It sounds like you have a not super marketable PhD and have ruled out that industry. Other careers might be preferable to law from a strictly financial sense but what you're interested matters a lot too. Accounting sounds like hell for me, for example.

I think most folks here would agree that although a ~T30 with ~$125k debt is far from ideal, it's also far from necessarily disastrous. I think if you end up at a respectable regional in a region in which you want to practice with open eyes about what the debt will mean for you financially and what sorts of jobs you can reasonably expect (mostly respectable ones, if not big law), that can be a good outcome.

Finally, I want to note that I graduated several years ago with debt and have found paying it off to be LESS onerous than I expected. Even after sending in my monthly payments, I have more disposable income than I ever had previously. Maybe my expectations were super low (and I definitely have cheaper than average taste among my coworkers for things like restaurants and housing), but I've found things to be more than manageable. It's amazing how little of a seemingly large salary trickles down to you after taxes and debt service are subtracted--so don't expect to feel super rich for a while--but in the range you're talking about you're still likely to end up with more disposable income than most folks.

I don't feel like I have very many alternatives. I have three English degrees, so basically I could find something tangentially related to academia, like publishing, academic administration, high school teaching -- none of which appeal to me all that much. I'd also likely have to start in an entry level position. I also have experience in freelance copywriting, so that's something I could look into, but I feel like it would take a few years of building contract/freelance gigs into something full-time and stable. During which time I would need to keep teaching to pay the bills.

I almost went K-JD, but went into academia because I didn't feel like I had a great reason for going to law school at that time. I would've been going just to go. I chose a PhD because I could easily see myself happy as a career professor. Then I finished my PhD and realized a tenure-track job wasn't gonna happen. During grad school I began researching law school and a legal career again, and started making steps toward it about a year ago.

I'm in my 30s and am not super psyched about three more years of school, but what I'm really after is job security and a career I care about. For me, that's not doable in academia, and it seems like it would be as a lawyer. The huge X factor is of course debt, and how to make it not crushing. Personally I am totally fine with not feeling rich. I've never had disposable income. I've always lived paycheck to paycheck. Last semester was the first time I was able to save any money, but it will be gone by May because the university cut my courseload (and therefore pay) this semester. On the other hand, while money's always been tight, I've never had any debt, not even credit card debt. So the idea of taking out hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans is fucking terrifying to me.

I'm really after a middle class lifestyle -- including a family in the years right after law school -- and so what you describe is actually my goal. Manageable debt that can be paid off in a reasonable amount of time, and the opportunity for growth. I would like to end up with an upper-middle class lifestyle; I understand that will take some time, and I'm fine with that too. I've never had more than a year-long employment contract, and I've never made more than $33K/year, which isn't super easy in a pretty high COL area.

So the TLDR on the financial side of things is that I'm after longterm job security and the opportunity for career growth.

[Tls2016]

Also, what's your alternative? It sounds like you have a not super marketable PhD and have ruled out that industry. Other careers might be preferable to law from a strictly financial sense but what you're interested matters a lot too. Accounting sounds like hell for me, for example.

I think most folks here would agree that although a ~T30 with ~$125k debt is far from ideal, it's also far from necessarily disastrous. I think if you end up at a respectable regional in a region in which you want to practice with open eyes about what the debt will mean for you financially and what sorts of jobs you can reasonably expect (mostly respectable ones, if not big law), that can be a good outcome.

Finally, I want to note that I graduated several years ago with debt and have found paying it off to be LESS onerous than I expected. Even after sending in my monthly payments, I have more disposable income than I ever had previously. Maybe my expectations were super low (and I definitely have cheaper than average taste among my coworkers for things like restaurants and housing), but I've found things to be more than manageable. It's amazing how little of a seemingly large salary trickles down to you after taxes and debt service are subtracted--so don't expect to feel super rich for a while--but in the range you're talking about you're still likely to end up with more disposable income than most folks.

I don't feel like I have very many alternatives. I have three English degrees, so basically I could find something tangentially related to academia, like publishing, academic administration, high school teaching -- none of which appeal to me all that much. I'd also likely have to start in an entry level position. I also have experience in freelance copywriting, so that's something I could look into, but I feel like it would take a few years of building contract/freelance gigs into something full-time and stable. During which time I would need to keep teaching to pay the bills.

I almost went K-JD, but went into academia because I didn't feel like I had a great reason for going to law school at that time. I would've been going just to go. I chose a PhD because I could easily see myself happy as a career professor. Then I finished my PhD and realized a tenure-track job wasn't gonna happen. During grad school I began researching law school and a legal career again, and started making steps toward it about a year ago.

I'm in my 30s and am not super psyched about three more years of school, but what I'm really after is job security and a career I care about. For me, that's not doable in academia, and it seems like it would be as a lawyer. The huge X factor is of course debt, and how to make it not crushing. Personally I am totally fine with not feeling rich. I've never had disposable income. I've always lived paycheck to paycheck. Last semester was the first time I was able to save any money, but it will be gone by May because the university cut my courseload (and therefore pay) this semester. On the other hand, while money's always been tight, I've never had any debt, not even credit card debt. So the idea of taking out hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans is fucking terrifying to me.

I'm really after a middle class lifestyle -- including a family in the years right after law school -- and so what you describe is actually my goal. Manageable debt that can be paid off in a reasonable amount of time, and the opportunity for growth. I would like to end up with an upper-middle class lifestyle; I understand that will take some time, and I'm fine with that too. I've never had more than a year-long employment contract, and I've never made more than $33K/year, which isn't super easy in a pretty high COL area.

So the TLDR on the financial side of things is that I'm after longterm job security and the opportunity for career growth.

Where do you get that law has high job security? Have you even applied at any companies for any other job? Or is this more assuming on your part - I mean what is your data?

Do you have any idea what work as a lawyer means? Or are you just looking at it as a job title.

[teenagewildlife]

Also, what's your alternative? It sounds like you have a not super marketable PhD and have ruled out that industry. Other careers might be preferable to law from a strictly financial sense but what you're interested matters a lot too. Accounting sounds like hell for me, for example.

I think most folks here would agree that although a ~T30 with ~$125k debt is far from ideal, it's also far from necessarily disastrous. I think if you end up at a respectable regional in a region in which you want to practice with open eyes about what the debt will mean for you financially and what sorts of jobs you can reasonably expect (mostly respectable ones, if not big law), that can be a good outcome.

Finally, I want to note that I graduated several years ago with debt and have found paying it off to be LESS onerous than I expected. Even after sending in my monthly payments, I have more disposable income than I ever had previously. Maybe my expectations were super low (and I definitely have cheaper than average taste among my coworkers for things like restaurants and housing), but I've found things to be more than manageable. It's amazing how little of a seemingly large salary trickles down to you after taxes and debt service are subtracted--so don't expect to feel super rich for a while--but in the range you're talking about you're still likely to end up with more disposable income than most folks.

I don't feel like I have very many alternatives. I have three English degrees, so basically I could find something tangentially related to academia, like publishing, academic administration, high school teaching -- none of which appeal to me all that much. I'd also likely have to start in an entry level position. I also have experience in freelance copywriting, so that's something I could look into, but I feel like it would take a few years of building contract/freelance gigs into something full-time and stable. During which time I would need to keep teaching to pay the bills.

I almost went K-JD, but went into academia because I didn't feel like I had a great reason for going to law school at that time. I would've been going just to go. I chose a PhD because I could easily see myself happy as a career professor. Then I finished my PhD and realized a tenure-track job wasn't gonna happen. During grad school I began researching law school and a legal career again, and started making steps toward it about a year ago.

I'm in my 30s and am not super psyched about three more years of school, but what I'm really after is job security and a career I care about. For me, that's not doable in academia, and it seems like it would be as a lawyer. The huge X factor is of course debt, and how to make it not crushing. Personally I am totally fine with not feeling rich. I've never had disposable income. I've always lived paycheck to paycheck. Last semester was the first time I was able to save any money, but it will be gone by May because the university cut my courseload (and therefore pay) this semester. On the other hand, while money's always been tight, I've never had any debt, not even credit card debt. So the idea of taking out hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans is fucking terrifying to me.

I'm really after a middle class lifestyle -- including a family in the years right after law school -- and so what you describe is actually my goal. Manageable debt that can be paid off in a reasonable amount of time, and the opportunity for growth. I would like to end up with an upper-middle class lifestyle; I understand that will take some time, and I'm fine with that too. I've never had more than a year-long employment contract, and I've never made more than $33K/year, which isn't super easy in a pretty high COL area.

So the TLDR on the financial side of things is that I'm after longterm job security and the opportunity for career growth.

Where do you get that law has high job security? Have you even applied at any companies for any other job? Or is this more assuming on your part - I mean what is your data?

Do you have any idea what work as a lawyer means? Or are you just looking at it as a job title.

I said I'm after job security, not that law guarantees it. In an earlier post I said I'm still considering whether or not I'm going to go to law school. Yes, I have an idea of what work as a lawyer means. From reading this board, doing other research, talking at length with friends who are lawyers. And yes, I have applied for other jobs at other companies.

[A. Nony Mouse]

First of all, you don't have to be rude to make your point. Second, maybe the fact that people do it all the time means that there's some truth to it. I've spent countless hours reading old threads while making my decision, and that's what I saw put out there over and over and over and over again. Not by everyone, but a lot, definitely a majority of the time.

How old? I think you have to separate threads made, say, 2010-11, from those made later. Credited wisdom here has evolved as the information available has changed.

And I think you may be extrapolating from advice tailored to specific situations. When a user says that they want biglaw, yes, they're going to get told they need to go to the T14. If they say they're going into law for the salary, they're probably going to get told that that means biglaw and they want to go to the T14. I don't think anyone says you have to go T14 to succeed, period. They may say that to someone who wants to ensure they get a biglaw job, yes. And they'd be right - obviously people do get biglaw out of non-T14 schools, but if the user really wants biglaw or bust, the T14 is a safer bet than strong regional with money.

[BigZuck]

You're not comprehending what you're reading if that's your takeaway from TLS.

It is really, really tiresome when people do this. And they do it all the time. Like, all the time.

Just stop it. Cut it out.

First of all, you don't have to be rude to make your point. Second, maybe the fact that people do it all the time means that there's some truth to it. I've spent countless hours reading old threads while making my decision, and that's what I saw put out there over and over and over and over again. Not by everyone, but a lot, definitely a majority of the time.

And now you're lying. There's no truth to what you're saying, you (and other people) just prop up a strawman to rail against and people have to continually correct posters like you. It's really, really tiresome.

People don't say you have to go to a T14 to succeed, and people don't try to push people away from a strong regional for cheap if the strong regional is their best choice. You said you've seen this over and over. Link me to two instances. Just two.

[wolfie_m.]

.

[Tls2016]

You're not comprehending what you're reading if that's your takeaway from TLS.

It is really, really tiresome when people do this. And they do it all the time. Like, all the time.

Just stop it. Cut it out.

First of all, you don't have to be rude to make your point. Second, maybe the fact that people do it all the time means that there's some truth to it. I've spent countless hours reading old threads while making my decision, and that's what I saw put out there over and over and over and over again. Not by everyone, but a lot, definitely a majority of the time.

I'm not sure what you mean by this? You mean that a lot of 0Ls say the same general thing about TLS advice because TLS focuses on the T14 mostly for job prospects and tells people to retake to save money?'

It sounds like you have made up your mind and just want to argue about why you are right. So good luck.

My opinion is that someone with your credentials should be able to find a job without the cost of time and money for law schools but maybe Boston is not a good place to find a job. For what it's worth, Boston isn't a huge legal market either but there are a lot of people here who have gone to school there and looked for jobs. Maybe you should start a thread asking for people's experience in looking for law jobs in Boston

[teenagewildlife]

First things first, I'll concede that TLS has many biases. The debt-averseness bias you've pointed out arose largely out of TLS's beginnings--i.e., the height of the Great Recession, accompanied by mass layoffs and offer rescissions at major law firms in 2008 and 2009. It also arose from our gradual, collective realization of how much law school tuition has increased. Much of that increase is due almost entirely to prospective law students who take the bait and pay full freight to these schools via student loans.

But you've brought up an issue that has been discussed on TLS many times before: "Going to a T1 with substantial debt doesn't sound that bad." "Going to law school doesn't sound that hard; people just don't work hard enough." "Working in Biglaw can't be that bad."

You're not understanding something, something I didn't realize (stupidly) when I entered law school. The people who are arguing with you are as smart as you, if not smarter. When people on TLS tell you that you're about to make a stupid decision, they are largely telling you that based on (1) personal experience and (2) other really good reasons. Granted, occasionally someone says something way off base. And there are those biases I discussed earlier. And yes, there are gaps in the data and debates over which data is useful (e.g., The Economic Value of a Law Degree). But I can attest to the fact that the debt-averseness bias here is based both on solid personal experience and really good reasons.

In other words, prospective law school students don't know what they don't know. Sure, you'll hear from a couple people who win the lottery and don't realize it--usually, the Coif guys and gals from a T2 who had no problem getting a job. But the relatively high dissatisfaction among the pool of all law students should tell you something. They didn't quite understand what they were buying into, and neither do you.

Every T20 costs about 50k/year, right? So you would be graduating with at least 100k in debt, unless you're getting help from someone else, and probably more than that. (I'm not going to crunch the numbers.) How is the legal market in your school's location? Is it good? What is the lowest pay you'd accept? Are you okay with being a public defender somewhere, or making it as a solo practitioner? Do you know how much public defenders make? Do you realize that, to have a cushy life, you at least need to be in the top 20% of your class? Do you also realize that older students (like 30+) sometimes have difficulty landing jobs with firms, and even after that, have trouble assimilating with their much younger class year, which can have serious repercussions for their ability to generate business later on? Etc., etc., etc.

You've got to ask and answer all the above questions and more for yourself. But most students don't. So TLS tells most students not to take out debt.

Edit: Word change.

The reason I'm curious about the extent of what I referred to as bias is that I share it. I feel like I've internalized that bias, and I'm not questioning the motives behind it. I think they're all very sound, as your post points out. But I started wondering whether, at a certain point, there would be such a thing as being too debt averse (for me personally; not generally speaking). Whether or not being afraid to take on large amounts of debt might end up paralyzing me and preventing me from taking on a reasonable amount of debt. For me, the idea of "a reasonable amount of debt" has always seemed like an oxymoron, let alone when we're talking about 100K+.

Of course, I have plenty of reasons for wanting to go law school, and wanting to be a lawyer. The pragmatic hypotheticals you ask here are all important, and I've thought through all of them, plus others. But my main reason for not wanting to go to law school -- really the only reason, at this point -- is the prospect of student loans. I probably mistitled this thread, since it seems like I'm saying TLS is biased and I'm not. In reality I think I am as debt averse as TLS collectively is, if not more. I just wonder if there is ever a point at which that aversion becomes too extreme and a net negative. Consensus here seems to be no, that one can never be too debt-averse, which again, I pretty much agree with. But what got me thinking about this was talking to someone IRL who graduated from a T5 with a huge debt load, and doesn't seem too concerned about it. They feel like their career is on a good enough path that relatively soon, the loans won't be an issue. But that's a T5.

I can see how this might be interpreted as "taking on significant and often risky debt isn't that bad," but I certainly didn't mean it that way. Taking on significant debt, as I said upthread, terrifies me. I'm just trying to gauge how much of that aversion is based in reality and not my own personal, longstanding, strong aversion to debt.

I'm also definitely not assuming law students and grads warning against law school aren't as smart as me. I'm trying to defer to their experience, both in general and with this thread in particular. To that end there have been some really helpful posts in here that all seem to share the theme of "this is what worked for me, and you need to figure out what works for you."

My goal here isn't to prove that TLS has an incorrect tendency toward debt aversion. It's to figure out if I can justify attending law school while sharing that same tendency.

[teenagewildlife]

You're not comprehending what you're reading if that's your takeaway from TLS.

It is really, really tiresome when people do this. And they do it all the time. Like, all the time.

Just stop it. Cut it out.

First of all, you don't have to be rude to make your point. Second, maybe the fact that people do it all the time means that there's some truth to it. I've spent countless hours reading old threads while making my decision, and that's what I saw put out there over and over and over and over again. Not by everyone, but a lot, definitely a majority of the time.

I'm not sure what you mean by this? You mean that a lot of 0Ls say the same general thing about TLS advice because TLS focuses on the T14 mostly for job prospects and tells people to retake to save money?'

It sounds like you have made up your mind and just want to argue about why you are right. So good luck.

My opinion is that someone with your credentials should be able to find a job without the cost of time and money for law schools but maybe Boston is not a good place to find a job. For what it's worth, Boston isn't a huge legal market either but there are a lot of people here who have gone to school there and looked for jobs. Maybe you should start a thread asking for people's experience in looking for law jobs in Boston

you're responding to the wrong person. maybe read the thread first.

[Tls2016]

You're not comprehending what you're reading if that's your takeaway from TLS.

It is really, really tiresome when people do this. And they do it all the time. Like, all the time.

Just stop it. Cut it out.

First of all, you don't have to be rude to make your point. Second, maybe the fact that people do it all the time means that there's some truth to it. I've spent countless hours reading old threads while making my decision, and that's what I saw put out there over and over and over and over again. Not by everyone, but a lot, definitely a majority of the time.

I'm not sure what you mean by this? You mean that a lot of 0Ls say the same general thing about TLS advice because TLS focuses on the T14 mostly for job prospects and tells people to retake to save money?'

It sounds like you have made up your mind and just want to argue about why you are right. So good luck.

My opinion is that someone with your credentials should be able to find a job without the cost of time and money for law schools but maybe Boston is not a good place to find a job. For what it's worth, Boston isn't a huge legal market either but there are a lot of people here who have gone to school there and looked for jobs. Maybe you should start a thread asking for people's experience in looking for law jobs in Boston

you're responding to the wrong person. maybe read the thread first.

Read the thread. Maybe wrong quote on my phone. Is everyone pissy on TLS now? Lol.

[thetravelinglawyer]

I have no idea where you get the assumption that 70% of grads from your school will be making $100,000 in 5 years. Is there some long term study showing this? As I recall there is very little data on earnings beyond the first year.

You weren't responding to me, but I noticed this so I had to jump in. The After the JD study has a lot of information on this. They found that, five years after graduation, here is what grads are averaging:

Top 10: $162k
Top 11-50: $108k (this was broken up into 11-20 and 21-50 but the averages were the same)
Tier 2 and 3: $92k (same explanation as above)
Tier 4: $83k

http://www.law.du.edu/documents/directo ... g/AJD2.pdf
See Page 44

The ten-years-out update was recently released, though I couldn't find the full text. Obviously average isn't the same as what 70% will be making, the economy has changed, etc etc, but I thought you might find those numbers interesting nonetheless.

[teenagewildlife]

Read the thread. Maybe wrong quote on my phone. Is everyone pissy on TLS now? Lol.

You said it's clear I've made up my mind and implied I'm being obstinate when A) my posts here say the exact opposite of that and B) you'd clearly conflated my posts with someone else's.

I was going for dismissive but pissy is fine, too.

[thetravelinglawyer]

How old? I think you have to separate threads made, say, 2010-11, from those made later. Credited wisdom here has evolved as the information available has changed.

And I think you may be extrapolating from advice tailored to specific situations. When a user says that they want biglaw, yes, they're going to get told they need to go to the T14. If they say they're going into law for the salary, they're probably going to get told that that means biglaw and they want to go to the T14. I don't think anyone says you have to go T14 to succeed, period. They may say that to someone who wants to ensure they get a biglaw job, yes. And they'd be right - obviously people do get biglaw out of non-T14 schools, but if the user really wants biglaw or bust, the T14 is a safer bet than strong regional with money.

If anything it seems to me like more recent threads come off worse as legal employment is taking a dip so there are people acting like the jobs are drying up for those outside the upper echelon. I don't think I'm misapplying advice either, if someone specifically wants NYC/DC biglaw or a SCOTUS clerkship, then I would of course expect them to be told they need to be T14 or HYSCCN, but it's not just those people. Wanting a good salary doesn't have to mean biglaw, and even if you do want biglaw, that doesn't have to mean T14, and no matter where you're at, you don't have to be at the tip top of the class to get a good job. That truth exists on TLS, but it's certainly the minority, and when it is expressed it often gets dismissed as naïveté. If you disagree, fair enough, you've certainly been here longer and seen more, but that's what I have seen, the OP said they saw elements of it, and clearly many others do since I got told how sick someone was of seeing that sentiment expressed all the time.

[Clearly]

Thing is, advice is dispensed (accurately usually) on a case by case basis. There are a lot of different ways to make good decisions, and not all of them are T14. The problems come in when people have misguided views on how law school/hiring works and they get advice they don't like. For the most part its about minimizing risk to achieve your goals. If a reverse splitter would get into say Duke, they're gonna be told to retake, even though Duke is great, because the cost of improving the LSAT is nothing compared the benefit of scholarships or even better schools. If a person wants to be a PD in a small town, they would never be told to take a half ride at Columbia over a full ride at their state flagship.

What you get a lot of though is 3.8 162 getting ready to go to Fordham at sticker. People who are out of touch with the fact that the jobs they want, and the school they are going to don't match up. If you want a real opinion, tell us your goals, and your stats. If you say biglaw 156 LSAT, we're gonna laugh at you. If you say you'll earn 90k if you miss the 160k boat, we'll laugh at you.

Here's how it works. In all likelihood you will either make 160k, or 50k. Rarely anything too far in the middle. If you are ok with 50k, go to a non-t14 school for free or as close to free as possible. If you want that 160, go to a T14 for as cheap as possible.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Wanting a good salary doesn't have to mean biglaw, and even if you do want biglaw, that doesn't have to mean T14, and no matter where you're at, you don't have to be at the tip top of the class to get a good job.

See, I think this is the kind of stuff that's debatable, mostly because "good job" or "good salary" is subjective, and you do get a lot of people here who say "I don't need biglaw, I'd be happy with $90k" without realizing that's not a realistic outcome.

(Also, of course you don't have to go to a T14 to get biglaw, but it's going to greatly increase your chances. A lot.)

[Tls2016]

I have no idea where you get the assumption that 70% of grads from your school will be making $100,000 in 5 years. Is there some long term study showing this? As I recall there is very little data on earnings beyond the first year.

You weren't responding to me, but I noticed this so I had to jump in. The After the JD study has a lot of information on this. They found that, five years after graduation, here is what grads are averaging:

Top 10: $162k
Top 11-50: $108k (this was broken up into 11-20 and 21-50 but the averages were the same)
Tier 2 and 3: $92k (same explanation as above)
Tier 4: $83k

http://www.law.du.edu/documents/directo ... g/AJD2.pdf
See Page 44

The ten-years-out update was recently released, though I couldn't find the full text. Obviously average isn't the same as what 70% will be making, the economy has changed, etc etc, but I thought you might find those numbers interesting nonetheless.

Thanks. I had not seen this report and I will be glad to read it.

[Clearly]

I have no idea where you get the assumption that 70% of grads from your school will be making $100,000 in 5 years. Is there some long term study showing this? As I recall there is very little data on earnings beyond the first year.

You weren't responding to me, but I noticed this so I had to jump in. The After the JD study has a lot of information on this. They found that, five years after graduation, here is what grads are averaging:

Top 10: $162k
Top 11-50: $108k (this was broken up into 11-20 and 21-50 but the averages were the same)
Tier 2 and 3: $92k (same explanation as above)
Tier 4: $83k

http://www.law.du.edu/documents/directo ... g/AJD2.pdf
See Page 44

The ten-years-out update was recently released, though I couldn't find the full text. Obviously average isn't the same as what 70% will be making, the economy has changed, etc etc, but I thought you might find those numbers interesting nonetheless.

Thanks. I had not seen this report and I will be glad to read it.

Some big problems with that study. One, it was only even offered to people who passed the bar, so subtract the fail rate from the top. Two, the first survey was sent to an admittedly well-rounded group of law graduates from different tiers. It was sent a full three years after they graduated and had a 50% response rate. It's highly unlikely that any unemployed or employed-not-in-law people would respond to a survey about tracking your job growth as a lawyer. I believe its fair to assume that a survey designed to track the success of lawyers, that was distributed 3 years after they started practicing, would only be participated in by people who consider themselves success stories. For this reason, I'd prefer to look at first year hiring data from each school, then research the salary and trajectory of those careers.

[Nomo]

I don't think TLS is as risk-averse as everyone says. Rather, law school is a stupid risk for many (but not all) applicants. Borrowing 150k to go to BC just doens't make that much sense. With that kind of non-dischargable debt you're really binding yourself into a legal career. A career you might not like, a career where very few people end up making huge amounts of money, and a career where making tons of money is going to require that you continue to bill tons of hours year after year until you retire.

If you had 150k of equity in a house, and you wanted to mortgage it to start a business, and you had good reasons to believe that business could take off - I think many people on TLS would tell you to go for it. The upside on your business might be much higher than becoming a partner an equity partner at some V100 firm, and you're horizon for getting there might be a lot less than 15-20 years its going to take you to become an equity partner. You might be able turn over much of the management of the business to someone else and cut down on your hours. Or you might be able to sell the business and get out if you're tired of it. These are important upsides, and you won't get any of them borrowing 150k to go to BC.

[teenagewildlife]

What you get a lot of though is 3.8 162 getting ready to go to Fordham at sticker. People who are out of touch with the fact that the jobs they want, and the school they are going to don't match up. If you want a real opinion, tell us your goals, and your stats. If you say biglaw 156 LSAT, we're gonna laugh at you. If you say you'll earn 90k if you miss the 160k boat, we'll laugh at you.

Here's how it works. In all likelihood you will either make 160k, or 50k. Rarely anything too far in the middle. If you are ok with 50k, go to a non-t14 school for free or as close to free as possible. If you want that 160, go to a T14 for as cheap as possible.

Fair point. I have a UPGA of 3.6 and an LSAT of 167. Which I know is retake. I plan to retake and score higher in June, but I'm not sure if that will guarantee an increase in scholarships for this cycle or not. If not, and if I don't feel like I have a big enough scholarship anywhere, I'll sit out and reapply for the next cycle. Which would suck, and I'd have no idea what I'll do in the meantime, but I recognize how much more money a 170+ might get me. Yesterday right after I made this thread I was admitted to my first T14 but I can't imagine I have a great shot at $$ with my stats.

As for goals, I want 160K, yeah. Like a lot of people, I'd like to transition out of biglaw eventually, but start there, particularly if I come out of school with debt.

[Clearly]

What you get a lot of though is 3.8 162 getting ready to go to Fordham at sticker. People who are out of touch with the fact that the jobs they want, and the school they are going to don't match up. If you want a real opinion, tell us your goals, and your stats. If you say biglaw 156 LSAT, we're gonna laugh at you. If you say you'll earn 90k if you miss the 160k boat, we'll laugh at you.

Here's how it works. In all likelihood you will either make 160k, or 50k. Rarely anything too far in the middle. If you are ok with 50k, go to a non-t14 school for free or as close to free as possible. If you want that 160, go to a T14 for as cheap as possible.

Fair point. I have a UPGA of 3.6 and an LSAT of 167. Which I know is retake. I plan to retake and score higher in June, but I'm not sure if that will guarantee an increase in scholarships for this cycle or not. If not, and if I don't feel like I have a big enough scholarship anywhere, I'll sit out and reapply for the next cycle. Which would suck, and I'd have no idea what I'll do in the meantime, but I recognize how much more money a 170+ might get me. Yesterday right after I made this thread I was admitted to my first T14 but I can't imagine I have a great shot at $$ with my stats.

As for goals, I want 160K, yeah. Like a lot of people, I'd like to transition out of biglaw eventually, but start there, particularly if I come out of school with debt.

Yeah you're an interesting candidate in that your gpa isn't scholarship inducing, but it's also not scholarship prohibitive. If you can really improve till you're well above lsat medians I bet you'd still see decent money. Obviously if you would be disappointed without biglaw you should go t13.

[jbagelboy]

There's a lot of problematic banter in this thread. When critiquing this forum, you have to consider its history. In many instances, TLS does a poor job of discouraging students from assuming too much debt due to the lingering and powerful undercurrent of signaling-obsession among the demographic of young students that would frequent a site called top law schools. It's taken years of hard work on the part of many regular posters (including myself) and a shrinking applicant pool to turn the tide back from the dangerous recession-era follow the commercial magazine survey with deplorable journalistic ethics to the letter and allow a well-respected, cost-conscious, long-term humane approach to prevail. It's probably the internet-related achievement I'm most proud of. Yet we still lose students every year.

This isn't to say that taking on some debt is always bad. The issue is not some abstract amount of student loans, within reason; it's considering your decision holistically: your inputs, your goals, the employment statistics, the market. The worst decision someone can make is to throw away years of added financial security and emotional well-being for a few ever-shifting slots in for-profit magazine surveys. At the end of the day, each decision is individual, but TLS has developed a rigorous and carefully considered framework for choosing the right school given particular financial variables over thousands of individual inputs, stories, and case studies. It's far from perfect--the signaling/prestige complex still does a lot of damage--but it's come a long way over the past few years and I'll be damned if a few lurkers feel they can dismiss it or take it to task to justify whatever personal scheme or agenda they've come here to feel reassured about.

You could be making a strong choice to take on student debt, but be willing to take a hard look at your decision and critique it from multiple angles--why else are you here.