How long to pay off Y/H/S sticker in NYC biglaw? Forum

[abl]

Huh? I have always said it is a large risk to the borrower because you are paying an upfront fee in hopes of at some time in the future earning X. It is guaranteed you have to pay the loan back, it is not guaranteed that you will have some grand job coming out 3 years later. The school doesn't guarantee your job out come.

At the end of the day, it pays to be on the front end of that transaction i.e. teachers, administrators etc.

This tangent is stupid because it doesn't address the OP's question.

But here we are, so I'll answer the "huh?" Yes, you have always said it was a risk to the borrower (people can agree or disagree). But you also implied earlier that it was a risk to the lender. As such, you said, if the government stopped giving out student loans, 22-year-olds would have nowhere to get $200,000. Rpupkin said that wasn't true, because private lenders would step in. You then came back with a point about the risk to the borrower, which is why I said you were changing the argument. I agree with Rpupkin about the likelihood that private lenders would be willing to make loans to HYS students. Whether it's intelligent to take those loans is a different matter, one that would be addressed by comments relevant to the OP's question (neither yours nor mine would seem to qualify).

You are right- I changed the argument from how long would it take you to get out of that miserable position you got yourself in to why borrow money in the first place. I guess that fits my own narrative, but I think it's a more important question. I guess that still doesn't justify the take over. Sorry OP.

You are right private lenders would probably step in, unfortunately. They are still taking advantage of the naiveté of young people while the school administrators and "teachers" win no matter what. Either way I'd rather have private lenders lending money because they would probably have to charge higher interest rates and they would be risking their client/customer's money rather than the tax payers. That is a conversation for a different thread though.

Debt is not a necessarily "miserable position" to be in. Debt can financially be a very good call to make. You're taking the position that debt is inherently or necessarily bad, and that's wrong.

[jingosaur]

YHS all have pretty good financial aid programs, so people rarely have sticker debt coming out of these schools. They also have strong programs for low income graduates. Y and H (S might too but I don't know) even pay loans for graduates working in the private sector.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

Huh? I have always said it is a large risk to the borrower because you are paying an upfront fee in hopes of at some time in the future earning X. It is guaranteed you have to pay the loan back, it is not guaranteed that you will have some grand job coming out 3 years later. The school doesn't guarantee your job out come.

At the end of the day, it pays to be on the front end of that transaction i.e. teachers, administrators etc.

This tangent is stupid because it doesn't address the OP's question.

But here we are, so I'll answer the "huh?" Yes, you have always said it was a risk to the borrower (people can agree or disagree). But you also implied earlier that it was a risk to the lender. As such, you said, if the government stopped giving out student loans, 22-year-olds would have nowhere to get $200,000. Rpupkin said that wasn't true, because private lenders would step in. You then came back with a point about the risk to the borrower, which is why I said you were changing the argument. I agree with Rpupkin about the likelihood that private lenders would be willing to make loans to HYS students. Whether it's intelligent to take those loans is a different matter, one that would be addressed by comments relevant to the OP's question (neither yours nor mine would seem to qualify).

You are right- I changed the argument from how long would it take you to get out of that miserable position you got yourself in to why borrow money in the first place. I guess that fits my own narrative, but I think it's a more important question. I guess that still doesn't justify the take over. Sorry OP.

You are right private lenders would probably step in, unfortunately. They are still taking advantage of the naiveté of young people while the school administrators and "teachers" win no matter what. Either way I'd rather have private lenders lending money because they would probably have to charge higher interest rates and they would be risking their client/customer's money rather than the tax payers. That is a conversation for a different thread though.

Debt is not a necessarily "miserable position" to be in. Debt can financially be a very good call to make. You're taking the position that debt is inherently or necessarily bad, and that's wrong.

We are talking about paying sticker here. So we are looking at at least 200k+ right? That is a pretty miserable position to be in, in my opinion.

Then again since it is denominated in dollars it may be the right position to be in, unfortunately. Either way, if you get caught in hard times you have the very real possibility of getting stuck with that overbearing interest compounding against you.

My point still stands. No matter what, you still are 100% guaranteed that you will have to pay back the loan. Your outcome/ job prospects are not 100% guaranteed. It is a tails I win, heads you lose game for the schools leaving you with the possibility of being screwed down the road.

Plus, you may not even like practicing law. If you borrow that much money you are stuck doing it for at least 3 years.

[abitaman6363]

Shameless secondary market plug -

I will have finished paying off $150k H/Y/S debt in Texas Biglaw living a good lifestyle by the end of this year (two years).

[WinterComing]

You still are 100% guaranteed that you will have to pay back the loan.

This isn't true. See: COAP, LIPP, LRAP

[Desert Fox]

Huh? I have always said it is a large risk to the borrower because you are paying an upfront fee in hopes of at some time in the future earning X. It is guaranteed you have to pay the loan back, it is not guaranteed that you will have some grand job coming out 3 years later. The school doesn't guarantee your job out come.

At the end of the day, it pays to be on the front end of that transaction i.e. teachers, administrators etc.

This tangent is stupid because it doesn't address the OP's question.

But here we are, so I'll answer the "huh?" Yes, you have always said it was a risk to the borrower (people can agree or disagree). But you also implied earlier that it was a risk to the lender. As such, you said, if the government stopped giving out student loans, 22-year-olds would have nowhere to get $200,000. Rpupkin said that wasn't true, because private lenders would step in. You then came back with a point about the risk to the borrower, which is why I said you were changing the argument. I agree with Rpupkin about the likelihood that private lenders would be willing to make loans to HYS students. Whether it's intelligent to take those loans is a different matter, one that would be addressed by comments relevant to the OP's question (neither yours nor mine would seem to qualify).

You are right- I changed the argument from how long would it take you to get out of that miserable position you got yourself in to why borrow money in the first place. I guess that fits my own narrative, but I think it's a more important question. I guess that still doesn't justify the take over. Sorry OP.

You are right private lenders would probably step in, unfortunately. They are still taking advantage of the naiveté of young people while the school administrators and "teachers" win no matter what. Either way I'd rather have private lenders lending money because they would probably have to charge higher interest rates and they would be risking their client/customer's money rather than the tax payers. That is a conversation for a different thread though.

Debt is not a necessarily "miserable position" to be in. Debt can financially be a very good call to make. You're taking the position that debt is inherently or necessarily bad, and that's wrong.

We are talking about paying sticker here. So we are looking at at least 200k+ right? That is a pretty miserable position to be in, in my opinion.

Then again since it is denominated in dollars it may be the right position to be in, unfortunately. Either way, if you get caught in hard times you have the very real possibility of getting stuck with that overbearing interest compounding against you.

My point still stands. No matter what, you still are 100% guaranteed that you will have to pay back the loan. Your outcome/ job prospects are not 100% guaranteed. It is a tails I win, heads you lose game for the schools leaving you with the possibility of being screwed down the road.

Plus, you may not even like practicing law. If you borrow that much money you are stuck doing it for at least 3 years.

At least 300k.

Harvard Sticker is 88.6k for next year. Assuming 3% growth (It was over 4% last year) that's $327,985 debt at repaying. If it's 4% thats: 331k. If it's 5%: 334k.

That's a spicy meatball.

Even if you throw in 15k from a SA, hell even 30k from two SAs you are still talking about essentially 300k.

Here's the thing, most students aren't leaving with that much debt. The poor ones get aid and the rich ones have daddy pay. Only middle middle class fools leave law school with that much debt. Ur a sucker if you do it.

330k over 5 years at (6.8% interest) is 6,503.30 a month. That's a ridiculous amount of money to pay after tax. For a single person, you'd literally have to live in a box to do it (at least for the first 3 years of biglawl). That payment gives you significantly less after tax, after loan money than Columbia or NYU students get for living expenses. Like 2/3rds of what they get.

10 years is still a lot: 3,797.65 a month. That's probably doable. But that's still HALF your takehome pay. And you won't last 10 years in biglaw.

If you already in this position: you gotta do PAYE for life.

If you aren't: don't go

[asdfdfdfadfas]

You still are 100% guaranteed that you will have to pay back the loan.

This isn't true. See: COAP, LIPP, LRAP

I didn't think, at this point, I'd have to qualify my statement to include the above as everyone who is talking here has been around long enough to know about those programs.

Either way, again, my underlying point is if it doesn't work out for you, you are the one to blame. You are the one taking the risk by definitively borrowing today hoping for a non-definitive outcome in the future.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

Huh? I have always said it is a large risk to the borrower because you are paying an upfront fee in hopes of at some time in the future earning X. It is guaranteed you have to pay the loan back, it is not guaranteed that you will have some grand job coming out 3 years later. The school doesn't guarantee your job out come.

At the end of the day, it pays to be on the front end of that transaction i.e. teachers, administrators etc.

This tangent is stupid because it doesn't address the OP's question.

But here we are, so I'll answer the "huh?" Yes, you have always said it was a risk to the borrower (people can agree or disagree). But you also implied earlier that it was a risk to the lender. As such, you said, if the government stopped giving out student loans, 22-year-olds would have nowhere to get $200,000. Rpupkin said that wasn't true, because private lenders would step in. You then came back with a point about the risk to the borrower, which is why I said you were changing the argument. I agree with Rpupkin about the likelihood that private lenders would be willing to make loans to HYS students. Whether it's intelligent to take those loans is a different matter, one that would be addressed by comments relevant to the OP's question (neither yours nor mine would seem to qualify).

You are right- I changed the argument from how long would it take you to get out of that miserable position you got yourself in to why borrow money in the first place. I guess that fits my own narrative, but I think it's a more important question. I guess that still doesn't justify the take over. Sorry OP.

You are right private lenders would probably step in, unfortunately. They are still taking advantage of the naiveté of young people while the school administrators and "teachers" win no matter what. Either way I'd rather have private lenders lending money because they would probably have to charge higher interest rates and they would be risking their client/customer's money rather than the tax payers. That is a conversation for a different thread though.

Debt is not a necessarily "miserable position" to be in. Debt can financially be a very good call to make. You're taking the position that debt is inherently or necessarily bad, and that's wrong.

We are talking about paying sticker here. So we are looking at at least 200k+ right? That is a pretty miserable position to be in, in my opinion.

Then again since it is denominated in dollars it may be the right position to be in, unfortunately. Either way, if you get caught in hard times you have the very real possibility of getting stuck with that overbearing interest compounding against you.

My point still stands. No matter what, you still are 100% guaranteed that you will have to pay back the loan. Your outcome/ job prospects are not 100% guaranteed. It is a tails I win, heads you lose game for the schools leaving you with the possibility of being screwed down the road.

Plus, you may not even like practicing law. If you borrow that much money you are stuck doing it for at least 3 years.

At least 300k.

Harvard Sticker is 88.6k for next year. Assuming 3% growth (It was over 4% last year) that's $327,985 debt at repaying. If it's 4% thats: 331k. If it's 5%: 334k.

That's a spicy meatball.

Even if you throw in 15k from a SA, hell even 30k from two SAs you are still talking about essentially 300k.

Here's the thing, most students aren't leaving with that much debt. The poor ones get aid and the rich ones have daddy pay. Only middle middle class fools leave law school with that much debt. Ur a sucker if you do it.

330k over 5 years at (6.8% interest) is 6,503.30 a month. That's a ridiculous amount of money to pay after tax. For a single person, you'd literally have to live in a box to do it (at least for the first 3 years of biglawl). That payment gives you significantly less after tax, after loan money than Columbia or NYU students get for living expenses. Like 2/3rds of what they get.

10 years is still a lot: 3,797.65 a month. That's probably doable. But that's still HALF your takehome pay. And you won't last 10 years in biglaw.

If you already in this position: you gotta do PAYE for life.

If you aren't: don't go

+1000.

[abl]

Huh? I have always said it is a large risk to the borrower because you are paying an upfront fee in hopes of at some time in the future earning X. It is guaranteed you have to pay the loan back, it is not guaranteed that you will have some grand job coming out 3 years later. The school doesn't guarantee your job out come.

At the end of the day, it pays to be on the front end of that transaction i.e. teachers, administrators etc.

This tangent is stupid because it doesn't address the OP's question.

But here we are, so I'll answer the "huh?" Yes, you have always said it was a risk to the borrower (people can agree or disagree). But you also implied earlier that it was a risk to the lender. As such, you said, if the government stopped giving out student loans, 22-year-olds would have nowhere to get $200,000. Rpupkin said that wasn't true, because private lenders would step in. You then came back with a point about the risk to the borrower, which is why I said you were changing the argument. I agree with Rpupkin about the likelihood that private lenders would be willing to make loans to HYS students. Whether it's intelligent to take those loans is a different matter, one that would be addressed by comments relevant to the OP's question (neither yours nor mine would seem to qualify).

You are right- I changed the argument from how long would it take you to get out of that miserable position you got yourself in to why borrow money in the first place. I guess that fits my own narrative, but I think it's a more important question. I guess that still doesn't justify the take over. Sorry OP.

You are right private lenders would probably step in, unfortunately. They are still taking advantage of the naiveté of young people while the school administrators and "teachers" win no matter what. Either way I'd rather have private lenders lending money because they would probably have to charge higher interest rates and they would be risking their client/customer's money rather than the tax payers. That is a conversation for a different thread though.

Debt is not a necessarily "miserable position" to be in. Debt can financially be a very good call to make. You're taking the position that debt is inherently or necessarily bad, and that's wrong.

We are talking about paying sticker here. So we are looking at at least 200k+ right? That is a pretty miserable position to be in, in my opinion.

Then again since it is denominated in dollars it may be the right position to be in, unfortunately. Either way, if you get caught in hard times you have the very real possibility of getting stuck with that overbearing interest compounding against you.

My point still stands. No matter what, you still are 100% guaranteed that you will have to pay back the loan. Your outcome/ job prospects are not 100% guaranteed. It is a tails I win, heads you lose game for the schools leaving you with the possibility of being screwed down the road.

Plus, you may not even like practicing law. If you borrow that much money you are stuck doing it for at least 3 years.

Again, your point only stands if we accept your facially ridiculous proposition that debt and risk are inherently evil. I think there's absolutely a problem right now with law schools profiting off of the ignorance of prospective students going deeply into debt for jobs that will likely never materialize. Schools like Thomas Jefferson are asking prospective students to place a pretty bad bet on their income-generating and job-potential for the future. I don't know that the professors at these schools are really the bad guys in these situations, but that's a discussion for a later thread. Regardless, whatever moral issues are present right now in legal academia, it's pretty ridiculous to imply that HYS are also playing some sort of dirty game. The jobs and earnings potential that come with a HYS law degree are excellent. Sure, it's possible that you can go $300,000 in debt to go to HYS and have trouble finding a job as a dishwasher. But it's pretty damn unlikely: certainly unlikely enough that one can reasonably discount that possibility when evaluating the "HYS with debt" choice.

[abl]

Huh? I have always said it is a large risk to the borrower because you are paying an upfront fee in hopes of at some time in the future earning X. It is guaranteed you have to pay the loan back, it is not guaranteed that you will have some grand job coming out 3 years later. The school doesn't guarantee your job out come.

At the end of the day, it pays to be on the front end of that transaction i.e. teachers, administrators etc.

This tangent is stupid because it doesn't address the OP's question.

But here we are, so I'll answer the "huh?" Yes, you have always said it was a risk to the borrower (people can agree or disagree). But you also implied earlier that it was a risk to the lender. As such, you said, if the government stopped giving out student loans, 22-year-olds would have nowhere to get $200,000. Rpupkin said that wasn't true, because private lenders would step in. You then came back with a point about the risk to the borrower, which is why I said you were changing the argument. I agree with Rpupkin about the likelihood that private lenders would be willing to make loans to HYS students. Whether it's intelligent to take those loans is a different matter, one that would be addressed by comments relevant to the OP's question (neither yours nor mine would seem to qualify).

You are right- I changed the argument from how long would it take you to get out of that miserable position you got yourself in to why borrow money in the first place. I guess that fits my own narrative, but I think it's a more important question. I guess that still doesn't justify the take over. Sorry OP.

You are right private lenders would probably step in, unfortunately. They are still taking advantage of the naiveté of young people while the school administrators and "teachers" win no matter what. Either way I'd rather have private lenders lending money because they would probably have to charge higher interest rates and they would be risking their client/customer's money rather than the tax payers. That is a conversation for a different thread though.

Debt is not a necessarily "miserable position" to be in. Debt can financially be a very good call to make. You're taking the position that debt is inherently or necessarily bad, and that's wrong.

We are talking about paying sticker here. So we are looking at at least 200k+ right? That is a pretty miserable position to be in, in my opinion.

Then again since it is denominated in dollars it may be the right position to be in, unfortunately. Either way, if you get caught in hard times you have the very real possibility of getting stuck with that overbearing interest compounding against you.

My point still stands. No matter what, you still are 100% guaranteed that you will have to pay back the loan. Your outcome/ job prospects are not 100% guaranteed. It is a tails I win, heads you lose game for the schools leaving you with the possibility of being screwed down the road.

Plus, you may not even like practicing law. If you borrow that much money you are stuck doing it for at least 3 years.

Again, your point only stands if we accept your facially ridiculous proposition that debt and risk are inherently evil. I think there's absolutely a problem right now with law schools profiting off of the ignorance of prospective students going deeply into debt for jobs that will likely never materialize. Schools like Thomas Jefferson are asking prospective students to place a pretty bad bet on their income-generating and job-potential for the future. I don't know that the professors at these schools are really the bad guys in these situations, but that's a discussion for a later thread. Regardless, whatever moral issues are present right now in legal academia, it's pretty ridiculous to imply that HYS are also playing some sort of dirty game. The jobs and earnings potential that come with a HYS law degree are excellent. Sure, it's possible that you can go $300,000 in debt to go to HYS and have trouble finding a job as a dishwasher. But it's pretty damn unlikely: certainly unlikely enough that one can reasonably discount that possibility when evaluating the "HYS with debt" choice.

Actually, I want to amend what i said slightly. You seem to be articulating the far extreme risk aversion position. From your perspective, a risk of even a fraction of a percent that you'll end up unemployed out of HYS is unacceptable, when that outcome will leave you with $300,000 in debt. That's a personal subjective weighing of the various factors here in play. I obviously weigh these factors very differently. It'd probably be more helpful if you acknowledge that this is a personal preference issue in your future posts, rather than just simply assuming that your opinions represent objective truth.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

Huh? I have always said it is a large risk to the borrower because you are paying an upfront fee in hopes of at some time in the future earning X. It is guaranteed you have to pay the loan back, it is not guaranteed that you will have some grand job coming out 3 years later. The school doesn't guarantee your job out come.

At the end of the day, it pays to be on the front end of that transaction i.e. teachers, administrators etc.

This tangent is stupid because it doesn't address the OP's question.

But here we are, so I'll answer the "huh?" Yes, you have always said it was a risk to the borrower (people can agree or disagree). But you also implied earlier that it was a risk to the lender. As such, you said, if the government stopped giving out student loans, 22-year-olds would have nowhere to get $200,000. Rpupkin said that wasn't true, because private lenders would step in. You then came back with a point about the risk to the borrower, which is why I said you were changing the argument. I agree with Rpupkin about the likelihood that private lenders would be willing to make loans to HYS students. Whether it's intelligent to take those loans is a different matter, one that would be addressed by comments relevant to the OP's question (neither yours nor mine would seem to qualify).

You are right- I changed the argument from how long would it take you to get out of that miserable position you got yourself in to why borrow money in the first place. I guess that fits my own narrative, but I think it's a more important question. I guess that still doesn't justify the take over. Sorry OP.

You are right private lenders would probably step in, unfortunately. They are still taking advantage of the naiveté of young people while the school administrators and "teachers" win no matter what. Either way I'd rather have private lenders lending money because they would probably have to charge higher interest rates and they would be risking their client/customer's money rather than the tax payers. That is a conversation for a different thread though.

Debt is not a necessarily "miserable position" to be in. Debt can financially be a very good call to make. You're taking the position that debt is inherently or necessarily bad, and that's wrong.

We are talking about paying sticker here. So we are looking at at least 200k+ right? That is a pretty miserable position to be in, in my opinion.

Then again since it is denominated in dollars it may be the right position to be in, unfortunately. Either way, if you get caught in hard times you have the very real possibility of getting stuck with that overbearing interest compounding against you.

My point still stands. No matter what, you still are 100% guaranteed that you will have to pay back the loan. Your outcome/ job prospects are not 100% guaranteed. It is a tails I win, heads you lose game for the schools leaving you with the possibility of being screwed down the road.

Plus, you may not even like practicing law. If you borrow that much money you are stuck doing it for at least 3 years.

Again, your point only stands if we accept your facially ridiculous proposition that debt and risk are inherently evil. I think there's absolutely a problem right now with law schools profiting off of the ignorance of prospective students going deeply into debt for jobs that will likely never materialize. Schools like Thomas Jefferson are asking prospective students to place a pretty bad bet on their income-generating and job-potential for the future. I don't know that the professors at these schools are really the bad guys in these situations, but that's a discussion for a later thread. Regardless, whatever moral issues are present right now in legal academia, it's pretty ridiculous to imply that HYS are also playing some sort of dirty game. The jobs and earnings potential that come with a HYS law degree are excellent. Sure, it's possible that you can go $300,000 in debt to go to HYS and have trouble finding a job as a dishwasher. But it's pretty damn unlikely: certainly unlikely enough that one can reasonably discount that possibility when evaluating the "HYS with debt" choice.

Why not have a different arrangement then? Why not take the risk out of it and just say hey, let me in I'll attend and if I get biglaw, I am making 150k+ doing legal work, and stay in biglaw long enough to pay you back on the condition I didn't leave on my own,I'll pay you back the 300k in full. In fact, the higher I go, I'll continue to donate! However, if I don't I am not paying you back a dime. That sounds a little bit better to me. I get the outcome I want, you get your money, no matter what we both work out and we can both ride off into the sunset together.

The problem is the downside risk quite frankly, could be life ruining. I don't think I should have to incur that risk if your law school is acting in my best interest. That doesn't even consider the ethical dilemma's and change in behavior you may face of graduating that deeply in debt.

[October25]

Thanks for all the input everyone. The thread veered of in the "don't go to law school / don't spend money on law school" direction, but this wouldn't be TLS if it didn't.

Can someone just clarify something for me?

Some people seem to be talking about how sticker price isn't worth it, because the debt is guaranteed, while the job/income isn't necessarily. We'll ignore how likely the scenario of not coming out of YHS with a good job is for a second, and examine the worst case scenario, you graduate with 300k of debt and end up working a McD's. In this scenario, don't all the different income protections and stuff like that kick in, and while you'll still have the debt hanging over your head, you aren't actually paying it?

Now if we calculate whatever the small chance is that you'll get a crap job after YHS, isn't this offset by the fact that you don't have to make payments? So while there is some small change of a bad job outcome, the badness of that outcome is not related to your debt, because you aren't making payments.

Essentially, there is no circumstance where you "risk" having a shit job and having to pay back 300k debt, because if you had a shit job, you wouldn't be paying the debt.

This is how I thought it works, please correct me if I've gone wrong.

[rpupkin]

Now if we calculate whatever the small chance is that you'll get a crap job after YHS, isn't this offset by the fact that you don't have to make payments? So while there is some small change of a bad job outcome, the badness of that outcome is not related to your debt, because you aren't making payments.

The problem with this is that your debt continues to increase while you're not making payments. When you eventually land a decent paying job, you'll owe even more money. But, as you suggested earlier in your post, the scenario you're concerned about doesn't really happen out of HYS.

[Roundhill]

Omg 300k in student loans? don't do it. Go to T14 on a scholly

[abl]

Why not have a different arrangement then? Why not take the risk out of it and just say hey, let me in I'll attend and if I get biglaw, I am making 150k+ doing legal work, and stay in biglaw long enough to pay you back on the condition I didn't leave on my own,I'll pay you back the 300k in full. In fact, the higher I go, I'll continue to donate! However, if I don't I am not paying you back a dime. That sounds a little bit better to me. I get the outcome I want, you get your money, no matter what we both work out and we can both ride off into the sunset together.

The problem is the downside risk quite frankly, could be life ruining. I don't think I should have to incur that risk if your law school is acting in my best interest. That doesn't even consider the ethical dilemma's and change in behavior you may face of graduating that deeply in debt.

Why have a different arrangement? Why should the schools set up something different? This is generally the way things have always worked, and it's generally the way that things work in just about all other facets of life. If you want a product or a service, you pay for it up front. Frankly, the debt model has worked really pretty fantastically well not just for HYS but also for HYS graduates. You haven't really articulated why the debt model is bad for HYS, let alone why your alternative "pay as much as you want, when you have it" model makes moral or financial sense (let alone why it's preferable to the pretty-damn-successful current model). For one, your proposal comes with substantial income-stream risks (if you're a HYS administrator, how the heck do you build a multi-year budget when a large portion of your operating revenues come from graduates deciding whether to donate).

I think there's a strong argument to be made for beefing up the loan assistance programs at these schools, but your proposal is not it.

In any event, you don't have to incur any downside risk (no matter how small that risk may be): nobody's forcing you to take on $300,000 in debt to go to HYS. Likewise, you don't have to incur the downside risk of riding in cars, or doing any of the many other everyday behaviors that are multiples riskier than attending HYS at sticker: you can go and live in a cabin in Vermont and harvest your own crops (although I suspect that comes with the downside risk of loss of medical access), or whatever the least risky lifestyle may be.

[abl]

Thanks for all the input everyone. The thread veered of in the "don't go to law school / don't spend money on law school" direction, but this wouldn't be TLS if it didn't.

Can someone just clarify something for me?

Some people seem to be talking about how sticker price isn't worth it, because the debt is guaranteed, while the job/income isn't necessarily. We'll ignore how likely the scenario of not coming out of YHS with a good job is for a second, and examine the worst case scenario, you graduate with 300k of debt and end up working a McD's. In this scenario, don't all the different income protections and stuff like that kick in, and while you'll still have the debt hanging over your head, you aren't actually paying it?

Now if we calculate whatever the small chance is that you'll get a crap job after YHS, isn't this offset by the fact that you don't have to make payments? So while there is some small change of a bad job outcome, the badness of that outcome is not related to your debt, because you aren't making payments.

Essentially, there is no circumstance where you "risk" having a shit job and having to pay back 300k debt, because if you had a shit job, you wouldn't be paying the debt.

This is how I thought it works, please correct me if I've gone wrong.

If you had a shit job forever, yea, you would be fine under the various government repayment programs. The "risk" is having a shit job for long enough that your debt grows to completely unmanageable levels, thus preventing you from ever leaving that shit job (and the accompanying government low income repayment programs).

[Desert Fox]

Thanks for all the input everyone. The thread veered of in the "don't go to law school / don't spend money on law school" direction, but this wouldn't be TLS if it didn't.

Can someone just clarify something for me?

Some people seem to be talking about how sticker price isn't worth it, because the debt is guaranteed, while the job/income isn't necessarily. We'll ignore how likely the scenario of not coming out of YHS with a good job is for a second, and examine the worst case scenario, you graduate with 300k of debt and end up working a McD's. In this scenario, don't all the different income protections and stuff like that kick in, and while you'll still have the debt hanging over your head, you aren't actually paying it?

Now if we calculate whatever the small chance is that you'll get a crap job after YHS, isn't this offset by the fact that you don't have to make payments? So while there is some small change of a bad job outcome, the badness of that outcome is not related to your debt, because you aren't making payments.

Essentially, there is no circumstance where you "risk" having a shit job and having to pay back 300k debt, because if you had a shit job, you wouldn't be paying the debt.

This is how I thought it works, please correct me if I've gone wrong.

If you had a shit job forever, yea, you would be fine under the various government repayment programs. The "risk" is having a shit job for long enough that your debt grows to completely unmanageable levels, thus preventing you from ever leaving that shit job (and the accompanying government low income repayment programs).

Honestly, that's not that much of a downside. 7% interest that doesn't capitalize isn't that bad considering you only pay back 10% of your income in when you do get a good job. You'd still have to get a really sweet gig to even pay it all back.

Think of PAYE as signing away your schooling for a 10% stake in your income for 20 years. Not that hard of a pill to swallow.

[Tiago Splitter]

Thanks for all the input everyone. The thread veered of in the "don't go to law school / don't spend money on law school" direction, but this wouldn't be TLS if it didn't.

Can someone just clarify something for me?

Some people seem to be talking about how sticker price isn't worth it, because the debt is guaranteed, while the job/income isn't necessarily. We'll ignore how likely the scenario of not coming out of YHS with a good job is for a second, and examine the worst case scenario, you graduate with 300k of debt and end up working a McD's. In this scenario, don't all the different income protections and stuff like that kick in, and while you'll still have the debt hanging over your head, you aren't actually paying it?

Now if we calculate whatever the small chance is that you'll get a crap job after YHS, isn't this offset by the fact that you don't have to make payments? So while there is some small change of a bad job outcome, the badness of that outcome is not related to your debt, because you aren't making payments.

Essentially, there is no circumstance where you "risk" having a shit job and having to pay back 300k debt, because if you had a shit job, you wouldn't be paying the debt.

This is how I thought it works, please correct me if I've gone wrong.

So first of all, as others have said, the risk isn't ending up working in fast food making minimum wage. The risk is that you won't want to keep working in a difficult job for many years just to get your net worth back down to zero.

As for the government protections, someone who ends up in a "shit job" would pay very little towards loans with the remainder forgiven, but taxed, after 20 years.

Still, the correct answer to your question is 20. 20 years. PAYE.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

Thanks for all the input everyone. The thread veered of in the "don't go to law school / don't spend money on law school" direction, but this wouldn't be TLS if it didn't.

Can someone just clarify something for me?

Some people seem to be talking about how sticker price isn't worth it, because the debt is guaranteed, while the job/income isn't necessarily. We'll ignore how likely the scenario of not coming out of YHS with a good job is for a second, and examine the worst case scenario, you graduate with 300k of debt and end up working a McD's. In this scenario, don't all the different income protections and stuff like that kick in, and while you'll still have the debt hanging over your head, you aren't actually paying it?

Now if we calculate whatever the small chance is that you'll get a crap job after YHS, isn't this offset by the fact that you don't have to make payments? So while there is some small change of a bad job outcome, the badness of that outcome is not related to your debt, because you aren't making payments.

Essentially, there is no circumstance where you "risk" having a shit job and having to pay back 300k debt, because if you had a shit job, you wouldn't be paying the debt.

This is how I thought it works, please correct me if I've gone wrong.

So first of all, as others have said, the risk isn't ending up working in fast food making minimum wage. The risk is that you won't want to keep working in a difficult job for many years just to get your net worth back down to zero.

As for the government protections, someone who ends up in a "shit job" would pay very little towards loans with the remainder forgiven, but taxed, after 20 years.

Still, the correct answer to your question is 20. 20 years. PAYE.

Which the "tax" is actually a relatively large sum isn't it? Can you explain that a little further? So worst case scenario, you get to big law, realize the horror stories are true on TLS, dap out after a year, have 200k in debt that you pay the bare minimum on and then are hit with a huge tax bill after 20 years.

Also, the government doesn't just forgive your debt right? The tax payer is the one who is losing out who is paying higher taxes than we other wise would, correct?

Thanks for the explanation Tiago.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

Why not have a different arrangement then? Why not take the risk out of it and just say hey, let me in I'll attend and if I get biglaw, I am making 150k+ doing legal work, and stay in biglaw long enough to pay you back on the condition I didn't leave on my own,I'll pay you back the 300k in full. In fact, the higher I go, I'll continue to donate! However, if I don't I am not paying you back a dime. That sounds a little bit better to me. I get the outcome I want, you get your money, no matter what we both work out and we can both ride off into the sunset together.

The problem is the downside risk quite frankly, could be life ruining. I don't think I should have to incur that risk if your law school is acting in my best interest. That doesn't even consider the ethical dilemma's and change in behavior you may face of graduating that deeply in debt.

Why have a different arrangement? Why should the schools set up something different? This is generally the way things have always worked, and it's generally the way that things work in just about all other facets of life. If you want a product or a service, you pay for it up front. Frankly, the debt model has worked really pretty fantastically well not just for HYS but also for HYS graduates. You haven't really articulated why the debt model is bad for HYS, let alone why your alternative "pay as much as you want, when you have it" model makes moral or financial sense (let alone why it's preferable to the pretty-damn-successful current model). For one, your proposal comes with substantial income-stream risks (if you're a HYS administrator, how the heck do you build a multi-year budget when a large portion of your operating revenues come from graduates deciding whether to donate).

I think there's a strong argument to be made for beefing up the loan assistance programs at these schools, but your proposal is not it.

In any event, you don't have to incur any downside risk (no matter how small that risk may be): nobody's forcing you to take on $300,000 in debt to go to HYS. Likewise, you don't have to incur the downside risk of riding in cars, or doing any of the many other everyday behaviors that are multiples riskier than attending HYS at sticker: you can go and live in a cabin in Vermont and harvest your own crops (although I suspect that comes with the downside risk of loss of medical access), or whatever the least risky lifestyle may be.

Why? Because I think the cost should be associated with the outcome. I mean, if HYS are 100% confident that I will get biglaw and there is NO Downside risk for the borrower than why not associate costs with my outcome? As the top law schools in the country, you should be able to essentially put up or shut up, for the lack of a better term.


I don't think people should have to attend law school bearing all of the risk of the government financing while the school administrators and "teachers" take their lofty government financed salaries. I don't care if "that is the way it has always worked", which following that logic we would be sitting around camp fires, hunting and scavenging for food, and attacking each other because that's the way it's always been. In addition, the loans have behavioral consequences as well. Let's say you get to Big law and it turns out the firm you are working at is doing something unethical or even illegal. With 300k sitting over your head, you can't exactly be like WELP, see ya.

Anyways, that $300,000 price tag is keeping people out because without the financial backing from the government/ private industries prices would have to fall as demand would drop because no one has $300k sitting around. This is the primary reason why education costs keep going up.

I don't think riding in a car is the same type of risk or the same magnitude of risk of taking on 300k in debt.

[rpupkin]

I don't think people should have to attend law school bearing all of the risk of the government financing while the school administrators and "teachers" take their lofty government financed salaries. I don't care if "that is the way it has always worked", which following that logic we would be sitting around camp fires, hunting and scavenging for food, and attacking each other because that's the way it's always been. In addition, the loans have behavioral consequences as well. Let's say you get to Big law and it turns out the firm you are working at is doing something unethical or even illegal. With 300k sitting over your head, you can't exactly be like WELP, see ya.

Anyways, that $300,000 price tag is keeping people out because without the financial backing from the government/ private industries prices would have to fall as demand would drop because no one has $300k sitting around. This is the primary reason why education costs keep going up.

I think you're in hammer/nail mode.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

I don't think people should have to attend law school bearing all of the risk of the government financing while the school administrators and "teachers" take their lofty government financed salaries. I don't care if "that is the way it has always worked", which following that logic we would be sitting around camp fires, hunting and scavenging for food, and attacking each other because that's the way it's always been. In addition, the loans have behavioral consequences as well. Let's say you get to Big law and it turns out the firm you are working at is doing something unethical or even illegal. With 300k sitting over your head, you can't exactly be like WELP, see ya.

Anyways, that $300,000 price tag is keeping people out because without the financial backing from the government/ private industries prices would have to fall as demand would drop because no one has $300k sitting around. This is the primary reason why education costs keep going up.

I think you're in hammer/nail mode.

I think you are avoiding my argument. I am not saying all of this just for fun. I am trying to figure out what the worst case scenario ends up being.

[Tiago Splitter]

Which the "tax" is actually a relatively large sum isn't it? Can you explain that a little further? So worst case scenario, you get to big law, realize the horror stories are true on TLS, dap out after a year, have 200k in debt that you pay the bare minimum on and then are hit with a huge tax bill after 20 years.

Also, the government doesn't just forgive your debt right? The tax payer is the one who is losing out who is paying higher taxes than we other wise would, correct?

Thanks for the explanation Tiago.

Well it's simple interest rather than compound so it's not as bad as you'd think, but yes it's still a lot of money. If you paid nothing for 20 years on 200k debt at 7% you'd be looking at a balance of 480k. Assuming a 40% tax rate that's 192k you'd owe to the government, so they essentially gave you an interest free loan for 20 years.

The more realistic concern is that you have a decent salary but doing something you may very well have been able to do without law school, and now you're on the hook for 10% of your discretionary for 20 years plus a big tax bill at the end.

[rpupkin]

I don't think people should have to attend law school bearing all of the risk of the government financing while the school administrators and "teachers" take their lofty government financed salaries. I don't care if "that is the way it has always worked", which following that logic we would be sitting around camp fires, hunting and scavenging for food, and attacking each other because that's the way it's always been. In addition, the loans have behavioral consequences as well. Let's say you get to Big law and it turns out the firm you are working at is doing something unethical or even illegal. With 300k sitting over your head, you can't exactly be like WELP, see ya.

Anyways, that $300,000 price tag is keeping people out because without the financial backing from the government/ private industries prices would have to fall as demand would drop because no one has $300k sitting around. This is the primary reason why education costs keep going up.

I think you're in hammer/nail mode.

I think you are avoiding my argument.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but you don't seem capable of making a coherent argument. You're parroting an argument you've heard before (actually, an argument we've all heard before) and mindlessly cramming it into a box where it doesn't fit. When folks have pointed out the mismatch, you respond by repeating the same stuff over and over without regard to the points others are making. If there's anyone "avoiding" arguments in this thread, it's you.

[nothingtosee]

YHS all have pretty good financial aid programs, so people rarely have sticker debt coming out of these schools.

Lolololol