Financial Reality v TLS Bias Forum

[teenagewildlife]

I am a debt-averse (and currently debt-free) 0L who will probably attend a T20 school with somewhere between a 30-50% scholarship. At least, that looks to be my best option at the moment. But reading through all the debt/financial aid threads on here, you'd think that would be a really dumb move.

Thinking particularly of this thread:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... p?t=226881

Compare that to this, which is a collection of success stories from T2-4 grads:

http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leit ... fared.html

I have thought a LOT about whether law school will be worth it for me, in terms of a financial investment. To be honest, I'm still not sure.

At the same time, I think there is an extremely financially conservative bias on TLS: In short, the idea that no one should take on any significant debt to finance law school, when for the vast majority of applicants, that's the only way to pay for it. Happy to be told I'm being naive here, but I'm wondering if others think there's an alarmist bent to some of the rhetoric surrounding this topic. Not saying that one shouldn't seriously consider these issues; only that in some fields (academia, for instance, the humanities especially), the job market reality is far worse than it is for T14 law grads.

[acr]

I am a debt-averse (and currently debt-free) 0L who will probably attend a T20 school with somewhere between a 30-50% scholarship. At least, that looks to be my best option at the moment. But reading through all the debt/financial aid threads on here, you'd think that would be a really dumb move.

Thinking particularly of this thread:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... p?t=226881

Compare that to this, which is a collection of success stories from T2-4 grads:

http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leit ... fared.html

I have thought a LOT about whether law school will be worth it for me, in terms of a financial investment. To be honest, I'm still not sure.

At the same time, I think there is an extremely financially conservative bias on TLS: In short, the idea that no one should take on any significant debt to finance law school, when for the vast majority of applicants, that's the only way to pay for it. Happy to be told I'm being naive here, but I'm wondering if others think there's an alarmist bent to some of the rhetoric surrounding this topic. Not saying that one shouldn't seriously consider these issues; only that in some fields (academia, for instance, the humanities especially), the job market reality is far worse than it is for T14 law grads.

The vast majority of applicants could pay for law school by retaking the LSAT until they achieve a score capable of getting them a full scholarship at the school that best meets their goals. There is no reason to enter six figures of debt when a better alternative is easily attainable by studying harder for a multiple choice test. I don't hate that some people have to go into debt to finance law school. I hate that they go into tremendous, life-changing debt without fully understanding what they're getting into and without understanding how easily they could better their outcome.

[Johann]

TLS is way too debt averse. If your career prospects suck, and a law degree will improve it even $1 million in debt might not be too much considering loan repayment programs and a 50 year working career.

[robotrick]

TLS is very conservative on this front and probably goes too far in it's collective reactionism against the current state of the law school/legal market. But everyone here brings up important considerations - cost, job prospects, other options, etc. I'd feel comfortable going to a T20 with a 50% scholarship, but I'm more risk accepting than others here. It's ultimately a personal decision. I didn't have great options coming out of undergrad and now I'm paying full price for law school; I have no doubt that it's worth it for me.

Be sure, though, to think about the future. Know the job prospects (and regional limitations, if any), don't overestimate your performance relative to the average, know the total cost and your ability to pay it back later, etc.

[teenagewildlife]

There is no reason to enter six figures of debt when a better alternative is easily attainable by studying harder for a multiple choice test. I don't hate that some people have to go into debt to finance law school. I hate that they go into tremendous, life-changing debt without fully understanding what they're getting into and without understanding how easily they could better their outcome.

Yeah, fair enough. My LSAT score is one that would definitely fall into the 'retake' category: 167.

But because of life circumstances, this isn't as simple for me as TLS seems to assume: I'm really not in a position career-wise where I can just sit out and wait another cycle. (I'm much older than the average law school applicant).

I wonder if it'd be possible to retake in June and have that count for whatever school I sign onto for the fall. Probably not, but that would be cool.

[teenagewildlife]

TLS is very conservative on this front and probably goes too far in it's collective reactionism against the current state of the law school/legal market. But everyone here brings up important considerations - cost, job prospects, other options, etc. I'd feel comfortable going to a T20 with a 50% scholarship, but I'm more risk accepting than others here. It's ultimately a personal decision. I didn't have great options coming out of undergrad and now I'm paying full price for law school; I have no doubt that it's worth it for me.

Be sure, though, to think about the future. Know the job prospects (and regional limitations, if any), don't overestimate your performance relative to the average, know the total cost and your ability to pay it back later, etc.

Yeah, this is the kind of balanced assessment that I often find lacking on TLS, but to be fair it could just be that I haven't looked hard enough.

[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.

[robotrick]

TLS is very conservative on this front and probably goes too far in it's collective reactionism against the current state of the law school/legal market. But everyone here brings up important considerations - cost, job prospects, other options, etc. I'd feel comfortable going to a T20 with a 50% scholarship, but I'm more risk accepting than others here. It's ultimately a personal decision. I didn't have great options coming out of undergrad and now I'm paying full price for law school; I have no doubt that it's worth it for me.

Be sure, though, to think about the future. Know the job prospects (and regional limitations, if any), don't overestimate your performance relative to the average, know the total cost and your ability to pay it back later, etc.

Yeah, this is the kind of balanced assessment that I often find lacking on TLS, but to be fair it could just be that I haven't looked hard enough.

You can find it here, but it's less common. I believe JohannDeMann is a major purveyor of this kind of advice. As a general trait, lawyers and aspiring lawyers are risk averse. The TLS circlejerk isn't surprising in that light.

[xspider]

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.

[teenagewildlife]

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.

That's great to know, thanks.

[thetravelinglawyer]

At the same time, I think there is an extremely financially conservative bias on TLS: In short, the idea that no one should take on any significant debt to finance law school, when for the vast majority of applicants, that's the only way to pay for it. Happy to be told I'm being naive here, but I'm wondering if others think there's an alarmist bent to some of the rhetoric surrounding this topic. Not saying that one shouldn't seriously consider these issues; only that in some fields (academia, for instance, the humanities especially), the job market reality is far worse than it is for T14 law grads.

I for one think that the general TLS attitude that debt is horrible is a HUGE HUGE HUGE blessing to people in their 20's. I am so glad it exists. This board is skewed very strongly, not towards financial conservatism, but financial intelligence. Maxing out your 401k/IRA every year and inconveniencing yourself a little bit to avoid debt shouldn't be seen as "conservative" or "extreme." That should just be normal. Focusing on living within your means, minimizing debt, and saving for the future is what everyone should be doing. Sadly this board is not representative of most people in their early 20s.. I'm almost ten years out of UG and most of my college classmates are still paying off undergrad debt, and a lot of them (including me until recently) made almost every life decision based on how it would allow them to service their debt. What job to take, where to live, what kind of house to buy (if you can buy at all), when to get married, even whether to have kids. Most of them didn't travel outside of work trips for at least five years out of college, and a huge number of them are living paycheck to paycheck and have zero saved for retirement. And I would consider my friends pretty successful, most of them have impressive careers and solid salaries.

There's this attitude among a lot of Americans, especially young Americans, that debt is normal, that eventually you'll make enough money in the future that your debt won't matter and you'll be able to take care of it, that going into six figure debt is just the price you have to pay to live a good life. That's not reality, it's so unnecessary and sad. No one ever taught me about money and debt, I had to learn it the hard way by having it control my life for almost a decade, and it sucked so much. It's heartbreaking to me how so many young people don't understand how crushing and limiting debt can be and they just get into it without thinking about it - and law school debt is WAY WAY worse than most debt because it's unsecured and doesn't go away with bankruptcy.

I'm not saying that debt is wrong under every circumstance.. It's right for some people, in some amounts, in some situations. But I think very very very few people who are applying to law school really understand what it's like to live under a mountain of debt and the effect that will have on their life. And a lot of people have a really skewed idea of their numbers. Whatever salary you expect to make, cut that in half. However much debt you expect to have, add 50%. Crunch the numbers, factor in retirement (that should be obligatory IMO) and see how much that leaves you to live on. If you're okay with that, great! If not, then you need to really think about what you can realistically change to make things work.

TLDR: Don't underestimate how much debt sucks.

[teenagewildlife]

At the same time, I think there is an extremely financially conservative bias on TLS: In short, the idea that no one should take on any significant debt to finance law school, when for the vast majority of applicants, that's the only way to pay for it. Happy to be told I'm being naive here, but I'm wondering if others think there's an alarmist bent to some of the rhetoric surrounding this topic. Not saying that one shouldn't seriously consider these issues; only that in some fields (academia, for instance, the humanities especially), the job market reality is far worse than it is for T14 law grads.

I for one think that the general TLS attitude that debt is horrible is a HUGE HUGE HUGE blessing to people in their 20's. I am so glad it exists. This board is skewed very strongly, not towards financial conservatism, but financial intelligence. Maxing out your 401k/IRA every year and inconveniencing yourself a little bit to avoid debt shouldn't be seen as "conservative" or "extreme." That should just be normal. Focusing on living within your means, minimizing debt, and saving for the future is what everyone should be doing. Sadly this board is not representative of most people in their early 20s.. I'm almost ten years out of UG and most of my college classmates are still paying off undergrad debt, and a lot of them (including me until recently) made almost every life decision based on how it would allow them to service their debt. What job to take, where to live, what kind of house to buy (if you can buy at all), when to get married, even whether to have kids. Most of them didn't travel outside of work trips for at least five years out of college, and a huge number of them are living paycheck to paycheck and have zero saved for retirement. And I would consider my friends pretty successful, most of them have impressive careers and solid salaries.

There's this attitude among a lot of Americans, especially young Americans, that debt is normal, that eventually you'll make enough money in the future that your debt won't matter and you'll be able to take care of it, that going into six figure debt is just the price you have to pay to live a good life. That's not reality, it's so unnecessary and sad. No one ever taught me about money and debt, I had to learn it the hard way by having it control my life for almost a decade, and it sucked so much. It's heartbreaking to me how so many young people don't understand how crushing and limiting debt can be and they just get into it without thinking about it - and law school debt is WAY WAY worse than most debt because it's unsecured and doesn't go away with bankruptcy.

I'm not saying that debt is wrong under every circumstance.. It's right for some people, in some amounts, in some situations. But I think very very very few people who are applying to law school really understand what it's like to live under a mountain of debt and the effect that will have on their life. And a lot of people have a really skewed idea of their numbers. Whatever salary you expect to make, cut that in half. However much debt you expect to have, add 50%. Crunch the numbers, factor in retirement (that should be obligatory IMO) and see how much that leaves you to live on. If you're okay with that, great! If not, then you need to really think about what you can realistically change to make things work.

TLDR: Don't underestimate how much debt sucks.

Fair points -- and like I said, I'm pretty debt averse to my core, so I'm sympathetic to that perspective.

I guess my problem is that I came to this board already being this debt averse and then seemed to find people who were even moreso than I was. As you point out, on the whole, this is a good attitude, since living with massive amounts of debt shouldn't be the norm, and already is for way too many people. But I started wondering whether law school -- which I really want to do, have thought about for years and researched it, know why t's right for me, etc -- was even worth it without a full ride to a T14, which in my case will be impossible. I guess I'm just looking to see if there's another side to it, which your post and others point out there is: i.e., a way to take on a responsible amount of debt, go into both school and your career with eyes wide open, crunch the numbers beforehand, etc.

And Nony, you're right: Comparing the legal market to the academic market isn't really fair. I'm a former academic too.

[teenagewildlife]

I'm in the same boat by the way: about a decade out of college, and had no experience or instruction in personal finance. I'm positive that if I'd done K-JD I probably would have fucked myself in terms of loans and debt. I just wasn't thinking in these terms back then, and I was lucky enough to not have any significant undergrad debt.

[BigZuck]

TLS is very conservative on this front and probably goes too far in it's collective reactionism against the current state of the law school/legal market. But everyone here brings up important considerations - cost, job prospects, other options, etc. I'd feel comfortable going to a T20 with a 50% scholarship, but I'm more risk accepting than others here. It's ultimately a personal decision. I didn't have great options coming out of undergrad and now I'm paying full price for law school; I have no doubt that it's worth it for me.

Be sure, though, to think about the future. Know the job prospects (and regional limitations, if any), don't overestimate your performance relative to the average, know the total cost and your ability to pay it back later, etc.

Yeah, this is the kind of balanced assessment that I often find lacking on TLS, but to be fair it could just be that I haven't looked hard enough.

You can find it here, but it's less common. I believe JohannDeMann is a major purveyor of this kind of advice. As a general trait, lawyers and aspiring lawyers are risk averse. The TLS circlejerk isn't surprising in that light.

Johann also openly struggles with mental illness and a gambling addiction. Seems like a cool guy but you shouldn't take anything he says seriously and you definitely shouldn't follow his advice (unless maybe he has a hot tip on the ponies you're about to bet on or something). It's a head-scratcher that he's even allowed to post in the on topics.

I go to a T20 with about a 75% scholarship. Will have about 90K debt (thought as a 0L that it would be about 60K but like virtually all 0Ls I was super naive about that) and am on track to have just about the best outcome I could have expected. Haven't started paying off my loans yet of course but I'm seriously questioning how wise it was to take out that much in loans. It's a lot of money and there are so many uncertainties. Sure, at some point you've just got to have faith and take the plunge I guess but there's no reason not to put yourself in the best possible position before you get to that point.

Anyway if the troubling risk aversion you guys are seeing is telling kids to retake then just lol. People say that because it's a no brainer and not doing so would be dumb. There's nothing overly risk averse about that at all.

[Clearly]

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?

[teenagewildlife]

Anyway if the troubling risk aversion you guys are seeing is telling kids to retake then just lol. People say that because it's a no brainer and not doing so would be dumb. There's nothing overly risk averse about that at all.

Glad I made this thread because I didn't realize a June retake + still enrolling this cycle is a potential option, but based on previous threads it seems like it's worked out well for people.

[xspider]

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.

[kellyfrost]

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!

[Phil Brooks]

TLS is very conservative on this front and probably goes too far in it's collective reactionism against the current state of the law school/legal market. But everyone here brings up important considerations - cost, job prospects, other options, etc. I'd feel comfortable going to a T20 with a 50% scholarship, but I'm more risk accepting than others here. It's ultimately a personal decision. I didn't have great options coming out of undergrad and now I'm paying full price for law school; I have no doubt that it's worth it for me.

Be sure, though, to think about the future. Know the job prospects (and regional limitations, if any), don't overestimate your performance relative to the average, know the total cost and your ability to pay it back later, etc.

Yeah, this is the kind of balanced assessment that I often find lacking on TLS, but to be fair it could just be that I haven't looked hard enough.

You can find it here, but it's less common. I believe JohannDeMann is a major purveyor of this kind of advice. As a general trait, lawyers and aspiring lawyers are risk averse. The TLS circlejerk isn't surprising in that light.

Johann also openly struggles with mental illness and a gambling addiction. Seems like a cool guy but you shouldn't take anything he says seriously and you definitely shouldn't follow his advice (unless maybe he has a hot tip on the ponies you're about to bet on or something). It's a head-scratcher that he's even allowed to post in the on topics.

I go to a T20 with about a 75% scholarship. Will have about 90K debt (thought as a 0L that it would be about 60K but like virtually all 0Ls I was super naive about that) and am on track to have just about the best outcome I could have expected. Haven't started paying off my loans yet of course but I'm seriously questioning how wise it was to take out that much in loans. It's a lot of money and there are so many uncertainties. Sure, at some point you've just got to have faith and take the plunge I guess but there's no reason not to put yourself in the best possible position before you get to that point.

Anyway if the troubling risk aversion you guys are seeing is telling kids to retake then just lol. People say that because it's a no brainer and not doing so would be dumb. There's nothing overly risk averse about that at all.

How did you underestimate your debt? Did you underestimate your living expenses, or did you not consider the immediate accrual of compound interest or the taxes taken from your summer salaries?

[thetravelinglawyer]

I guess my problem is that I came to this board already being this debt averse and then seemed to find people who were even moreso than I was. As you point out, on the whole, this is a good attitude, since living with massive amounts of debt shouldn't be the norm, and already is for way too many people. But I started wondering whether law school -- which I really want to do, have thought about for years and researched it, know why t's right for me, etc -- was even worth it without a full ride to a T14, which in my case will be impossible. I guess I'm just looking to see if there's another side to it, which your post and others point out there is: i.e., a way to take on a responsible amount of debt, go into both school and your career with eyes wide open, crunch the numbers beforehand, etc.

I think what TLS does get wrong is that you have to go to T14 to succeed. Maybe if NYC Biglaw is your goal that is true, but there are a LOT of non-T14-educated lawyers in this country making a good living.

I'm pretty similar to you in terms of numbers, and personally I chose a near-full-ride at home at a regional. I've spent the last few years saving up and I'm going to continue to work part time/breaks to pay the other part of the tuition and COA. My school has good employment numbers in my market (not just in the top 1/3 either), so I feel good about my job prospects. It won't be biglaw for 160k, but I'll be debt-free and I'll live in a city with low COL so I'll be making about as much as those guys in the end anyway (and probably working a lot less).

It really does just depend on your goals. I think a lot of people here have their eyes on really big prestige and an impressive resume, rather than quality of life, or maybe mistakenly thinking the former will get them the latter. For me, there are about a thousand things higher on my priority list than prestige, so choosing to go to a smaller school in my home market was a no-brainer. Not the "right" or "wrong" choice, just right for me.

[BigZuck]

TLS is very conservative on this front and probably goes too far in it's collective reactionism against the current state of the law school/legal market. But everyone here brings up important considerations - cost, job prospects, other options, etc. I'd feel comfortable going to a T20 with a 50% scholarship, but I'm more risk accepting than others here. It's ultimately a personal decision. I didn't have great options coming out of undergrad and now I'm paying full price for law school; I have no doubt that it's worth it for me.

Be sure, though, to think about the future. Know the job prospects (and regional limitations, if any), don't overestimate your performance relative to the average, know the total cost and your ability to pay it back later, etc.

Yeah, this is the kind of balanced assessment that I often find lacking on TLS, but to be fair it could just be that I haven't looked hard enough.

You can find it here, but it's less common. I believe JohannDeMann is a major purveyor of this kind of advice. As a general trait, lawyers and aspiring lawyers are risk averse. The TLS circlejerk isn't surprising in that light.

Johann also openly struggles with mental illness and a gambling addiction. Seems like a cool guy but you shouldn't take anything he says seriously and you definitely shouldn't follow his advice (unless maybe he has a hot tip on the ponies you're about to bet on or something). It's a head-scratcher that he's even allowed to post in the on topics.

I go to a T20 with about a 75% scholarship. Will have about 90K debt (thought as a 0L that it would be about 60K but like virtually all 0Ls I was super naive about that) and am on track to have just about the best outcome I could have expected. Haven't started paying off my loans yet of course but I'm seriously questioning how wise it was to take out that much in loans. It's a lot of money and there are so many uncertainties. Sure, at some point you've just got to have faith and take the plunge I guess but there's no reason not to put yourself in the best possible position before you get to that point.

Anyway if the troubling risk aversion you guys are seeing is telling kids to retake then just lol. People say that because it's a no brainer and not doing so would be dumb. There's nothing overly risk averse about that at all.

How did you underestimate your debt? Did you underestimate your living expenses, or did you not consider the immediate accrual of compound interest or the taxes taken from your summer salaries?

Mostly underestimating living costs. But also not thinking too hard about summer cost of living and underestimating interest.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

I can attest that the PhD job market is much, much, much, much worse than the legal market. if you do well at a T20 (top 1/3 or better) you have a very reasonable shot at big law. If I were you I would consider attending a T25-45 school with a full ride (which is what I did) and see if you think it is worth $100k more to go to a T20. It might be worth it to attend a higher ranked school because of increased prestige/chance of big law, but at least think about saving $. As an associate I can say that once you are practicing it literally makes no difference to anyone if you went to Harvard, Boston College, or Northeastern. If you have a decent personality and do good work you will get work, and if you fuck up assignments or are an asshole you will not get work.

[BigZuck]

I guess my problem is that I came to this board already being this debt averse and then seemed to find people who were even moreso than I was. As you point out, on the whole, this is a good attitude, since living with massive amounts of debt shouldn't be the norm, and already is for way too many people. But I started wondering whether law school -- which I really want to do, have thought about for years and researched it, know why t's right for me, etc -- was even worth it without a full ride to a T14, which in my case will be impossible. I guess I'm just looking to see if there's another side to it, which your post and others point out there is: i.e., a way to take on a responsible amount of debt, go into both school and your career with eyes wide open, crunch the numbers beforehand, etc.

I think what TLS does get wrong is that you have to go to T14 to succeed. Maybe if NYC Biglaw is your goal that is true, but there are a LOT of non-T14-educated lawyers in this country making a good living.

I'm pretty similar to you in terms of numbers, and personally I chose a near-full-ride at home at a regional. I've spent the last few years saving up and I'm going to continue to work part time/breaks to pay the other part of the tuition and COA. My school has good employment numbers in my market (not just in the top 1/3 either), so I feel good about my job prospects. It won't be biglaw for 160k, but I'll be debt-free and I'll live in a city with low COL so I'll be making about as much as those guys in the end anyway (and probably working a lot less).

It really does just depend on your goals. I think a lot of people here have their eyes on really big prestige and an impressive resume, rather than quality of life, or maybe mistakenly thinking the former will get them the latter. For me, there are about a thousand things higher on my priority list than prestige, so choosing to go to a smaller school in my home market was a no-brainer. Not the "right" or "wrong" choice, just right for me.

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.

[teenagewildlife]

I can attest that the PhD job market is much, much, much, much worse than the legal market. if you do well at a T20 (top 1/3 or better) you have a very reasonable shot at big law. If I were you I would consider attending a T25-45 school with a full ride (which is what I did) and see if you think it is worth $100k more to go to a T20. It might be worth it to attend a higher ranked school because of increased prestige/chance of big law, but at least think about saving $. As an associate I can say that once you are practicing it literally makes no difference to anyone if you went to Harvard, Boston College, or Northeastern. If you have a decent personality and do good work you will get work, and if you fuck up assignments or are an asshole you will not get work.

Good to know. And yeah, I've been on the PhD market. It's a nightmare. When I look up simple stats on legal employment I can't help but think it's a billion times better than where recent PhD grads find themselves -- where I found myself a few years ago. The big difference of course being that when I finished my PhD, I had zero debt. But longterm, living wage-paying employment in my field basically doesn't exist.

I'm not committed to any school and am still waiting on scholarship info from BC, which I will probably choose if it's a decent amount/more than what I'd get from one of the T20s. I live in Boston and, a few personal factors notwithstanding, would like to stay here.

[Clearly]

I can attest that the PhD job market is much, much, much, much worse than the legal market. if you do well at a T20 (top 1/3 or better) you have a very reasonable shot at big law. If I were you I would consider attending a T25-45 school with a full ride (which is what I did) and see if you think it is worth $100k more to go to a T20. It might be worth it to attend a higher ranked school because of increased prestige/chance of big law, but at least think about saving $. As an associate I can say that once you are practicing it literally makes no difference to anyone if you went to Harvard, Boston College, or Northeastern. If you have a decent personality and do good work you will get work, and if you fuck up assignments or are an asshole you will not get work.

Good to know. And yeah, I've been on the PhD market. It's a nightmare. When I look up simple stats on legal employment I can't help but think it's a billion times better than where recent PhD grads find themselves -- where I found myself a few years ago. The big difference of course being that when I finished my PhD, I had zero debt. But longterm, living wage-paying employment in my field basically doesn't exist.

I'm not committed to any school and am still waiting on scholarship info from BC, which I will probably choose if it's a decent amount/more than what I'd get from one of the T20s. I live in Boston and, a few personal factors notwithstanding, would like to stay here.

I very carefully follow tls and never understand when people overstate the bias. I strongly suspect if you said "I'm from Boston, want to stay here, and have a scholly to BC" people would tell you to go, unless you were a reverse splitter, in which case they would tell you to retake for full ride/t14 money/hys.