Top Law Schools

Hello,

Forgive me if this has been asked before. If it has, I'd appreciate it if you could point me in that direction.

I'm wondering how long it would take to pay off sticker debt from Y/H/S for someone who is in NYC biglaw. Once you factor in taxes, living expenses, retirement savings, and some modest discretionary spending, what's the most that you could dump on your loans per year?

It seems like a lot of people talk about exiting biglaw after 2-3 years when their debt is paid off, but this seems impossible for someone with sticker debt.

I know sticker is a terrible idea, I'm just interested in what the shortest possible time in biglaw would be for someone who just focused on paying off their debt.

Thanks for the help.

Depends. I think 5-7 years is probably as good as you'll do.

You can do the rough calculations yourself. NYC is going to be the worst market for saving money, given the city tax plus COL. From YHS, you could probably do better in a secondary market. You need to know the rough COA, if you have any savings or parental help, etc.. to know for sure.

smaug wrote:Depends. I think 5-7 years is probably as good as you'll do.

Lol 5-7 years of being an indentured servant working 24/7. Why would anyone do this or put up with this shit?

asdfdfdfadfas wrote:

smaug wrote:Depends. I think 5-7 years is probably as good as you'll do.

Lol 5-7 years of being an indentured servant working 24/7. Why would anyone do this or put up with this shit?

Because people make mistakes. I think if not for the debt, hours, and stress it's a pretty cool job. That sounds like a joke but it isn't really.

If you can get to the point where you can do a less crappy version of that job, that's pretty awesome.

smaug wrote:

asdfdfdfadfas wrote:

smaug wrote:Depends. I think 5-7 years is probably as good as you'll do.

Lol 5-7 years of being an indentured servant working 24/7. Why would anyone do this or put up with this shit?

Because people make mistakes. I think if not for the debt, hours, and stress it's a pretty cool job. That sounds like a joke but it isn't really.

If you can get to the point where you can do a less crappy version of that job, that's pretty awesome.

Why don't the people who graduate from HYS do something useful with their degrees and start lobbying to get the government to quit subsidizing the price of education?

The whole thing is just a revolving cycle of bullshit.

I graduated CCN with approx $160k in debt. It took me 3.5 years to get fully paid off. I was as aggressive as possible w/r/t repayment and ended with $0 net worth. About a year later i'm at $120k net worth (no longer in big law; big inhouse). It would probably be easier now that bonuses have somewhat made a comeback but I imagine $200k plus would easily take 4 or 5 years.

I also had various advantages (splitting a 1 bdrm with wife, etc.; an interest free loan from my parents (which was fully repaid)) that allowed me to pay off a greater amount faster.

More than twice as long as paying off CLS w/ a Butler and way longer than paying off DVPB w/ $$$.

asdfdfdfadfas wrote:
Why don't the people who graduate from HYS do something useful with their degrees and start lobbying to get the government to quit subsidizing the price of education?

The whole thing is just a revolving cycle of bullshit.

Do you think Y/H/S would charge less tuition if the feds stopped subsidizing/guaranteeing student loans? I don't. You'd see substantially lower tuition outside of the T14, where most folks don't get big law anyway.

asdfdfdfadfas wrote:

smaug wrote:

asdfdfdfadfas wrote:

smaug wrote:Depends. I think 5-7 years is probably as good as you'll do.

Lol 5-7 years of being an indentured servant working 24/7. Why would anyone do this or put up with this shit?

Because people make mistakes. I think if not for the debt, hours, and stress it's a pretty cool job. That sounds like a joke but it isn't really.

If you can get to the point where you can do a less crappy version of that job, that's pretty awesome.

Why don't the people who graduate from HYS do something useful with their degrees and start lobbying to get the government to quit subsidizing the price of education?

The whole thing is just a revolving cycle of bullshit.

cap grad loans to 20k a year

Probably around 3 years if you're willing to live in Queens, pack a lunch most days, etc. Probably around 5 if you want to live some semblance of a fancy-ish NYC biglaw life.

Remember, also, that folks who leave biglaw after ~3 years don't get jobs paying poverty wages: generally, NYC biglaw refuges land six-figure jobs. So, although it'd be super nice to have no debt at the time of your biglaw exit, the maximum amount of debt that you need to have for a biglaw exit to be financially feasible is significantly greater than $0. (So you could live a pretty comfortable NYC life while paying your debt off on a five-year schedule, and still be able to leave biglaw in three years [with about 60% of your debt paid off].)

rpupkin wrote:

asdfdfdfadfas wrote:
Why don't the people who graduate from HYS do something useful with their degrees and start lobbying to get the government to quit subsidizing the price of education?

The whole thing is just a revolving cycle of bullshit.

Do you think Y/H/S would charge less tuition if the feds stopped subsidizing/guaranteeing student loans? I don't. You'd see substantially lower tuition outside of the T14, where most folks don't get big law anyway.

Yes, then there would be no demand at those prices because people wouldn't have the money to pay for it. So schools would find their class room seats empty and be forced to lower prices. How else would a bunch of 22 year olds get 200k in capital to go to law school? I guess maybe private companies would swoop in, thus defeating the purpose; however, that is what the problem is here and why I refuse to go- I am unwilling to borrow a HUGE sum today to pay artificially HIGH tuition rates in HOPES of getting paid at some point in the future.

This is a bubble that is being subsidized by the Federal Government and other predatory lenders who are happy to float 200k to ignorant young people. It is pathetic.

It's not like surviving 5-7 years is entirely up to you. Surviving that long, even if you really want to, is an achievement. This will sound boomerish but with that on your resume, the education and money many employers will spend investing in your development, I think it's very likely it winds up being a good decision, but less likely that's because of big law. Big law is a piece of the puzzle, and a big piece, but it's still only a piece. You gotta have other pieces to stick it into (that's what she said).

HonestAdvice wrote:It's not like surviving 5-7 years is entirely up to you. Surviving that long, even if you really want to, is an achievement.

I don't know. I think most HYS grads who really want to stay in biglaw for five years are able to (seven might be tougher). Most folks who get forced out before five years aren't all-in or in some other way have one foot out the door. The weeding out I've seen happen over the first five years tends to be of people who don't really want biglaw. At least at the firms I'm most familiar with, the firms don't start weeding out the committed lawyers who just aren't "partnership material" (usually for lack of business generation potential) until the 5-8 year range.

asdfdfdfadfas wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

asdfdfdfadfas wrote:
Why don't the people who graduate from HYS do something useful with their degrees and start lobbying to get the government to quit subsidizing the price of education?

The whole thing is just a revolving cycle of bullshit.

Do you think Y/H/S would charge less tuition if the feds stopped subsidizing/guaranteeing student loans? I don't. You'd see substantially lower tuition outside of the T14, where most folks don't get big law anyway.

Yes. How else would a bunch of 22 year olds get 200k in capital to go to law school?

Each of HYS offers decent need-based aid, so very few students need to take out $200K in loans. For those that do need loans, I don't think private lending institutions would have a problem loaning money. It's a pretty good bet that a HYS grad will be in a position to pay back the principal and interest.

This is a thread about HYS at sticker. I understand your argument, but it doesn't really apply in this context. I think you're in hammer/nail mode.

Post Deleted

Issue gets to be that your later years are when you can put more cash to loans so it takes some time regardless.

abl wrote:

HonestAdvice wrote:It's not like surviving 5-7 years is entirely up to you. Surviving that long, even if you really want to, is an achievement.

I don't know. I think most HYS grads who really want to stay in biglaw for five years are able to (seven might be tougher). Most folks who get forced out before five years aren't all-in or in some other way have one foot out the door. The weeding out I've seen happen over the first five years tends to be of people who don't really want biglaw. At least at the firms I'm most familiar with, the firms don't start weeding out the committed lawyers who just aren't "partnership material" (usually for lack of business generation potential) until the 5-8 year range.

How much does school matter, especially outside of lit? I look up each lawyer I work with, because we came up in the post-'08 era when it mattered more. I doubt very many people 3 years in are doing that. They rely more on your reputation.

HonestAdvice wrote:

abl wrote:

HonestAdvice wrote:It's not like surviving 5-7 years is entirely up to you. Surviving that long, even if you really want to, is an achievement.

I don't know. I think most HYS grads who really want to stay in biglaw for five years are able to (seven might be tougher). Most folks who get forced out before five years aren't all-in or in some other way have one foot out the door. The weeding out I've seen happen over the first five years tends to be of people who don't really want biglaw. At least at the firms I'm most familiar with, the firms don't start weeding out the committed lawyers who just aren't "partnership material" (usually for lack of business generation potential) until the 5-8 year range.

How much does school matter, especially outside of lit? I look up each lawyer I work with, because we came up in the post-'08 era when it mattered more. I doubt very many people 3 years in are doing that. They rely more on your reputation.

I'm only familiar with lit. It could be different elsewhere. (School doesn't matter much in lit, but I wouldn't say it matters 0. I also think that school matters a little in what assignments you get as a first year, which matters in terms of what reputation you're able to build.)

rpupkin wrote:

asdfdfdfadfas wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

asdfdfdfadfas wrote:
Why don't the people who graduate from HYS do something useful with their degrees and start lobbying to get the government to quit subsidizing the price of education?

The whole thing is just a revolving cycle of bullshit.

Do you think Y/H/S would charge less tuition if the feds stopped subsidizing/guaranteeing student loans? I don't. You'd see substantially lower tuition outside of the T14, where most folks don't get big law anyway.

Yes. How else would a bunch of 22 year olds get 200k in capital to go to law school?

Each of HYS offers decent need-based aid, so very few students need to take out $200K in loans. For those that do need loans, I don't think private lending institutions would have a problem loaning money. It's a pretty good bet that a HYS grad will be in a position to pay back the principal and interest.

This is a thread about HYS at sticker. I understand your argument, but it doesn't really apply in this context. I think you're in hammer/nail mode.

You are right, but I still think I am right in a more general sense- if that makes sense.

Even if you graduate HYS you aren't entitled to a job. That 200k loan is still a large risk, just obviously not as big as a risk as coming out of any other school. I don't like the idea of putting the fate of my future in the hands of corporate America.

I just look at all of this from an Economics perspective and I think it only works if you are in the top 1% of 1% and aren't paying sticker at these places.Like you said, maybe you could justify it at HYS, but even then it's questionable.

At the end of the day, I want my cake and I want to eat it to, otherwise no thanks. I shouldn't have to bungee jump across the grand canyon to have a piece of cake. Or in law school terms, to work 24/7 doing work that most people on here state ends up being miserable.

asdfdfdfadfas wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

asdfdfdfadfas wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

asdfdfdfadfas wrote:
Why don't the people who graduate from HYS do something useful with their degrees and start lobbying to get the government to quit subsidizing the price of education?

The whole thing is just a revolving cycle of bullshit.

Do you think Y/H/S would charge less tuition if the feds stopped subsidizing/guaranteeing student loans? I don't. You'd see substantially lower tuition outside of the T14, where most folks don't get big law anyway.

Yes. How else would a bunch of 22 year olds get 200k in capital to go to law school?

Each of HYS offers decent need-based aid, so very few students need to take out $200K in loans. For those that do need loans, I don't think private lending institutions would have a problem loaning money. It's a pretty good bet that a HYS grad will be in a position to pay back the principal and interest.

This is a thread about HYS at sticker. I understand your argument, but it doesn't really apply in this context. I think you're in hammer/nail mode.

Even if you graduate HYS you aren't entitled to a job. That 200k loan is still a large risk, just obviously not as big as a risk as coming out of any other school. I don't like the idea of putting the fate of my future in other people's hands.

You're changing the argument. You started out by saying it was a big risk to the lender; now you're saying it's a big risk to the borrower.

On the first point, the fact is that if the feds quit making student loans, banks would love to lend money to HYS students. They'd have a hard time finding a safer bet. The national student loan default rate is something like 15 percent. At HLS, according to their financial aid office, the figure is 0.1 percent.

The OP's question isn't whether it's possible, or even likely, that an HYS grad can pay off their loans. The questions is how long it takes.

WinterComing wrote:

asdfdfdfadfas wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

asdfdfdfadfas wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

asdfdfdfadfas wrote:
Why don't the people who graduate from HYS do something useful with their degrees and start lobbying to get the government to quit subsidizing the price of education?

The whole thing is just a revolving cycle of bullshit.

Do you think Y/H/S would charge less tuition if the feds stopped subsidizing/guaranteeing student loans? I don't. You'd see substantially lower tuition outside of the T14, where most folks don't get big law anyway.

Yes. How else would a bunch of 22 year olds get 200k in capital to go to law school?

Each of HYS offers decent need-based aid, so very few students need to take out $200K in loans. For those that do need loans, I don't think private lending institutions would have a problem loaning money. It's a pretty good bet that a HYS grad will be in a position to pay back the principal and interest.

This is a thread about HYS at sticker. I understand your argument, but it doesn't really apply in this context. I think you're in hammer/nail mode.

Even if you graduate HYS you aren't entitled to a job. That 200k loan is still a large risk, just obviously not as big as a risk as coming out of any other school. I don't like the idea of putting the fate of my future in other people's hands.

You're changing the argument. You started out by saying it was a big risk to the lender; now you're saying it's a big risk to the borrower.

On the first point, the fact is that if the feds quit making student loans, banks would love to lend money to HYS students. They'd have a hard time finding a safer bet. The national student loan default rate is something like 15 percent. At HLS, according to their financial aid office, the figure is 0.1 percent.

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.

asdfdfdfadfas wrote:
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.

You're assuming that because there's some risk--"it is not guaranteed that you will have some grand job coming out 3 years later"--that there's an unacceptably "large risk." I think it's pretty well-established here and elsewhere that the risk to a HYS borrower of not being able to pay back her loans is exceedingly small.

asdfdfdfadfas wrote: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).

WinterComing wrote:

asdfdfdfadfas wrote: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.