CLASS OF 2018 MEDIANS! (LSAT/GPA/Class Size) Forum

[abl]

Mostly I agreed with you. That's pretty much what I did (went to a school that places simalirly to WUSTL for free) but sometimes I regret not going to a higher ranked school for sticker. PAYE works even when you don't get big law though. Say you end up making 40k, you're only gonna pay $300 a month even if you have 300k in debt. You do that for 20 years and the bulk of the debt is forgiven. PAYE is actually worse if you actually do biglaw bc you end up paying more overall than on a standard 10 year plan.

you're significantly underestimating the damage that amount of debt will do to you and your quality of life. PAYE is not the answer.

As compared to what? I agree with you completely. However, I have done things the right way 0 debt, tried to find a good job etc. etc.. The sad thing is is given how much 300k will improve his living standards in the short-run, when all is said and done it may end up being the right thing to do because we are simply monetizing our debt and ruining the value of our currency.

over the long run it is unsustainable no doubt. Over the short-run, it may give you the best quality of life even-though you are basically a slave to the federal government.

Look, everyone agrees that debt impacts QOL. Everyone also agrees that your job (through earnings, hours, intellectual challenges, other non-financial rewards, etc) impacts QOL. And I think everyone here agrees that the usual tradeoff with going to a higher ranked school is that you're more likely to have more debt and more likely to get a better job.

The question is how much debt impacts QOL relative to job quality. The answer to that is going to be pretty subjective. How much money do you have? What sort of luxuries do you enjoy? How much do you care about working 40 hour weeks vs 60 hour weeks vs 80 hour weeks? How much does it matter to you to do intellectually challenging work? Everyone is going to answer these questions differently.

I have loads of family members for whom the marginal impact of every additional hour worked over roughly 40 is very significantly negative. Many of them would rather take a boring 40-hour a week job than an interesting 50-hour week job. For me, the marginal benefits of doing something that I enjoy, that I find challenging, and that I feel positively impacts the world far exceed the marginal cost of working an additional ten or twenty hours a week.

Likewise, I have a number of friends who love nice cars, who love eating out, and who feel the need to live in luxury apartments. For them, an additional ten thousand dollars in disposable income in a year after the first seventy or so thousand dollars is very important: it's potentially the difference between buying a new BMW every three years and having to buy a used BMW every three years. It may be the difference between living in a downtown apartment with a doorman and a pool and living in an (otherwise pretty similar) downtown apartment without these sorts of amenities. I, on the other hand, get very little additional pleasure from new cars as from used cars, from BMWs as I do from VWs, from spending $125/week on restaurants rather than $25/week. Thus, for my friends, the utility cost of debt (which impacts your disposable income) past a certain point is substantially higher than it is for me.

As long as we recognize that these sorts of differing subjective valuations are rational--e.g., that there is no one objectively correct way to value things like a job's intellectual challenge--we also have to recognize that there is no one objectively correct way to balance the costs of debt against the rewards of a better job. There are too many posts on threads like this that assume that there is one such objectively correct balancing.

It may well be that some folks on this board are undervaluing the utility cost of PAYE. But that's not necessarily true. If anything, I think tls errs on the side of overvaluing the costs of debt while undervaluing the benefits of a rewarding job--but that may just be because most tls posters place subjectively very different values on these things than I do.

I think folks' advice would be far more helpful here if it was along the lines of: "have you really thought about how bad PAYE could be? It's bad because of [x], [y], and [z]." Because it certainly may be the case that people who plan on going on PAYE haven't really thought through the consequences. But that's different than simply saying "PAYE is not the answer"--because it undoubtedly is the correct answer for many students (including those like me who value the cost of debt relatively little while valuing the benefits of job satisfaction relatively a lot).

[Lawdork]

Mostly I agreed with you. That's pretty much what I did (went to a school that places simalirly to WUSTL for free) but sometimes I regret not going to a higher ranked school for sticker. PAYE works even when you don't get big law though. Say you end up making 40k, you're only gonna pay $300 a month even if you have 300k in debt. You do that for 20 years and the bulk of the debt is forgiven. PAYE is actually worse if you actually do biglaw bc you end up paying more overall than on a standard 10 year plan.

you're significantly underestimating the damage that amount of debt will do to you and your quality of life. PAYE is not the answer.

As compared to what? I agree with you completely. However, I have done things the right way 0 debt, tried to find a good job etc. etc.. The sad thing is is given how much 300k will improve his living standards in the short-run, when all is said and done it may end up being the right thing to do because we are simply monetizing our debt and ruining the value of our currency.

over the long run it is unsustainable no doubt. Over the short-run, it may give you the best quality of life even-though you are basically a slave to the federal government.

Look, everyone agrees that debt impacts QOL. Everyone also agrees that your job (through earnings, hours, intellectual challenges, other non-financial rewards, etc) impacts QOL. And I think everyone here agrees that the usual tradeoffs with going to a higher ranked school is that you're more likely to have more debt and more likely to get a better job.

The question is how much debt impacts QOL relative to job quality. The answer to that is going to be pretty subjective. How much money do you have? What sort of luxuries do you enjoy? How much do you care about working 40 hour weeks vs 60 hour weeks vs 80 hour weeks? How much does it matter to you to do intellectually challenging work? Everyone is going to answer these questions differently.

I have loads of family members for whom the marginal impact of every additional hour worked over roughly 40 is very significantly negative. Many of them would rather take a boring 40-hour a week job than an interesting 50-hour week job. For me, the marginal benefits of doing something that I enjoy, that I find challenging, and that I feel positively impacts the world far exceed the marginal cost of working an additional ten or twenty hours a week.

Likewise, I have a number of friends who love nice cars, who love eating out, and who feel the need to live in luxury apartments. For them, an additional ten thousand dollars in disposable income in a year after the first seventy or so thousand dollars is very important: it's potentially the difference between buying a new BMW every three years and having to buy a used BMW every three years. It may be the difference between living in a downtown apartment with a doorman and a pool and living in an (otherwise pretty similar) downtown apartment without these sorts of amenities. I, on the other hand, get very little additional pleasure from new cars as from used cars, from BMWs as I do from VWs, from spending $125/week on restaurants rather than $25/week. Thus, for my friends, the utility cost of debt (which impacts your disposable income) past a certain point is substantially higher than it is for me.

As long as we recognize that these sorts of differing subjective valuations are rational--e.g., that there is no one objectively correct way to value things like a job's intellectual challenge--we also have to recognize that there is no one objectively correct way to balance the costs of debt against the rewards of a better job. There are too many posts on threads like this that assume that there is one such objectively correct balancing.

It may well be that some folks on this board are undervaluing the utility cost of PAYE. But that's not necessarily true. If anything, I think tls errs on the side of overvaluing the costs of debt while undervaluing the benefits of a rewarding job--but that may just be because most tls posters place subjectively very different values on these things than I do.

I think folks' advice would be far more helpful here if it was along the lines of: "have you really thought about how bad PAYE could be? It's bad because of [x], [y], and [z]." Because it certainly may be the case that people who plan on going on PAYE haven't really thought through the consequences. But that's different than simply saying "PAYE is not the answer"--because it undoubtedly is the correct answer for many students (including those like me who value the cost of debt relatively little while valuing the benefits of job satisfaction relatively a lot).

Best post I've read in a while 190/180

[jbagelboy]

Abl only chooses to address the material impacts, which are substantial, but not even the most damning aspects of debt.

My law school debt and the strain it causes on my/my families' financial situation have been by far the worst, most stressful, most harrowing part of my life over the past two years. And I owe way less than sticker. It's the subtext for every career or personal decision, every expenditure, every conversation. No relationship, family, school-related, or career-related issue has caused me more anxiety and discontent. I cannot stress enough how different a person you are when you have financial freedom versus deep negative net worth, which is an immense psychological strain that easily outweighs the value of knowing I've accessed selective positions and institutions that others cannot, or the opportunity to work in those positions.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Likewise, I have a number of friends who love nice cars, who love eating out, and who feel the need to live in luxury apartments. For them, an additional ten thousand dollars in disposable income in a year after the first seventy or so thousand dollars is very important: it's potentially the difference between buying a new BMW every three years and having to buy a used BMW every three years. It may be the difference between living in a downtown apartment with a doorman and a pool and living in an (otherwise pretty similar) downtown apartment without these sorts of amenities. I, on the other hand, get very little additional pleasure from new cars as from used cars, from BMWs as I do from VWs, from spending $125/week on restaurants rather than $25/week. Thus, for my friends, the utility cost of debt (which impacts your disposable income) past a certain point is substantially higher than it is for me.

As long as we recognize that these sorts of differing subjective valuations are rational--e.g., that there is no one objectively correct way to value things like a job's intellectual challenge--we also have to recognize that there is no one objectively correct way to balance the costs of debt against the rewards of a better job. There are too many posts on threads like this that assume that there is one such objectively correct balancing.

See, my issue with the "different strokes for different folks" notion here is the implication that striking out and going into PAYE can be fine, as long as you're not one of those people who needs a new BMW every three years, you'll be totally okay. But getting on PAYE goes straight past "not luxurious" into "you are committing yourself to a lifetime of financial struggle." The basic math on this has been covered ad nauseum, but if you strike out on six-figure debt, odds are pretty good your balance is never going to go down, and it might very well grow faster than you can pay it back. After 20 years, you get nailed with the tax bomb, which you can't possibly afford. You can't get rid of those loans in bankruptcy, which makes you subject to wage garnishment for God knows how long. At the end of it you're going to essentially be left with nothing at age 45-50.

Look, a lot of people are fine with not balling out in Tribeca 2BRs, but most people want to eventually do things like own their own home, have a little retirement savings, be able to afford a kid or two. And these are things that you put in serious jeopardy when you strike out on six-figure debt. 0Ls don't really have a good conception of stuff like this because $200k is just more money than you could possibly conceive of at that point in your life (so it doesn't seem real) and the fact that most twentysomethings just aren't that busy worrying about how their 401(k) is gonna look when they're 50. Going to a lower-ranked school on a full ride means it's not as likely you'll ever ball outta control, sure, but you're definitely more likely to avoid financial devastation and develop some basic security.

[bpolley0]

.

[scone]

The question is how much debt impacts QOL relative to job quality. The answer to that is going to be pretty subjective. How much money do you have? What sort of luxuries do you enjoy? How much do you care about working 40 hour weeks vs 60 hour weeks vs 80 hour weeks? How much does it matter to you to do intellectually challenging work? Everyone is going to answer these questions differently.
...
As long as we recognize that these sorts of differing subjective valuations are rational--e.g., that there is no one objectively correct way to value things like a job's intellectual challenge--we also have to recognize that there is no one objectively correct way to balance the costs of debt against the rewards of a better job. There are too many posts on threads like this that assume that there is one such objectively correct balancing.

It may well be that some folks on this board are undervaluing the utility cost of PAYE. But that's not necessarily true. If anything, I think tls errs on the side of overvaluing the costs of debt while undervaluing the benefits of a rewarding job--but that may just be because most tls posters place subjectively very different values on these things than I do.

I think folks' advice would be far more helpful here if it was along the lines of: "have you really thought about how bad PAYE could be? It's bad because of [x], [y], and [z]." Because it certainly may be the case that people who plan on going on PAYE haven't really thought through the consequences. But that's different than simply saying "PAYE is not the answer"--because it undoubtedly is the correct answer for many students (including those like me who value the cost of debt relatively little while valuing the benefits of job satisfaction relatively a lot).

I think it's rather telling, though, that most of those on TLS who've been through law school and are now navigating the job market tell 0Ls to avoid debt with an almost religious fervour.

Considering the vast majority of people who go to any law school take out a significant amount of debt, and - looking at the statistically significant pool of post-3L TLSers - go on to regret it deeply, it seems we can conclude that most 0Ls go in to law school with approximately your relative valuations but don't retain them the other side. Moreover, it is unlikely any 0L will understand the practical and subjective cost of so much debt until they've graduated, so they are not in the best position to make such an objective value-based judgement.

As a result, it seems fair to warn 0Ls off significant debt by presenting it as a black-and-white issue. In the vast majority of cases, this advice would be good (such a vast majority, in fact, that I think it would make sense to present it as 'the' correct response) and in the few for which it would not be, chances are the 0Ls in question would just take out the debt anyway.

[pleadthafif]

Post removed...

[abl]

Abl only chooses to address the material impacts, which are substantial, but not even the most damning aspects of debt.

My law school debt and the strain it causes on my/my families' financial situation have been by far the worst, most stressful, most harrowing part of my life over the past two years. And I owe way less than sticker. It's the subtext for every career or personal decision, every expenditure, every conversation. No relationship, family, school-related, or career-related issue has caused me more anxiety and discontent. I cannot stress enough how different a person you are when you have financial freedom versus deep negative net worth, which is an immense psychological strain that easily outweighs the value of knowing I've accessed selective positions and institutions that others cannot, or the opportunity to work in those positions.

That's an excellent point, and I'm very sorry to hear that this has been your experience. I also graduated with significant debt but it genuinely doesn't bother me. Different folks are going to experience debt differently. I suspect you and I are at the two extremes.

[abl]

Likewise, I have a number of friends who love nice cars, who love eating out, and who feel the need to live in luxury apartments. For them, an additional ten thousand dollars in disposable income in a year after the first seventy or so thousand dollars is very important: it's potentially the difference between buying a new BMW every three years and having to buy a used BMW every three years. It may be the difference between living in a downtown apartment with a doorman and a pool and living in an (otherwise pretty similar) downtown apartment without these sorts of amenities. I, on the other hand, get very little additional pleasure from new cars as from used cars, from BMWs as I do from VWs, from spending $125/week on restaurants rather than $25/week. Thus, for my friends, the utility cost of debt (which impacts your disposable income) past a certain point is substantially higher than it is for me.

As long as we recognize that these sorts of differing subjective valuations are rational--e.g., that there is no one objectively correct way to value things like a job's intellectual challenge--we also have to recognize that there is no one objectively correct way to balance the costs of debt against the rewards of a better job. There are too many posts on threads like this that assume that there is one such objectively correct balancing.

See, my issue with the "different strokes for different folks" notion here is the implication that striking out and going into PAYE can be fine, as long as you're not one of those people who needs a new BMW every three years, you'll be totally okay. But getting on PAYE goes straight past "not luxurious" into "you are committing yourself to a lifetime of financial struggle." The basic math on this has been covered ad nauseum, but if you strike out on six-figure debt, odds are pretty good your balance is never going to go down, and it might very well grow faster than you can pay it back. After 20 years, you get nailed with the tax bomb, which you can't possibly afford. You can't get rid of those loans in bankruptcy, which makes you subject to wage garnishment for God knows how long. At the end of it you're going to essentially be left with nothing at age 45-50.

Look, a lot of people are fine with not balling out in Tribeca 2BRs, but most people want to eventually do things like own their own home, have a little retirement savings, be able to afford a kid or two. And these are things that you put in serious jeopardy when you strike out on six-figure debt. 0Ls don't really have a good conception of stuff like this because $200k is just more money than you could possibly conceive of at that point in your life (so it doesn't seem real) and the fact that most twentysomethings just aren't that busy worrying about how their 401(k) is gonna look when they're 50. Going to a lower-ranked school on a full ride means it's not as likely you'll ever ball outta control, sure, but you're definitely more likely to avoid financial devastation and develop some basic security.

Financial struggle is relative, but I think most reasonable definitions of "financial struggle" are such that very few T14 grads on PAYE--even those who miss out on biglaw--are experiencing anything close to financial struggle. I also suspect that most of these folks are ultimately able to purchase a house, invest in a 401(k), take modest vacations, etc. Regardless, my point isn't really that PAYE is wonderful. Personally, I think there are often better options (including school-specific loan repayment programs and even refi). My point is that the decision between a "better" school with more debt and a "worse" school with less debt is necessarily a subjective decision--which is something that is not sufficiently recognized on tls. I'm sorry if that was muddled by me citing PAYE favorably.

That said, I obviously agree that most folks would be worse off with a T14 degree, debt, and no job, than a WUSTL degree, no debt, and no job.

[abl]

Oh sure, I agree with everything here until the last two paragraphs. However, it isn't that you are taking on debt for a job- you are taking on that much debt for a marginally better chance at an interesting job. That is a huge distinction. At the margin, people such as yourself are saying that borrowing possibly 200 to 300k for a marginally better chance at a job in which you may find intellectually intriguing is bettter than 0 debt to go to a school with slightly less of a chance at that intellectually intriguing job. The HUGE difference is the risk. In the first situation if you don't get that job that the other 200 or so+ students you will make probably between 40 and 50 a year before taxes(that you may be miserable at) and you will be paying that debt off for years; whereas, in the second situation who cares- there really is no risk except opportunity cost.

Something else to consider is that at the T-14 schools the probability of getting Biglaw or a Fedclerkship is only 15 to 20% better. That is looking at the 2013 numbers for your reference. You also have to take into account those are historical numbers and the supply of lawyers may end up outweighing the demand for new lawyers.

Ultimately it is a subjective decision but that is a whole lot of risk for a slightly better chance at a job. Plus, that job you think is so intriguing you could end up absolutely hating.

Yea, sure. But it's a distinction that changes the math and not the principle. I'm not actually arguing at what point it's worth paying $100k more to go to a different school. I agree that folks on these boards often overvalue insignificant differences between schools. But similarly, I think folks on these boards often overvalue the cost of debt. Actually, the biggest thing that I think folks on this board (and law students generally) undervalue is the importance of work quality (substantive experience, intellectual challenges, hours, etc). That's a separate point, though.

[abl]

The question is how much debt impacts QOL relative to job quality. The answer to that is going to be pretty subjective. How much money do you have? What sort of luxuries do you enjoy? How much do you care about working 40 hour weeks vs 60 hour weeks vs 80 hour weeks? How much does it matter to you to do intellectually challenging work? Everyone is going to answer these questions differently.
...
As long as we recognize that these sorts of differing subjective valuations are rational--e.g., that there is no one objectively correct way to value things like a job's intellectual challenge--we also have to recognize that there is no one objectively correct way to balance the costs of debt against the rewards of a better job. There are too many posts on threads like this that assume that there is one such objectively correct balancing.

It may well be that some folks on this board are undervaluing the utility cost of PAYE. But that's not necessarily true. If anything, I think tls errs on the side of overvaluing the costs of debt while undervaluing the benefits of a rewarding job--but that may just be because most tls posters place subjectively very different values on these things than I do.

I think folks' advice would be far more helpful here if it was along the lines of: "have you really thought about how bad PAYE could be? It's bad because of [x], [y], and [z]." Because it certainly may be the case that people who plan on going on PAYE haven't really thought through the consequences. But that's different than simply saying "PAYE is not the answer"--because it undoubtedly is the correct answer for many students (including those like me who value the cost of debt relatively little while valuing the benefits of job satisfaction relatively a lot).

I think it's rather telling, though, that most of those on TLS who've been through law school and are now navigating the job market tell 0Ls to avoid debt with an almost religious fervour.

Considering the vast majority of people who go to any law school take out a significant amount of debt, and - looking at the statistically significant pool of post-3L TLSers - go on to regret it deeply, it seems we can conclude that most 0Ls go in to law school with approximately your relative valuations but don't retain them the other side. Moreover, it is unlikely any 0L will understand the practical and subjective cost of so much debt until they've graduated, so they are not in the best position to make such an objective value-based judgement.

As a result, it seems fair to warn 0Ls off significant debt by presenting it as a black-and-white issue. In the vast majority of cases, this advice would be good (such a vast majority, in fact, that I think it would make sense to present it as 'the' correct response) and in the few for which it would not be, chances are the 0Ls in question would just take out the debt anyway.

I don't think it's that telling. There's certainly not a "statistically significant pool of post-3L TLSers," not to mention that TLS is already pretty self-selected to begin with (and there is undoubtedly more self-selecting happening post-graduation). Also, if you read TLS ~5 years ago, you'd see mostly older posters urging folks to go to the best possible school at nearly whatever the cost (a similarly myopic viewpoint). All of this is to say that I think actually very little can be read into the fact that the current mix of the ~15 active post-3L TLS posters leans towards debt aversion.

[bpolley0]

.

[abl]

Oh sure, I agree with everything here until the last two paragraphs. However, it isn't that you are taking on debt for a job- you are taking on that much debt for a marginally better chance at an interesting job. That is a huge distinction. At the margin, people such as yourself are saying that borrowing possibly 200 to 300k for a marginally better chance at a job in which you may find intellectually intriguing is bettter than 0 debt to go to a school with slightly less of a chance at that intellectually intriguing job. The HUGE difference is the risk. In the first situation if you don't get that job that the other 200 or so+ students you will make probably between 40 and 50 a year before taxes(that you may be miserable at) and you will be paying that debt off for years; whereas, in the second situation who cares- there really is no risk except opportunity cost.

Something else to consider is that at the T-14 schools the probability of getting Biglaw or a Fedclerkship is only 15 to 20% better. That is looking at the 2013 numbers for your reference. You also have to take into account those are historical numbers and the supply of lawyers may end up outweighing the demand for new lawyers.

Ultimately it is a subjective decision but that is a whole lot of risk for a slightly better chance at a job. Plus, that job you think is so intriguing you could end up absolutely hating.

Yea, sure. But it's a distinction that changes the math and not the principle. I'm not actually arguing at what point it's worth paying $100k more to go to a different school. I agree that folks on these boards often overvalue insignificant differences between schools. But similarly, I think folks on these boards often overvalue the cost of debt. Actually, the biggest thing that I think folks on this board (and law students generally) undervalue is the importance of work quality (substantive experience, intellectual challenges, hours, etc). That's a separate point, though.

Hmm, not sure what you mean by not changing the principle. One option gives you a risk that could possibly ruin your life and put yourself in a position that takes years to get out of while the other option gives you literally no risk. The pay out of the first option is a 20% better chance of getting into biglaw or a fed clerkship. That is a huge risk for a marignally better chance at a reward. Also, it isn't as if the t-14 have a monopoly on information about the law which begs the question what exactly are you paying for other than connections?

The importance of work quality or experience working is one extremely large reason TLSers are so adamantly telling people to avoid debt- you don't even know if you will enjoy working in biglaw or a fedclerkship so how could you possibly put yourself in a situation betting a large chunk of your future on it? Plus there are so many variables that go into being able to keep that job. Even if you do in fact become one of the statistical lucky few who do get those jobs there is absolutely no guarantee you have an ethical manager, the firm you are working for is behaving ethically and legally, the legal industry is doing well as a whole, the economy doesn't go into another recession and you get laid off, that there aren't competitors undercutting your pricing structure that make your expertise not valuable etc. etc.

The principle is that there is an inherently subjectively balancing between the cost of debt and the prospective quality of a better job that most students must make. You made the (not-in-dispute) point that the tradeoff is really between certain debt and a possibility of a better job. But that doesn't actually change the fact of the subjective balancing -- it just changes how one would do the balancing (e.g., you should discount the utility gained from the better job by the increase in possibility of you getting the job).

Incidentally, I'd count ending up in doc review on a semi-permanent basis as much or more of a "ruin your life" proposition as ending up with more debt than can reasonably repaid for the foreseeable future -- although I dispute that either alternative would actually "ruin your life" (so many worse things happen to people who live ultimately fulfilling lives). But that's a side point (as is whether low debt gives you more career freedom than a strong resume, how much various schools impact your chances of landing better jobs, etc).

[eagle2a]

I thought this thread was for medians

[Rigo]

I thought this thread was for medians

It's been more on-topic than last year's thread haha

[PeanutsNJam]

I'm ready for guess the rankings.

100: Boalt

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Financial struggle is relative, but I think most reasonable definitions of "financial struggle" are such that very few T14 grads on PAYE--even those who miss out on biglaw--are experiencing anything close to financial struggle.

It would take about five minutes on this website to find a dozen people who disagree.

I also suspect that most of these folks are ultimately able to purchase a house, invest in a 401(k), take modest vacations, etc.

You "suspect" it? Why? What part of the math would make you think that? Someone who makes $50k with a $200k debt has a is going to have a balance that grows every year. If you only pay 10% of your income, your tax bill after 20 years is going to be somewhere in the $100k neighborhood. Given that that will be as much or more as you'll be making at that time, what makes you think any part of that is compatible with a mortgage or a retirement fund?

[abl]

Financial struggle is relative, but I think most reasonable definitions of "financial struggle" are such that very few T14 grads on PAYE--even those who miss out on biglaw--are experiencing anything close to financial struggle.

It would take about five minutes on this website to find a dozen people who disagree.

I also suspect that most of these folks are ultimately able to purchase a house, invest in a 401(k), take modest vacations, etc.

You "suspect" it? Why? What part of the math would make you think that? Someone who makes $50k with a $200k debt has a is going to have a balance that grows every year. If you only pay 10% of your income, your tax bill after 20 years is going to be somewhere in the $100k neighborhood. Given that that will be as much or more as you'll be making at that time, what makes you think any part of that is compatible with a mortgage or a retirement fund?

It would also take about five minutes on this website to find a dozen people who think that someone making $160k in New York with no debt is financially struggling. To reiterate: financial struggle is relative.

Also, $50k/year is the US median household income. Someone making $50,000/year on PAYE will have to pay approximately $3,000/year towards her loans (b/c that's 10% of the difference between a $45k AGI and 150% the individual poverty line). That gives her a DTI of about 6% ($4,166/m in gross income as compared with $250/m in debt obligations). Assuming a cautious back-end debt to income ratio target of 33%, that means that she could buy a US-median house ($189,000) and still have room for some additional car/credit card debt. Someone in that circumstance could afford to go on a modest vacation most years, contribute to a retirement fund, and save for the tax bomb (which, let's be honest, probably is going to be mitigated in some way in 20 years). [Someone correct me if my math is wrong.]

I'm also not sure why this is relevant. My point was just that every applicant must subjectively weigh the costs of debt against the benefits of job quality. I'm not trying to argue that there's no possible downside to going into debt in order to go to a better law school. Obviously there is: you could end up with a lousy job and debt (which is obviously worse than ending up with a lousy job and no debt). But focusing on one unlikely worst case scenario really does nothing to illuminate whether (a) applicants should weigh these factors in their decision, and (b) the weight applicants assign should be based on their own preferences rather than on the preferences of tls posters.

[Troianii]

Financial struggle is relative, but I think most reasonable definitions of "financial struggle" are such that very few T14 grads on PAYE--even those who miss out on biglaw--are experiencing anything close to financial struggle.

It would take about five minutes on this website to find a dozen people who disagree.

I also suspect that most of these folks are ultimately able to purchase a house, invest in a 401(k), take modest vacations, etc.

You "suspect" it? Why? What part of the math would make you think that? Someone who makes $50k with a $200k debt has a is going to have a balance that grows every year. If you only pay 10% of your income, your tax bill after 20 years is going to be somewhere in the $100k neighborhood. Given that that will be as much or more as you'll be making at that time, what makes you think any part of that is compatible with a mortgage or a retirement fund?

It's closer to manageable than many people think, assuming you actually have a steady job. Where it becomes an issue is when people have unstable employment, or lack employment. And obviously carrying 200k in debt is rough to begin with, the idea is not to accrue that much. It obviously sucks and would be a struggle, but it is not something that should be a "making ends meet" kind of financial struggle.

[180kickflip]

Financial struggle is relative, but I think most reasonable definitions of "financial struggle" are such that very few T14 grads on PAYE--even those who miss out on biglaw--are experiencing anything close to financial struggle.

It would take about five minutes on this website to find a dozen people who disagree.

I also suspect that most of these folks are ultimately able to purchase a house, invest in a 401(k), take modest vacations, etc.

You "suspect" it? Why? What part of the math would make you think that? Someone who makes $50k with a $200k debt has a is going to have a balance that grows every year. If you only pay 10% of your income, your tax bill after 20 years is going to be somewhere in the $100k neighborhood. Given that that will be as much or more as you'll be making at that time, what makes you think any part of that is compatible with a mortgage or a retirement fund?

It would also take about five minutes on this website to find a dozen people who think that someone making $160k in New York with no debt is financially struggling. To reiterate: financial struggle is relative.

Also, $50k/year is the US median household income. Someone making $50,000/year on PAYE will have to pay approximately $3,000/year towards her loans (b/c that's 10% of the difference between a $45k AGI and 150% the individual poverty line). That gives her a DTI of about 6% ($4,166/m in gross income as compared with $250/m in debt obligations). Assuming a cautious back-end debt to income ratio target of 33%, that means that she could buy a US-median house ($189,000) and still have room for some additional car/credit card debt. Someone in that circumstance could afford to go on a modest vacation most years, contribute to a retirement fund, and save for the tax bomb (which, let's be honest, probably is going to be mitigated in some way in 20 years). [Someone correct me if my math is wrong.]

I'm also not sure why this is relevant. My point was just that every applicant must subjectively weigh the costs of debt against the benefits of job quality. I'm not trying to argue that there's no possible downside to going into debt in order to go to a better law school. Obviously there is: you could end up with a lousy job and debt (which is obviously worse than ending up with a lousy job and no debt). But focusing on one unlikely worst case scenario really does nothing to illuminate whether (a) applicants should weigh these factors in their decision, and (b) the weight applicants assign should be based on their own preferences rather than on the preferences of tls posters.

Yeah...You can definitely buy a house with big debt and modest income. My SO and I went through the mortgage preapproval process earlier this year, and all our lender cared about was the monthly payment on our debts. As long as you have steady employment, great credit (which the debt shouldn't impact), and a legit down payment, you're good to go.

[bpolley0]

.

[Lawdork]

As long as if it doesn't work out for you you don't complain or whine that you deserve a bailout- go for it.

the great american experience in a nutshell. this paye program is a symptom of what's wrong with politics. politicians too often focus on the short-term fix at the expense of the long-term. they don't care, it'll be other ppl's problems 20 years from now when no one can pay the tax bomb.

[bpolley0]

.

[Huskies13!]

Screw law school! Wow...UCI of the b-schools.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-price-o ... 1444867124

[oceanmd]

Ok, I am reading all of these regarding the debt and law school ranking ration and possible outcomes, and I completely agree that huge debt is really scary. Now, I know someone, who graduated a few years ago, has around 200K in debt and around 35K a year salary. This person is not happy about the debt situation, but is not overly concerned either. The plan is to find a government job, which might take some time, but after that and after 10 years of working for the government, the debt will be forgiven. So, for this person it is just a matter of finding this government job. And after 10 years, this person can do whatever he/she wants and work for whomever he/she wants. How possible or impossible is this plan?