OLD SCHOOL (must be 30 and over ITT) Forum

[Pozzo]

I think that's a little unfair. To the extent people go to school without scholarships, that's one thing. To the extent you're saying people live high on the hog during school and not doing so would reduce their debt, I don't really agree. (In part, the problem with debt isn't students spending too much when schools charge $60+k/year for tuition.)

But then I went into debt (though not $60+k/year debt.) Despite being old. I get kind of annoyed at blanket statements about the effect of age on the decision making process.

(And of course someone with a full ride and a spouse making $40k should be able to cover expenses; that's not even really an accomplishment.)

Also, "our age" still admits of a huge range. Factor that in with the huge range of potential law school debt, and the generalizations are even less helpful. $90k debt at 33 is way different than $250k debt at 48.

[Wipfelder]

I think that's a little unfair. To the extent people go to school without scholarships, that's one thing. To the extent you're saying people live high on the hog during school and not doing so would reduce their debt, I don't really agree. (In part, the problem with debt isn't students spending too much when schools charge $60+k/year for tuition.)

But then I went into debt (though not $60+k/year debt.) Despite being old. I get kind of annoyed at blanket statements about the effect of age on the decision making process.

(And of course someone with a full ride and a spouse making $40k should be able to cover expenses; that's not even really an accomplishment.)

Yet many people (at my school at least) are in the same circumstances and take on loans. The fiscal discipline of the students bosy, overall, is borderline irresponsible.

Age is important because of the impact paying off loans has on saving for retirement or whatever. Spending three years not substantially saving money, and then servicing loans as opposed to aggressive saving after graduation dramatically changes the cost/benefit analysis of attending law school as it is impacted by the miracle of compound interest. It's a legitimate consideration, I can't see how it wouldn't be.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Of course it's a legitimate consideration. That's different from saying "someone over age X shouldn't take on debt," though. (I'm also skeptical that there's a critical mass of students on full rides with working spouses taking on debt, but if there is - and they don't have kids - I doubt they're taking on enough debt to burden the course of their lives.)

[Tiago Splitter]

I do think it's easier to splurge on discretionary stuff when you're already looking down the barrel of six-figure debt for tuition alone. Certainly was for me. That's no different if you're 22 or 32 but us olds should be mature enough to know the difference.

[Wipfelder]

I do think it's easier to splurge on discretionary stuff when you're already looking down the barrel of six-figure debt for tuition alone. Certainly was for me. That's no different if you're 22 or 32 but us olds should be mature enough to know the difference.

Should be. But its hard to stay disciplined with the added stress of law school and life and stuff.

So like, I guess my argument is:
If one goes to law school and doesn't invest while in school (like maybe they were able to before), they lose out on three years of savings, and then the reverse CI of servicing student loans. For example:

If a person graduates LS at 35, and they didn't save anything, and then had 60k in loans after graduation (6% at ten years, assumption) They've taken almost a million dollars from their 60-year old self (assuming they had a decent job or whatever so could save about 1500 a month for retirement into some sort of tax deferred scheme) that would take an extra 1000 or so dollars a month in investing to catch back up to by the time they were 65. They also have much less time to get that back than someone in big debt, but younger. Going backwards in net worth in one's 30's or 40's has consequences that are harder to make up for.

[Tiago Splitter]

I do think it's easier to splurge on discretionary stuff when you're already looking down the barrel of six-figure debt for tuition alone. Certainly was for me. That's no different if you're 22 or 32 but us olds should be mature enough to know the difference.

Should be. But its hard to stay disciplined with the added stress of law school and life and stuff.

So like, I guess my argument is:
If one goes to law school and doesn't invest while in school (like maybe they were able to before), they lose out on three years of savings, and then the reverse CI of servicing student loans. For example:

If a person graduates LS at 35, and they didn't save anything, and then had 60k in loans after graduation (6% at ten years, assumption) They've taken almost a million dollars from their 60-year old self (assuming they had a decent job or whatever so could save about 1500 a month for retirement into some sort of tax deferred scheme) that would take an extra 1000 or so dollars a month in investing to catch back up to by the time they were 65. They also have much less time to get that back than someone in big debt, but younger. Going backwards in net worth in one's 30's or 40's has consequences that are harder to make up for.

Sure but on the other hand a lot of people aren't able to save anything approaching 1500 a month. Turbocharging your income from 40k to 200k in three years helps make up for lost time very quickly.

[Wipfelder]

I do think it's easier to splurge on discretionary stuff when you're already looking down the barrel of six-figure debt for tuition alone. Certainly was for me. That's no different if you're 22 or 32 but us olds should be mature enough to know the difference.

Should be. But its hard to stay disciplined with the added stress of law school and life and stuff.

So like, I guess my argument is:
If one goes to law school and doesn't invest while in school (like maybe they were able to before), they lose out on three years of savings, and then the reverse CI of servicing student loans. For example:

If a person graduates LS at 35, and they didn't save anything, and then had 60k in loans after graduation (6% at ten years, assumption) They've taken almost a million dollars from their 60-year old self (assuming they had a decent job or whatever so could save about 1500 a month for retirement into some sort of tax deferred scheme) that would take an extra 1000 or so dollars a month in investing to catch back up to by the time they were 65. They also have much less time to get that back than someone in big debt, but younger. Going backwards in net worth in one's 30's or 40's has consequences that are harder to make up for.

Sure but on the other hand a lot of people aren't able to save anything approaching 1500 a month. Turbocharging your income from 40k to 200k in three years helps make up for lost time very quickly.

Yes, obviously. I feel, however, that people don't put the numbers in proper perspective when they decide to go to law school. Like, one factor in the decision is the expected financial value (or cost) of the move. 'Big Law Dollars" is a legitimate incentive, but its tempered when someone does the math. I feel like less older people would go to LS if they truly understood the costs, and the ones that did would be more likely to live "more frugally" or get creative financially if they really understood the double-loss in compound interest if they used loans.

[A. Nony Mouse]

No one has said that people shouldn't consider the costs of going to law school. No one has challenged your math. I'm just saying that individuals have to make choices based on what matters most to them, which may not be the same priorities you have.

And again, I really don't think the problem with law school costs is people not living frugally. The problem is that tuition is insane.

[Wipfelder]

No one has said that people shouldn't consider the costs of going to law school. No one has challenged your math. I'm just saying that individuals have to make choices based on what matters most to them, which may not be the same priorities you have.

And again, I really don't think the problem with law school costs is people not living frugally. The problem is that tuition is insane.

I'm arguing that people don't consider it in the right way. It should only be a factor, and maybe not the most important one, but either way, it should be looked t realistically.

Tuition is the biggest cause of debt, but not the only one. A person can significantly increase the expected value of attending law school by cutting down on costs that aren't tuition. Tuition in and of itself, of course, can also be mitigated.

I don't think we are disagreeing on much here, I think my posts made it seem like the financial cost should be the only consideration. What I mean is that it's important, and should be thought about differently than most people probably do.

[Tiago Splitter]

Yes, obviously. I feel, however, that people don't put the numbers in proper perspective when they decide to go to law school. Like, one factor in the decision is the expected financial value (or cost) of the move. 'Big Law Dollars" is a legitimate incentive, but its tempered when someone does the math. I feel like less older people would go to LS if they truly understood the costs, and the ones that did would be more likely to live "more frugally" or get creative financially if they really understood the double-loss in compound interest if they used loans.

I don't necessarily disagree but I'd caution people against being penny-wise and pound-foolish. Choosing not to go is just about always a defensible option, but where you can really go wrong is to take the big scholarship at Cardozo and ending up no better off instead of ponying up for NYU. That's why I always get a little nervous when people start preaching an anti-debt message.

[zot1]

Give me all the loans!!

[SolRs]

I'm not sure what to do as to me environment is just as important as ranking in my eyes.

Bingo. When looking at schools like these, ranking is really irrelevant. There are MUCH more important things to consider than wether a school is 2nd or 3rd tier (or even later first tier)

Agreeing with you guys on this. I'm just shy of 30 but I can already tell that my priorities are different than those going to LS right out of college. I don't want to have to uproot again (and uproot my supportive spouse), so I'm definitely prioritizing schools in a place where we want to live long term. I also put low cost above a few ranking points. I'd rather pay 10k or less to go to school at a T30-50 than 140k+ at T14. But, I'm not interested in big law in the NE so I think that makes a big difference.

Luckily, I was able to save a bunch while working so far, so I am hoping to offset my 3 years out of the market with some good investment gains..... let's hope for market rallies in 2017 and 2018!

[dannyswo]

Agreeing with you guys on this. I'm just shy of 30 but I can already tell that my priorities are different than those going to LS right out of college. I don't want to have to uproot again (and uproot my supportive spouse), so I'm definitely prioritizing schools in a place where we want to live long term. I also put low cost above a few ranking points. I'd rather pay 10k or less to go to school at a T30-50 than 140k+ at T14. But, I'm not interested in big law in the NE so I think that makes a big difference.

Luckily, I was able to save a bunch while working so far, so I am hoping to offset my 3 years out of the market with some good investment gains..... let's hope for market rallies in 2017 and 2018!

I think this is fairly typical of over 30s. The older you are, the fewer schools you apply to, most likely because you're geographically constrained / have a geographic preference. The cost to move when I was 22 was the hour it took me to put everything in my Mustang. The cost to move now.... I can't fathom.
There is way more self-selection for older students I suspect, ie we're going to choose a regional school because we want to work in that region; not that we'd work in a region because we went to school there. Not by any means everyone, I simply think it's more likely the older you are.

[SolRs]

Agreeing with you guys on this. I'm just shy of 30 but I can already tell that my priorities are different than those going to LS right out of college. I don't want to have to uproot again (and uproot my supportive spouse), so I'm definitely prioritizing schools in a place where we want to live long term. I also put low cost above a few ranking points. I'd rather pay 10k or less to go to school at a T30-50 than 140k+ at T14. But, I'm not interested in big law in the NE so I think that makes a big difference.

Luckily, I was able to save a bunch while working so far, so I am hoping to offset my 3 years out of the market with some good investment gains..... let's hope for market rallies in 2017 and 2018!

I think this is fairly typical of over 30s. The older you are, the fewer schools you apply to, most likely because you're geographically constrained / have a geographic preference. The cost to move when I was 22 was the hour it took me to put everything in my Mustang. The cost to move now.... I can't fathom.
There is way more self-selection for older students I suspect, ie we're going to choose a regional school because we want to work in that region; not that we'd work in a region because we went to school there. Not by any means everyone, I simply think it's more likely the older you are.

Agreed. I think we consider location and cost WAY more than younger applicants. Some of them seem quite happy to rack up 200k in debt to go to a T14 school. I'm not convinced that it is a great idea. Plus, like you say.... a move is a lot bigger of an ordeal when you own a home, have a spouse, consider kids, etc.

[Tiago Splitter]

Agreeing with you guys on this. I'm just shy of 30 but I can already tell that my priorities are different than those going to LS right out of college. I don't want to have to uproot again (and uproot my supportive spouse), so I'm definitely prioritizing schools in a place where we want to live long term. I also put low cost above a few ranking points. I'd rather pay 10k or less to go to school at a T30-50 than 140k+ at T14. But, I'm not interested in big law in the NE so I think that makes a big difference.

Luckily, I was able to save a bunch while working so far, so I am hoping to offset my 3 years out of the market with some good investment gains..... let's hope for market rallies in 2017 and 2018!

I think this is fairly typical of over 30s. The older you are, the fewer schools you apply to, most likely because you're geographically constrained / have a geographic preference. The cost to move when I was 22 was the hour it took me to put everything in my Mustang. The cost to move now.... I can't fathom.
There is way more self-selection for older students I suspect, ie we're going to choose a regional school because we want to work in that region; not that we'd work in a region because we went to school there. Not by any means everyone, I simply think it's more likely the older you are.

Agreed. I think we consider location and cost WAY more than younger applicants. Some of them seem quite happy to rack up 200k in debt to go to a T14 school. I'm not convinced that it is a great idea. Plus, like you say.... a move is a lot bigger of an ordeal when you own a home, have a spouse, consider kids, etc.

Really depends on your alternatives. There's a pretty good chance that if you prioritize staying local and being near family you just shouldn't go to law school. And that's totally fine; a lot of people shouldn't go to law school. But don't justify going to the crappy local school/not retaking the LSAT because of the damn kids who won't get off your lawn.

[dannyswo]

Really depends on your alternatives. There's a pretty good chance that if you prioritize staying local and being near family you just shouldn't go to law school. And that's totally fine; a lot of people shouldn't go to law school. But don't justify going to the crappy local school/not retaking the LSAT because of the damn kids who won't get off your lawn.

Sure, but likewise, a full ride to Harvard isn't going to get me to spend three winters in Boston.

[chicharon]

How are folks able to maintain a family (wife and child parents and sibling), financially, and attend law school full time?

No idea. This is why I am working my full time job and doing law school part time.

All of the above, plus scholarship/s

[haus]

How are folks able to maintain a family (wife and child parents and sibling), financially, and attend law school full time?

No idea. This is why I am working my full time job and doing law school part time.

All of the above, plus scholarship/s

Yeah, scholarships played a significant role in my selection of a school (especially the stip only requiring I stay "in good standing"). It makes the financial pain more manageable.

[laqueredup]

.

[Wipfelder]

If they really understood the double-loss in compound interest if they used loans.

Don't think the compound interest is quite a double loss these days. I sure am not making this magical 8% that all the people who preach about the "miracle of compound interest" tend to assume. In fact when I graduated I would have been better off buying a new corvette than putting money in the market, it would have depreciated more slowly.

But yeah, even with the underwhelming investment performance, the opportunity costs of leaving a stable job are high. If my future wife didn't have a great job, and I didn't have full scholarships, this decision would be a lot harder. -or maybe a lot easier: "not going to law school"

You probably will make something around the 8% when it's all said and done, but standard deviation is a bitch.

[ponderingmeerkat]

If they really understood the double-loss in compound interest if they used loans.

Don't think the compound interest is quite a double loss these days. I sure am not making this magical 8% that all the people who preach about the "miracle of compound interest" tend to assume. In fact when I graduated I would have been better off buying a new corvette than putting money in the market, it would have depreciated more slowly.

But yeah, even with the underwhelming investment performance, the opportunity costs of leaving a stable job are high. If my future wife didn't have a great job, and I didn't have full scholarships, this decision would be a lot harder. -or maybe a lot easier: "not going to law school"

You probably will make something around the 8% when it's all said and done, but standard deviation is a bitch.

This. And...I also had below market returns when I arrogantly thought I could outperform by picking individual stocks (because I was "just such a smart dude"). When I realized and admitted I wasn't a special snowflake and that low-cost index investing is almost impossible to beat, I actually started getting those market returns everyone talks/brags about. My 3-year average is--checks Vanguard--8.9%.

Recommend you look into Vanguard/Fidelity/some other low-cost brokerage and research Bogglehead's three-fund portfolio and you'll be golden.

[Wipfelder]

If they really understood the double-loss in compound interest if they used loans.

Don't think the compound interest is quite a double loss these days. I sure am not making this magical 8% that all the people who preach about the "miracle of compound interest" tend to assume. In fact when I graduated I would have been better off buying a new corvette than putting money in the market, it would have depreciated more slowly.

But yeah, even with the underwhelming investment performance, the opportunity costs of leaving a stable job are high. If my future wife didn't have a great job, and I didn't have full scholarships, this decision would be a lot harder. -or maybe a lot easier: "not going to law school"

You probably will make something around the 8% when it's all said and done, but standard deviation is a bitch.

This. And...I also had below market returns when I arrogantly thought I could outperform by picking individual stocks (because I was "just such a smart dude"). When I realized and admitted I wasn't a special snowflake and that low-cost index investing is almost impossible to beat, I actually started getting those market returns everyone talks/brags about. My 3-year average is--checks Vanguard--8.9%.

Recommend you look into Vanguard/Fidelity/some other low-cost brokerage and research Bogglehead's three-fund portfolio and you'll be golden.

This past 5-6 years, then, has probably been the best time to invest, because you're getting the most shares per dollar value. Its a classic "buy low" thing. Naturally, that assumes that one is buying for the long-run, and that over time our economy will continue to grow in the areas that one has invested in.....

[laqueredup]

.

[SolRs]

Agreeing with you guys on this. I'm just shy of 30 but I can already tell that my priorities are different than those going to LS right out of college. I don't want to have to uproot again (and uproot my supportive spouse), so I'm definitely prioritizing schools in a place where we want to live long term. I also put low cost above a few ranking points. I'd rather pay 10k or less to go to school at a T30-50 than 140k+ at T14. But, I'm not interested in big law in the NE so I think that makes a big difference.

Luckily, I was able to save a bunch while working so far, so I am hoping to offset my 3 years out of the market with some good investment gains..... let's hope for market rallies in 2017 and 2018!

I think this is fairly typical of over 30s. The older you are, the fewer schools you apply to, most likely because you're geographically constrained / have a geographic preference. The cost to move when I was 22 was the hour it took me to put everything in my Mustang. The cost to move now.... I can't fathom.
There is way more self-selection for older students I suspect, ie we're going to choose a regional school because we want to work in that region; not that we'd work in a region because we went to school there. Not by any means everyone, I simply think it's more likely the older you are.

Agreed. I think we consider location and cost WAY more than younger applicants. Some of them seem quite happy to rack up 200k in debt to go to a T14 school. I'm not convinced that it is a great idea. Plus, like you say.... a move is a lot bigger of an ordeal when you own a home, have a spouse, consider kids, etc.

Really depends on your alternatives. There's a pretty good chance that if you prioritize staying local and being near family you just shouldn't go to law school. And that's totally fine; a lot of people shouldn't go to law school. But don't justify going to the crappy local school/not retaking the LSAT because of the damn kids who won't get off your lawn.

Going to a low ranking law school wasn't even a contender for me, but I agree with what you're saying if that is being considered by other applicants. I agree that there are minimal opportunities for advancement for someone who forgoes a good school for one of limited recognition and ranking solely to stay close to home. That said, I do believe that location, access to family, and debt are very serious and important considerations, particularly for those with a family or wanting to soon start a family.

[SolRs]

Agreeing with you guys on this. I'm just shy of 30 but I can already tell that my priorities are different than those going to LS right out of college. I don't want to have to uproot again (and uproot my supportive spouse), so I'm definitely prioritizing schools in a place where we want to live long term. I also put low cost above a few ranking points. I'd rather pay 10k or less to go to school at a T30-50 than 140k+ at T14. But, I'm not interested in big law in the NE so I think that makes a big difference.

Luckily, I was able to save a bunch while working so far, so I am hoping to offset my 3 years out of the market with some good investment gains..... let's hope for market rallies in 2017 and 2018!

I think this is fairly typical of over 30s. The older you are, the fewer schools you apply to, most likely because you're geographically constrained / have a geographic preference. The cost to move when I was 22 was the hour it took me to put everything in my Mustang. The cost to move now.... I can't fathom.
There is way more self-selection for older students I suspect, ie we're going to choose a regional school because we want to work in that region; not that we'd work in a region because we went to school there. Not by any means everyone, I simply think it's more likely the older you are.

Agreed. I think we consider location and cost WAY more than younger applicants. Some of them seem quite happy to rack up 200k in debt to go to a T14 school. I'm not convinced that it is a great idea. Plus, like you say.... a move is a lot bigger of an ordeal when you own a home, have a spouse, consider kids, etc.

Really depends on your alternatives. There's a pretty good chance that if you prioritize staying local and being near family you just shouldn't go to law school. And that's totally fine; a lot of people shouldn't go to law school. But don't justify going to the crappy local school/not retaking the LSAT because of the damn kids who won't get off your lawn.

Going to a low ranking law school wasn't even a contender for me, but I agree with what you're saying if that is being considered by other applicants. I agree that there are minimal opportunities for advancement for someone who forgoes a good school for one of limited recognition and ranking solely to stay close to home. That said, I do believe that location, access to family, and debt are very serious and important considerations, particularly for those with a family or wanting to soon start a family.