Why Biglaw? Forum

[Tiago Splitter]

It's as if Dean Perez is still blissfully unaware of the bimodal salary distribution or the serious shortage of jobs for entry level lawyers.

Fewer than 60% of the class of 2012 was in a job requiring bar passage nine months out. Many of those jobs are school funded or pay less than what the individual could be making had he skipped law school and stayed on as a waiter. Of the jobs worth having, I'd estimate that at least a third are in large firms.

[Mal Reynolds]

It's as if Dean Perez is still blissfully unaware of the bimodal salary distribution or the serious shortage of jobs for entry level lawyers.

Fewer than 60% of the class of 2012 was in a job requiring bar passage nine months out. Many of those jobs are school funded or pay less than what the individual could be making had he skipped law school and stayed on as a waiter. Of the jobs worth having, I'd estimate that at least a third are in large firms.

This is the point my sarcasm was directed towards earlier.

[SPerez]

The debt/income thing is totally a legit reason to me. My next question, though, is usually how about not taking on the debt in the first place? I thought that the tuition increases and application decreases of the last few years would lead to more people choosing the lower ranked regional school with a big scholarship over the higher ranked school. This seems like a no brainer in most cases in the top 50, even lower in some regions. But what it seems like many students are doing is looking at the tough hiring market and "doubling down" on prestige, presumably on the idea that only students at higher ranked schools are getting jobs.

Usually, if you're at the top of your incoming class's stats, you should (in theory) do pretty well, make law review, etc.; all the things that lead to good (often very good) jobs from the lower ranked regional schools. Chances are you end up in a similar job, only with less debt. This does beg the eternal question of which is better, bottom of the class at a higher ranked school or top of the class at a higher ranked school, of course. I get that. Plus, you never really know how well or poorly you're going to do and I can't get mad at someone for having confidence in themselves and thinking they will do well at the higher ranked school. There are always those that outperform their stats (as well as those that underperform).

I get the early offer thing. I hadn't really thought about it that way. I can also understand the "Take the money and run" option, as a means to an end. I suppose that's a generational mindset shift that has been happening for a while now. I had a few friends that went that route. Did Biglaw for 3 years or so, paid off everything, then bolted the first chance they got.

I apologize for my lack of search-fu skills. I searched various things and while I found posts here and there, I didn't find a dedicated thread.

[banjo]

I get the early offer thing. I hadn't really thought about it that way.

That's a huge deal to me (1L at CCN). I didn't want to graduate unemployed and hope that I'd land a small firm job. Looking for work in 3L spring also means I have to worry a lot about grades during 2L and 3L year. That's a lot of extra stress for me.

[Paul Campos]

Per a new study by the New America foundation, the median educational debt incurred by 2012 law school graduates with such debt was $140,000. The 75th percentile was $193,000.

Saying that students shouldn't incur this sort of debt is tantamount to saying that most people who are going to law school shouldn't go to law school. Telling individuals to take lower-cost options ignores that such options aren't available to most law students, because the financial structure of legal education in America requires the large majority of current law students to incur six figures of educational debt. If they didn't, law schools as they're currently constituted couldn't operate.

[Instinctive]

For me at least, it seems like a great way to gain a ton of experience quickly, during a time in my life where I'm not worried about having a family. I'm not looking at Biglaw to be a partner. I'm open to the possibility I guess, but I'm really looking at it as a quick way to pay of loans with some tangential benefits. Seems worth the pain to me, and then some.

What kind of experience do you think you will at a big firm? What kind of experience are you looking to get?

My situation isn't exactly applicable to the majority of TLS. Not sure you'd find much value delving into it. Feel free to PM if you're truly that interested.

[IAFG]

Yeah big firms are shit on the experience front. Seems like the smaller the firm, the better the experience juniors are getting.

[bk1]

My next question, though, is usually how about not taking on the debt in the first place? I thought that the tuition increases and application decreases of the last few years would lead to more people choosing the lower ranked regional school with a big scholarship over the higher ranked school. This seems like a no brainer in most cases in the top 50, even lower in some regions. But what it seems like many students are doing is looking at the tough hiring market and "doubling down" on prestige, presumably on the idea that only students at higher ranked schools are getting jobs.

Going to a lower ranked school usually comes with it a lower chance of being a lawyer. So while your debt burden is reduced, there is now a smaller chance that the thing you actually went to law school for (to become a lawyer) will actually happen. And I don't literally mean lower ranked because there often isn't much difference between a 30th ranked school and the 50th ranked school (OSU at 31 has a 162 LSAT median and Baylor at 51 has a 161 LSAT median) so it's not like you're going to get significantly different scholarships between these types of peer schools. I mean schools that are legitimately in different peer groups.

Usually, if you're at the top of your incoming class's stats, you should (in theory) do pretty well, make law review, etc.; all the things that lead to good (often very good) jobs from the lower ranked regional schools. Chances are you end up in a similar job, only with less debt. This does beg the eternal question of which is better, bottom of the class at a higher ranked school or top of the class at a higher ranked school, of course. I get that. Plus, you never really know how well or poorly you're going to do and I can't get mad at someone for having confidence in themselves and thinking they will do well at the higher ranked school. There are always those that outperform their stats (as well as those that underperform).

I think a lot of people disagree with this line of thinking. Generally the logic goes that you could go to a lower ranked school to get a higher chance at doing well but the difference in placement power between schools will be greater than the placement power gained through a higher class ranking.

[SPerez]

I feel like DPerez is pretty disingenuous. He's feeding into this mentality that you should just be a lawyer for some intangible reason like experience/knowledge or some public service job.

Shocker, yes, I have to respond to this.

I'm not being disingenuous at all. I'm not saying never Biglaw. I'm saying know why Biglaw before you base your law school decisions on that as the end goal. A major reason so many JD's leave the practice is, I think, because they didn't really research what the day-to-day practice of law is really like. I was in that boat, except for the practicing law part. My story is a "do as I say, not as I did" situation. I didn't go to law school knowing that I wanted to practice law and having only a vague notion of what the practice was like from a year working as the runner for Baker Botts in Houston. I was lucky that UT was $7,700 /yr when I started in 2001, and I didn't have any debt from undergrad. If I was thinking about law today I don't know what I would have done, but if I still decided to go to law school I hope I wouldn't take on 100+k of debt.

. And yet only 50-60% of his graduates are employed in ANY legal job 9 months out.

This thread, like my general presence on TLS, isn't trolling for my school. However, your range is a little misleading so I'll post the specific stats. The complete ABA reports are online.

Class of 2011, FT/LT/Bar Required: 63.5%
Class of 2012, FT/LT/Bar Required: 61.8%
Class of 2013, FT/LT/Bar Required: 59.8%

Other "legal" jobs - short term or PT also requiring bar passage - would add to those numbers a little. Not defending the numbers or trying to portray them as really awesome. Just needed to give the actual range.

[shifty_eyed]

If I was thinking about law today I don't know what I would have done, but if I still decided to go to law school I hope I wouldn't take on 100+k of debt.

That's how much someone who gets a half scholarship in-state at Tech will take on. Do you feel hypocritical for trying to lure students into attending your school at that cost?
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... osts/2013/

And the majority of students (~2/3) at Tech pay sticker, it seems.

http://www.law.ttu.edu/prospective/fina ... olarships/

[09042014]

If I was thinking about law today I don't know what I would have done, but if I still decided to go to law school I hope I wouldn't take on 100+k of debt.

That's how much someone who gets a half scholarship in-state at Tech will take on. Do you feel hypocritical for trying to lure students into attending your school at that cost?
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... osts/2013/

And the majority of students (~2/3) at Tech pay sticker, it seems.

http://www.law.ttu.edu/prospective/fina ... olarships/

[Mal Reynolds]

Yes hence my disingenuous comment.

[Rahviveh]

I'm just impressed a distinguished law school dean used "preftige" and "tl;dr".

[BigZuck]

If I was thinking about law today I don't know what I would have done, but if I still decided to go to law school I hope I wouldn't take on 100+k of debt.

That's how much someone who gets a half scholarship in-state at Tech will take on. Do you feel hypocritical for trying to lure students into attending your school at that cost?
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... osts/2013/

And the majority of students (~2/3) at Tech pay sticker, it seems.

http://www.law.ttu.edu/prospective/fina ... olarships/

Tag

[jbagelboy]

I think it's fair to say income plays a huge role, and not just for covering student loan debt. Remember big law imputes more than just starting salary. Relative to almost any other career, legal or otherwise, snagging a market paying job at a large law firm, especially a V100, leads to enormous increases to projected lifetime income. I can't quantify the exact variables that make this so - it may be superior exit options, or that absurd partner profits negate the bottom dwelling dropouts, or that the rest of America that's not in finance or tech is bleeding just that badly right now, but every study points to starting in "big law" radically improving salary expectations over the next 30-40 years.

And yes, income matters - not because everyone's a fraud or a corporate parasite or a petit bourgeois trying to claw their way into the upper middle class - but because it grants a certain level of stability and comfort, sufficient to raise a family, that's unavailable to the majority of young Americans right now as a result of the shitty decisions of other generations.

As pathetic and depressing as it sounds, I would make shaping your students to be as attractive to large firms as possible a priority if you want your law school to remain competitive in an increasingly buyer's market for legal education.

[texas man]

If I was thinking about law today I don't know what I would have done, but if I still decided to go to law school I hope I wouldn't take on 100+k of debt.

That's how much someone who gets a half scholarship in-state at Tech will take on. Do you feel hypocritical for trying to lure students into attending your school at that cost?
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... osts/2013/

And the majority of students (~2/3) at Tech pay sticker, it seems.

http://www.law.ttu.edu/prospective/fina ... olarships/

I'm not sure he's trying to "lure students into attending [his] school at that cost." Relative to other schools in Texas (and especially with a little scholarship $$), some applicants today are happier going $100K-$120K in debt vs. $150K-$250K in debt. I can understand, even though he would be hoping not to take on over $100K in debt today, that if someone is dead set on going to law school in Texas, he would point out the cost disparity and employment outcomes among the Texas schools. And from my experience, Dean Perez was always very honest and realistic about costs/debt/employment outcomes with prospective students.

Also, many TTU students get "advanced" scholarships as 2Ls or 3Ls, which aren't reflected in those stats.

[beepboopbeep]

Per a new study by the New America foundation, the median educational debt incurred by 2012 law school graduates with such debt was $140,000. The 75th percentile was $193,000.

Saying that students shouldn't incur this sort of debt is tantamount to saying that most people who are going to law school shouldn't go to law school. Telling individuals to take lower-cost options ignores that such options aren't available to most law students, because the financial structure of legal education in America requires the large majority of current law students to incur six figures of educational debt. If they didn't, law schools as they're currently constituted couldn't operate.

This aspect really makes it feel like a pyramid scheme at times, even if it's not one by the usual definition. Would be interested to see if debt load/grant award correlates with lower starting salary within a particular class, which we'd expect if those at the top of the class coming in tend to get better grades. I can't imagine any school granting access to that kind of data.

On the Biglaw question - from this 1L's perspective, it definitely feels like the only option, even with less than sticker debt. PI seems so much more competitive for a much shakier financial future, and while I'd prefer to do that kind of work, my preference isn't as strong as those who REALLY only want to do PI/Gov stuff (who now seem to be reconsidering doing OCI, in droves). Biglaw is definitely a path of least resistance and I can't yet shake the special snowflake feeling of, "well, if 50% are gone by year 5, 50% are still there..."

[Mal Reynolds]

If I was thinking about law today I don't know what I would have done, but if I still decided to go to law school I hope I wouldn't take on 100+k of debt.

That's how much someone who gets a half scholarship in-state at Tech will take on. Do you feel hypocritical for trying to lure students into attending your school at that cost?
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... osts/2013/

And the majority of students (~2/3) at Tech pay sticker, it seems.

http://www.law.ttu.edu/prospective/fina ... olarships/

I'm not sure he's trying to "lure students into attending [his] school at that cost." Relative to other schools in Texas (and especially with a little scholarship $$), some applicants today are happier going $100K-$120K in debt vs. $150K-$250K in debt. I can understand, even though he would be hoping not to take on over $100K in debt today, that if someone is dead set on going to law school in Texas, he would point out the cost disparity and employment outcomes among the Texas schools. And from my experience, Dean Perez was always very honest and realistic about costs/debt/employment outcomes with prospective students.

Also, many TTU students get "advanced" scholarships as 2Ls or 3Ls, which aren't reflected in those stats.

LOL SHILL ALERT

[shifty_eyed]

If I was thinking about law today I don't know what I would have done, but if I still decided to go to law school I hope I wouldn't take on 100+k of debt.

That's how much someone who gets a half scholarship in-state at Tech will take on. Do you feel hypocritical for trying to lure students into attending your school at that cost?
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... osts/2013/

And the majority of students (~2/3) at Tech pay sticker, it seems.

http://www.law.ttu.edu/prospective/fina ... olarships/

I'm not sure he's trying to "lure students into attending [his] school at that cost."

You don't think admissions officers try to get students to attend their schools? I don't think, and didn't intend to imply, that he is trying to necessarily drum up business in this thread, but as an admissions officer, he certainly tries to attract students.

[texas man]

If I was thinking about law today I don't know what I would have done, but if I still decided to go to law school I hope I wouldn't take on 100+k of debt.

That's how much someone who gets a half scholarship in-state at Tech will take on. Do you feel hypocritical for trying to lure students into attending your school at that cost?
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... osts/2013/

And the majority of students (~2/3) at Tech pay sticker, it seems.

http://www.law.ttu.edu/prospective/fina ... olarships/

I'm not sure he's trying to "lure students into attending [his] school at that cost." Relative to other schools in Texas (and especially with a little scholarship $$), some applicants today are happier going $100K-$120K in debt vs. $150K-$250K in debt. I can understand, even though he would be hoping not to take on over $100K in debt today, that if someone is dead set on going to law school in Texas, he would point out the cost disparity and employment outcomes among the Texas schools. And from my experience, Dean Perez was always very honest and realistic about costs/debt/employment outcomes with prospective students.

Also, many TTU students get "advanced" scholarships as 2Ls or 3Ls, which aren't reflected in those stats.

LOL SHILL ALERT

Disingenuous?

[SPerez]

Usually, if you're at the top of your incoming class's stats, you should (in theory) do pretty well, make law review, etc.; all the things that lead to good (often very good) jobs from the lower ranked regional schools. Chances are you end up in a similar job, only with less debt. This does beg the eternal question of which is better, bottom of the class at a higher ranked school or top of the class at a higher ranked school, of course. I get that. Plus, you never really know how well or poorly you're going to do and I can't get mad at someone for having confidence in themselves and thinking they will do well at the higher ranked school. There are always those that outperform their stats (as well as those that underperform).

I think a lot of people disagree with this line of thinking. Generally the logic goes that you could go to a lower ranked school to get a higher chance at doing well but the difference in placement power between schools will be greater than the placement power gained through a higher class ranking.

I think you're right. I just go the other way. It would be awesome to have data on this. Unfortunately, all I have is my own anecdotal experience knowing where people I knew at the bottom of the class at UT Law ended up and where the top of the classes at Idaho and here at Texas Tech end up. But that knowledge leads me to my conclusion.

At the end of the day, students are making decisions specific to themselves based on generalized data, which does make it tough. I.e. the fact that X% of students at a school get a certain kind of job or pass the bar isn't the same thing as a specific student having X% chance of same. It can be a tough decision for students that lack a firm direction or answer to "Why law?"

And thanks for your thoughtful, well written responses. Exactly the kind of thing I was hoping for when I started the thread.

[texas man]

If I was thinking about law today I don't know what I would have done, but if I still decided to go to law school I hope I wouldn't take on 100+k of debt.

That's how much someone who gets a half scholarship in-state at Tech will take on. Do you feel hypocritical for trying to lure students into attending your school at that cost?
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... osts/2013/

And the majority of students (~2/3) at Tech pay sticker, it seems.

http://www.law.ttu.edu/prospective/fina ... olarships/

I'm not sure he's trying to "lure students into attending [his] school at that cost."

You don't think admissions officers try to get students to attend their schools? I don't think, and didn't intend to imply, that he is trying to necessarily drum up business in this thread, but as an admissions officer, he certainly tries to attract students.

Of course I think admissions officers try to get students to attend their schools, including Dean Perez. And I don't think it's hypocritical that if he were applying to law school today, he would hope not to go more than $100K in debt, and at the same time he would understand that an applicant dead set on going to law school in Texas might be happier paying a little over $100K vs. a lot more (depending on the school).

[UnicornHunter]

I think the better question is why go to law school at all. BigLaw may be terrible, but for a huge percentage of law students, it's also the only option that can justify the time/cost of going to law school. This is not to say that good non-BigLaw outcomes don't exist, but unless people have a highly specific plan to get one of those outcomes (see: worldtraveller), they're not worth banking on. Basically, LSAC should require every applicant to write an essay on "Don't go to Law School Unless" as part of the LSAT.

[ggocat]

It's stupid to go to law school with the purpose of ending up in biglaw. You should go to end up in the job on the other side of biglaw.

You mean after a couple of years in biglaw?

[wolf]

I am a 2L headed to a biglaw SA in Texas this summer. Honestly, I did not set out to secure employment in biglaw. My initial goal was to just start out as a prosecutor in Houston or Dallas. That is still my exit plan as I do not see myself staying in biglaw more than the three years it will take to pay off my student loan debt.

I actually applied to Texas Tech and the total cost of attendance (COA) was around 60K (I think you guys offered me 17K a year). However, I ended up at Georgetown primarily for two reasons:

(1) Even though the total COA at GULC was 140K, Georgetown had a far superior LRAP to any of the Texas law schools. Most limited your earnings to around $45K. GULC pays 100% of your IBR/PAYE payments if you make less than 75K and if you have dependents, as I do, I can make 84K and still pay nothing. So essentially I could attend GULC for free if I ended up going the prosecutor route. That was a nice safety net, or at least so I thought.

(2) I was really afraid that if I attended any of the law schools in Texas, minus UT of course, that I was running the risk of not landing any full-time legal job. I understand that statistically I should be at the top of my class at a lower ranked school, but I was unwilling to take that chance. Plus it went against the TLS conventional wisdom.

I ultimately chose to go the biglaw route because, as was mentioned before, it is low hanging fruit. The Texas firms showed up to OCI and I landed an offer without much difficulty. Additionally, the idea of having 140K in debt hanging over my head for a decade scared the living daylights out of me. Now that all this talk of capping PSLF has happened, I am thrilled with my decision to pursue biglaw. I have no illusions about what my work life at the firm is going to be like. I simply see it as a means to an end. It gets me out of debt in three years and hopefully I can land an AUSA gig or something at the Texas AG's Office on the way out the door.