PSA: Borrowing is GOOD Forum

[A. Nony Mouse]

Actually, I think when PI comes up there's actually quite a bit of debate over whether it's best to take the debt for the best shot at prestigious jobs and good LRAP coverage, or to go debt-free, and it depends a lot on what the person wants to do. It also depends on how realistic the person is about wanting to do a particular PI path. I don't think there's a cookie cutter answer for PI stuff, honestly.

[stego]

Why is Ben Carson trolling TLS?

[Danger Zone]

My job as a lawyer isn't glamorous but it sure as fuck beats being a 45 year old barista.

[wolf]

Georgetown JD and National Security Law LLM here. I had a 50% ride but was married with kids. I took out max loans adjusted for family status every semester for a total of $270K. I was able to graduate law school with 100K in my savings account from the excess loans and my 2L summer at BigLaw.

Prior to law school, I was in law enforcement and always intended on being a prosecutor and had no desire to be in BigLaw. I graduated with my JD and enrolled in the LLM program while awaiting BAR results. I started my job as a prosecutor in my home state just 13 days after graduating with my LLM. My starting ADA salary was $74K and Georgetown makes my $287 loan payment as part of their LRAP program. They will pay 100% of my loan payment until I make $87K, which will be in year 5. Then they will phase out payments up to a maximum of $120K in salary. At most, I will have to pay back $20K of the $270K I borrowed when PSLF forgives my loans.

I choose Georgetown over regional schools with a full ride because of IBR/PAYE and PSLF. It was objectively the smart decision with minimal risk.

[rpupkin]

Georgetown JD and National Security Law LLM here. I had a 50% ride but was married with kids. I took out max loans adjusted for family status every semester for a total of $270K. I was able to graduate law school with 100K in my savings account from the excess loans and my 2L summer at BigLaw.

Prior to law school, I was in law enforcement and always intended on being a prosecutor and had no desire to be in BigLaw. I graduated with my JD and enrolled in the LLM program while awaiting BAR results. I started my job as a prosecutor in my home state just 13 days after graduating with my LLM. My starting ADA salary was $74K and Georgetown makes my $287 loan payment as part of their LRAP program. They will pay 100% of my loan payment until I make $87K, which will be in year 5. Then they will phase out payments up to a maximum of $120K in salary. At most, I will have to pay back $20K of the $270K I borrowed when PSLF forgives my loans.

I choose Georgetown over regional schools with a full ride because of IBR/PAYE and PSLF. It was objectively the smart decision with minimal risk.

God, I hate this misuse of "objectively." This all worked out for you because (a) you got a job a prosecutor, and (b) you like working as a prosecutor. That's great for you (really, it is), but I think it's hard for most law school applicants to know in advance that both a & b will work out for them--i.e., that they will get the job they want and that they will like that job once they're actually working in it. That's why these choices entail more than "minimal risk."

[baal hadad]

l.
But let's say an applicant has a 168 (after 3 retakes) and a 3.6 and gets into NYC Law and will graduate with $200,000 in debt.

Fully financed NYU is like $300,000 now duder

[BigZuck]

It's probably just because I have my head shoved way too far up the hive but when I read people's criticisms of what the on topics are generally like I almost never know what they're talking about. PI paths are often unfairly judged by the big law standard of you'll hate the job so just sock away as much money as possible? Wtf? I probably read more on topic threads than anyone besides Nony and I don't think I've ever seen anyone say that before.

These threads are almost always weird to me but I'm sure it's my problem and not people having a weird axe to grind and/or reading comprehension issues.

[Barack O'Drama]

l.
But let's say an applicant has a 168 (after 3 retakes) and a 3.6 and gets into NYC Law and will graduate with $200,000 in debt.

Fully financed NYU is like $300,000 now duder

Yeah, I hear ya. I was just thinking what it would be with the average scholarship or something to that effect. I should have said that. And damn, $300,000 is a lot for anything. I'm really dreading making a decision next year when it is likely I will have to choose between T14 for more, or regional w/ $$$. Ideally I will study hard, kill the LSAT, and be able to get a good scholly because the thought of that much debt gives me a panic attack.

[180kickflip]

say you make 30k doing doc review. thats 2500 a month. subtract 17k. you are left with 800. You pay 80$ per month. MAN TALK ABOUT A RUINED FUTURE

Liberal artist majors from college today are going to be making ~30K anyway? Why not take a sticker price gamble (Taxpayer funded) for a chance at 160K salary? You also get to live in the tony Georgetown neighborhood for three years too.

The gamble fails, you go back to your old barista job and stick the 300K bill to the taxpayer...

I think a lot of folks are underestimating the impact that 10% of your income can have when you have a job that pays 40-50K. that $450 a month feels huge when you have a middle class income.

you subtract 1700 from your monthly income first

so that person making 4000-1700=2300 230$ per month

Don't contributions to retirement accounts also get taken out of the equation? I feel like if they had max retirement contributions, a health or childcare savings account, and maybe owned a home or something, people could essentially make 50-60k without owing anything on paye.

[kcdc1]

Don't contributions to retirement accounts also get taken out of the equation? I feel like if they had max retirement contributions, a health or childcare savings account, and maybe owned a home or something, people could essentially make 50-60k without owing anything on paye.

Dear 22-year olds, your lives will become wildly more expensive than you currently expect. Kids cost a ton. If you are making 50k, you will not be in a position to make "max retirement contributions" (i.e., 30% of income). You will be carefully budgeting your income to pay for food and bills and car payments and student loan payments. If youre saving at all, youre budgeting well.

[Johann]

I am making loan payments and have written extensively about this in that thread. The downside risk is greatly mitigated by PAYE. The only thing I quibble with is that law school is the right decision. Law sucks really really bad for smart people. Getting big law is a death knell for using your brain. Smart people who like analysis should be doing business school. Dumb people who want to work in government or do compliance or do shitlaw should do law school. But yeah if you can't make 50k a year, you should probably go to law school no matter what school that means.

[BigZuck]

Can someone walk me through why we should just ignore the looming tax bomb? I'd happily jump aboard the "PAYE is GOAT" thing if I could understand why we shouldn't worry about the tax bomb at the end. Seems to me that would really, really suck to deal with if you were only making like 60Kish (or less) in the years leading up to that.

Seems like a lot of people just say "LOL, don't worry about it, it won't happen." Why should anyone bank on it not happening?

[jbagelboy]

OP is completely missing the point. Aside from the vast psychological and financial drain that accompanies growing negative net worth, they are targeting the wrong constituency for TLS:

PAYE doesn't save the class of persons most at risk from large debt loads at good schools: working at a large firm. Those making $170-200k will still be paying heavy debt loads each year to clear their balance and avoid increases in interest. An attorney at a large firm is exponentially better off without debt, or with low debt, than their peers with six figure plus. The sheer misery of working large firm hours and taking home $4000-5000 less each month than you earn is indescribable; your after tax after loan payment income barely covers a modest QOL in the expensive cities where these jobs are based. PAYE does not save these people. Sticker debt is their doom. They are vastly better off accepting a large scholarship at a school with pretty similar placement to another school with a slightly different commercial magazine rating, or avoiding the profession altogether.

[Barack O'Drama]

Can someone walk me through why we should just ignore the looming tax bomb? I'd happily jump aboard the "PAYE is GOAT" thing if I could understand why we shouldn't worry about the tax bomb at the end. Seems to me that would really, really suck to deal with if you were only making like 60Kish (or less) in the years leading up to that.

Seems like a lot of people just say "LOL, don't worry about it, it won't happen." Why should anyone bank on it not happening?

Yeah I am sort of curious why this is often talked about, but not addressed/analyzed more carefully. I am hoping to get into a top school and focus in PI and use PAYE and all the options available to mitigate high monthly payments for loans. But the thought of having a $100,000+ tax bomb just seems insane. If that's the case, then maybe I'll try to stick it out in big law.

[HYSplease]

The only thing I quibble with is that law school is the right decision. Law sucks really really bad for smart people. Getting big law is a death knell for using your brain. Smart people who like analysis should be doing business school. Dumb people who want to work in government or do compliance or do shitlaw should do law school.

Can you expand on this?? Are you just ragging on big law? Because I'm having trouble believing that most areas of law are not intellectually stimulating.

[baal hadad]

The only thing I quibble with is that law school is the right decision. Law sucks really really bad for smart people. Getting big law is a death knell for using your brain. Smart people who like analysis should be doing business school. Dumb people who want to work in government or do compliance or do shitlaw should do law school.

Can you expand on this?? Are you just ragging on big law? Because I'm having trouble believing that most areas of law are not intellectually stimulating.

What is so hard to believe about this

[lymenheimer]

The only thing I quibble with is that law school is the right decision. Law sucks really really bad for smart people. Getting big law is a death knell for using your brain. Smart people who like analysis should be doing business school. Dumb people who want to work in government or do compliance or do shitlaw should do law school.

Can you expand on this?? Are you just ragging on big law? Because I'm having trouble believing that most areas of law are not intellectually stimulating.

What is so hard to believe about this

A 0L and also the author of this thread: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 6#p9323156

[jbagelboy]

The only thing I quibble with is that law school is the right decision. Law sucks really really bad for smart people. Getting big law is a death knell for using your brain. Smart people who like analysis should be doing business school. Dumb people who want to work in government or do compliance or do shitlaw should do law school.

Can you expand on this?? Are you just ragging on big law? Because I'm having trouble believing that most areas of law are not intellectually stimulating.

I am sorry that you are having so much trouble. Trust me though, it will become easier to understand soon.

[180kickflip]

Don't contributions to retirement accounts also get taken out of the equation? I feel like if they had max retirement contributions, a health or childcare savings account, and maybe owned a home or something, people could essentially make 50-60k without owing anything on paye.

Dear 22-year olds, your lives will become wildly more expensive than you currently expect. Kids cost a ton. If you are making 50k, you will not be in a position to make "max retirement contributions" (i.e., 30% of income). You will be carefully budgeting your income to pay for food and bills and car payments and student loan payments. If youre saving at all, youre budgeting well.

Everyone's circumstances are different, so while many new parents making 50-60k/yr won't be able to max retirement contributions, some will (me for example). Really though, I just wanted to highlight the impact that deductions could have on expected monthly payments under paye.

So, let me clarify..assuming someone budgeted very well and was in the fortunate position to be able to afford maxing retirement contributions while only earning 60k, wouldnt it be possible for them to deduct their retirement, an HSA, and maybe a house payment or something to end up owing $0 under paye?

[pterodactyls]

Can someone walk me through why we should just ignore the looming tax bomb? I'd happily jump aboard the "PAYE is GOAT" thing if I could understand why we shouldn't worry about the tax bomb at the end. Seems to me that would really, really suck to deal with if you were only making like 60Kish (or less) in the years leading up to that.

Seems like a lot of people just say "LOL, don't worry about it, it won't happen." Why should anyone bank on it not happening?

Yeah I am sort of curious why this is often talked about, but not addressed/analyzed more carefully. I am hoping to get into a top school and focus in PI and use PAYE and all the options available to mitigate high monthly payments for loans. But the thought of having a $100,000+ tax bomb just seems insane. If that's the case, then maybe I'll try to stick it out in big law.

It's worth noting for PI that loans forgiven under PSLF (if you work 10 years in the public sector) are not supposed to be taxed. So in theory there wouldn't be a tax bomb if you completed PSLF.

[HYSplease]

The only thing I quibble with is that law school is the right decision. Law sucks really really bad for smart people. Getting big law is a death knell for using your brain. Smart people who like analysis should be doing business school. Dumb people who want to work in government or do compliance or do shitlaw should do law school.

Can you expand on this?? Are you just ragging on big law? Because I'm having trouble believing that most areas of law are not intellectually stimulating.

I am sorry that you are having so much trouble. Trust me though, it will become easier to understand soon.

Thank you for the three very helpful responses guys. Also not sure why linking to a post asking about law school and practicing invalidates my question, I haven't applied yet and I'm trying to get as much information as possible before making a decision.

Does anyone on TLS want to offer more than a passive aggressive answer to my original question? The law classes I have sat in on, the cases I have reviewed and debated in class, and the trials I have observed were all intellectually stimulating (and trial seemed fairly exciting and fast-paced for the prosecutor). I loved my constitutional law class because of how complex and intricate the decisions were, and I don't think that's something "dumb people" are attracted to. So again, is your comment regarding law sucking for smart people only applicable to biglaw?

[Danger Zone]

Because practice is nothing like law school.

[jbagelboy]

The only thing I quibble with is that law school is the right decision. Law sucks really really bad for smart people. Getting big law is a death knell for using your brain. Smart people who like analysis should be doing business school. Dumb people who want to work in government or do compliance or do shitlaw should do law school.

Can you expand on this?? Are you just ragging on big law? Because I'm having trouble believing that most areas of law are not intellectually stimulating.

I am sorry that you are having so much trouble. Trust me though, it will become easier to understand soon.

Thank you for the three very helpful responses guys. Also not sure why linking to a post asking about law school and practicing invalidates my question, I haven't applied yet and I'm trying to get as much information as possible before making a decision.

Does anyone on TLS want to offer more than a passive aggressive answer to my original question? The law classes I have sat in on, the cases I have reviewed and debated in class, and the trials I have observed were all intellectually stimulating (and trial seemed fairly exciting and fast-paced for the prosecutor). I loved my constitutional law class because of how complex and intricate the decisions were, and I don't think that's something "dumb people" are attracted to. So again, is your comment regarding law sucking for smart people only applicable to biglaw?

sounds like you may enjoy being a law student or a law professor. doesn't mean you'll enjoy being a lawyer.

[emkay625]

The only thing I quibble with is that law school is the right decision. Law sucks really really bad for smart people. Getting big law is a death knell for using your brain. Smart people who like analysis should be doing business school. Dumb people who want to work in government or do compliance or do shitlaw should do law school.

Can you expand on this?? Are you just ragging on big law? Because I'm having trouble believing that most areas of law are not intellectually stimulating.

I am sorry that you are having so much trouble. Trust me though, it will become easier to understand soon.

Thank you for the three very helpful responses guys. Also not sure why linking to a post asking about law school and practicing invalidates my question, I haven't applied yet and I'm trying to get as much information as possible before making a decision.

Does anyone on TLS want to offer more than a passive aggressive answer to my original question? The law classes I have sat in on, the cases I have reviewed and debated in class, and the trials I have observed were all intellectually stimulating (and trial seemed fairly exciting and fast-paced for the prosecutor). I loved my constitutional law class because of how complex and intricate the decisions were, and I don't think that's something "dumb people" are attracted to. So again, is your comment regarding law sucking for smart people only applicable to biglaw?

1. "The law classes I have sat in on": If you're talking about classes you went to when you visited a school, you should know up front that the admissions office will have sent you to the best/most engaging prof at the school. That will be an atypical prof.

2. "The cases I have reviewed and debated in class": If you're talking about an undergrad con law course, you should know right now that you will not be practicing con law. Con law is way more interesting than all of your other classes combined, and even appellate lawyers don't really practice con law.

3. "The trials I have observed were all intellectually stimulating": Even a prosecutor will rarely go to trial. Most of the job of a prosecutor will be executing plea agreements.

4. Other con law comment: See above. Yeah, reading con law cases can be interesting, but that's not what you'll be doing as a lawyer.

5. I think being a lawyer kind of sucks, no matter what the job is. Sometimes it can be very fulfilling. But most of the time it is boring. TBH, if being a lawyer was like law school, it'd be pretty great. I, too, didn't mind the reading all that much and liked class discussions. But that's just nothing what being a lawyer is actually like. Being a law professor is a different story.

6. Generally speaking, when you insult one poster on TLS, you're not going to get friendly responses from other folks either. And the thread that was posted for you has good insight. Don't be rude and then expect people to help you.

[Johann]

The only thing I quibble with is that law school is the right decision. Law sucks really really bad for smart people. Getting big law is a death knell for using your brain. Smart people who like analysis should be doing business school. Dumb people who want to work in government or do compliance or do shitlaw should do law school.

Can you expand on this?? Are you just ragging on big law? Because I'm having trouble believing that most areas of law are not intellectually stimulating.

I am sorry that you are having so much trouble. Trust me though, it will become easier to understand soon.

Thank you for the three very helpful responses guys. Also not sure why linking to a post asking about law school and practicing invalidates my question, I haven't applied yet and I'm trying to get as much information as possible before making a decision.

Does anyone on TLS want to offer more than a passive aggressive answer to my original question? The law classes I have sat in on, the cases I have reviewed and debated in class, and the trials I have observed were all intellectually stimulating (and trial seemed fairly exciting and fast-paced for the prosecutor). I loved my constitutional law class because of how complex and intricate the decisions were, and I don't think that's something "dumb people" are attracted to. So again, is your comment regarding law sucking for smart people only applicable to biglaw?

I will write you a 3 paragraph response when I leave work tonight at 3-4 am.