Why do people find sticker price at T2 schools acceptable? Forum

[FunkyJD]

is this a serious question? Because if it is, the answer is simple. Not everyone scores highly on the LSAT giving them the option of attending a T1 school. A T2 school turns into their best bet...and many T2 schools are difficult to get in even with a decent LSAT score. Paying sticker for a T2 school would be a better option than receiving money from a T3 school.

I find a lot of people on this forum are a bit snotty when it comes to people applying outside of the T1 arena. Get over it people...not everyone scores in the 160's+ range on their LSAT. Geez.

i disagree with this statement

+1. I would take a full ride to Syracuse or Howard over 1/2 tuition from a lot of Tier 2's.

[junelsat]

What range of rankings are considered tier 2 schools?

[FunkyJD]

What range of rankings are considered tier 2 schools?

51-100.

Some would say 14-100. Ignore them.

[98234872348]

[strike]51[/strike]52-100.

FTFM

[FunkyJD]

[strike]51[/strike]52-100.

FTFM

Haha ... tbf, in most cases, the difference in quality and prospects between the lower half of tier 1 is pretty much indistinguishable from the upper half of tier 2. To state the obvious, if you wanted to practice in Florida, choosing BYU over Florida because of BYU's Tier 1 ranking would be absurd.

[98234872348]

[strike]51[/strike]52-100.

FTFM

Haha ... tbf, in most cases, the difference in quality and prospects between the lower half of tier 1 is pretty much indistinguishable from the upper half of tier 2. To state the obvious, if you wanted to practice in Florida, choosing BYU over Florida because of BYU's Tier 1 ranking would be absurd.

*knows, but is still distraught*

[Bulls]

I think you should look at tier 2's on a case by case basis.

For example if someone does not get into U of Illinois, the next best option is Chicago-Kent.

Or if someone does not get into UF, U of Miami is the next best option (I know FSU is cheaper, but UM offers better prospects)

Or Temple/Villanova - both are good (one is cheaper, but the other is easily tied in all ways but price)

There are plenty of examples.

True their are some iffy ones like Penn State charging private schoolish tuition or Loyola (any location) or low ranking NYC schools.

Even the low ranking NYC schools - if someone wants to practice in NY (and no one can convince them of otherwise - it is their best shot at working in NYC unless they get into a higher ranked school in NYC.

There are rational reasons for choosing almost any of the "Top 100" and many of the Tier 3/4s.

I understand that you question was referring to sticker price, but not everyone can score 170 on the LSAT and even then - there are are reasons to stay (family, significant others, market preferences, etc.)

I don't think paying sticker at any school - including HYS - is worth it.

UM might have better prospects for the top 5% but I feel FSU is a much better value

[BruinsFan]

When you post a poll, though, which reads T2 @ sticker or local T3 1/2 or 2/3 or full tuition... most people will vote for the T2 at sticker.

Although, the argument could be made that it's the better of two bad decisions.

[Mattalones]

What range of rankings are considered tier 2 schools?

51-100.

Some would say 14-100. Ignore them.

Others would say 4-100 ... Ignore them even more!

When you post a poll, though, which reads T2 @ sticker or local T3 1/2 or 2/3 or full tuition... most people will vote for the T2 at sticker.

Although, the argument could be made that it's the better of two bad decisions.

Two bad decisions? Depending on someone's goals and options, a free law degree is very far from a "bad decision."

[blsingindisguise]

I think people misunderstand the anti-T2 sentiment as "snobbishness" when it's largely just pragmatism. The job market is just atrocious for T2 grads right now so it's very hard to justify going $200K into debt for no guarantee of a job at all and a strong possibility of starting at 50K or less

[Mattalones]

I think people misunderstand the anti-T2 sentiment as "snobbishness" when it's largely just pragmatism. The job market is just atrocious for T2 grads right now so it's very hard to justify going $200K into debt for no guarantee of a job at all and a strong possibility of starting at 50K or less

Anti-T2ism was around far before the recession ... It has deep roots in snobbiness!

[blsingindisguise]

I think people misunderstand the anti-T2 sentiment as "snobbishness" when it's largely just pragmatism. The job market is just atrocious for T2 grads right now so it's very hard to justify going $200K into debt for no guarantee of a job at all and a strong possibility of starting at 50K or less

Anti-T2ism was around far before the recession ... It has deep roots in snobbiness!

If it does, who cares? The important thing is to make a rational decision about your future.

[afterglow99]

Because the LSAT is, at best, a mediocre prediction of 1L grades and ability to successfully practice law. This whole BS thrown around here over how "you have a 90% shot of not making the top 10% of the class" isn't true. If you know your strengths, work ethic, etc there's nothing wrong with going to a T2 and banking on doing well. Law school exams are way easier than the LSAT anyway.

[Mattalones]

I think people misunderstand the anti-T2 sentiment as "snobbishness" when it's largely just pragmatism. The job market is just atrocious for T2 grads right now so it's very hard to justify going $200K into debt for no guarantee of a job at all and a strong possibility of starting at 50K or less

Anti-T2ism was around far before the recession ... It has deep roots in snobbiness!

If it does, who cares? The important thing is to make a rational decision about your future.

+1

[ggocat]

is this a serious question? Because if it is, the answer is simple. Not everyone scores highly on the LSAT giving them the option of attending a T1 school. A T2 school turns into their best bet...and many T2 schools are difficult to get in even with a decent LSAT score. Paying sticker for a T2 school would be a better option than receiving money from a T3 school.

I find a lot of people on this forum are a bit snotty when it comes to people applying outside of the T1 arena. Get over it people...not everyone scores in the 160's+ range on their LSAT. Geez.

i disagree with this statement

+1.

+2.

Some light reading on the subject: William D. Henderson & Andrew P. Morriss, What Rankings Don't Say About Costly Choices, Nat'l L.J., Apr. 14, 2008, available at http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... hbxlogin=1

Some more dense reading: William D. Henderson & Andrew P. Morriss, Student Quality as Measured by LSAT Scores: Migration Patterns in the U.S. News Rankings Era, 81 Ind. L.J. 163 (2006), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=720122.

Quotes from the latter:

The presence of a segmented market is readily illustrated by examining the relationship between average student loan debt and the change in median LSAT scores. Average student loan debt was the only independent variable that was unequivocally important for both the top (Quartile 1) and bottom (Quartiles 2-4) of the law school hierarchy. However, within these two markets, the relationship between debt and LSAT scores was completely different. For schools in Quartiles 2-4, lower student loan indebtedness was associated with gains in median LSAT. This relationship makes intuitive sense: all else being equal, students with marginally higher LSAT scores will prefer law schools that will saddle them with lower total debt. This gives schools with lower costs an advantage in recruiting these students. In contrast, in Quartile I, higher student loan debt was associated with increases in median LSAT scores. This change probably reflects an underlying relationship between tolerance for debt and job prospects following graduation.

Id. at 186.

A law degree is a substantial financial investment that imposes a significant opportunity cost on students. The results of our study suggest that students tend to rationally approach this important career decision. Elite law schools enjoy inelastic demand for their services because the high tuition they charge is typically outweighed by the better employment options that their graduates enjoy upon graduation. However, this tradeoff changes dramatically as a student's best admissions offers come from law schools further the down the U.S. News hierarchy. In some cases, it makes more economic sense to forgo admission to a Tier 1 school in favor of a Tier 2 school that feeds into a vibrant legal market. Similarly, other students admitted to the same Tier 2 law school may forgo that option in favor a Tier 3 public law school that offers in-state tuition and a scholarship. In the eyes of that student, the prestige payoff of a Tier 2 school is just too speculative to justify additional student loans.

Id. at 197.

[FunkyJD]

Excellent post. I want to read those articles.

[keg411]

It's too dependent on a) the price of the school (for instance in-state public >>> expensive private) b) the location of the school, and c) where the person wants to live/work.

For instance, it would be dumb for someone who wants to work in Florida to go to a school like IU-B (a T1) over UF @ in-state sticker (CHEAP + cheap COL) just because IU-B is a T1 and UF is a T2.

[Mattalones]

It's funny that some people actually need an article like that to see this when paying sticker at TT - TTTT:

Debt: upwards of 200K
Reasonable salary for paying off 200K < $100,000
Likely salary: 50K

... likely an unreasonable discussion.

Although, I am not published on this topic, so some people are bound to ignore it.

It's too dependent on a) the price of the school (for instance in-state public >>> expensive private) b) the location of the school, and c) where the person wants to live/work.

For instance, it would be dumb for someone who wants to work in Florida to go to a school like IU-B (a T1) over UF @ in-state sticker (CHEAP + cheap COL) just because IU-B is a T1 and UF is a T2.

The most relavent things are
1) How much debt (lots of variable one this, right)
2) Pay after graduation (also on this, again)

But, its good to keep your eyes on the prize.

[blsingindisguise]

Because the LSAT is, at best, a mediocre prediction of 1L grades and ability to successfully practice law. This whole BS thrown around here over how "you have a 90% shot of not making the top 10% of the class" isn't true. If you know your strengths, work ethic, etc there's nothing wrong with going to a T2 and banking on doing well. Law school exams are way easier than the LSAT anyway.

Yes the LSAT is an IMPERFECT predictor of success. But let's take the LSAT completely out of it and imagine a school where everyone comes in with the same score. You may "know your strengths" but what you don't know is the strengths of your classmates. Most of the people coming in to a T2 law school will have been reasonably strong students with reasonable intelligence.

Whether law school exams are "easier" than the LSAT is irrelevant, because they're CURVED. The only thing that matters is how you stack up against your peers, and honestly unless you're coming in with either an extra-high UGPA or an extra-high LSAT, and preferably both, you have no basis to predict that you'll do better than 90% of classmates and might as well be rolling the dice.

[Mattalones]

unless you're coming in with either an extra-high UGPA or an extra-high LSAT ... you have no basis to predict that you'll do better than 90% of classmates ...

Thus, the only two predictors for LS performance are LSAT and UGPA.

It's a good thing we cleared that up. I thought life circumstances during law school might have had a card in the deck too.

... Let's see. Swim? Swammi? Slippy? Slappy? Swenson? Swanson? ...
... Samsonite! I was way off! (This discovery makes me relate to how Lloyd must have felt here).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4ev-BtPMM8

[blsingindisguise]

unless you're coming in with either an extra-high UGPA or an extra-high LSAT ... you have no basis to predict that you'll do better than 90% of classmates ...

Thus, the only two predictors for LS performance are LSAT and UGPA.

It's a good thing we cleared that up. I thought life circumstances during law school might have had a card in the deck too.

Well look, if you have, say, three years of work experience in a very demanding job I'm sure that gives you an edge too, but you have no basis for evaluating how much of an edge unless you know what percent of your class has work experience. It's all about how many of your classmates you can beat, not just what you think you know about yourself.

[FunkyJD]

I will repeat what the Dean of Admissions at Illinois has said before: Many times, some kids who matric at Illinois with sub-median LSATs end up graduating in the top 10% of their class. And I doubt that this situation is unique to Illinois.

You can assume that you'll finish at median at law school, and nothing more. If you do better, great -- but assuming anything more is setting yourself up to has a sad.

[blsingindisguise]

I will repeat what the Dean of Admissions at Illinois has said before: Many times, some kids who matric at Illinois with sub-median LSATs end up graduating in the top 10% of their class. And I doubt that this situation is unique to Illinois.

You can assume that you'll finish at median at law school, and nothing more. If you do better, great -- but assuming anything more is setting yourself up to has a sad.

Of course it happens, and of course it happens regularly. But it does not happen on a statistically high enough level that anyone should take on 200K thinking it will happen to him but with no real basis to think so.

[gulceatransfer]

Simple.
1) Most can't get into a T-1, but can get into T-2.
2) Many that can get in at a T-1 don't live (or want to live) where they might be accepted.
3) Many don't live (or want to live) where a TTT may be offering scholarship.
4) People seeking to practice law typically want to get the best possible education in order to do so.

To say that paying sticker is an inherently bad idea for a T-2 over the course of 30-40 year career (even assuming a class ranking outside top-10%), is much too broad of a brush to paint the picture. The reality is that the majority of graduates at T-2 will go on to have successful careers, even if they might make less coming out of the gate than someone attending a T-1 and may have more debt that if they attended a TTT or lower.

[soullesswonder]

Simple.
1) Most can't get into a T-1, but can get into T-2.
2) Many that can get in at a T-1 don't live (or want to live) where they might be accepted.
3) Many don't live (or want to live) where a TTT may be offering scholarship.
4) People seeking to practice law typically want to get the best possible education in order to do so.

To say that paying sticker is an inherently bad idea for a T-2 over the course of 30-40 year career (even assuming a class ranking outside top-10%), is much too broad of a brush to paint the picture. The reality is that the majority of graduates at T-2 will go on to have successful careers, even if they might make less coming out of the gate than someone attending a T-1 and may have more debt that if they attended a TTT or lower.

2 and 3 are just dumb (you're going for an education and there are enough law schools in this country that you should have no problem finding a T1 or TTT close by to anyone important in your life. 4 is also dumb since even the profs at TTT schools have terrific credentials. Aside from some "practical" aspects of the curriculum such as clinics and LRW, there is very little difference in the quality of the education - and in a narrow sense some lower-ranked schools might be "better" b/c their emphasis on black letter law is more useful to a young associate than some seminar on "Law and the gender dynamics of Twilight"