I got Biglaw from T2 AND YOU CAN TOO Forum

[moneybagsphd]

The title of this thread, and the OP's posts in it, are a microcosm of what's wrong not only with legal education, but also with higher education in general, and especially with the cultural rhetoric regarding the social problems that more higher ed for everyone is supposed to ameliorate, if not cure.

Individual effort does exactly nothing about structural social problems. For example, what if literally everybody who went to law school did all the right things: studied very hard, networked, "hustled," etc? Would all this exemplary effort create even one more legal job? The message "you can too" is by definition false at the collective level, so people concerned with structural reform are properly dismissive of it, and also rightly concerned about such messages' potentially bad effect on reform efforts.

So, your position is that people like myself should have sacrificed our future goals in the name of "structural change" that would primarily benefit people who were not us.

Does that mean you will be resigning your tenured position soon in support of necessary structural change, or is this a "do as I say, not as I do" situation?

As a Hastings grad who went because it made financial sense and has had a pretty damn good outcome, I really wish you wouldn't try to justify your decision to go there (you did transfer, right?). I would never tell anyone to go to Hastings nowadays, even for for free, because it's a total sinking ship--and for good reason. It's one of DOZENS of CA law schools that need to go under. You face a 10% chance of getting a job that might justify the costs. It is just too damn risky to attend and it baffles me how anyone could justify going there and paying anywhere near sticker. And because it's a UC, no one gets a decent scholarship, so under no circumstances should anyone go there.

Moreover, the CA law school/attorney oversupply is just plain ridiculous at this point and student loan debt is having a disastrous effect on the national economy and our generation. There is no justification than more than a handful of schools in this state, and even that is pushing it.

People who try to justify attending schools like UCH are doing a disservice to everyone.

But I do agree that, while I appreciate Paul Campos's work, I think he is a huge hypocrite. He's literally living off of student loans and taxpayer money. By remaining a prof at a horrendous school, he's part of the problem.

I will take this a step further and say that professors at T14 law schools should be ashamed of themselves for being complicit in a system that forces students into hundreds of thousands of dollars of nondischargeable debt to get a job that in all likelihood they will be miserable doing.

[Johann]

you are so far up your own asshole.

The thing is, you don't really know anything about me.

I had to put myself through community college, working full time, before transferring to a CSU (the UC system was not an option for financial reasons, I had to transfer in 2008 when the state slashed the budget and financial aid became a joke). Even then I still had to carry a full work schedule to make ends meet. I literally had to study for the LSAT on the public transit bus I rode from work to school everyday, because that was the only time I could find a spare 45 minutes. Do you know how hard it is to do a logic games section standing up on a public bus? My first year of law school I demonstrated hardship and worked the 20 hours/week the ABA allowed as a tutor. Despite all of that I still scored in the top 10% of the class, and once I saw how the system worked, I was able to improve my grades further.

But according to posters here, getting through all of that was "just luck, bro,"; and according to BigZuck I should be ashamed of myself; and according to Paul Campos, I should have just taken one for the team so that others who hadn't worked 18 hour days, for years on end, could have an even easier time.

If you cannot understand why this would bother me, then I'm not the one with the problem.

Props to this.

[Mal Reynolds]

Lawhopeful still doesn't understand that people at the top of the class didn't know they would get there and that it still has nothing to do with them deserving to be at the top of the class once they are.

[Johann]

Lawhopeful still doesn't understand that people at the top of the class didn't know they would get there and that it still has nothing to do with them deserving to be at the top of the class once they are.

You never know anything for sure. In life you have to bet on yourself sometimes. Also, the outcomes aren't biglaw or disaster despite what this board preaches. I graduated from a T3 and all of my friends are doing fine. They'd probably be doing fine without lawschool but everybody either makes good money or works in a cush job. And this is 2 years out. 20 years out I'm sure it will be a lot better. It's a long-term investment which everyone seems to forget here. It's really hard to evaluate investments in the early stages.

[Mal Reynolds]

Lawhopeful still doesn't understand that people at the top of the class didn't know they would get there and that it still has nothing to do with them deserving to be at the top of the class once they are.

You never know anything for sure. In life you have to bet on yourself sometimes. Also, the outcomes aren't biglaw or disaster despite what this board preaches. I graduated from a T3 and all of my friends are doing fine. They'd probably be doing fine without lawschool but everybody either makes good money or works in a cush job. And this is 2 years out. 20 years out I'm sure it will be a lot better. It's a long-term investment which everyone seems to forget here. It's really hard to evaluate investments in the early stages.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

How is it wrong? Let's do the risk analysis: I can make $11/hr at starbucks that is $20,000 a year. The government will give me an opportunity where I get about that salary to live on while in school. So there is literally 0 opportunity cost other than the advancement you would make at starbucks - which is close enough to nil to call it nil. 0 opportunity cost and I get a law degree that gives me a 10% chance at making a great salary and 50% chance at getting into the field of law. It's already easy to see the first situation has already lost. Without even examining the investment 20 years down the road when it actually pays off. Even making 50k wins here. Even making 40k wins here. There is almost no way for a person who is unemployed or working fast food or $10/hr to lose in law school.
If you fail, guess what it is just fucking money. The government can't take the money out of your ass. There is no debtor prison. You fail you default. This assumes all of the generous payment plans in existence right now get wiped out.
Based on your risk analysis, you are clearly a puss though. Congrats.

Bolded sounds like someone who does not know what having $200k in debt actually looks like and the deleterious effect it has on your life.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

Lawhopeful still doesn't understand that people at the top of the class didn't know they would get there and that it still has nothing to do with them deserving to be at the top of the class once they are.

Interesting use of the word "deserving." It seems like you maybe feel entitled to grades you didn't get.

Or maybe you're purposefully missing my repeated point that not knowing before law school is very different from knowing once you have grades. I thought $10k and 1 semester was worth the risk, and once you have grades, then you know. If you want to persist in the fantasy that dropping out is somehow not an option, I can't help you with that.

[Mal Reynolds]

Lawhopeful still doesn't understand that people at the top of the class didn't know they would get there and that it still has nothing to do with them deserving to be at the top of the class once they are.

Interesting use of the word "deserving." It seems like you maybe feel entitled to grades you didn't get.

Or maybe you're purposefully missing my repeated point that not knowing before law school is very different from knowing once you have grades. I thought $10k and 1 semester was worth the risk, and once you have grades, then you know. If you want to persist in the fantasy that dropping out is somehow not an option, I can't help you with that.

Your refusal to admit that the timeline and risks you took were more than one semester and $10k make me unable to respond to you substantively anymore for being retarded.

[pancakes3]

How is it wrong? Let's do the risk analysis: I can make $11/hr at starbucks that is $20,000 a year. The government will give me an opportunity where I get about that salary to live on while in school. So there is literally 0 opportunity cost other than the advancement you would make at starbucks - which is close enough to nil to call it nil. 0 opportunity cost and I get a law degree that gives me a 10% chance at making a great salary and 50% chance at getting into the field of law. It's already easy to see the first situation has already lost. Without even examining the investment 20 years down the road when it actually pays off. Even making 50k wins here. Even making 40k wins here. There is almost no way for a person who is unemployed or working fast food or $10/hr to lose in law school.
If you fail, guess what it is just fucking money. The government can't take the money out of your ass. There is no debtor prison. You fail you default. This assumes all of the generous payment plans in existence right now get wiped out.
Based on your risk analysis, you are clearly a puss though. Congrats.

Bolded sounds like someone who does not know what having $200k in debt actually looks like and the deleterious effect it has on your life.

250k at 6% gets you 2700 a month in loan payments. 40k a year leaves you with roughly 2700 take-home but dat risk analysis tho

[84651846190]

How is it wrong? Let's do the risk analysis: I can make $11/hr at starbucks that is $20,000 a year. The government will give me an opportunity where I get about that salary to live on while in school. So there is literally 0 opportunity cost other than the advancement you would make at starbucks - which is close enough to nil to call it nil. 0 opportunity cost and I get a law degree that gives me a 10% chance at making a great salary and 50% chance at getting into the field of law. It's already easy to see the first situation has already lost. Without even examining the investment 20 years down the road when it actually pays off. Even making 50k wins here. Even making 40k wins here. There is almost no way for a person who is unemployed or working fast food or $10/hr to lose in law school.
If you fail, guess what it is just fucking money. The government can't take the money out of your ass. There is no debtor prison. You fail you default. This assumes all of the generous payment plans in existence right now get wiped out.
Based on your risk analysis, you are clearly a puss though. Congrats.

Bolded sounds like someone who does not know what having $200k in debt actually looks like and the deleterious effect it has on your life.

Yep. The #1 problem with law students who go to law school at full sticker price is that they have no concept of how difficult it is to escape from 200k+ of non-dischargeable debt. I work biglaw and still marvel at how difficult it is to pay back my loans, even after Sofi, etc.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Listen, I am NOT saying that finishing at the top of your class is random. I'm saying it's impossible to predict that you will do so with any kind of certainty. You're in a class of your peers, all of whom plan on "working hard" like you do, and you don't know who is more suited to law school exams until they actually happened.

I'm glad somebody got Biglaw at Hastings. But an individual's experience does not change the fact that the risk/benefit calculus for someone paying full freight is disastrous, and that all prospective applicants should be advised to stay away unless they a) Are on a full ride (or very nearly so), b) Understand that they are almost certain to be limited to the Bay Area IF they get a job, c) Have only a coin flip's chance at getting a LT/FT job anyway, with any job significantly more likely to be small-firm and lower-middle-class than large-firm and relatively well-paid, AND d) Have exhausted all other possibilities (RETAKE!) that would make achieving common student goals easier.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

Lawhopeful still doesn't understand that people at the top of the class didn't know they would get there and that it still has nothing to do with them deserving to be at the top of the class once they are.

Interesting use of the word "deserving." It seems like you maybe feel entitled to grades you didn't get.

Or maybe you're purposefully missing my repeated point that not knowing before law school is very different from knowing once you have grades. I thought $10k and 1 semester was worth the risk, and once you have grades, then you know. If you want to persist in the fantasy that dropping out is somehow not an option, I can't help you with that.

Your refusal to admit that the timeline and risks you took were more than one semester and $10k make me unable to respond to you substantively anymore for being retarded.

You never demonstrated a bigger risk. Literally ever. You have no basis for your claim that top 10% at Hastings is somehow more "precarious" for biglaw than going to a place like Georgetown or UVA (unless you have statistics that say being in the top 10% at Hastings gives you less than a 2/3rds shot at biglaw; but you don't have that because no such stat exists).

Also, come on bro, share with us your ideas about who, in your informed opinion, actually deserves those top grades. I'm interested to hear why you didn't get what you think you're entitled to.

[Mal Reynolds]

You never demonstrated a bigger risk. Literally ever. You have no basis for your claim that top 10% at Hastings is somehow more "precarious" for biglaw than going to a place like Georgetown or UVA (unless you have statistics that say being in the top 10% at Hastings gives you less than a 2/3rds shot at biglaw; but you don't have that because no such stat exists).

Also, come on bro, share with us your ideas about who, in your informed opinion, actually deserves those top grades. I'm interested to hear why you didn't get what you think you're entitled to.

What? Why are you trying to bring up my grades? And top 10% at hastings is in a FAR WORSE OFF position than top 10% at the t14. It is hilarious to suggest otherwise.

[BigZuck]

The question of whether law school is right for you is what your alternative options are. I don't get how TLS misses this repeatedly. Most people who go T-2 literally have no other career options. Access to 200k and a chance at a way better life than their alternative is not a bad outcome. Lots of people at T2s are the people who should be the first ones to apply to law school - meaning the people who have high gpas and other options should really examine whether law school is right for them compared to the alternative. If the government is going to give you access to cash to make an investment or gamble on yourself when you are out of options, even if that gamble has a 10% chance of hitting, you aren't doing the math right if you think law school isn't worth going to. A 10% chance at a sitdown desk job making over $100k a year beats the piss out of working at starbucks for $11/hr.

I agree with most that law school is sorta a gamble. But it's still a gamble on yourself that you have some control over. So it's more like poker than roulette. Which guess what, if you graduate from college and have no career options taking out a $200k loan to go play poker in Vegas isnt the dumbest thing in the world. Unfortunately, there aren't many places you can get money to gamble on yourself other than higher education.

The system creates a tension where the best interest of the individual is almost always go to the T2 but the best interest of society is for less people to go into law in general. But still, the advice of all the T-14 people here is very selfish and it's obvious bullshit (esp in situations where people have told long-term unemployed people not working to not go to law school - hell I'd advise that person to go to law school for the living money if nothing else). Their right to the legal education gamble doesn't take priority over someone at Hastings or St. Johns. In fact, they should be the first ones defending themselves because most likely they had the most alternative career paths.

This is flame, yes?

[hoos89]

You never demonstrated a bigger risk. Literally ever. You have no basis for your claim that top 10% at Hastings is somehow more "precarious" for biglaw than going to a place like Georgetown or UVA (unless you have statistics that say being in the top 10% at Hastings gives you less than a 2/3rds shot at biglaw; but you don't have that because no such stat exists).

Also, come on bro, share with us your ideas about who, in your informed opinion, actually deserves those top grades. I'm interested to hear why you didn't get what you think you're entitled to.

What? Why are you trying to bring up my grades? And top 10% at hastings is in a FAR WORSE OFF position than top 10% at the t14. It is hilarious to suggest otherwise.

He's comparing top 10% at Hastings to an average student at GULC. Also, to clear something up: NOBODY is guaranteed big law, and top 10% at Hastings definitely can strike out. Mal's point is that even given top 10% at Hastings, you still have to stick it out for another two semesters to see if you actually get something, and at that point you're almost pot committed. There's also the risk that you'll get somewhere around top 20% and think you're good even though you're probably not.

[Anonymous User]

So, I graduated top 1%, number 2 from a school ranked in the 60s. I worked my ass of in law school. If I had it all to do over again, I wish I had put so much more effort into the LSAT. The return on investment is huge. Work 1000 extra hours during 1L, probably little effect. Work 1000 extra hours on LSAT, likely huge returns. Plus, no retakes on law exams.

Despite doing well, I still get told by recruiters that they are only looking for people from T14 schools.

[BigZuck]

You never demonstrated a bigger risk. Literally ever. You have no basis for your claim that top 10% at Hastings is somehow more "precarious" for biglaw than going to a place like Georgetown or UVA (unless you have statistics that say being in the top 10% at Hastings gives you less than a 2/3rds shot at biglaw; but you don't have that because no such stat exists).

Also, come on bro, share with us your ideas about who, in your informed opinion, actually deserves those top grades. I'm interested to hear why you didn't get what you think you're entitled to.

What? Why are you trying to bring up my grades? And top 10% at hastings is in a FAR WORSE OFF position than top 10% at the t14. It is hilarious to suggest otherwise.

He's comparing top 10% at Hastings to an average student at GULC. Also, to clear something up: NOBODY is guaranteed big law, and top 10% at Hastings definitely can strike out. Mal's point is that even given top 10% at Hastings, you still have to stick it out for another two semesters to see if you actually get something, and at that point you're almost pot committed. There's also the risk that you'll get somewhere around top 20% and think you're good even though you're probably not.

And the type of snowflake who attends Hastings for big law opportunities ain't cutting bait after 3 semesters if they strike out. You can take that to the bank.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

You never demonstrated a bigger risk. Literally ever. You have no basis for your claim that top 10% at Hastings is somehow more "precarious" for biglaw than going to a place like Georgetown or UVA (unless you have statistics that say being in the top 10% at Hastings gives you less than a 2/3rds shot at biglaw; but you don't have that because no such stat exists).

Also, come on bro, share with us your ideas about who, in your informed opinion, actually deserves those top grades. I'm interested to hear why you didn't get what you think you're entitled to.

What? Why are you trying to bring up my grades? And top 10% at hastings is in a FAR WORSE OFF position than top 10% at the t14. It is hilarious to suggest otherwise.

I never said otherwise, I'm comparing top 10% at Hastings to just going to a school like Georgetown or UVA at all, regardless of rank. I'm willing to acknowledge that my first semester was a gamble, I've said that repeatedly. I'm unwilling to go farther because after that semester I knew where my grades would be, and the decision not to drop out becomes comparable to a 0L's decision to attend a school like Georgetown/UVA - the risks become equivalent. The 0L still doesn't know how he will do in law school, whereas the 1 semester guy is at Hastings, but has a good idea re: where he will be in the class.

As for your grades, I don't really care, but you stated that kids at the top of the curve don't really deserve to be there; ergo you think others are somehow more deserving, and I want to know your basis for this.

[Mal Reynolds]

semester guy is at Hastings, but has a good idea re: where he will be in the class.

As for your grades, I don't really care, but you stated that kids at the top of the curve don't really deserve to be there; ergo you think others are somehow more deserving, and I want to know your basis for this.

NO I DIDNT YOU DENSE FUCK

[nickelanddime]

semester guy is at Hastings, but has a good idea re: where he will be in the class.

As for your grades, I don't really care, but you stated that kids at the top of the curve don't really deserve to be there; ergo you think others are somehow more deserving, and I want to know your basis for this.

NO I DIDNT YOU DENSE FUCK

this is hilarious.

[A. Nony Mouse]

And honestly, no one has said anything about who does/doesn't deserve good grades. No one has said that 1MLH isn't smart/hard-working enough to get the grades he got. There are just fuckloads of other people in law school who are smart/hard-working who don't get good grades, because profs have to come up with some kind of distinction between A/A-/B+ etc. some of those distinctions are realllllly small. I'm fine with saying those in the top (whatever) are smart/hard-working, so can we leave aside the defensiveness that saying you can't predict where you'll be somehow takes away from the accomplishments of those at the top? It doesn't. That's not even the point.

I agree that if people are willing to take the risk and drop out under (whatever circumstances), that's fine too. But people get suckered by the sunk costs.

[hoos89]

semester guy is at Hastings, but has a good idea re: where he will be in the class.

As for your grades, I don't really care, but you stated that kids at the top of the curve don't really deserve to be there; ergo you think others are somehow more deserving, and I want to know your basis for this.

NO I DIDNT YOU DENSE FUCK

Hilariously poor logic from someone in the top 10%. Just because nobody deserves to be at the top does not mean that somebody does. Also, you are way too proud of yourself. Like, great story and all, but that doesn't mean that people should go to Hastings. If you actually have the self discipline to drop out after a semester (maybe you do, we'll never know) then that's one thing. Few do, though.

[patogordo]

guys, debt is meaningless, you can always just kill yourself and they won't get a dime

risk: analyzed

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

You never demonstrated a bigger risk. Literally ever. You have no basis for your claim that top 10% at Hastings is somehow more "precarious" for biglaw than going to a place like Georgetown or UVA (unless you have statistics that say being in the top 10% at Hastings gives you less than a 2/3rds shot at biglaw; but you don't have that because no such stat exists).

Also, come on bro, share with us your ideas about who, in your informed opinion, actually deserves those top grades. I'm interested to hear why you didn't get what you think you're entitled to.

What? Why are you trying to bring up my grades? And top 10% at hastings is in a FAR WORSE OFF position than top 10% at the t14. It is hilarious to suggest otherwise.

He's comparing top 10% at Hastings to an average student at GULC. Also, to clear something up: NOBODY is guaranteed big law, and top 10% at Hastings definitely can strike out. Mal's point is that even given top 10% at Hastings, you still have to stick it out for another two semesters to see if you actually get something, and at that point you're almost pot committed. There's also the risk that you'll get somewhere around top 20% and think you're good even though you're probably not.

But my point is that you have to stick it out for 3 semesters anywhere. It's moving the goalposts to claim you need to get to Zero risk - you only need to get to a position where continuing is equally risky.

After one semester, knowing your grades, the risk becomes equivalent to committing off the bat to three semesters at a place like Georgetown. The initial semester is a gamble, I'll give you that, but your analysis has to change after that.

[Mal Reynolds]

/Meanwhile in TLS bizarro world or what we can also call the majority of Hastings outcomes

Non-law employer: So, what did you do for the last year and a half? I see there is a big gap in your resume.

Lawhopeful: I took a risk and then cut ties immediately but don't worry it was the right call.

Non-law employer: I understand completely. You're a straight shooter and I like that about you. You're hired.