Top Law Schools

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/head ... ployed.ece

"Of the law schools that did improve their placements in these positions, Baylor Law School showed the biggest gains.

The Waco-based school went from placing 76 percent of its 2014 graduates in permanent, full-time positions as lawyers or other professionals 10 months after graduation to placing 87 percent of its 2015 graduates in the same positions. The significant improvement caused Baylor and SMU Dedman School of Law to tie for No. 1 for job placement across the state.

Baylor was also the only law school to have zero unemployed graduates 10 months after graduation."

Do you really think people's criticisms of Baylor are based on its employment statistics? Baylor is probably the last school on earth I would attend.

Anonymous User wrote:Do you really think people's criticisms of Baylor are based on its employment statistics? Baylor is probably the last school on earth I would attend.

Why is that? Do you not like Waco?

Anonymous User wrote:http://www.dallasnews.com/business/head ... ployed.ece

"Of the law schools that did improve their placements in these positions, Baylor Law School showed the biggest gains.

The Waco-based school went from placing 76 percent of its 2014 graduates in permanent, full-time positions as lawyers or other professionals 10 months after graduation to placing 87 percent of its 2015 graduates in the same positions. The significant improvement caused Baylor and SMU Dedman School of Law to tie for No. 1 for job placement across the state.

Baylor was also the only law school to have zero unemployed graduates 10 months after graduation."

Not a Baylor hater, but...of only 108 graduates:

2 unemployed-deferred
5 employment status unknown
3 solos
36 in firms with 2-10 attorneys

Meanwhile, BL + FC = 16.7%

Yeah...Baylor's probably worth close to sticker now.

(insert MJ's popcorn meme)

MT Cicero wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:http://www.dallasnews.com/business/head ... ployed.ece

"Of the law schools that did improve their placements in these positions, Baylor Law School showed the biggest gains.

The Waco-based school went from placing 76 percent of its 2014 graduates in permanent, full-time positions as lawyers or other professionals 10 months after graduation to placing 87 percent of its 2015 graduates in the same positions. The significant improvement caused Baylor and SMU Dedman School of Law to tie for No. 1 for job placement across the state.

Baylor was also the only law school to have zero unemployed graduates 10 months after graduation."

Not a Baylor hater, but...of only 108 graduates:

2 unemployed-deferred
5 employment status unknown
3 solos
36 in firms with 2-10 attorneys

Meanwhile, BL + FC = 16.7%

Yeah...Baylor's probably worth close to sticker now.

This. Approximately 43% of the graduating class is working for about $35-50K (at best), while the total non-discounted cost to attend is just shy of $77,000, per year.

Don't hate tha Baylor, hate tha game

Eager Beaver wrote: the total non-discounted cost to attend is just shy of $77,000, per year.

lol wut?

pancakes3 wrote:

Eager Beaver wrote: the total non-discounted cost to attend is just shy of $77,000, per year.

lol wut?

Tuition + COL

http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... osts/2014/

Eager Beaver wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:

Eager Beaver wrote: the total non-discounted cost to attend is just shy of $77,000, per year.

lol wut?

Tuition + COL

http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... osts/2014/

Just expressing sticker shock. Not doubting you or the accuracy of your reporting.

pancakes3 wrote:

Eager Beaver wrote: the total non-discounted cost to attend is just shy of $77,000, per year.

lol wut?

Yup. Unfortunately that is the correct number.

http://www.baylor.edu/sfs/index.php?id=927732

pancakes3 wrote:

Eager Beaver wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:

Eager Beaver wrote: the total non-discounted cost to attend is just shy of $77,000, per year.

lol wut?

Tuition + COL

http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... osts/2014/

Just expressing sticker shock. Not doubting you or the accuracy of your reporting.

Yeah. It's nutso.

pancakes3 wrote:

Eager Beaver wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:

Eager Beaver wrote: the total non-discounted cost to attend is just shy of $77,000, per year.

lol wut?

Tuition + COL

http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... osts/2014/

Just expressing sticker shock. Not doubting you or the accuracy of your reporting.

Gotcha, that's my mistake then. And yeah, it's absurd. Compare to UT-Austin's Tuition + COL, which is approximately $70,000 (non-resident): http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... osts/2014/.

I was expecting this thread to be about Corey Coleman smh

Eager Beaver wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:

Eager Beaver wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:

Eager Beaver wrote: the total non-discounted cost to attend is just shy of $77,000, per year.

lol wut?

Tuition + COL

http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... osts/2014/

Just expressing sticker shock. Not doubting you or the accuracy of your reporting.

Gotcha, that's my mistake then. And yeah, it's absurd. Compare to UT-Austin's Tuition + COL, which is approximately $70,000 (non-resident): http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... osts/2014/.

Yeah, and I'd guess most of those Baylor kids are Texas kids anyway, and would be paying instate at UT, which is like 54K.

emkay625 wrote:

Eager Beaver wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:

Eager Beaver wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:

Eager Beaver wrote: the total non-discounted cost to attend is just shy of $77,000, per year.

lol wut?

Tuition + COL

http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... osts/2014/

Just expressing sticker shock. Not doubting you or the accuracy of your reporting.

Gotcha, that's my mistake then. And yeah, it's absurd. Compare to UT-Austin's Tuition + COL, which is approximately $70,000 (non-resident): http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... osts/2014/.

Yeah, and I'd guess most of those Baylor kids are Texas kids anyway, and would be paying instate at UT, which is like 54K.

Right. Still, can't argue with "zero unemployed graduates 10 months after graduation." (never mind what 'unemployed' actually means in this context, although I'm assuming it counts at least two or three barista jobs).

i guess UTTT is joining GeorgeTTTown.

Assuming most of the students that attend Baylor had no way of making $40-50k before graduation, I think it's a decent school for what it aims to do. 100% employment 10 months after law school is VERY impressive and a MAJOR improvement to almost all of these kids' lifestyle.

When will TLS grow up and stop citing Big Law numbers for schools where (1) nobody wants biglaw and (2) working as a shitlaw lawyer is a serious improvement to a kid's life.

The people with 168s here turning down 70k jobs who think they are so smart to take out $200k+ to get a salary 100k after tax working 3k hours all in and to pay $25k of that in rent and another 25k in loan payments look a lot dumber than someone laid off from their job making damn near minimum wage at 35k pretax who get a 45k job post tax; pay 8k a year in rent and 2k a year in loans (PAYE).

You think spending three years of your life and borrowing $200k to get a $10k raise is smart?

For a kid who wants to practice law, it might be a fine lifestyle decision, but it's pretty clearly a bad financial decision.

JohannDeMann wrote:Assuming most of the students that attend Baylor had no way of making $40-50k before graduation, I think it's a decent school for what it aims to do. 100% employment 10 months after law school is VERY impressive and a MAJOR improvement to almost all of these kids' lifestyle.

When will TLS grow up and stop citing Big Law numbers for schools where (1) nobody wants biglaw and (2) working as a shitlaw lawyer is a serious improvement to a kid's life.

The people with 168s here turning down 70k jobs who think they are so smart to take out $200k+ to get a salary 100k after tax working 3k hours all in and to pay $25k of that in rent and another 25k in loan payments look a lot dumber than someone laid off from their job making damn near minimum wage at 35k pretax who get a 45k job post tax; pay 8k a year in rent and 2k a year in loans (PAYE).

I merely pointed out the 100% employment number is a pretty dubious claim given some of the data on the employment summary. I didn't want some 0L to amble in, look for Baylor-at-sticker confirmation, then skip off to secure the $200K in loans (you later deride for T14 students) without any real ability to pay them back. To respond more particularly to your post:

JohannDeMann wrote:Assuming most of the students that attend Baylor had no way of making $40-50k before graduation

Pretty big assumption there

JohannDeMann wrote:I think it's a decent school for what it aims to do

I suppose it could be at the right discount. But It's not about what the school aims to do. It's about what the student wants. What do you think the school aims to do, by the way? Just curious.

JohannDeMann wrote:100% employment 10 months after law school is VERY impressive

See above. We have no way of knowing how many of these jobs are what the student wanted at all. But yeah, I agree it's impressive not to have one of their 108 graduates mark "unemployed," except for the deferred ones. That's a hell of a lot better than other schools for sure.

JohannDeMann wrote:a MAJOR improvement to almost all of these kids' lifestyle

Bold claim, which you couldn't possibly know.

JohannDeMann wrote:When will TLS grow up and stop citing Big Law numbers for schools where (1) nobody wants biglaw

Well, some want it. In fact, some got it. I wonder if the school had the ability to place every single graduate into a biglaw job—I mean every single one—if the percentage would go up or not? If you think so, then maybe this claim is inaccurate, yeah?

JohannDeMann wrote:and (2) working as a shitlaw lawyer is a serious improvement to a kid's life

Again, you have zero way of knowing this. It could be true for some. It could be quite the opposite for others, especially with a giant debt albatross draped around them (for which you don't seem concerned).

JohannDeMann wrote:The people with 168s here turning down 70k jobs who think they are so smart to take out $200k+ to get a salary 100k after tax working 3k hours all in and to pay $25k of that in rent and another 25k in loan payments look a lot dumber than someone laid off from their job making damn near minimum wage at 35k pretax who get a 45k job post tax; pay 8k a year in rent and 2k a year in loans (PAYE)

Eh, maybe so. Maybe not. Maybe some people don't want to pay $2k a year in loans on a $200K loan balance. Or even on a $100K loan balance. I guess you'd be content working a job that paid $40-50k for decades with tons of debt hanging over you the whole time as you PAYE'd your way through. Many people wouldn't. I certainly wouldn't advise $200K in loans to the vast majority of people at almost any school (but always situation dependent).

I also love how Baylor Law's just chock full of laid off minimum wage kids who must have been just this side of homeless until they saw the light.

MT Cicero wrote: Eh, maybe so. Maybe not. Maybe some people don't want to pay $2k a year in loans on a $200K loan balance. Or even on a $100K loan balance. I guess you'd be content working a job that paid $40-50k for decades with tons of debt hanging over you the whole time as you PAYE'd your way through. Many people wouldn't. I certainly wouldn't advise $200K in loans to the vast majority of people at almost any school (but always situation dependent).

I also love how Baylor Law's just chock full of laid off minimum wage kids who must have been just this side of homeless until they saw the light.

People need to remember, that if you graduate making like 50k or less, your education might as well have cost about $40k all-in for 3 years. Or less. Because with PAYE, that's all you'll ever pay. The govt pays the rest. Plus you got to have the 3 year party+vacation from life that is law school.

So going from $30k wage to a lawyer career with a very high ceiling (as "shitlaw" does, much higher than "biglaw") can definitely be a great move for someone that wants it

ballouttacontrol wrote:

MT Cicero wrote: Eh, maybe so. Maybe not. Maybe some people don't want to pay $2k a year in loans on a $200K loan balance. Or even on a $100K loan balance. I guess you'd be content working a job that paid $40-50k for decades with tons of debt hanging over you the whole time as you PAYE'd your way through. Many people wouldn't. I certainly wouldn't advise $200K in loans to the vast majority of people at almost any school (but always situation dependent).

I also love how Baylor Law's just chock full of laid off minimum wage kids who must have been just this side of homeless until they saw the light.

People need to remember, that if you graduate making like 50k or less, your education might as well have cost about $40k all-in for 3 years. Or less. Because with PAYE, that's all you'll ever pay. The govt pays the rest.

So going from $30k wage to a lawyer career with a very high ceiling (as "shitlaw" does, much higher than "biglaw") can definitely be a great move for someone that wants it

Gotcha. I'm not quite up on the PAYE gig, so sorry about that Johann. I met an elected DA while traveling to law school. She paid near sticker and still had $43K in loans (she had been practicing for 15 years I think?). She was lamenting much of it.

Will PAYE always be there, and could they ever change it midstream?

MT Cicero wrote:

ballouttacontrol wrote:

MT Cicero wrote: Eh, maybe so. Maybe not. Maybe some people don't want to pay $2k a year in loans on a $200K loan balance. Or even on a $100K loan balance. I guess you'd be content working a job that paid $40-50k for decades with tons of debt hanging over you the whole time as you PAYE'd your way through. Many people wouldn't. I certainly wouldn't advise $200K in loans to the vast majority of people at almost any school (but always situation dependent).

I also love how Baylor Law's just chock full of laid off minimum wage kids who must have been just this side of homeless until they saw the light.

People need to remember, that if you graduate making like 50k or less, your education might as well have cost about $40k all-in for 3 years. Or less. Because with PAYE, that's all you'll ever pay. The govt pays the rest.

So going from $30k wage to a lawyer career with a very high ceiling (as "shitlaw" does, much higher than "biglaw") can definitely be a great move for someone that wants it

Gotcha. I'm not quite up on the PAYE gig, so sorry about that Johann. I met an elected DA while traveling to law school. She paid near sticker and still had $43K in loans (she had been practicing for 15 years I think?). She was lamenting much of it.

Will PAYE always be there, and could they ever change it midstream?

Theoretically but I'd bet just about everything I own that government payment plans keep getting better as they have been. First there was IBR, which was good. Then PAYE, much better. Now REPAYE, which is arguably even better, and if not for your situation, you can still do PAYE.

Even if they removed it, it would almost certainly not be retroactive. Any democratic senator that went for that would be committing career suicide.

TBH I feel like an idiot for dumping all of my pre-LS money into my tuition, instead of just taking out max loans and PAYEing for 20 years. Woulda came out way ahead

Who would even bother giving Baylor enough attention to hate it?

.