Paying back loans with BigLaw salary- how long? Forum

[cahesu]

^^^I think this is a good point.

Another thing to consider is the likelihood you would finish in the top half at Columbia versus the likelihood you would finish in the top half at Vanderbilt. Many people who are more experienced than I am will tell you that it is virtually impossible to predict in which part of the class you will finish. I would argue, however, that it is at least probable you would finish with a higher class rank at a school like Vandy than at a school like Colubmia, assuming your studying and effort is constant across the two scenarios.

[dakatz]

I think OP is MUCH better off going to a lower ranked school with substantial money. 280K in loans is absolute insanity. If I were you, I would withdraw ASAP.

[dominkay]

I think OP is MUCH better off going to a lower ranked school with substantial money. 280K in loans is absolute insanity. If I were you, I would withdraw ASAP.

Totally disagree. OP already has 80k in loans. He is already in deep shit. He needs a big money job, period. So, he has to go to the school that will give him the best chance of obtaining one.

[dakatz]

I think OP is MUCH better off going to a lower ranked school with substantial money. 280K in loans is absolute insanity. If I were you, I would withdraw ASAP.

Totally disagree. OP already has 80k in loans. He is already in deep shit. He needs a big money job, period. So, he has to go to the school that will give him the best chance of obtaining one.

Its sad to think that the gamble is already made and the proverbial dice cast, but I guess you are right. He is already committed to this ridiculous gamble so perhaps he has to suck it up and pray for the best.

[deadhipsters]

I think OP is MUCH better off going to a lower ranked school with substantial money. 280K in loans is absolute insanity. If I were you, I would withdraw ASAP.

Totally disagree. OP already has 80k in loans. He is already in deep shit. He needs a big money job, period. So, he has to go to the school that will give him the best chance of obtaining one.

Agreed. In for a penny in for a pound. Get to work. You need Biglaw or a public service job that you can utilize IBR. 80k for UG is absurd, by the way. Getting a job should be OP's main concern and CLS offers him/her the best chance of doing so. Also, living expenses in Morningside Heights for what you quoted is totally doable, if not lower.

[LoriBelle]

I'm kind of agreeing with those who suggested a lower-ranked school like Vandy if you can get substantial money. Vandy does have a good reputation and place well. You may also want to consider a lower COL area so that you can pay down loans faster...unless you are just sold on practicing in NYC for whatever reason. $80K in undergrad loans was maybe not wise, but it's water under the bridge. You need to consider what it will mean to more than triple that amount of debt before graduation from law school.

We are talking annual student loan payments of almost $40,000 per YEAR. Do you realize that? If you're making BigLaw "market," which is $160K last time I checked, you're putting 25% of your income toward student loan payments. Another $35K will be eaten up in federal income tax (student loan interest will be tax deductible, but I'm not accounting for that because I'm lazy...may make a diff or not because your income is so high, Idk and haven't taken tax yet so sorry), and another $11K in New York state income tax.

By the time you get done with taxes and student loan repayment, you're looking at like $160K-$38K-$35K-$11K= about $76K to live on. Which sounds like a lot, but really isn't in NYC. Scary. AND THAT'S IF YOU LAND BIGLAW.

I don't know what your situation would be coming from a school like Vandy, but I'm betting you'd have less debt, a higher class rank, and a fairly similar placement rate (47% in NLJ250 versus 54% - is this a big enough difference to matter when the above is taken into account?). Think about your options.

[Jordan77]

Man, this thread stresses me out and it is not even my problem... good luck OP, IMO I would try to get a solid scholarship from a good school.

[go4hls]

All those people telling OP to go to lower ranked school: he already said he didn't get any money from any of the T-14 schools that he got into. And no, there's no way in hell that it makes sense for him to go to a school outside of the T-14 ITE.

To answer your question OP, if you manage to avoid deferment-hell and actually start at a BigLaw job, then the good news is that your salary is still going to be 160k base (with a tiny, if anything, bonus). After tax (federal/state+social security/medicare) your take-home pay will be 110k for year 1.

If you can get housing for the prices you're saying, then housing will be 20k+5k in utilities/cellphone/cable, throw in another 10k for food and other living expenses + a contribution from your SO and you're set. Basically, you'll be living like a monk with that kind of budget in NYC, but you'll have 75k in free cash flow to throw at your debt.

Maintain that budget (i.e. spend your yearly salary raises on debt) and after 4 years* in BigLaw, and you'll be home free.

*It only takes 4 years b/c interest on debt is cancelled out by yearly raises.

**edited to mention point about interest**

[BunkMoreland]

Did you calculate that you stand to make about $30,000 in the 2L summer? A decent chunk of that can go back into your 3L tuition, reducing loans at least a little bit (obv you should live in a shithole that summer, and you should be able to get by on very little, with the wining and dining)

[fixer]

If you get "big law" job don't forget about the potential of substantial bonuses paid in lump sums. These can put a big dent in loans for some and serve as a substantial down payment on a home for others.

On the other hand, drag those loans out for as long as possible and make minimum payments. You have studied hard for a long time and lived modestly as a student. Blowing those big law paychecks can be good therapy after years of meager living. Life is short. Enjoy.

Also don't calculate any "extra" principal payment until after you max out all your retirement contributions. First things first.

[vamedic03]

^^^I think this is a good point.

Another thing to consider is the likelihood you would finish in the top half at Columbia versus the likelihood you would finish in the top half at Vanderbilt. Many people who are more experienced than I am will tell you that it is virtually impossible to predict in which part of the class you will finish. I would argue, however, that it is at least probable you would finish with a higher class rank at a school like Vandy than at a school like Colubmia, assuming your studying and effort is constant across the two scenarios.

This is really not correct. You have no idea how you will do compared to your peers until you are in lawschool. Some people who barely had the numbers to get into your law school will end up on Law Review, while others who excelled in undergrad will end up in the bottom third.

[LoriBelle]

All those people telling OP to go to lower ranked school: he already said he didn't get any money from any of the T-14 schools that he got into. And no, there's no way in hell that it makes sense for him to go to a school outside of the T-14 ITE.

To answer your question OP, if you manage to avoid deferment-hell and actually start at a BigLaw job, then the good news is that your salary is still going to be 160k base (with a tiny, if anything, bonus). After tax (federal/state+social security/medicare) your take-home pay will be 110k for year 1.

If you can get housing for the prices you're saying, then housing will be 20k+5k in utilities/cellphone/cable, throw in another 10k for food and other living expenses + a contribution from your SO and you're set. Basically, you'll be living like a monk with that kind of budget in NYC, but you'll have 75k in free cash flow to throw at your debt.

Maintain that budget (i.e. spend your yearly salary raises on debt) and after 4 years* in BigLaw, and you'll be home free.

*It only takes 4 years b/c interest on debt is cancelled out by yearly raises.

**edited to mention point about interest**

Regarding the interest: who gets a 7-10% annual raise ITE?

Also, if the OP went to Vandy, which has similar placement rates, with significant $$...how exactly would he be worse off?

But that 75K in free cash flow is not really FREE. In fact, ~40K of it MUST be applied to student loan payments (less if you choose extended repayment).

And okay, my husband and I do not live extravagantly. We also live in a low COL area. With food, utilities, housing, etc., we get by on about $50K. I guess that about evens with the assumptions you're making above, but only if the OP has a roommate or someone to share expenses.

For me, $280K is just too much of a gamble on BigLaw. If OP doesn't get BigLaw, but instead makes a more modest $100K salary, he's still devoting $40K/year to student loan repayment, $20K per year to federal income tax, and $7K to state income tax. That leaves OP $33K/year to live on or use for early repayment.

Maybe I'm just too risk-averse (I am a woman, and we're known for that). I could be wrong. Certainly wouldn't be the first time...but I see this as a gamble that might or might not pay off.

[270910]

^^^I think this is a good point.

Another thing to consider is the likelihood you would finish in the top half at Columbia versus the likelihood you would finish in the top half at Vanderbilt. Many people who are more experienced than I am will tell you that it is virtually impossible to predict in which part of the class you will finish. I would argue, however, that it is at least probable you would finish with a higher class rank at a school like Vandy than at a school like Colubmia, assuming your studying and effort is constant across the two scenarios.

This is really not correct. You have no idea how you will do compared to your peers until you are in lawschool. Some people who barely had the numbers to get into your law school will end up on Law Review, while others who excelled in undergrad will end up in the bottom third.

+a bazillion

[LoriBelle]

^^^I think this is a good point.

Another thing to consider is the likelihood you would finish in the top half at Columbia versus the likelihood you would finish in the top half at Vanderbilt. Many people who are more experienced than I am will tell you that it is virtually impossible to predict in which part of the class you will finish. I would argue, however, that it is at least probable you would finish with a higher class rank at a school like Vandy than at a school like Colubmia, assuming your studying and effort is constant across the two scenarios.

This is really not correct. You have no idea how you will do compared to your peers until you are in lawschool. Some people who barely had the numbers to get into your law school will end up on Law Review, while others who excelled in undergrad will end up in the bottom third.

+a bazillion

TRUE.

BUT if the same person went to both schools, I think it's fair to say that given the average caliber of a student at each school, the same student has a higher probability of doing very well at a school with slightly lower admissions standards than he would have at a slightly more rigorous school. I think that's quite logical. After all, think about all the posturing students from the T14 do on TLS about how inferior TTT/Ts are. Surely there's some correlation between school ranking and student caliber.

[rbgrocio]

I'm hoping to pay my loans in one year but ur loans are like 6 times what i would owe.

[deadhipsters]

^^^I think this is a good point.

Another thing to consider is the likelihood you would finish in the top half at Columbia versus the likelihood you would finish in the top half at Vanderbilt. Many people who are more experienced than I am will tell you that it is virtually impossible to predict in which part of the class you will finish. I would argue, however, that it is at least probable you would finish with a higher class rank at a school like Vandy than at a school like Colubmia, assuming your studying and effort is constant across the two scenarios.

This is really not correct. You have no idea how you will do compared to your peers until you are in lawschool. Some people who barely had the numbers to get into your law school will end up on Law Review, while others who excelled in undergrad will end up in the bottom third.

+a bazillion

TRUE.

BUT if the same person went to both schools, I think it's fair to say that given the average caliber of a student at each school, the same student has a higher probability of doing very well at a school with slightly lower admissions standards than he would have at a slightly more rigorous school. I think that's quite logical. After all, think about all the posturing students from the T14 do on TLS about how inferior TTT/Ts are. Surely there's some correlation between school ranking and student caliber.

The difference in LSAT/GPA between the average Vanderbilt/ other T20 LS students is probably so minute that it makes no real difference. For example, Vanderbilt average is 3.7/ 168 and Columbia’s is 3.64/ 170. I would not wager that one group is collectively smarter than the other given the similarities in numbers. I would certainly not risk the amazing career opportunities that Columbia affords its graduates based on that assumption either.

[270910]

^^^I think this is a good point.

Another thing to consider is the likelihood you would finish in the top half at Columbia versus the likelihood you would finish in the top half at Vanderbilt. Many people who are more experienced than I am will tell you that it is virtually impossible to predict in which part of the class you will finish. I would argue, however, that it is at least probable you would finish with a higher class rank at a school like Vandy than at a school like Colubmia, assuming your studying and effort is constant across the two scenarios.

This is really not correct. You have no idea how you will do compared to your peers until you are in lawschool. Some people who barely had the numbers to get into your law school will end up on Law Review, while others who excelled in undergrad will end up in the bottom third.

+a bazillion

TRUE.

BUT if the same person went to both schools, I think it's fair to say that given the average caliber of a student at each school, the same student has a higher probability of doing very well at a school with slightly lower admissions standards than he would have at a slightly more rigorous school. I think that's quite logical. After all, think about all the posturing students from the T14 do on TLS about how inferior TTT/Ts are. Surely there's some correlation between school ranking and student caliber.

The problem is that it's not linear. I might grant you that the 'minimum' rises - as in, a student admitted to Harvard who tries hard probably won't finish much below median at a T2. But I honestly think the X factor of how each individual learns to perform on a law school exam is substantially more important. They're not smarty pants tests, and within the confines of the top 25 or so schools everyone has the credentials necessary to succeed.

[270910]

The difference in LSAT/GPA between the average Vanderbilt/ other T20 LS students is probably so minute that it makes no real difference. For example, Vanderbilt average is 3.7/ 168 and Columbia’s is 3.64/ 170. I would not wager that one group is collectively smarter than the other given the similarities in numbers. I would certainly not risk the amazing career opportunities that Columbia affords its graduates based on that assumption either.

+another bazillion

[cahesu]

^^^I think this is a good point.

Another thing to consider is the likelihood you would finish in the top half at Columbia versus the likelihood you would finish in the top half at Vanderbilt. Many people who are more experienced than I am will tell you that it is virtually impossible to predict in which part of the class you will finish. I would argue, however, that it is at least probable you would finish with a higher class rank at a school like Vandy than at a school like Colubmia, assuming your studying and effort is constant across the two scenarios.

This is really not correct. You have no idea how you will do compared to your peers until you are in lawschool. Some people who barely had the numbers to get into your law school will end up on Law Review, while others who excelled in undergrad will end up in the bottom third.

Again, I'll have to defer to people who have experienced more in law school grading. But I will point out that my post was not meant to imply that people with similar numbers "should" do well at law schools where the average student has lower numbers. Your point on the randomness of success only takes into account undergraduate grades and LSAT score, the traditional entrance criteria. There is no way for you to take into account other factors like amount of studying, natural talent not associated with GPA or LSAT, writing skill, level of effort, or level of focus. Many of these factors are characteristics that a candidate brings with him or her regardless of school, yet are not reflected in their entrance criteria.

My point was that given the same candidate attending two different law schools, Columbia and Vanderbilt, this candidate will have a higher chance of finishing in the top of the class at Vanderbilt. You can certainly argue that difference is negligible. You can also argue that success is unpredictable. (Though, again, your argument is based only on entrance criteria). But I'm not buying the argument that any one student, given the same natural ability, level of effort, etc., has the same chances of finishing in the top half of the class at Columbia and at Vanderbilt and at Cooley. Unless the professors really do grade exams by throwing darts.

[vamedic03]

^^^I think this is a good point.

Another thing to consider is the likelihood you would finish in the top half at Columbia versus the likelihood you would finish in the top half at Vanderbilt. Many people who are more experienced than I am will tell you that it is virtually impossible to predict in which part of the class you will finish. I would argue, however, that it is at least probable you would finish with a higher class rank at a school like Vandy than at a school like Colubmia, assuming your studying and effort is constant across the two scenarios.

This is really not correct. You have no idea how you will do compared to your peers until you are in lawschool. Some people who barely had the numbers to get into your law school will end up on Law Review, while others who excelled in undergrad will end up in the bottom third.

Again, I'll have to defer to people who have experienced more in law school grading. But I will point out that my post was not meant to imply that people with similar numbers "should" do well at law schools where the average student has lower numbers. Your point on the randomness of success only takes into account undergraduate grades and LSAT score, the traditional entrance criteria. There is no way for you to take into account other factors like amount of studying, natural talent not associated with GPA or LSAT, writing skill, level of effort, or level of focus. Many of these factors are characteristics that a candidate brings with him or her regardless of school, yet are not reflected in their entrance criteria.

My point was that given the same candidate attending two different law schools, Columbia and Vanderbilt, this candidate will have a higher chance of finishing in the top of the class at Vanderbilt. You can certainly argue that difference is negligible. You can also argue that success is unpredictable. (Though, again, your argument is based only on entrance criteria). But I'm not buying the argument that any one student, given the same natural ability, level of effort, etc., has the same chances of finishing in the top half of the class at Columbia and at Vanderbilt and at Cooley. Unless the professors really do grade exams by throwing darts.

In the theoretical, yes, you're correct. But, in reality, everyone thinks that they will be above median and there is no way of knowing where you will end up until you do it.

[deadhipsters]

^^^I think this is a good point.

Another thing to consider is the likelihood you would finish in the top half at Columbia versus the likelihood you would finish in the top half at Vanderbilt. Many people who are more experienced than I am will tell you that it is virtually impossible to predict in which part of the class you will finish. I would argue, however, that it is at least probable you would finish with a higher class rank at a school like Vandy than at a school like Colubmia, assuming your studying and effort is constant across the two scenarios.

This is really not correct. You have no idea how you will do compared to your peers until you are in lawschool. Some people who barely had the numbers to get into your law school will end up on Law Review, while others who excelled in undergrad will end up in the bottom third.

Again, I'll have to defer to people who have experienced more in law school grading. But I will point out that my post was not meant to imply that people with similar numbers "should" do well at law schools where the average student has lower numbers. Your point on the randomness of success only takes into account undergraduate grades and LSAT score, the traditional entrance criteria. There is no way for you to take into account other factors like amount of studying, natural talent not associated with GPA or LSAT, writing skill, level of effort, or level of focus. Many of these factors are characteristics that a candidate brings with him or her regardless of school, yet are not reflected in their entrance criteria.

My point was that given the same candidate attending two different law schools, Columbia and Vanderbilt, this candidate will have a higher chance of finishing in the top of the class at Vanderbilt. You can certainly argue that difference is negligible. You can also argue that success is unpredictable. (Though, again, your argument is based only on entrance criteria). But I'm not buying the argument that any one student, given the same natural ability, level of effort, etc., has the same chances of finishing in the top half of the class at Columbia and at Vanderbilt and at Cooley. Unless the professors really do grade exams by throwing darts.

In the theoretical, yes, you're correct. But, in reality, everyone thinks that they will be above median and there is no way of knowing where you will end up until you do it.

I think when you start comparing students in the top 20 LS’s (with the exception of maybe Yale) you will see that they are all similar in terms of everything, GPA, LSAT, EC’s, WE, etc. The ones who attend better schools just have several points higher on the LSAT and in their GPA’s as I illustrated in my last post. Comparing them to Cooley students is absurd. Those students probably all scored a full 15 points lower on the LSAT and have significantly lower GPA’s. Clearly there is a difference in student caliber which will be reflected in law school performance. But at the top the difference is negligible. Which is why the argument that, “I am so smart I should go to school with those idiots at Vanderbilt so I can out perform them ” is ridiculous.

[LoriBelle]

The difference in LSAT/GPA between the average Vanderbilt/ other T20 LS students is probably so minute that it makes no real difference. For example, Vanderbilt average is 3.7/ 168 and Columbia’s is 3.64/ 170 3.72/172. I would not wager that one group is collectively smarter than the other given the similarities in numbers. I would certainly not risk the amazing career opportunities that Columbia affords its graduates based on that assumption either.

ftfy

Does Columbia offer its graduates very many career opportunites that VLS doesn't (other than SCOTUS clerkships obv)? By your theory, similar students should result in similar placements, and the statistics bear that out. Why pay sticker and go $280K into debt when you can have a very similar thing for substantially less? Like I said, maybe I'm just too risk-averse to play this game. Or maybe I don't understand the true difference between the opportunities presented to CLS and VLS graduates respectively.

Also, I never called the students at Vanderbilt idiots. They're far from it, as are most people who go to law school, actually. I'm not saying that OP's chances of excelling at Vandy are so much higher that THIS ALONE would justify a decision to go there. Rather, I'm suggesting that it's one potential factor in a very complex picture...one that happens to involve almost $300,000.

[270910]

The difference in LSAT/GPA between the average Vanderbilt/ other T20 LS students is probably so minute that it makes no real difference. For example, Vanderbilt average is 3.7/ 168 and Columbia’s is 3.64/ 170 3.72/172. I would not wager that one group is collectively smarter than the other given the similarities in numbers. I would certainly not risk the amazing career opportunities that Columbia affords its graduates based on that assumption either.

ftfy

Does Columbia offer its graduates very many career opportunites that VLS doesn't (other than SCOTUS clerkships obv)? By your theory, similar students should result in similar placements, and the statistics bear that out. Why pay sticker and go $280K into debt when you can have a very similar thing for substantially less? Like I said, maybe I'm just too risk-averse to play this game. Or maybe I don't understand the true difference between the opportunities presented to CLS and VLS graduates respectively.

Also, I never called the students at Vanderbilt idiots. They're far from it, as are most people who go to law school, actually. I'm not saying that OP's chances of excelling at Vandy are so much higher that THIS ALONE would justify a decision to go there. Rather, I'm suggesting that it's one potential factor in a very complex picture...one that happens to involve almost $300,000.

CLS does better because of its reputation, not because it's students are of noticeably better quality than vanderbilt. Law is all about signaling.

Hell, people with good grades do better because employers say they should and not because they're smarter. 90% of this god damned profession is shoving things into boxes, lining things up in order, breaking everything down into component pieces and elements and tests and standards. It's just the way of things.

[deadhipsters]

The difference in LSAT/GPA between the average Vanderbilt/ other T20 LS students is probably so minute that it makes no real difference. For example, Vanderbilt average is 3.7/ 168 and Columbia’s is 3.64/ 170 3.72/172. I would not wager that one group is collectively smarter than the other given the similarities in numbers. I would certainly not risk the amazing career opportunities that Columbia affords its graduates based on that assumption either.

ftfy

Does Columbia offer its graduates very many career opportunites that VLS doesn't (other than SCOTUS clerkships obv)? By your theory, similar students should result in similar placements, and the statistics bear that out. Why pay sticker and go $280K into debt when you can have a very similar thing for substantially less? Like I said, maybe I'm just too risk-averse to play this game. Or maybe I don't understand the true difference between the opportunities presented to CLS and VLS graduates respectively.

Also, I never called the students at Vanderbilt idiots. They're far from it, as are most people who go to law school, actually. I'm not saying that OP's chances of excelling at Vandy are so much higher that THIS ALONE would justify a decision to go there. Rather, I'm suggesting that it's one potential factor in a very complex picture...one that happens to involve almost $300,000.

I actually thought that stat was off- I checked on Princetonreview.com. Yes, I think the career opportunities are that significant. And that is not to say that Vanderbilt doesn’t offer a great deal of opportunities, because it does. However, Columbia offers a outside chance at academia and other Fed clerkships that aren’t generally given to Vandy students. Also, I don’t think that the OP was given any money at Vanderbilt so I think this is basically a moot point. But it is a interesting debate. If it was me, I think I would take Columbia. I worked in NYC Biglaw for several years and I can attest to the elitism that characterizes Biglaw and the legal profession in general. And I would want to give myself the best chance of success. Blah, I don’t know. It would be a different story if this poster wasn’t in 80k worth of debt as is. They are going to have to hustle.

Also, I would do public service if I was this poster and take advantage of Columbia’s LRAP I believe they wipe your debt clean in 3 years. And you can bet Vanderbilt does not have this.

http://www.law.columbia.edu/current_stu ... l_aid/LRAP

[cahesu]

Again, I'll have to defer to people who have experienced more in law school grading. But I will point out that my post was not meant to imply that people with similar numbers "should" do well at law schools where the average student has lower numbers. Your point on the randomness of success only takes into account undergraduate grades and LSAT score, the traditional entrance criteria. There is no way for you to take into account other factors like amount of studying, natural talent not associated with GPA or LSAT, writing skill, level of effort, or level of focus. Many of these factors are characteristics that a candidate brings with him or her regardless of school, yet are not reflected in their entrance criteria.

My point was that given the same candidate attending two different law schools, Columbia and Vanderbilt, this candidate will have a higher chance of finishing in the top of the class at Vanderbilt. You can certainly argue that difference is negligible. You can also argue that success is unpredictable. (Though, again, your argument is based only on entrance criteria). But I'm not buying the argument that any one student, given the same natural ability, level of effort, etc., has the same chances of finishing in the top half of the class at Columbia and at Vanderbilt and at Cooley. Unless the professors really do grade exams by throwing darts.

In the theoretical, yes, you're correct. But, in reality, everyone thinks that they will be above median and there is no way of knowing where you will end up until you do it.

I think when you start comparing students in the top 20 LS’s (with the exception of maybe Yale) you will see that they are all similar in terms of everything, GPA, LSAT, EC’s, WE, etc. The ones who attend better schools just have several points higher on the LSAT and in their GPA’s as I illustrated in my last post. Comparing them to Cooley students is absurd. Those students probably all scored a full 15 points lower on the LSAT and have significantly lower GPA’s. Clearly there is a difference in student caliber which will be reflected in law school performance. But at the top the difference is negligible. Which is why the argument that, “I am so smart I should go to school with those idiots at Vanderbilt so I can out perform them ” is ridiculous.

Thanks for reiterating.