Do you think the legal career will turn around? Forum

[Johann]

You guys are arguing about moot shit anyways. PAYE took out 90% of the downside of lower ranked schools.

[Troianii]

Yes but again, the main problem with this is that it the bimodal isn't an even split. 50% of lawyers are in the 40-65k range, 17% pretty much at 160k, 7% below the bottom range (below 40k), with 25% remaining in between 65k and 160k (oh, and like 1% above 160k). And the reality is that the really, really crappy left end - that 7% below 40k, and those one the lower end of the 40-65k grouping, are overwhelmingly dominated by TTT grads. There are some 200 law schools, with Cooley craking out what was it, 4% of law grads? It's a damned puppy mill. Students going to tier 1 law schools should not be in any SERIOUS worry of starting below 45k - they should actually fairly comfortably be able to say that they'll start above 50k.

The bimodal distribution that depicts lawyer starting salary isn't just related to school quality, much of it is related to sector - it's largely public v. private (but this distinction is fuzzy, of course).

yup, it's largely public v private- I just took it for a given that no public sector job was starting at 160k or near it. . My point here, with the bimodal distribution, is that someone going to Vanderbilt isn't in any real danger of coming out with no job offers but one paying 40k (the bottom end of the lower bimodal) unless it's something they're deliberately choosing ("following their heart" or however you want to put it).

btw, I'm quite familiar with all the information you've put forward about the bimodals.

If you google bimodal distributions, you'll see that bimodal distributions in real data don't typically have two equal modes because data are messy. That doesn't change the fact - and yes, it is not my opinion, it is how statistics work - that the mode(s) is/are the only appropriate measure of central tendency for multimodal distributions. And you demonstrate this in your own defense, as the best description you could pull together of this distribution is one that talks about the concentration of observations around these modes.

I'm done with this now because I've given you the relevant information/explanation + you can always google this.

It was refreshing to have someone mature and polite enter the conversation - I thank you for that.

[AReasonableMan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXKIECZpvqg

[Troianii]

Yes but again, the main problem with this is that it the bimodal isn't an even split. 50% of lawyers are in the 40-65k range, 17% pretty much at 160k, 7% below the bottom range (below 40k), with 25% remaining in between 65k and 160k (oh, and like 1% above 160k). And the reality is that the really, really crappy left end - that 7% below 40k, and those one the lower end of the 40-65k grouping, are overwhelmingly dominated by TTT grads. There are some 200 law schools, with Cooley craking out what was it, 4% of law grads? It's a damned puppy mill. Students going to tier 1 law schools should not be in any SERIOUS worry of starting below 45k - they should actually fairly comfortably be able to say that they'll start above 50k.

What is your evidence for this? Do you think very low paying law jobs (say, legal aid or small firms) pay T1 grads any more than they pay TTT grads? Is there any reason to think the crappy TTT grads are in those positions as opposed to not in legal positions at all?

I kind of feel like you're making the same argument you criticize, except that your cutoff is lower (t1 rather than t14).

It's just an extension of data from below - schools that aren't even in the top 100.
And again, I'm NOT saying that UNH law's median is very representative, I'm simply saying that it is doubtful that EVERYONE who didn't report a salary from UNH is making well below their reported median. Why? Because UNH law has two things for going it: they're really good with IP law (which is why, when you include unreported salaries, this school barely ranked in the top 100 has at least a quarter of its grads starting at over 90k, with at least an eighth starting well over 100k), and it is at least a decent option for public law (if you want it, but again, we all know that public law isn't going to make it rain $).

I said earlier that about half the schools in the top 100 are worth going to, circumstances dependent - and it isn't all the top half: I'd recommend someone with an interest in IP law go to UNH before Maryland. Obviously if you're getting into UNH with a small scholarship, you're not going to get into a decent regional (Indiana, Wisconsin, Colorado, etc.) with a scholarship. However, if you're interest is in patent law, then UNH is at the least "not a bad choice", just as if your career goal is to work for ExxonMobil Houston is at least "not a bad choice". Like you said, I'm pretty sure we generally agree on this stuff, what I'm disagreeing with is the notion (roughly stated) that, "the only way to go is T14 with a scholarship or a top regional with a VERY big scholarship". For most people, that's not bad general advice, especially if you're looking at a T14 to begin with, but as I've said over and over again, there are many, many, many exceptions to that.


Just data analysis extended further. Here are a couple examples (all data 2013):
Maine: median salary 46k
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/maine/sals/2013/
Memphis: median salary: 52k
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... sals/2013/
Baltimore: median salary: 50k
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... sals/2013/
Cooley: no median salary reported, but they had more unemployed than with jobs requiring bar passage
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... sals/2013/
California Western: 25th-75th salary range: 50-63k, with 42.3% unemployed
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... sals/2013/

[wolfie_m.]

.

[Troianii]

Even if the proposition were true, telling everyone that the legal career will turn around is problematic because one's relative chances of obtaining good employment won't "turn around" if law school applications increase. It'd be like a dog chasing his tail.

100% agree.

[Lawdork]

You guys are arguing about moot shit anyways. PAYE took out 90% of the downside of lower ranked schools.

jesus ppl, why do y'all ignore this? TLS underrates paye x 1000. It's like pretty simple logic

[lillawyer2]

You guys are arguing about moot shit anyways. PAYE took out 90% of the downside of lower ranked schools.

jesus ppl, why do y'all ignore this? TLS underrates paye x 1000. It's like pretty simple logic

What is payee?

[TLSModBot]

You guys are arguing about moot shit anyways. PAYE took out 90% of the downside of lower ranked schools.

jesus ppl, why do y'all ignore this? TLS underrates paye x 1000. It's like pretty simple logic

What is payee?

https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loan ... ome-driven

[Troianii]

You guys are arguing about moot shit anyways. PAYE took out 90% of the downside of lower ranked schools.

jesus ppl, why do y'all ignore this? TLS underrates paye x 1000. It's like pretty simple logic

Because it only applies to federal loans, rigbt? Unless you're going to a low tuition school with decent schooarship, or high tuition with large scholarship, you'll probably need some private loans - unless there's something about the cap on federal loans that changes during law school and which I didn't know about.

[A. Nony Mouse]

No, most people should not be taking private loans for law school (although some refinance with private lenders after). The only reason not to use federal loans for school is if your credit is fucked enough that they reject you. Occasionally someone on here talks about private loans but I think funding law school that way is fairly rare. The calculations for loans for law school are separate from those for UG and if you can get the loans at all you can get the full cost of attendance/living for law school.

People overlook PAYE because they don't know about it, or they choose not to rely on it because they're not sure it will stay around, they don't like the idea of the tax bomb at the end, or they don't want the debt to be around that long.

PAYE caps your loan payments at a certain percentage of your salary (10%? I always forget). Then after 20 years, any remaining balance on your loans is forgiven. However, you have to pay taxes on the balance that is forgiven as if it's an asset.

No one anywhere has yet had loans forgiven under PAYE (it was established within the last 5 years), and the repayment plans are frequently targeted for revision/restriction by various political groups. It's kind of hard to know what the program will actually look like 20 years from now.

(PAYE only applies to federal loans.)

[Lawdork]

No, most people should not be taking private loans for law school (although some refinance with private lenders after). The only reason not to use federal loans for school is if your credit is fucked enough that they reject you. Occasionally someone on here talks about private loans but I think funding law school that way is fairly rare. The calculations for loans for law school are separate from those for UG and if you can get the loans at all you can get the full cost of attendance/living for law school.

People overlook PAYE because they don't know about it, or they choose not to rely on it because they're not sure it will stay around, they don't like the idea of the tax bomb at the end, or they don't want the debt to be around that long.

PAYE caps your loan payments at a certain percentage of your salary (10%? I always forget). Then after 20 years, any remaining balance on your loans is forgiven. However, you have to pay taxes on the balance that is forgiven as if it's an asset.

No one anywhere has yet had loans forgiven under PAYE (it was established within the last 5 years), and the repayment plans are frequently targeted for revision/restriction by various political groups. It's kind of hard to know what the program will actually look like 20 years from now.

(PAYE only applies to federal loans.)

Yea it's capped at 10% of discretionary salary, which is like whatever monthly salary is minus 1700 (poverty line or something like that).

Basically, PAYE is like hedging your bets. If you get a crappy job and remain in a crappy job, you don't drown in debt, bc you never pay back much debt. But if you get biglaw, and get constant promotions, you'll pay more under PAYE than you would with a standard 10 year repayment.

[Troianii]

No, most people should not be taking private loans for law school (although some refinance with private lenders after). The only reason not to use federal loans for school is if your credit is fucked enough that they reject you. Occasionally someone on here talks about private loans but I think funding law school that way is fairly rare. The calculations for loans for law school are separate from those for UG and if you can get the loans at all you can get the full cost of attendance/living for law school.

People overlook PAYE because they don't know about it, or they choose not to rely on it because they're not sure it will stay around, they don't like the idea of the tax bomb at the end, or they don't want the debt to be around that long.

Oh - I didn't know that the federal loans allowed that much for graduate school. Did I hear something about them only offering subsidized loans for undergraduate study? Anyways, good info - didn't know about that, I thought a lot of people had to take private loans. In any case, sweet, and thanks for the info.

[A. Nony Mouse]

yeah, I think grad loans are no longer subsidized? I can't remember if all the subsidized ones were removed or only some of them.