Naive Question about Student Debt Forum

[Nomo]

One poster above mentioned that living cheap will violate all kinds of cultural norms and that there will be consequences. This is absolutely correct.

If you work in biglaw you will be surrounded by people who live in certain ways, who have certain habits, and think of certain things as normal. The same is true if you are a prosecutor, a small firm attorney, or a social worker. Stray too far from those norms and you will be an outcast. The problem with biglaw is that many of the norms require significant spending. The other problem is that you spend so much time working that your social group is going to be heavily mixed with your work group.

[NYSprague]

There is a major difference in deadlines at least in corporate. I rarely get something on Thursday that can wait until Monday. Usually it has to go out that same night, at least an initial internal draft, so the client can have it in the morning or ASAP.

Yeah, that sounds really annoying. We have fire drills in consulting as well, but likely to a less degree.

I've found that often times these deadlines are "soft" and can be negotiated - it come down to knowing whether its the client who needs it, the senior consultant, the senior associate, etc... and then pleading your way to more reasonable timing.

Of course, there are days when you're just screwed, no way around it, haha.

The client wants it yesterday. I've never once had a partner ask for more time. To keep business you have to deliver, because if you don't, another firm will be happy to take your clients.

[billables247]

There is a major difference in deadlines at least in corporate. I rarely get something on Thursday that can wait until Monday. Usually it has to go out that same night, at least an initial internal draft, so the client can have it in the morning or ASAP.

Yeah, that sounds really annoying. We have fire drills in consulting as well, but likely to a less degree.

I've found that often times these deadlines are "soft" and can be negotiated - it come down to knowing whether its the client who needs it, the senior consultant, the senior associate, etc... and then pleading your way to more reasonable timing.

Of course, there are days when you're just screwed, no way around it, haha.

The client wants it yesterday. I've never once had a partner ask for more time. To keep business you have to deliver, because if you don't, another firm will be happy to take your clients.

Those are the days you're screwed.

I'm talking about situations when you get a project in advance, but the senior associate on the team wants it tomorrow because he's more "comfortable" with a week buffer instead of 3 days. Those situations happen more than you'd expect and are negotiable...it just takes a little bit of experience to recognize and navigate.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I think the point is that as a biglaw associate, you can't usually negotiate that.

[09042014]

There is a major difference in deadlines at least in corporate. I rarely get something on Thursday that can wait until Monday. Usually it has to go out that same night, at least an initial internal draft, so the client can have it in the morning or ASAP.

Yeah, that sounds really annoying. We have fire drills in consulting as well, but likely to a less degree.

I've found that often times these deadlines are "soft" and can be negotiated - it come down to knowing whether its the client who needs it, the senior consultant, the senior associate, etc... and then pleading your way to more reasonable timing.

Of course, there are days when you're just screwed, no way around it, haha.

The client wants it yesterday. I've never once had a partner ask for more time. To keep business you have to deliver, because if you don't, another firm will be happy to take your clients.

Those are the days you're screwed.

I'm talking about situations when you get a project in advance, but the senior associate on the team wants it tomorrow because he's more "comfortable" with a week buffer instead of 3 days. Those situations happen more than you'd expect and are negotiable...it just takes a little bit of experience to recognize and navigate.

Here is how it happens in big law:

Option 1: Senior tells you it's do tomorrow and you don't know it's actually do next week.

Option 2: Senior doesn't tell you shit until day before it's due.

Option 3: Combination of 1 and 2, where they give you half the assignment, and then the day before want something different.

[NYSprague]

I'm trying to explain that big law corporate in my experience works fast. There is rarely a one week lead time. There are tight deadlines people need to meet for all kinds of market related reasons.

[billables247]

I'm trying to explain that big law corporate in my experience works fast. There is rarely a one week lead time. There are tight deadlines people need to meet for all kinds of market related reasons.

Noted, and I appreciate the insight.

There's a lot of differences between BigLaw jobs from what I can gather, and I'm sure your experiences are not an aberration. I've also heard of BL jobs with a ton of lead time that allows you to plan and push back on unreasonable deadlines. It's good to hear all sides of the story.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I'm trying to explain that big law corporate in my experience works fast. There is rarely a one week lead time. There are tight deadlines people need to meet for all kinds of market related reasons.

Noted, and I appreciate the insight.

There's a lot of differences between BigLaw jobs from what I can gather, and I'm sure your experiences are not an aberration. I've also heard of BL jobs with a ton of lead time that allows you to plan and push back on unreasonable deadlines. It's good to hear all sides of the story.

Where have you heard about these biglaw jobs??

[jbagelboy]

I'm trying to explain that big law corporate in my experience works fast. There is rarely a one week lead time. There are tight deadlines people need to meet for all kinds of market related reasons.

Noted, and I appreciate the insight.

There's a lot of differences between BigLaw jobs from what I can gather, and I'm sure your experiences are not an aberration. I've also heard of BL jobs with a ton of lead time that allows you to plan and push back on unreasonable deadlines. It's good to hear all sides of the story.

Some litigations will have set trial dates or due dates for submitting different motions as you suggest, but honestly even in litigation the client will change their mind on pressing a particular issue, and you'll just have to work around it. Forget any plans you had, now there's a new set of shifting 'deadlines'. And of course opposing counsel could just throw something st you out of the blue. A couple of the attorneys I work with received information on friday at 2pm which then required them to work through the weekend to file a letter motion by monday. In transactional work, it's even less structured much of the time.

I also worked in consulting before law school. Sure there was some crisis management that would spike up where I'd suddenly be on the plane headed to the client office for a couple days. But a lot more of the work had 'lead time' and set schedules decided in advance with the client. We had monthly reports, which were 20-25 hours set aside during the last two weeks of each month; deliverables with set due dates that were far less likely to change; weekly client conference calls; site visits scheduled months in advance; and of course, data entry and modeling based on set project/production schedules which might have some fluctuation, but mild.

So I can appreciate some difference in the flow of work, although having prior professional experience in a service environment is definitely helpful, and doesn't make the firm seem quite so menacing

[billables247]

I'm trying to explain that big law corporate in my experience works fast. There is rarely a one week lead time. There are tight deadlines people need to meet for all kinds of market related reasons.

Noted, and I appreciate the insight.

There's a lot of differences between BigLaw jobs from what I can gather, and I'm sure your experiences are not an aberration. I've also heard of BL jobs with a ton of lead time that allows you to plan and push back on unreasonable deadlines. It's good to hear all sides of the story.

Some litigations will have set trial dates or due dates for submitting different motions as you suggest, but honestly even in litigation the client will change their mind on pressing a particular issue, and you'll just have to work around it. Forget any plans you had, now there's a new set of shifting 'deadlines'. And of course opposing counsel could just throw something st you out of the blue. A couple of the attorneys I work with received information on friday at 2pm which then required them to work through the weekend to file a letter motion by monday. In transactional work, it's even less structured much of the time.

I also worked in consulting before law school. Sure there was some crisis management that would spike up where I'd suddenly be on the plane headed to the client office for a couple days. But a lot more of the work had 'lead time' and set schedules decided in advance with the client. We had monthly reports, which were 20-25 hours set aside during the last two weeks of each month; deliverables with set due dates that were far less likely to change; weekly client conference calls; site visits scheduled months in advance; and of course, data entry and modeling based on set project/production schedules which might have some fluctuation, but mild.

So I can appreciate some difference in the flow of work, although having prior professional experience in a service environment is definitely helpful, and doesn't make the firm seem quite so menacing

Yup, I was just about to cite litigation as what I had in mind when I said the "more structured" BigLaw work.
Of course, it's all relative and the client is king, so things come up that will throw your plans into whack.

And yup, your description of crisis management is in line what my work as well. Mild, but existent.

[gk101]

Yup, I was just about to cite litigation as what I had in mind when I said the "more structured" BigLaw work.
Of course, it's all relative and the client is king, so things come up that will throw your plans into whack.

And yup, your description of crisis management is in line what my work as well. Mild, but existent.

LOL did you understand the point DF was making below.

Here is how it happens in big law:

Option 1: Senior tells you it's do tomorrow and you don't know it's actually do next week.

Option 2: Senior doesn't tell you shit until day before it's due.

Option 3: Combination of 1 and 2, where they give you half the assignment, and then the day before want something different.

Yes you may have a court deadline 2 months out. But if the partner tells you to draft the motion by tomorrow, you don't get to negotiate the due date with them. And if you do, you run the risk of pissing the partner off to the point where he just stops giving you work. In other cases, the partner will forget to tell you that there is a deadline at all, walk into your office a few days before the due date and ask you why you haven't given him a draft already (of this thing that you had no idea you were supposed to be working on)

[AllTheLawz]

I honestly just don't get the obsession with making huge sacrifices and saving absolutely nothing to pay off 150k in loans in 2-3 years when its perfectly fine to live reasonable, save up emergency funds for the potential of you leaving the firm before 5 years are up, and be on track to pay it off in 5 years (@ ~36k/yr) if you stay in biglaw or a comparably high-paying job. What are you guys expecting to do with those extra 2 years (only saving about $11k in interest expense btw)?? The extra $11k does not significantly impact progressing towards buying a house or most other big-ticket items.

Whats so terrible about ending up in a $120k/yr in-house gig (obvi not guaranteed but not at all uncommon) in years 4+ and still working on 50-60k in loans??

Also, I haven't done the math directly but there is a good chance that compound interest+tax benefits on getting close to maxing out tax-preferred retirement plans beats out the 18-24 months of interest expense (again total of ~$11k) that you save by accelerating payment for no apparent reason.

[billables247]

Yup, I was just about to cite litigation as what I had in mind when I said the "more structured" BigLaw work.
Of course, it's all relative and the client is king, so things come up that will throw your plans into whack.

And yup, your description of crisis management is in line what my work as well. Mild, but existent.

LOL did you understand the point DF was making below.

Here is how it happens in big law:

Option 1: Senior tells you it's do tomorrow and you don't know it's actually do next week.

Option 2: Senior doesn't tell you shit until day before it's due.

Option 3: Combination of 1 and 2, where they give you half the assignment, and then the day before want something different.

Yes you may have a court deadline 2 months out. But if the partner tells you to draft the motion by tomorrow, you don't get to negotiate the due date with them. And if you do, you run the risk of pissing the partner off to the point where he just stops giving you work. In other cases, the partner will forget to tell you that there is a deadline at all, walk into your office a few days before the due date and ask you why you haven't given him a draft already (of this thing that you had no idea you were supposed to be working on)

Let's say you have a ton of work already, and the Partner wants a motion by tomorrow that isn't due until 2 months later. You're telling me under no circumstances could you politely tell them - "I have no capacity today, can I work on it tomorrow and get it to you by 1PM in the afternoon?" Is there no such thing as two-way communication within the BigLaw culture?

I understand there might be certain partners who have a reputation of "my way or the highway, right here right now," but you're telling met that ALL or even most partners are like this? Especially when there isn't client pressure to do so?

[Fiero85]

Again, what exactly is the harm in saying: here's a reasonable 160k gross income budget for a single adult in Manhattan with ~150k in student debt. The loan repayment line item is conservative because shit happens and some people need/want a bigger cash safety net than others. One could put more towards student loans with a more aggeessive approach, but they might be lacking emergency funds in the mean time. YMMV.

Why make a general budget that assumes near the upper bound of repayment speed? I'm all for paying back student debt asap but some people here are acting like keeping any cash reserve or enjoying any modern amenities instead of putting every last dime into student debt repayment is inherently foolish just because you have non-poor parents. That's simply not the case.

I'm just confused about the logic still I think. It seems like you would be loosing a lot of money by doing that wouldn't you? It seems like 2-3 years of shitlife>>>>>loosing 100k if not more in interest rate. I just calculated that paying back a 150k in 240 months with 1k payments means loosing 77,520 in interest. It also seems very emotionally distressing to think about the fact that you are loosing so much money, and just owe such high amounts. I think it would also lower your quality of life on a much deeper level than living in a shitty apartment for 2-3 years. Also being "ascetic" for those 2-3 years, living in a tiny East Harlem apartment (4, 5 trains) and paying off the loans just allows one much greater career options and gosh, freedom. I'm just surprised to be one of a handful of people here who think it would be so so worth it.

Way late on the reply here, but what we're trying to tell you is not that you have to wait 20 yrs to pay it back (by all means, do it in 5-10 years if you're so inclined...I agree 20 yrs and all that extra interest is a bad idea), but rather we're telling you that the whole 2-3 yr plan is too aggressive, maybe even crazy.

Paying down 60-80k a year (2/3 or more of take home pay) is probably not gonna happen at all, and even if it did, you would be a 1) super miserable person 2) a social outcast at your firm (which matters, a lot, for your sanity, career path, and earning potential - see point one again about being miserable). And your exit options when you burn out early (highly likely) won't be as good because you were too damn cheap to hang out with anyone you work with after hrs.

Your current idea is almost guaranteed to cause someone to burn out or get pushed out early from Biglaw. You'd be much better off being moderately frugal while fitting in with your co workers and allowing yourself to enjoy the tiny amount of free time you have as a young associate. Lasting 4 or 5 yrs in a biglaw firm and paying off your debt in 5-10 yrs would be way better (and actually plausible) compared to the Kamikaze plan you're suggesting. HTH

[gk101]

Let's say you have a ton of work already, and the Partner wants a motion by tomorrow that isn't due until 2 months later. You're telling me under no circumstances could you politely tell them - "I have no capacity today, can I work on it tomorrow and get it to you by 1PM in the afternoon?" Is there no such thing as two-way communication within the BigLaw culture?

I understand there might be certain partners who have a reputation of "my way or the highway, right here right now," but you're telling met that ALL or even most partners are like this? Especially when there isn't client pressure to do so?

Kinda moving the goalposts there a little bit but sure. If you already have a ton of work, obviously you would tell the partner that and ask if its something that can wait. If the partner absolutely needs it the next day for whatever reason, he will find someone else to do it. But in that case, your plans are already fucked because you have a ton of work to do.

I am talking about situations where you have dinner plans and the partner asks you to work on something immediately, telling them you have dinner plans is not going to look good. None of these are absolute statements and you will have a lot of partners who won't hold that against you. But you will also run into a lot of people who will just remember you as the guy who didn't want to stay late because of dinner plans and hold that against you.

[billables247]

Let's say you have a ton of work already, and the Partner wants a motion by tomorrow that isn't due until 2 months later. You're telling me under no circumstances could you politely tell them - "I have no capacity today, can I work on it tomorrow and get it to you by 1PM in the afternoon?" Is there no such thing as two-way communication within the BigLaw culture?

I understand there might be certain partners who have a reputation of "my way or the highway, right here right now," but you're telling met that ALL or even most partners are like this? Especially when there isn't client pressure to do so?

Kinda moving the goalposts there a little bit but sure. If you already have a ton of work, obviously you would tell the partner that and ask if its something that can wait. If the partner absolutely needs it the next day for whatever reason, he will find someone else to do it. But in that case, your plans are already fucked because you have a ton of work to do.

I am talking about situations where you have dinner plans and the partner asks you to work on something immediately, telling them you have dinner plans is not going to look good. None of these are absolute statements and you will have a lot of partners who won't hold that against you. But you will also run into a lot of people who will just remember you as the guy who didn't want to stay late because of dinner plans and hold that against you.

Yeah, that sounds more reasonable and is closer to what I had in mind as to what BL would be like.

I think its reasonable to communicate "do you need this now" or whether it can wait until the morning when something comes to your desk at 6PM, and triage work based on priorities and urgency. That was what I meant by "negotiating". I agree that work will for the most part will trump non-vital life/appointments...if your wife is in labor, nobody is going to hold it against you for taking the day off. Sorry for any confusion - I was just a little shocked by Desert Fox's (exaggerated for effect) post and your response that you're gonna get piled on without any say in the matter.

Of course, if you consistently blow off work and seem too nitpicky about staying late, you'll have a bad reputation. However, even the most unreasonable consultants I've worked with will let you off the hook so long as you have a reputation for being a hard worker, produce good work 95% of the time, and are really swamped/have a good excuse.

[gk101]

I don't want to keep repeating the same points that everyone above has already made, but you are over-estimating how much room for negotiation there really is as a junior associate and not appreciating how often/randomly these last minute deadlines come up.

[billables247]

I don't want to keep repeating the same points that everyone above has already made, but you are over-estimating how much room for negotiation there really is as a junior associate and not appreciating how often/randomly these last minute deadlines come up.

Okay. I appreciate your insight. It's tough to gauge the the culture of different industry until you've actually been in it.

[dresden doll]

The discussion of the fact that social norms get violated when a biglaw person lives like a poor reminds me of a person from back home who graduated from CLS into a V10 job at the firm's DC office. She managed to pay down her considerable loans in under 5 years (perhaps even 3) by living like a total monk. Small apartment, used furniture from the internet, no car, no social life, no eating out, ever. By the way, this was in the boom economy when people got massive bonuses; she once got a 20K bonus for Christmas, and every last cent of it went to loans. I'm not persuaded she'd have managed to make the quick repayment happen even given her ascetic lifestyle had she graduated in 2010 as opposed to 2003.

In her instance, the behavior was understandable if not entirely warranted because she resided in the United States on an H1B, with zero guarantees of permanent residency/citizenship at the end of the road. For those to whom term H1B means nothing, it's a work visa that allows a person to reside in the States for up to 6 years, for as long as they remain in a qualified job. So, in essence, she lived on borrowed time. Had she not paid off her loans in 6 years - or, had she lost her job before then - she'd have had to go home and figure out a way to make her payments on a heavily reduced income, with a 6:1 currency rate to boot.

Anyway, when her 6 years were up, the firm let her know that they wouldn't sponsor her for a Green Card b/c they weren't intending to make her partner. Who knows how much of a role her near-total disengagement from the firm's social life played, but given the fact that they hinted at it during the conversation, it certainly didn't help.

[LsatDork]

Again, what exactly is the harm in saying: here's a reasonable 160k gross income budget for a single adult in Manhattan with ~150k in student debt. The loan repayment line item is conservative because shit happens and some people need/want a bigger cash safety net than others. One could put more towards student loans with a more aggeessive approach, but they might be lacking emergency funds in the mean time. YMMV.

Why make a general budget that assumes near the upper bound of repayment speed? I'm all for paying back student debt asap but some people here are acting like keeping any cash reserve or enjoying any modern amenities instead of putting every last dime into student debt repayment is inherently foolish just because you have non-poor parents. That's simply not the case.

I'm just confused about the logic still I think. It seems like you would be loosing a lot of money by doing that wouldn't you? It seems like 2-3 years of shitlife>>>>>loosing 100k if not more in interest rate. I just calculated that paying back a 150k in 240 months with 1k payments means loosing 77,520 in interest. It also seems very emotionally distressing to think about the fact that you are loosing so much money, and just owe such high amounts. I think it would also lower your quality of life on a much deeper level than living in a shitty apartment for 2-3 years. Also being "ascetic" for those 2-3 years, living in a tiny East Harlem apartment (4, 5 trains) and paying off the loans just allows one much greater career options and gosh, freedom. I'm just surprised to be one of a handful of people here who think it would be so so worth it.

Way late on the reply here, but what we're trying to tell you is not that you have to wait 20 yrs to pay it back (by all means, do it in 5-10 years if you're so inclined...I agree 20 yrs and all that extra interest is a bad idea), but rather we're telling you that the whole 2-3 yr plan is too aggressive, maybe even crazy.

Paying down 60-80k a year (2/3 or more of take home pay) is probably not gonna happen at all, and even if it did, you would be a 1) super miserable person 2) a social outcast at your firm (which matters, a lot, for your sanity, career path, and earning potential - see point one again about being miserable). And your exit options when you burn out early (highly likely) won't be as good because you were too damn cheap to hang out with anyone you work with after hrs.

Your current idea is almost guaranteed to cause someone to burn out or get pushed out early from Biglaw. You'd be much better off being moderately frugal while fitting in with your co workers and allowing yourself to enjoy the tiny amount of free time you have as a young associate. Lasting 4 or 5 yrs in a biglaw firm and paying off your debt in 5-10 yrs would be way better (and actually plausible) compared to the Kamikaze plan you're suggesting. HTH

Awesome, exactly the answer I was looking for. I now understand the logic of why one should not do the 2-3 years plan (especially the part about making contacts+what the poster above said about seemingly living like a normal person), as well as why 5-10 years is a much better plan. I think I just got confused as to why it seemed so many people seemed to be saying that 20 years is the way to go.

Somebody asked earlier why I was wondering this since I don't want to do BigLaw. I'm studying for the LSAT now, will take it maybe in February or June of next year and depending on my score would:

(1) Apply to T6 and maybe Fordham (to start in 2016-2017);
(2) Not apply.

If I were to get in, I would:

(1) Go to T3-T6 and maybe Fordham if I got enough scholarship (school+outside grants) to graduate with very little loans;
(2) Go to HYS but probably Columbia (3.6 LSAC GPA, top of class but deflation plus no A+) at sticker and do my best to get BigLaw for a few years to repay.

I realize now that going to law school would mean being OK with giving up a performing arts career, which I would only do if it means realistic public service options, which I wouldn't have if I had: Big loans AND No realistic shot at BigLaw.

Because I don't want to do BigLaw, I was basically inquiring about how long would one have to do it for in order to almost fully repay their loan, check out of BigLaw, and get their freedom back. 5-6 years seems like a reasonable compromise.
This is hypothetical beyond belief. I want to formulate a precise and realistic hypothetical law school plan before registering the LSAT, which is why I'm trying to get as much info on everything now. Any criticism to this plan is very welcome.

[BigZuck]

Again, what exactly is the harm in saying: here's a reasonable 160k gross income budget for a single adult in Manhattan with ~150k in student debt. The loan repayment line item is conservative because shit happens and some people need/want a bigger cash safety net than others. One could put more towards student loans with a more aggeessive approach, but they might be lacking emergency funds in the mean time. YMMV.

Why make a general budget that assumes near the upper bound of repayment speed? I'm all for paying back student debt asap but some people here are acting like keeping any cash reserve or enjoying any modern amenities instead of putting every last dime into student debt repayment is inherently foolish just because you have non-poor parents. That's simply not the case.

I'm just confused about the logic still I think. It seems like you would be loosing a lot of money by doing that wouldn't you? It seems like 2-3 years of shitlife>>>>>loosing 100k if not more in interest rate. I just calculated that paying back a 150k in 240 months with 1k payments means loosing 77,520 in interest. It also seems very emotionally distressing to think about the fact that you are loosing so much money, and just owe such high amounts. I think it would also lower your quality of life on a much deeper level than living in a shitty apartment for 2-3 years. Also being "ascetic" for those 2-3 years, living in a tiny East Harlem apartment (4, 5 trains) and paying off the loans just allows one much greater career options and gosh, freedom. I'm just surprised to be one of a handful of people here who think it would be so so worth it.

Way late on the reply here, but what we're trying to tell you is not that you have to wait 20 yrs to pay it back (by all means, do it in 5-10 years if you're so inclined...I agree 20 yrs and all that extra interest is a bad idea), but rather we're telling you that the whole 2-3 yr plan is too aggressive, maybe even crazy.

Paying down 60-80k a year (2/3 or more of take home pay) is probably not gonna happen at all, and even if it did, you would be a 1) super miserable person 2) a social outcast at your firm (which matters, a lot, for your sanity, career path, and earning potential - see point one again about being miserable). And your exit options when you burn out early (highly likely) won't be as good because you were too damn cheap to hang out with anyone you work with after hrs.

Your current idea is almost guaranteed to cause someone to burn out or get pushed out early from Biglaw. You'd be much better off being moderately frugal while fitting in with your co workers and allowing yourself to enjoy the tiny amount of free time you have as a young associate. Lasting 4 or 5 yrs in a biglaw firm and paying off your debt in 5-10 yrs would be way better (and actually plausible) compared to the Kamikaze plan you're suggesting. HTH

Awesome, exactly the answer I was looking for. I now understand the logic of why one should not do the 2-3 years plan (especially the part about making contacts+what the poster above said about seemingly living like a normal person), as well as why 5-10 years is a much better plan. I think I just got confused as to why it seemed so many people seemed to be saying that 20 years is the way to go.

Somebody asked earlier why I was wondering this since I don't want to do BigLaw. I'm studying for the LSAT now, will take it maybe in February or June of next year and depending on my score would:

(1) Apply to T6 and maybe Fordham (to start in 2016-2017);
(2) Not apply.

If I were to get in, I would:

(1) Go to T3-T6 and maybe Fordham if I got enough scholarship (school+outside grants) to graduate with very little loans;
(2) Go to HYS but probably Columbia (3.6 LSAC GPA, top of class but deflation plus no A+) at sticker and do my best to get BigLaw for a few years to repay.

I realize now that going to law school would mean being OK with giving up a performing arts career, which I would only do if it means realistic public service options, which I wouldn't have if I had: Big loans AND No realistic shot at BigLaw.

Because I don't want to do BigLaw, I was basically inquiring about how long would one have to do it for in order to almost fully repay their loan, check out of BigLaw, and get their freedom back. 5-6 years seems like a reasonable compromise.
This is hypothetical beyond belief. I want to formulate a precise and realistic hypothetical law school plan before registering the LSAT, which is why I'm trying to get as much info on everything now. Any criticism to this plan is very welcome.

You're saying you want a career in public interest? What kind of PI?

Does going to a top school at sticker just to get BIG LAW you don't want to pay down the BIG DEBT you acquired and eventually find a way into a PI job really sound like a good plan to you?

Why not just go to a solid school for free and become a public defender or something and bypass all the debt/working a job you don't want part?

[furrrman]

OP, I'm guessing you don't have an SO? If you did, that would at least triple your food budget, not to mention added costs for dates and whatnot.

[09042014]

OP lives like a rat because she's fobbish. It's not realistic.

[BiglawAssociate]

One poster above mentioned that living cheap will violate all kinds of cultural norms and that there will be consequences. This is absolutely correct.

If you work in biglaw you will be surrounded by people who live in certain ways, who have certain habits, and think of certain things as normal. The same is true if you are a prosecutor, a small firm attorney, or a social worker. Stray too far from those norms and you will be an outcast. The problem with biglaw is that many of the norms require significant spending. The other problem is that you spend so much time working that your social group is going to be heavily mixed with your work group.

Is this sarcasm? Nobody gives a shit about how much you spend in biglaw. In fact, some biglaw partners are the CHEAPEST mofos around. One partner I knew wouldn't spend 10k on a vacation since he said that was "too much money." Another partner literally counts to the dollar how much he spends in cab rides.

I'm really fucking cheap. Which is why i paid down my loans within 2.5-3 years. We also get like 2k allowance from parents (on top of earning 250k a year) and we save a shitload on top of that.

This is because I plan on retiring by max age 50....I don't want to be a dipshit working until death. What's the point of living if you are working until you're 70 and can't do shit?

[A. Nony Mouse]

You're responding to a year-old thread.