If you could go back in time and deal with loans Forum

[abl]

But really though, just take the scholarship at a lower ranked T14. Cutting a bunch of corners to only be 220K in debt instead of 230K in debt is...something...I guess but might as well take the 50K extra scholarship at, like, Duke. Then you won't necessarily have to do those things are you'll probably end up with the same job at the end. That's what we call a win, win.

That's the thing. Living a splitter life can be tough. Closest comparably ranked school I got into was Berkeley with no cash so I withdrew. Georgetown didn't even give me cash, although maybe I will hear back since I was an alternate.

My closest jump would be UCLA with a half scholly. Idk.

None of this is worth it. You are going to have 300k in a debt in November of 2020. Even if you get biglaw and live like a pauper, you'll have a negative net worth until 2024-2026. You probably won't be debt free until 2028, and that's if you are living like a student.

That's ten years for working your ass off just to get back to zero.

No: this is highly misleading. By "live like a pauper," what Desert Fox means is "live like a middle-class individual as opposed to the upper-class lifestyle to which some on TLS feel entitled." If you've grown up in poverty, it's likely that a biglaw or even midlaw salary less payments on $300k in debt (on a 10-year repayment schedule) is going to feel like a pretty big step up. Sure, it can be frustrating seeing so much money come in one door and out the other, and it means that some of your colleagues without debt will be living a substantial wealthier life than you. But you're not going to have trouble making ends meet in this position (let alone be worried about making your next rent payment, having food for groceries, etc--the sort of struggles that one faces in actual poverty).

In any event, if the OP wants to do something like DA, the details of Chicago's loan assistance program are really primarily what are relevant.

[abl]

But really though, just take the scholarship at a lower ranked T14. Cutting a bunch of corners to only be 220K in debt instead of 230K in debt is...something...I guess but might as well take the 50K extra scholarship at, like, Duke. Then you won't necessarily have to do those things are you'll probably end up with the same job at the end. That's what we call a win, win.

I partially agree with this. I don't think that taking on second jobs in law school is a good idea for this exact reason. Sure, you might be able to make an additional $10-20k. But it's going to impact your performance, ability to participate in ECs, connections, etc. If you're really this debt adverse, it makes more sense just to go to somewhere like Duke with a bigger scholarship.

The flip side of this is that you've already decided (mostly decided?) to go to UChicago over some place like Duke with a $50k scholarship. This implies that you value the marginal increase in outcomes from Chicago over Duke (and other less tangible factors like geographical preferences) to a tune of >$50,000. If this is the case, don't give them up by working as an LSAT tutor in your free time, taking a 1L summer SA when you're looking to maximize your chances of crim law, etc.

UChicago gave me 15k over 3 years (aka I'm paying full sticker.)
Georgetown is gonna tell me if I get a monetary offer at the end of this week. However, I also have the option of UCLA at 25k each year (75k total). Idk how I could ever justify choosing Georgetown over UCLA but Chicago will at least ensure (almost) that I get a job unless I'm one of the (2?) people who didn't get one last year.

Also what Do you mean by maximizing chances of criminal law? Do people opt for like clinics or externships during 1l summer? Sorry I'm so not-knowledgable about this yet. I'm reading voraciously. I'm just trying to settle the idea of debt and select my school and also realize idk what kind of law to practice.

Yep. Crimlaw positions (especially the more competitive ones) require showing a commitment to crimlaw. You're probably not going to land a DA position out of even Chicago if you do SAs both summers and don't do much else in law school (unless you're such an academically stellar candidate that it's hard for people to turn you down--but I wouldn't assume that). Your 1L summer is your best chance to explore what you really want to do without a whole lot of consequences if you change your mind. I'd use the summer to do something crim-related. If you ultimately decide to go that route, it'll be a strong resume line (and will likely be the source of connections that will help you land your post-ls position). Or, maybe after spending your 1L summer in a DA's office, you'll realize that you're actually more interested in something else. Regardless, this strikes me as being a FAR better use of your summer than trying to maximize your earnings so as to reduce your debt by 10% or so. (If you end up in a DA position, your debt will also likely be paid via Chicago's loan assistance program.)

[SD619]

But really though, just take the scholarship at a lower ranked T14. Cutting a bunch of corners to only be 220K in debt instead of 230K in debt is...something...I guess but might as well take the 50K extra scholarship at, like, Duke. Then you won't necessarily have to do those things are you'll probably end up with the same job at the end. That's what we call a win, win.

I partially agree with this. I don't think that taking on second jobs in law school is a good idea for this exact reason. Sure, you might be able to make an additional $10-20k. But it's going to impact your performance, ability to participate in ECs, connections, etc. If you're really this debt adverse, it makes more sense just to go to somewhere like Duke with a bigger scholarship.

The flip side of this is that you've already decided (mostly decided?) to go to UChicago over some place like Duke with a $50k scholarship. This implies that you value the marginal increase in outcomes from Chicago over Duke (and other less tangible factors like geographical preferences) to a tune of >$50,000. If this is the case, don't give them up by working as an LSAT tutor in your free time, taking a 1L summer SA when you're looking to maximize your chances of crim law, etc.

All of that said, there's no reason to live a life of luxury in law school (and a lot of law students do). Don't budget to such extremes that it negatively impacts the time that you can devote to school. But you'll find that the difference between the life of the highest spending students and just kind of a normal life can be as much as $10,000/year. Every dollar you spend in law school on fancy meals out, fancy apartments, new suits, etc, is worth $1.5-2 in post-law school money. You're paying a huge premium in law school to not just live like a student, but live like a wealthy student. So long as you're happy budgeting and being frugal, there's really no reason not to try.

Im pretty sure that aside from rent I could live comfortably on what many would consider unlivable conditions. This is a result of having an immigrant father and growing up being poor.

My idea of being rich is having a salary of $60,000 a year as a bachelor. Honestly I probably grew up on 1/2 of this for a fam of 4.

The point of my original post wasn't to ask if it was possible or prudent to take out loans- moreso I wanted advice on how to put myself in the most favorable position logistically to pay off 250,000 in loan debt (oxymoronic, I know )


TLS always evolves into "don't go". But you guys gotta look at my shit intersectionally (please). Plenty of people before me took out 1/4mil on student loans and didn't end up killing themselves. My quality of life (I didn't know until college) was very poor for the first 18years and if I took home $20k per year after loans, rent, food, etc from big law, I'd be living large with a Chicago degree. I'd rather be a biglaw slave than pick strawberries in a field all day or sell dope. If someone can convince me that I have better alternatives I will withdraw my apps immediately.

[Desert Fox]

But really though, just take the scholarship at a lower ranked T14. Cutting a bunch of corners to only be 220K in debt instead of 230K in debt is...something...I guess but might as well take the 50K extra scholarship at, like, Duke. Then you won't necessarily have to do those things are you'll probably end up with the same job at the end. That's what we call a win, win.

That's the thing. Living a splitter life can be tough. Closest comparably ranked school I got into was Berkeley with no cash so I withdrew. Georgetown didn't even give me cash, although maybe I will hear back since I was an alternate.

My closest jump would be UCLA with a half scholly. Idk.

None of this is worth it. You are going to have 300k in a debt in November of 2020. Even if you get biglaw and live like a pauper, you'll have a negative net worth until 2024-2026. You probably won't be debt free until 2028, and that's if you are living like a student.

That's ten years for working your ass off just to get back to zero.

No: this is highly misleading. By "live like a pauper," what Desert Fox means is "live like a middle-class individual as opposed to the upper-class lifestyle to which some on TLS feel entitled." If you've grown up in poverty, it's likely that a biglaw or even midlaw salary less payments on $300k in debt (on a 10-year repayment schedule) is going to feel like a pretty big step up. Sure, it can be frustrating seeing so much money come in one door and out the other, and it means that some of your colleagues without debt will be living a substantial wealthier life than you. But you're not going to have trouble making ends meet in this position (let alone be worried about making your next rent payment, having food for groceries, etc--the sort of struggles that one faces in actual poverty).

In any event, if the OP wants to do something like DA, the details of Chicago's loan assistance program are really primarily what are relevant.

I've paid over 100k dollars to loans, how much have you paid?

[SD619]

But really though, just take the scholarship at a lower ranked T14. Cutting a bunch of corners to only be 220K in debt instead of 230K in debt is...something...I guess but might as well take the 50K extra scholarship at, like, Duke. Then you won't necessarily have to do those things are you'll probably end up with the same job at the end. That's what we call a win, win.

I partially agree with this. I don't think that taking on second jobs in law school is a good idea for this exact reason. Sure, you might be able to make an additional $10-20k. But it's going to impact your performance, ability to participate in ECs, connections, etc. If you're really this debt adverse, it makes more sense just to go to somewhere like Duke with a bigger scholarship.

The flip side of this is that you've already decided (mostly decided?) to go to UChicago over some place like Duke with a $50k scholarship. This implies that you value the marginal increase in outcomes from Chicago over Duke (and other less tangible factors like geographical preferences) to a tune of >$50,000. If this is the case, don't give them up by working as an LSAT tutor in your free time, taking a 1L summer SA when you're looking to maximize your chances of crim law, etc.

UChicago gave me 15k over 3 years (aka I'm paying full sticker.)
Georgetown is gonna tell me if I get a monetary offer at the end of this week. However, I also have the option of UCLA at 25k each year (75k total). Idk how I could ever justify choosing Georgetown over UCLA but Chicago will at least ensure (almost) that I get a job unless I'm one of the (2?) people who didn't get one last year.

Also what Do you mean by maximizing chances of criminal law? Do people opt for like clinics or externships during 1l summer? Sorry I'm so not-knowledgable about this yet. I'm reading voraciously. I'm just trying to settle the idea of debt and select my school and also realize idk what kind of law to practice.

Yep. Crimlaw positions (especially the more competitive ones) require showing a commitment to crimlaw. You're probably not going to land a DA position out of even Chicago if you do SAs both summers and don't do much else in law school (unless you're such an academically stellar candidate that it's hard for people to turn you down--but I wouldn't assume that). Your 1L summer is your best chance to explore what you really want to do without a whole lot of consequences if you change your mind. I'd use the summer to do something crim-related. If you ultimately decide to go that route, it'll be a strong resume line (and will likely be the source of connections that will help you land your post-ls position). Or, maybe after spending your 1L summer in a DA's office, you'll realize that you're actually more interested in something else. Regardless, this strikes me as being a FAR better use of your summer than trying to maximize your earnings so as to reduce your debt by 10% or so. (If you end up in a DA position, your debt will also likely be paid via Chicago's loan assistance program.)

This is absolutely advice I need. Thank you for the guidance and advice. I was so curious about 1L summer. I will look into this- I like the idea of learning what I am decent at or interested in.

[WhiteCollarBlueShirt]

I'll play the optimist.

Go to Chicago - you'd have to really mess up/time the economy poorly not to get NYC biglaw (which is not true at say Duke). You'll likely have a miserable life, you'll be paying loans through your 30's and your kids will resent you--but at least they'll have the opportunity to resent you and a safety net to make their own mistakes.

Law is a good bootstraps option for the upper middle class. It's just a terrible option if that's not your goal or needed because you have less time intensive or cheaper routes to get there, because what will happen is that you will throw out so, so much of your precious youthful time, energy and life to get to that status.

Good luck! Sincerely! It's not the best option, but it's relatively egalitarian/attrition-based, so it might be the best option or path of least resistance for your circumstances. But just check those 12 hour day comments, because don't go in expecting 12; go in expecting 18 and you'll be okay.

[SD619]

But really though, just take the scholarship at a lower ranked T14. Cutting a bunch of corners to only be 220K in debt instead of 230K in debt is...something...I guess but might as well take the 50K extra scholarship at, like, Duke. Then you won't necessarily have to do those things are you'll probably end up with the same job at the end. That's what we call a win, win.

That's the thing. Living a splitter life can be tough. Closest comparably ranked school I got into was Berkeley with no cash so I withdrew. Georgetown didn't even give me cash, although maybe I will hear back since I was an alternate.

My closest jump would be UCLA with a half scholly. Idk.

None of this is worth it. You are going to have 300k in a debt in November of 2020. Even if you get biglaw and live like a pauper, you'll have a negative net worth until 2024-2026. You probably won't be debt free until 2028, and that's if you are living like a student.

That's ten years for working your ass off just to get back to zero.

No: this is highly misleading. By "live like a pauper," what Desert Fox means is "live like a middle-class individual as opposed to the upper-class lifestyle to which some on TLS feel entitled." If you've grown up in poverty, it's likely that a biglaw or even midlaw salary less payments on $300k in debt (on a 10-year repayment schedule) is going to feel like a pretty big step up. Sure, it can be frustrating seeing so much money come in one door and out the other, and it means that some of your colleagues without debt will be living a substantial wealthier life than you. But you're not going to have trouble making ends meet in this position (let alone be worried about making your next rent payment, having food for groceries, etc--the sort of struggles that one faces in actual poverty).

In any event, if the OP wants to do something like DA, the details of Chicago's loan assistance program are really primarily what are relevant.

Ok this helped a lot with context. If I can pay for running water and electricity and a bus pass, I don't consider it a pauper's life. I'm used to be surrounded by those who do the same work as me but get more breaks (I went to a college wth a lot of wealthy peers- I learned what a venture capitalist when I was a sophomore because a kids dad did it for a living).

I'm not positive about DA. I was told maybe it would behoove me (trial experience, connections and practical skills) but I was thinking the typical biglaw "see how long before I go crazy or get canned" and try to pay off loans to a managable level before transitioning to a mid firm or in house or something

[SD619]

I'll play the optimist.

Go to Chicago - you'd have to really mess up/time the economy poorly not to get NYC biglaw (which is not true at say Duke). You'll likely have a miserable life, you'll be paying loans through your 30's and your kids will resent you--but at least they'll have the opportunity to resent you and a safety net to make their own mistakes.

Law is a good bootstraps option for the upper middle class. It's just a terrible option if that's not your goal or needed because you have less time intensive or cheaper routes to get there, because what will happen is that you will throw out so, so much of your precious youthful time, energy and life to get to that status.

Good luck! Sincerely! It's not the best option, but it's relatively egalitarian/attrition-based, so it might be the best option or path of least resistance for your circumstances. But just check those 12 hour day comments, because don't go in expecting 12; go in expecting 18 and you'll be okay.

I appreciate the honesty. Keep in mind 12 hours in a factory (beginning at 3am) may be a bit different from 12 in an office and 6 at home.

One thing that pisses me off about TLS is all this talk about trading the best years of your life to a suit in an office. Dude, my youth would be wasted working at panera where I used to stock freezers at 4am and make overpriced sandwiches for spoiled ass law students. Ironic as hell.

Youth is wasted where I come from anyway. At least I'd be obeying the law and pursuing the promise of something at the end of the road with a degree that's worth something.

[Desert Fox]

I'll play the optimist.

Go to Chicago - you'd have to really mess up/time the economy poorly not to get NYC biglaw (which is not true at say Duke). You'll likely have a miserable life, you'll be paying loans through your 30's and your kids will resent you--but at least they'll have the opportunity to resent you and a safety net to make their own mistakes.

Law is a good bootstraps option for the upper middle class. It's just a terrible option if that's not your goal or needed because you have less time intensive or cheaper routes to get there, because what will happen is that you will throw out so, so much of your precious youthful time, energy and life to get to that status.

Good luck! Sincerely! It's not the best option, but it's relatively egalitarian/attrition-based, so it might be the best option or path of least resistance for your circumstances. But just check those 12 hour day comments, because don't go in expecting 12; go in expecting 18 and you'll be okay.

I appreciate the honesty. Keep in mind 12 hours in a factory (beginning at 3am) may be a bit different from 12 in an office and 6 at home.

One thing that pisses me off about TLS is all this talk about trading the best years of your life to a suit in an office. Dude, my youth would be wasted working at panera where I used to stock freezers at 4am and make overpriced sandwiches for spoiled ass law students. Ironic as hell.

Youth is wasted where I come from anyway. At least I'd be obeying the law and pursuing the promise of something at the end of the road with a degree that's worth something.

Ok, but one day you'll remember we warned you. Good luck.

[SD619]

I'll play the optimist.

Go to Chicago - you'd have to really mess up/time the economy poorly not to get NYC biglaw (which is not true at say Duke). You'll likely have a miserable life, you'll be paying loans through your 30's and your kids will resent you--but at least they'll have the opportunity to resent you and a safety net to make their own mistakes.

Law is a good bootstraps option for the upper middle class. It's just a terrible option if that's not your goal or needed because you have less time intensive or cheaper routes to get there, because what will happen is that you will throw out so, so much of your precious youthful time, energy and life to get to that status.

Good luck! Sincerely! It's not the best option, but it's relatively egalitarian/attrition-based, so it might be the best option or path of least resistance for your circumstances. But just check those 12 hour day comments, because don't go in expecting 12; go in expecting 18 and you'll be okay.

I appreciate the honesty. Keep in mind 12 hours in a factory (beginning at 3am) may be a bit different from 12 in an office and 6 at home.

One thing that pisses me off about TLS is all this talk about trading the best years of your life to a suit in an office. Dude, my youth would be wasted working at panera where I used to stock freezers at 4am and make overpriced sandwiches for spoiled ass law students. Ironic as hell.

Youth is wasted where I come from anyway. At least I'd be obeying the law and pursuing the promise of something at the end of the road with a degree that's worth something.

Ok, but one day you'll remember we warned you. Good luck.

Bro all I'm saying is I don't know what else I could fucking do with my current lot in life. I'm incredibly proud I got accepted to Chicago. To me it's a huge deal and can change my life trajectory forever. Everyone says don't take out loans but then everyone else keeps doing it. Idk

I implore you, please give me advice on what to do instead. Or how to make this as managable as possible. I have no one else to get guidance from. I'm all alone in this, which is fine, but it's unfamiliar as hell

[abl]

But really though, just take the scholarship at a lower ranked T14. Cutting a bunch of corners to only be 220K in debt instead of 230K in debt is...something...I guess but might as well take the 50K extra scholarship at, like, Duke. Then you won't necessarily have to do those things are you'll probably end up with the same job at the end. That's what we call a win, win.

That's the thing. Living a splitter life can be tough. Closest comparably ranked school I got into was Berkeley with no cash so I withdrew. Georgetown didn't even give me cash, although maybe I will hear back since I was an alternate.

My closest jump would be UCLA with a half scholly. Idk.

None of this is worth it. You are going to have 300k in a debt in November of 2020. Even if you get biglaw and live like a pauper, you'll have a negative net worth until 2024-2026. You probably won't be debt free until 2028, and that's if you are living like a student.

That's ten years for working your ass off just to get back to zero.

No: this is highly misleading. By "live like a pauper," what Desert Fox means is "live like a middle-class individual as opposed to the upper-class lifestyle to which some on TLS feel entitled." If you've grown up in poverty, it's likely that a biglaw or even midlaw salary less payments on $300k in debt (on a 10-year repayment schedule) is going to feel like a pretty big step up. Sure, it can be frustrating seeing so much money come in one door and out the other, and it means that some of your colleagues without debt will be living a substantial wealthier life than you. But you're not going to have trouble making ends meet in this position (let alone be worried about making your next rent payment, having food for groceries, etc--the sort of struggles that one faces in actual poverty).

In any event, if the OP wants to do something like DA, the details of Chicago's loan assistance program are really primarily what are relevant.

I've paid over 100k dollars to loans, how much have you paid?

I'm not sure why it's relevant. I've paid a substantial amount--certainly enough that I don't think anyone here could accuse me of not knowing what a high debt load feels like. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest over exact amounts. Feel free to explain why you think that $300,000 in debt burden on a ten-year repayment plan in Chicago on a biglaw (or midlaw) salary will result in feeling like you're living the life of a pauper. I suspect that when you do the math, you'll realize that this sort of DTI will result at worst in living like you're making in the $50,000-$70,000 range (e.g., solidly middle class).

Incidentally, to the OP: you should be aware that DA positions don't pay extraordinarily well. I'd spend some time researching DA pay in the locations in which you'd be looking for jobs, and making sure that Chicago's loan assistance program is sufficiently generous to make that work financially (ditto AUSA positions or whatever other jobs you're considering). It may be the case that your "dream job" pays only $40,000/year, and that amount is not enough to make you happy even if Chicago pays your loans for you. (Or, it may be the case that your "dream job" pays enough that Chicago's loan assistance doesn't kick in, but not enough that you can live the life you want to live with your debt burden.)

[SD619]

Great advice and I will totally look into it more.

Also to everyone with the tough love- I appreciate it and I need it. I want to go into things knowing what I will face. Sticking my head into the sand isn't an option

[zot1]

I'll play the optimist.

Go to Chicago - you'd have to really mess up/time the economy poorly not to get NYC biglaw (which is not true at say Duke). You'll likely have a miserable life, you'll be paying loans through your 30's and your kids will resent you--but at least they'll have the opportunity to resent you and a safety net to make their own mistakes.

Law is a good bootstraps option for the upper middle class. It's just a terrible option if that's not your goal or needed because you have less time intensive or cheaper routes to get there, because what will happen is that you will throw out so, so much of your precious youthful time, energy and life to get to that status.

Good luck! Sincerely! It's not the best option, but it's relatively egalitarian/attrition-based, so it might be the best option or path of least resistance for your circumstances. But just check those 12 hour day comments, because don't go in expecting 12; go in expecting 18 and you'll be okay.

I appreciate the honesty. Keep in mind 12 hours in a factory (beginning at 3am) may be a bit different from 12 in an office and 6 at home.

One thing that pisses me off about TLS is all this talk about trading the best years of your life to a suit in an office. Dude, my youth would be wasted working at panera where I used to stock freezers at 4am and make overpriced sandwiches for spoiled ass law students. Ironic as hell.

Youth is wasted where I come from anyway. At least I'd be obeying the law and pursuing the promise of something at the end of the road with a degree that's worth something.

This is the part where maybe you're not getting it.

I'm in my 20s and not in BigLaw. I work 40 hours per week. Get two weeks of time off I don't feel bad taking and sick leave I have unfortunately used more than a few times.

Sure, I can't just go and buy a Beamer, however, I have a comfortable life, pay my bills on time, and I get to use some of my money for travel. In addition, I am putting away for retirement, which the government is matching nicely.

This means I have a life outside work... I socialize with friends frequently, go to events, go out, play sports, etc. So while I don't work at Panera, I also am not wasting my youth away at all. (Unless you want to make the argument that we all are because we work at all, which I would support).

I love it when people make the "well BigLaw is better than X" argument. If that's what you gotta do to get yourself through it, that's fine. But the alternatives to biglaw are far way more and better than just Panera. At least Chipotle has better food.

[BigZuck]

Lol, Uncle Able came along to tell you to believe you can fly just as predicted

Look I think it's a bad idea because there is some risk that you won't get big law, or that you'll get it but not keep it for more than a year or two and then get stuck in something significantly lower paying, or struggle to find something at all. Also you might be a big law super star but hate it and succumb to alcholism, divorce, being trapped by golden handcuffs, etc. like so many others. Also you don't seem to know what you want to do (public interest and private sector work is often mutually exclusive, particularly when it comes to people's personal preferences. And yes abl, I have heard of the revolving door). I just think it's a bad idea to sign on to Chicago at sticker debt in light of all that.

Also maybe I'm wrong to think this but I can't imagine someone who has never had money and then given a bunch of it will do things like eat ramen and ride the city bus. I just don't think that's realistic at all.

I think sticker debt at any law school is a bad idea. Should not be done, full stop. What do I think you should do? I think you should figure out what you want from a career with some degree of specificity. If you decide that you really want to be a lawyer because for whatever reason that is the best career for you then you should go somewhere at a more appropriate cost.

[abl]

Ok, but one day you'll remember we warned you. Good luck.

Bro al I'm saying is I don't know what else I could fucking do with my current lot in life.

I implore you, please give me advice on what to do instead. Or how to make this as managable as possible. I have no one else to get guidance from. I'm all alone in this, which is fine, but it's unfamiliar as hell.

Spend some time before going to law school identifying which luxuries (nice apartments, meals out, etc) are helpful to your mental happiness and encouraging of hard work, and which are just luxuries. For some people, having an apartment with a bellhop and gym that they feel totally safe in, that is totally clean, etc, makes a big difference. For others, well, it's obviously nice, but they'd be pretty happy in the slightly shabbier apartment down the block. I did not come from the sort of wealth that so many in law school and on TLS did, and as a consequence, I did not see the need to eat out all that often, live in the fanciest law school housing options, buy new suits (I got my ~$700 interview suit in great condition used from eBay for ~$150), etc. I basically spent money when social circumstances called for it: when my friends were going out (and then I generally didn't order appetizers or fancy cocktails), etc. Because that meant I was eating out 1-2 times per week rather than 5-10, and because I lived in a suitably nice (but less luxurious) apartment for about $400/m less than most of my classmates, and because of my general low spending on clothes and other accessories, I spent probably around $10,000/year less than what my schools' COA allowed for. (And I had friends who were constantly stressed about running out of the COA allowance.)

My biggest piece of advice to you is to focus in law school on law school, and not to fall into the trap of spending money that's available for the sake of spending that money. This approach will likely result in you saving $5-10k per year on COA all while maximizing your chances for post-ls success.

[WhiteCollarBlueShirt]

I'll play the optimist.

Go to Chicago - you'd have to really mess up/time the economy poorly not to get NYC biglaw (which is not true at say Duke). You'll likely have a miserable life, you'll be paying loans through your 30's and your kids will resent you--but at least they'll have the opportunity to resent you and a safety net to make their own mistakes.

Law is a good bootstraps option for the upper middle class. It's just a terrible option if that's not your goal or needed because you have less time intensive or cheaper routes to get there, because what will happen is that you will throw out so, so much of your precious youthful time, energy and life to get to that status.

Good luck! Sincerely! It's not the best option, but it's relatively egalitarian/attrition-based, so it might be the best option or path of least resistance for your circumstances. But just check those 12 hour day comments, because don't go in expecting 12; go in expecting 18 and you'll be okay.

I appreciate the honesty. Keep in mind 12 hours in a factory (beginning at 3am) may be a bit different from 12 in an office and 6 at home.

One thing that pisses me off about TLS is all this talk about trading the best years of your life to a suit in an office. Dude, my youth would be wasted working at panera where I used to stock freezers at 4am and make overpriced sandwiches for spoiled ass law students. Ironic as hell.

Youth is wasted where I come from anyway. At least I'd be obeying the law and pursuing the promise of something at the end of the road with a degree that's worth something.

Ok, but one day you'll remember we warned you. Good luck.

Desert Fox, emphatically seconded! And OP, it's good you're used to working at 3am and 4am--keep on that--and don't miss a comma, mix up defined terms or change styles or I'll need to give you a bad review. Also, don't get latham'd!

And I was on your side, so you know, do practice interviews if needed.

[BigZuck]

But really though, just take the scholarship at a lower ranked T14. Cutting a bunch of corners to only be 220K in debt instead of 230K in debt is...something...I guess but might as well take the 50K extra scholarship at, like, Duke. Then you won't necessarily have to do those things are you'll probably end up with the same job at the end. That's what we call a win, win.

That's the thing. Living a splitter life can be tough. Closest comparably ranked school I got into was Berkeley with no cash so I withdrew. Georgetown didn't even give me cash, although maybe I will hear back since I was an alternate.

My closest jump would be UCLA with a half scholly. Idk.

None of this is worth it. You are going to have 300k in a debt in November of 2020. Even if you get biglaw and live like a pauper, you'll have a negative net worth until 2024-2026. You probably won't be debt free until 2028, and that's if you are living like a student.

That's ten years for working your ass off just to get back to zero.

No: this is highly misleading. By "live like a pauper," what Desert Fox means is "live like a middle-class individual as opposed to the upper-class lifestyle to which some on TLS feel entitled." If you've grown up in poverty, it's likely that a biglaw or even midlaw salary less payments on $300k in debt (on a 10-year repayment schedule) is going to feel like a pretty big step up. Sure, it can be frustrating seeing so much money come in one door and out the other, and it means that some of your colleagues without debt will be living a substantial wealthier life than you. But you're not going to have trouble making ends meet in this position (let alone be worried about making your next rent payment, having food for groceries, etc--the sort of struggles that one faces in actual poverty).

In any event, if the OP wants to do something like DA, the details of Chicago's loan assistance program are really primarily what are relevant.

I've paid over 100k dollars to loans, how much have you paid?

I'm not sure why it's relevant. I've paid a substantial amount--certainly enough that I don't think anyone here could accuse me of not knowing what a high debt load feels like. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest over exact amounts. Feel free to explain why you think that $300,000 in debt burden on a ten-year repayment plan in Chicago on a biglaw (or midlaw) salary will result in feeling like you're living the life of a pauper. I suspect that when you do the math, you'll realize that this sort of DTI will result at worst in living like you're making in the $50,000-$70,000 range (e.g., solidly middle class).

Incidentally, to the OP: you should be aware that DA positions don't pay extraordinarily well. I'd spend some time researching DA pay in the locations in which you'd be looking for jobs, and making sure that Chicago's loan assistance program is sufficiently generous to make that work financially (ditto AUSA positions or whatever other jobs you're considering). It may be the case that your "dream job" pays only $40,000/year, and that amount is not enough to make you happy even if Chicago pays your loans for you. (Or, it may be the case that your "dream job" pays enough that Chicago's loan assistance doesn't kick in, but not enough that you can live the life you want to live with your debt burden.)

Assuming people would be happy working as a BIG LAWYER (or MID LAWYER) for 10 years throwing 2.5K or whatever the hell it is at the government every month is a silly billy assumption and you know it. Just assuming that someone will do that (let alone be ok with doing that) is an assumption that can only be made by the silliest of billys.

[abl]

Lol, Uncle Able came along to tell you to believe you can fly just as predicted

Look I think it's a bad idea because there is some risk that you won't get big law, or that you'll get it but not keep it for more than a year or two and then get stuck in something significantly lower paying, or struggle to find something at all. Also you might be a big law super star but hate it and succumb to alcholism, divorce, being trapped by golden handcuffs, etc. like so many others. Also you don't seem to know what you want to do (public interest and private sector work is often mutually exclusive, particularly when it comes to people's personal preferences. And yes abl, I have heard of the revolving door). I just think it's a bad idea to sign on to Chicago at sticker debt in light of all that.

Also maybe I'm wrong to think this but I can't imagine someone who has never had money and then given a bunch of it will do things like eat ramen and ride the city bus. I just don't think that's realistic at all.

I think sticker debt at any law school is a bad idea. Should not be done, full stop. What do I think you should do? I think you should figure out what you want from a career with some degree of specificity. If you decide that you really want to be a lawyer because for whatever reason that is the best career for you then you should go somewhere at a more appropriate cost.

What would you have the OP do instead? Also, the hyperbole and personal attacks are not necessary. Also, there's a big difference between living like a middle class person and "eat[ing] ramen and rid[ing] the city bus." And finally, I do think that it's easier for someone not used to luxuries like fancy law school apartments to save hundreds of dollars per month on a more middle-class apartment than it is for people who have lived their whole life with granite countertops and the like. That's something I saw first hand: the way that I lived in law school (which involved no ramen or city buses) felt pretty damn fancy to me, yet was about $10,000/year less fancy than many of my classmates, some of whom were constantly stressed and frustrated about their living situation. Whether you're eating out 2-3x per week or 10-15x, for example, can make a huge financial difference, as can whether you're shopping at Whole Foods or Walmart for your groceries, buying multiple Brooks Brothers suits new or buying one used from eBay, whether you're stretching your 10-year-old car with 150,000 miles as long as it can go, or making payments on a Prius you just bought, etc. These things all add up really, really quickly.

[zot1]

That's also another misconception. When you have a long or bad day, it's pretty common to want to blow your money away because you feeling you're working so hard you deserve to do that.

I have some BL friends that definitely spend more than they should, but carpe diem?

[abl]

Assuming people would be happy working as a BIG LAWYER (or MID LAWYER) for 10 years throwing 2.5K or whatever the hell it is at the government every month is a silly billy assumption and you know it. Just assuming that someone will do that (let alone be ok with doing that) is an assumption that can only be made by the silliest of billys.

I don't think it's a bad assumption that a Chicago student will spend 10 years working at biglaw or midlaw (or in-house): that's probably what happens to 70% of the class. Whether you'd be happy doing that is an entirely difference point (and you know that I'm pretty discouraging of people following that path).

But this is pretty irrelevant, because the OP seems to want to go the PI route, in which case the question really is: what sort of coverage does Chicago's loan assistance program provide for folks making a crim law salary?

[PMan99]

I'm not sure why it's relevant. I've paid a substantial amount--certainly enough that I don't think anyone here could accuse me of not knowing what a high debt load feels like. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest over exact amounts. Feel free to explain why you think that $300,000 in debt burden on a ten-year repayment plan in Chicago on a biglaw (or midlaw) salary will result in feeling like you're living the life of a pauper. I suspect that when you do the math, you'll realize that this sort of DTI will result at worst in living like you're making in the $50,000-$70,000 range (e.g., solidly middle class).

Incidentally, to the OP: you should be aware that DA positions don't pay extraordinarily well. I'd spend some time researching DA pay in the locations in which you'd be looking for jobs, and making sure that Chicago's loan assistance program is sufficiently generous to make that work financially (ditto AUSA positions or whatever other jobs you're considering). It may be the case that your "dream job" pays only $40,000/year, and that amount is not enough to make you happy even if Chicago pays your loans for you. (Or, it may be the case that your "dream job" pays enough that Chicago's loan assistance doesn't kick in, but not enough that you can live the life you want to live with your debt burden.)

It's certainly possible to service 250k-300k debt a year on a 100k midlaw salary, but it isn't really easy. You're looking at about $5800 after taxes each month, $3400 of which (estimated) goes straight to loans. You're down to $2400, then you take off another thousand for rent, add in health insurance, transit, and utilities, and you're looking at $1,000 a month not only to save for retirement but also before any non-job related expenses (food, clothes, furniture, appliances, family, non-commute travel, money on hygiene, etc.). Maybe you can live farther away and save money on rent, but then you have to spend more on travel. Maybe you can live in a bad neighborhood that's cheap, but then you're starting to live like the paupers we said we weren't trying to live like. But on the other hand, maybe you get hurt and have to pay some ridiculous deductible. Maybe your parents get sick and you have to fly halfway across the country on a moments notice on a $1,000 coach ticket. Maybe you want to get married. There isn't really room for any of these contingencies when you're saving $0 non-retirement dollars a month.

[Fed_Atty]

Going to a T-14 at or near sticker (is that $15K total or per year?) if you're not aiming for prestige legal jobs is a horrible idea, given the alternatives, i.e., a full ride at a respectable school.

I feel like this got lost in the shuffle. You don't seem to be dead set on a prestigious clerkship, academia or working somewhere where the Chicago pedigree is paramount. You seem to indicate that you would be perfectly happy working Midlaw or DA, which are easily possible from a school that will give you a full ride. Why put yourself so deep in debt unnecessarily. If you really want to hedge your bets, you could likely get a full scholarship and go at night. That way you wouldn't have to even take out COL loans, particularly since you can comfortably live off a comparatively low wage job.

[abl]

I'm not sure why it's relevant. I've paid a substantial amount--certainly enough that I don't think anyone here could accuse me of not knowing what a high debt load feels like. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest over exact amounts. Feel free to explain why you think that $300,000 in debt burden on a ten-year repayment plan in Chicago on a biglaw (or midlaw) salary will result in feeling like you're living the life of a pauper. I suspect that when you do the math, you'll realize that this sort of DTI will result at worst in living like you're making in the $50,000-$70,000 range (e.g., solidly middle class).

Incidentally, to the OP: you should be aware that DA positions don't pay extraordinarily well. I'd spend some time researching DA pay in the locations in which you'd be looking for jobs, and making sure that Chicago's loan assistance program is sufficiently generous to make that work financially (ditto AUSA positions or whatever other jobs you're considering). It may be the case that your "dream job" pays only $40,000/year, and that amount is not enough to make you happy even if Chicago pays your loans for you. (Or, it may be the case that your "dream job" pays enough that Chicago's loan assistance doesn't kick in, but not enough that you can live the life you want to live with your debt burden.)

It's certainly possible to service 250k-300k debt a year on a 100k midlaw salary, but it isn't really easy. You're looking at about $5800 after taxes each month, $3400 of which (estimated) goes straight to loans. You're down to $2400, then you take off another thousand for rent, add in health insurance, transit, and utilities, and you're looking at $1,000 a month not only to save for retirement but also before any non-job related expenses (food, clothes, furniture, appliances, family, non-commute travel, money on hygiene, etc.). Maybe you can live farther away and save money on rent, but then you have to spend more on travel. Maybe you can live in a bad neighborhood that's cheap, but then you're starting to live like the paupers we said we weren't trying to live like. But on the other hand, maybe you get hurt and have to pay some ridiculous deductible. Maybe your parents get sick and you have to fly halfway across the country on a moments notice on a $1,000 coach ticket. Maybe you want to get married. There isn't really room for any of these contingencies when you're saving $0 non-retirement dollars a month.

Don't most midlaw firms pay for health insurance and contribute to (or at least match) retirement? My sense was that the pay tends to be a good bit lower but the benefits are usually a little better.

But in any event, what you're describing is a pretty middle-class life. Sure, you'll probably have to make some compromises: you won't be able to live exactly where you want to live, drive the exact car you want to drive, wear the exact clothes you want to wear, etc. And you're right: when emergencies come up, things can get tough. You might have to be pretty disciplined to save for big events like weddings, or to build a medical emergency fund. Most of my families members (who just about all fall in the middle class range) have had to do things like replace eating out with a lot of crock pot meals, delay replacing an old car, get their kids' clothes second-hand, etc, during several-year periods of savings. I'm not arguing here that there are no compromises (or no insubstantial compromises) that comes with a big debt / midlaw career. Obviously it's easier to be wealthy. My point is just that these compromises are not equivalent to those faced by folks actually in poverty, and that the lifestyle that a big debt / midlaw career will yield (during the ten year period of loan repayment) is pretty far off from being a pauper's lifestyle.

[abl]

Going to a T-14 at or near sticker (is that $15K total or per year?) if you're not aiming for prestige legal jobs is a horrible idea, given the alternatives, i.e., a full ride at a respectable school.

I feel like this got lost in the shuffle. You don't seem to be dead set on a prestigious clerkship, academia or working somewhere where the Chicago pedigree is paramount. You seem to indicate that you would be perfectly happy working Midlaw or DA, which are easily possible from a school that will give you a full ride. Why put yourself so deep in debt unnecessarily. If you really want to hedge your bets, you could likely get a full scholarship and go at night. That way you wouldn't have to even take out COL loans, particularly since you can comfortably live off a comparatively low wage job.

I agree. But if the OP's only other option is to save a little bit more at UCLA, I'm not sure that makes sense either. If the OP had a full ride at UCLA, then this might be a different question. But we're talking about a relatively small COA difference for a pretty substantial job safety net.

[BigZuck]

Unky Aby-

The OP talked about being happy with a bus pass. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here I guess. You really think that a poor person who wins the lottery is less likely to blow through that cash than a rich person who wins the lottery? Maybe I'm projecting based on my own taste in granite countertops that I have developed over the past 3 years but I think people who aren't used to having money are way more likely to spend it and get themselves in financial trouble than people who are used to having money.

Also I don't know how you could possibly read this thread and your takeaway is "This guy is committed to PI." Like, at all.

What do I think the OP should do? I think the OP should do what I said in the post you quoted. Yes, yes, we know, you're a VERY PRESTIGIOUS person. That doesn't mean people should gleefully sign on to places like Chicago at sticker debt.

I'm with Campos if the OP really does want to do PI.