Mediocre Grades and Yet Got the Firm Job I Wanted, AMA Forum

[WinSome]

It's a non-biglaw firm. Congrats on getting a legal job paying somewhat decently (I'm guessing 60-90k) from bottom half of a T1, but that's not entirely uncommon. Non-biglaw firms are not nearly as grade sensitive and care a lot more about interviews, ties, work experience, etc.

The "25%" chance refers to biglaw because 25% of of a class at the school in question got a biglaw job.

Nobody is saying you HAVE to go to a T14 if you want a legal job, they're saying if you want a biglaw job (or prestigious PI or whatever else that's competitive), you best maximize your odds because 25% or 30% or whatever aren't great odds.

Have you landed you first full time job out of law school yet? Oh, you are still in law school? Please, continue to advise others on post-law school employment.

Jesus...

How is having full time employment somehow going to make me any more qualified to talk about law school employment in general? We're all working off the same ABA 509 data. You don't automatically get a memo when you get your first full time job detailing how legal hiring works.

Qualified? Or Credible? Credibility is very important, as you may learn when you take a trial advocacy class, join the trial team, or intern your 2L-3L years.

SAVAGE

How is having full time employment somehow going to make me any more qualified to talk credible about law school employment in general? We're all working off the same ABA 509 data. You don't automatically get a memo when you get your first full time job detailing how legal hiring works.

Well, firstly, I was referring to someone who has gone through the process, not just a recruiter - sorry if I was not clear. And you have just repeated what you said prior (about reading a 509 being sufficient), which what I countered by pointing out that someone with experience (i.e. being hired) has a unique perspective that someone who just reads a report does not have.

rpupkin: In my obviously subjective opinion, I don't think I was confusing two different things. The OP was offering both of the things you mentioned: advice for prospective students and those who are looking for a job. In the section of my post that you quoted I was referring to the latter, but the entirety of the post could be applied to both in certain circumstances. As far as the snidely referenced tactical advice, I would say there is an extremely overwhelming sentiment on this site (from what I have seen) that says do not go to a lower ranked school under most circumstances. And before you say it, I have actually not disagreed with this advice. Instead, I have questioned the method of delivery and have asked for less repetitiveness.

For the entire "hive" (joke): First off, everyone needs to relax on the defending of TLS - it's feelings are not hurt. To put down someone in defense of a website is not a good look. Secondly, I disagree with the sentiment that you cannot say, "I did it, so you can too". Coupled with the inescapable advice given by most of you regarding the likelihood, it provides closer to a complete view of the realities of legal employment. Please just think that through before responding. It may not be likely, or smart to depend on them solely, but to say they should not be uttered would be to suppress a part of the story. I will repeat for clarity: I understand that these stories are not the norm, and should not be construed as such - this though does not make them useless.

Lastly, I appreciate TLS, and all of the posters here. I still remember being new to the entire process, and found solace in the stories of all of you. Further, I find it invaluable that we can have these sort of debates. I hope I have not offended anyone with my criticism of their post(s).

I agree that individual success stories can be useful. That's why I included my story of getting one of these rare outcomes with my post saying "I did it and so can you!" threads are misguided. While anecdotes are helpful to show it is possible, too often people try and use these threads to show how the general TLS advice is bad. Just because it ended up working out for someone does not mean that TLS gave bad advice. That's why you've got to look at total employment numbers when giving general, risk-adverse advice.

[cavalier1138]

Well, firstly, I was referring to someone who has gone through the process, not just a recruiter - sorry if I was not clear. And you have just repeated what you said prior (about reading a 509 being sufficient), which what I countered by pointing out that someone with experience (i.e. being hired) has a unique perspective that someone who just reads a report does not have.

Again, I cannot stress how entirely wrong this is.

Your experience of getting a job is absolutely irrelevant to the wider group of law students seeking employment. It is only relevant to your specific circumstances at the time you got your job.

[BottomOfTotem]

Well, firstly, I was referring to someone who has gone through the process, not just a recruiter - sorry if I was not clear. And you have just repeated what you said prior (about reading a 509 being sufficient), which what I countered by pointing out that someone with experience (i.e. being hired) has a unique perspective that someone who just reads a report does not have.

Again, I cannot stress how entirely wrong this is.

Your experience of getting a job is absolutely irrelevant to the wider group of law students seeking employment. It is only relevant to your specific circumstances at the time you got your job.

Oh, you must be trolling. Sorry I was late to catch on to your sarcasm.

[zot1]

1. There are people on TLS who tell posters not to attend a school even after the poster says "I am aware of the debt" and "can't wait another year so retaking isn't an option."

2. If someone wants to become an attorney no matter what, they should read those comments and not pay attention to them. If you make an important life decision based on what some strangers say online, I'm more concerned about the kind of person you may be.

3. Debt sucks a lot, but for some people, debt + a living income is the best case scenario EVER. Not everyone is a trust fund baby.

4. The "I did so can you" mentality never works too well. I got the best outcome given what I did for law school/scholarships/grades, but I am terrified when people tell me they want to go to law school.

[BigZuck]

It's been like 3 days and the OP still can't come up with a single example of the types of posts/advice the OP was complaining about. Not a single one.

N
O
T

A

S
I
N
G
L
E

O
N
E

[mrsnrub]

It's been like 3 days and the OP still can't come up with a single example of the types of posts/advice the OP was complaining about. Not a single one.

N
O
T

A

S
I
N
G
L
E

O
N
E

I'm studying for the Bar and hadn't come on the forum, brah. Look at how obnoxious people are here (http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=264248). Is it a dumb question? Maybe. Does everyone have to be dicks to him/her? No.

Look at some of the fun dudes here: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=264500

I think, if I could write this post over again, I'd say something more like this (I'll take my lashings for admitting that I could have been more clear about what I meant, I realize this is the internet and we're supposed to be perfect at all times):

I think that these threads where people lash out at the TLS hive mind are a result of the tone that many people choose to us when giving advice. I don't believe TLS is all t-14 or bust and the advice I have received on this forum has been incredibly useful. However, a lot of the advice given has an air of superiority. Or people lose patience with posters who are hearing that for the first time that their decision to go to law school is probably a bad one and then start insulting them. I think that really pisses people off and makes them believe that TLS is just full of elitist assholes.

If you go into basically every post on the "Choosing a Law School" thread, you'll see a 0L like cavalier1138 (and, in fact, cavalier in most of them) being a dick to people who didn't get into great schools and aren't as well-versed on life as him.

Anyway, I regret posting this (or posting this with the comment on the hivemind, because really I just wanted to let people know that if you bust your ass at work while going to a lesser-ranked school, things *could possibly* work out) because it took too much time out of all of our lives. I hope everyone has a good weekend/life because, even though you can all be jerks, I want the best for all of you since we're all going into this field that could fall apart in a few years (yes, even you cavalier, I'll think good thoughts for you as I'm living in my cardboard box in Times Square, since I'm going to die destitute and alone).

Well, firstly, I was referring to someone who has gone through the process, not just a recruiter - sorry if I was not clear. And you have just repeated what you said prior (about reading a 509 being sufficient), which what I countered by pointing out that someone with experience (i.e. being hired) has a unique perspective that someone who just reads a report does not have.

Again, I cannot stress how entirely wrong this is.

Your experience of getting a job is absolutely irrelevant to the wider group of law students seeking employment. It is only relevant to your specific circumstances at the time you got your job.

Oh, you must be trolling. Sorry I was late to catch on to your sarcasm.

S/He's a 0L who is very angry for some reason. S/he also comments on loads of posts acting supremely knowledgeable, which is strange. He has decided that I'm going to be poor for the rest of my life because I'm working at a small entertainment firm and my starting salary isn't $180k. Who knows, I could be poor for the rest of my life, but every other attorney at my firm seems to make a very nice living, so hopefully it'll work out for me too.

[cavalier1138]

Man, the persecution complex on display here is amazing. Not only were you never told what you initially claimed people were telling you, you're now making shit up to make it look like others have been claiming things they aren't in this thread.

I never claimed you were poor (or would remain so). I said that you aren't servicing your debt. And that's actually a fact. Funnily enough, it's exactly why people warned against going to the schools you were choosing between at the prices you were being offered. So it turned out that everyone who commented on your original thread was right.

And I never, ever, ever, ever, ever said that you need to go to a "great school" (I assume you mean T-14 by that), just like no one else ever told you that. But what everyone has been telling you is that taking on more debt than you will realistically be able to service is unwise. But hey, it sounds like you've managed to find the bright side. So kudos to you.

Also, huge kudos on linking to a thread that directly contradicts your point. Everyone in the thread about "T-14 or bust" is specifically not saying "T-14 or bust". But I can understand why it would be hard to read more than the title.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I'm studying for the Bar and hadn't come on the forum, brah. Look at how obnoxious people are here (http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=264248). Is it a dumb question? Maybe. Does everyone have to be dicks to him/her? No.

Look at some of the fun dudes here: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=264500

I generally agree about the tone issue, but that first example makes me laugh, because the OP started lashing out after 3 comments, 2 of which were blunt but not inaccurate. And the second thread was actually full of people saying no, you don't have to go to a T14 to succeed.

I've probably just spent too much time here and have acclimated to the tone, but people who've read around here quite a bit and have some understanding of what the culture here is like before asking questions are more likely to be able to navigate the place to get helpful advice, and I don't think it's too much to expect that people read around this site before posting questions.

But also I am glad you had a good outcome and I do think it's helpful to have people with all kinds of outcomes and school backgrounds posting about how they got where they did. So I gave you a hard time but I'm not saying you should abandon this place.

[mrsnrub]

1. You're right. It's more like someone who learns how to play blackjack passingly well and then claims that anyone who sits down at the table can walk away with a fortune because they made one good bet and got rich. Except in this case, they didn't really get rich. But that's the thing with analogies; they're not meant to be perfect.

It's fine, dude. You think I'm not rich because I'm not making big law money right out of school. I think I'm making a pretty good wage, but I didn't go into law for the money. And I don't feel persecuted. I'm a straight white male in America, I have all the luck I need (to quote AJJ). It'd be very hard to persecute me and some random neckbeard on the internet who hasn't even taken his first law class certainly isn't doing it haha. It's not even like blackjack, tbh. I worked very hard to get that job and to turn it into a full time gig.

And I can service my debt! I absolutely could have done the normal payment plan, but I like income based repayment programs. There's disagreement about IBR, I'm more positive about it than you are and that's fine, people can disagree about things. I'm basically a socialist, so this is actually how I'd prefer college debt be paid (a 10% tax on income for a set period of time for graduates). I can't predict the future (neither can you), so who knows the tax implications. Hopefully I make enough money that I won't be paying 10% for 30 years and can pay it off sooner, but if I do, that's a risk I'm taking.

Anyway, I hope everything works out for you when you finally start law school.

I generally agree about the tone issue, but that first example makes me laugh, because the OP started lashing out after 3 comments, 2 of which were blunt but not inaccurate. And the second thread was actually full of people saying no, you don't have to go to a T14 to succeed.

I've probably just spent too much time here and have acclimated to the tone, but people who've read around here quite a bit and have some understanding of what the culture here is like before asking questions are more likely to be able to navigate the place to get helpful advice, and I don't think it's too much to expect that people read around this site before posting questions.

But also I am glad you had a good outcome and I do think it's helpful to have people with all kinds of outcomes and school backgrounds posting about how they got where they did. So I gave you a hard time but I'm not saying you should abandon this place.

Yeah, I never really spent any time here (or on any forum, if I'm being honest), so I was not prepared for people to be so aggressive. I definitely wasn't prepared for people who hadn't even gone to law school to act like they are supremely knowledgeable about law school because they've been on LST and ATL. The OP in that post definitely seemed like an ass, I just don't get why everyone has to be one.

Thanks for the kind words and I'll probably hang around. Hopefully I can help people out if they have any questions about being an entertainment lawyer when I'm finally admitted and have some experience.

[BigLawer]

I might have missed it, seems to be talk of salary ... but did you ever say what or what range you are making? Just curious. Congrats on the positive outcome OP! As long as you are happy with the outcome, I don't think much else matters.

[mrsnrub]

I might have missed it, seems to be talk of salary ... but did you ever say what or what range you are making? Just curious. Congrats on the positive outcome OP! As long as you are happy with the outcome, I don't think much else matters.

90, which I'm fine with. There's a lot of room to grow at my firm, luckily. I'm definitely happy with the work I'm doing, so I'm starting off my career pleased, at least. Let's see how long that lasts haha.

[WinSome]

Acting like OP has a poorly paying job is stupid. For many, entertainment law is a unicorn job. Also, OP is at a smaller firm which likely means he will be more likely to make partner and less likely to burn out. I guarantee you a lot of Biglaw people would jump ship to OP's job after a couple of years if possible.

[smaug]

OP won me over with AJJ

[cavalier1138]

Acting like OP has a poorly paying job is stupid. For many, entertainment law is a unicorn job. Also, OP is at a smaller firm which likely means he will be more likely to make partner and less likely to burn out. I guarantee you a lot of Biglaw people would jump ship to OP's job after a couple of years if possible.

Please, please, please, please, please show me where anyone said that the OP has a poorly paying job. The OP has a great job.

And they also are not able to service their debt with the job they have. Their debt will actually increase under IBR. Now, the OP seems comfortable with basically letting that stay the same for the next 30 years, but many people would not be comfortable in that same situation.

This has nothing to do with the relative quality of the OP's job. I plan on going in to PI, so I'm fully planning on earning much less than they do for pretty much my whole career. But the difference is that I'm going in with LRAP/PSLF support to help pay off the amount of debt I'm taking on. The OP doesn't have that safety net, and that's exactly why they were told that taking that debt on was a bad idea three years ago.

Literally no one in the last three years has claimed that the OP wouldn't get a decent job out of their school. The only claim (that is currently correct) is that the OP wouldn't be able to adequately service their debt with the jobs available to them.

[BigZuck]

What a disaster. The thing the OP was complaining about doesn't actually exist, his real problem is with tone but he couldn't articulate that?

Yikes

On some level I can understand being frustrated with people being blunt/snarky/rude but that's a complaint for the Internet as a whole, you don't need to take that out on TLS. I actually think the TLS on topics are way nicer than a lot of the corners of the Internet as long as the OP is receptive and don't act like, well, the OP in this thread. But TLS will turn on OPs real quick if they're hostile/obstinate.

I do think it's important to understand the words you're reading. If you don't then you'll end up with something like, well, this thread.

Anyway, good luck Goose, I'm glad you got an outcome you're happy with. Seriously though, they didn't actually use you as an unpaid law student intern, did they?

[bretby]

What a disaster. The thing the OP was complaining about doesn't actually exist, his real problem is with tone but he couldn't articulate that?

Yikes

On some level I can understand being frustrated with people being blunt/snarky/rude but that's a complaint for the Internet as a whole, you don't need to take that out on TLS. I actually think the TLS on topics are way nicer than a lot of the corners of the Internet as long as the OP is receptive and don't act like, well, the OP in this thread. But TLS will turn on OPs real quick if they're hostile/obstinate.

I do think it's important to understand the words you're reading. If you don't then you'll end up with something like, well, this thread.

Anyway, good luck Goose, I'm glad you got an outcome you're happy with. Seriously though, they didn't actually use you as an unpaid law student intern, did they?

I'm really surprised how passionately people are arguing that this board does not strongly imply that T14 is, in almost all cases, the most desirable, if not only desirable, outcome, and that this has been a part of the board for years. Watching the slapfest between the OP and some of the other posters, I did a quick search in the archives and found this:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... t#p2621095
It is not a perfect illustration, but it is pretty close to getting at the spirit of what the OP was saying.

[rpupkin]

I'm really surprised how passionately people are arguing that this board does not strongly imply that T14 is, in almost all cases, the most desirable, if not only desirable, outcome, and that this has been a part of the board for years. Watching the slapfest between the OP and some of the other posters, I did a quick search in the archives and found this:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... t#p2621095
It is not a perfect illustration, but it is pretty close to getting at the spirit of what the OP was saying.

Could you really not tell that the posters in that thread were joking? I mean:

T14 is a crutch. HYS or bust.

HYS? Come on. Stanford? Please.

Yale or bust (and I guess Harvard is acceptable if you don't get into Yale)...

[A. Nony Mouse]

That thread is also 6 years old. That doesn't mean people have been making the same arguments for 6 years.

[jbagelboy]

The advise almost completely depends on what the poster in question wants to do with their law degree, what kind of attorney they want to be, what their alternatives are, and what financial resources they have at their disposal. When people come on to this board and say they want to work for a large firm or a reputable international organization or become law professors, they will be told to attend a T14 school on scholarship since those employers hire predominantly--and in some cases almost exclusively--from the top law programs. When they don't come from a bourgeois background, we advise them to ignore pathetic and marginal distinctions in a few spots in 'ranking' and to consider the peril of student debt.

When people come on this forum to join their uncle's local estate planning practice or to work with a small non-profit in the region or to get a significant promotion at the job they already have with the JD credential, we would tell them to go to their state flagship or school with the best local network for the lowest cost and build ties to their communities via networking. We would actively discourage chasing signaling and prestige, since those values do not correspond to the goals.

When people come on with no veritable idea what they want to do or what sort of professional life they seek except some vague expectation--social, intellectual, or otherwise--that law would be more fulfilling or interesting than whatever disappointing alternatives they've considered, we counsel them to reflect on their decision in some depth and at least not make a negative EV choice and to provide themselves with the broadest set of opportunities, since at least these qualities of their education won't make them feel even more miserable when they realize how questionable their ambivalent approach to professional development proved to be.

[bretby]

I'm really surprised how passionately people are arguing that this board does not strongly imply that T14 is, in almost all cases, the most desirable, if not only desirable, outcome, and that this has been a part of the board for years. Watching the slapfest between the OP and some of the other posters, I did a quick search in the archives and found this:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... t#p2621095
It is not a perfect illustration, but it is pretty close to getting at the spirit of what the OP was saying.

Could you really not tell that the posters in that thread were joking? I mean:

T14 is a crutch. HYS or bust.

HYS? Come on. Stanford? Please.

Yale or bust (and I guess Harvard is acceptable if you don't get into Yale)...

Yes they were joking there, but earlier up in the thread there was a more serious discussion. And as for it being 6 years old, you could just as easily find similar posts from 4 years ago, 2 years ago, etc. This seems like an odd hill for the committed posters ITT to die on.

[rpupkin]

I'm really surprised how passionately people are arguing that this board does not strongly imply that T14 is, in almost all cases, the most desirable, if not only desirable, outcome, and that this has been a part of the board for years. Watching the slapfest between the OP and some of the other posters, I did a quick search in the archives and found this:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... t#p2621095
It is not a perfect illustration, but it is pretty close to getting at the spirit of what the OP was saying.

Could you really not tell that the posters in that thread were joking? I mean:

T14 is a crutch. HYS or bust.

HYS? Come on. Stanford? Please.

Yale or bust (and I guess Harvard is acceptable if you don't get into Yale)...

Yes they were joking there, but earlier up in the thread there was a more serious discussion. And as for it being 6 years old, you could just as easily find similar posts from 4 years ago, 2 years ago, etc. This seems like an odd hill for the committed posters ITT to die on.

I quoted those posts because you deep-linked directly to them. And the upthread discussion doesn't support what you're saying. And why do you think this is a hill that the committed posters are dying on? What are you even talking about?

In conclusion, I think you are providing further support for Big Zuck's "silly geese" theory.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I'm really surprised how passionately people are arguing that this board does not strongly imply that T14 is, in almost all cases, the most desirable, if not only desirable, outcome, and that this has been a part of the board for years. Watching the slapfest between the OP and some of the other posters, I did a quick search in the archives and found this:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... t#p2621095
It is not a perfect illustration, but it is pretty close to getting at the spirit of what the OP was saying.

Could you really not tell that the posters in that thread were joking? I mean:

T14 is a crutch. HYS or bust.

HYS? Come on. Stanford? Please.

Yale or bust (and I guess Harvard is acceptable if you don't get into Yale)...

Yes they were joking there, but earlier up in the thread there was a more serious discussion. And as for it being 6 years old, you could just as easily find similar posts from 4 years ago, 2 years ago, etc. This seems like an odd hill for the committed posters ITT to die on.

Part of the point of the thread is that people disagreed about whether it was T14 or bust, though. That's hardly a hivemind.

[WinSome]

Acting like OP has a poorly paying job is stupid. For many, entertainment law is a unicorn job. Also, OP is at a smaller firm which likely means he will be more likely to make partner and less likely to burn out. I guarantee you a lot of Biglaw people would jump ship to OP's job after a couple of years if possible.

Please, please, please, please, please show me where anyone said that the OP has a poorly paying job. The OP has a great job.

And they also are not able to service their debt with the job they have. Their debt will actually increase under IBR. Now, the OP seems comfortable with basically letting that stay the same for the next 30 years, but many people would not be comfortable in that same situation.

This has nothing to do with the relative quality of the OP's job. I plan on going in to PI, so I'm fully planning on earning much less than they do for pretty much my whole career. But the difference is that I'm going in with LRAP/PSLF support to help pay off the amount of debt I'm taking on. The OP doesn't have that safety net, and that's exactly why they were told that taking that debt on was a bad idea three years ago.

Literally no one in the last three years has claimed that the OP wouldn't get a decent job out of their school. The only claim (that is currently correct) is that the OP wouldn't be able to adequately service their debt with the jobs available to them.

You're assuming OP's salary remains static. At a lot of 10 attorney firms everyone makes partner within 7-10 years. OP may be starting with IBR, but down the line might want to switch. Also, there's a lot of Biglaw people doing IBR too. I'm pretty sure IBR is servicing your debt, even if it takes longer. PSLF is a shortened version of IBR (except the whole tax bomb thing, but that's another story), so I don't know why you are so critical of it. PSLF has the same risks as IBR except you have to maintain your public sector job the entire time and Congress has talked of yanking it. Also, it's good you have a plan for your debt already, but it's a little early for a 0L to be committed to PSLF. Plans can change.

[cavalier1138]

Acting like OP has a poorly paying job is stupid. For many, entertainment law is a unicorn job. Also, OP is at a smaller firm which likely means he will be more likely to make partner and less likely to burn out. I guarantee you a lot of Biglaw people would jump ship to OP's job after a couple of years if possible.

Please, please, please, please, please show me where anyone said that the OP has a poorly paying job. The OP has a great job.

And they also are not able to service their debt with the job they have. Their debt will actually increase under IBR. Now, the OP seems comfortable with basically letting that stay the same for the next 30 years, but many people would not be comfortable in that same situation.

This has nothing to do with the relative quality of the OP's job. I plan on going in to PI, so I'm fully planning on earning much less than they do for pretty much my whole career. But the difference is that I'm going in with LRAP/PSLF support to help pay off the amount of debt I'm taking on. The OP doesn't have that safety net, and that's exactly why they were told that taking that debt on was a bad idea three years ago.

Literally no one in the last three years has claimed that the OP wouldn't get a decent job out of their school. The only claim (that is currently correct) is that the OP wouldn't be able to adequately service their debt with the jobs available to them.

You're assuming OP's salary remains static. At a lot of 10 attorney firms everyone makes partner within 7-10 years. OP may be starting with IBR, but down the line might want to switch. Also, there's a lot of Biglaw people doing IBR too. I'm pretty sure IBR is servicing your debt, even if it takes longer. PSLF is a shortened version of IBR (except the whole tax bomb thing, but that's another story), so I don't know why you are so critical of it. PSLF has the same risks as IBR except you have to maintain your public sector job the entire time and Congress has talked of yanking it. Also, it's good you have a plan for your debt already, but it's a little early for a 0L to be committed to PSLF. Plans can change.

I should be more specific. When I refer to "servicing debt", I mean paying it off in such a way that you're actually reducing the balance over time. IBR isn't servicing debt, even when you qualify for PSLF (and as a total side note, my school has an LRAP program that gets me paid off in 10 years even if PSLF falls through), because you're not actually paying the loan down. You're just paying an amount that doesn't get you in trouble, while the balance continues to increase. The fact that the balance disappears after [X] number of years doesn't mean that you were servicing that debt the whole time; it just means the debt was forgiven.

There's nothing wrong with IBR on its face, but many people won't be comfortable staying in debt for 30 years and then taking the potential tax hit on it.

And again, I'm neither critiquing or praising IBR as a concept. The issue is that the OP claimed to get advice that they never received. The actual advice they did get turned out to be 100% on-point, because it's the situation they're in now. And if it works for them, that's great, but the initial point of this thread was meant to be a giant middle finger to a strawman. And that's why I'm even bothering pointing out that the OP's outcome was exactly as predicted.

[WinSome]

Acting like OP has a poorly paying job is stupid. For many, entertainment law is a unicorn job. Also, OP is at a smaller firm which likely means he will be more likely to make partner and less likely to burn out. I guarantee you a lot of Biglaw people would jump ship to OP's job after a couple of years if possible.

Please, please, please, please, please show me where anyone said that the OP has a poorly paying job. The OP has a great job.

And they also are not able to service their debt with the job they have. Their debt will actually increase under IBR. Now, the OP seems comfortable with basically letting that stay the same for the next 30 years, but many people would not be comfortable in that same situation.

This has nothing to do with the relative quality of the OP's job. I plan on going in to PI, so I'm fully planning on earning much less than they do for pretty much my whole career. But the difference is that I'm going in with LRAP/PSLF support to help pay off the amount of debt I'm taking on. The OP doesn't have that safety net, and that's exactly why they were told that taking that debt on was a bad idea three years ago.

Literally no one in the last three years has claimed that the OP wouldn't get a decent job out of their school. The only claim (that is currently correct) is that the OP wouldn't be able to adequately service their debt with the jobs available to them.

You're assuming OP's salary remains static. At a lot of 10 attorney firms everyone makes partner within 7-10 years. OP may be starting with IBR, but down the line might want to switch. Also, there's a lot of Biglaw people doing IBR too. I'm pretty sure IBR is servicing your debt, even if it takes longer. PSLF is a shortened version of IBR (except the whole tax bomb thing, but that's another story), so I don't know why you are so critical of it. PSLF has the same risks as IBR except you have to maintain your public sector job the entire time and Congress has talked of yanking it. Also, it's good you have a plan for your debt already, but it's a little early for a 0L to be committed to PSLF. Plans can change.

I should be more specific. When I refer to "servicing debt", I mean paying it off in such a way that you're actually reducing the balance over time. IBR isn't servicing debt, even when you qualify for PSLF (and as a total side note, my school has an LRAP program that gets me paid off in 10 years even if PSLF falls through), because you're not actually paying the loan down. You're just paying an amount that doesn't get you in trouble, while the balance continues to increase. The fact that the balance disappears after [X] number of years doesn't mean that you were servicing that debt the whole time; it just means the debt was forgiven.

There's nothing wrong with IBR on its face, but many people won't be comfortable staying in debt for 30 years and then taking the potential tax hit on it.

And again, I'm neither critiquing or praising IBR as a concept. The issue is that the OP claimed to get advice that they never received. The actual advice they did get turned out to be 100% on-point, because it's the situation they're in now. And if it works for them, that's great, but the initial point of this thread was meant to be a giant middle finger to a strawman. And that's why I'm even bothering pointing out that the OP's outcome was exactly as predicted.

I actually think we're in agreement here. The advice OP was given was likely good based on the data available at the time. The fact that OP got a good job does not change that.