Top Law Schools

...

This makes no sense. Cart before horse.

cunninghat wrote:*given* that you land a BigLaw job

Which of the following describes a flaw in cunninghat's question?

(A) It assumes without justification that BigLaw-bound students are more dedicated to their work than other students.
(B) It states a causal relationship between law school and BigLaw jobs when the evidence suggests only a correlation.
(C) It uses an analogy to a dissimilar situation to justify a questionable course of action.
(D) It turns on the ambiguity of a key term.
(E) It takes for granted that a law school graduate can land a BigLaw job.

Bout 350k


Eta: oh, comfortable with? 99k

TripTrip wrote:

cunninghat wrote:*given* that you land a BigLaw job

Which of the following describes a flaw in cunninghat's question?

(A) It assumes without justification that BigLaw-bound students are more dedicated to their work than other students.
(B) It states a causal relationship between law school and BigLaw jobs when the evidence suggests only a correlation.
(C) It uses an analogy to a dissimilar situation to justify a questionable course of action.
(D) It turns on the ambiguity of a key term.
(E) It takes for granted that a law school graduate can land a BigLaw job.

Hey you fucking retard, if you want to appropriately consider risk you need to understand what the upside and downside look like. It's very important to know at what point the debt is impossible even if do as well as you can.

Desert Fox wrote:Hey you fucking retard

I don't think my personal problems affect my argument.

Desert Fox wrote:if you want to appropriately consider risk you need to understand what the upside and downside look like. It's very important to know at what point the debt is impossible even if do as well as you can.

If you could guarantee $160k/yr for 2-3 years immediately out of school then the total debt of attending law school at sticker would be financially worth it. Your career goals might change your perception of the outcome, but you would be able to service your debt.

I was making two points, one much more subtly than the other. The first point is that full debt would be financially "worth it," and the second is that there are much more important questions to ask.

There's no right answer to the OP's question because everyone will have different circumstances and priorities, and it's impossible to predict how long you'll last in biglaw even if you get there, and how much (if any) bonus money you'll get. Everyone's going to have different housing costs, food costs, family costs and situations, levels of prior debt, other sources of income from spouse, and goals. Before law school, you can pick an "appropriate" debt level for yourself based on probabilities, but people's circumstances change during law school, and you cannot know the future.

0Ls should focus on doing their due diligence and trying their best to minimize their debt and maximize their chances of getting a real job -- not on zeroing in on a specific number of dollars to borrow. It's always going to be extremely fuzzy.

I am hoping $220K.

TripTrip wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:Hey you fucking retard

I don't think my personal problems affect my argument.

Desert Fox wrote:if you want to appropriately consider risk you need to understand what the upside and downside look like. It's very important to know at what point the debt is impossible even if do as well as you can.

If you could guarantee $160k/yr for 2-3 years immediately out of school then the total debt of attending law school at sticker would be financially worth it. Your career goals might change your perception of the outcome, but you would be able to service your debt.

I was making two points, one much more subtly than the other. The first point is that full debt would be financially "worth it," and the second is that there are much more important questions to ask.

I'm guessing the correct answer was (E) then?

jrsbaseball5 wrote:

TripTrip wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:Hey you fucking retard

I don't think my personal problems affect my argument.

Desert Fox wrote:if you want to appropriately consider risk you need to understand what the upside and downside look like. It's very important to know at what point the debt is impossible even if do as well as you can.

If you could guarantee $160k/yr for 2-3 years immediately out of school then the total debt of attending law school at sticker would be financially worth it. Your career goals might change your perception of the outcome, but you would be able to service your debt.

I was making two points, one much more subtly than the other. The first point is that full debt would be financially "worth it," and the second is that there are much more important questions to ask.

I'm guessing the correct answer was (E) then?

Yes. The rest are either false or irrelevant to the question.

Which of the following is a flaw in TripTrip's douchiness?

A) It mistakes an inquiry for an argument
B) there are no other fucking answers

Exam time brings out the worst in everyone!

Anyway OP, manageability will depend on where you live, because cost of living varies considerably.

TripTrip wrote:

jrsbaseball5 wrote:

TripTrip wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:Hey you fucking retard

I don't think my personal problems affect my argument.

Desert Fox wrote:if you want to appropriately consider risk you need to understand what the upside and downside look like. It's very important to know at what point the debt is impossible even if do as well as you can.

If you could guarantee $160k/yr for 2-3 years immediately out of school then the total debt of attending law school at sticker would be financially worth it. Your career goals might change your perception of the outcome, but you would be able to service your debt.

I was making two points, one much more subtly than the other. The first point is that full debt would be financially "worth it," and the second is that there are much more important questions to ask.

I'm guessing the correct answer was (E) then?

Yes. The rest are either false or irrelevant to the question.

Just want to make sure that when I'm wasting my time I'm getting some LSAT prep in

justonemoregame wrote:Which of the following is a flaw in TripTrip's douchiness?

A) It mistakes an inquiry for an argument
B) there are no other fucking answers

I don't really have a response to that one. My intention was not to be a douche, though I know I came off that way. I apologize for that.

$135k in NYC, $160k in Chicago (basically, about 3 years' worth of working big law to pay off the debt). I'd start feeling very uncomfortable with debt higher than that.

if you live cheaply in NY (like roommates in NJ cheap --LinkRemoved--), you can get by on 2k / month for 24k a year. you take home about 100k after taxes, so you could hypothetically put 75k per year toward loans. Thus, a truly diligent and dedicated miser could pay off 225k in 3 years and even splurge a bit with bonuses at the end of the year.

the typical path, however, is to go for an overpriced 1BR or studio in manhattan which has rent @ 3k /month. then you spend like 2k/month on other crap (food, clothing, going out) which brings your expenses to 5k/month or 60k a year. then you are only putting 40k per year toward loans, and 200k of loans is looking much tougher.

dont forget that if you choose practice areas and/or firms with better exit options, you can also count on still getting paid at least in the upper 100's sustainably after you leave your first firm job.

NYC/SF/DC, maybe 110k
Boston/Los Angeles/Atlanta/(Chicago?) 150k
Miami/Philly/Texas/Seattle, 170k
Denver/Phoenix/Flyovers, 170k, assuming salaries drop, otherwise 190k.

This is contingent on an 100% guarentee of Biglaw. Which is impossible.

Well in all fairness to TripTrip, OP probably has a motive for asking.

However, that being said, I think if one took the maximum maneagable debt load (whatever that is) and multiplied it by the LST big firm + clerkship percentage rate, all else being equal, one would have a *fairly* logical method of determining how much one should/could pay for law school.