General consensus on cost benefit analysis for law schools? Forum

[boaltlaw]

When I first started lurking the forums about a year ago, I thought consensus was that t-14 was a good investment no matter the price.

Reading peoples stories and advice, it seems that I might have been mistaken.

Does anyone have a good short list of which schools are worth sticker, which schools are worth maybe half scholly, and which schools are worth full scholly, and which schools aren't even worth full scholly.

not asking for a list with every school individually. maybe just a few tiers like HYS, CCN, T-14, First tier, second tier, etc.

Sorry if this has been discussed before but it seems that some people differ so I would like some different inputs.

Thanks!

[Jchance]

Read "Dont go to law school unless..." by Paul Campos, he outlines the answer to your questions.

[redsox]

Opportunity cost.

[UnicornHunter]

Completely depends on an individual's goals, appetite for risk, and opportunity costs. For some, any T14 at sticker is worth it. For others, only full ride at CCN is ok. In general though, a case can be made for paying sticker at any T14.

[SFrost]

People get caught up in averages.

Your outcome will be discrete. What's more important may be your ability to accurately judge your strength relative to other students at a school (interviewing, test taking, motivation, etc.) I would predict most people have no real idea where they stand, before they start law school, so maybe that's an argument for following averages.

Nobody can give you an exact risk/reward analysis or assign a strict $ value to any school because it depends greatly on your own ability.

#1 at GULC I think will be more successful in all cases than dead last at HLS. If you want a general ranking of law school worth... well, we have the USNWR. What more do you expect?

[rad lulz]

People get caught up in averages.

Your outcome will be discrete. What's more important may be your ability to accurately judge your strength relative to other students at a school (interviewing, test taking, motivation, etc.) I would predict most people have no real idea where they stand, before they start law school, so maybe that's an argument for following averages.

Nobody can give you an exact risk/reward analysis or assign a strict $ value to any school because it depends greatly on your own ability.

#1 at GULC I think will be more successful in all cases than dead last at HLS. If you want a general ranking of law school worth... well, we have the USNWR. What more do you expect?

USNWR isn't even good for that

[McAvoy]

Take a total level of debt equal to the salaries of the school's graduates in the 40th percentile. Unless Yale. If you have good, fulfilling career options and your best LS options aren't ~T5 or T14 w/big money, probably not a good idea to go to LS.

[californiauser]

Take a total level of debt equal to the salaries of the school's graduates in the 40th percentile. Unless Yale. If you have good, fulfilling career options and your best LS options aren't ~T5 or T14 w/big money, probably not a good idea to go to LS.

This is random. How did you come up with this?

The cr is that it's different for everyone. The cost benefit analysis of someone from Princeton UG with an engineering degree and high level work experience is far different than a state U grad stuck in a retail job.

And for this discussion, I'm not comfortable including Georgetown as a "t14" as far as outcomes are concerned.

[Theopliske8711]

What is considered "big money"?

[McAvoy]

This is random. How did you come up with this?

I've seen this advice a good bit on TLS, and I think it's a good rule. I agree with you that every situation is different, but if you had to adopt a conservative, general rule to apply, you can't go very wrong with "don't take out more debt than you would expect to make with a median-ish outcome at that school."

Essentially it becomes something like:
T13 = ~160K loans
T14-18 & strong regionals = ~60K loans
Others = 0K loans

That's more a rule for answering the question of whether the school is a safe decision, I suppose, not whether it is a worthy decision. Like I say, if you have gainful, fulfilling employment before LS, LS probably isn't worth the risk unless HYS/free T10

[SFrost]

This is random. How did you come up with this?

I've seen this advice a good bit on TLS, and I think it's a good rule. I agree with you that every situation is different, but if you had to adopt a conservative, general rule to apply, you can't go very wrong with "don't take out more debt than you would expect to make with a median-ish outcome at that school."

Essentially it becomes something like:
T13 = ~160K loans
T14-18 & strong regionals = ~60K loans
Others = 0K loans

That's more a rule for answering the question of whether the school is a safe decision, I suppose, not whether it is a worthy decision. Like I say, if you have gainful, fulfilling employment before LS, LS probably isn't worth the risk unless HYS/free T10

This is absolutely ridiculous. Graduates outside of the "T14-18 and strong regionals" category certainly can handle more than $0 in loan at median.

50k student loan debt is serviceable on a retail salary. I would put that as the TTT cap.

[McAvoy]

By strong regional I would mean generally to include all schools that serve a legitimate niche and have a legitimate purpose to exist. Any school that employs less than 60 percent of their graduates as lawyers likely does not serve a legitimate niche, or is seriously over-serving their niche.

If you go to such a school, you should not expect to be a lawyer; whether you could service the debt in retail is irrelevant as you are making this decision in hopes of becoming a lawyer. If the goal is to work in retail, why take out 50k for it?

If you must go to a dumpster fire, you best not pay money to do so. I said it was a safe, conservative rule; you honestly think it's safe and conservative, when one is attempting to become a lawyer, to take out 50k for a Charlotte or a Howard?

[sublime]

..

[BigZuck]

This is random. How did you come up with this?

I've seen this advice a good bit on TLS, and I think it's a good rule. I agree with you that every situation is different, but if you had to adopt a conservative, general rule to apply, you can't go very wrong with "don't take out more debt than you would expect to make with a median-ish outcome at that school."

Essentially it becomes something like:
T13 = ~160K loans
T14-18 & strong regionals = ~60K loans
Others = 0K loans

That's more a rule for answering the question of whether the school is a safe decision, I suppose, not whether it is a worthy decision. Like I say, if you have gainful, fulfilling employment before LS, LS probably isn't worth the risk unless HYS/free T10

This is absolutely ridiculous. Graduates outside of the "T14-18 and strong regionals" category certainly can handle more than $0 in loan at median.

50k student loan debt is serviceable on a retail salary. I would put that as the TTT cap.

I have worked in retail. Trying to pay off 50K and paying rent and stuff would have sucked so much butt and would have taken so long. I guess maybe its theoretically possible but it would be really hard and really awful.

I could maybe see paying 50K for certain TTTs but saying you could pay that off on a retail salary (where you would be lucky to make 30K max) is kinda cray, IMO.

[McAvoy]

If you are AA, 50k for Howard is definitely defensible.

ETA: I am not sure how it is even in the same sentence as Charlotte. Howard has like a 15% large firm LST score. Its overall employment could be better, but it is far from the disgrace to education Charlotte is.

Heh? Less than half of its classes are employed as lawyers -- that's why it's in the same sentence as Charlotte. Less than half of class employed = dumpster fire. Why would you encourage anyone, much less a group of people who have a serious advantage in gaining admission to any school in the country, to take a significant amount of debt to attend such a place?

I admire Charles Hamilton Houston as much as anyone, but I'm pretty certain he would say TCR in 2014 is an emphatic "retake."

[PrideandGlory1776]

HYS - Sticker is fine
CCN - 225-250k fine
PVBM - 200-225k fine
DNCG - 200k max
UCLA/UT/Vandy - 150k max
WUSTL/Emory/GW/UM/USC 100k max
All others if it's not in-state cost or you don't have amazing ties or arn't getting full ride or close to it may not be worth the 3 year opportunity cost and low employment prospects/opportunities to be a worthwhile investment of your time and resources

[BigZuck]

If you are AA, 50k for Howard is definitely defensible.

ETA: I am not sure how it is even in the same sentence as Charlotte. Howard has like a 15% large firm LST score. Its overall employment could be better, but it is far from the disgrace to education Charlotte is.

Heh? Less than half of its classes are employed as lawyers -- that's why it's in the same sentence as Charlotte. Less than half of class employed = dumpster fire. Why would you encourage anyone, much less a group of people who have a serious advantage in gaining admission to any school in the country, to take a significant amount of debt to attend such a place?

I admire Charles Hamilton Houston as much as anyone, but I'm pretty certain he would say TCR in 2014 is an emphatic "retake."

I could be mistaken but I think the other thing about Howard is they have riDDDiculous sTTTips.

Might have changed that though.

[sublime]

..

[McAvoy]

No idea about the Stips.

For profit v. Not.

20% underemployment v. 45%

16.5% "Large Firm plus Fed Clerkship" vs. 1.3%

More different than alike.


Eta: And if they had 2% more total employment score (3 people) it would then be worth it because it has a 50% Employment score?

How about a school with a 51% overall employment, but with under a 5% largefirm plus clerkship? That would be better because they have a higher than 50% total score right?

This wasn't even the point: I was just using Howard as an example of a school that is not legitimately serving its purpose. Perhaps it is much better than Charlotte (which maybe has no purpose), but it is still not a school you would (or should, IMO) condone paying money to attend.

[3L2014]

HYS - Sticker is fine
CCN - 225-250k fine
PVBM - 200-225k fine
DNCG - 200k max
UCLA/UT/Vandy - 150k max
WUSTL/Emory/GW/UM/USC 100k max
All others if it's not in-state cost or you don't have amazing ties or arn't getting full ride or close to it may not be worth the 3 year opportunity cost and low employment prospects/opportunities to be a worthwhile investment of your time and resources

I think you cannot make these distinctions. If you have an IP background, well your opportunity cost is likely higher, but employment in a large salary is more likely.

Also, to create a tier distinction between VBM and DNCG doesn't make any sense, especially when DNC seem to outperform VM in many employment metrics.

[californiauser]

This is random. How did you come up with this?

I've seen this advice a good bit on TLS, and I think it's a good rule. I agree with you that every situation is different, but if you had to adopt a conservative, general rule to apply, you can't go very wrong with "don't take out more debt than you would expect to make with a median-ish outcome at that school."

Essentially it becomes something like:
T13 = ~160K loans
T14-18 & strong regionals = ~60K loans
Others = 0K loans

That's more a rule for answering the question of whether the school is a safe decision, I suppose, not whether it is a worthy decision. Like I say, if you have gainful, fulfilling employment before LS, LS probably isn't worth the risk unless HYS/free T10

This is pretty credited but I'd say that a strong regional (UH for Houston or UW for Washington) is/could be work 60k or so. Besides that, I would say any school in a major market that has an emmployment rate below 75% is not worth anything over 20k.

If someone is from Wyoming and wants to go to Wyoming law for 40k, I think that is perfectly reasonable.

[sublime]

..

[californiauser]

This is random. How did you come up with this?

I've seen this advice a good bit on TLS, and I think it's a good rule. I agree with you that every situation is different, but if you had to adopt a conservative, general rule to apply, you can't go very wrong with "don't take out more debt than you would expect to make with a median-ish outcome at that school."

Essentially it becomes something like:
T13 = ~160K loans
T14-18 & strong regionals = ~60K loans
Others = 0K loans

That's more a rule for answering the question of whether the school is a safe decision, I suppose, not whether it is a worthy decision. Like I say, if you have gainful, fulfilling employment before LS, LS probably isn't worth the risk unless HYS/free T10

This is pretty credited but I'd say that a strong regional (UH for Houston or UW for Washington) is/could be work 60k or so. Besides that, I would say any school in a major market that has an emmployment rate below 75% is not worth anything over 20k.

If someone is from Wyoming and wants to go to Wyoming law for 40k, I think that is perfectly reasonable.

Only like 17 schools have employment scores over 75%. And that number drops to around 12 if you remove school funded jobs.

Yep. If I wanted to work in LA, NYC, DC, Chi or SF I wouldn't be comfortable with anything other than a t14.

[sublime]

..

[californiauser]

But saying that USC, for instance, isn't worth $20k is a terrible guideline.

I'd throw USC in the strong regional category with Houston and schools like Wyoming. I'd value USC at around 60k. 100k+ for a school where you can't reasonably expect big law and with a poor LRAP is a no go for most circumstances.