Top Law Schools

OK, kind of spitballing here. I know alot of people have some variation of "T14 or bust" mentality. So what I'm asking is how you would recommend someone in between two scenarios:

They didn't get into any T20 schools.

They got into some tier1s, with no scholarship (looking at tuition, fee, living expense costs of about 200-250k)
They got into some tiers 2s, with moderate scholarships (looking at tuition, fee, living expense costs of about 120k)
They got into some tier 3s, with full rides (looking at just cost of living in a low-cost area).

What would you suggest to them? Is law school so bad at the lower levels that a full ride isn't even worthwhile?

I'm really just looking for posters to flesh out their version of "T14 or bust" and get more specific, with some explanations. Give rationale, please - opinions w/o rationale are pretty much a waste.

retake
rationale: it's the right thing to do

What do you mean by "T-14 or bust?"

Can you link to a couple posts where posters embody this mentality? Sounds like it is fairly common, just two specific posts would be sufficient.

Given these options I'd retake, after that I wouldn't go (none are worth either tuition or opportunity cost shifting down the options.) Finally if I absolutely had to pick, I'd take option three. At least given the probability of any of them failing, this would be the cheapest failure.

Anecdotal evidence:

I know a handful of people who went to very low-ranked law schools and most are doing fine. Their profiles:

My old boss: got a full ride at a school that might not even be ranked. Making $100,000 now in PI after 8-ish years. Strived to be top of his class, did law journals, went into criminal defense.

A friend: working at the courthouse, state will pay her law school tuition at a T3. Has a job lined up with the state post-grad.

2 friends doing PI: went to a T3 and are doing PI and making a comfortable living.

When it makes sense: when you have a job lined up and your employer is paying for you to attend, or when you have other strong connections in the area, or when you know you want to stay in PI for 10+ years and are fine with making $40k.

You can look at stats and see that many, many people who attend a T3 or T4 do miserably and are left with loans that cripple them financially for life. My only point in posting this is to say that there are *some* situations in which a low-ranked law school makes sense. If you don't fall into a situation like this, I would follow the retake advice.

seashell.economy wrote:Anecdotal evidence:

I know a handful of people who went to very low-ranked law schools and most are doing fine. Their profiles:

My old boss: got a full ride at a school that might not even be ranked. Making $100,000 now in PI after 8-ish years. Strived to be top of his class, did law journals, went into criminal defense.

A friend: working at the courthouse, state will pay her law school tuition at a T3. Has a job lined up with the state post-grad.

2 friends doing PI: went to a T3 and are doing PI and making a comfortable living.

When it makes sense: when you have a job lined up and your employer is paying for you to attend, or when you have other strong connections in the area, or when you know you want to stay in PI for 10+ years and are fine with making $40k.

You can look at stats and see that many, many people who attend a T3 or T4 do miserably and are left with loans that cripple them financially for life. My only point in posting this is to say that there are *some* situations in which a low-ranked law school makes sense. If you don't fall into a situation like this, I would follow the retake advice.

Yep, that makes sense. It sounds, honestly, like positive feedback bias, but the fundamental point is that it can be made from a tier 3 (or even 4), and that doing it with no debt guarantees you don't come out with those loans, as opposed to say a tier 1 outside the T20, where you will incur those large loans but where the median starting income is only 70k. :/

I have, roughly, been tossing around these options. The main reason why I'd even consider a T3 at this point is location. I'm originally from a small state with one T3 law school, and would like to go back there, but I'm certainly open to other options.

Clearly wrote:Given these options I'd retake, after that I wouldn't go (none are worth either tuition or opportunity cost shifting down the options.) Finally if I absolutely had to pick, I'd take option three. At least given the probability of any of them failing, this would be the cheapest failure.

Thanks for the response. I'm actually planning on a retake in the summer with a few months to study, but I'm also going ahead as if I wasn't. My thinking is that *if* I don't get at least a 3 point bump on the retake then I'll go ahead with what options I have, and if I do improve by 3+ then I can afford to lose the small April deposit.

A little more detail - there are tier 2 options I have from a lot of different schools, from the 50s through the 80s, where I have offers which would essentially be a full ride with my guaranteed outside funding, but those scholarships are conditional. idk how I feel about conditional scholarships, especially with some of the schools having a third of students lose their scholarships in their first year. I feel I'd rather go to a T3 with a guaranteed full ride than a T2 with a 50% chance of the full ride turning into 60-90k of debt.

Troianii wrote:

seashell.economy wrote:Anecdotal evidence:

I know a handful of people who went to very low-ranked law schools and most are doing fine. Their profiles:

My old boss: got a full ride at a school that might not even be ranked. Making $100,000 now in PI after 8-ish years. Strived to be top of his class, did law journals, went into criminal defense.

A friend: working at the courthouse, state will pay her law school tuition at a T3. Has a job lined up with the state post-grad.

2 friends doing PI: went to a T3 and are doing PI and making a comfortable living.

When it makes sense: when you have a job lined up and your employer is paying for you to attend, or when you have other strong connections in the area, or when you know you want to stay in PI for 10+ years and are fine with making $40k.

You can look at stats and see that many, many people who attend a T3 or T4 do miserably and are left with loans that cripple them financially for life. My only point in posting this is to say that there are *some* situations in which a low-ranked law school makes sense. If you don't fall into a situation like this, I would follow the retake advice.

Yep, that makes sense. It sounds, honestly, like positive feedback bias, but the fundamental point is that it can be made from a tier 3 (or even 4), and that doing it with no debt guarantees you don't come out with those loans, as opposed to say a tier 1 outside the T20, where you will incur those large loans but where the median starting income is only 70k. :/

I have, roughly, been tossing around these options. The main reason why I'd even consider a T3 at this point is location. I'm originally from a small state with one T3 law school, and would like to go back there, but I'm certainly open to other options.

way worse than 70k. its like you don't even read when people try to inform you about these things.

BigZuck wrote:What do you mean by "T-14 or bust?"

Can you link to a couple posts where posters embody this mentality? Sounds like it is fairly common, just two specific posts would be sufficient.

Are you trying to be funny? Because, well, the post above you was made by a poster with that username: t-14orbust.

But in all seriousness, I'm not sure if you were trying to make a joke or if that was just a coincidence.

Clearly wrote:

Troianii wrote:

seashell.economy wrote:Anecdotal evidence:

I know a handful of people who went to very low-ranked law schools and most are doing fine. Their profiles:

My old boss: got a full ride at a school that might not even be ranked. Making $100,000 now in PI after 8-ish years. Strived to be top of his class, did law journals, went into criminal defense.

A friend: working at the courthouse, state will pay her law school tuition at a T3. Has a job lined up with the state post-grad.

2 friends doing PI: went to a T3 and are doing PI and making a comfortable living.

When it makes sense: when you have a job lined up and your employer is paying for you to attend, or when you have other strong connections in the area, or when you know you want to stay in PI for 10+ years and are fine with making $40k.

You can look at stats and see that many, many people who attend a T3 or T4 do miserably and are left with loans that cripple them financially for life. My only point in posting this is to say that there are *some* situations in which a low-ranked law school makes sense. If you don't fall into a situation like this, I would follow the retake advice.

Yep, that makes sense. It sounds, honestly, like positive feedback bias, but the fundamental point is that it can be made from a tier 3 (or even 4), and that doing it with no debt guarantees you don't come out with those loans, as opposed to say a tier 1 outside the T20, where you will incur those large loans but where the median starting income is only 70k. :/

I have, roughly, been tossing around these options. The main reason why I'd even consider a T3 at this point is location. I'm originally from a small state with one T3 law school, and would like to go back there, but I'm certainly open to other options.

way worse than 70k. its like you don't even read when people try to inform you about these things.

Sorry, I forgot to say "about". You're absolutely right, I should have said "about".

For most of these schools that I was talking about - mid tier 1 (outside T20), the median starting income for grads is usually going to be in the 60-70k range. Or ABOUT that range.

And for clarity's sake, I'm not suggesting that that's always the case. There are plenty of T1 law schools where the median starting income is below that range, but there are also quite a few (outside of T20) where the starting income is above that range.

Troianii wrote:

BigZuck wrote:What do you mean by "T-14 or bust?"

Can you link to a couple posts where posters embody this mentality? Sounds like it is fairly common, just two specific posts would be sufficient.

Are you trying to be funny? Because, well, the post above you was made by a poster with that username: t-14orbust.

But in all seriousness, I'm not sure if you were trying to make a joke or if that was just a coincidence.

He's not joking, and that username isn't relevant. If a poster desires T14 for himself, he can be t14orbust without trying to convince you of the same. I could be "tallguyinphilly" without the message of this site being be tall in philly. What he's getting at is that you and countless others have a baseless opinion that TLS as a whole is t14 or bust, when it isn't. TLS is debt-averse and realistic. Its T14 or bust or strong regional with money or tt with full ride no stips, and tailored to the circumstances of each person who posts. If someone says they want biglaw, they're gonna get t14 or bust because that's the only way you can reasonably expect to get biglaw. If a person wants to do PI, they'll get educated in LRAP at t14s or keeping debt minimal at local schools.

The point is people like you read threads by people who want biglaw and so you see a t14 or bust message and assume tls is unreasonably elitest, when in reality a huge number of people here advocate for scholly over prestige.

Troianii wrote:

Clearly wrote:

Troianii wrote:

seashell.economy wrote:Anecdotal evidence:

I know a handful of people who went to very low-ranked law schools and most are doing fine. Their profiles:

My old boss: got a full ride at a school that might not even be ranked. Making $100,000 now in PI after 8-ish years. Strived to be top of his class, did law journals, went into criminal defense.

A friend: working at the courthouse, state will pay her law school tuition at a T3. Has a job lined up with the state post-grad.

2 friends doing PI: went to a T3 and are doing PI and making a comfortable living.

When it makes sense: when you have a job lined up and your employer is paying for you to attend, or when you have other strong connections in the area, or when you know you want to stay in PI for 10+ years and are fine with making $40k.

You can look at stats and see that many, many people who attend a T3 or T4 do miserably and are left with loans that cripple them financially for life. My only point in posting this is to say that there are *some* situations in which a low-ranked law school makes sense. If you don't fall into a situation like this, I would follow the retake advice.

Yep, that makes sense. It sounds, honestly, like positive feedback bias, but the fundamental point is that it can be made from a tier 3 (or even 4), and that doing it with no debt guarantees you don't come out with those loans, as opposed to say a tier 1 outside the T20, where you will incur those large loans but where the median starting income is only 70k. :/

I have, roughly, been tossing around these options. The main reason why I'd even consider a T3 at this point is location. I'm originally from a small state with one T3 law school, and would like to go back there, but I'm certainly open to other options.

way worse than 70k. its like you don't even read when people try to inform you about these things.

Sorry, I forgot to say "about". You're absolutely right, I should have said "about".

For most of these schools that I was talking about - mid tier 1 (outside T20), the median starting income for grads is usually going to be in the 60-70k range. Or ABOUT that range.

It really isn't. Cite your sources. Keeping in mind I'm looking for median of ALL grads, not employed grads (which would also be less than ABOUT 70)

Didn't I already go over this bimodal thing with you? Median is a stupid way of looking at things, because very very few people make 70 at all. Look at the percentage at 45k and the percentage at 160k and figure out if that ratio works for you. At least then you know the probabilities of actual outcomes and not a statistically irrelevant median that no one earns.

Clearly wrote:What he's getting at is that you and countless others have a baseless opinion that TLS as a whole is t14 or bust, when it isn't. TLS is debt-averse and realistic. Its T14 or bust or strong regional with money or tt with full ride no stips, and tailored to the circumstances of each person who posts.

That much seems entirely reasonable - but that's not the norm of what I've seen communicated on TLS, though I have seen that communicated by multiple posters.

Clearly wrote:If someone says they want biglaw, they're gonna get t14 or bust because that's the only way you can reasonably expect to get biglaw. If a person wants to do PI, they'll get educated in LRAP at t14s or keeping debt minimal at local schools.

Usually the rationale given by T14 or bust type posters is that you need biglaw to pay off the massive debt, but obviously if you can get anywhere near T14, you can get a full ride or nearly full ride elsewhere. The rationale, then, is that the opportunity costs are too high, but that's a little presumptuous. If you came out of undergrad with a finance, computer science, etc. degree, then the opportunity costs will usually make law school at a second rate school, even with a full ride, not worth it. But the opportunity costs of a second rate law school vs. most jobs you could get with a degree in the humanities, for instance, don't make it an economically unwise decision if it's full ride or mostly covered.

Clearly wrote:The point is people like you read threads by people who want biglaw and so you see a t14 or bust message and assume tls is unreasonably elitest, when in reality a huge number of people here advocate for scholly over prestige.

have you ever heard that "a group is defined by its members"? Namely its loudest? Most of the people on TLS, who aren't just here for a few quick questions, seem to mostly agree with what you're saying - the loudest, so to speak, don't.

Why would you listen to the loudest as opposed to the best informed?

Clearly wrote:Didn't I already go over this bimodal thing with you? Median is a stupid way of looking at things, because very very few people make 70 at all. Look at the percentage at 45k and the percentage at 160k and figure out if that ratio works for you. At least then you know the probabilities of actual outcomes and not a statistically irrelevant median that no one earns.

lol, I know what the definition of a median is. Yes, we've already been over this - and the simple reality is that the bimodal distribution for all law schools is not the same as the salary distribution for each law school. Obviously, with 200 someodd law schools, one ranked in the 20s will far exceed the data for *all* law schools combined.

For the schools where you have median salary info you're relying on, how many of their graduates reported any salary?

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Why would you listen to the loudest as opposed to the best informed?

idk, that's a good question. I wouldn't.

In the op, I was merely looking to ask posters who *have* a T14 or bust mentality to give some explanation (which is usually lacking from such posters). I wasn't suggesting that I'd listen to those posters more than anyone else. :/

A. Nony Mouse wrote:For the schools where you have median salary info you're relying on, how many of their graduates reported any salary?

Generally speaking it's around 80% of grads reporting.

My understanding is that bimodal distribution and maybe all salary distribution charts don't include unemployed people making $0.00. Is that correct? If unemployed people making $0 report their salary, do they get included?

Troianii wrote:

BigZuck wrote:What do you mean by "T-14 or bust?"

Can you link to a couple posts where posters embody this mentality? Sounds like it is fairly common, just two specific posts would be sufficient.

Are you trying to be funny? Because, well, the post above you was made by a poster with that username: t-14orbust.

But in all seriousness, I'm not sure if you were trying to make a joke or if that was just a coincidence.

Jesus

Ok, you don't need to show me two. Show me one. Post one single post from someone who embodies this T-14 or bust mentality that is so pervasive on this site.

Just one. You've got to be able to find one.

BigZuck wrote:

Troianii wrote:

BigZuck wrote:What do you mean by "T-14 or bust?"

Can you link to a couple posts where posters embody this mentality? Sounds like it is fairly common, just two specific posts would be sufficient.

Are you trying to be funny? Because, well, the post above you was made by a poster with that username: t-14orbust.

But in all seriousness, I'm not sure if you were trying to make a joke or if that was just a coincidence.

Jesus

Ok, you don't need to show me two. Show me one. Post one single post from someone who embodies this T-14 or bust mentality that is so pervasive on this site.

Just one. You've got to be able to find one.

I'm flattered thay you'd call me Jesus.

Nice non-answer.

You've done this like 3 times now, every time I ask you to back up what you're complaining about and you never do. It's really, really tiresome. Please stop doing that.

BigZuck wrote:You've done this like 3 times now, every time I ask you to back up what you're complaining about and you never do. It's really, really tiresome. Please stop doing that.

You're speaking, but all I'm hearing is "T-14 or bust"