Which law schools are worth 160k debt? Forum

[totesTheGoat]

Some of us graduated from state schools with shit GPA's in useless degrees with no sort of experience besides nonprofessional jobs to keep the lights on in college.

The counterpoint to you is that you shouldn't double down on stupid by taking a $160k gamble to try to get into an awful job that just may allow you to pay your debt off in a decade (if you make it that long in the awful job).

Making poor decisions in undergrad doesn't make it more acceptable to make poor decisions after undergrad.

When you can't pay your bills, the solution generally is not to add more bills to the pile.

[GFox345]

I think that there is absolutely no question that $160k for a T-14 law degree is with it for anyone who makes BigLaw and stays in for at least a few years in the long run. If you opt for a 10-year repayment plan (which I think is sort of aggressive given the investment), then of course you will be paying a lot a month. That said, an $1800 payment per month is extremely manageable if you are making 160k/year with the possibility of making a sizeable bonus as well.

Consider this. You graduate from Undergrad and make 50k (this was roughly the average outcome at my T5 undergrad). Your take home is around 3k/month. Assume that you get a 5% raise every year (this is generous). At the time that you would graduate law school, that might put you at 60k. Hell, let's even say 70k for the sake of argument.

Undergrad route: 50k (1st) + 57k (2nd) + 63k (3rd) + 70k (4th) + 77k (5th) + 84k (6th) = 331k

Law School Route 175k (1st + below-market bonus) + 190k (2nd + below-market bonus) + 205k (3rd + below market bonus) = 570k - 185k (160 + 3 years interest) = 285k

As you can see, if you actually get and stay in Big Law (which is itself an assumption), it is unquestionably worth it to go to law school even if you take out 160k in debt. At 3 years post-graduation, the Big Law Route has already almost caught up to the Undergrad route even subtracting the entire amount of debt (you will not have paid this much at the 3-year mark). It will surely pass it in the next year. Keep in mind that bonuses vary. Some associates receive much more than what I assumed and some considerably less.

If you can actually get Big Law, keep it, and you don't hate the lifestyle, it is absolutely asinine to suggest that a T-14 Degree at a $160k price tag is not worth it. At the rate that you will be earning, this is a better ROI than almost any investment that you could possibly make.

Disclaimer: I realize that some people make more/less than the undergrad figures that I use. I think that, if anything, my projections were rather optimistic. Of course, there is also a chance that OP won't get biglaw, but if he does, it far surpasses the earning power of the undergrad route even on an optimistic estimate.

If both of those scenarios play out exactly as you stated then yeah. However, that isn't how the real world works. You aren't guaranteed a job because of x degree. The law school route is a considerably larger risk given the debt. If big law doesn't work out you have 160k hanging over your head. That is going to be close to half the class at t-14. So it goes if you make it into a t-14, then if you graduate in the top half, you will have the opportunity to make 150K+ a year by working 100 hour weeks doing what most people on this site say is utter misery. . The average person stays in big law, from what I have read on here for 2 to 3 years. So the law school route, is at best, going to maybe get you back to debt free after years of work?

I decided against it and decided to take the 24 hours I needed to sit for the CPA after having a few years of experience while working 40 hours a week doing general Accounting work. Just my thoughts after lurking this site for multiple years.

I put 4 or 5 different acknowledgements of assumptions in my post. I realize that you cannot assume getting or keeping Biglaw.

I have maintained and will continue to maintain that I have worked at a large law firm for a year now, and I have yet to encounter a single associate that puts in 80-hour weeks regularly - let alone 100-hour weeks. I would say that the average (including time worked remotely) is somewhere between 50 and 60 hours a week based on my experience. I am the first to admit that I am a Paralegal and not an attorney, but I know a few of the associates that I work with outside of work, and I can assure you that they are not working anywhere close to the hours that you have suggested.

[MKC]

Some of us graduated from state schools with shit GPA's in useless degrees with no sort of experience besides nonprofessional jobs to keep the lights on in college.

The counterpoint to you is that you shouldn't double down on stupid by taking a $160k gamble to try to get into an awful job that just may allow you to pay your debt off in a decade (if you make it that long in the awful job).

Making poor decisions in undergrad doesn't make it more acceptable to make poor decisions after undergrad.

When you can't pay your bills, the solution generally is not to add more bills to the pile.

It kind of changes the cost benefit analysis though with regard to opportunity cost. It's one thing to skip out on a 75k/year career, and another thing to have your alternative be 30k with COL level raises forever.

[abl]

Some of us graduated from state schools with shit GPA's in useless degrees with no sort of experience besides nonprofessional jobs to keep the lights on in college.

The counterpoint to you is that you shouldn't double down on stupid by taking a $160k gamble to try to get into an awful job that just may allow you to pay your debt off in a decade (if you make it that long in the awful job).

Making poor decisions in undergrad doesn't make it more acceptable to make poor decisions after undergrad.

When you can't pay your bills, the solution generally is not to add more bills to the pile.

$160k is a pretty safe "gamble" at the T14. The fact that $160k in debt is a lot of money doesn't make taking it on a necessarily bad decision. And a prospective law school graduate's career alternatives are highly relevant to knowing whether the relatively low-risk gamble of $160k in debt for a T14 is worthwhile.

[Tiago Splitter]

I have maintained and will continue to maintain that I have worked at a large law firm for a year now, and I have yet to encounter a single associate that puts in 80-hour weeks regularly - let alone 100-hour weeks. I would say that the average (including time worked remotely) is somewhere between 50 and 60 hours a week based on my experience. I am the first to admit that I am a Paralegal and not an attorney, but I know a few of the associates that I work with outside of work, and I can assure you that they are not working anywhere close to the hours that you have suggested.

This isn't wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that people don't stick around. The number of hours worked doesn't address the major loss of control over your own life that you get with biglaw.

I don't have a problem with 160k for a top law degree in a vacuum but like I said earlier most people who can pull that off have better alternatives.

[GFox345]

Some of us graduated from state schools with shit GPA's in useless degrees with no sort of experience besides nonprofessional jobs to keep the lights on in college.

The counterpoint to you is that you shouldn't double down on stupid by taking a $160k gamble to try to get into an awful job that just may allow you to pay your debt off in a decade (if you make it that long in the awful job).

Making poor decisions in undergrad doesn't make it more acceptable to make poor decisions after undergrad.

When you can't pay your bills, the solution generally is not to add more bills to the pile.

For all the criticism that is hurled around for making the smallest assumptions, I see an astounding amount of assumptions in the direction of pessimism that go completely unchecked on TLS. The post above me can serve as a case-in-point.

Again, I am a PARALEGAL at a large firm, but I have no reason to think that Associates live in misery like so many people on this site like to assume is the natural condition of all associates. I have met several senior partners that work a lot, but they still have what appears to be a happy life with a loving family. The stress load varies with the course of a given matter. You are going to get a RADICALLY different estimation of quality of life out of an associate during a trial as opposed to other times. I have made friends with several of these associates, and they all indicated that law school was one of the best decisions of their lives and that they would do it again if they could.

That being said, I think there is truth to the 2-3 years figure that is often thrown out. The vast majority of associates do not make partner, and a lot of them leave because the environment is particularly intense.

My point is that the natural position of a reasonable person is that of skepticism - not pessimism. Just like it is not safe to assume that you'll love BigLaw, it is equally unsound to assume that you will hate it. In my experience, TLS is very much skewed by the opinions of the bitter. There definitely is wisdom to be found here, but there is also bitter garbage that is not worth listening to. As far as the claim that the average T-14 graduate (that takes out roughly $160k after interest and fees) is starving in the street or utterly miserable, I have yet to see evidence to substantiate it.

[abl]

I have maintained and will continue to maintain that I have worked at a large law firm for a year now, and I have yet to encounter a single associate that puts in 80-hour weeks regularly - let alone 100-hour weeks. I would say that the average (including time worked remotely) is somewhere between 50 and 60 hours a week based on my experience. I am the first to admit that I am a Paralegal and not an attorney, but I know a few of the associates that I work with outside of work, and I can assure you that they are not working anywhere close to the hours that you have suggested.

This isn't wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that people don't stick around. The number of hours worked doesn't address the major loss of control over your own life that you get with biglaw.

I don't have a problem with 160k for a top law degree in a vacuum but like I said earlier most people who can pull that off have better alternatives.

Like what? What are the better alternatives generally available to T14 matriculants? The average T14 matriculant is a humanities or non-econ social science major with >3.5 GPA and strong test taking skills, and 0-2 years of work experience in a semi-professional low-paying position (like a paralegal position or NGO entry level work or TFA/Americorps/Peacecorps--throw in "masters or PhD in a non-marketable major" and you're probably up to >75% of all T14 students).

[TheGoat18]

Some of us graduated from state schools with shit GPA's in useless degrees with no sort of experience besides nonprofessional jobs to keep the lights on in college.

The counterpoint to you is that you shouldn't double down on stupid by taking a $160k gamble to try to get into an awful job that just may allow you to pay your debt off in a decade (if you make it that long in the awful job).

Making poor decisions in undergrad doesn't make it more acceptable to make poor decisions after undergrad.

When you can't pay your bills, the solution generally is not to add more bills to the pile.

This doesn't make any sense. If you find yourself at 22 with nothing but a worthless degree and four years of fond memories, taking a 160k gamble in order to increase your earning potential tenfold, possibly much more than that, seems perfectly defensible to me. Especially when you acknowledge that it is a gamble with excellent odds if you go to most T14 schools.

If I absolutely hate BigLaw and decide I want to go back to tending bar, that option is still open to me. Fuck the debt it isn't like i'll ever buy a house anyways. But if I would have stuck with bar tending or working a 30k a year office job I might be debt free but my earning power would have an extremely low ceiling.

Oh yeah and BigLaw sucks for the vast majority of people. No way around it. But it isn't like once you leave BigLaw you are doomed to be unemployed. I have never seen anything to suggest that exit options from an attorney from a big firm are awful enough to be on par with waiting tables. Sometimes I think that the people on this site who rail against going to an elite law school with a good scholarship have never had a close personal relationship with an actual poor person. I don't see a lot of people here who just had their power turned off because they couldn't pay the bill, or their car impounded because they couldn't pay their parking tickets.

You can say all you want that going to a T14 with BigLaw hopes is an awful life decision because you will end up miserable, fat, and alone. That is a valid argument and one that seems backed up by quite a bit of the evidence. But saying that people who hold liberal arts degrees from mediocre schools with mediocre grades are making a poor financial decision by attending T14 law schools with half scholarships is absolute lunacy.

[fliptrip]

I find it ridiculously bordering on insane to suggest that no law school is worth 160k ever.

When people say that, they are making a subjective statement.

Objectively, if you assume someone has $40k-$60k/year opportunity costs over 10 years, discount your increased cash flows at the % chance of that person not landing biglaw, and then assume they make it 2 years in biglaw and then go to making $80k with 3% increases we can get an answer as to the wisdom of the move. I even included your annual interest payments as a negative cash flow in the analysis and the three years you spend out of the workforce as an initial cost.

So, since again I have a bad mix of facility with finance and little to do right now, here's your NPV figures for your investment at "representative" schools:

Yale: +168k
Columbia: +94k
UVA: -$500, so effectively zero
Georgetown: -105k

So, that's a quick test if you'd like, if your school has better BL+FC stats than UVA then by at least one objective analysis, the investment of $160,000+interest is worth it.

[Tiago Splitter]

I have maintained and will continue to maintain that I have worked at a large law firm for a year now, and I have yet to encounter a single associate that puts in 80-hour weeks regularly - let alone 100-hour weeks. I would say that the average (including time worked remotely) is somewhere between 50 and 60 hours a week based on my experience. I am the first to admit that I am a Paralegal and not an attorney, but I know a few of the associates that I work with outside of work, and I can assure you that they are not working anywhere close to the hours that you have suggested.

This isn't wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that people don't stick around. The number of hours worked doesn't address the major loss of control over your own life that you get with biglaw.

I don't have a problem with 160k for a top law degree in a vacuum but like I said earlier most people who can pull that off have better alternatives.

Like what? What are the better alternatives generally available to T14 matriculants? The average T14 matriculant is a humanities or non-econ social science major with >3.5 GPA and strong test taking skills, and 0-2 years of work experience in a semi-professional low-paying position (like a paralegal position or NGO entry level work or TFA/Americorps/Peacecorps--throw in "masters or PhD in a non-marketable major" and you're probably up to >75% of all T14 students).

Oh I really just meant cheaper law school at a school that places similarly well. But I'd also add that financially many people who go to top law schools (even those with unremarkable resumes) aren't really getting ahead by doing so because with several years in the work force (i.e. the time they spend in law school and then the time they spend in biglaw paying off law school) they could get to a salary in line with what they'll be making after they exit biglaw. Certainly not true for everyone, but it's true for a lot of them.

[BigZuck]

Some of us graduated from state schools with shit GPA's in useless degrees with no sort of experience besides nonprofessional jobs to keep the lights on in college.

The counterpoint to you is that you shouldn't double down on stupid by taking a $160k gamble to try to get into an awful job that just may allow you to pay your debt off in a decade (if you make it that long in the awful job).

Making poor decisions in undergrad doesn't make it more acceptable to make poor decisions after undergrad.

When you can't pay your bills, the solution generally is not to add more bills to the pile.

For all the criticism that is hurled around for making the smallest assumptions, I see an astounding amount of assumptions in the direction of pessimism that go completely unchecked on TLS. The post above me can serve as a case-in-point.

Again, I am a PARALEGAL at a large firm, but I have no reason to think that Associates live in misery like so many people on this site like to assume is the natural condition of all associates. I have met several senior partners that work a lot, but they still have what appears to be a happy life with a loving family. The stress load varies with the course of a given matter. You are going to get a RADICALLY different estimation of quality of life out of an associate during a trial as opposed to other times. I have made friends with several of these associates, and they all indicated that law school was one of the best decisions of their lives and that they would do it again if they could.

That being said, I think there is truth to the 2-3 years figure that is often thrown out. The vast majority of associates do not make partner, and a lot of them leave because the environment is particularly intense.

My point is that the natural position of a reasonable person is that of skepticism - not pessimism. Just like it is not safe to assume that you'll love BigLaw, it is equally unsound to assume that you will hate it. In my experience, TLS is very much skewed by the opinions of the bitter. There definitely is wisdom to be found here, but there is also bitter garbage that is not worth listening to. As far as the claim that the average T-14 graduate (that takes out roughly $160k after interest and fees) is starving in the street or utterly miserable, I have yet to see evidence to substantiate it.

Based on the Kirkland bros I've met, I could actually see a lot of them enjoying DAT BIG LAW LYFE 4 LYFE. I'm not sure I could extrapolate anything from that though.

[TheGoat18]

Huh interesting. What is the average time spent in BigLaw? Would 3 years be more appropriate? It would certainly change the calculation. Also, 80k with 3% raise a year seems way low to me based on what I have read. This would seem to be a below median exit outcome from BigLaw. Your model also assumes a higher opportunity cost than most - but certainly not all - law students will bear. Also, I assume your model doesn't take into account people who have no interest in BigLaw or clerking? They exist. I would add around 5% to your BL+FC rates to take this into account.

So at 10 years, even under fliptrip's pretty mediocre outcome for your legal career, which seems to draw many inferences against the student, you break even. After that your earning power is still far higher than most. I understand the many, many, reasons why the T14 to BigLaw pipeline is an awful life decision, but I have never seen anything close to convincing demonstrating that it is a poor financial decision for the average student. Obviously taking sticker at Chicago over a half scholarship at Penn is stupid but just not going? I don't buy it.

[abl]

I have maintained and will continue to maintain that I have worked at a large law firm for a year now, and I have yet to encounter a single associate that puts in 80-hour weeks regularly - let alone 100-hour weeks. I would say that the average (including time worked remotely) is somewhere between 50 and 60 hours a week based on my experience. I am the first to admit that I am a Paralegal and not an attorney, but I know a few of the associates that I work with outside of work, and I can assure you that they are not working anywhere close to the hours that you have suggested.

This isn't wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that people don't stick around. The number of hours worked doesn't address the major loss of control over your own life that you get with biglaw.

I don't have a problem with 160k for a top law degree in a vacuum but like I said earlier most people who can pull that off have better alternatives.

Like what? What are the better alternatives generally available to T14 matriculants? The average T14 matriculant is a humanities or non-econ social science major with >3.5 GPA and strong test taking skills, and 0-2 years of work experience in a semi-professional low-paying position (like a paralegal position or NGO entry level work or TFA/Americorps/Peacecorps--throw in "masters or PhD in a non-marketable major" and you're probably up to >75% of all T14 students).

Oh I really just meant cheaper law school at a school that places similarly well. But I'd also add that financially many people who go to top law schools (even those with unremarkable resumes) aren't really getting ahead by doing so because with several years in the work force (i.e. the time they spend in law school and then the time they spend in biglaw paying off law school) they could get to a salary in line with what they'll be making after they exit biglaw. Certainly not true for everyone, but it's true for a lot of them.

Ok, so what sorts of jobs here are we talking about? Obviously some small percentage (5%? 10%?) of T14 matriculants could have gotten a job in finance or gone to med school. For the remaining 75%-95% of T14 matriculants, what are the jobs that'll yield a salary commensurate with what you'll get post-biglaw? (E.g., $125k-150k.)

[abl]

Huh interesting. What is the average time spent in BigLaw? Would 3 years be more appropriate? It would certainly change the calculation. Also, 80k with 3% raise a year seems way low to me based on what I have read. This would seem to be a below median exit outcome from BigLaw. Your model also assumes a higher opportunity cost than most - but certainly not all - law students will bear. Also, I assume your model doesn't take into account people who have no interest in BigLaw or clerking? They exist. I would add around 5% to your BL+FC rates to take this into account.

So at 10 years, even under fliptrip's pretty mediocre outcome for your legal career, which seems to draw many inferences against the student, you break even. After that your earning power is still far higher than most. I understand the many, many, reasons why the T14 to BigLaw pipeline is an awful life decision, but I have never seen anything close to convincing demonstrating that it is a poor financial decision for the average student. Obviously taking sticker at Chicago over a half scholarship at Penn is stupid but just not going? I don't buy it.

Yep. Probably you should add 5-10% to the BL+FC rates to account for PI and others who have self-selected out of this path. I do think that 3 years in biglaw is probably pretty standard. And also, you're right: $80k with 3% yearly raises is definitely on the low end of biglaw exit options. If you're going to use a median figure, and want to be on the cautious side, you should probably choose something like $125k. My sense is that outside of a few flyover in-house positions, most of the five figure biglaw exit options are either pretty small firms or elite outcomes like AUSA--both of which are non-standard. Just about everyone who is leaving biglaw after 2-5 years will have the option of a job starting at $100k-200k.

[TheGoat18]

He used two years in BigLaw as the standard. That, plus the whole 80k thing, is why I think his model presents an outcome that is significantly below median.

[Tiago Splitter]

Ok, so what sorts of jobs here are we talking about? Obviously some small percentage (5%? 10%?) of T14 matriculants could have gotten a job in finance or gone to med school. For the remaining 75%-95% of T14 matriculants, what are the jobs that'll yield a salary commensurate with what you'll get post-biglaw? (E.g., $125k-150k.)

That's a pretty high expectation post-biglaw, but maybe I'm being too pessimistic. In the high COL areas where biglaw tends to be making 100k in middle management isn't much of a feat after several years. Keep in mind this is what they'd be making at the same time they would have exited biglaw several years down the line, not right off the bat.

[TheGoat18]

Do you regret going to law school bro?

[Tiago Splitter]

Do you regret going to law school bro?

No but only because the underrated secret of law school is that it's a three year vacation. Vacations cost money.

But as you can probably figure out from that statement I really don't like working and expect to leave biglaw fairly early on for something more low-key. If I exit to a cheap COL place and make 80k a year a few years from now I'll be in a similar financial position to what I'd have been in had I skipped law school and just grinded things out.

[TheGoat18]

But without your three year vacation.

[fliptrip]

Huh interesting. What is the average time spent in BigLaw? Would 3 years be more appropriate? It would certainly change the calculation. Also, 80k with 3% raise a year seems way low to me based on what I have read. This would seem to be a below median exit outcome from BigLaw. Your model also assumes a higher opportunity cost than most - but certainly not all - law students will bear. Also, I assume your model doesn't take into account people who have no interest in BigLaw or clerking? They exist. I would add around 5% to your BL+FC rates to take this into account.

So at 10 years, even under fliptrip's pretty mediocre outcome for your legal career, which seems to draw many inferences against the student, you break even. After that your earning power is still far higher than most. I understand the many, many, reasons why the T14 to BigLaw pipeline is an awful life decision, but I have never seen anything close to convincing demonstrating that it is a poor financial decision for the average student. Obviously taking sticker at Chicago over a half scholarship at Penn is stupid but just not going? I don't buy it.

Before I address what you've said, I personally like this conversation a lot more because it's not just about how someone feels about having debt.

1. Models are more valuable the more conservative they are because confirmation bias is a real thing. I think assuming 3 years in biglaw is too much and doesn't accurately price in the inherent risks to the job (it's miserable). I actually think the model might be a tinge too aggressive in assuming the 2 years and would maybe be even better at assuming 1 year.
2. The model assumes that only 80% of a law school class is interested in biglaw, which has the effect of dramatically lowering the discount rates on the cashflows. For instance, UVA's BL+FC % is 68%, but I calculate its biglaw odds of 85%. Beyond that, my model definitely does not consider non-Big Law directed people. What they are doing is almost certain to be a negative financial investment and is pretty clearly undertaken for non-pecuinary reasons. Also, their debt service is strange...for many their plan is to not ever actually service their debt, so I'd model them completely differently.

My model is designed to move some assumptions, so let's be more optimistic and give our student differing tenures in biglaw:

3 years:
UVA: +61k
GULC: -$65k

4 years:
GULC: -$30k

Let's do one more, the rosiest of all pictures. 4 years in biglaw, along with a $125k exit and very low opportunity costs of $20,000.
GULC: +118k

Let's give even odds of the rosy and the flip special--mediocre city at Georgetown: here's your expected NPV: +7k

So, then, much depends on how long you can stay in BL and what you end up in upon exiting. There are schools for which it is a good investment at $160k regardless of which pole you end up on and there are schools which aren't.

[Tiago Splitter]

But without your three year vacation.

Haha exactly. No joke I originally decided to apply to law school because I had run out of sick time for the year and it was only June.

[BigZuck]

If we all just agreed that the big lawyers on this site are a bunch of babies/whiners who have never earned an honest day's pay in their life, do you think we could stop having this thread? Or would a new iteration pop up every two weeks just like it does now?

I'm totally good with agreeing that they're all dishonest whining babies if we can spare ourselves these threads.

[TheGoat18]

Thanks fliptrip. Obviously a four year exit to a 125k job is not the "rosiest" of all scenarios, but it is an unequivocally good outcome. Does anyone have data on what a T14--->BigLaw---->In House career looks like later in life? Assuming 1 year off four year exit, you are out of BigLaw at 30. What does your average In House attorney who decided to stay working in law make at 40? at 50?

Unless everyone gets laid off, I would think most attorneys who exit from BigLaw firms are making at least 250k total comp at 50. Probably much more. That is nothing to scoff at. And certainly beyond the earning potential of your typical history or political science graduate.

[Biglaw1990]

.

[fliptrip]

If we all just agreed that the big lawyers on this site are a bunch of babies/whiners who have never earned an honest day's pay in their life, do you think we could stop having this thread? Or would a new iteration pop up every two weeks just like it does now?

I'm totally good with agreeing that they're all dishonest whining babies if we can spare ourselves these threads.

If these threads stop popping up, I'll have to find something else to do with about an hour of my time each day, and considering that might involve doing something productive, I'm horrified at that. So, I gotta vote against your motion, Mr. Speaker.