Which law schools are worth 160k debt? Forum

[asdfdfdfadfas]

Based on the numbers of Fedclerk+Biglaw, I'd say you have a 50/50 chance of not getting either of those. Remember that some of those 50% who did get those jobs had connections. So we are talking, without connections, from a statistical standpoint, you have less than a chance of a coin flip of getting Biglaw even if you get T-14.

I think GFox is too optimistic but this goes too far in the other direction.

I was referencing statistically from the class of 2014, I believe. I don't have the numbers right in front of me, but I ran the statistics for T-14 Biglaw+Fed from the spreadsheet and it's around 50%. Granted, obviously you have better odds the better school you go to.

I think it might be higher than 50%, but even if it isn't you have to account for the fact that a meaningful percentage of people don't shoot for biglaw. Outside of maybe GULC (and I guess Michigan maybe can't figure them out) the vast majority of people in the T-14 who want biglaw are getting it.

Regarding going because you want to be an attorney: no one is just dying to be a biglaw associate. People do it because law schools is a straightforward way to a respectable career and a decent income, but there's nothing really unique about this job that differentiates it from lots of others for people who just want the decent UMC life. It does make sense to go to law school if you really want to be an attorney if you want to do something that can only be done as a lawyer, like be a public defender or prosecutor or judge or something.

You are probably right and maybe I am just being ultra conservative. I do not like the idea of my outcome being based on the generosity of people in biglaw hiring me or I am stuck with 150K+ in debt and looking at 40-50k a year. That is my big dilemma with law school. I don't like taking risks or putting myself in a financial position that may take years to break even.

[Tiago Splitter]

You are probably right and maybe I am just being ultra conservative. I do not like the idea of my outcome being based on the generosity of people in biglaw hiring me or I am stuck with 150K+ in debt and looking at 40-50k a year. That is my big dilemma with law school. I don't like taking risks or putting myself in a financial position that may take years to break even.

Nothing wrong with that. The badness of the downside significantly outweighs the goodness of the upside, which is why you either need to keep costs way down or go where the odds are overwhelmingly in your favor.

[abl]

You are probably right and maybe I am just being ultra conservative. I do not like the idea of my outcome being based on the generosity of people in biglaw hiring me or I am stuck with 150K+ in debt and looking at 40-50k a year. That is my big dilemma with law school. I don't like taking risks or putting myself in a financial position that may take years to break even.

Nothing wrong with that. The badness of the downside significantly outweighs the goodness of the upside, which is why you either need to keep costs way down or go where the odds are overwhelmingly in your favor.

No. That approach to life will result in you basically taking no risks.

(I also think it's factually untrue that the badness of the downside outweighs, let alone significantly, the goodness of the upside. And even if it did, you can't simply compare the upside to the downside: the likelihood of both possibilities has to be part of that evaluation. For example, when I traveling anywhere, there is a possibility that I will get into a catastrophic accident and be crippled or die. But the upside of leaving my house is significant, and the likelihood of me getting into an accident on the way to a restaurant, work, etc, is so very low, that I travel many places multiple times per day. By your logic, I should literally never leave my home.)

[Tiago Splitter]

You are probably right and maybe I am just being ultra conservative. I do not like the idea of my outcome being based on the generosity of people in biglaw hiring me or I am stuck with 150K+ in debt and looking at 40-50k a year. That is my big dilemma with law school. I don't like taking risks or putting myself in a financial position that may take years to break even.

Nothing wrong with that. The badness of the downside significantly outweighs the goodness of the upside, which is why you either need to keep costs way down or go where the odds are overwhelmingly in your favor.

No. That approach to life will result in you basically taking no risks.

(I also think it's factually untrue that the badness of the downside outweighs, let alone significantly, the goodness of the upside. And even if it did, you can't simply compare the upside to the downside: the likelihood of both possibilities has to be part of that evaluation. For example, when I traveling anywhere, there is a possibility that I will get into a catastrophic accident and be crippled or die. But the upside of leaving my house is significant, and the likelihood of me getting into an accident on the way to a restaurant, work, etc, is so very low, that I travel many places multiple times per day. By your logic, I should literally never leave my home.)

Wow talk about totally missing the point. You drive because the odds are overwhelmingly in your favor, not because you feel like rolling the dice. It's almost like that's exactly what I said.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

You are probably right and maybe I am just being ultra conservative. I do not like the idea of my outcome being based on the generosity of people in biglaw hiring me or I am stuck with 150K+ in debt and looking at 40-50k a year. That is my big dilemma with law school. I don't like taking risks or putting myself in a financial position that may take years to break even.

Nothing wrong with that. The badness of the downside significantly outweighs the goodness of the upside, which is why you either need to keep costs way down or go where the odds are overwhelmingly in your favor.

No. That approach to life will result in you basically taking no risks.

(I also think it's factually untrue that the badness of the downside outweighs, let alone significantly, the goodness of the upside. And even if it did, you can't simply compare the upside to the downside: the likelihood of both possibilities has to be part of that evaluation. For example, when I traveling anywhere, there is a possibility that I will get into a catastrophic accident and be crippled or die. But the upside of leaving my house is significant, and the likelihood of me getting into an accident on the way to a restaurant, work, etc, is so very low, that I travel many places multiple times per day. By your logic, I should literally never leave my home.)

Wow talk about totally missing the point. You drive because the odds are overwhelmingly in your favor, not because you feel like rolling the dice. It's almost like that's exactly what I said.

You beat me to it and I agreed with your previous post.

[abl]

You are probably right and maybe I am just being ultra conservative. I do not like the idea of my outcome being based on the generosity of people in biglaw hiring me or I am stuck with 150K+ in debt and looking at 40-50k a year. That is my big dilemma with law school. I don't like taking risks or putting myself in a financial position that may take years to break even.

Nothing wrong with that. The badness of the downside significantly outweighs the goodness of the upside, which is why you either need to keep costs way down or go where the odds are overwhelmingly in your favor.

No. That approach to life will result in you basically taking no risks.

(I also think it's factually untrue that the badness of the downside outweighs, let alone significantly, the goodness of the upside. And even if it did, you can't simply compare the upside to the downside: the likelihood of both possibilities has to be part of that evaluation. For example, when I traveling anywhere, there is a possibility that I will get into a catastrophic accident and be crippled or die. But the upside of leaving my house is significant, and the likelihood of me getting into an accident on the way to a restaurant, work, etc, is so very low, that I travel many places multiple times per day. By your logic, I should literally never leave my home.)

Wow talk about totally missing the point. You drive because the odds are overwhelmingly in your favor, not because you feel like rolling the dice. It's almost like that's exactly what I said.

The reason why you drive isn't because the odds are overwhelmingly in your favor OR because the benefits of driving are overwhelmingly greater than the costs of not driving. The reason why you drive is because of the odds AND the benefits. In every decision you make, you have to take into account not only the benefit, but the probability of achieving that benefit (and not only the risk, but the probability of facing that risk). Under your logic, it is simultaneously always logical to buy a lottery ticket (because the benefits > costs) while being always logical not to buy the ticket (because the probability of winning the lottery < the probability of not winning the lottery). In fact, buying a lottery ticket can be a logical decision (despite the overwhelming odds against winning) but will usually not be (despite the overwhelming rewards of winning the lottery).

Your equation goes something like: worst possible outcome of law school > best possible benefits of law school --> so law school is bad.

Your equation should be: (% chance of bad law school outcome)(costs of bad law school outcome) <--> (% chance of good law school outcome)(benefits of good law school outcome). There are all sorts of ways to account for these costs and benefits. Fliptrip presented one earlier in this thread. Critique it if you want. Offer an alternative. But I think this is unquestionably the right way of weighing these options.

[TLSModBot]

This is all well and good but the answer to OP's question is the newly christened Antonin Scalia School of Law (aka ASS Law).

[asdfdfdfadfas]

You are probably right and maybe I am just being ultra conservative. I do not like the idea of my outcome being based on the generosity of people in biglaw hiring me or I am stuck with 150K+ in debt and looking at 40-50k a year. That is my big dilemma with law school. I don't like taking risks or putting myself in a financial position that may take years to break even.

Nothing wrong with that. The badness of the downside significantly outweighs the goodness of the upside, which is why you either need to keep costs way down or go where the odds are overwhelmingly in your favor.

No. That approach to life will result in you basically taking no risks.

(I also think it's factually untrue that the badness of the downside outweighs, let alone significantly, the goodness of the upside. And even if it did, you can't simply compare the upside to the downside: the likelihood of both possibilities has to be part of that evaluation. For example, when I traveling anywhere, there is a possibility that I will get into a catastrophic accident and be crippled or die. But the upside of leaving my house is significant, and the likelihood of me getting into an accident on the way to a restaurant, work, etc, is so very low, that I travel many places multiple times per day. By your logic, I should literally never leave my home.)

Wow talk about totally missing the point. You drive because the odds are overwhelmingly in your favor, not because you feel like rolling the dice. It's almost like that's exactly what I said.

The reason why you drive isn't because the odds are overwhelmingly in your favor OR because the benefits of driving are overwhelmingly greater than the costs of not driving. The reason why you drive is because of the odds AND the benefits. In every decision you make, you have to take into account not only the benefit, but the probability of achieving that benefit (and not only the risk, but the probability of facing that risk). Under your logic, it is simultaneously always logical to buy a lottery ticket (because the benefits > costs) while being always logical not to buy the ticket (because the probability of winning the lottery < the probability of not winning the lottery). In fact, buying a lottery ticket can be a logical decision (despite the overwhelming odds against winning) but will usually not be (despite the overwhelming rewards of winning the lottery).

Your equation goes something like: worst possible outcome of law school > best possible benefits of law school --> so law school is bad.

Your equation should be: (% chance of bad law school outcome)(costs of bad law school outcome) <--> (% chance of good law school outcome)(benefits of good law school outcome). There are all sorts of ways to account for these costs and benefits. Fliptrip presented one earlier in this thread. Critique it if you want. Offer an alternative. But I think this is unquestionably the right way of weighing these options.

I heard Long Term Capital Management is hiring. I feel like you would be a great fit.

[Tiago Splitter]

Your equation goes something like: worst possible outcome of law school > best possible benefits of law school --> so law school is bad.

Your equation should be: (% chance of bad law school outcome)(costs of bad law school outcome) <--> (% chance of good law school outcome)(benefits of good law school outcome). There are all sorts of ways to account for these costs and benefits. Fliptrip presented one earlier in this thread. Critique it if you want. Offer an alternative. But I think this is unquestionably the right way of weighing these options.

What are you talking about? I never said law school was always a bad decision. Where are you coming up with this stuff?

My statement is just your equation presented another way. If you're going to pay a lot of money, go where the odds are strong to make up for the extra cost. If you don't get into a place like that, go somewhere cheap. Simple enough.

Edit: To be extra clear, the point I was trying to make above is that you can't just assume that if something is 51/49 in your favor that it's a good decision because if the 49 is death by shark attack and 51 is awesome surf day it's still a good idea to stay out of the water.

[abl]

Your equation goes something like: worst possible outcome of law school > best possible benefits of law school --> so law school is bad.

Your equation should be: (% chance of bad law school outcome)(costs of bad law school outcome) <--> (% chance of good law school outcome)(benefits of good law school outcome). There are all sorts of ways to account for these costs and benefits. Fliptrip presented one earlier in this thread. Critique it if you want. Offer an alternative. But I think this is unquestionably the right way of weighing these options.

What are you talking about? I never said law school was always a bad decision. Where are you coming up with this stuff?

My statement is just your equation presented another way. If you're going to pay a lot of money, go where the odds are strong to make up for the extra cost. If you don't get into a place like that, go somewhere cheap. Simple enough.

Edit: To be extra clear, the point I was trying to make above is that you can't just assume that if something is 51/49 in your favor that it's a good decision because if the 49 is death by shark attack and 51 is awesome surf day it's still a good idea to stay out of the water.

I was responding to your earlier post:

Nothing wrong with that. The badness of the downside significantly outweighs the goodness of the upside, which is why you either need to keep costs way down or go where the odds are overwhelmingly in your favor.

That implies something other than what you just said. But I think we agree: you need to take into account the probability of the bad and the significance of the bad, as well as the probability of the good and the significance of the good.

Fliptrip's done that above. Using his conservative estimates, at least half of the T14 are good financial investments at $160k debt.

[Tiago Splitter]

I still maintain that's exactly what I said in the line you quoted, but we'll chalk it up to a miscommunication and call it good. I agree with fliptrip's work and, as I said several pages ago, don't really see 160k as a problem at most T-14s.

[xspider]

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.

+1

I'm so sorry for posting this.

Or, one could be a normal person and just ignore topics they do not like or are not interested in. Nobody is forcing you (zuck) to read this. I find this whole discussion very helpful and informative.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

I still maintain that's exactly what I said in the line you quoted, but we'll chalk it up to a miscommunication and call it good. I agree with fliptrip's work and, as I said several pages ago, don't really see 160k as a problem at most T-14s.

Any concerns on monetary policy-i.e. Paul Volcker comes in for round 2 from the 80s and raises Interest rates thus crushing debtors? Or are you one to believe we are leaning the way of Zimbabwe?

[Tiago Splitter]

I still maintain that's exactly what I said in the line you quoted, but we'll chalk it up to a miscommunication and call it good. I agree with fliptrip's work and, as I said several pages ago, don't really see 160k as a problem at most T-14s.

Any concerns on monetary policy-i.e. Paul Volcker comes in for round 2 from the 80s and raises Interest rates thus crushing debtors? Or are you one to believe we are leaning the way of Zimbabwe?

I've been counting on hyperinflation to wipe out the debt ever since I signed up for this path. No turning back now.

[fliptrip]

I still maintain that's exactly what I said in the line you quoted, but we'll chalk it up to a miscommunication and call it good. I agree with fliptrip's work and, as I said several pages ago, don't really see 160k as a problem at most T-14s.

Any concerns on monetary policy-i.e. Paul Volcker comes in for round 2 from the 80s and raises Interest rates thus crushing debtors? Or are you one to believe we are leaning the way of Zimbabwe?

I've been counting on hyperinflation to wipe out the debt ever since I signed up for this path. No turning back now.

YES!!!! Splitter understands how inflation relates to fixed price debt.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

I still maintain that's exactly what I said in the line you quoted, but we'll chalk it up to a miscommunication and call it good. I agree with fliptrip's work and, as I said several pages ago, don't really see 160k as a problem at most T-14s.

Any concerns on monetary policy-i.e. Paul Volcker comes in for round 2 from the 80s and raises Interest rates thus crushing debtors? Or are you one to believe we are leaning the way of Zimbabwe?

I've been counting on hyperinflation to wipe out the debt ever since I signed up for this path. No turning back now.

YES!!!! Splitter understands how inflation relates to fixed price debt.

Duh. I undercut the FOMC decision to lower IR in 2008 in the first place. I just have no debt and have been trying to play it conservatively and still win the long slow way. I am to the point where I think it may be an absolute waste of time. I've tried for 6 years now.

[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.

+1

I'm so sorry for posting this.

Or, one could be a normal person and just ignore topics they do not like or are not interested in. Nobody is forcing you (zuck) to read this. I find this whole discussion very helpful and informative.

I like your "Just don't read the thread" idea but it can be hard sometimes because the thread title makes it sound like it's one thing, but then you read the thread and you're like "Oh yeah, this is same thing I keep reading repeatedly." You can only read about 0L psychoanalysis of the hivemind and their HOT TAKES on what big law is REALLY like, TLS big lawyers be damned so many times before you wonder if you're living a real life honest to God Groundhog Day.

(I can see how maybe it's of some value to rando lurkers for sure, I guess it's just that when you read too much TLS you see that it's basically the same cast of characters going round in circles with some VERY BRAVE new 0Ls sprinkled in for good measure)

(and I'm not actually complaining, it's NBD. This is just how TLS rolls, it's the circle of life)

[xspider]

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.

+1

I'm so sorry for posting this.

Or, one could be a normal person and just ignore topics they do not like or are not interested in. Nobody is forcing you (zuck) to read this. I find this whole discussion very helpful and informative.

I like your "Just don't read the thread" idea but it can be hard sometimes because the thread title makes it sound like it's one thing, but then you read the thread and you're like "Oh yeah, this is same thing I keep reading repeatedly." You can only read about 0L psychoanalysis of the hivemind and their HOT TAKES on what big law is REALLY like, TLS big lawyers be damned so many times before you wonder if you're living a real life honest to God Groundhog Day.

(I can see how maybe it's of some value to rando lurkers for sure, I guess it's just that when you read too much TLS you see that it's basically the same cast of characters going round in circles with some VERY BRAVE new 0Ls sprinkled in for good measure)

(and I'm not actually complaining, it's NBD. This is just how TLS rolls, it's the circle of life)

haha, you are a funny guy. Even as a 0L, I actually agree these topics do seem to be created on a daily basis.

[TheGoat18]

Is no one going to mention the in house bro from a few pages back who mentioned that if lateral inhouse and are good at it you could be making 7 figures in total compensation by the time you retire? And even if you are "middle of the pack" you'll be knocking on the door of half a mil by the time you hit fifty? Does that absolutely boggle anyone's mind but mine? That is an unbelievable amount of money to me. And, even if you aren't very good you still have a steady six figure income with small raises.

The average increase in earning power associated with getting a T14 law degree over the course of your life time over just having a shitty liberal arts degree from a state school is so astounding that at this point I don't see how anyone can say it isn't worth the gamble at 160k in debt. Financially at least. You people are out of your goddamn minds. To think that I almost dropped out of school to tend bar and now I have a clear path to be comfortable upper middle class, and almost certainly be in the top 1% in both earnings and net worth by the time I retire.

Say all you want that T14 to BigLaw is an awful career choice if you want to be happy or fulfilled. That is backed up by the weight of the evidence. But everyone ITT who has tried to argue that 160k in debt for a T14 degree is a bad investment if your opportunity cost is low is a moron. An absolute moron.

[colonel4bin]

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.

Don't know about average, but compensation at my company varies so much depending on how well you do. We have a merit based compensation system and you make a lot more if you're at the top of the heap than in the middle. based on conversations with my mentor I think it would look something like this:

10 yrs with the company - Top ten percent - you're an exec or knocking hard on the door. You probably make 275K-325K plus about 25K-75K in non-vested stock options. If you're in the middle of the pack you're more likely making 185k-220K (no stocks).

20 yrs with the company - Top ten percent - You're a Chief attorney. Base pay is probably 375K -450K plus about 175K-200K in half and half stock options. If you're in the middle you are a lower level exec and make probably about 260-310K with 25K - 75K non-vested stock options.

The salary can get really large after that. My bosses' boss who is two levels below the GC and has been with the company over 30yrs makes ~2 Mil a year total compensation.

downside is, if you're at the bottom you either don't get raises or get very small raises and they do show some employees the door. Not nearly as much as Big Law but it does happen

Are these in-house salaries for attorneys? Do you mind sharing which sector your company is in? How many years did you spend in Biglaw before lateraling? TIA.

PM'd

I'm also curious in this information. Mind helping me out?

[BigZuck]

Is no one going to mention the in house bro from a few pages back who mentioned that if lateral inhouse and are good at it you could be making 7 figures in total compensation by the time you retire? And even if you are "middle of the pack" you'll be knocking on the door of half a mil by the time you hit fifty? Does that absolutely boggle anyone's mind but mine? That is an unbelievable amount of money to me. And, even if you aren't very good you still have a steady six figure income with small raises.

The average increase in earning power associated with getting a T14 law degree over the course of your life time over just having a shitty liberal arts degree from a state school is so astounding that at this point I don't see how anyone can say it isn't worth the gamble at 160k in debt. Financially at least. You people are out of your goddamn minds. To think that I almost dropped out of school to tend bar and now I have a clear path to be comfortable upper middle class, and almost certainly be in the top 1% in both earnings and net worth by the time I retire.

Say all you want that T14 to BigLaw is an awful career choice if you want to be happy or fulfilled. That is backed up by the weight of the evidence. But everyone ITT who has tried to argue that 160k in debt for a T14 degree is a bad investment if your opportunity cost is low is a moron. An absolute moron.

First, I admire your bravery

Second, I don't think people should discount the possibility/probability of hating being a lawyer or the high paying lawyer job that they get

Third, I think you're mixing up possibility/probability on some level but I didn't read your post too closely or think about it too deeply because you seem insufferable and weird

Oh yeah, and risk of ruin is a money thing that shouldn't be ignored IMO. But PAYE I guess so IDK

[unc0mm0n1]

Is no one going to mention the in house bro from a few pages back who mentioned that if lateral inhouse and are good at it you could be making 7 figures in total compensation by the time you retire? And even if you are "middle of the pack" you'll be knocking on the door of half a mil by the time you hit fifty? Does that absolutely boggle anyone's mind but mine? That is an unbelievable amount of money to me. And, even if you aren't very good you still have a steady six figure income with small raises.

The average increase in earning power associated with getting a T14 law degree over the course of your life time over just having a shitty liberal arts degree from a state school is so astounding that at this point I don't see how anyone can say it isn't worth the gamble at 160k in debt. Financially at least. You people are out of your goddamn minds. To think that I almost dropped out of school to tend bar and now I have a clear path to be comfortable upper middle class, and almost certainly be in the top 1% in both earnings and net worth by the time I retire.

Say all you want that T14 to BigLaw is an awful career choice if you want to be happy or fulfilled. That is backed up by the weight of the evidence. But everyone ITT who has tried to argue that 160k in debt for a T14 degree is a bad investment if your opportunity cost is low is a moron. An absolute moron.

I know looking at money is great but I did want to let you know there are possible some downsides.

1. Not all in-house positions are the same. The compensation model I listed is for my company. We are one of the largest corporations in America. Some places pay better but many places pay worse. It really depends on where you go in-house.

2. Very few people reach that 2 Million+ salary level. I'd say only about 6-9 people in my company make that salary.

3. You may have to relocate. To progress, they want you to have certain experiences and one of those is a foreign legal assignment. Being sent to Singapore for three years may sound nice but will it sound great when you have two young kids settled in school or a spouse who has a career in America.

4. You can get fired from In-house positions. If you do get fired it may be really hard to get back into Big law. I know 3 people who were let go and they really struggled finding jobs.

5. When compensation is tied to stock price, it can be very unstable.

[jbagelboy]

I am no longer sure that I understand what you're saying. In the same breath you say that the quality of life at BigLaw is awful and that most people are miserable, and yet you also claim that BigLaw is the best outcome possible out of Law School. Did you mean to suggest that getting BigLaw and happening to like it is the best outcome possible out of Law School? I don't understand how having an awful quality of life and no work-life balance is analogous to purchasing a winning lottery ticket.

GFox, that's pretty much what many posters are going to tell you. That "winning" the game is going to be losing. Getting BigLaw is the end game, but it sucks so you lose.

There are much better outcomes than biglaw. They're hard to find and harder to land, but they're definitely out there. Biglaw is only the "endgame" for folks with little imagination or few other choices (or for the rare lawyer who really likes biglaw).

Also money isn't everything. That's one big winning point for you here that makes me tend to agree with you.

[loomy78]

I find it ridiculously bordering on insane to suggest that no law school is worth 160k ever. Unlike many folks on this forum with Ivy undergrad degrees in economics and bulge bracket experience - who are probably idiots for taking out six figure debt for a law degree - quite a few people who take out this debt are making an at least defensible, probably shrewd decision. This is assuming a T14 degree of course.

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. I've never worked in an office in my life and now I have a 1L SA lined up that will pay me more money in one summer than some of my friends with equally useless degrees make in an entire year. Certainly more than most of my old work buddies from the service industry make.

Thanks to my unexpected 1L SA I will owe about 120k at repayment according to the LST calculator. You cannot tell me that I, or the many law students like me would be better off as far as lifetime earnings and overall financial security go if we would have pursued low paying entry level office jobs with our liberal arts degrees.

As far as happiness and life enjoyment, well maybe I would have been better off sticking with working in restaurants. But I find it almost impossible to believe that 160k in debt for a T14 degree is not a shrewd investment if you have no other opportunities to break into a high earning field.

One of the few posts on this forum that I can really relate to.

Of my graduating class of 250 kids from high school I would bet less than 10 are making starting big law salary, and I graduated 10+ years ago! A higher percentage are probably dead/ incarcerated. But with my liberal arts degree I was pulling in less than 35K. Many people my age in my area are working service industry pulling in 30-50k with the only way of moving up is becoming manager and then hopefully opening up their own bar/restaurant. I think people forget that many of us don't have super great tech, consulting, business careers we are giving up.

I do feel that people need to remember that for many of us, the risk of NOT taking on some debt and going to law school is a lifetime of service industry. I am debt averse (I went for the lesser school with full scholly) but I think that its hard to find many people who came from working/middle class upbringings to upper middle class adulthoods without taking on risk and working/hustling their ass off. Not saying the legal field is without issues, but what other paths are there that do not come with some risk of failure and result in a better chance of a 100K+ salary?

could have learned to code, make databases in 6 months for a small fraction of 160k and gotten a 50k job and quickly risen to 150-200k in the time you'd still have been in law school/aggressively paying down debt.

could have done sales and easily made 100k in a few years and had a shot to get involved in a whole host of business related positions and careers

could have had a policy or government administration career which has a low barrier of entry, especially for polisci/social science grads

could have done any number of things. there are tons of jobs out there in different industries

[loomy78]

i make 70k right now but hate work, with unclear exit ops.

T10 near full price worth it?