Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017) Forum

[dddddd90]

180 is not 115 after taxes

It very much is in NYC, lol.

Well I would love a citation because I'm getting 130 without itemizing

Did you do state+city??

don't forget the feds

Sorry, I meant to suggest that he only calculated Federal tax.

It was FICA, but that's still 120 not 115 or 110 as others have cited. And we're still leaving 4k of interest payments alone off the table here.

Whatever I've conceded long ago that two years is impossible, these numbers just aren't as cut and dry as some here are pretending they are.

And that 300# is just crazy talk, no one should ever pay that much in coa

Where'd you get that additional 10K? Make it up? 115 in NYC is a fact. As is the debt financed sticker cost at Harvard (320ishK).

[CHyde]

.

[Npret]

Where are people pulling these 300,000+ numbers from? No one who graduates law school is in that much debt, even if they pay ticket and don't have a penny walking in. Hell, with summer work placements, most debts aren't much above 200,000, even in New York. Objective numbers? Bullshit.

i dont imagine it hitting 300k. HLS puts up a pretty high 9 month COL figure. you could live for an entire year on less. plus yeah, factor in your summer/other income during LS.

but still, with interest and yearly tuition increases i wouldnt be surprised if sticker meant graduating at least 240k in the hole. i havent crunched the numbers precisely, so if someone wants to throw a number at me that includes summers, then i'd be interested.

im not weighing in on the "worth it" debate btw - i just like putting numbers on thing.

I think the $300,000 plus numbers come from law school transparency which includes an assumed tuition and cost of living increase every year as well as interest (and origination fees I think.) The total is based on cost at repayment which is a six months after you graduate so it includes the interest accruing during that 6 months as well.

So they have Harvard at over $330,000.
https://www.lstreports.com/schools/harvard/

[Rigo]

You'll also need to add on miscellaneous things like computer loans (if applicable) and bar loans.

[jenesaislaw]

Where are people pulling these 300,000+ numbers from? No one who graduates law school is in that much debt, even if they pay ticket and don't have a penny walking in. Hell, with summer work placements, most debts aren't much above 200,000, even in New York. Objective numbers? Bullshit.

i dont imagine it hitting 300k. HLS puts up a pretty high 9 month COL figure. you could live for an entire year on less. plus yeah, factor in your summer/other income during LS.

but still, with interest and yearly tuition increases i wouldnt be surprised if sticker meant graduating at least 240k in the hole. i havent crunched the numbers precisely, so if someone wants to throw a number at me that includes summers, then i'd be interested.

im not weighing in on the "worth it" debate btw - i just like putting numbers on thing.

I think the $300,000 plus numbers come from law school transparency which includes an assumed tuition and cost of living increase every year as well as interest (and origination fees I think.) The total is based on cost at repayment which is a six months after you graduate so it includes the interest accruing during that 6 months as well.

So they have Harvard at over $330,000.
https://www.lstreports.com/schools/harvard/

^ Yup, that's right. You can customize your assumptions and factor in summer earnings by filling out a financial worksheet on LST too.

[Sarastro]

things

Without being too specific, I know a soon-to-be-retired lawyer that reached the unequivocal top of her field and went to a TII "because it was cheaper." Pretty sure no one thinks less of her for it.

Doesn't mean there aren't objective differences between statistical outcomes of TII vs. HLS-- Her point to me, though, was essentially if you have the option of being successful from a TII and being successful from HLS, the difference is basically 300k and years of crippling debt vs bragging rights. Whether you find that argument persuasive is one thing, but I just found it to be an interesting perspective from someone I respected.

Maybe I'm missing something, but how do you know if you "have the option of being successful from a TII" until you've done it? It sounds like she's essentially saying "If you know everything will work out amazing after going to a TII, then go to a TII because it will be cheaper"
Sure. But the problem is we don't know if everything will work out amazing. Which is why we assume median; and I'd much rather be median at HLS than at a TII.

I just don't understand what this is supposed to tell us in advance of actually knowing how things work out.

(New emphasis mine)
Well like I said there are obvious outcome differences between a TII and HLS. As you climb the rankings, that difference is less stark, but still exists. The question is just where that outcome difference is balanced against the cost for each individual. My/her point was simply that that balance might be lower in the rankings than some people, such as those who think HLS would still be worth it even if it were 300k, 400k, 500k (which is the vibe I get from some people here), might assume. Seems like people get star struck sometimes by the prestige factor and don't consider that you can still be successful at other places than YHS.

The emphasis was on finding the position that you'll be able to be successful from X school at the right cost, not a presumption that you will be successful no matter where you come from. That nuance was present in our conversation and less so in my post, so I apologize for the imprecision of language.

ETA: To be clear, I'm obviously not suggesting everyone withdraw and go to a TII. I'm just pointing out, rather obtusely, that a flatly ignoring a T14 full ride because it isn't prestigious enough/the median starting salary is 3% lower/whatever might be a little drastic.

[jb111]

So one JS1 today? Given how weird this cycle has been, I guess that classifies as a wave and I missed out again

[Monday]

.

[OnlyHumean]

things

Without being too specific, I know a soon-to-be-retired lawyer that reached the unequivocal top of her field and went to a TII "because it was cheaper." Pretty sure no one thinks less of her for it.

Doesn't mean there aren't objective differences between statistical outcomes of TII vs. HLS-- Her point to me, though, was essentially if you have the option of being successful from a TII and being successful from HLS, the difference is basically 300k and years of crippling debt vs bragging rights. Whether you find that argument persuasive is one thing, but I just found it to be an interesting perspective from someone I respected.

Maybe I'm missing something, but how do you know if you "have the option of being successful from a TII" until you've done it? It sounds like she's essentially saying "If you know everything will work out amazing after going to a TII, then go to a TII because it will be cheaper"
Sure. But the problem is we don't know if everything will work out amazing. Which is why we assume median; and I'd much rather be median at HLS than at a TII.

I just don't understand what this is supposed to tell us in advance of actually knowing how things work out.

(New emphasis mine)
Well like I said there are obvious outcome differences between a TII and HLS. As you climb the rankings, that difference is less stark, but still exists. The question is just where that outcome difference is balanced against the cost for each individual. My/her point was simply that that balance might be lower in the rankings than some people, such as those who think HLS would still be worth it even if it were 300k, 400k, 500k (which is the vibe I get from some people here), might assume. Seems like people get star struck sometimes by the prestige factor and don't consider that you can still be successful at other places than YHS.

The emphasis was on finding the position that you'll be able to be successful from X school at the right cost, not a presumption that you will be successful no matter where you come from. That nuance was present in our conversation and less so in my post, so I apologize for the imprecision of language.

ETA: To be clear, I'm obviously not suggesting everyone withdraw and go to a TII. I'm just pointing out, rather obtusely, that a flatly ignoring a T14 full ride because it isn't prestigious enough/the median starting salary is 3% lower/whatever might be a little drastic.

What I don't understand is how you know ahead of time which position you'll be successful from.

Again, this sounds to me like saying "I know I'll be successful coming out of that school, even though the chances are objectively lower, so I'll go there because it's cheaper". if you do know that, that is totally justifiable. I just don't think you can know, which is why I think that you should probably assume median. If the median outcome at the lower school is above your threshold of success - go for it. But otherwise, I just don't understand this idea of "finding where you'll be successful" that isn't just "predict your own future"

[hellohalo]

This thread is growing fast!

[Sarastro]

things

Well like I said there are obvious outcome differences between a TII and HLS. As you climb the rankings, that difference is less stark, but still exists. The question is just where that outcome difference is balanced against the cost for each individual. My/her point was simply that that balance might be lower in the rankings than some people, such as those who think HLS would still be worth it even if it were 300k, 400k, 500k (which is the vibe I get from some people here), might assume. Seems like people get star struck sometimes by the prestige factor and don't consider that you can still be successful at other places than YHS.

The emphasis was on finding the position that you'll be able to be successful from X school at the right cost, not a presumption that you will be successful no matter where you come from. That nuance was present in our conversation and less so in my post, so I apologize for the imprecision of language.

ETA: To be clear, I'm obviously not suggesting everyone withdraw and go to a TII. I'm just pointing out, rather obtusely, that a flatly ignoring a T14 full ride because it isn't prestigious enough/the median starting salary is 3% lower/whatever might be a little drastic.

What I don't understand is how you know ahead of time which position you'll be successful from.

Again, this sounds to me like saying "I know I'll be successful coming out of that school, even though the chances are objectively lower, so I'll go there because it's cheaper". if you do know that, that is totally justifiable. I just don't think you can know, which is why I think that you should probably assume median. If the median outcome at the lower school is above your threshold of success - go for it. But otherwise, I just don't understand this idea of "finding where you'll be successful" that isn't just "predict your own future"

I'm not sure what's confusing. I'm not saying you'll have a vision of the future, I'm saying you can set yourself up for a shot at having a good life and that you must balance that possibility against the cost of getting that shot.

Going into a forced curve with a bunch of other incredibly smart people is gambling no matter where you go. If you choose somewhere, you're betting you'll end up more successful there than at other places. You can't possibly know. Medians are a nice way to visualize this risk, but of course you're actually unlikely to be a median student with a median outcome with a median rate of satisfaction. You're still gambling, you're just playing the odds. The problem is that, in our scenarios here, you're paying more to get better odds.

You have to make a personal decision what the proper amount of potential reward is for a given cost. HLS has better employment numbers than, say, Columbia, but would you pay an extra $50 for those better odds at a good job? Probably. $500? $500,000 over 10 years? That's a personal decision that I can't answer for you.

My anecdote was meant to express the fact that people who have gone places with statistically worse employment numbers have gambled and done just fine. They were still gambling by taking worse numbers for a better cost, but-- hear me out here-- some people at other T14's actually end up doing just fine. For some people that small increase in employment numbers (and the prestige that comes with it) is worth $1,000,000. I was merely suggesting that everyone consider whether that's true for them, which I expect for many people it isn't.

[Rigo]

things

Well like I said there are obvious outcome differences between a TII and HLS. As you climb the rankings, that difference is less stark, but still exists. The question is just where that outcome difference is balanced against the cost for each individual. My/her point was simply that that balance might be lower in the rankings than some people, such as those who think HLS would still be worth it even if it were 300k, 400k, 500k (which is the vibe I get from some people here), might assume. Seems like people get star struck sometimes by the prestige factor and don't consider that you can still be successful at other places than YHS.

The emphasis was on finding the position that you'll be able to be successful from X school at the right cost, not a presumption that you will be successful no matter where you come from. That nuance was present in our conversation and less so in my post, so I apologize for the imprecision of language.

ETA: To be clear, I'm obviously not suggesting everyone withdraw and go to a TII. I'm just pointing out, rather obtusely, that a flatly ignoring a T14 full ride because it isn't prestigious enough/the median starting salary is 3% lower/whatever might be a little drastic.

What I don't understand is how you know ahead of time which position you'll be successful from.

Again, this sounds to me like saying "I know I'll be successful coming out of that school, even though the chances are objectively lower, so I'll go there because it's cheaper". if you do know that, that is totally justifiable. I just don't think you can know, which is why I think that you should probably assume median. If the median outcome at the lower school is above your threshold of success - go for it. But otherwise, I just don't understand this idea of "finding where you'll be successful" that isn't just "predict your own future"

I'm not sure what's confusing. I'm not saying you'll have a vision of the future, I'm saying you can set yourself up for a shot at having a good life and that you must balance that possibility against the cost of getting that shot.

Going into a forced curve with a bunch of other incredibly smart people is gambling no matter where you go. If you choose somewhere, you're betting you'll end up more successful there than at other places. You can't possibly know. Medians are a nice way to visualize this risk, but of course you're actually unlikely to be a median student with a median outcome with a median rate of satisfaction. You're still gambling, you're just playing the odds. The problem is that, in our scenarios here, you're paying more to get better odds.

You have to make a personal decision what the proper amount of potential reward is for a given cost. HLS has better employment numbers than, say, Columbia, but would you pay an extra $50 for those better odds at a good job? Probably. $500? $500,000 over 10 years? That's a personal decision that I can't answer for you.

My anecdote was meant to express the fact that people who have gone places with statistically worse employment numbers have gambled and done just fine. They were still gambling by taking worse numbers for a better cost, but-- hear me out here-- some people at other T14's actually end up doing just fine. For some people that small increase in employment numbers (and the prestige that comes with it) is worth $1,000,000. I was merely suggesting that everyone consider whether that's true for them, which I expect for many people it isn't.

You're responding in earnest to someone who picked H sticker over RTK in our hypothetical because YOU ONLY LIVE ONCE ♥ xox, so like maybe save your breath.

[Rigo]

This thread is growing fast!

Thread so lit a couple JS1's happened.

ONWARD!!

[OnlyHumean]

things

Well like I said there are obvious outcome differences between a TII and HLS. As you climb the rankings, that difference is less stark, but still exists. The question is just where that outcome difference is balanced against the cost for each individual. My/her point was simply that that balance might be lower in the rankings than some people, such as those who think HLS would still be worth it even if it were 300k, 400k, 500k (which is the vibe I get from some people here), might assume. Seems like people get star struck sometimes by the prestige factor and don't consider that you can still be successful at other places than YHS.

The emphasis was on finding the position that you'll be able to be successful from X school at the right cost, not a presumption that you will be successful no matter where you come from. That nuance was present in our conversation and less so in my post, so I apologize for the imprecision of language.

ETA: To be clear, I'm obviously not suggesting everyone withdraw and go to a TII. I'm just pointing out, rather obtusely, that a flatly ignoring a T14 full ride because it isn't prestigious enough/the median starting salary is 3% lower/whatever might be a little drastic.

What I don't understand is how you know ahead of time which position you'll be successful from.

Again, this sounds to me like saying "I know I'll be successful coming out of that school, even though the chances are objectively lower, so I'll go there because it's cheaper". if you do know that, that is totally justifiable. I just don't think you can know, which is why I think that you should probably assume median. If the median outcome at the lower school is above your threshold of success - go for it. But otherwise, I just don't understand this idea of "finding where you'll be successful" that isn't just "predict your own future"

I'm not sure what's confusing. I'm not saying you'll have a vision of the future, I'm saying you can set yourself up for a shot at having a good life and that you must balance that possibility against the cost of getting that shot.

Going into a forced curve with a bunch of other incredibly smart people is gambling no matter where you go. If you choose somewhere, you're betting you'll end up more successful there than at other places. You can't possibly know. Medians are a nice way to visualize this risk, but of course you're actually unlikely to be a median student with a median outcome with a median rate of satisfaction. You're still gambling, you're just playing the odds. The problem is that, in our scenarios here, you're paying more to get better odds.

You have to make a personal decision what the proper amount of potential reward is for a given cost. HLS has better employment numbers than, say, Columbia, but would you pay an extra $50 for those better odds at a good job? Probably. $500? $500,000 over 10 years? That's a personal decision that I can't answer for you.

My anecdote was meant to express the fact that people who have gone places with statistically worse employment numbers have gambled and done just fine. They were still gambling by taking worse numbers for a better cost, but-- hear me out here-- some people at other T14's actually end up doing just fine. For some people that small increase in employment numbers (and the prestige that comes with it) is worth $1,000,000. I was merely suggesting that everyone consider whether that's true for them, which I expect for many people it isn't.

I completely agree with what you said in this last post, and of course people at other t14's (and plenty of schools outside the t14) do perfectly well. Nowhere did I mean to suggest otherwise. If that's all your anecdote was meant to express, then we have no disagreement.

I'm all about people assessing risk based on what matters to them, and their level of comfort with debt. I just think that calculation isn't as fixed as some people here think it is. Seems like for the most part you agree.

[OnlyHumean]

things

Well like I said there are obvious outcome differences between a TII and HLS. As you climb the rankings, that difference is less stark, but still exists. The question is just where that outcome difference is balanced against the cost for each individual. My/her point was simply that that balance might be lower in the rankings than some people, such as those who think HLS would still be worth it even if it were 300k, 400k, 500k (which is the vibe I get from some people here), might assume. Seems like people get star struck sometimes by the prestige factor and don't consider that you can still be successful at other places than YHS.

The emphasis was on finding the position that you'll be able to be successful from X school at the right cost, not a presumption that you will be successful no matter where you come from. That nuance was present in our conversation and less so in my post, so I apologize for the imprecision of language.

ETA: To be clear, I'm obviously not suggesting everyone withdraw and go to a TII. I'm just pointing out, rather obtusely, that a flatly ignoring a T14 full ride because it isn't prestigious enough/the median starting salary is 3% lower/whatever might be a little drastic.

What I don't understand is how you know ahead of time which position you'll be successful from.

Again, this sounds to me like saying "I know I'll be successful coming out of that school, even though the chances are objectively lower, so I'll go there because it's cheaper". if you do know that, that is totally justifiable. I just don't think you can know, which is why I think that you should probably assume median. If the median outcome at the lower school is above your threshold of success - go for it. But otherwise, I just don't understand this idea of "finding where you'll be successful" that isn't just "predict your own future"

I'm not sure what's confusing. I'm not saying you'll have a vision of the future, I'm saying you can set yourself up for a shot at having a good life and that you must balance that possibility against the cost of getting that shot.

Going into a forced curve with a bunch of other incredibly smart people is gambling no matter where you go. If you choose somewhere, you're betting you'll end up more successful there than at other places. You can't possibly know. Medians are a nice way to visualize this risk, but of course you're actually unlikely to be a median student with a median outcome with a median rate of satisfaction. You're still gambling, you're just playing the odds. The problem is that, in our scenarios here, you're paying more to get better odds.

You have to make a personal decision what the proper amount of potential reward is for a given cost. HLS has better employment numbers than, say, Columbia, but would you pay an extra $50 for those better odds at a good job? Probably. $500? $500,000 over 10 years? That's a personal decision that I can't answer for you.

My anecdote was meant to express the fact that people who have gone places with statistically worse employment numbers have gambled and done just fine. They were still gambling by taking worse numbers for a better cost, but-- hear me out here-- some people at other T14's actually end up doing just fine. For some people that small increase in employment numbers (and the prestige that comes with it) is worth $1,000,000. I was merely suggesting that everyone consider whether that's true for them, which I expect for many people it isn't.

You're responding in earnest to someone who picked H sticker over RTK in our hypothetical because YOU ONLY LIVE ONCE ♥ xox, so like maybe save your breath.

Actually, I didn't. But you seem to be intentionally misreading me at this point, or else just confusing me with someone else.

Also, even if I did, what kind of position would that be? "Don't bother explaining something to that person - they don't value things the same way I do!!" That just seems silly and mean-spirited.

[Rigo]

Actually, I didn't. But you seem to be intentionally misreading me at this point, or else just confusing me with someone else.
Also, even if I did, what kind of position would that be? "Don't bother explaining something to that person - they don't value things the same way I do!!" That just seems silly and mean-spirited.

Oh my bad. I checked and you weren't the original earnest YOLO person. Apologies.
I just wanted to knock someone with a positive teeny bop attitude about debt while having a Lizzie tar so I could chuckle to my loser self about the irony.

[myrik]

JS1 invite this afternoon! I was posting on my phone so not sure if the post went through

Time to browse all the forums for interview advice

[nimbus cloud]

JS1 invite this afternoon! I was posting on my phone so not sure if the post went through

Time to browse all the forums for interview advice

Congrats! When did you go complete?

[myrik]

Congrats! When did you go complete?

.

[unpetitpacifiste]

I just wanted to knock someone with a positive teeny bop attitude about debt while having a Lizzie tar so I could chuckle to my loser self about the irony.

Seems I unleashed a rather intense debate here... (TLS milestone?) Thanks everyone for your thoughtful comments on this important subject! That said, I wish to motivate my initial comments and to overkill on those who said lawyers can't do math a little bit.

To refer to the Cravath scale:
-year--------- salary----bonus------total----after-tax total in NYC
1st year-----180,000----15000-----195000-------125,053
2nd year-----190,000----15000-----205000-------130,619
3rd year------210,000-----25000----235000-------146,691
4th year-------235,000-----50000----285000------172,767
http://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/breaking ... -salaries/
http://abovethelaw.com/2016/11/associat ... e-bonuses/
https://smartasset.com/taxes/new-york-t ... v6ZjidSVjt

I've been living in nyc for the past three years and I think 70k is enough to lead a fairly comfortable lifestyle (no luxury apartment and weekly Michelin restaurants that is). By this standard, the amount of savings you can accumulate after each year:
year cumulative savings
1 ~55k
2 ~115k
3 ~200k
4 ~300k
***by the way, this is assuming that you just let your money sit at the bank; the more likely thing is for you to get a reasonable market return rate about 5%

Granted that one paying sticker price at H will face a 270k debt with no help, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to assume one can get at least moderate amount of grants and contributions from prior savings, parents, and summer placements. Therefore, even if you are to get no help whatsoever, you are sure to pay of your debt in four years. In the very likely event that you have some amount of help, you will be able to pay it off in two to three years.

Furthermore, the point that I really wanted to emphasize in my initial comments is beyond the purely monetary. The people you will get to meet and the alumni network you will be able to tap into are simply unparalleled elsewhere. The long term effect on your legal career development would be huge, especially if you want to become a partner for client recruitment purposes or want to go into policy making later on. I hardly think it is a coincide that the very top echelons of the legal field and policy making are packed with YHS graduates. And even in terms of immediate impact, the top BigLaw firms simply have far more places set aside for the top3 than others.

[calpolisci2016]

things

Well like I said there are obvious outcome differences between a TII and HLS. As you climb the rankings, that difference is less stark, but still exists. The question is just where that outcome difference is balanced against the cost for each individual. My/her point was simply that that balance might be lower in the rankings than some people, such as those who think HLS would still be worth it even if it were 300k, 400k, 500k (which is the vibe I get from some people here), might assume. Seems like people get star struck sometimes by the prestige factor and don't consider that you can still be successful at other places than YHS.

The emphasis was on finding the position that you'll be able to be successful from X school at the right cost, not a presumption that you will be successful no matter where you come from. That nuance was present in our conversation and less so in my post, so I apologize for the imprecision of language.

ETA: To be clear, I'm obviously not suggesting everyone withdraw and go to a TII. I'm just pointing out, rather obtusely, that a flatly ignoring a T14 full ride because it isn't prestigious enough/the median starting salary is 3% lower/whatever might be a little drastic.

What I don't understand is how you know ahead of time which position you'll be successful from.

Again, this sounds to me like saying "I know I'll be successful coming out of that school, even though the chances are objectively lower, so I'll go there because it's cheaper". if you do know that, that is totally justifiable. I just don't think you can know, which is why I think that you should probably assume median. If the median outcome at the lower school is above your threshold of success - go for it. But otherwise, I just don't understand this idea of "finding where you'll be successful" that isn't just "predict your own future"

I'm not sure what's confusing. I'm not saying you'll have a vision of the future, I'm saying you can set yourself up for a shot at having a good life and that you must balance that possibility against the cost of getting that shot.

Going into a forced curve with a bunch of other incredibly smart people is gambling no matter where you go. If you choose somewhere, you're betting you'll end up more successful there than at other places. You can't possibly know. Medians are a nice way to visualize this risk, but of course you're actually unlikely to be a median student with a median outcome with a median rate of satisfaction. You're still gambling, you're just playing the odds. The problem is that, in our scenarios here, you're paying more to get better odds.

You have to make a personal decision what the proper amount of potential reward is for a given cost. HLS has better employment numbers than, say, Columbia, but would you pay an extra $50 for those better odds at a good job? Probably. $500? $500,000 over 10 years? That's a personal decision that I can't answer for you.

My anecdote was meant to express the fact that people who have gone places with statistically worse employment numbers have gambled and done just fine. They were still gambling by taking worse numbers for a better cost, but-- hear me out here-- some people at other T14's actually end up doing just fine. For some people that small increase in employment numbers (and the prestige that comes with it) is worth $1,000,000. I was merely suggesting that everyone consider whether that's true for them, which I expect for many people it isn't.

How old is this lawyer you are talking about? And did this lawyer come from a lawyer family or some other legally-connected background? It's not uncommon to see lawyers who came up in the 70s, 80s, and 90s have stellar careers and they came from non-T14, or even TTT schools. If you look at federal judges who came up from that era, you can easily find non-brand schools listed. Heck, even Chris Christie and Joe Biden went to no-brand schools.

I think the legal field was way less competitive back then because there were more big law jobs for everybody and the economy was growing overall. But I'm not sure how their experience is applicable to the post-2007 legal market. Of course we don't know how our generation of lawyers will play out, and there'll always be exceptions to the rule, but I'm sure that exception will become less and less common as the legal market shrinks.

[anonperson2017]

Let the record reflect that I was the one who started this entire spiral by asking if anyone would choose a Dillard or RTK over HLS, and then promptly got a JS1 this afternoon. That may be the trick folks.

[unpetitpacifiste]

Let the record reflect that I was the one who started this entire spiral by asking if anyone would choose a Dillard or RTK over HLS, and then promptly got a JS1 this afternoon. That may be the trick folks.

lol - credit to anonperson2017

[Rigo]

Let the record reflect that I was the one who started this entire spiral by asking if anyone would choose a Dillard or RTK over HLS, and then promptly got a JS1 this afternoon. That may be the trick folks.

Tell us when you decide.

[PrezRand]

I just wanted to knock someone with a positive teeny bop attitude about debt while having a Lizzie tar so I could chuckle to my loser self about the irony.

Seems I unleashed a rather intense debate here... (TLS milestone?) Thanks everyone for your thoughtful comments on this important subject! That said, I wish to motivate my initial comments and to overkill on those who said lawyers can't do math a little bit.

To refer to the Cravath scale:
-year--------- salary----bonus------total----after-tax total in NYC
1st year-----180,000----15000-----195000-------125,053
2nd year-----190,000----15000-----205000-------130,619
3rd year------210,000-----25000----235000-------146,691
4th year-------235,000-----50000----285000------172,767
http://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/breaking ... -salaries/
http://abovethelaw.com/2016/11/associat ... e-bonuses/
https://smartasset.com/taxes/new-york-t ... v6ZjidSVjt

I've been living in nyc for the past three years and I think 70k is enough to lead a fairly comfortable lifestyle (no luxury apartment and weekly Michelin restaurants that is). By this standard, the amount of savings you can accumulate after each year:
year cumulative savings
1 ~55k
2 ~115k
3 ~200k
4 ~300k
***by the way, this is assuming that you just let your money sit at the bank; the more likely thing is for you to get a reasonable market return rate about 5%

Granted that one paying sticker price at H will face a 270k debt with no help, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to assume one can get at least moderate amount of grants and contributions from prior savings, parents, and summer placements. Therefore, even if you are to get no help whatsoever, you are sure to pay of your debt in four years. In the very likely event that you have some amount of help, you will be able to pay it off in two to three years.

Furthermore, the point that I really wanted to emphasize in my initial comments is beyond the purely monetary. The people you will get to meet and the alumni network you will be able to tap into are simply unparalleled elsewhere. The long term effect on your legal career development would be huge, especially if you want to become a partner for client recruitment purposes or want to go into policy making later on. I hardly think it is a coincide that the very top echelons of the legal field and policy making are packed with YHS graduates. And even in terms of immediate impact, the top BigLaw firms simply have far more places set aside for the top3 than others.

Bonuses are taxed?