Stanford Law School c/o 2018 Applicants (2014-2015 Cycle) Forum

[RSN]

Because they're the best? "Shooting for the stars" means to set high goals, and what law school would be a higher goal than YHS? Surely you would agree that everything else being equal, a law degree from YHS is at least marginally worth more than one from anywhere else. The reasons to pick other schools (location, cost, specific program, etc.) didn't mean much to a high schooler. The high schooler could definitely have made the wrong choice, but my point is that it turned into the motivation of an entire undergrad career. And that – perhaps illogical – motivation isn't easily dismissed.

While this isn't the forum for this discussion, just pointing out that you said it yourself -- the difference is marginal between YHS and CCN for most people. It's not worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, which sounds like an abstract concept at this stage, but is very real when you have payments to make every month. Unless you have parents who are willing to borrow the money for you or can pay it out of pocket, your choices to service the debt are biglaw (which you could've done anyway at a lower school and racked up much less debt in the process) or a many year commitment to PI with LRAP.

I'd also note that getting a Top 6 law school in the country to offer you money to go there is an incredible achievement -- it may not be the goal you set in high school, but you should be incredibly proud if you attain it.

[LoganCouture]

Because they're the best? "Shooting for the stars" means to set high goals, and what law school would be a higher goal than YHS? Surely you would agree that everything else being equal, a law degree from YHS is at least marginally worth more than one from anywhere else. The reasons to pick other schools (location, cost, specific program, etc.) didn't mean much to a high schooler. The high schooler could definitely have made the wrong choice, but my point is that it turned into the motivation of an entire undergrad career. And that – perhaps illogical – motivation isn't easily dismissed.

While this isn't the forum for this discussion, just pointing out that you said it yourself -- the difference is marginal between YHS and CCN for most people. It's not worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, which sounds like an abstract concept at this stage, but is very real when you have payments to make every month. Unless you have parents who are willing to borrow the money for you or can pay it out of pocket, your choices to service the debt are biglaw (which you could've done anyway at a lower school and racked up much less debt in the process) or a many year commitment to PI with LRAP.

I'd also note that getting a Top 6 law school in the country to offer you money to go there is an incredible achievement -- it may not be the goal you set in high school, but you should be incredibly proud if you attain it.

Yeah, in my experience grabbing a Hammy/Vandy/Ruby is much harder than getting admitted to one (or all) of YHS.

[radio1nowhere]

.

[everything_bagel]

Yeah, in my experience grabbing a Hammy/Vandy/Ruby is much harder than getting admitted to one (or all) of YHS.

They're coming for you, LC!

I can't handle this discussion about picking YHS over these options not being prestige-whorey. I'm sorry, dude, but you're just wrong. Other than location and fit, neither of which are attributes shared by all three of YHS, the only major differences between these institutions as a group is preftige. That's true whether you decided you wanted a prestigious legal education this year or ten years ago That's not bad, per se, which I think is where the confusion is. It just comes down to what you're willing to pay $300,000 for.

At the risk of contradicting myself, I think this discussion will probably be more interesting if we hear other people's reasoning rather than harping on this one, though. Since this is the Stanford thread I'd particularly love to hear why Stanford is/isn't your first choice.

[Oskosh]

I would like to say that I would select Stanford (dream school), but am undecided as Yale is... Yale. Personally I would take YHS at sticker price.

EDIT:

Stanford is my first choice because it's an amalgamation of all the great things that I want in a law school. I have lived in Texas all of my life, and have only traveled to two other states (Louisiana and California). I visited LA over the summer for the Latino Summit, and I fell in love with the weather (not a surprising feat, as the sweltering Texas heat will let you know). The law school has prestige, is located in an amazing area, and has great job prospects to offer its graduates.

[IPmaybe]

At the risk of contradicting myself, I think this discussion will probably be more interesting if we hear other people's reasoning rather than harping on this one, though. Since this is the Stanford thread I'd particularly love to hear why Stanford is/isn't your first choice.

As someone with a number of options, Stanford is my dream school. I freaking love the area (more than any of my other choices, although tbh I haven't lived too many places, and never experienced a real winter) and want practice law in the Bay (and I want to burn down the city with the other school in the area). I love me some IP law, Stanford has an outstanding rep for that. One idea is to go into more corporate work and potentially unicorn job GC at a biotech/pharma company one day, which Stanford would be nice as a starting point and as a continuing line on a resume. Another thought is maybe I want to clerk for the Fed Circuit (or beyond...), which is totally doable from Stanford. I think I would be most happy attending Stanford.

Now, the reality is, I will in all likelihood not pick Stanford; I can attain my goals from any of my other options at a fraction of the price (I won't be getting Need-based aid). I've learned from the past few years that what I think I really want to do in life can change drastically and with law school, the crushing debt can really preclude exploration of different options. Maybe I don't really want to pursue IP law as a career, but if I had to go into massive debt, I sure as hell would go with the "job safe" option of remaining on the IP track. Unfortunately, I think limiting debt opens more options for me than the opportunities for me at Stanford.

So those are my reasons why Stanford is both my first and not first choice of where to attend...now all I have to do is actually figure out where I do want to go.

[foamborn]

I freaking love the area (more than any of my other choices, although tbh I haven't lived too many places, and never experienced a real winter) and want practice law in the Bay (and I want to burn down the city with the other school in the area).

wut?

[IPmaybe]

I freaking love the area (more than any of my other choices, although tbh I haven't lived too many places, and never experienced a real winter) and want practice law in the Bay (and I want to burn down the city with the other school in the area).

wut?

Well I meant to say "to practice law"...but I'm assuming your question is in regards to the city conflagration aside, which is just my ridiculous way of saying that I acknowledge the presence of Berkeley, but that I just personally really dislike that city/area.

[foamborn]

huh, i guess this reveals how little i know about palo alto. i know there are significant differences as far as cultural offerings go, but i assumed berkeley won on that count. weather's similar. i thought politics were even similar between the two, though palo alto would be more technocratic and berkeley more liberal. am i way off base? what makes for such a strong difference in opinion between the 2?

eta: i guess ur distinction is between sf and berkeley, so maybe my comparison is useless, but still...i would think sf would have similarities with berkeley.

[Mack.Hambleton]

There are disgusting poor people in Oakland. And no whole foods

[omegaweapon]

Yeah, in my experience grabbing a Hammy/Vandy/Ruby is much harder than getting admitted to one (or all) of YHS.

They're coming for you, LC!

I can't handle this discussion about picking YHS over these options not being prestige-whorey. I'm sorry, dude, but you're just wrong. Other than location and fit, neither of which are attributes shared by all three of YHS, the only major differences between these institutions as a group is preftige. That's true whether you decided you wanted a prestigious legal education this year or ten years ago That's not bad, per se, which I think is where the confusion is. It just comes down to what you're willing to pay $300,000 for.

At the risk of contradicting myself, I think this discussion will probably be more interesting if we hear other people's reasoning rather than harping on this one, though. Since this is the Stanford thread I'd particularly love to hear why Stanford is/isn't your first choice.[/quote

My preference for S/Y is honestly mostly down to the fact that I REALLY want to work for the Federal government, to the extent of having what's probably a pretty unhealthy obsession with the idea of service as a concept. I know that probably seems really stupid, but I think that the government doing a good job of helping people is basically the most important thing.

From everything I've heard, Y/S provide by far the best chance of this because their weird grading system forces agencies to examine your application individually instead of sorting them by grade, and because clerking is a really good way to get a foot in the door if you can do it.

S itself is appealing to me mostly because I spent the first ten years of my life in CA, and it'd be really cool to go back.

I'm also expecting nearly max need based aid, which changes the equation somewhat.

[zlrup]

Also, I have something to add to the worn-out prestige debate (though I'm sure someone has said it before). When users on this forum encounter an applicant without super clear goals who's set on YHS, the universal reaction is "prestige whore." I think that – for some of us – there is another factor at play.

I have been dreaming my whole life about YHS. Seriously. When I decided that I wanted to do law one day (early high school), I really committed myself to it. I shot for the stars. I slaved away to prepare myself for the opportunity to go to the best law school that I was capable of going to, and so the ultimate goal was always YHS. At the time I didn't know anything about the ins-and-outs of admissions, financial aid, law prestige, or anything of the sort, I just shot for the stars. I wanted to be the best I could be. I specifically remember in high school, before I had even starting thinking about which undergrad institutions to apply to, hoping that one day I'd get a chance at YHS. I slaved away for years to put myself in a position where it would be possible to get into one of the best institutions on the planet, and – though I have of course come to realize more recently the benefits of other T-14s with $$$ – the dream doesn't die easy. I'm not at all saying that applicants should follow their heart over solid logic, I'm just explaining the non-prestige-whore conflicts of interest for many of us. Sometimes financially responsible decisions don't seem as attractive when they come at the cost of a lifelong dream.

Just a thought. Radio out

But what put YHS in your head and not your local school? I assume that preftige is the factor that distinguishes YHS from other law schools and made it your "shoot for the stars" goal in the first place. I have a hard time seeing how "life long dream" means anything other than "chasing prestige from an early age."

ETA: Not telling you to abandon your dream at all, I just hesitate to label this a "non-prestige-whore conflict of interest."

Because they're the best? "Shooting for the stars" means to set high goals, and what law school would be a higher goal than YHS? Surely you would agree that everything else being equal, a law degree from YHS is at least marginally worth more than one from anywhere else.

I just meant that knowing they're the best likely came from their prestigious reputation. The reason people aspire to YHS in particular (unless they have extensively researched the schools) is because they're well known as "the best" - this reputation of high status can be labeled as them having "prestige."

Even if people want to get to YHS just for prestige, what's wrong with it?

[wsag826]

Debt, debt, debt, debt. All TLSers seem to talk about is debt. What is so wrong with debt if (a) you are going to the school of your choice and (b) you are getting a law degree?

People always say that they're "swimming" in debt as if, at some point, you'll grow tired of treading water and drown. But no amount of school debt can make you drown. I'm already in $100k of UG debt and I am still a functioning person, who is going to exit law school with $200k of debt and live my life. If you choose to take Z school over X school for the sole reason of $$, although X is your first choice, who are you really fooling? Your entire life will be spent wondering what could have been.

You can get a great education at any law school. Your job prospects almost anywhere in the T14 will be very positive so long as you continue to work hard. Why not spend three miserable years of your life somewhere where you want to be, for prestige, location, etc. Etc.?

The debt will get paid. And guess what, neither the federal government nor private loan companies can make you pay more than you can. Regardless of whatever type of loan you have.

I just think that there's two categories of people: debt averse and debt phobic. Debt phobic people are crazy, to the point where they will retake the LSAT three times to get five points higher so they can cross their fingers about getting a full ride. Do not get me wrong, it is very impressive to get a full ride. But ultimately, T14 full ride versus T14 with a little bit of $ (and biglaw afterwards for five to ten years), were talking about the difference of owning an Audi in two years and owning an Audi in seven years. Or the difference of buying the condo with Corian countertops or the condo with granite.

Having nothing at all has really put my life into perspective: go for it. Whatever it is you want. Because you run the risk of popping a blood vein worrying about debt you don't yet have when, frankly speaking, we could all die tomorrow and then none of it would've mattered.

That is all I have to say.

[xylocarp]

Debt, debt, debt, debt. All TLSers seem to talk about is debt. What is so wrong with debt if (a) you are going to the school of your choice and (b) you are getting a law degree?

People always say that they're "swimming" in debt as if, at some point, you'll grow tired of treading water and drown. But no amount of school debt can make you drown. I'm already in $100k of UG debt and I am still a functioning person, who is going to exit law school with $200k of debt and live my life. If you choose to take Z school over X school for the sole reason of $$, although X is your first choice, who are you really fooling? Your entire life will be spent wondering what could have been.

You can get a great education at any law school. Your job prospects almost anywhere in the T14 will be very positive so long as you continue to work hard. Why not spend three miserable years of your life somewhere where you want to be, for prestige, location, etc. Etc.?

The debt will get paid. And guess what, neither the federal government nor private loan companies can make you pay more than you can. Regardless of whatever type of loan you have.

I just think that there's two categories of people: debt averse and debt phobic. Debt phobic people are crazy, to the point where they will retake the LSAT three times to get five points higher so they can cross their fingers about getting a full ride. Do not get me wrong, it is very impressive to get a full ride. But ultimately, T14 full ride versus T14 with a little bit of $ (and biglaw afterwards for five to ten years), were talking about the difference of owning an Audi in two years and owning an Audi in seven years. Or the difference of buying the condo with Corian countertops or the condo with granite.

Having nothing at all has really put my life into perspective: go for it. Whatever it is you want. Because you run the risk of popping a blood vein worrying about debt you don't yet have when, frankly speaking, we could all die tomorrow and then none of it would've mattered.

That is all I have to say.

qfp and lol

[cc78]

But ultimately, T14 full ride versus T14 with a little bit of $ (and biglaw afterwards for five to ten years), were talking about the difference of owning an Audi in two years and owning an Audi in seven years. Or the difference of buying the condo with Corian countertops or the condo with granite.

I think it's good to hear dissenting opinions on TLS, so I don't want to rock throw, but counting on any extended time in BigLaw is just not wise. The hours, the stress, the politics, and the work itself can drive you out of that much sooner than you'd ever think. My SO's (BigLaw associate) partner who brought her into the firm and gives her the most work, just announced his resignation to go in-house at a tech startup. There now is a big scramble among junior and senior associates to figure out whether or not they are safe. Because of how things work, she could now be completely assed-out through no fault of her own and it is all unfolding over a couple of weeks.

The legal employment world is just too fraught with uncertainty to not be at least a little risk-averse.

[yot11]

Debt, debt, debt, debt. All TLSers seem to talk about is debt. What is so wrong with debt if (a) you are going to the school of your choice and (b) you are getting a law degree?

People always say that they're "swimming" in debt as if, at some point, you'll grow tired of treading water and drown. But no amount of school debt can make you drown. I'm already in $100k of UG debt and I am still a functioning person, who is going to exit law school with $200k of debt and live my life. If you choose to take Z school over X school for the sole reason of $$, although X is your first choice, who are you really fooling? Your entire life will be spent wondering what could have been.

You can get a great education at any law school. Your job prospects almost anywhere in the T14 will be very positive so long as you continue to work hard. Why not spend three miserable years of your life somewhere where you want to be, for prestige, location, etc. Etc.?

The debt will get paid. And guess what, neither the federal government nor private loan companies can make you pay more than you can. Regardless of whatever type of loan you have.

I just think that there's two categories of people: debt averse and debt phobic. Debt phobic people are crazy, to the point where they will retake the LSAT three times to get five points higher so they can cross their fingers about getting a full ride. Do not get me wrong, it is very impressive to get a full ride. But ultimately, T14 full ride versus T14 with a little bit of $ (and biglaw afterwards for five to ten years), were talking about the difference of owning an Audi in two years and owning an Audi in seven years. Or the difference of buying the condo with Corian countertops or the condo with granite.

Having nothing at all has really put my life into perspective: go for it. Whatever it is you want. Because you run the risk of popping a blood vein worrying about debt you don't yet have when, frankly speaking, we could all die tomorrow and then none of it would've mattered.

That is all I have to say.

This argument has been made many times, but maybe it needs to be reiterated. You outlined your best case scenario. That you A) land a biglaw job (reasonable, given you attend the right school and get the right grades, but not guaranteed) and B) that you stay in that job long enough to service your debt in the 5-7 year timeline.

If you get forced out of your biglaw job before you pay your debt then you get stuck with 300k debt. Yeah they can't make you pay more than you are able to, but no one is going to give you any more money. How are you going to buy a house? How are you going to start a family? And at the end of your IBR, your loans are forgiven, but the amount that's forgiven is taxable. So you end up with a five, maybe six figure tax bill at the end of all of that. And that's not even your worst case scenario. Your worst case scenario is that you don't land a biglaw job in the first place (roughly 50%, depending on where you go).

So yeah, debt's not bad if everything pans out. It's life-ruining if things don't. Depends on how risky you're feeling.

[LoganCouture]

Also, I have something to add to the worn-out prestige debate (though I'm sure someone has said it before). When users on this forum encounter an applicant without super clear goals who's set on YHS, the universal reaction is "prestige whore." I think that – for some of us – there is another factor at play.

I have been dreaming my whole life about YHS. Seriously. When I decided that I wanted to do law one day (early high school), I really committed myself to it. I shot for the stars. I slaved away to prepare myself for the opportunity to go to the best law school that I was capable of going to, and so the ultimate goal was always YHS. At the time I didn't know anything about the ins-and-outs of admissions, financial aid, law prestige, or anything of the sort, I just shot for the stars. I wanted to be the best I could be. I specifically remember in high school, before I had even starting thinking about which undergrad institutions to apply to, hoping that one day I'd get a chance at YHS. I slaved away for years to put myself in a position where it would be possible to get into one of the best institutions on the planet, and – though I have of course come to realize more recently the benefits of other T-14s with $$$ – the dream doesn't die easy. I'm not at all saying that applicants should follow their heart over solid logic, I'm just explaining the non-prestige-whore conflicts of interest for many of us. Sometimes financially responsible decisions don't seem as attractive when they come at the cost of a lifelong dream.

Just a thought. Radio out

But what put YHS in your head and not your local school? I assume that preftige is the factor that distinguishes YHS from other law schools and made it your "shoot for the stars" goal in the first place. I have a hard time seeing how "life long dream" means anything other than "chasing prestige from an early age."

ETA: Not telling you to abandon your dream at all, I just hesitate to label this a "non-prestige-whore conflict of interest."

Even if people want to get to YHS just for prestige, what's wrong with it?

I didn't say anything was wrong with it- radio was saying that this example (chasing a lifelong dream) is one of not chasing prestige, but I was just saying that I think it still is about prestige. That's all. How much that prestige is worth should be an individual determination.

[miamiri]

What if it's not about prestige but about the environment? The academic brilliance and innovation surrounding you, the kind of people you learn from and with, the friendships you can have. It's not only changing your brain but your whole life. I don't care as much about prestige, but knowledge and being around brilliant and good people. It's invigorating. That's why I would pick Stanford above all else, paying whatever they charge. Because that experience is priceless, and no matter what comes after, I would have gotten to live the life on the Farm. Being inspired is worth any amount of debt. Because at the end of my life it will matter that I was inspired and did great things. The debt I have will be very insignificant. Is anyone talking about whether rosa parks had debt? Not really.

[Mack.Hambleton]

What if it's not about prestige but about the environment? The academic brilliance and innovation surrounding you, the kind of people you learn from and with, the friendships you can have. It's not only changing your brain but your whole life. I don't care as much about prestige, but knowledge and being around brilliant and good people. It's invigorating. That's why I would pick Stanford above all else, paying whatever they charge. Because that experience is priceless, and no matter what comes after, I would have gotten to live the life on the Farm. Being inspired is worth any amount of debt. Because at the end of my life it will matter that I was inspired and did great things. The debt I have will be very insignificant. Is anyone talking about whether rosa parks had debt? Not really.

Lol

[miamiri]

What if it's not about prestige but about the environment? The academic brilliance and innovation surrounding you, the kind of people you learn from and with, the friendships you can have. It's not only changing your brain but your whole life. I don't care as much about prestige, but knowledge and being around brilliant and good people. It's invigorating. That's why I would pick Stanford above all else, paying whatever they charge. Because that experience is priceless, and no matter what comes after, I would have gotten to live the life on the Farm. Being inspired is worth any amount of debt. Because at the end of my life it will matter that I was inspired and did great things. The debt I have will be very insignificant. Is anyone talking about whether rosa parks had debt? Not really.

Lol

That's ok. I know I'm not normal. I like it. And there are some great people in Oakland and a whole foods as well.

[miamiri]

Debt, debt, debt, debt. All TLSers seem to talk about is debt. What is so wrong with debt if (a) you are going to the school of your choice and (b) you are getting a law degree?

People always say that they're "swimming" in debt as if, at some point, you'll grow tired of treading water and drown. But no amount of school debt can make you drown. I'm already in $100k of UG debt and I am still a functioning person, who is going to exit law school with $200k of debt and live my life. If you choose to take Z school over X school for the sole reason of $$, although X is your first choice, who are you really fooling? Your entire life will be spent wondering what could have been.

You can get a great education at any law school. Your job prospects almost anywhere in the T14 will be very positive so long as you continue to work hard. Why not spend three miserable years of your life somewhere where you want to be, for prestige, location, etc. Etc.?

The debt will get paid. And guess what, neither the federal government nor private loan companies can make you pay more than you can. Regardless of whatever type of loan you have.

I just think that there's two categories of people: debt averse and debt phobic. Debt phobic people are crazy, to the point where they will retake the LSAT three times to get five points higher so they can cross their fingers about getting a full ride. Do not get me wrong, it is very impressive to get a full ride. But ultimately, T14 full ride versus T14 with a little bit of $ (and biglaw afterwards for five to ten years), were talking about the difference of owning an Audi in two years and owning an Audi in seven years. Or the difference of buying the condo with Corian countertops or the condo with granite.

Having nothing at all has really put my life into perspective: go for it. Whatever it is you want. Because you run the risk of popping a blood vein worrying about debt you don't yet have when, frankly speaking, we could all die tomorrow and then none of it would've mattered.

That is all I have to say.

+1

[radio1nowhere]

I didn't say anything was wrong with it- radio was saying that this example (chasing a lifelong dream) is one of not chasing prestige, but I was just saying that I think it still is about prestige. That's all. How much that prestige is worth should be an individual determination.

This is a good point, and one that reasonable people can disagree on!

What if it's not about prestige but about the environment? The academic brilliance and innovation surrounding you, the kind of people you learn from and with, the friendships you can have. It's not only changing your brain but your whole life. I don't care as much about prestige, but knowledge and being around brilliant and good people. It's invigorating. That's why I would pick Stanford above all else, paying whatever they charge. Because that experience is priceless, and no matter what comes after, I would have gotten to live the life on the Farm. Being inspired is worth any amount of debt. Because at the end of my life it will matter that I was inspired and did great things. The debt I have will be very insignificant. Is anyone talking about whether rosa parks had debt? Not really.

I like this view as well. Enough money to live on (and/or support my family) is necessary, but beyond that baseline the value in my life comes from relationships, community, ideas, doing things that matter, realizing potential, etc. These things aren't the clear, defined goals that a lot of TLS users demand from YHS-focused applicants, but I think they are good reasons to pursue the best education and educational environment possible. Unless the debt is so massive that it's going to cause problems for my family, it's not a life-altering issue.

After all, at the end of the day it's just money.

[wsag826]

But ultimately, T14 full ride versus T14 with a little bit of $ (and biglaw afterwards for five to ten years), were talking about the difference of owning an Audi in two years and owning an Audi in seven years. Or the difference of buying the condo with Corian countertops or the condo with granite.

I think it's good to hear dissenting opinions on TLS, so I don't want to rock throw, but counting on any extended time in BigLaw is just not wise. The hours, the stress, the politics, and the work itself can drive you out of that much sooner than you'd ever think. My SO's (BigLaw associate) partner who brought her into the firm and gives her the most work, just announced his resignation to go in-house at a tech startup. There now is a big scramble among junior and senior associates to figure out whether or not they are safe. Because of how things work, she could now be completely assed-out through no fault of her own and it is all unfolding over a couple of weeks.

The legal employment world is just too fraught with uncertainty to not be at least a little risk-averse.

Debt, debt, debt, debt. All TLSers seem to talk about is debt. What is so wrong with debt if (a) you are going to the school of your choice and (b) you are getting a law degree?

People always say that they're "swimming" in debt as if, at some point, you'll grow tired of treading water and drown. But no amount of school debt can make you drown. I'm already in $100k of UG debt and I am still a functioning person, who is going to exit law school with $200k of debt and live my life. If you choose to take Z school over X school for the sole reason of $$, although X is your first choice, who are you really fooling? Your entire life will be spent wondering what could have been.

You can get a great education at any law school. Your job prospects almost anywhere in the T14 will be very positive so long as you continue to work hard. Why not spend three miserable years of your life somewhere where you want to be, for prestige, location, etc. Etc.?

The debt will get paid. And guess what, neither the federal government nor private loan companies can make you pay more than you can. Regardless of whatever type of loan you have.

I just think that there's two categories of people: debt averse and debt phobic. Debt phobic people are crazy, to the point where they will retake the LSAT three times to get five points higher so they can cross their fingers about getting a full ride. Do not get me wrong, it is very impressive to get a full ride. But ultimately, T14 full ride versus T14 with a little bit of $ (and biglaw afterwards for five to ten years), were talking about the difference of owning an Audi in two years and owning an Audi in seven years. Or the difference of buying the condo with Corian countertops or the condo with granite.

Having nothing at all has really put my life into perspective: go for it. Whatever it is you want. Because you run the risk of popping a blood vein worrying about debt you don't yet have when, frankly speaking, we could all die tomorrow and then none of it would've mattered.

That is all I have to say.

This argument has been made many times, but maybe it needs to be reiterated. You outlined your best case scenario. That you A) land a biglaw job (reasonable, given you attend the right school and get the right grades, but not guaranteed) and B) that you stay in that job long enough to service your debt in the 5-7 year timeline.

If you get forced out of your biglaw job before you pay your debt then you get stuck with 300k debt. Yeah they can't make you pay more than you are able to, but no one is going to give you any more money. How are you going to buy a house? How are you going to start a family? And at the end of your IBR, your loans are forgiven, but the amount that's forgiven is taxable. So you end up with a five, maybe six figure tax bill at the end of all of that. And that's not even your worst case scenario. Your worst case scenario is that you don't land a biglaw job in the first place (roughly 50%, depending on where you go).

So yeah, debt's not bad if everything pans out. It's life-ruining if things don't. Depends on how risky you're feeling.

It is impossible to know what is going to happen down the road...whether you'll land that biglaw job with big bonuses and pay off all of your debt in 10 years. Or whether you'll end up paying humongous tax bills after your IBR is done & loans are forgiven because you didn't land biglaw, ended up at a medium-sized firm in a locale with an unbelievably high cost-of-living, and had three children--two of which are sharing rooms because you can't afford a house big enough for all of them.

It's similarly impossible to know most things in the future. Such as whether you are going to have a mental breakdown and fall into depression. Or whether your firstborn child is going to contract a rare disease and riddle your family with medical bills. Or whether your elderly father is going to end up living with you and adding to your monthly expenses because he slipped on some icy stairs and broke his hip. I do not mean to be insensitive. What I am merely trying to say is: you cannot predict the future, and you have to deal with the cards you are dealt.

When I hear folks talking about the "struggle" of paying sticker at YHSCCN, I think of the people who do not even have college degrees, have two children to take care of, are single parents, making $35k at a job they'll almost certainly lose once it is outsourced, and are making do. The questions "how are you going to buy a house" or "how are you going to take care of your children" or "how are you going to pay your light bill" pop up daily. But they make do.

Some people like to claim that they are not "elite snobs" or that some other people are. Here's my take: we are all inherently "elite snobs" right now. Debating T14 with a full ride versus T4 at sticker is inherently an elite argument. We are relying on arguments of perceived prestigiousness to determine whether or not the prestige justifies the cost in certain cases. And that is fine. In this case, I don't mind it at all and in fact embrace this discussion.

What I do mind, though, is when we conflate this idea of "struggle" with the idea of attending YHSCCN or any T14 at sticker price. Some people jokingly say, "You might as well kill yourself." Tell that to struggling single parents without college degrees who literally cannot find permanent employment.

Ultimately, if I am saddled with $200-300k in debt, I will do what I have always planned to do: deal with the cards I am dealt. Yes, it may mean that I may never be able to buy the car of my dreams or install the gazebo behind my house, but I will definitely still be better off than 90% of people in that I have a professional degree from one of the top, elite schools in the country and somewhere down the line--even if not immediately--it will mean a lot to an employer. And yes, the tax burden might force me to rethink my dreams to parasail off the coast of Bora Bora, but I guess I'll have to settle for a road trip and sightseeing in New York City instead.

In the context of the T14 full-ride vs. YHS/CCN sticker/with debt argument, I will just say that it may ultimately be the case that you attend the T14 with a full-ride. And you will do great, attend law school debt free, and buy your dark black Range Rover with 24" rims and dual 4K HD screens on the back of the driver and passenger seats for the kids to watch Frozen on while en route to Aspen for your annual winter getaway. But if the law school game is one of prestige--and it is according to every lawyer I've spoken to--then I would rather do YHS/CCN at sticker and hold off on the Range Rover until 30 or 35. And if I'm indeed "drowning" in so much debt, maybe I'll have to get a Toyota Highlander instead, have the kids watch Frozen on my iPad, and stay at a bed-and-breakfast outside of Killington, Vermont.

[RSN]

I'm just gonna go ahead and leave this here: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=227866

[tonysoprano]

I'm just gonna go ahead and leave this here: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=227866

This is an incredible read. I'm only on page 4 and my internal battle - H/S/C (if I get in) at sticker vs. NYU/Penn/Berkeley/Duke with $-$$$ vs. top in-state schools for free - is waging like never before. There are great points (for and against all options) all around. Even though I'm now more unsure than ever, this was a great share - thanks.

For the record, I'm really not trying to start a debate regarding what I should do if presented with the options I discussed above. Two big reasons I have as much uncertainty as I do now are 1) I haven't received all of my acceptances/rejections or any notifications of T14 scholarships (or lack thereof) and 2) I'm really unsure if I want to live/practice in my home state or try moving somewhere else (if I did, it would most likely be CA or NY).