Subscription pricing
Is going to a t100 law school like Syracuse or Buffalo for example worth it? I've been told that if you don't kill the LSAT and get into a top ranked school, there's no point. I just keep getting so much mail from schools like Hofstra, etc, that I know are low-ranked schools... just don't know if I should even be considering them if my LSAT score isn't through the roof.
1
52 comments
@harmmanb719
The topic of my post was whether Top 14 or bust is a good idea. I with some reservations believe it is, but would narrow it to Top 14 or bust if at full tuition.
You posted about success saying mainly that the school you go to is secondary to how hard you try. If that were the case, one could expect to succeed in getting well paying (possibly big law) employment from bad schools if they just tried really hard. But, that is unfortunately not true.
This means its a really bad idea to go to poorly ranked schools at near full cost. If your assertion that hard work is the primary factor in determining success were true, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea because you could still pay off your debts. I hope you can see the link between the two now.
If you are still having difficulty acknowledging the link between analysis of the return on money spent on education and the determinants of financial success feel free to message me. I think the link is laid out clearly enough here for others.
I didn't misrepresent any of your arguments and cherry picking is just your go to phrase for dismissing errors in your reasoning. I would hope you wouldn't entitle a thread exposing seeking perfection and randomly challenge my lsat score when someone else has already done that and confirmed it(in a particularly crazy way).
Good luck with your journey too!
I hope neither you nor anyone else goes to a low ranked school at full freight with the mistaken belief that their effort will enable them to succeed in paying off their debt!
@elliottscott8814
I believe our disagreement is whether or not I advocate for lower ranking schools, and I think my post is self-explanatory.
Previously, You've expressed no opinion on what constitutes as the necessary condition for success and I've expressed no opinion on your financial analysis. If there was no opinion on a position, there isn't a point at issue. It's within the 7sage CC and I encourage you to check it out.
At this point, I do not believe any further continuation of this conversation would be constructive. You misrepresent, twist words, add and switch ideas, cheery pick my comments seem to just for the sake of arguing. Now, I'm not gonna make a thread titled "exposing seeking perfection", but in the spirit of not further hijacking OP's thread, I'm going to disengage myself now.
Best of luck with the journey. Sincerely.
Reach out to lawyers in fields you're interested in. Please.
@harmmanb719 said:
@elliottscott8814
Here is the conclusion of my original comment:
"Generally, I do believe T14 would make a difference, but it certainly isn't the end of the world if it's not. I believe we should all just do our best studying for the test and get in the best schools within our ability. Whatever school that might be, work hard and try to stay on top of everything, that's really the necessary condition for success in my opinion. So work hard or bust."
OP's inquiry: T14 or bust?
My expressed opinion:
T14 would generally make a difference, but certainly isn't the necessary condition for success, rather, hard working is.
Then Mr. Datguy expressed his opinion, and I was in agreement with some of the points made therein that is in line with my proposition.
Now, if one quotes half of my comments in isolation from the original point, I can see how school being "secondary" comes off as advocating for the attendance of lower ranked institutions (which seems to be the way you took it) But that's not how I constructed my posts. "Secondary" in the said context emphasizes on the notion that any particular school (T14 in this case) isn't the necessary condition for success. If anything, I was advocating "for" T14 bc I do believe it would make a difference, just with the caveat that if not, don't stress, for it isn't the necessary condition for success (secondary)
If I may, I would say it again; what school one attends isn't the necessary condition (secondary) for success, rather, hard work is.
My further comments were in conformity with the centra idea -- success.
"Amen. It's really secondary what you do or where you go (national or regional school) You gotta excel at "your" highest level for any kind of success."
On the notion of "laziness", again if one reads my comment in context, it's easy to see my emphasis is on the beginning of the quotes, which is "if you work hard..." (the main point of my entire post) I quoted the whole thing anyways just bc it was Mr.Datguy's final sentences of the ending paragraph, but I have no interests to elaborate or engage in any stipulation for "whether or not" one would be lazy in law (again a brand-new idea here) if graduating from XYZ schools. Not a point in my argument. It's a cherry picking tactic so I'm just going to disengage myself from going down that rabbit hole.
I read your initial comment snd don't believe I am misrepresenting it.
-You say that Top 14 makes a difference.
I agree.
-You say we should all study our hardest on the lsat and go to the best school we can.
I agree(except for scholarships). Though the best school we can sounds a little bit like a cop out. The LSAT is a perfectible test. It just takes a very long time for some and only a mildly long time for others. If you are not going to get into a top 14, then unless you are not going into debt for law school, I don't see why you wouldn't just study longer (caveat for extreme splitters with lsats already above a 175).
-You say whatever school you go to, work hard.
This is the point I was addressing when I said no one was advocating being lazy in law school or not trying. It's fine, but it is also obvious and from what I know of competition in law school, close to everyone works hard. It's probably nearly necessary, but at non-top14 schools it's often nowhere near sufficient.
-Then you say working hard is really the necessary condition.
First, there could be more than one. Secondly, working hard is probably pretty close to a necessary condition. I doubt too many lawyers succeed without working hard. And being in the Top 14 isn't quite necessary since people do succeed from outside the Top 14.
-Then you say so work hard or bust as though it is a replacement for Top 14 or bust. I have no problem with the advice to work hard in law school. I have a problem with the idea that this will inherently make up for going to an inferior school. Everyone will be trying hard (or nearly everyone) and so you can't count on working your way to the top. I believe that there are certain schools people shouldn't go to expecting a positive return regardless of their work ethic. So I don't believe work hard or bust can replace top 14 or bust (or top 20 or 25 or bust).
Then you make this argument that because working hard is a necessary condition for success as a lawyer, it is primary and because Top 14 is not, it is secondary. First off, this is a strange use of secondary and primary I disagree with. Secondly, even if it were judged to be secondary in success in law that doesn't really alter any argument for going to the top 14 and not going to lower ranked schools without a big scholarship.
"Now, if one quotes half of my comments in isolation from the original point, I can see how school being "secondary" comes off as advocating for the attendance of lower ranked institutions (which seems to be the way you took it) But that's not how I constructed my posts. "Secondary" in the said context emphasizes on the notion that any particular school (T14 in this case) isn't the necessary condition for success."
It doesn't matter whether it's taken in isolation or not. Saying choice of school is secondary or that work hard or bust can replace top 14 or bust automatically is advocating for going to lesser schools(rather than studying for longerand going to better ones) on the theory that it will be okay because you are going to work hard and rise to the top (which isn't true since almost everyone will be working hard).
"If anything, I was advocating "for" T14 bc I do believe it would make a difference, just with the caveat that if not, don't stress, for it isn't the necessary condition for success (secondary)."
And here is the point where you get to our fundamental disagreement. I would say if not Top 14, do stress. Why stress? Because at certain schools no matter how hard you work success in efficiently paying off your debt isn't likely.
At the top 14 hardwork may be sufficient to get big law or the LRAP may make your debt manageable despite choosing to forego biglaw. It is not at lower ranked schools which should stress you out.
Therefore, barring a large scholarship leaving you with close to no additional debt don't go to low ranked law schools. If you still want law just study and retake the LSAT so you can get into the Top 14 or get a big scholarship.
I hope you can see where I agree with your argument and where I think it falls apart. Finally, I hope you can see that we have a major difference of opinion sustained throughout (not created by cherry picking your argument). You think that Top 14 schools confer some advantage, but that hard work is more crucial. I think the advantage is significant enough that they are pretty much the only law schools worth attending at sticker and therefore that people should be either Top 14 or bust or massive scholarship bringing them down to very little debt or bust. I think working hard is necessary too, but is the norm in law school and won't confer a competitive advantage which helps pay off debt from the mistake of paying full tuition at a non top-14.
@elliottscott8814
Here is the conclusion of my original comment:
"Generally, I do believe T14 would make a difference, but it certainly isn't the end of the world if it's not. I believe we should all just do our best studying for the test and get in the best schools within our ability. Whatever school that might be, work hard and try to stay on top of everything, that's really the necessary condition for success in my opinion. So work hard or bust."
OP's inquiry: T14 or bust?
My expressed opinion:
T14 would generally make a difference, but certainly isn't the necessary condition for success, rather, hard working is.
Then Mr. Datguy expressed his opinion, and I was in agreement with some of the points made therein that is in line with my proposition.
Now, if one quotes half of my comments in isolation from the original point, I can see how school being "secondary" comes off as advocating for the attendance of lower ranked institutions (which seems to be the way you took it) But that's not how I constructed my posts. "Secondary" in the said context emphasizes on the notion that any particular school (T14 in this case) isn't the necessary condition for success. If anything, I was advocating "for" T14 bc I do believe it would make a difference, just with the caveat that if not, don't stress, for it isn't the necessary condition for success (secondary)
If I may, I would say it again; what school one attends isn't the necessary condition (secondary) for success, rather, hard work is.
My further comments were in conformity with the centra idea -- success.
"Amen. It's really secondary what you do or where you go (national or regional school) You gotta excel at "your" highest level for any kind of success."
On the notion of "laziness", again if one reads my comment in context, it's easy to see my emphasis is on the beginning of the quotes, which is "if you work hard..." (the main point of my entire post) I quoted the whole thing anyways just bc it was Mr.Datguy's final sentences of the ending paragraph, but I have no interests to elaborate or engage in any stipulation for "whether or not" one would be lazy in law (again a brand-new idea here) if graduating from XYZ schools. Not a point in my argument. It's a cherry picking tactic so I'm just going to disengage myself from going down that rabbit hole.
@harmmanb719 said:
@elliottscott8814 well, I believe at this point this discussion has many layers and you and I seem to have a different focus, which is fine.
@elliottscott8814 said:
No one is arguing that the people at non Top 14 or top whatever schools shouldn't try their hardest.
The argument is more that people should do everything possible as far as LSAT and the rest of their application is concerned so that they can enjoy the smoother road to success available through the Top 14 while still struving to so their best rather than relying on working hard in the future and having sensationally good luck to get a positive return on their investment in a legal education at a lower ranked school.
This is actually not my argument if you see my original comment. I was not advocating for "ppl at non T14" should or shouldn't try their hardest. Rather, my point was more in line with part of your second paragraph that ppl (not in law shcool, T14 or nonT14) should do everything possible (work hard) as far as the LSAT, no matter what school they get in. And then work hard to stay on top of the class once get in. I did not imply we should just rely on working hard "in the future" or "good luck", those are brand new ideas. It's quite contrary actually. Your cost analysis is on point, and I very much agree from the financial standpoint. But I don't see our points are at odds here.
Your argument was...
"Amen. It's really secondary what you do or where you go (national or regional school) You gotta excel at "your" highest level for any kind of success. Or at least try."
In the context of our overall question of whether people should be top-14 or bust because lower ranked schools are not worth it, I think you should be able to see why it might appear that the statement that where you go to school is secondary to trying to excel is an endorsement of going to said lower ranked schools. And in a way its true. Some talented and hard working people will rise through the ranks from these schools based on ability. But, statistically that percentage (even as a fraction of the hard workers) will be negligible and chance will play at least as important of a role as ability.
You also were responding to a quote that claimed it is the lazy and entitled who wallow in the misery of lost opportunities and resentment rather than suceeding in law. But, if you graduate from many of these schools you don't need to be lazy or entitled not to make it, nor will trying to perform at your highest level likely be enough.
If we agree about these things then I don’t understand how you can say that the school people end up at is secondary. It seems rather crucial to me.
@elliottscott8814 well, I believe at this point this discussion has many layers and you and I seem to have a different focus, which is fine.
@elliottscott8814 said:
No one is arguing that the people at non Top 14 or top whatever schools shouldn't try their hardest.
The argument is more that people should do everything possible as far as LSAT and the rest of their application is concerned so that they can enjoy the smoother road to success available through the Top 14 while still struving to so their best rather than relying on working hard in the future and having sensationally good luck to get a positive return on their investment in a legal education at a lower ranked school.
This is actually not my argument if you see my original comment. I was not advocating for "ppl at non T14" should or shouldn't try their hardest. Rather, my point was more in line with part of your second paragraph that ppl (not in law shcool, T14 or nonT14) should do everything possible (work hard) as far as the LSAT, no matter what school they get in. And then work hard to stay on top of the class once get in. I did not imply we should just rely on working hard "in the future" or "good luck", those are brand new ideas. It's quite contrary actually. Your cost analysis is on point, and I very much agree from the financial standpoint. But I don't see our points are at odds here.
@harmmanb719 said:
@jkatz1488955 said:
"You can't go to Loyola New Orleans law school and graduate with a 2.5 and expect to run to the top of the ladder. You have to find a way to achieve at your highest level and get noticed.
If you work hard and continue to try to make improvements in your field, sport, hobby, or career you will rise to the top. It is the lazy and entitled that wallow in the misery of lost opportunities and resentment."
Amen. It's really secondary what you do or where you go (national or regional school) You gotta excel at "your" highest level for any kind of success. Or at least try.
No one is arguing that the people at non Top 14 or top whatever schools shouldn't try their hardest.
The argument is more that people should do everything possible as far as LSAT and the rest of their application is concerned so that they can enjoy the smoother road to success available through the Top 14 while still struving to so their best rather than relying on working hard in the future and having sensationally good luck to get a positive return on their investment in a legal education at a lower ranked school.
@jkatz1488955 said:
"You can't go to Loyola New Orleans law school and graduate with a 2.5 and expect to run to the top of the ladder. You have to find a way to achieve at your highest level and get noticed.
If you work hard and continue to try to make improvements in your field, sport, hobby, or career you will rise to the top. It is the lazy and entitled that wallow in the misery of lost opportunities and resentment."
Amen. It's really secondary what you do or where you go (national or regional school) You gotta excel at "your" highest level for any kind of success. Or at least try.
It's a nuanced answer. Both paths have their advantages and disadvantages.
I think a perfect example is the NFL. Fifty percent of the players in the NFL come from top D1 programs. These players have put in the work from junior high all the way through to the NFL. In high school and college their resumes and abilities were top of their class and they were noticed by scouts etc. These would be you T14 law grads. The other half had very different paths to the NFL but in the end they got there. Most of the time their stories are about overcoming hardship or out working their competition. They did, however, get to the NFL by doing something different than the thousands of other players that were not D1 talent. You can't go to Loyola New Orleans law school and graduate with a 2.5 and expect to run to the top of the ladder. You have to find a way to achieve at your highest level and get noticed.
Perfect example, I know a Chicago grad that makes 120k a year ten years out of school and I know a Cumberland law grad that is working in civil litigation 10 years out and making +1mm a year in an area where 100k is rich.
Your career is an accumulation of your work. Where you go to law school does not define you, it is where you end up and what you do over your entire career. I am older and I've seen this over and over again in life. If you work hard and continue to try to make improvements in your field, sport, hobby, or career you will rise to the top. It is the lazy and entitled that wallow in the misery of lost opportunities and resentment.
@nicoleburdakin925 said:
The problem with anecdotal answers like “Kamala Harris went to Hastings” is that sure, we all can name one person who went to Hastings. Maybe some people can name 2 or 3. But Hasting’s IL class size is 348. What happened to the other 347?
I’m sure some of them passed the bar and are happily practicing law and they don’t regret attending Hastings at all. But that’s not true for everyone. Check out their 509 disclosure, and ask yourself, are you Kamala Harris? If not, her case probably doesn’t apply to you.
(Nothing against Hastings—just an example of anecdotal claims!)
This seems to hit the nail on the head. Anecdotes are great for inspiration. If you wind up at Hastings, absolutely use Kamela Harris's success as an inspiration if you want to follow a similar career path.
But, don't go to any school on the basis of an extremely unlikely outcome.
Figure out the likely salary for you based on median performance at that school and the area of law you want to practice. Then weigh that against total cost including opportunity cost. If it's a positive return that's great! If it's a loss that might be fine too, but you need to know how much money you expect to lose and be absolutely convinced that the career is worth it anyway.
The problem with anecdotal answers like “Kamala Harris went to Hastings” is that sure, we all can name one person who went to Hastings. Maybe some people can name 2 or 3. But Hasting’s IL class size is 348. What happened to the other 347?
I’m sure some of them passed the bar and are happily practicing law and they don’t regret attending Hastings at all. But that’s not true for everyone. Check out their 509 disclosure, and ask yourself, are you Kamala Harris? If not, her case probably doesn’t apply to you.
(Nothing against Hastings—just an example of anecdotal claims!)
@jkatz1488955 said:
@elliottscott8814 said:
@elliottscott8814 Opinions vary :smile:
facts are facts, if I got to choose a coast I got to choose the East
I live out there, so don't go there
But that don't mean you can't rest in the West
---Love you 7sage, reading TLS forums it is so mean spirited. Like, both OP who claims "I will be the greatest thing since sliced bread with my 150" to comments "you will fail and be homeless"---
I agree that where you go is almost as important as why you want to go because if you want to work on a supreme court case you should attend UVA and work at a firm that well... does large federal cases and maybe one day you'll get a shot, but hey in the meantime that 180K isn't going to exactly make you too upset while you wait.
On the other hand, if you are an immigrant that wants to fight for your local community where you are a native speaker, going to Harvard probably isn't going to get you there. Both because of your debt and because you can just make a lot more money doing what you actually were trained to do (complex legal matters).
I think it does boil down what you want and what you can really do.
If you can study for 1+ years, get 165 and attend a t14, you probably SHOULD do it but you should accept that work/life will probably erode very quickly (hey you have been studying for a 165, you already know this....)
If you can't study and you got a low LSAT, ask yourself: Do I want to do less complex (but equally challenging, probably more emotionally driven) legal work? If yes, go for the best ROI. -- Do yourself a favor, find out what that low end work entails - you may be filing visa applications for 3 years, day in and day out and your pay will be half of your friend who was an accounting major. This is where your dream of "I want to help people come to America" transforms into "I'm helping people get to America but please make it stop"
If you do OK on LSAT and are ok with doing most types of that Legal work, then pick where you want to live for the next 15 years of your life and try to go to school there. This could apply to T14, if you go to Georgetown you could have good opps in DC but this is mainly for those under LSAT medium.
If you have trouble on the LSAT sub 155 and you really don't think you can get big law but you really want that you should re-evaluate what you are getting yourself into.
Finally, a special case might be if you go to say #14 and pay 100% of the cost. The reality might be that your peers will have less debt than you and will be able to hold out for a job slightly longer than you after graduation. You on the other hand might have to work at a non-profit making 50-60K and hating your crippling debt and then get trapped into a cycle of "do I go to work or try to keep interviewing?"
7sage got me the score I wanted for my top choice but if things don't work out I need to reeval, do I really want to go through with Law? How much more am I ready to give up? A lot of careers pay similar to lawyers. It might explain the steep drop off with a lot of people going into finance, programming or hundreds of other jobs. You know, it is all about finding your fit, and law & medical were just ingrained to us as kids by Gen X who didn't realize you could be a programmer and make 150K a year with full benefits or you could work at a non-profit and make 40-80K (based on region and NFP) doing work you love, etc...
This is a great view point of everything. There are so many variables to understand and apply to where you are individually. As you put it, even Harvard might not be the right choice for some.
I think it depends on where you want to end up. I know in Houston and in Dallas you can still get big law if you are in the top 10-15 percent of UH/SMU/Baylor Law which are in the top 50 law schools. UT wasn't top 14 in the past, and they placed A LOT of people in big law in Houston and Dallas. If you can get into a T-14 school it is a no brainer that you should definitely go because the experiences and prestige are worth it. If you can't get in I wouldn't get too down because you can still get into the job you want if you go to a law school in the right region and get good grades.
T20 or bust. T30+near top of your class if you want to do regional and not be crushed by debt. Don't ignore the stats, and definitely don't ignore the potential stress of living under $100k+ worth of debt.
I say this because I care, not to be spiteful or misleading.
Some of the posts in this thread are simply shocking to read. Do not go to law school based solely on what someone on an online forum tells you, please.
@elliottscott8814 said:
@elliottscott8814 Opinions vary :smile:
facts are facts, if I got to choose a coast I got to choose the East
I live out there, so don't go there
But that don't mean you can't rest in the West
---Love you 7sage, reading TLS forums it is so mean spirited. Like, both OP who claims "I will be the greatest thing since sliced bread with my 150" to comments "you will fail and be homeless"---
I agree that where you go is almost as important as why you want to go because if you want to work on a supreme court case you should attend UVA and work at a firm that well... does large federal cases and maybe one day you'll get a shot, but hey in the meantime that 180K isn't going to exactly make you too upset while you wait.
On the other hand, if you are an immigrant that wants to fight for your local community where you are a native speaker, going to Harvard probably isn't going to get you there. Both because of your debt and because you can just make a lot more money doing what you actually were trained to do (complex legal matters).
I think it does boil down what you want and what you can really do.
If you can study for 1+ years, get 165 and attend a t14, you probably SHOULD do it but you should accept that work/life will probably erode very quickly (hey you have been studying for a 165, you already know this....)
If you can't study and you got a low LSAT, ask yourself: Do I want to do less complex (but equally challenging, probably more emotionally driven) legal work? If yes, go for the best ROI. -- Do yourself a favor, find out what that low end work entails - you may be filing visa applications for 3 years, day in and day out and your pay will be half of your friend who was an accounting major. This is where your dream of "I want to help people come to America" transforms into "I'm helping people get to America but please make it stop"
If you do OK on LSAT and are ok with doing most types of that Legal work, then pick where you want to live for the next 15 years of your life and try to go to school there. This could apply to T14, if you go to Georgetown you could have good opps in DC but this is mainly for those under LSAT medium.
If you have trouble on the LSAT sub 155 and you really don't think you can get big law but you really want that you should re-evaluate what you are getting yourself into.
Finally, a special case might be if you go to say #14 and pay 100% of the cost. The reality might be that your peers will have less debt than you and will be able to hold out for a job slightly longer than you after graduation. You on the other hand might have to work at a non-profit making 50-60K and hating your crippling debt and then get trapped into a cycle of "do I go to work or try to keep interviewing?"
7sage got me the score I wanted for my top choice but if things don't work out I need to reeval, do I really want to go through with Law? How much more am I ready to give up? A lot of careers pay similar to lawyers. It might explain the steep drop off with a lot of people going into finance, programming or hundreds of other jobs. You know, it is all about finding your fit, and law & medical were just ingrained to us as kids by Gen X who didn't realize you could be a programmer and make 150K a year with full benefits or you could work at a non-profit and make 40-80K (based on region and NFP) doing work you love, etc...
@uhinberg359 I have been considering the same thing.
I want to stay local, which means only 2 schools where I could get in-state tuition -- one Top 50, the other is ranked very low nationally, and I'd definitely get a great scholarship to the lower one. So I did some research on the local medium sized law firms where I might want to work. The majority of attorneys at these firms have JDs from the 2 in-state schools, almost evenly split between the highly ranked and the lower ranked school. This leads me to believe I should go where I'll have the least debt, since both schools have amazing alumni networks.
If you know the region/market where you'll want to work, try doing a search on Martindale Hubbell (https://www.martindale.com/) for graduates of the schools you're considering, and see where they work-- That's what I did and I found it quite helpful. Next spring I plan to set up informational interviews with several attorneys after getting my acceptance letters and scholarship offers, to inform my final decision.
@elliottscott8814 said:
@jkatz1488955 said:
@elliottscott8814
The law school job market is very bimodal. You either get big law or something else. For biglaw your starting income is $160,000. For everything else the major concentration of income is in the $40,000 to 65,000 range. That's not really more than you could expect to make with a Bachelor's degree.
Really? From what I've researched, the non-big law salary is higher for major cities. Are you taking the national average for non-big law?
I'm pretty sure. It's not that there are no jobs out there, but it's pretty sparse.
Here is the salary distribution fof lawyers from the National Association for Law Placement.
https://www.nalp.org/salarydistrib/?404;https://www.nalp.org:443/salarydistrib&CFID=23989475&CFTOKEN=95553562
You or your school might be the exception, but there just are not a lot of jobs out there that pay a salary inbetween the middle of the two modes.
I agree with @elliottscott8814 (I used Law School Transparency for my research and it was shocking to me too), but the qualifier here is that these bi-modal reported salaries are first-year salaries, 10 months after obtaining a JD. I am really curious to see statistics on law school grads' salaries 5 and 10 years out. Anyone have that data?
@elliottscott8814 Opinions vary :smile:
@elliottscott8814
I agree with everything that you said with the exception of your name.
I know many people that have graduated from regional law schools; one works as a chief of staff for a congressman, another holds state office, and many others work for reputable firms. Most CA state senators and assembly members graduated from regional law schools, and some have went on to become US senators and congressmen. You obviously want to take rank into account, but do not do it at the expense of ignoring your own work ethic.
@elliottscott8814 I definitely agree that they are compatible. I wasn't actually disputing your analysis so much as I was speaking to people like me who used to believe that starting salaries were pretty much everything. I do realize that having a Big Law income, especially with significant debt load, is extremely helpful for those with a Big Law debt load. Taking a scholarship is definitely worth it over the big law price, with maybe Harvard, Yale, Stanford as notable exceptions. A strong argument for the Top Fourteen are the good LRAP programs that they have, should you decide to work in the public sector.
@elliottscott8814 said:
The bimodal distribution concern is valid. But, I do recall numerous articles rating the life long pay off of a JD at about 1 million; presumably these schools are tier 1. There are also non financial reasons for choosing a JD. If one were to use a strict financial cost benefit analysis on a JD, other options in STEM may be more viable. Purely anecdotal, but I have friends in tech making 150k plus in there early 20s, one almost making 500k for BlackRock with his specialization in computational finance.
I think both the bimodal distribution and the 1 million dollar payoff are compatible. A significant fraction of lawyers get the high mode starting salary and outperform the generic bachelors degree by a nargin much wider than a million dollars over a lifetime. The other portion earn roughly the same as the median Bachelor's degree recipient throughout their careers, but carry Big Law sized debt with them. The gains of the first group are so big that when we average the two groups there is a significant positive return on the investment. The problem with this as a methodology is that money has a decreasing marginal utility. A $150,000 loss to a person making $60,000 a year damages their happiness more than a $150,00 dollar increase in value of expected lifetime earnings helps a person who is already earning $160,000 a year.
It's definitely not just a financial choice. That's just the easiest factor to address when asked if it's worth it. But, if you don't expect the big law salary I would generally take a scholarship rather than paying the big law price unless I was looking at a really good LRAP.
The bimodal distribution concern is valid. But, I do recall numerous articles rating the life long pay off of a JD at about 1 million; presumably these schools are tier 1. There are also non financial reasons for choosing a JD. If one were to use a strict financial cost benefit analysis on a JD, other options in STEM may be more viable. Purely anecdotal, but I have friends in tech making 150k plus in there early 20s, one almost making 500k for BlackRock with his specialization in computational finance.
Sometimes the discussions of the bimodal distribution leave out the fact that big law isnt simply sustainable for most people. My friend's sibling works in big law and many of the cohorts left after 2 years. Also a common saying I hear is that the higher up you are in the corporate (law firm) ladder, the more divorces you had. In the end of the day, one shouldn't lead themselves into financial ruin but should see the complete picture and weigh any relevant costs and benefits.
@jkatz1488955 said:
@elliottscott8814
The law school job market is very bimodal. You either get big law or something else. For biglaw your starting income is $160,000. For everything else the major concentration of income is in the $40,000 to 65,000 range. That's not really more than you could expect to make with a Bachelor's degree.
Really? From what I've researched, the non-big law salary is higher for major cities. Are you taking the national average for non-big law?
I'm pretty sure. It's not that there are no jobs out there, but it's pretty sparse.
Here is the salary distribution fof lawyers from the National Association for Law Placement.
https://www.nalp.org/salarydistrib/?404;https://www.nalp.org:443/salarydistrib&CFID=23989475&CFTOKEN=95553562
You or your school might be the exception, but there just are not a lot of jobs out there that pay a salary inbetween the middle of the two modes.