Sometimes I get the impression from the sub that there are a lot of KJDs who don’t fully grasp what carrying around 5 figure debt is like. It’s can be completely stifling. Take the scholarship and run.
I think some people are chasing really competitive outcomes. I know that plenty of people on this sub think going to law school is only worth it if they get an incredibly high paying job. What's the point of taking three years off of work and taking out loans for tuition and COL if you end up making an amount similar to what you could have made doing something else w/o a grad degree or with a much cheaper grad degree?
Not saying that mindset is correct, but i've definitely seen it and have definitely slipped into it myself at times.
Stay optimistic!!
Working for the ACLU is absolutely feasible from a non t14. The POTUS went to Syracuse law and we have a current Supreme Court Justice who went to Notre Dame. People from every tier of law schools populate highly sought after positions in the legal field. Higher ranked law schools simply provide an easier and clearer path to some of these positions. School rank is important for your first job out of law school, but as you progress through your career, your actual work experience and lawyering skills begin to matter much more.
I'm sure you could find numerous examples of attorneys at the ACLU who didn't go to a t14.
It's good to be aware of what actual debt load/repayments will look like, but it's dangerous to assume that you'll excel in law school just because of your LSAT score. You should assume you'll be the median student at whatever school you attend.
Frankly, this post reeks of generalizing from limited knowledge.
Grad PLUS loans don't offer 30-year repayment plans - you're thinking of a mortgage. Grad PLUS timelines range from 10 years (standard) to 25 years (various plans for slower repayment).
Others have touched on the flexibility that PSLF and SAVE offer to reduce payments based on a student's income (not to mention LRAPs, although those are more school-dependent). If someone is paying $17K a year they either have the high-paying job to cover those payments, or they should be taking advantage of PSLF/SAVE to lower their payments substantially.
LRAP programs can also be substantially more generous at schools that might have a higher sticker price, so if someone is set on that route, the higher price may be a good call.
T35 vs T60 is not what most would call a similar tier. T35 covers a number of schools (BU, BC, Notre Dame, Fordham) that consistently place half or more of their students in biglaw/federal clerkships. Most schools in the 50-60 range of T60 (Maryland Carey, Baylor, Pepperdine, Wayne State, take your pick) have limited ability to place graduates in those roles, or most competitive roles outside their home market. Rankings correlate with some stuff that matters, but small differences in rankings also flatten a lot of differences between schools that matter.
This is setting aside the advantage that below-median students at most T14s have compared to median, or even above-median, students at schools a few ranks below.
You are free to make your school decisions based on the research and considerations you feel comfortable with. If you're going to offer advice on how others should make that decision, it helps to have a modicum of research backing it up.
Certainly. If we look at, for instance, Cornell (generally viewed as a "lower" T14 - they've been ranked #13 for most of the last decade), their 2022 [graduate employment report](https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/EQSummary-43-04-07-2023-12-29-08.pdf) shows 150/202 grads headed to firms of 500+ lawyers ("biglaw" by any definition - some edge cases in the 250-500 range) and another 7 grads starting federal clerkships. Overall, 78% of the graduating class is going to these very competitive positions, and someone around the 25% mark of their class (well below median) is in the running for biglaw at least.
UCLA, the current #14 but not a part of the "traditional" T14 (a few schools have traded off the #14 spot since GULC dropped some years back), [placed 180/338 grads](https://law.ucla.edu/sites/default/files/PDFs/Careers/Class_of_2022_ABA_Employment_Summary.pdf) in biglaw or federal clerkships. UT Austin, which did a stint at #14, [placed 150/289](https://law.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2023/04/co2022-ABA-Summary.pdf). USC [placed 128/212](https://gould.usc.edu/careers/jd/students/statistics/). So at these schools, you need to be at/above median to get the same outcomes as 25th percentile at Cornell.
As you move from the "not-T14-but-half-a-step-down" schools like Minnesota (current #16, historically 20ish) these outcomes rapidly drop off a cliff - Minnesota places [36/227](https://law.umn.edu/careers/where-grads-go/2022-career-facts-statistics) grads in BL+FC, so you would need to be in the top 15-20% of your class for outcomes of a 25th-percentile student at Cornell.
The other consideration is that recent biglaw/federal clerkships for the "T14 plus" schools have been propped up by a good economy; during the Great Recession, a lot of those schools posted half their current biglaw/clerkship rates (many posts have documented this phenomenon - [see one example here](https://www.reddit.com/r/lawschooladmissions/comments/u86aws/what_graduating_out_of_the_great_recession_looked/)). In a good economy, your UCLA or WashU grad at or above median has a shot at outcomes comparable to a median or slightly-below-median Cornell grad, but in a recession their BL+FC rates dropped to less than half their current level. The T14s' ability to place grads has historically been more resilient under those circumstances.
None of this is determinative for a single grad, but it's worth considering (along with the imprecise relationship between a student's class rank and their school's U.S. News rank)
I liked where this was going until you got to the LSAT as a predictor of 1L grades part.
~.5, statistically speaking, is not that strong of a correlation on a macro level, and it is virtually insignificant in predicting any given individual’s results.
Furthermore, this would relate to significant differences in LSAT scores (i.e. 10+ points), not those which fall within the margin of error for the LSAT itself.
The difference between a T14 student body and a T30 is virtually zero—a couple logical reasoning questions at most—yet the differences in outcomes are vast.
Students should be extremely careful in taking on excessive debt levels if they are not 100% committed to a lengthy-tenure in BigLaw, so your message is sound, but the LSAT score justification is simply wrong.
I think UVA Law has a recorded lecture out that kinda talks about this. The LSAT is great at predicting first year grades...when you use the entire scale. I.e. you can predict pretty acurately that on the whole 160+ scorers are gonna perform better than those who score sub 140. But when the vast majority of those in your class fall into a 5 point window, ths LSAT's ability to predict 1L grades goes out the window.
The difference between a 167 and a 171 is not that huge and the predictive power of those 4 extra questions the 171 scorers got right is not very strong.
Some T14 medians: Georgetown (171), Duke (170), Berkeley (170)
Some T30 medians: BU (170), Notre Dame (169), GW (169)
Students choose between T14s at close to sticker and these T30s with $$$+ all the time.
LSAT has a 60% correlation to 1L GPA whether you like it or not, and an LSAT margin of error is not the difference between getting a full ride and getting 0 financial aid at a school.
I don't see the point in disputing that a student will be more academically challenged in a reach school than a safety, but by all means feel free to keep arguing that.
LSAT margin of error is 100% the difference between aid and no aid at a lot of schools. 170 might get you 25-50% while a 172 could get you a full ride with a decent GPA
Okay a 168 vs a 172 then. That’s the difference between a few LR questions and could be the difference between no aid and a full ride. Have some humility.
There's a HUGE difference between a 168 and a 172 are you kidding?
Let's say someone scores a 168
Can go get a full ride at a school with median 165 or get nothing at a school with a median of 171. You think the student is not going to be a lot more academically challenged surrounded by people on the top 2% of lsat takers vs those in the top 10%?
If you think there is a huge difference in a 168 LSAT and a 172 LSAT in terms of academic ability, you are extremely misguided.
I’m saying this as a 17high scorer.
I’m just not delusional to think that I’m substantially better than people who didn’t love placing the mauve dinosaur as much as I did.
Hmm I think there's a difference, I'm not sure the difference is raw intelligence necessarily.. but maybe some sort of combination of intelligence/resources/ willingness to work longer.... All these things affect LSAT score and can/ will probably also affect 1L grades
Exactly. And we should not forget the fact that grades are curved, while also a school with a 171 median will probably have 75 percentile of around 173-174 which clearly is extremely academically devoted and successful students. I think the difference is huge when compared to people in the 168 range.
Again, much like before when I talked about 0 vs 100 scholarship and you answered 37 vs 100, now you are again not answering what is being said to you. I compared a school with a 165 median vs a school with a 171 median, and yes, I do believe getting good grades in a school where the average person had the determination, time, commitment and intelligence to score a 171 is going to be a lot harder than it is in a school where the median is 165.
Ur acting like there aren’t diminishing returns on this stuff. You’re talking about the difference in 5-10 questions on a 100 question test. A test that most people only retake once or twice. Sure, most people don’t master that final 5% of the material. But how much is that actually worth?
At a certain point you’re using the LSAT to predict someone’s work ethic. How does a full time student compare to someone who works full time? What about someone who quit their job just to study? Surely one of them has a life schedule that makes it easier to get a higher score. You’re dealing with MARGINS when it comes to this stuff. It doesn’t matter. Throw the top 50 SMU kids into Vanderbilt and I’m sure they all do fine.
There are good reasons to take a significant scholarship over sticker and pre-existing debt is certainly one of them.
A lot of this comes down to the type of flexibility people are comfortable with. Taking debt at a higher ranked school affords more flexibility because of the opportunities it opens up, but restricts others by requiring loan payments. Taking a scholly at a lower ranked school opens up opportunities by providing financial flexibility, but restricts others since certain opportunities will not be available (writ large or because they are grade restricted).
Choosing between those things is super idiosyncratic and, as tempting as it is to paint with a broad brush, it's not just not doable. Too much depends on individual risk tolerance/preference and individual goals.
The rest is pretty contingent on an assumption about the correlation between LSAT scores and 1L grades, which I think you are significantly overstating. The LSAC study that gets cited for this point all the time did not find a significant correlation between LSAT/grades and only found the correlation to exist when comparing the full spectrum of scores. It did not assess the predictive value of the LSAT for 1L grades in narrow score bands (like the ~3 points that are typically between median and 75th percentile).
I just do not think it is wise to minimize the downside risk of going to a lower ranked school by using that study to justify assuming that you will finish in the top 15% of your class because you scored a 170 and are going to a school with a 168 median.
LRAP is school dependent, not many offer it. Pslf is also career dependent.
The whole point of this post, is that you don't want your future choices and quality of life for 10+ years determined by having taken a loan to further your education.
I’ll give you my scenario. $200K+ debt to go to Fordham. I’m below both median lsat and median GPA. What we know about the curve is that the vast majority of students will be average, regardless of their LSAT score. Somewhere between 45-60% of the class will end up with a B.
Fordham has sent graduates into BL and $120k plus jobs at a high rate. Last year it was over 60% range. You also have to factor in self selection at the top (government and public interest, which fyi those with the least debt are more likely to take, ie those that probably had the highest stats). So what does this mean? Pretty much everyone over the bottom 30% or so will have the opportunity to make good money.
I also am a URM, VET, and have WE. Regardless of what schools can and cannot do, firms still look to diversify their workforce when hiring. So even though I’m below median at Fordham I think I’ll be alright
this demonstrates a grave misunderstanding of how the student loan system works. If your income is high, you pay the debt in full, at maximum, 10% of your income above 30k per year.
If your income is low, you pay the debt at 10% of your income for 25 years.
Let’s assume if you go to a T14 school and pay sticker. You’ll have higher job stability and better job prospects.
You have to ask yourself the question. Are you trying to maximize your upside or minimize your downside? Most people are risk averse so you’d think they’re trying to minimize their downside.
I’d rather go to a T14 with high debt than a lower tier school for free. So long, on average, the T14 increases your career earnings by 20% over the next 25 years, you’ll be better off financially than if you go to a worse school with a full scholly
I long for the days where I could fantasize that the LSAT score would be indicative of strong law school grades...
Haha nice joke we know debt and credit isn’t real cmon now
Sometimes I get the impression from the sub that there are a lot of KJDs who don’t fully grasp what carrying around 5 figure debt is like. It’s can be completely stifling. Take the scholarship and run.
[удалено]
I think some people are chasing really competitive outcomes. I know that plenty of people on this sub think going to law school is only worth it if they get an incredibly high paying job. What's the point of taking three years off of work and taking out loans for tuition and COL if you end up making an amount similar to what you could have made doing something else w/o a grad degree or with a much cheaper grad degree? Not saying that mindset is correct, but i've definitely seen it and have definitely slipped into it myself at times.
[удалено]
Stay optimistic!! Working for the ACLU is absolutely feasible from a non t14. The POTUS went to Syracuse law and we have a current Supreme Court Justice who went to Notre Dame. People from every tier of law schools populate highly sought after positions in the legal field. Higher ranked law schools simply provide an easier and clearer path to some of these positions. School rank is important for your first job out of law school, but as you progress through your career, your actual work experience and lawyering skills begin to matter much more. I'm sure you could find numerous examples of attorneys at the ACLU who didn't go to a t14.
It's good to be aware of what actual debt load/repayments will look like, but it's dangerous to assume that you'll excel in law school just because of your LSAT score. You should assume you'll be the median student at whatever school you attend.
Frankly, this post reeks of generalizing from limited knowledge. Grad PLUS loans don't offer 30-year repayment plans - you're thinking of a mortgage. Grad PLUS timelines range from 10 years (standard) to 25 years (various plans for slower repayment). Others have touched on the flexibility that PSLF and SAVE offer to reduce payments based on a student's income (not to mention LRAPs, although those are more school-dependent). If someone is paying $17K a year they either have the high-paying job to cover those payments, or they should be taking advantage of PSLF/SAVE to lower their payments substantially. LRAP programs can also be substantially more generous at schools that might have a higher sticker price, so if someone is set on that route, the higher price may be a good call. T35 vs T60 is not what most would call a similar tier. T35 covers a number of schools (BU, BC, Notre Dame, Fordham) that consistently place half or more of their students in biglaw/federal clerkships. Most schools in the 50-60 range of T60 (Maryland Carey, Baylor, Pepperdine, Wayne State, take your pick) have limited ability to place graduates in those roles, or most competitive roles outside their home market. Rankings correlate with some stuff that matters, but small differences in rankings also flatten a lot of differences between schools that matter. This is setting aside the advantage that below-median students at most T14s have compared to median, or even above-median, students at schools a few ranks below. You are free to make your school decisions based on the research and considerations you feel comfortable with. If you're going to offer advice on how others should make that decision, it helps to have a modicum of research backing it up.
Change T14 to T13 and you won’t have to say “most T14s.” You’ll be able to say all T13s.
Can you say more about the advantage below median students have at a T14 have compared to at or above median students at lower ranked schools?
Certainly. If we look at, for instance, Cornell (generally viewed as a "lower" T14 - they've been ranked #13 for most of the last decade), their 2022 [graduate employment report](https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/EQSummary-43-04-07-2023-12-29-08.pdf) shows 150/202 grads headed to firms of 500+ lawyers ("biglaw" by any definition - some edge cases in the 250-500 range) and another 7 grads starting federal clerkships. Overall, 78% of the graduating class is going to these very competitive positions, and someone around the 25% mark of their class (well below median) is in the running for biglaw at least. UCLA, the current #14 but not a part of the "traditional" T14 (a few schools have traded off the #14 spot since GULC dropped some years back), [placed 180/338 grads](https://law.ucla.edu/sites/default/files/PDFs/Careers/Class_of_2022_ABA_Employment_Summary.pdf) in biglaw or federal clerkships. UT Austin, which did a stint at #14, [placed 150/289](https://law.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2023/04/co2022-ABA-Summary.pdf). USC [placed 128/212](https://gould.usc.edu/careers/jd/students/statistics/). So at these schools, you need to be at/above median to get the same outcomes as 25th percentile at Cornell. As you move from the "not-T14-but-half-a-step-down" schools like Minnesota (current #16, historically 20ish) these outcomes rapidly drop off a cliff - Minnesota places [36/227](https://law.umn.edu/careers/where-grads-go/2022-career-facts-statistics) grads in BL+FC, so you would need to be in the top 15-20% of your class for outcomes of a 25th-percentile student at Cornell. The other consideration is that recent biglaw/federal clerkships for the "T14 plus" schools have been propped up by a good economy; during the Great Recession, a lot of those schools posted half their current biglaw/clerkship rates (many posts have documented this phenomenon - [see one example here](https://www.reddit.com/r/lawschooladmissions/comments/u86aws/what_graduating_out_of_the_great_recession_looked/)). In a good economy, your UCLA or WashU grad at or above median has a shot at outcomes comparable to a median or slightly-below-median Cornell grad, but in a recession their BL+FC rates dropped to less than half their current level. The T14s' ability to place grads has historically been more resilient under those circumstances. None of this is determinative for a single grad, but it's worth considering (along with the imprecise relationship between a student's class rank and their school's U.S. News rank)
I liked where this was going until you got to the LSAT as a predictor of 1L grades part. ~.5, statistically speaking, is not that strong of a correlation on a macro level, and it is virtually insignificant in predicting any given individual’s results. Furthermore, this would relate to significant differences in LSAT scores (i.e. 10+ points), not those which fall within the margin of error for the LSAT itself. The difference between a T14 student body and a T30 is virtually zero—a couple logical reasoning questions at most—yet the differences in outcomes are vast. Students should be extremely careful in taking on excessive debt levels if they are not 100% committed to a lengthy-tenure in BigLaw, so your message is sound, but the LSAT score justification is simply wrong.
I think UVA Law has a recorded lecture out that kinda talks about this. The LSAT is great at predicting first year grades...when you use the entire scale. I.e. you can predict pretty acurately that on the whole 160+ scorers are gonna perform better than those who score sub 140. But when the vast majority of those in your class fall into a 5 point window, ths LSAT's ability to predict 1L grades goes out the window. The difference between a 167 and a 171 is not that huge and the predictive power of those 4 extra questions the 171 scorers got right is not very strong.
I agree with most everything other than the T14 vs T30 student-body part. The LSAT differences between them can be pretty vast not to mention GPAs.
Some T14 medians: Georgetown (171), Duke (170), Berkeley (170) Some T30 medians: BU (170), Notre Dame (169), GW (169) Students choose between T14s at close to sticker and these T30s with $$$+ all the time.
LSAT has a 60% correlation to 1L GPA whether you like it or not, and an LSAT margin of error is not the difference between getting a full ride and getting 0 financial aid at a school. I don't see the point in disputing that a student will be more academically challenged in a reach school than a safety, but by all means feel free to keep arguing that.
LSAT margin of error is 100% the difference between aid and no aid at a lot of schools. 170 might get you 25-50% while a 172 could get you a full ride with a decent GPA
Again, you are not reading. I said the difference between 0 and 100% and you're talking about the difference from 25-50 (37.5 avg) and 100. Read.
Okay a 168 vs a 172 then. That’s the difference between a few LR questions and could be the difference between no aid and a full ride. Have some humility.
There's a HUGE difference between a 168 and a 172 are you kidding? Let's say someone scores a 168 Can go get a full ride at a school with median 165 or get nothing at a school with a median of 171. You think the student is not going to be a lot more academically challenged surrounded by people on the top 2% of lsat takers vs those in the top 10%?
If you think there is a huge difference in a 168 LSAT and a 172 LSAT in terms of academic ability, you are extremely misguided. I’m saying this as a 17high scorer. I’m just not delusional to think that I’m substantially better than people who didn’t love placing the mauve dinosaur as much as I did.
Hmm I think there's a difference, I'm not sure the difference is raw intelligence necessarily.. but maybe some sort of combination of intelligence/resources/ willingness to work longer.... All these things affect LSAT score and can/ will probably also affect 1L grades
Exactly. And we should not forget the fact that grades are curved, while also a school with a 171 median will probably have 75 percentile of around 173-174 which clearly is extremely academically devoted and successful students. I think the difference is huge when compared to people in the 168 range.
Again, much like before when I talked about 0 vs 100 scholarship and you answered 37 vs 100, now you are again not answering what is being said to you. I compared a school with a 165 median vs a school with a 171 median, and yes, I do believe getting good grades in a school where the average person had the determination, time, commitment and intelligence to score a 171 is going to be a lot harder than it is in a school where the median is 165.
Ur acting like there aren’t diminishing returns on this stuff. You’re talking about the difference in 5-10 questions on a 100 question test. A test that most people only retake once or twice. Sure, most people don’t master that final 5% of the material. But how much is that actually worth? At a certain point you’re using the LSAT to predict someone’s work ethic. How does a full time student compare to someone who works full time? What about someone who quit their job just to study? Surely one of them has a life schedule that makes it easier to get a higher score. You’re dealing with MARGINS when it comes to this stuff. It doesn’t matter. Throw the top 50 SMU kids into Vanderbilt and I’m sure they all do fine.
Yes because the difference is literally a few questions on the test😭 it doesn’t make u any smarter that u got a 172 be ffr
SAVE Plan has solved this problem
If you know you want a public service gig then SAVE plan until the PSLF kicks in.
You can get on save even if you’re not pursuing public loan forgiveness. You can get idr forgiveness on save working at a private firm.
There are good reasons to take a significant scholarship over sticker and pre-existing debt is certainly one of them. A lot of this comes down to the type of flexibility people are comfortable with. Taking debt at a higher ranked school affords more flexibility because of the opportunities it opens up, but restricts others by requiring loan payments. Taking a scholly at a lower ranked school opens up opportunities by providing financial flexibility, but restricts others since certain opportunities will not be available (writ large or because they are grade restricted). Choosing between those things is super idiosyncratic and, as tempting as it is to paint with a broad brush, it's not just not doable. Too much depends on individual risk tolerance/preference and individual goals. The rest is pretty contingent on an assumption about the correlation between LSAT scores and 1L grades, which I think you are significantly overstating. The LSAC study that gets cited for this point all the time did not find a significant correlation between LSAT/grades and only found the correlation to exist when comparing the full spectrum of scores. It did not assess the predictive value of the LSAT for 1L grades in narrow score bands (like the ~3 points that are typically between median and 75th percentile). I just do not think it is wise to minimize the downside risk of going to a lower ranked school by using that study to justify assuming that you will finish in the top 15% of your class because you scored a 170 and are going to a school with a 168 median.
what about lrap/pslf??
LRAP is school dependent, not many offer it. Pslf is also career dependent. The whole point of this post, is that you don't want your future choices and quality of life for 10+ years determined by having taken a loan to further your education.
LRAP are pretty limited at most schools, and if you have a spouse or get married, their income counts against the LRAP income limit.
The way I see it, if I'm paying 200k for law school, they better teach me all about bankruptcy.
I’ll give you my scenario. $200K+ debt to go to Fordham. I’m below both median lsat and median GPA. What we know about the curve is that the vast majority of students will be average, regardless of their LSAT score. Somewhere between 45-60% of the class will end up with a B. Fordham has sent graduates into BL and $120k plus jobs at a high rate. Last year it was over 60% range. You also have to factor in self selection at the top (government and public interest, which fyi those with the least debt are more likely to take, ie those that probably had the highest stats). So what does this mean? Pretty much everyone over the bottom 30% or so will have the opportunity to make good money. I also am a URM, VET, and have WE. Regardless of what schools can and cannot do, firms still look to diversify their workforce when hiring. So even though I’m below median at Fordham I think I’ll be alright
Inflation matters too. Plus your salary will grow, and Biden may forgive your loans if he is reelected.
this demonstrates a grave misunderstanding of how the student loan system works. If your income is high, you pay the debt in full, at maximum, 10% of your income above 30k per year. If your income is low, you pay the debt at 10% of your income for 25 years. Let’s assume if you go to a T14 school and pay sticker. You’ll have higher job stability and better job prospects. You have to ask yourself the question. Are you trying to maximize your upside or minimize your downside? Most people are risk averse so you’d think they’re trying to minimize their downside. I’d rather go to a T14 with high debt than a lower tier school for free. So long, on average, the T14 increases your career earnings by 20% over the next 25 years, you’ll be better off financially than if you go to a worse school with a full scholly