How is law school feasible for middle class families?

Graduate School Law School
21

<p>The general public needs to be reminded that law school is not the only academic discipline from which many alumni end up getting screwed over.</p>

<p>Millions of college grads in the U.S. work in dead-end retail type of jobs. I know many MBA grads of even top schools looking for work. I know this because I befriended many of MBA students at my alma mater, which also happens to have a top MBA program.</p>

<p>The basic, cold reality is that the supply of human labor with a degree greatly exceeds demand for it, at least in this age within this country. With that in mind, focus on building a set of skills that are in demand in the labor market.</p>

<p>Or, you can play the college, law school, MBA, some sort of liberal arts non-sense masters ‘education game’ and hope to end up a winner after all is said and done. With the tuition for schooling approaching insanity nowadays, I would do a very serious cost-benefit analysis of attaining a higher education (even college) and carefully weigh the potential payoff given individual’s unique background.</p>

<p>I mean, if you aren’t exactly bright, not particularly motivated, can’t crack basic high school level algebra, can’t crack over 1800 on SAT and the best you can do is to go attend directional State U and major in Poli Sci, maybe you are better off skipping college entirely and learn trades. I mean this not in a sarcastic way; let those millions of college grads working in dead-end retail jobs speak for themselves.</p>

22

<p>I totally agree with this, not to mention that we need plumbers, electricians, etc. I have a family member who is an electrician and has done just fine. It annoys me that he is sometimes not given as much respect as people who stay clean and work in offices, yet family members are much more likely to need his skills than the others’.</p>

23

<p>“Millions of college grads in the U.S. work in dead-end retail type of jobs. I know many MBA grads of even top schools looking for work. I know this because I befriended many of MBA students at my alma mater, which also happens to have a top MBA program.”</p>

<p>Stern is outstanding for MBAs, but I’m not surprised to hear that its graduates are struggling. The market is tough for everyone, and now, employers don’t want to train new hires. </p>

<p>The biggest changed I’ve noticed in MBAs is that the students are getting younger and younger. It’s just a gut sense, but I think that “back in the day,” employers would look to top b-schools for students not because the schools taught them anything spectacular, but because the schools had done the hard work of selecting out people who were both extremely bright and had already done amazing things in their careers. Megan McArdle said that a Chicago b-school prof said that they could put all of the students on a boat for two years and have the same employment results.</p>

24

<p>So moral of the story is it’s difficult but possible for the non-wealthy to afford t14 law schools?</p>

25

<p>What is the cost of a state law school these days? Still reasonable? In the old days, a kid could go to his state u, do well, work for a local firm or the government. Are those less glamorous options gone, too? </p>

26

<p>If you want to be a lawyer, consider working for the government or in other public service law. You should consolidate your student loans, put them on Income Based Repayment where you’ll pay a small percentage of your income for 120 payments (10 years), and the rest will be forgiven and you can then get a big paying job and live happily ever after.</p>

<p>There are all kinds of jobs where a law degree is helpful. Law enforcement, FBI, CIA, lobbying, government relations, but no one is forcing you to get a law degree. Moneymom is right - don’t do it, not worth it, better options available. (More jobs for me!)</p>

27

<p>@twoinanddone the employment after law school numbers actually track jobs ‘where a jd is an advantage’ as well, and even with that the prospects are pretty shocking outside the top 14 graduate schools. And when you take out the numbers employed after graduation by the schools themselves in intern type positions, it is even worse.</p>

<p>I have no ax to grind, just a kid who is now entering college who has wanted to be an attorney since kindergarten. He is thinking possibly jd/mba to have back up possibilities, but of course that adds more expense as well. Right now, he has to get the grades for the top schools, is the way we are looking at it. Fortunately, tests have never been a problem for him.</p>

28

<p>Many law schools do give merit scholarships, sometimes quite large scholarships. There seems to be very little need based financial aid. It is possible for a student with very good stats (LSAT, GPA) to get full tuition scholarships for law school, at less selective law schools than the student is able to accepted into. </p>

<p>There are lots of threads on law school discussion forums about whether a student should attend more selective school X with no merit scholarships and lots of loans vs. less selective school Y with a significant merit scholarship and very little in loans. The answers often depend on what the student’s career goals are, and how tough it will be to pay back the loans. Depending on the student’s stats, schools X and Y might be Top 6 vs Top 14, or Top 14 vs Top 20, or Top 20 vs Top 50. </p>

29

<p>You are still going to law school to be a lawyer, and would want to make sure you could get a job out of top 50, I should think. I’m not ultra close to the precise cut off of where that becomes unlikely in the ranking of the schools, since my kid is still years away from applying, but I did look a bit at it, and it looked pretty grim. Getting out with no cost and no job still costs three years.</p>

<p>However, in our case, he has every ability to get the grades, the question will be his self discipline over four years of undergraduate experience.</p>

30

<p>I have heard of SOME law students getting SOME limited merit awards, especially as IN-STATE residents at local law school, but many are self-funding via loans (sometimes with help from relatives). It is MUCH more competitive and expensive than when I went to law school (a highly ranked UC) all those decades ago. I did have a law job for the 1st 5 years out of law school, until I stopped out to raise my family. After that, I was a hearing officer for 4 years, then a part-time judge and now work for a nonprofit I started. They have all been interesting careers but not really lucrative enough to have paid back loans if I had borrowed say $200,000 or more to go to law school as an OOS student.</p>

<p>If I had worked full-time instead of part time, I would likely have earned considerably more, but am happy I didn’t graduate with crushing debt and have to work that many hours (I’ve come to really enjoy working part-time for improved quality of life). I also have no idea of how young people shoulder the crushing debt they do to attend grad/pro school. It scares me!</p>

31

<p>

</p>

<p>Not at all. High grades and a high LSAT score will guarantee merit money at the T14. Those with below median numbers, however, should expect to pay sticker.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Be careful in offering this advice.<br>

  1. Government jobs/PI are not that easy to obtain.<br>
  2. The Prez has recommended that the tax-free debt forgiveness be capped. While its only a proposal today, no one knows what will have 10+ years down the line. In other words, the debt forgiveness could run up a huge tax bill.
  3. Most PI jobs will not lend themselves to a “big paying job”…since many/most PI jobs require different skill sets that what in-house or Big Law is seeking.</p>
32

<p>

</p>

<p>This really isn’t the way it works. First, working for the government is just as hard as working at a big firm. There aren’t a lot of government jobs to go around, especially with all the budget cuts. Many agencies have had hiring freezes for the past few years, for example. The same is true with non-profits. Less money generally means less money given to non-profits, which means they hire less. The job market is extremely competitive even if you keep your options open to all of private for profit, private non-profit, and government positions.</p>

<p>Second, IBR (Income Based Repayment) does not top out after 120 payments. Public Service Loan Forgiveness is the program you are thinking of. That does kick in after 120 payments while working for the government or a qualified nonprofit. IBR kicks out after 25 years. 20 if you qualify for PAYE (Pay As You Earn). At the end of each you are responsible for the forgiven amount as taxable income. PSLF is exempt from that tax bomb. </p>

<p>Third, the chances of moving from government or non-profit to a “big paying job” really aren’t that high. A lot of the skills you pick up in agencies don’t have private analogs. For example, there’s not a huge call for a number of regulatory positions. Similarly there’s not a huge lot of lateral movement between the non-profit and private for-profit sectors, at least not for the “big paying” jobs. </p>

33

<p>3) Most PI jobs will not lend themselves to a “big paying job”…since many/most PI jobs require different skill sets that what in-house or Big Law is seeking. </p>

<p>Public defenders and DAs often go on to have nice private practices, especially in criminal law. The majority of public employees outside DC go to school in the state they end up practicing in. Grads from U Wis or Minn find jobs in Wis and Minn. Grads from U of Maryland go to the big firms in Baltimore, and those farther down the class ranks find DA jobs in the surrounding suburbs, or at businesses. It was hard to find jobs in 1983, and 1995, and now it’s hard again, but cities and counties are still hiring DAs, and law firms in Kansas City are still hiring new associates and they don’t all come from top 14 law schools. Some of the jobs aren’t exciting (looking at robo-signed mortgages 40 hours a week? Gets very old, very fast) but pays the bills.</p>

<p>I’ve flipped back and forth between government jobs, corporate jobs, and law firms. I actually prefer government, which sometimes pays less but fits my lifestyle a little better. I like being a lawyer, but not for the money.</p>

<p>If someone really wants to be a lawyer, be one. If someone only wants to be a lawyer to make big bucks, then yes, a top 14 school is probably the way to go.</p>

34

<p>Second, IBR (Income Based Repayment) does not top out after 120 payments. Public Service Loan Forgiveness is the program you are thinking of. That does kick in after 120 payments while working for the government or a qualified nonprofit. IBR kicks out after 25 years. 20 if you qualify for PAYE (Pay As You Earn). At the end of each you are responsible for the forgiven amount as taxable income. PSLF is exempt from that tax bomb.</p>

<hr>

<p>I said set it up in IBR to lower the payment during the 10 years, but then pay the 120 payments under the Public service forgiveness and then have it forgiven after those 120 payments. I just completed two CLE’s this week on this and it is not taxable under the public service forgiveness. It is what was recommended by the experts in student loan debt.</p>

<p>I never recommend student loans. I’d tell someone to go to the law school he can afford and not take out the loans. However, if he wants ‘the best’ and does take out the loans, this is one option (IBR combined with a public service job, and the public service job can be just about anything from being a DA to working for a 501c3). Another option is to be first in his class at Yale, work 90 hours a week, make $175k a year, and pay the loans off.</p>

<p>I’ve worked for states and federal government. Many co-workers have gone on to private practice, to banks, to corporations, and people from those places have come to work with me. Current co-workers (govt workers) went to Duke, Harvard, Wake Forest, Florida (#1 in her class). People make it work and have for many years. Current law students can too, but just be smart about it.</p>

35

<p>Some PDs/DAs go on to lucrative private practice in criminal law. Most don’t. There simply aren’t that many criminals around with the money to pay attorneys and the competition is fierce for those who can. Much like civil plaintiffs attorneys, for every one doing well there are ten scraping by and ten leaving the profession. </p>

<p>Grads from U Wis. seem to mostly find [little</a> firms](<a href=“6 Keys to a Stellar Law School Resume - Professional Resume Writers”>6 Keys to a Stellar Law School Resume - Professional Resume Writers) to take them in, if they find anything at all. Certainly not enough to pay U Wis.'s whopping [url=<a href=“http://law.wisc.edu/prospective/tuitionandcosts.html]$40-60k[/url”>Tuition & Costs | University of Wisconsin Law School]$40-60k[/url</a>] tuition. The same is true for [url=<a href=“6 Keys to a Stellar Law School Resume - Professional Resume Writers”>6 Keys to a Stellar Law School Resume - Professional Resume Writers]Minnesota[/url</a>], though they are putting at least 1 in 10 into a decent job. Those grads “father down the class ranks” seem to be finding a lot more unemployment than they are DA jobs. Although that’s probably because the various DA offices are small enough, and job competition fierce enough, that they can pick who they like. They’re not picking from the bottom of the class.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It really takes a special kind of person to say this in the very same thread where another person said this and then had to face the reality of the numbers. In real life, not the magical fairy land you seem to think exists, the Top14 not only offers you a shot at the “big bucks,” it gives you a chance to be a lawyer at all. Only half of law school grads find any legal employment whatsoever. That includes document review, which many argue isn’t a legal job at all. Those law schools providing the best employment prospects (you know, that “be one” part of lawyering you think is important) unsurprisingly cluster around the top. As you fall in the rankings you quickly lose employment prospects too. And let us not forget that while employment prospects are not created equal, tuition largely is. You pay the same for U. Wis. that you pay for Yale. Have fun paying off $250k in loans while you work in that lucrative 2-10 person firm market.</p>

36

<p>^^Indeed. </p>

<p>According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the US needs ~196k lawyers in the next decade for growth and retirements (19k/yr). Instead, we currently graduate 40k+ newly minted JD’s every year.</p>

37

<p>Again, Demosthenes, you appear to adopt a bullying tone to anyone who disagrees. There are arguments on the other side of this issue:</p>

<p>"Legal academics and journalists have marshaled statistics purporting to show that enrolling in law school is irrational. We investigate the economic value of a law degree and find the opposite: given current tuition levels, the median and even 25th percentile annual earnings premiums justify enrollment. For most law school graduates, the net present value of a law degree typically exceeds its cost by hundreds of thousands of dollars.</p>

<p>We improve upon previous studies by tracking lifetime earnings of a large sample of law degree holders. Previous studies focused on starting salaries, generic professional degree holders, or the subset of law degree holders who practice law. We also include unemployment and disability risk rather than assume continuous full time employment.</p>

<p>After controlling for observable ability sorting, we find that a law degree is associated with a 60 percent median increase in monthly earnings and 50 percent increase in median hourly wages. The mean annual earnings premium of a law degree is approximately $53,300 in 2012 dollars. The law degree earnings premium is cyclical and recent years are within historical norms.</p>

<p>We estimate the mean pre-tax lifetime value of a law degree as approximately $1,000,000."</p>

<p><a href=“Debating, Yet Again, the Worth of Law School - The New York Times”>http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/debating-yet-again-the-worth-of-law-school/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The fact that someone disagrees with you does not make that person an idiot or ill-meaning.</p>

<p>“It takes a special person” to demean those who disagree with you.</p>

<p>Yes, I did eventually agree that it’s probably a bad idea to go to law school right now, based on the economics. I don’t know that this will be the case by the time the OP reaches the end of his undergraduate career and needs to enter law school.</p>

38

<p>May I point out one very fatal flaw in the analysis? They refuse to consider the interest in paying down law school loans. If the median increase in earnings for lawyers is $610,000 over a lifetime, and at the 25th percentile, additional lifetime earnings are $350,000.</p>

<p>Problematically, it costs a lot of kids a lot more than $350k in loans and interest. The fact that the ROI on a law degree is or can be negative, for a substantial portion of attorneys, is frightening. </p>

<p>It’s also bizarre that the article touts going to law school (despite the statistics) based on (1) law firm partners; (2) U.S. Senators; and (3) CEOs. As if that weren’t a small, elite group of people… </p>

39

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, there are arguments. Those arguments are very bad, and the people making them should be made ashamed of doing so. Not because of their position, mind you, but because of the quality of their arguments. I have no issue with people thinking opposite to me, provided their arguments are built on a foundation of logic and fact. Skip one and try to sell fairy tales to high schoolers, and yes, I have a problem. Your initial posts in this thread failed entirely to account for the realities of legal hiring post-2007. That was a factual problem, and that’s why I came out against you. Ironically, the authors of the study in that article you cite make the very same mistake.</p>

<p>The first and most obviously jarring problem of the study is the premise. The idea behind the paper is “law grads tended to do better than just bachelor’s holders in the past, therefore they will do it in the future.” But there is a specific event not accounted for in that analysis: the crash. It’s just not the case that past events are predictive of future events after a major shift in the economy (with a special emphasis on its restructuring of the legal economy). And even ignoring major events, a study is only partially predictive if the past events are a good sample. </p>

<p>Did you wonder why the authors picked a 16 year period for the study? Well, I did. Turns out they skipped over the years just before then, the early 1990s, when the legal market was also contracting. Admittedly it is contracting far more today, but it would have been a lot harder to argue “law grads do better” if they included those pesky times when they didn’t.</p>

<p>Not content to skip the bad times on the back end, they skipped them on the front end too. The authors concluded the data collection before they got to the classes of 2009. OCI happens after the first year, so when did the class of 2009 go through it? That’s right, 2007, the year of the crash. That class and the subsequent classes (incidentally, the only classes we care about) are excluded from the analysis.</p>

<p>Now, I’m not claiming leaving these things out was intentional. The data on recent classes had not been well-collected when the study was done. I can’t explain skipping the early 1990s contraction in the legal market but there was probably a good reason. It’s also worth pointing out that the authors were law school professors with a vested financial interest in the outcome of their study. As any psychologist will tell you, that’s a good way to get bad results. But essentially, their “study” missed the legal market contractions both before and after their data set. That means the most they can possibly conclude is “when things are going well, lawyers do better than non-lawyers.” I have no problem with that conclusion, but now is decidedly not a time when things are going well. </p>

<p>If you want me to show you other major flaws in the study, let me know. This thing went through a fairly thorough debunking when it was released. I can go find you plenty of other people analyzing it if the critical flaws I pointed out aren’t enough to convince you.</p>

40

<p>C’mon you guys are way too negative. The problem is due mostly to too many law graduates that are poorly educated to start with. As many of you have advocted repeatedly here that students would be better off to get a good GPA from Timbaktu U with courses in basket weaving. How do you expect such students to be competitive once they get their law degree? Can a law diploma transform the straw man to have a brain in the land of Oz? How do you expect such students to take advantages of jobs outside of law firms and yet you ridicule the notion that many of our elected officials as well as CEO’s hold a law degree. </p>