<p>kirkmum,
I've always thought law/investment banking is one exception where you have to go to elite/top school until I met a lady whose daughter graduated valedictorian from Western Law School in Orange County(can only practice in CA with this school) and she said her daughter did not want to go far to study, is now have her own practice and her whole family is working for this daughter. From where I live, USC/Loyola Law would not be a bad since they have a strong alumni network.
I know somebody who's Vietnamese(non-native English speaking) graduated from UCLA then to UCB/Boalt law school and became top 3% earner from law school(made partner) because he was so confident in himself.
I want this same confident for my daughter. Lately, I think it's ok to go to non Tier 1 school because I saw my D's bestfriend(who wants to go to Princeton) panicked/frenzied over the fact that she might not make it into to APUSH which might not help her to go to Princeton(her dream school). I want D to like school/study/do well in school/feel accomplish but not in excess to the point of panic. It's not healthy. But kids at this age is very misinformed about things in general.</p>
<p>Intriguing thread...so...original poster...have you made a decision yet?</p>
<p>The Yale lawyers do well, ho hum. There are fewer of them. Law school admissions from Yale declined 62% between 1975 and 2002. It's not that they couldn't go to law school - just that they didn't. Those places were taken by - guess who? - someone else! Same in medicine (from 17% to 6% of graduates). Yes, I know, they take a year off. Guess what - Ms. Guess Who from Somewhere Else takes a year off, too.</p>
<p>Yale lawyers make a lot of money. Now take away those who were born into it (money and/or connections) and compare them with Ms. Guess Who from Somewhere Else who got the places at those same law schools that the rest of the Yalies used to inhabit, and don't anymore..</p>
<p>Yale's a GREAT Place. Guess what? Somewhere Else is increasingly a great place, too.</p>
<p>Funny world. Changing, too. ;)</p>
<p>Great perspective, Mini. most of us parents on the parent board are middle aged and its unlikey many of us even know which school our colleagues attended at this point in our careers. (except for those who choose to highlight it---ugh)</p>
<p>SusieQ, it wasn't my intention to say that only lawyers from top law schools make a lot of money. There is many a personal injusry lawyer who makes us corportae types look poor! Really, there are many lawyers who do quite well in all sorts of practices. The average American lawyer, however, doesn't make anything near what most people think they do.</p>
<p>What I was talking about is the fact that large, intnl. law firms tend to recruit only from a handful of schools. These are highly sought after jobs by young law school grads. In general, these firms will not even interview from schools not on their list. I've seen a bit more flexibility at banks, while the vast majority are from the usual suspect schools, I've seen connections get others in the door.</p>
<p>Dstark, no Boalt partners here. The most represented State schools are UVA and Michigan at top law firms. </p>
<p>Mini, ivy league students tend to have keen attention to opportunity at any point in time. When it became clear there was much more money on Wall Street than in law, off they went to B school. Their exodus from med school also came quickly with declining money in medicine. And even Wall Street lost much interest during the tech bubble. They follow the yellow brick road!</p>
<p>But you're right that different people are getting the opportunities. When I started lawyering there were still some unqualified sons of partners lurking about. No more, a top partner in my firm recently had to swallow that his son wasn't even getting an interview.</p>
<p>"When it became clear there was much more money on Wall Street than in law, off they went to B school. Their exodus from med school also came quickly with declining money in medicine. And even Wall Street lost much interest during the tech bubble. They follow the yellow brick road!"</p>
<p>But it wasn't the school that did that. They were smart before they got in. (And had connections before they got in, as well.) And, increasingly, according the Ivy admissions officers themselves, they aren't smarter - "more academically qualified" -- than Ms. Guess Who going to Somewhere Else. (By the way, their B school admissions are also down. Places going to ....)</p>
<p>(Note: my references were to undergrad ed., NOT to law schools.)</p>
<p>So where are these people going now? Where is the opportunity now?</p>
<p>This is an interesting discussion but really one that should take place before schools are selected for application, before kids have the opportunity to dream about attending one of them, or to EXPECT to attend one of them. If a parent allows a child to apply to a school without revealing solidly the likelihood that he or she cannot or will not pay for it - the parent really has abandoned the child and played a huge mind game. While considering acceptances it's natural to be concerned about money - but talk with your child and review your actions - what passive or active "promise" did you make to your child, what is your child's dream, what is your child's expectation? I know one very sad story about a girl who spent her life practicing and training for the Conservatory. Mom and Dad were intricately involved. She had a beautiful voice and ultimately was selected for admission. Because the Conservatory is so small, about 500 students, they do not give much, if any, financial aid, which the parents knew. Suddently the parents decided that they could not pay for this school. The girl had to turn the admission offer down. The daughter cried for months, attended local U, and flunked out after the first semester. There's more but I won't say anything further. She has never been the same since and has no relationship with her parents. I really don't blame her. These parents did not discuss finances with their daughter UPFRONT and their behaviors indicated that they were onboard! </p>
<p>Most of us have primed our kids for college - we have encouraged grades, ECs, SAT study, and participated in the college admissions process. We are here on CC trying to figure out the process. Our kids get the message that it's very important - they have committed a lot of time for the one goal of college admission. For the parent, it may be one tough decision in April, but for the child it has been years and years of work and dedication to a goal. The value is more than in the school or the education - it is also in the student's work and dedication, in the student's dream. Not all dreams can be realized but students shouldnl't find that out in April senior year.</p>
<p>Great point Riley, exactly what I was thinking. It's not only us priming them, Harvard and Yale are the schools repeatedly mentioned as the places where smart kids go in books and on television. The Rory's don't pine to go to U of Mississippi. College counselors tell smart kid's they're "ivy material." What do we expect a hard working kid to want and expect? The poster who called college just another consumer product is correct, but somehow we often don't look at schools that way. We're made to think that anyone who just jumps the achievement hurdles can go. </p>
<p>Mini, yes, they were smart in the first place. I can speak for myself and many of my Harvard classmates when I say that Harvard did educate us as to what opportunities were out there. My parents thought that all rich people were doctors and they wanted me to become one. They had never heard about corporate lawyers and investment bankers. I remember wondering why so many of the really wealthy kids had banker fathers. The guys at my corner savings and loan certainly didn't impress me or look rich. It was my peers who taught me about potential careers and the Harvard career office that provided numbers of alum who could tell me more and help with opportunities.</p>
<p>Where are they going now? I'm not in touch with many ivy kids but I know 2 young lawyers and an investment banker that just went to biotech startups. Wall St. will always be hot, bumps and all. And every season it amazes me the number of unsolicited resumes that arrive in our law firm's mailing room despite the fact that we work them like slaves and don't pay like Wall Street.</p>
<p>Kirmum writes:"mcdeb, the average salary of a lawyer in the US is sixty some thousand."</p>
<p>According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the mean (average) salary of an attorney is $107,250; the median (50th percentile) is $92,730.</p>
<p>8th-year associates at Skadden Arps (probably the best-paid associates in the US) make $225K per year in salary.</p>
<p>To make $300K a year as a lawyer, you generally need to be one of the following: (1) a partner in a major firm (I'm guessing there are 20,000 of these in the US), (2) general counsel for a public company, or a level below that at the largest corporations, or (3) a very successful personal injury lawyer.</p>
<p>Yale Law School is the most selective in the country. The success of its graduates probably has a lot more to do with who they are than where they went to school.</p>
<p>The pitcher Randy Johnson is 6'10". He's the tallest pitcher in Major League Baseball. He's probably a little shorter than the average NBA center. But if he'd chosen to play basketball instead of baseball, he'd still be 6'10".</p>
<p>I'm up way out of time because the kids are leaving on a trip, so I'm free associating a little bit, excuse me if the following makes no sense.</p>
<p>Education is so closely associated with upward mobility, and improving the quality of one's life/one's family that we just accept that as an absolute truth, and pass that truth onto our kids without ever explaining or elaborating on it. When do we separate a discussion of careers, and what it takes to get a certain career from the disucssion of education? Probably never, or if we do, the subtext that you need to go to a college, a good college, is still there for most of us, we are mostly college-educated "thinker" jobs in this group, that's what we know. Add that to what is assumed in the media - as someone said the euphemism or slang term for a good education is "Ivy League", what is the subtext that kids will get.
My mom was a first generation college student, my father barely graduated from high school, I'm not 100% sure that he did, I went to a no name school and did well. The subtext for kids in our culture is do better than your parents - that is going to be very tough for my children. DH and I have tried since they were very small to have discussion s of what will you be when you grow up remain as open ended as possible. Reminding them over and over that their lifestyle requires a lot of money, but that others live much more simple lifestyles and are equally happy, and some (they see this type all the time) have a whole lot more stuff, and are desperately unhappy. Emphasizing the need to be happy with yourself, not because of your stuff, so they can be free to do the lifework they are meant and suited to do.</p>
<p>This has been a very interesting thread. First, I agree with the posters that suggest that as it relates to choosing a college, each parent/student must make decisions (financial, emotional, location, etc.) that they feel is best for their situation. CC is one great tool to use to get information/opinions/feedback. But ultimately, you have to live with it so what is right for one may not be for another. </p>
<p>I also agree with Rileydog, the financials should be discussed with students "upfront" before the college search starts. This is one of their first adult decisions and almost all adult choices have a financial component. Here is how I handled the financials with my oldest D. I live with 4 women, my wife and 3 DDs. I jokingly tell them that our house is not a democracy, but a benevolent dictatorship and I am the dictator. I told my D when she entered hs that I pay her room and board currently, so I will pay it while in college (if she didn't go to college, she could live at home and pay rent, no free lunch here, at 18 you are an adult so it's time to take on adult responsibilities). The reason I did this was (1) I believed that if my D was paying for classes, she would be less likely to sleep-in/skip class and it would motivate her to study because it would be her $, (2) it limited my initial obligation to what I felt would be a fixed manageable amount of about $6K-$9K/year (I probably would have paid more if needed, but that is where the benevolent part comes in, it would be my choice) and (3) when she started looking at colleges, she would consider the cost without my prompting. This put a different spin on things all through hs. All the studying, grades, ECs, SATs, etc. were all her way of "earning" money for "her" part of the college costs. When she looked at a college, she looked at cost and merit aid she might qualify for as well as the reputation of the school. (I knew from the beginning that our FAFSA would make us ineligible for need based aid and told her so)
I know every child is different but for her, this worked. She is very self motivated and competitive, a classic overachiever. To date, she has "earned" over 3/4 of the 4 year total $ in merit scholarships to the OOS school she wants to attend. Her scholarships have already covered tuition/books and she has saving to cover expenses. She is now putting a dent in room and board, "my part" of the college costs. Now she is asking me what I am going to do for her since she is covering part of "my costs" (she is hinting at a car). We have been very fortunate that things have turned out so well.
Again, I know one size does not fit all and this may not work for your child or your situation. Maybe there is too much project management training in my background. But I believe that in some form, financials should be discussed long before the first college letter arrives in the mail (I wish we could get $ for recycling all that wasted paper).</p>
<p>Workingforblue - I "think" you are lucky to be dealing with a girl in this regard <g>! Still, a great approach!</g></p>
<p>Rileydog said: "This is an interesting discussion but really one that should take place before schools are selected for application, before kids have the opportunity to dream about attending one of them, or to EXPECT to attend one of them."</p>
<p>What we did:</p>
<p>Told S we would pay $24,000 a year (a UC level education, for which because we were married very young and because we aren't in the highest paying jobs in the world, we will have to scrape and scrimp to provide our two kids). Combined with $10,000 a year from generous grandparents, he has $34,000 x 4 to spend on education, plus whatever scholarships and paid jobs he gets. Our EFC is $36,000, so with the exception of small grants and loans, he qualifies for nothing in terms of need-based aid, which we accept. He applied to two safety schools and was accepted with some merit aid, two match schools and was accepted with no aid/merit and two dream schools, where he was waitlisted. </p>
<p>Now he gets to decide how to spend this educational pot o' money. Increasingly over the past few months, he has become very set on graduate school (either law or masters) which we estimate will cost $100,000- $150,000, and this future expense has seriously entered into his decision. He's choosing between two match schools. But it might have worked out that he'd be choosing between a match and a dream school. Whatever, it would have been his choice. He knew that long before April 1. We don't feel we have cheated him out of anything, and he says he is seriously fine with either match school, even though they each offer such different academic opportunities. The discussion continues...</p>
<p>"So where are these people going now? Where is the opportunity now?"</p>
<p>EVERYWHERE else - where the students who were "just as academically qualified" went. Take the top 100 (50 LACs and 50 Uni.s) and add in some state honors programs if they aren't already included.</p>
<p>(By the way - I agree with the comments about Yale Law - both because those admitted are extremely well qualified AND because they are richer before they get in. But that has little or nothing to do with undergraduate education.)</p>
<p>The valedictorian at my kid's hs has a brother at Harvard. Her hs record and accomplishments exceed his. She did not get into Harvard or Yale (She doesn't want to go to these schools anyway).
She was accepted into Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA. She is choosing Berkeley.
Then there is her friend. Super bright. Never studied for the SAT or SAT2s. Almost perfect scores. Great grades except in religion (Couldn't stop arguing with the teacher).
Only applied to public schools. Got in everywhere. Wants to go to UCSB.
They both figure that they will succeed anywhere so they are choosing the schools that they like best.
Here is a small example of Harvard type kids not getting into Harvard (for whatever reason) and going someplace else.
You multiply these kids by the thousands and you end up with tons of schools filled with intelligent students .</p>
<p>All these students that have been studying for their PHDs all these years. They want to teach somewhere. If these students refused to work anywhere but the top 20 schools, they would be unemployed for a long time. They also have to teach somewhere. The "somewhere" schools end up with talented professors.</p>
<p>So back to the original post.
There are smart kids at every school.
There are good professors at every school.</p>
<p>And Dstark, the opposite is also true - there are lousy professors (particularly if bad teaching is your definition of "lousy") and students who are not intellectually inclined, or more career oriented or more party oriented, or just plain at the bottom of the class at all schools as well.
Harvard and Yale have some awful classes, and some students who "have no business being there" - whatever that means to a given person.</p>
<p>cangel, I tried to look at the bright side.:)</p>
<p>Cangel is right there are some iffy profs at every school. I remember one really boring one at Chicago -- it did stand out as being unusual though because there were so many good ones -- and probably the guy was brilliant, just not a good teacher. </p>
<p>And definitely the UCs in CA get a lot of the cream of the crop. The Cal States too! Several of the Cal States offer a full ride and then some to top students here. I have no doubt that they snag some of the best and brightest by offering a free education. There are a lot of families who just don't see the point in going out of state when we have the UC's here, and at half the price of an east coast school. And the CC's here in CA are not looked down upon as much as they appear to be elsewhere. A lot of people here just consider them a cheap backdoor to a UC degree. Some very good students here start at a CC. Opportunities abound.</p>
<p>On the college boards the advice kids give each other is to take out huge loans. For example someone on the Dartmouth board is deciding between Wisconsin and Dartmouth. He knows his parents can't do four years at Dartmouth and he's asking if he should go for just one year. This is nuts!! So kids are telling him the loans will be nothink when he's an ibanker. I'm wondering if they expect everyone from Dartmouth will be an ibanker or if that's really what he intends.</p>
<p>This is just so sad. All of our lives we've dreamed of these schools. To tell us we can be just as happy at a school that was not part of the dream is hard to swallow. Will we be just as happy if our prince never comes? If we don't have our dream family or dream career? That's life, but how can we be just as happy?</p>