<p>Law schools are desperate, there are too many, not enough jobs, and those not finding jobs for their graduates are playing whatever their level of integrity allows them to do, it would seem. It doesn’t matter what US News does here, except as another string in the bow of desperation. Jobs are reported, and schools are ranked by THAT, and for both a nephew entering law school and a son who has wanted to since kindergarten and likely will be looking to do that in four years, that is what we are looking at. Mind you, there are a lot of attorneys in the family, and we don’t really need ‘outside opinions’ on what the good schools are.</p>
<p>This may have already been addressed. I am a parent of a young adult who has decided to go to law school. I have read this thread, and I understand that it may be in her best interest to take on the costs of a T1 versus a full-ride at T2. Mind you…the T2 is close to be a T1…because the degree from a T1 will translate to higher earnings not only when she first graduates from law school, but throughout her career. Is this true? (I am thinking T1 refers to the school 1-10 and T2 are the schools listed as 11-20)</p>
<p>T1 and T2 generally refer to the top 50 and 100 schools, respectively. The top 10 are called the T10 (confusing, I know) and the top 20 the T20. Within the range of top 20 schools, I would need to know her GPA/LSAT (or acceptances, if that’s still a thing this late in the cycle) and career goals, especially geographic preference. It can be worth going to a lower T14 for money than an upper T14, depending on the above factors.</p>
<p>Demosthenes49–Thank you for explaining the difference between T1 and T2…My learning curve is at a 90 degree angle.
For those on CC, Demosthenes49 was kind enough to answer my questions through a pm. The upshot: Given the late submission of her applications (Dec), it is conceivable the scholarship monies may have been already assigned to earlier applicants. My child may wish to wait till the next cycle-and apply earlier. In the meantime—she continues to wait to hear all of her options before making a decision as to how best to go forward.(I believe I have that assessment correct-if not-Demosthenes49-feel free to correct)
I truly value CC, and the assistance provided.
-APOL-a Mum</p>
<p>“To be clear, I don’t see anything morally wrong with this.”</p>
<p>I do. If it is mathematically impossible for many of the scholarship recipients to retain them, I think there needs to be an explicit warning to that effect in the award letter. I want to see language like this: “A maximum of 60% of XYZ Scholars may retain their awards after 1L year. Last year, 52% of students kept their scholarships.” Yes, a lot of students will still make bad decisions after seeing these disclosures, but I think it is immoral not to make them.</p>
<p>Here it is a year later and I have a relative with the same questions. It is a very hectic time. He is employed full time and trying to visit all the schools has been very challenging. Graduated from a Top 15 undergrad school with a 3.9 gpa. LSAT 172. Has worked 3 years in a government job. He is not sure what area he wants to go into - maybe international, maybe govt, maybe teach in time. Here is where he is so far. Your input would be appreciated.
UChicago - $15,000/yr scholarship
Duke - $30,000/yr scholarship
Georgetown - $15,000/yr (I think) scholarship
UPenn - ?? scholarship
WashU - Dean’s fellowship (full ride including tuition increases, summer position, mentor, etc.)</p>
<p>he didn’t apply to others in the T10, midwestP? </p>
<p>But the short answer is that ‘international’ (which really isn’t a thing), govt and academia all require prestige. At those price, Chicago is a no-brainer. But that means massive debt, which will require Big Law to pay off, or the federal loan forgiveness program. </p>
<p>Chicago is the clear winner there.</p>
<p>Duke will be $45,000 per year; Chicago will be $63,000 per year. I disagree with the above posters and think that both of them are overpriced at those amounts. Chicago will be almost $200,000; even at a 4% interest rate, that’s $2,000 per month to pay off. At 6.8%, that’s $2,300 per month. </p>
<p>Duke is still charging $22,000 in tuition, and Chicago is charging $48,000. Those numbers are worth negotiating down.</p>
<p>If not, with a 3.9 GPA but a 172 (98th percentile) LSAT, re-take the LSAT and apply with a 175. Get into Harvard or get a full ride at a T14. </p>
<p>Retaking from a 172 to a 175 is pretty tough. Chicago has solid employment prospects, especially to someone coming in with work experience. He may be able to pull a bit more money out of Chicago by leveraging the Duke award, which he should do, but otherwise Chicago is his best bet. I don’t know that waiting another cycle to try at HYS will really be worth it at this point.</p>
<p>Ack, that should be $37,000 in tuition for Chicago. Still overpriced, IMHO; the big issue s that even if the poster gets a BigLaw job (or a clerkship and then a BigLaw job), he will only have about three or four years of making that big salary to pay down his loans, and that is simply not enough. </p>
<p>It used to be that you could service law school loans with a few years at BigLaw: $25k or $30k a year for three or four years would pay down a substantial portion of student debt. After that, loan payments would be a few hundred dollars a month - doable on almost any job. But if you need to pay $25,000 a year, each year for ten yeas, then you still have six figures of debt after a few years in BigLaw. </p>
<p>I would just never advise anyone to take a path wherein their only hope for a good life is becoming a partner in a BigLaw firm. </p>
<p>He could also go government and get on PSLF, which is easily doable.</p>
<p>For the question above:</p>
<p>I would go to the U. of Chicago over the other schools mentioned, with Duke #2.</p>
<p>“He could also go government and get on PSLF, which is easily doable.”</p>
<p>Yes, but PSLF is a current policy, not a contractual nor a constitutional right. There is a proposed bill that would only let graduates discharge $57,000 via PSLF, and that includes interest on the loan.</p>
<p>I’ve been saying for years that loan forgiveness will look very different a decade from now. (See the thread where I it into it with the mom of a student who was choosing between full ride at USC and full pay at UC Berkeley.) The current policy kicks the can down the road, makes the numbers look good, and is a nice giveaway to young people. But when the bill comes due, and suddenly, lots more people than expected are asking to have lots more money forgiven, it will be severely restricted, if not outright eliminated.</p>
<p>I would be happy to bet that thirteen years from nor (ie when this kid is looking for discharge of loans), PSLF will not eliminate 100% of remaining debt, or even close to 100% for those who went to expensive private schools.</p>
<p>Anything might change in the future. PSLF may get repealed. Warren may be successful and student loan rates may drop to 1%. The difference in cost isn’t so great that the job prospects don’t outweigh them. </p>
<p>I’d appreciate your input about my D’s decision – she’s deciding between U Michigan w a $30,000/year scholarship vs. NYU at full freight. She’d have very doable loans at Michigan, but about $100K or a bit more at NYU. She doesn’t know what kind of law she wants to practice, but it could include public interest law, which NYU is more known for. Advice?</p>
<p>With 30k per year difference, I’d go to Michigan. The job placement stats between NYU and M are pretty close, so I’d go for the cash.</p>
<p>Michigan</p>
<p>Congratulation to your D on having two wonderful choices. It all depends on how much of a burden is 100K. I think Ann Arbor is a wonderful place, but it hardly compares to NYC. I would think that NYU would provide more options beyond big firm jobs. That said, i am not in the legal profession, and my opinion is based on what I had advised to my own D. </p>
<p>Michigan is a no-brainer.</p>