<p>I’d take Michigan, especially if she’s open to working in Chicago.</p>
<p>How are you getting $100k for full fright at NYU? Even if your daughter managed free room and board, it’s $53,000 per year in tuition alone, plus books, fees, etc., so she’s looking at a minimum of $150,000. </p>
<p>If you’re talking about the difference in COA between UMich and NYU, it’s $81,000 per year at NYU versus Michigan ($39,800 per year). That’s a difference of about $125,000, before interest and fees. I cannot fathom any reason to pay that much extra money because one school is “slightly” better for one type of law. </p>
<p>Also, please know that there is proposed legislation that would limit public service loan forgiveness to $57,000. Whether or not that particular bill passes, I would gently suggest that any potential law student learn the difference between current policy (which PSLF is) and a contractual or a constitutional right. </p>
<p>ariesathena, that’s the amount of loans she’d need, but it could be a bit higher as you point out. She won’t have to borrow the whole cost of attendance, since we have some 529 plan and other savings not needed for college which will help pay for either law school. We have close to enough to cover Michigan with their grant, but there would be a big shortfall for NYU. I know she’s leaning toward NYU for a few reasons – she’s heard the students at NYU are comparatively smarter, NYU has better faculty in several of her areas of interest, she’s grown tired of living in the midwest and NYC has a lot to offer (but at a price). I’m not sure any or all of those reasons justify the cost differential, but we want it to be her choice, since she’d be the one paying off any loans.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They surely do not. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because they scored a question or two better on the LSAT? But even if true, that is a good reason NOT to attend NYU. All first year courses have significant curves – wouldn’t be better to attend a place (with “lesser students”) where you have a better chance at an A? (Again, I don’t buy the argument that NYU’s students are superior, but just pointing out the illogic in her point.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Such as?</p>
<p>btw: are you sure she just doesn’t want to live in Manhattan for a few years? If so, she can easily do that when she graduates from LS. (NYC jobs are the ‘easiest’ to get.) But more importantly, it is silly to borrow big money money just to ‘experience’ Manhattan for three years.</p>
<p>It’s not my life, but I think she needs a huge reality check if she’s going to spend a hundred twent-five thousand dollars, plus interest, for the experience of living in Manhattan, having a slightly better professor, and being among marginally better students. </p>
<p>The SECOND she graduates, none of those listed factors will matter to her, her life, or her legal career, but she will pay an extra $1,500 a month for ten years for it. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The students at NYU are not smarter than those at any other T20. They’re not even necessarily smarter than any other students in the T50. It’s absurd to think there is some special difference in caliber between NYU and Michigan.</p>
<p>Ironically, faculty is largely irrelevant to student outcome. All 1L courses are the same across all schools (with some very minor variation- some schools do criminal procedure, some don’t). Employers hire largely based on 1L grades. Employers will determine what kind of work a new associate gets. Having faculty that’s particularly good at a given thing may make attending more enjoyable (or not- don’t confuse skill in a subject with skill in teaching it), but will have essentially no effect on getting a job doing those things.</p>
<p>If she wants to experience Manhattan, she should go lock herself in the library for a few days. That’s the amount of Manhattan she’ll see in the first 2 years of law school. </p>
<p>I agree with much of what has been said. It’s three years. It will fly by and her career choices will not be impacted by whether she graduates from Michigan or NYU. She can work in New York if she’s dying to live in NY. Taking on that debt is crazy. The claim that the students are smarter at one or the other makes no sense and, since law school does little to prepare you to practice law, the faculty is largely irrelevant. </p>
<p>Let me say that I loved having faculty who were renowned scholars in the subjects that they taught. It made for a richer experience, and if all other things were equal, strength of faculty might tip the scales for one school over another. But when things are so far from equal in the cost department, it makes no sense whatsoever to take on all that extra debt just for a class or two.</p>
<p>As to curriculum: yes, 1L classes are all the same, and students may choose almost any 2L and 3L classes they want. However, most students take the same classes in their upper years so that they can be prepared for the bar and practise. Upper-level classes that are either mandatory or strongly recommended include tax, business law, evidence, professional responsibility, remedies, federal jurisdiction, family law, administrative law (new to the NY Bar exam), conflicts of laws, wills/trusts/estates, etc. That tends to not leave many classes in an “area of interest.” </p>
<p>Thanks to all who replied. My relative DID choose Chicago in the end with a $25,000 a year scholarship. He is very happy with his decision and glad all the visits, etc. are done!</p>
<p>Congratulations to your relative, and that’s an excellent move. Chicago is about the same as HYS, and to get a Chicago degree at such a reduced price is a win-win-win-win!</p>