<p>A while ago I started a thread and many of you suggested that my S retake his LSAT as did I. He didn't and is going through the admissions cycle right now. There is little reason to believe that anything that I say will influence his decision but I am still trying to sort it out from the sidelines. He still has seven T14's he hasn't heard from yet. Even if he does get admitted to some I suspect it will come down to these three choices; USC with 120K, UCLA with 75K (can possibly negotiate for more) and Berkley with no money offered at this point.</p>
<p>It seems that USC is the worst fit because he is, at least presently, aiming for public sector work. He loves California (hence the top choices) but doesn't really have anything that holds him to the state so having a degree with some level of portability would be a plus. No doubt Berkley would be the most portable. The question is, would the level of debt required for Berkley (if no money is offered) be worth the advantages considering the current economy. By the way all other things considered Berkley does seem to be a very good fit.</p>
<p>Also, I have read that establishing residency in California is relatively easy after the first year. Does anyone know about this? It would help with both UC's he is looking at. On the other hand, with his desire to go into public sector work he is hoping to be able to rely on the LRAP program from whatever school he attends. The question I have is, considering the troubled California economy how reliable can these programs be at UCLA and Berkley?</p>
<p>I’d recommend estimating total cost of degree, and looking at each school’s website for employment stats for the most recent graduating class. I’d note that UCLA lists 64 grads(of whom 55 are "Part time short term) as being employed in “Law School/University Funded Positions”; why would the law school be employing that many of its grads?</p>
<p>As the second best LS west of the Mississippi, Berkeley is easily the most portable OOS. The two others are more regional.</p>
<p>The Trojan Family is huge in SoCal – plenty of alums doing public sector work, making contacts easier, so IMO the money they are offering and the employability easily surpasses UCLA. (But yes, UCLA will likely up the offer to compete with 'SC.) But also note that UCLA has a lower COA – perhaps $8k a year.</p>
<p>Cal residency in the second year is rather simple. But the savings is only a few thousand.</p>
<p>I have to disagree with Cranky about estimating the cost of the degree. If your son is interested in public service work there are only two factors to consider: the likelihood of securing a public service job and the availability of decent contingencies. The cost of the degree is irrelevant because in the first instance, whether it is $10 or $10M, it will be forgiven in 10 years with payments made according to discretionary income. In the second instance, the cost at any given school is likely to be prohibitive without a solid legal job (whether or not he has scholarships) and therefore the discussion simply collapses into one about job prospects. Given this, you should examine the numbers:</p>
<p>Berkeley is undoubtedly the best choice, putting 20% of the class into public service work (1st factor) and 40% into BigLaw (2nd factor). UCLA and USC are fairly similar. UCLA puts more into public service but at the cost of reduced BigLaw prospects. However, UCLA also puts nearly 20% of the class into school-funded jobs, and that should surely count strongly against it.</p>
<p>I should also point out, having recently completed a successful CA job search, that the CA legal market is tough and unlikely to get better in the year or two your son will be interviewing. Your son may well be better off looking to schools in other markets if he has no particular attachment to CA.</p>
<p>“It seems that USC is the worst fit because he is, at least presently, aiming for public sector work.”</p>
<p>On the other hand, if your son wants to do public-sector work, he may be better off getting the cheapest degree. Yes, there is debt forgiveness, but I personally would not count on (a) that debt forgiveness being the same in 2026, which is when he would be looking to have his loans forgiven; and (b) always being in a job that forgives loans. </p>
<p>He may want to segue from the public sector into something private-sector, but still in a way that helps people or fulfills what he wants out of life. If that happens, he can kiss debt forgiveness good-bye.</p>
<p>The first debts to be forgiven will happen sometime around 2020. The student loan bubble is already a drain on Congress. Student debt forgiveness is the current law, not a human right or a constitutional right. Congress could change it tomorrow, or ten years from now, and leave everyone high and dry. In that situation, “I went to a really expensive college and ignored merit scholarships because I was counting on this!” isn’t exactly going to sway the American public.</p>
<p>Demo, while public service work is admirable, you’re making two really big assumptions: 1. securing that public service job; getting the public service job is a lot harder than it sounds, as PD and DA jobs-at least in our locality, for example-are extremely difficult to get, as the competition is fierce and 2. keeping the job for 10 years; it’s different everywhere, but in some areas-mine for example-the days of being a lifetime DA seem to be numbered. There’s been a trend for each new elected DA to “clean house”, so with each election, there’s a pretty good chance you’ll be invited to leave, which ridiculously becomes more likely as you get better at your job. How so? As you move up the chain, it seems these are the jobs most at risk when a new DA takes charge. Even with the PD, as each new boss comes in, it’s pretty common to see a shake-up in the office staffing. So hanging on to that public service job is a lot tougher than it appears.<br>
And I work for a large government entity which qualifies as “public sevice”; we’ve got over 250 attorney positions and as I write this, have exactly zero attorney vacancies.</p>
<p>Cranky, I explicitly acknowledged the difficulty in getting public sector work, which is why I discussed the importance of contingencies. I apologize if that did not come across clearly. As to your example, when I did criminal defense in SoCal it was the same ADAs year after year regardless of who was elected. I think that is going to vary a lot by district. In any case, repayment of debt under any model is contingent on keeping a job and losing it is always the risk of investment. I’m not saying that going to Berkeley doesn’t entail risk, I’m saying it is the best option for obtaining a public service job in CA with the greatest fallback opportunities should that job fail to materialize.</p>
<p>“2. keeping the job for 10 years; it’s different everywhere, but in some areas-mine for example-the days of being a lifetime DA seem to be numbered”</p>
<p>That, and you might not want the public service job for ten years. People talk about the golden handcuffs, but public service loan repayment and forgiveness is the golden handcuffs of this generation of attorneys - leave that job, and your finances will suffer. Ergo, those jobs are harder to find than they were before the loan forgiveness, and you are stuck in them, even if you want to segue into the private sector or some area that isn’t eligible for loan forgiveness.</p>
<p>Assuming all that is true – that they don’t change the rules – one still has to live with a mountain of debt overhanging for at least a decade. That impacts car loans, credit cards, and more importantly, mortgages. A person could be in his/her late 30’s before the credit rating looks solid.</p>
<p>@Bluebayou: I agree, but that cuts both ways. Lowering the cost of attendance by trading against employment opportunity is likely to leave you in the box of (relatively) smaller debt but no way to repay it. I’m not sure that’s a better position to be in with regards to credit and it’s certainly not a better position to be in with regards to life-goals.</p>
<p>Not to point out the obvious or anything, but even in-state at Berkeley will cost a quarter of a million dollars. I don’t care whatever jobs you can get after that; it’s too much debt for a lawyer. That’s thirty grand a year, every year, for ten straight years. Even if your son starts in BigLaw, he may leave after a few years; he may have to leave in a few years; he may not want to spend ten years there. </p>
<p>I know I keep saying this, but you need to look a decade down the road when you have that much debt. Yes, you may get a 160k per year BigLaw job, but that doesn’t mean that you’ll always be on that track - in fact, most are not. Then when you are off that track, you simply cannot pay $30,000 a year in student loan payments - or if you do, you’re not going to buy a house, have kids, of have much discretionary income. Even the best-case scenario is bad for Berkeley grads. </p>
<p>250k is physician-like debt, without physician-type salaries nor physician-type job security.</p>
<p>Thanks to aries for getting the numbers: in-state at Berkley has a total estimated cost of $73,000/year; out of state $77K(living expenses estimated for a 9 month period). This is so much more expensive than when I attended that even if one were to get the Biglaw job, can’t imagine what the loan payments would be without significant financial aid. Taking on nearly a quarter-million in debt for a law degree…that’s worth a lot of thought.</p>
<p>Yup Cranky and Aires, that is what I have been thinking. The thing is that none of the schools come without significant debt even with scholarship money, I believe that with scholarship money both USC and UT Austin (which he has put on the back burner) come to about 120K of debt and UCLA about 160K (although maybe negotiable). All tremendous numbers if the job isn’t there as Demos points out. Then looking at what Blue and others have said, it is risky to count on loan forgiveness. All of that makes it seem that there is no point in aiming for a public sector job unless you are independently wealthy or or on a full ride. All of this is very discouraging and it is very difficult for a kid who has been in school all of his life to wrap his brain around what a quarter million in debt means. What all of you have made clear is that there really isn’t a good answer. Each option carries its own level of risk so it is a matter of making the best choice with his eyes open. I’m just hoping for a scholarship from one of those T14’s that haven’t answered yet that Berkley will match. </p>
<p>On the other hand at least for now it seems that that 30 grand per year is a bit steep since as I understand it there are options to limit the amount that needs to be repaid each year to a percentage a earned income. I’m not sure but I’m thinking something like 10%. But yes if loan forgiveness didn’t happen this loan could hang over his head for decades.</p>
<p>Demos, since you suggested that going to school in a market outside of California would be desirable can you suggest a region that would be better? </p>
<p>Blue: It sounds like you might see USC as his best option. Am I reading that right? I have read that there is a strong alum network for USC however in looking over what the school offers it seems that they don’t provide a strong foundation in advocacy which seems to be what is needed for his goals. Am I missing something there?</p>
<p>If you could give me your son’s GPA/LSAT numbers I could be more accurate, but given he got into Berkeley I imagine he could secure, with money, an east coast T14. GULC and NYU are known for putting people into public service/government jobs and even the notoriously tight DC market is better right now than CA. That’s not to say your son couldn’t go back to CA from one of those schools; I am at an east coast school going back to CA. It’s not hard to sell going to an east coast school and then wanting to come home. </p>
<p>Assuming your son did not apply to these schools, I genuinely think he would be better off waiting a year and reapplying. Early applications mean a better crack at scholarship money, and a year of work experience is always nice for padding out a resume. I took that path myself and I think it was extremely valuable during the job search.</p>
<p>I really can’t advise one way or another. If your S wants to settle in SoCal, then 'SC is a no-brainer. But, if he wants to relocate to the east, Cal’s portability might be a lot more important. Plus, we still don’t know the net cost of attending Cal. (They match offers from other T-14’s, less Northwestern.)</p>
<p>fwiw: I’m just a parent, but don’t understand the need to attend a school with a focus on PI – just don’t see the big benefit, so that is not a consideration as far as I’m concerned.</p>
<p>Demosthenes: LSAT 168, GPA 3.83. I don’t see him waiting out a year. He wouldn’t do it before when we encouraged retesting and I doubt he would do it now. He has applied to GULC but not NYU. </p>
<p>Blue: If you asked him today he would say yes that he wants to settle in Socal but he has no family or real ties to hold him there so as a transplant from the NE to the NW to the South I understand that life can take you to different places and having flexibilty can make life much easier.</p>
<p>out on the the left coast, Cal = Berkeley. :)</p>
<p>UCLA = Southern Branch. hahahaha</p>
<p>I still highly recommend a retake. Go for June if he has time to study. It’s a freebie of sorts. If he likes his better score, he can reapply in June. A mid-170 could mean BIG money at several/many T14’s, and perhaps full tuition at the lower end ones. A 172+ puts HYS in play. </p>
<p>He is foolish (and I use that term nicely – I originally typed, ‘stupid’) to spend money on tuition, when top schools will pay him to attend the Class of '17. What is the rush?</p>
<p>Please explain the rationality of refusing to spend a few weeks studying for a test, then four hours taking it, when it could fundamentally change his career and his financial future. I do not get it. At all. </p>
<p>Think of it: if your son spends fifty hours studying for the LSATs, and can save himself a hundred grand in tuition, he is being paid two thousand dollars an hour to retake that test. Change the numbers a bit, but the underlying truth is there: this could b the easiest money he’s made in his life, or will ever make in his life. Few lawyers can ever get paid like that (of course, distinguishing between what is charged for time and what one earns for time).</p>
<p>Contrariwise, not retaking the test could be the most expensive non-use of his time in his life. </p>
<p>Bluebayou is nicer than I am. I will ask: if your son is too lazy to retake the LSAT, why is he going to law school? What is he doing now that makes him think his time is oh so valuable that he can’t be bothered to retake a test? If another round of the LSAT is too much for him, how will he handle the bar? </p>
<p>Also, i must ask: if he is so unsure of where he wants to live, why is he going to law school now? Why spend an extra hundred thousand, plus interest, for portability? He could buy a pretty decent yacht, or two or three luxury cars, for what he would pay for portability.</p>
<p>Both bluebayou and ariesathena are nicer than I am. Not retaking with a 3.83/168 is stupid. Unless your son has only 5 years to live and needs that law degree right now, I can’t think of any good reason not to retake. I can appreciate this being a difficult conversation to have with a child; you’re welcome to give him my name so I can talk to him. I am a 2L at an east coast T14 with a summer associateship in CA.</p>
<p>If there is no possibility of talking him into waiting a year, I recommend grabbing as much money as you can from any T14 that offers it. Location is easily remedied by good grades, and the scholarships will dilute the damage of bad grades.</p>