<p>Thank you for your thoughts Sybbie, I know the throught of biglaw as a “have to” rather than a “want to” has occurred to him and he is fully aware that all jobs are difficult to get so nothing is for sure. I think it is due to that uncertainty that the question of debt to a T20 school vs lots of debt to Berkley comes up. Public interest is what he wants to do and why he is going into law. He has said that he is aware that he may need to try to go a more lucrative route because of costs, so in that way he isn’t putting all of his eggs in one basket but, public interest is his goal right now. As for California, he is as sure as any young person without any family ties to an area can be that he wants to set up roots in California. Its just that there are no real roots at this point in time. The fact is that he loves California. The question about portability comes from me not from him. It is simply that my life experiences have taken me to parts of the country that I never thought I would go and having the ability to relocate has made all of the difference for me. It isn’t that he is indecisive about where he wants to be. It is simply that at his age, and being unattached, I know that where he wants to be can change. At least it did in my life. He applied to several schools in Cali, even schools lower than T20. The only way I can imagine him not going to school in California is if he got really big money with reasonable stips from another school. Both you and BDM do raise some very good points about how major debt can alter ones life and that is the flip side of the question of consideraing UCLA and USC.</p>
<p>As for making loan payments for 10 years, he done his homework on LRAP programs, at least as they stand now, and has taken them into consideration during the application and school selection process. If he does go the public route, and if those policies don’t change those 10 years of payments should be affordable if not covered. This of course assuming that he gets that public job.</p>