<p>All other things, like GPA, LSAT scores, work experience etc. being equal, would I have a higher chance of getting into Stanford Law School if I attended Stanford, Princeton, Yale, or Harvard as an undergrad? What about for attending Berkeley's Hoalt School?</p>
<p>I would strongly advise you not to go to law school.</p>
<p>There is a VAST over-supply of lawyers.</p>
<p>Even if you were lucky enough to get a job at a top firm, it is likely that within two years, you will not be there anymore, and then you will be begging the rest of your life to get jobs at small 15 man law firms, which resemble sweat shops and piece meal factories more than they do law firms.</p>
<p>If you are smart enough to get into a top law school, do something else with your life.</p>
<p>I assure you, I know what I am talking about, and a myriad of other people have posted similar messages on CC, who are far more eloquent than me.</p>
<p>I could write 10 pages on this subject. I am sure you will not take my advice.</p>
<p>Years ago, I received the same advice, and pooh poohed it.</p>
<p>To my detriment.</p>
<p>OK thanks for the advicethough there are other places to work besides top law firms, i.e. law schools as professors who tend to fare pretty well. But for my original questionwhat helps the most? And I mean this could apply to business or med school as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, but what is that ‘something else’? What’s the alternative? let’s face it - it’s not as if there’s a plethora of other high-paying, stable careers out there. Engineers, even at the top engineering firms, get paid only a fraction of what associates at the top law firms get paid, and many engineers find themselves laid off after only a few years. The labor market is even worse for most people with just liberal arts degrees. Physicians have to undergo years of painful residency that pay a pittance. With only a few exceptions, competition for a career in academia is brutal and usually requires years of low-paid postdoc work; plenty of academics are relegated to untenured ‘gypsy’ adjunct lecturer work at low-tier schools or community colleges. Ibanks are announcing widespread layoffs: Goldman alone has announced at least a thousand. </p>
<p>Law school, at least at a T14 program, may well be the relatively best option out of a poor choice set. Sure, if you can find an even better option, you should take that. But many can’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I heard from some of my friends on the street that most of the layoffs in WS are in back-office roles. (like operations at Goldman) I could be very wrong about this, but my observation is that with the possible exception of UBS, I-bankers don’t get laid off en masse. (as long as deal flows are strong within their group)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is somehow depressing to think about, but quite true… However, the problem with law schools is the tuition - the risk of losing your law school lottery after law school (not getting BigLaw) is quite high and that can put you in 200k of debt with no decent job prospects. At lower T-14 including Georgetown, over 50% of graduating 3Ls didn’t get BigLaw. Unless you can get into a top 6 law school, law school at sticker price is, imo, too much of a risk for anyone to take. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem with the pay structure of BigLaw firm associates is the ‘up or out’ policy of law firms. Most associates won’t make partner and will be asked to leave, after which, they won’t make anything close to what they were making before at top NYC BigLaw firms. I don’t think someone should decide to go to law school and become a lawyer solely based on the earning potential of becoming a lawyer, because, s/he will likely to become disappointed with the result. (And, this is assuming that the person in question got BigLaw after law school to begin with, which, most of law school grads will not get)</p>
<p>By the way, what do you think about a career in accounting? Seems like accounting programs are pretty cheap to attend and accountants have good job prospects. I am thinking many of the kids who can’t get into finance/consulting should definitely consider a career in accounting if both stable career and decent salaries are desired.</p>
<p>Other careers such as pharmacy and dentistry also have very good pay with much less hours compared to either law or finance. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You may get a small boost if you went to a top UG. (even this is debatable) But, if you have competitive numbers (LSAT + GPA), you can get into any top law school from pretty much any college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Wall</a> Street Wielding the Ax - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303627104576414202416820980.html]Wall”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303627104576414202416820980.html)</p>
<p>[Bank</a> Of America Is Laying Off People In Investment Banking Right Now - Business Insider](<a href=“http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-09-08/wall_street/30126952_1_bofa-layoffs-barclays]Bank”>http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-09-08/wall_street/30126952_1_bofa-layoffs-barclays)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, but the same could certainly be said for finance and consulting, which run similar ‘up-or-out’ policies and where the vast majority of analysts/associates will not make partner and will therefore usually be relegated to far lower paying jobs. </p>
<p>The same could also be said to happen informally, albeit on a less intense scale, in engineering. Many sectors of engineering, particularly in the software/IT space, are unfortunately rife with age discrimination such that you can’t really expect to hold the same engineering position forever, as if you never move up, you will eventually be terminated. But engineering usually doesn’t even have the equivalent of a true ‘up’ policy that provides the final goal equivalent to a law-firm equity partner. You might get promoted to project manager or engineering director, but those roles don’t really make that much more than do the regular engineers (maybe at most 1.5-2X). </p>
<p>But perhaps the biggest difference is that lawyers have the opportunity to start their own practice where they have the opportunity to make truly large sums, depending on their entrepreneurial abilities. Even if they never actually do start their own firm, the fact that they can threaten to do so means that top associates who are proven generators of business have the negotiating leverage to force their firms to pay them better. With the notable exception of computers/software/IT, engineers enjoy no such luxury. You can be the greatest chemical engineer in the world, generating millions in profits for your employer, but still not be able to negotiate a far better salary for yourself because the firms know that you don’t really have any other place to go. You certainly can’t easily threaten to quit and start your own chemical plant, unless you’re somehow able to procure millions of dollars of capital investment funding. A lawyer, on the other hand, can rent office space tomorrow. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think a useful comparison between law school tuition is against that of undergrad programs. Sure, plenty of people accumulate a mountain of debt by attending T14 law schools only to ‘lose the BIGLAW lottery’. But, let’s face it, plenty of people also accumulate plenty of debt by attending expensive undergrad programs where they major in liberal arts programs with little marketability, and then ‘lose the finance/consulting/graduate-school lottery’. Many (probably most) biology majors - a discipline with little marketability at the bachelor’s degree level - are not admitted to med school. Yet I detect little decline in the desirability of elite but expensive undergraduate schools, nor do I see much shift of students at those schools into more marketable majors. </p>
<p>One interesting quirk is that many (probably most) of the top law schools run that undergrad programs do not is some sort of loan forgiveness program where if you take low-paying law work (usually in the public sector), the law school will agree to waive some or all of your debt. For example, Yale Law waives all debt repayment for any recent graduate who makes less than $60k a year, even if in a job entirely unrelated to law. But notably, Yale College has no comparable policy. Those students who took out large-scale loans to attend Yale for undergrad and can’t find a decent job - too bad - they still have to pay back their loans. That means that attending Yale Law is a far safer bet than even attending Yale for undergrad (sans extensive FA). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A fine idea, except that most of the top undergrad programs don’t offer accounting as an undergraduate major. And as I said, I detect little shift of high school seniors away from the elite undergrad programs. </p>
<p>But I agree that it’s a fine choice, especially compared to the unmarketable liberal arts degrees that most students choose. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe the issue here for most students is that if you’re going to spend years of your life and expending tuition in a health-care-related professional graduate program anyway, it might as well be in a traditional medical school, where you can not only (eventually) earn a higher salary, but also enjoy greater occupational prestige. {Let’s face it - society imputes more social status to physicians than dentists or pharmacists.} </p>
<p>But I agree these are fine choices, especially for those students who can’t get into medical school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I think that is one major reason for the ever-enduring appeal of top law schools. Let’s face it - if you go to a 4th tier undergrad program, you’re not going to garner an offer at an elite consulting or finance firm, no matter how good your grades may be. Heck, you won’t even get the interview because those firms just won’t recruit at your school. </p>
<p>But what you can do is get top grades and LSAT scores and thereby be admitted to an elite law school and from there compete for not only BIGLAW, but also perhaps for a top consulting or Ibanking position directly out of law school (for they do recruit directly at the top law schools). Law school is therefore one of the few ladders that those students have available to them to achieve quick success.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is true at top law school. But, getting a public interest job as a lawyer is very competitive especially nowadays where government is cutting budget and jobs are hard to come by. I’ve heard current law students and recent grads at Columbia Law complain about the dismal job prospects in the legal industry. After they struck out at OCI and BigLaw boat has sailed, they found themselves unable to find ANY job with 200k of debt, and they were from Columbia Law School, which is fourth best law school in the nation. Some even say that getting public interest jobs that would qualify for loan forgiveness program may be tougher than getting NLJ250 law firm jobs. </p>
<p>Another factor to consider is that many elite private schools offer generous financial aids to undergrads. Top law schools only offer merit scholarships to those whose scores are far above their general acceptance threshold - meaning, majority of people at each law school are financing their legal education out of their own pocket or after taking out loans. In this scenario, attending a law school is more risky than attending a top undergrad.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is an interesting point and one that I am curious about. Recently, I had a chance to chat with an alum from my college who is an MD at an investment bank. When I asked him this question (whether or not I-banks adopt ‘up or out’ policy) he replied that plenty of directors and vice presidents, despite having no shot at getting promoted to MD, are allowed to work and stay at their jobs. Now, I know that for analysts and associate positions, the programs don’t last more than 3-4 years, after which, they are either promoted or terminated. However, at VP level and up, I don’t think this ‘up or out’ policy prevails among I-banks. Also, most I-bankers have decent exit opps. Many top associates make jump to private equity, where the money is even better than I-banking. In law, most exit opps after BigLaw pay less than BigLaw, which I think is unfortunate.</p>
<p>BigLaw, in contrast, doesn’t have different steps and roles before partner level. If one doesn’t make partner (and most won’t) s/he is forced out.</p>
<p>By the way, I am not too familiar with the exit opps of consultants. I would be curious to know where they tend to end up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the biggest problem with the legal industry is that the law of supply and demand is against it. There are tons of lawyers who are solos, and other tons of lawyers who are unemployed, working as doc review/temp attorneys, and some others who may be folding clothes at GAP. I happen to know two ‘lawyers’ who are working as secretaries at law firms and they were telling me how lucky they felt to have been able to find a paying, office-job. Within this over-saturated and hyper-competitive legal market, unless an attorney is a rainmaker with significant book of business to offer to law firms, there isn’t that much of a leverage power regarding the attorney’s salary. </p>
<p>There are some exceptional trial lawyers who strike on their own as solos and end up making huge money. (like getting OJ Simpson’s case, counseling Michael Jackson, etc) But, these lawyers are very rare, probably rarer than BigLaw partners.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree 100% with your point here. When I was growing up, all the kids were incessantly fed with the propaganda that more education = success. And, back when I was in high school, winning that admissions ticket to an Ivy League college was portrayed to be a golden ticket to a high-paying job. Now that I’ve gone through the whole process, I think this is not the case, but far from it.</p>
<p>I went to an Ivy undergrad, at which, the majority of people I knew ended up in very mediocre jobs (like sales or other administrative office jobs) or some others are straight-up unemployed. Heck, I know two people from my college who are now working at GAP, folding shirts and jeans. I think that the only benefit of going to a top college is the access to recruitment of consulting/finance. Then again, majority of people from top colleges don’t break into those fields, especially in recent years with terrible economy.</p>
<p>This notion that if one goes to a top undergrad or top law school and there is a sick job waiting for us is just ridiculous, but is wide-spread. Whenever I tell people I went to my college, they say something along “Wow, you are lucky because you will get any job you want”, which is far from the case. I suspect many people who choose to enroll in expensive, elite universities and major in biology, history, or sociology don’t really know the true picture of the real world out there. In fact, a guy who majors in accounting even at a second or third-tier college would stand a better employment prospect, except for the case that Ivy humanities majors score finance/consulting gigs.</p>
<p>Thanks for the very…detailedresponses. But to go back to my original question, just more generally, do professional schools generally have a preference for students who attended the same sxhool as undergrads compared to other schools of equal caliber?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To those undergrads below a certain financial threshold, that is. Let’s face it - whether we like it or not - elite private university admission is heavily correlated with family income. There just aren’t that many truly poor kids at HYPS; indeed, that is why those schools can afford to run their generous financial aid schemes for they know fully well that few students will actually be able to utilize them. {If you happen to be one of them, then you should obviously use it.} </p>
<p>Hence, for most students, attending an expensive private university is at least as risky of a financial bet as attending a top law school. In fact, it probably is even more so. Undergrad charges 4 years of tuition whereas law school takes only 3. A law degree is surely more marketable than are the vast majority of undergraduate majors (which, as we both agree, are not marketable in the least). After all, what are you going to do with a degree in history? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure that the comparison is apropos. Making it to the VP or director level at an Ibank is roughly the equivalent to making to, say, year 5+ as an associate in biglaw. If you’ve made it that far in biglaw, you can almost surely lateral your way into some lesser law firm, perhaps in a small city, or as a member of the in-house counsel of a firm. Sure, it won’t be as highly paying as biglaw, but it will still be respectable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would hardly say ‘most’. Let’s face it- if you’re in the bottom half of Ibanking associates, you’re almost certainly not going to get a private equity offer (not at a desirable PE firm anyway). Such offers are really only available to the top associates - who are precisely the ones who were likely to be promoted within the Ibank anyway. </p>
<p>Akin to biglaw, the majority of exit opportunities after Ibanking will pay less, usually substantially so. Most of them will find themselves in corporate finance or accounting departments, making substantially less than they did as Ibankers, although with a far higher quality of life. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But at least it’s a non-zero amount of leverage. Let’s face it - most people in the world have no leverage at all. The typical engineer can’t easily decide that he’s just going to start his own firm, or even threaten to do so. He needs access to capital and, more importantly, to potential clients, which he almost certainly lacked if he had always been stuck in the factory and never had the chance to talk to customers. Engineering companies know fully well that engineers have no leverage, and prefer to keep it that way. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Rare to be sure. But they exist nonetheless, and more importantly, can be used as animating examples when a superstar associate is attempting to negotiate his case for promotion to partner. Such a superstar could legitimately threaten to bolt and start his own practice. But when a mechanical engineer attempts to negotiate his promotion that he feels is warranted, what example could he use? The firm knows fully well that they don’t have to give him anything, and there’s nothing he can do about it.</p>
<p>Dolphin: Dumb question. Go to the best undergrad school that accepts you. Then go to the best law school that accepts you. Harvard - Harvard is pretty OK, IMHO.</p>
<p>As to jobs, McDonalds is always looking for smart guys to flip burgers, and Walmart can always use smart greeters.</p>
<p>If you think you are smart enough to get into law school, pass the bar exam and get a well paying job thereafter if one is available, you are also smart enough the think of other career options based upon your individual interests and skill set (if not law school). Counseling Michael Jackson – great job, you’ll end up in jail (do you read the headlines?).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree. I come from a middle-class background and attending my Ivy UG was actually a lot cheaper than attending flagship state U.</p>
<p>[College</a> Search - Cornell University - Cost & Financial Aid](<a href=“College Search - BigFuture | College Board”>College Search - BigFuture | College Board)</p>
<p>For this year at Cornell - 87% of undergraduate student body were awarded financial aid in forms of grants and scholarships. And, among those who got financial aid, the average financial aid package given out was whopping $ 38,000 dollars per year - which would cover full tuition. </p>
<p>At Harvard -</p>
<p>[Financial</a> Aid Office](<a href=“http://www.fao.fas.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do]Financial”>http://www.fao.fas.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do)</p>
<p>For families who make less than $65,000 a year, Harvard will cover all tuition and living expenses for its enrolled undergraduate students. And, I think that a family that makes $65,000 per year hardly qualifies as ‘poor’. The truth is, at elite private schools, majority of kids get generous financial aid package despite not hailing from poor backgrounds. They can come from middle-class backgrounds and still end up getting tons of financial aid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where I would agree with your point is when students who attend non-elite, expensive private schools for undergraduate programs. Schools such as NYU, Boston University, Brandeis, Fordham, among others - their cost of attendance are very high, yet, they don’t hand out generous financial aid packages like candies, which is the case at Ivies. I can see students who go to schools like that getting into a lot of debt. Or, students who attend public universities such as U Michigan, as out of state students, they would be paying nearly 50 k a year, with very limited aid. Overall, I think one should choose where to attend college wisely and try to avoid getting into a lot of debt.</p>
<p>Another thing to consider here is that there are a lot of cheap options for many students to take when they choose where to go to college. They can go to Ivies (a lot of financial aid) or go to state flagships (in-state tuition). However, for law schools, even third-tier law schools cost over 50k a year to attend, and rarely do students have many options to attend ‘cheap’ law schools, unless they score large merit scholarship money. (which is a possibility if one crushes LSAT) Not to mention, many times, law students are many times pressured to attend the highest ranked law school possible in order to maximize chances of employment upon graduation. Case in point - I am sure many students who attend Georgetown Law at sticker price would qualify for large scholarship money if they attended a T50 law school. Yet, nearly half the G-town grads graduate either unemployed or get jobs paying 45-50k a year, with 200k of debt. As you can see, law school can be very, very risky outside of top 6.</p>
<p>Imagine being in 150k-200k of debt and coming out of law school either unemployed or barely getting a 40k job - this is the reality for a large chunk of law graduates today. Also, law school is an additional investment after UG - hence, the opportunity cost of attending law school is arguably higher compared to attending UG.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a fair point. However, the reason why I think that the exit options for I-bankers are superior to corporate lawyers is because many times than not, I-bankers land managerial positions at corporations and have chances to move up within their organizations.</p>
<p>For lawyers, that isn’t necessarily always the case. Getting in-house attorney jobs after BigLaw stint is still very competitive, as there are just way too many lawyers out there competing for limited slots. For Mid/Small-law jobs after BigLaw - they don’t provide as much upward mobility potential as many ‘business’ jobs. Many times, a lot of attorneys move from one mediocre law firm to another without much chances for promotion, etc. </p>
<p>This is why, aside from salary, I think business/finance > law.</p>
<p>What many don’t realize is that even if you get a job at a top law firm, it is unlikely to last more than two years, and then you will be begging for much lower paying jobs the rest of your life at small law firms.</p>
<p>And you will be working 70 hours a week, six days a week for sure, and perhaps even seven, even if you get into a top law firm. </p>
<p>And then, when you hit around 32 years old, there are no jobs at all, even at small firms, because law firms usually want people with 1-3 years experience, or 3-5. And many of these 15 man law firms are sweat shops. And your job will always be at risk, because that lousy law firm will be getting 20 resumes a day from people at top firms who were either just fired, or see the writing on the wall.</p>
<p>And now, once the inevitable cutbacks are made in the budget, there won’t even be low paying government jobs to take.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe I have to disagree - either that or Cornell is indeed one of the most generous schools in the world (even more so than Harvard). I believe that $38k figure you cited is across all 4 years, not just what is provided every year. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Coming from a family making $65k a year makes you very poor indeed - true poverty - if you’re going to Harvard. Trust me - there are lots of millionaire trust-fund babies who go to Harvard. Plenty of Harvard undergrads drive cars that cost more than I make in a year. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And this is where we fundamentally disagree. Put another way, depending in which year you use, only around 13-15% of Harvard College students, received Pell Grants, which are reserved for those that the Federal government deems to have financial need (generally the entire bottom-half of the income distribution). By any stretch of the imagination, the vast majority of Harvard undergrads are well-off and hence receive only relatively minor aid at most. </p>
<p>[Economic</a> Diversity at Harvard (Continued) - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/economic-diversity-at-harvard-cont/]Economic”>Economic Diversity at Harvard (Continued) - The New York Times)</p>
<p>Now, like I said, if you just so happen to be one of those rare students who was able to score a large financial aid package from an elite school, then more power to you. But the vast majority of students do not. </p>
<p>And besides, if you really are that poor, top law schools often times also offer need-based aid. I therefore suspect that the issue is therefore a wash for students whose families are truly poor. </p>
<p>[Policy</a> Overview](<a href=“http://www.law.harvard.edu/current/sfs/policy/index.html]Policy”>http://www.law.harvard.edu/current/sfs/policy/index.html)</p>
<p>[Yale</a> Law School | Financial Aid](<a href=“http://www.law.yale.edu/admissions/financialaid.htm]Yale”>http://www.law.yale.edu/admissions/financialaid.htm)</p>
<p>[Office</a> of Financial Aid | Stanford Law School](<a href=“http://www.law.stanford.edu/school/offices/financial_aid/]Office”>Welcome to SLS - Stanford Law School)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which is why I have always recommended that more students seriously consider attending law school part-time, and especially, via an employer that will subsidize some of the tuition. Nor does doing so necessarily require attending a low-tier law school. Since you mentioned Georgetown Law, it bears mention that Georgetown has a highly regarded part-time program.</p>
<p>[Georgetown</a> Law - Georgetown Law - Introduction to the JD Program (Juris Doctor Program)](<a href=“http://www.law.georgetown.edu/curriculum/jdprog.cfm]Georgetown”>http://www.law.georgetown.edu/curriculum/jdprog.cfm)</p>
<p>Another possibility is to take the JD as part of a combined JD/PhD program at a top school. Most such top programs provide students with a substantial reduction in the tuition one must pay while formally as a law student, as many remaining law school credits can be earned while as a PhD student, for which you will be paid a stipend. For example, a JD/PhD-sociology student at Stanford generally only has to pay for two semesters worth of tuition at Stanford Law, and is then paid at least 5 years worth of PhD stipends from the sociology department. With both a JD and a PhD from Stanford, one can surely find a reasonably paying job in law academia - perhaps not at a top law school, but surely somewhere. Similarly, Harvard provides a special fellowship program that funds many (I suspect most) JD/PhD students. </p>
<p>[Stanford</a> University Sociology JD/PHD Joint Doctoral Degree with Law School](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/dept/soc/doctoral/jdphd.html]Stanford”>http://www.stanford.edu/dept/soc/doctoral/jdphd.html)</p>
<p>[JD/PhD</a> Financial Assistance](<a href=“http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/degrees/special-programs/jd-phd/jd/phd-funding.html]JD/PhD”>http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/degrees/special-programs/jd-phd/jd/phd-funding.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I’m not sure that this example is apropos, because Georgetown actually provides one of the more generous LRAP programs in the country. Surely I would think that a Georgetown law grad can find a low-paying job working for a public defender’s office somewhere in North Dakota or thereabouts in order to make himself LRAP-eligible. </p>
<p>[Georgetown</a> Law - Loan Repayment Assistance Program | Financial Aid](<a href=“Financial Aid | Georgetown Law”>Financial Aid | Georgetown Law)</p>
<p>Where I agree with you is that it is indeed highly risky to assume high debt levels to attend a law school that lacks a robust LRAP. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, I’m not quite sure. Top MBA/MFin programs - which most financiers/Ibankers attend - have few if any comparable program to the top law school LRAP’s. You can’t just rack up large amounts of loans to obtain an elite MBA, not find a high-paying Ibanking job, and then readily decide to take a lower-paying job at an NGO. Your MBA loan payments are still due. On the other hand, most top law schools legitimately allow you to pursue low-paying careers with NGO’s that shield you from that debt spectre.</p>
<p>Again, I agree with you that I would be most wary indeed of accumulating a wall of debt from lower-tier law schools that tend to lack generous LRAP’s. But those students should also be seriously considering part-time law programs that allow them to restrain their debt to a more manageable level.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope. Each college calculates each student’s aid yearly; as a student, you have to apply for aid each year and the aid you get from year to year differs depending on changes in family’s financial conditions, etc. There is no way that Cornell would calculate a student’s four-year aid in advance. It just doesn’t work that way.</p>
<p>Looking deep at the stats, it shows that 1938 freshmen at Cornell out of 3179 applied for aid. And, among those who applied for aid, 87% got aid. (meaning 13% of those who applied didn’t get any aid) Among these group of students who got aid, the overall average financial aid for each year was $34,000 just in grants and scholarships, and totaled 38,000 with loan aids. So, I was wrong to suggest that 87% of all Cornell students end up getting 38,000 aid per year. Still, well over half the student body at Cornell end up getting very generous financial aid.</p>
<p>So, well over half the student body at Cornell receive a substantial financial aid each year. And, I suspect this is the case at other Ivies, Duke, Stanford, or MIT. And, even better financial aid assistance at HYP. </p>
<p>Note, with over 50% of undergraduate student body receiving this much aid, it would be too much of a stretch to assume that one needs to be ‘poor’ to receive financial assistance at Ivies. Like I mentioned, you can come from a modest, middle-class family background and still wind up with tons of aid. Hence, at least for the majority of people at top UG, attending a top, private, UG is a much less risky proposition than attending any law school sans with substantial merit scholarship money to attend law schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, those are the kids who probably don’t need any financial aid anyway. For middle class folks, getting financial aid - and a large sum of it - is definitely a realistic possibility at a school such as Harvard.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You know, at schools such as Ivies or Duke, pell grants aren’t as generous as the institutional grants. What that means is that for many who wouldn’t qualify for ‘aid’ by pell grants standards, or government FAFSA standards - they would still qualify for large ‘aid’ by institutional grants standards -where most of students’ financial aid come from anyway.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is easier said than done… An employer that subsidizes law school tuition? I don’t think too many people can count on that scenario. Also, why would any employer outside legal industry subsidize anyone’s legal education? That doesn’t make sense. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem is that, for many lawyers, getting that job that would qualify for LRAP isn’t easy at all especially given the current economic climate where government is facing budget deficit and cutting jobs left and right.</p>
<p>Take a look at:</p>
<p>[Georgetown</a> is the Latest Law School with New Initiatives for Unemployed/Deferred Graduates Above the Law: A Legal Web Site ? News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law School, Law Suits, Judges and Courts](<a href=“http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/georgetown-is-the-latest-law-school-with-new-initiatives-for-unemployeddeferred-graduates/]Georgetown”>Georgetown is the Latest Law School with New Initiatives for Unemployed/Deferred Graduates - Above the Law)</p>
<p>And,</p>
<p><a href=“http://abovethelaw.com/2010/05/georgetown-law-lamentation-on-npr/[/url]”>http://abovethelaw.com/2010/05/georgetown-law-lamentation-on-npr/</a></p>
<p>Some non-law students and non-lawyers out there, and even many law students, they tend to think that in case they strike out on BigLaw, surely they can find a low-paying government work at least. But, the harsh truth is that governments don’t simply hand out lawyer jobs to law grads like people hand out Halloween candies to fifth graders.</p>
<p>Also, outside of BigLaw/ clerkship/ highly-selective public interest work (like DOJ, etc), legal employers don’t care about the school prestige or grades nearly as much. But, an applicant’s geographical tie and connections matter much more.</p>
<p>It is highly likely that a DA office in North Dakota would prefer natives of that state or law students from near by rather than an unemployed Georgetown Law grad without ties to the region. To be honest, getting just a job as a lawyer is a big challenge for many law grads out there, much less getting a job that would qualify for LRAP.</p>
<p>Another big risk with law schools - other than financial risk - is the career risk. For many, they wasted 3 years of their life going to law school and find themselves in lots of debt. Instead, they could have gotten an entry level job after college or go to other areas of graduate study that guarantee far higher success rate of employment, such as: masters of accounting, school of pharmacy, school of education, medical school, dental school, or go to a trade school and learn computer/ technology skills. Many lawyers can’t just go back to more schooling because they need to pay back the loans, even if they have to work truly garbage jobs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not sure the comparison between law school and MBA is appropriate. Most people who attend top MBA programs have substantial work experience to boot. So, even if MBA doesn’t generate the desired rate of return, they could still avoid unemployment because they can leverage pre-MBA experience to look for ‘business’ jobs anyway.</p>
<p>On the other hand, many law students go to law school straight out of college with no full time experience. And, in case they strike out on BigLaw - guess what - they are screwed with tons of debt. Due to all these reasons, I think that law school may indeed be the most dangerous and risky degree to pursue if one doesn’t get into a top 6 law school, or at least a top 14 law school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then let me put it to you this way. As a comparative analysis, let’s take a look at the figures for another school - a ‘lower’ UC such as UCRiverside. According to the website, 77% (3439/4459) of incoming freshman received aid, and of those students, apparently the “average need-based scholarship or grant award” was over $17k. </p>
<p>[College</a> Search - University of California: Riverside - UCR - Cost & Financial Aid](<a href=“College Search - BigFuture | College Board”>College Search - BigFuture | College Board)</p>
<p>Yet the truth is, the UC-system, being as budget strapped as it is, is not exactly known for generous levels of aid; furthermore UCRiverside is the 2nd poorest of all the UC’s. {Only UCMerced is poorer, and Merced was launched only a few years ago). More importantly, according to the UCRiverside student profile, a whopping 99% of students at UCRiverside are in-state students for which tuition is only $12k a year. So if what you are saying is true and those figures presented on that website are per-year figures, then that means that the vast majority of students at UCRiverside are receiving scholarships/grants that will fully cover not only their full (in-state) tuition, but also part of their living costs as well. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://collegeportrait.ucr.edu/undergraduate_profile.html[/url]”>http://collegeportrait.ucr.edu/undergraduate_profile.html</a></p>
<p>Now, be honest. Do you find it credible that 87% of UCRiverside freshman are truly receiving a scholarship/grant for $17k a year? If so, then UCRiverside is clearly one of the most generous schools in the world - even more so than the Ivies. After all, the average scholarship/grant from Cornell or even Harvard does not cover full tuition, let alone living costs. But since practically all UCRiverside students are in-state students who are charged low tuition anyway, that must mean that most UCRiverside students are not only having their tuition fully covered through that $17k/year grant, but also part of their living costs paid. UC-Riverside is therefore clearly one of the most generous schools in the world!. </p>
<p>The same could be said for other UC’s. For example, apparently about 2/3 of freshman at UC-Davis are receiving aid, and they apparently receive an average of $16k a year in scholarships/grants which more than covers (in-state) tuition. Similar numbers can be found for UCSC and UCMerced. The vast majority of students at those schools are in-state. **I never realized that the UC system was so generous to most of its instate students! No wonder the UC system always has financial problems, as they keep giving money away. ** </p>
<p>That’s why I believe that the figure you cited is over all 4 years, as calculated from students who had already been at the school for a number of years. (That is, after all, how the same website is able to calculate 4/6/8 year graduation rates; how would they know how many incoming freshmen are actually going to graduate?). Either that, or they extrapolate one year’s aid over all 4 years. </p>
<p>After all think of it this way. Your financial aid figure is not particularly useful if only calculated across the current year, for what happens if your future aid is stingy enough that you can’t afford anything after your freshman year? Students need to have some sort of cost certainty before they choose to attend a particular school. I therefore suspect that it is an extrapolated 4-year total package that is being reported on that website. Otherwise, how is it that lower-UC’s that are experiencing endemic financial problems are nevertheless able to hand out grants that more than cover the yearly tuition for most of their students (who happen to be mostly instate)? Heck, no wonder the state of California is going bankrupt, as most in-state students at lower-UC’s apparently not only pay nothing in tuition, they even have some of their living costs covered.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, the truth is, most middle-class children won’t get into Harvard. Like I said, education tends to correlate with wealth, and most middle-class children can’t match the educational opportunities that many rich children enjoyed, such as boarding schools, private SAT tutoring, and the like. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But that simply demonstrates that the vast majority of students at Ivies (or Duke) are not really poor by any reasonable definition of the word. Heck, to qualify for the Pell only require that you be in the bottom half of the income distribution, which is not exactly the depths of penury. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Many employers simply provide educational subsidies as a general employee perk, under the notion that any continuing education (within an accredited program) is helpful to the development of the firm’s human capital. I can think of several firms that paid for their employees’ dance classes. </p>
<p>Besides, think of it this way. Most employee benefits don’t “make sense” on a pure productivity level. Why do any firms provide any family health insurance whatsoever? {Having healthy employees may boost productivity, but having insured employee families does not; if your wife sprains her ankle playing tennis, why should the firm pay for that?} The reason that many firms offer family health insurance is because they know that if they don’t, people will prefer to work for another employer that does. The same is true of continuing education benefits. </p>
<p>Now certainly I can agree with you that nobody can ‘count’ on finding an employer who will provide educational benefits. But hey, at least that’s somewhat in your hands. You can work at one (undesirable) employer while looking for a better one. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m afraid that I have to fundamentally disagree. The unemployment rate in North Dakota is about 3.5% as of last month. It is as if the recession never happened there at all. Heck, that unemployment rate is even lower than the overall nation’s rate back in 2006 during the midst of the housing boom. I highly doubt that the DA’s office (or NGO offices) in North Dakota can be highly choosy about which attorneys to hire. They may desire North Dakota natives, but they probably can’t get them (as many of them are surely working as attorneys for the myriad oil/natural-gas firms that are behind the state’s economic boom). Frankly, I’m surprised that more Americans (not just in law, but other fields) haven’t moved to North Dakota. </p>
<p>And again, in this scenario, we’re not just talking about some mediocre law graduate moving to North Dakota. We’re talking about somebody graduating from Georgetown Law. It seems to me that he should be able to find some LRAP-eligible NGO job in North Dakota or other booming state (South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, etc.). The recession is concentrated on the coasts; many interior states are doing well. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have always agreed with you that accumulating large debt to attend a non-T14 full-time law school is a highly leveraged and therefore high-risk bet. So in this case, we have nothing to dispute. </p>
<p>But that’s why I would recommend that if you can’t get into a T14 law school, you should investigate options to reduce your debt, by either attending a cheaper in-state law school, attend a part-time program, or stepping down a tier. For example, anybody who can get into a 2nd tier law school can probably get a respectable merit scholarship at a 3rd/4th tier law school. And the difference between the 2nd and 3rd tier is not much. {Once you’re outside the first tier, differences in ranking don’t matter much.}</p>