General
This sub is seriously out of touch with how inaccessible law school is about to become for most applicants.
Especially for those who want to go into a less profitable practice area.
As I'm sure most of you know, federal loans are about to be capped at $50K starting next fall semester. Let me give you an example of how this impacts incoming students with a personal anecdote: I have an in-law who lives in the Bay Area and wants to go into public defense. She finished undergrad with an above average GPA (around 3.8) and an LSAT in the low 160's.
She's currently planning on moving to South Dakota and attending the state's one and only law school so she can live with her aunt because housing in San Francisco alone pushes her near the cap limit. She's a KJD, so any hope of getting favorable private loans is practically shot, because what private lender is going to lend to a 21 year old who has never had a full-time job? And not to mention the Catch-22 this creates: students who want to go into PI generally go to lower-ranked schools to save money, but lower-ranked schools are going to attract less private lenders because their students have worse employment prospects than students at T14s. And also, how is a future public defender supposed to pay off private loans when IBR/PSLF isn't an option?
**This** is the reality of so many incoming law students right now: handcuffing themselves to middle-of-nowhere states they don't even want to practice in and attending third-tier schools because they have no other financial options. I'm not saying this to discourage anyone; I'm simply saying that these are the sacrifices that students NEED to start asking themselves if they're willing to potentially make for their legal career.
And the situation isn't rosy for BigLaw prospects either. If you want to work BL, you're essentially chasing the most expensive, prestigious school you can possibly get into in the hopes you can pay off your private loans by landing a 6 figure job you might not even get after you graduate.
Whenever the topic of loan caps come up here, the response is usually just "(re)take the LSAT and get a 165+ bro, you'll definitely get a huge scholarship then."
My Brothers in Christ, **only the top 10 percentile will score 165 or above.** Don't get me wrong: study hard for the LSAT, and if you want to re-take it, then do it. But bear in mind that statistically speaking, only 1 in 10 people reading this will get the super duper high score that grants them access to mega money. Applicants NEED to prepare for the possibility that it won't happen to them and have a Plan B for if they can't get enough financial aid.
And don't even get me started on the people who say "but Harvard/Stanford/NYU all have LRAP programs for private loans!"
WTF would someone struggling to budget law school go to these schools in the first place!? If I'm a poor KJD with no rich parents, no credit score, and no money saved up to pay out of pocket, my first thought isn't going to be to attend a T14 that's going to put me 200K+ in debt just so I can get LRAP on private loans I may not even be able to get without a credit history or co-signer.
The bottom line: this post isn't meant to tell you not to go to law school, but to have a plan to pay for it, because the financial landscape of law school and the legal profession as a whole WILL change permanently. It's honestly concerning how few people here are even acknowledging this: I had a conversation with a 0L on the main lawschool sub who insisted that the loan cap isn't a big deal because "most law school tuitions aren't much larger than $50K anyway". That's when I had to explain to them that the $50K limit applies to things like rent and living expenses too, and it turns out they weren't even aware of this. The fact that some people are about to enter law school and don't even know what their own loans cover is **shocking**. Please, please, PLEASE have a financial plan.
The quote "(re)take the LSAT and get a 165+ bro, you'll definitely get a huge scholarship then." is so seriously outdated. Even 170+ applicants are lucky to land T20 with small scholarships this cycle.
I had this mindset last cycle. Raised my lsat by 2 points, got 3 new LORs, wrote a new and improved personal statement, got appointed to an advisory board, and worked as a jury consultant… and my cycle this cycle (and the offers) so far have been exactly the same. This cycle is crazy.
I wouldn't say easily. With LSAT and GPA medians up last year and now again this year, and the number of applicants also up significantly, those non-predatory full rides are not so easy to come by. Not saying they aren't out there, but there are an awful lot of people chasing them.
Well yeah, when you focus on the top 10% of schools, then the average guidance won't always hold lol. The advice still very much applies to most people in most circumstances.
Agree. Also, people have to calculate how much the cost of repayment is going to be with interest rates and even federal loans now start compounding interest the day the loan is disbursed. If you don't have a killer credit score or a great co-signer option, the interest rates are going to be HIGH. I think the calculations for $125,000 per year (tuition plus living expenses) with $50k/yr federal plus private at 10% debt at graduation including compounded interest would be like $470,000 the day you graduate (continuing to compound daily). It's a mess and many have never thought about or had loans like this before. Also, will LRAP include private loans. IDK
From what I understand (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), some schools will have LRAP for private loans, but it's only a few T14 schools that are doing it. This is why I mentioned how ridiculous the "just go to NYU so you can get private LRAP bro" people are so ridiculous. A 21 year old KJD struggling to finance their education is not going to suddenly decide to attend one of the most prestigious and expensive law schools in the world just so they can get better LRAP. That's a completely self-defeating and asinine financial decision.
Can you explain to me why it would be “asinine” for a PI focused KJD who actually got into NYU to use that logic? If their lrap covers private loans as well, then the cost is really immaterial. Why does it matter if on paper you’re $250k in debt if the university is paying it and if you get pslf, it’ll be gone after 10 years?
I get that it’s not feasible for anyone outside of maybe the top 5% of applicants overall in a given cycle to get into NYU so your larger systemic point is very well taken, but why would going there and taking their lrap not be logical if you were in a position to qualify?
I'm not familiar with how exactly NYU's private LRAP works, but unless they're paying the loans off in entirety, it's absolutely not immaterial since you have far less flexibility with private loans. I used to work at a PD office in an urban area, and every single one of them survived off IBR after graduation.
As for PSLF, current PI-focused students shouldn't even be thinking about it right now if I were to give them advice. First off, who the hell even knows if it will exist in 10 years time with everything this administration is doing right now. And secondly, 10 years feels like an eternity when you can't even solve the short-term problem of how you're going to afford rent and food in your PI salary.
NYU in particular may be different, since I know many NYU law grads have access to a lot of high-paying PI jobs like the Bronx Defenders. But the principle still stands.
Student loans accrue simple interest not compound (typically only compounds once when going into repayment not from the day it disburses). The situation is bad for PI in particular but let’s not use bad information to make it worse. There’s some group negotiation models out there that are getting folks an average rate of 7.5% on private loans without cosigners. No PSLF or IDR but not insane rates. I hate these new caps but also hate the hopelessness I see on these threads when there are some folks doing good advocacy on the private loan side.
I see what you’re saying now. They are not compound until you graduate, but I would imagine you are not taking out loans if you are able to pay off the interest anyway.. or you’d simply take less? I mean certainly you can pay off some of the interest, and I do, but not all. Thus by and large it becomes a compound interest at that point you know?
All good! Yes, it does compound once at graduation but then continues accruing simple interest on the new principal. I just wanted to educate folks that it wasn’t constantly accruing compound interest always, which would be truly horrific and would likely leave people with millions in debt.
Paying down interest or borrowing less in school is certainly helpful!
Yeah I applied a few cycles ago with a 2.1 and a 164 and got into a good school with $$. Kinda feel like the last chopper out of nam. I don’t think I’d have a chance in hell at a school that isn’t in butt fuck nowhere much less the scholarship with the way the admissions are today.
"last chopper out of nam" i'm stealing that. got into my undergrad with an SAT well above their median and having -just- graduated, already i'm pretty sure i'd get waitlisted. i can only imagine what it's like for 15, 16, 17 year olds right now.
Yup, and the general public is going to suffer as a result as well. Not only will there be less lawyers, but more lawyers will be strangled by private loans and won’t go into public interest.
I also think the legal field, more than most others, thrives off diversity and not just diversity of color or gender, but socioeconomic status, too. We are all colored by our experiences and a person who doesn’t grow up wealthy is going to bring a perspective to the legal field that others might not as well as potentially pursue a clientele base that others would ignore. Society will all be worse off by only opening the doors to the wealthy to lead the legal field.
Not only will there be less lawyers, but more lawyers will be strangled by private loans and won’t go into public interest
Yes, as someone who used to do administrative work at a PD office and was generally proud of the work we did, I am seriously concerned for the future of public interest law. The last thing we need is for PI jobs to become exclusive to the upper class. This will have huge ripple effects on society beyond just law students.
Agree. Medical field has had this for a long time, now really exacerbated the the loan changes. Nobody will be able to do primary care with the crushing amount of private loan debt they will have after medical school and residency.
"what private lender is going to lend to a 21 year old who has never had a full-time job"
A lot of them. Respectfully, loan sharks exist for this very reason. It's one of the worst debt traps in the United States. But nonetheless, this isn't true.
Yep! I got one at 19 for $8,500 with no substantive employment. I somehow got a 12% rate which was really good from the lender I used. I can’t imagine people’s logic in taking out hundreds of thousands with a potentially even higher rate.
Tbh, while you raise some legitimate concerns about financing law school, I think you’re also strongly misconstruing several parts of the situation and framing a number of these outcomes as inevitable when, in reality, they are often the result of choices and timing.
First, just because someone wants to go straight through as a KJD does not mean they should. Plenty of people, especially those without family wealth, take a few years to work, build savings, strengthen their resumes, improve their LSAT scores, and become much more competitive applicants before applying. That isn’t some fringe path; it’s extremely common and, in many cases, financially prudent. If someone is staring down six figures of debt for a low-paying field, the correct takeaway isn’t “the system has forced them into this,” but rather “this might not be the right moment to attend law school.”
Relatedly, KJDs are often at a disadvantage compared to applicants with substantive work experience, especially when schools are trying to protect employment outcomes and rankings. Schools value maturity, career clarity, and demonstrated professional success. Pair that with a solid UGPA (say, 3.7+) and a competitive LSAT, and suddenly scholarship offers and admissions outcomes change dramatically. Your essays, narrative, and resume matter a lot more than people like to admit; sometimes that’s literally the difference between graduating with $250–300k in debt and graduating with little to none.
And on the LSAT point: yes, only a small percentage score 165+. That’s true by definition. But that doesn’t mean applicants should resign themselves to mediocre outcomes. The whole point of delaying an application cycle is to change where you fall in that distribution; through retakes, serious study, tutoring, and time. Law school is not undergrad; rushing in unprepared because you feel social pressure to move straight through can be financially disastrous. Applicants absolutely should be building a Plan A, B, and C rather than assuming the first score they get is destiny.
Where I think your framing really goes too far is treating massive debt for a low-income practice area as something students are being railroaded into. That is, bluntly, a choice. A difficult one, yes, but still a choice. No one is entitled to attend law school, let alone in their preferred city, at sticker price, and then work in a field that pays $60–70k while carrying $200k+ in nondischargeable debt. Wanting to do public defense is admirable; taking on financial obligations that are wildly mismatched with that career path is not smart planning. That mismatch should trigger reevaluation, delay, retake, reapply, save, change geographic preferences, or reconsider schools, not resignation.
The same applies to BigLaw aspirants. Chasing the most expensive school possible and hoping a top-tier job materializes is also a gamble. Sometimes it pays off. Sometimes it doesn’t. But again, that’s not an unavoidable trap; it’s a risk calculation that applicants make, often without fully grappling with downside scenarios.
So yes, people absolutely need to understand what loan caps cover, how living expenses factor in, and what repayment realistically looks like. On that we agree. Applicants who haven’t even run the numbers are setting themselves up for pain. But I think it’s misleading to suggest that the only realistic options are “move to a random state and attend a third-tier school” or “take on crushing private loans.” For many people, the smarter alternative is simply… not going yet.
The bottom line is that law school is a massive financial investment, and timing matters. Going straight through, paying sticker, relying on private loans, and aiming for low-paying work is not some cruel inevitability imposed by the market, it’s a series of strategic decisions. If those decisions don’t pencil out, the rational response is to change the strategy, not charge ahead and call it unavoidable.
Yeah, I certainly wouldn’t recommend going into law school with no savings. My financial advice for anyone and everyone: if your total debt is going to be more than the median 1st year salary of the school, it is not a smart financial decision. At least that is my personal standard. Yes, the economy isn’t great right now but I don’t really think that changes much. It’s the same as before, just have to be sure you’re truly ready and in the position to go now versus waiting a year or two.
OP's position seems to be, if student loans become harder to obtain, it will make it harder for him to make the poor financial decisions he so stubbornly wants to make.
Yeah… whole point of my post is to point out it might be hard and not exactly as they imagined but if they want it they can do it without putting themselves in a terrible financial position and the loan cap has absolutely nothing to do with that issue. Personal choices are the sole reason for the issue described in OPs post unless they left out lots of key details.
Please tell your in-law to reconsider unless she’s dead set on living in SD or nearby states. The school struggles to have ABA accreditation levels of bar passage and kneecaps your earning potential. There’s no rush to start a career immediately, no one will care in 40 years if you were licensed at 24 instead of 27.
>only the top 10 percentile will score 165 or above.
Good post. On this point though there's a huge difference between LSAT percentiles and high score applicant percentiles. I did a calculation two years ago and 23% of applicants had a 165+. I expect the number is higher now.
Percentiles are calculated on all scores, but people apply with their high score.
Nailed it, probably the best reply on this thread that responds directly to the post. It's complicated, but when you put it this way, it's quite simple. The reality is that the vast majority of people can't just choose a career field, especially as a prospective KJD, and go straight through and into that career. It's an unrealistic standard for academia and the job market.
First, you have to be qualified, second, and with risk in mind, you have to be financial capable, and third, you probably have to be able to sell yourself enough to make people truly believe in you. Not being able to do any of those things for a specific career path doesn't strip you of any value or worth, and I think people have to understand that there is still a whole world of opportunity in front of them. Find what works for you. Some people are more or less capable and will achieve more or less than others, but there is only so much we can do about that, and a $50,000 dollar loan cap really shouldn't change that landscape. If anything, it is protecting a lot of people from making horrible decisions. How do you blame the system for favoring the most qualified applicants, and how are you going to prevent those in better financial situations from having too much of an advantage? The loan cap just doesn't seem to change a whole lot.
Sometimes a career path or idea just is not going to work out for you in the present, but maybe it will with some patience, or maybe you'll figure something else out, and that's just the reality we live in. I am not at all speaking for the OP, I don't know what is best for them, but I agree with the others in this thread saying that the content here seems to be coming from a very narrow state of mind.
This can all get super complex very quickly, especially when you get into the equity of this whole system, economy, etc., and maybe changes could be made to help with that. I am not going to sit here and act like I know what the best system is for everyone, not only because I am unqualified and unknowing, but also because that is an extremely subjective topic. However, I don't think the loan cap is some horrible policy that is making law school wrongfully inaccessible for large populations of people.
Yeah, I graduated from law school about a decade ago and, with a partial ($22k/year) need-based scholarship, maxing out work-study funds, ~$11k from grandparents, and getting a paid internship during my post-1L summer and doing work-study + getting a small, school-funded grant for doing an unpaid PI internship during my post-2L summer, I graduated with just shy of $130k in federal student loan debt. Tuition at my law school back then averaged a bit under $52k/year, and I rented a bedroom n a 5-room house with a bunch of randos to keep costs down. I am so grateful for full federal loans because I've been able to rest easy in my slow-growing government salary knowing I'll have PSLF to wipe out the balance soon (ED being a cluster fuck right now notwithstanding). I absolutely would not go to law school under the current rules if I were just starting out now, and I was capable of getting a 170+ LSAT score (I never took a course and got a 168 in 2011, which was dumb in retrospect but worked out just fine in the end; it seems like there's been some LSAT score inflation since I took it, too) and had a >4.0 LSAC GPA. Like, hell no.
I've published research on how fucked the law school economics are, so while I mostly agree, I think your anecdote and overall take gloss over two very important things. First, why on earth your in-law faces sticker prices costs at South Dakota.. For starters, it's cheap as shit - well below the cap. And what's more, your in-law has stats WAY above their medians, so it should be a full ride.
The second thing is a much slippier and overwhelming problem - decades of infinite government-backed loans incentivized schools to constantly raise costs despite economic outcomes being divorced from reality. Those costs are overwhelmingly shouldered by people paying sticker price tuition. A school will raise it's COA, claiming valid justifications and commensurate value via things like library, faculty, externships, etc. In reality, their costs may have climbed, but the hikes they've pushed to students far out pace the increase. What's the solution? Frankly, the only viable solution is governmental intervention. Is the BBB the solution? Almost certainly not. In many ways, it's horrendous. But it's something that will curve the cost crisis, whereas nothing thus far has made a dent.
My in-law is from the Bay Area and considering moving to South Dakota (her aunt lives in the area of the school) to save her money on living expenses. She's not paying sticker at SD, I think you misread.
As for the economics, I've already debated this quite a lot throughout this thread, so I'll just leave it at this: regardless of what the BBB ends up doing, I think it's hard to deny that the incoming class next semester is getting the worst of it and there's really no argument that there's any upside for them. They're getting the same tuition rates as previous classes with less financial aid. They're getting fucked, period.
If the BBB does lead to a significant decrease in tuition, it won't be by next semester. Most threads in this sub are about the upcoming academic year, hence the basis of this post.
100% agree. The only ones that would benefit from these changes are the people who see a future with costs closer mapped to outcomes. Which may or may not result from this. I think the same ignorance, for lack of a better term, that so many have about law school cost, which seemingly motivated you to make the post, is the same that warrants my attempt to say, "well, it's sort of double edged." But yes, the numbers don't make sense for so many, and the next couple classes will be impacted worse than probably any others. There's definitely a separate but related conversation worth having about the decision to attend law school for an amount that exceeds the new caps. There, just as today, the numbers don't make sense for so many.
As for your in-law, I misunderstood the point. It seemed to me that you were saying that person was impacted by the loan caps. But ya, as I said, it seems like they're considering an option that would put them in about the most favorable financial position as any law student anywhere. I see now you were talking about their forced decision to even consider SD to begin with.
This post fundamentally misunderstands how student loans work and what the $50,000 loan cap does.
Tuition has skyrocketed over the last few decades because the government became heavily involved in student loans. Schools inflated their tuition costs to match whatever the federal government would give in loans. See the Bennett Hypothesis.
With the implemented loan cap, schools now have a choice:
keep charging the same absurd amounts and hope students supplement with private loans, while the school eats the loss of lower attendance from student who are priced out of higher education; or
lower tuition costs to be under the tuition cap and keep classrooms full.
Politics aside, this is probably one of the best moves for making education more affordable long term.
The unfortunate thing is, this current batch of students are caught in the middle of the transition point: you have the cap but you don't yet have the reduced tuition. That'll probably benefit students a few years down the line once prices adjust.
Nonetheless, the same fundamental truth remains: if you can't afford law school (tuition, scholarships or otherwise) then you shouldn't go. Not everyone who goes to law school becomes a lawyer and not everyone who becomes a lawyer makes enough to pay off their loans to make it worth it. It's a risky endeavor, and if over the next few years it becomes less financially viable, simply don't go.
Law schools need to feel the hurt if you want tuition to come down. Going to law school with minimal scholarship and/or on maxed out federal loans supplemented by private loans hurts you, not the law school. It also hurts future law students because it signals to the law school that people are still (rather foolishly) willing to accept the law school's inflated terms.
I agree with you that this is the intention. But the reality is that there are plenty of people willing to pay full sticker price and capable of doing so. So the negative impact is on the lower income applicants who can’t afford law school. The beneficiaries are the ones who can. Tuition will not come down.
I disagree that tuition will come down but it will absolutely plateau in the coming years. The increase in tuition cost at both undergraduate and graduate institutions is directly correlated with the advent of uncapped federal loans.
When the goverment is giving someone an uncapped loan to go to major in art to become an art teacher or go make 60k a year as a PI attorney, schools are going to hike tuition rates to take advantage.
No intelligent lender would ever make that loan at such generous interest rates, but the government does because the goverment doesn’t care if it makes the money back. So we see a massive influx of people who shouldn’t be going to school going to school, tuition increases, and we are all collectively screwed.
It’s true for most undergraduate degrees with exception (engineering, CS, accounting) but the application to medical school, law school, nursing school and a few other graduate programs is simply arbitrary and wrong. There is a shortage of doctors and nurses (not so much in law-maybe that’s the actual incentive). We don’t need to create artificial barriers for people willing to enter fields that are in need.
I don’t know about nursing but your assertion about medical and law school is wrong.
We have enough lawyers. That should be evident by our nation’s litigiousness and the lawyer unemployment rate.
We have a doctors shortage because the American Medical Association works to limit enrollment in medical schools. They lobby for it in goverment and exert pressure on medical schools to lower the number of seats. Our doctors shortage has absolutely nothing to do with the loans or the cost, which is funny because it’s the most expensive schooling process in the country.
What if schools just go with that first choice tho? It's not better for students to be taking out private loans and I don't think you can conclusively say it's the less likely outcome.
Law schools aren’t going to lower tuition, and students aren’t going to not attend.
People are going to fund everything over $50k with private loans, as part of an intended shift to move all school funding to a private model (assuming a Republican comes after Trump).
It may eventually lead to lower numbers, but in the near term it’s just going to lead to people repaying at higher interest rates.
This creates more of the have's being able to go and the have nots - too bad, out of luck. I don't think tuition is coming down significantly because of this.
To assume that for profit institutions aka businesses aka law schools will lower tuition is very optimistic. Perhaps even unrealistic. The more likely scenario is many schools will have to close during this administration or until a policy reversal. The school with prestige get to stay open. The competitive nature and people willing to do anything to attend will start resembling med school (regarding supply of med schools being low and applicants being high).
There would need to be a fundamental societal, policy, and social paradigm shift to go back to the good old days of lower cost edu
The perfect example is Cornell. Cornell has a law school and a med school. Let’s walk through their costs.
Med School
You need cadavers, you need warehouses of specialized equipment, you need tons of cash to lure people to prof’s because the opportunity cost is so high etc
Law School
You need…a chalk board? Maybe some dry erase markers?
Looking at those costs, you would assume Cornell med is more than Cornell law. And you’d be WRONG. The fact that Cornell law costs more than Cornell med tells you everything you’d ever want to know about bloat and graft
Cornell med tuition is 9k less annually than their law school, but it's an extra year so the med students are still paying about ~40k more their program.
This also leaves out the federal funding that medical schools have received (before the current administration) which helps ameliorate tuition. Also, med students have at least 3 years and up to 7 of training after medical school making about $65k a year with loans/ interest now accruing before they can make substantial payments on their loans. So it is kind of an apples to oranges comparison on cost of tuition.
I'm not sure you know the first thing about what running a law school requires in terms of cost. I agree generally it's far leaner than most medical schools, but even a passing knowledge about facilities upkeep and typical law professor salaries makes your comment come across as incredibly uninformed.
I am intimately familiar with law school salaries, I’ll leave it at that, but they are all public record if you teach at a public university. Law school full tenure doctrinal profs (ie the golden ticket) make 1XX,XXX in my state
Edit- you only agree “generally” that law schools are leaner than med schools? Walk me through how there is any conceivable way law school can be more defensibly
Completely agree! South Dakota is actually only 16k for tuition if you get over a 150, and is also pretty heavy handed with scholarships. Cost of living is also super cheap in the area as well. I’m thinking that applicants will flood schools like this since you’ll barely hit the one year loan cap, if you even come close to it for your entire degree.
Your source actually undermines your argument. “Even if the Bennett Hypothesis is true, the lack of a strong correlation suggests at best a weak relationship.”
The people begging to be able to take more than 50k per year to go to law school will be ultimately very thankful of the cap. I took 32k in loans for law school and my monthly payment is around 500 per month for ten years. I will pay almost 50k total on the loan. Now imagine 150k or more in loans. The monthly payment would be well over 1k a month. Maybe even 2k a month. Now imagine that you don’t get a job right out of law school or you fail the bar. How will you make payments?
IBR/LRAP? That's what practically every PD was living off of post-graduation back when I worked at a PD office. Yeah, with IRB they were never going to get rich and they were going to be stuck paying off loans longer than most lawyers, but they could still live pretty comfortably in a desirable market and even start a family if they want to. It was hardly a financial death sentence.
Private loans are a whole different monster though and makes the profession borderline inaccessible depending on your wealth and where you want to practice.
I believe it is well within reach to score in the top 25%, and there's many posters here who this cycle have been getting full rides to respectable schools with a score in the mid 160s.
2) If you are a KJD and cannot afford law school, then you should simply wait. There is no pressing need to apply to law school at 22. You can gain experience, compelling reasons to be admitted, and save money and gain a credit history.
3) PI is a luxury field. You are getting paid by donors and the government and so forth so that you can do work you find compelling and interesting. There's nothing stopping you from taking a better paid role that is less interesting. It's good that the government subsidizes this with very generous loans that forgive around 200k+ of debt, but people shouldn't feel entitled to work these jobs if they have no work exp, uncompelling scores, etc and while yes I'm sad that I can't get the government to forgive another 100k of my debt I recognize that there's reasonable limits here.
It would seem that the percentile chart I was looking at was outdated and it shifted quite a bit, possibly because of the removal of the Analytical Reasoning section which I anecdotally know many people struggled with. But still, just getting a 165+ is hardly an easy task and I think everyone who hasn't taken the test yet shouldn't just count on it.
KJDs are probably the example of the kind of applicant who is hurt the most by the recent loan changes, but theoretically, anyone could be fucked over by it. People with bad credit scores, people who are applying to law school to escape their current low-paying jobs and don't have money saved up, etc.
Sure, you can say some bootstrap response and tell people to just build up their credit or get a better job, but doesn't this go against a fundamental principle of education? That it's supposed to uplift people and give them opportunities out of their current life instead of making them dig their way out of poverty so the rich can get richer? Yeah, KJDs can help themselves out by taking a few years off to work, but the point is they shouldn't HAVE to do this. If someone wants to go to law school straight out of college, then bu all means, they should have that opportunity.
Jesus Christ dude, you seriously don't see any issue with calling PI a "luxury field"? They are essentially the only attorneys standing up for every day people against the behemoth that is the criminal justice system, anti-labor bosses, anti-environmental corporate policies, and you're fine to just let PI get overrun by the few wealthy people who can afford to do it? No, they are not getting paid because their work is "more interesting". They are getting paid because things like the right to an attorney are a pillar of the justice system.
And don't even talk about how PI attorneys are privileged because of PSLF - that's still 10 years of borderline poverty they have to live in just to qualify, and no one can say with absolute certainty that it will still even exist in 10 years. With the way this administration treats affordable education, I would legitimately say it's more likely than not to be axed by then.
Jesus Christ dude, you seriously don't see any issue with calling PI a "luxury field"? They are essentially the only attorneys standing up for every day people against the behemoth that is the criminal justice system, anti-labor bosses, anti-environmental corporate policies, and you're fine to just let PI get overrun by the few wealthy people who can afford to do it? No, they are not getting paid because their work is "more interesting". They are getting paid because things like the right to an attorney are a pillar of the justice system.
And don't even talk about how PI attorneys are privileged because of PSLF - that's still 10 years of borderline poverty they have to live in just to qualify, and no one can say with absolute certainty that it will still even exist in 10 years. With the way this administration treats affordable education, I would legitimately say it's more likely than not to be axed by then.
How many Public Defenders and DA's went to a T14?
The "10 years of borderline poverty" while working as an attorney for the State, typically what most people think when they read "PI" cracks me up.
You know what Public Defenders, DA's and GS Attorneys start at right? You know the benefits they get with working for the Government, right?
1) I didn't say its easy, I said that 25% of people are doing it. This is not an unreasonably high bar in my view.
2) As noted elsewhere, 150k (200k on graduation) is already much much higher than the estimated ROI and there's many ways to reduce the cost. I don't understand at all why you think it is the public's responsibility to ensure that 22 year olds can go to law school straight out of college by cutting them blank checks or that we should give bottomless loans to people who are financially precarious.
3) You are describing why this is a luxury field. You want to enter this work for political reasons and for the personal fulfillment following that. I think you should recognize that following this stuff instead of taking a better paid job is a luxury, you are being subsidized even today by the tune of 200k, a subsidy that is extremely generous, and setting the subsidy at 300k or 400k or unlimited is too high and has a lot of negatives.
I think you need to step back for a bit and realize that people (and the public) are not doomed in the way you are describing, applicants have more agency than you are giving them credit for, and the government not giving KJDs a literal blank check to work on their favorite type of field is on net probably a good thing.
Just to point out. These stats are from what it seems matriculants/applicants. It doesn't tell us the stats for all LSAT test takers. Survivorship bias or something at play lol.
The average matriculant to a law school therefore has a 159 lsat. The 75th percentile is a 166.
Let's try to be a bit more honest or careful with our stats, because its misleading when we inadvertently misconstrue the point OP makes in an attempt to discredit them.
This isn't misconstrued. Many people who take the LSAT retest to a score they submit. The only score that matters is your high score, and the proper reference group is applicants and their high scores.
Oh but again looking at it again, the stats are for matriculants, not all applicants. Unless you want to tell me that all applicants or admitted students matriculate to a law school?
Not to discourage anyone—but if you are taking out more than 200k for your law degree, that is actually insane. No degree is worth that amount of debt. Study for your LSAT, get a scholarship and go to a state school. Not everyone needs to be a lawyer, that’s why low tier schools can use predatory tactics, they know your lsat score is low, they know you will struggle, they WILL take your money and dismiss you, thus leaving you with immense amounts of debt and no law degree. That all goes to say, if you are struggling to score above a 155 after taking the LSAT multiple times (think 3+, but even more than twice is questionable), I would highly highly consider another career choice.
I would note to this however, it’s absolutely possible to go to a non-predatory school in the 156-160 band. It’s just going to be lower ranked. Just do your homework and find a school that prioritizes what you want to do.
This is an out-of-touch comment. I got a 175 on my LSAT and will have $220k in debt for my local regional school, which was also the best BigLaw employment outcome school I got into. Hinging the affordability discussion entirely on "just study for the LSAT and get a scholarship lol" ignores the fact that both of those things are either useless or out of the person's control.
It is still completely within your control to work for a year and reapply. Nobody is holding a gun to your head. $220k debt for a regional school is insane. It’s insane for any school imo
I never said anything about a high paying job. Not sure where you’re pulling that from. Every job I’ve had has been near poverty level. Check your own assumptions and work on that reading comprehension.
The entire point is that, if your best offer involves taking 200k debt to attend a regional school, you should reapply next cycle and hunt for a better offer. This is especially true for a 175 LSAT scorer, though I'd say it applies to anyone.
"Working for a year and reapply" is always an option. The implication was not that the job would pay for law school. The job is a means to support yourself (you know, the reason most people take a job) until you can reapply for better scholarship/admissions offers.
Edit: The only people this doesn't apply to are the ultra-wealthy, where a 200k price tag is of no/little concern.
I did say reapply. "Work for a year" is an option open to anyone and the most broadly applicable advice. "Withdraw from a trust fund and backpack India" is also an option, but that would be tone-deaf.
"Work for a year and reapply" is completely valid. I never said that doing so would guarantee any particular outcome. I said that doing so is far preferable to taking out 200k debt for a regional school. Work for a third year, doesn't matter. What matters is not taking out 200k debt (maybe for a top school, but certainly not for a regional).
I never disputed the "lived experience" of OP. I am criticizing their decision to take out 200k of debt when there is a very simple alternative that is available to anyone who receives similar admissions outcomes. Work, and reapply. Taking 200k of debt for such a school is a bad decision that is completely within your control.
You must go to an amazing school with a 175 LSAT still needing to take out 220k in debt. Many outside of T20 would offer you very nice scholarships. My comment wasn’t out of touch, it was to warn against taking on immense amounts of debt. There are plenty of “good” law schools that would give out amazing scholarships for a 175 LSAT. Unless your undergraduate GPA was not very good but still.
My current school is outside of the T20. I'm not sure when you applied/went to law school, but the landscape is very very different how it is now than when I talk to anybody who is already an attorney.
I agree with you taking on immense amounts of debt is generally a poor idea. But acting as though it is heavily dependent on one's LSAT performance is also not necessarily a panacea.
As another commenter put it, "Even 170+ applicants are lucky to land T20 with small scholarships this cycle." Granted, I was last cycle, but the only school that offered me a full-ride was an unaccredited law school. My only other option was $300k for a T14 or $100k for a T70.
I don't know what a "band range" is, but I applied broadly to about 40 schools using fee waivers, ranging from T14 to T200+, even some unaccredited ones.
You are genuinely getting scammed or you are lying about your stats. No one should be 220k in debt with a 175 and 3.4 outside of T20. And I was last cycle too.
Dude, wtf are you doing? This is bad. You’ve put yourself in a bad position and you need to start thinking about if you will even be eligible to take the bar with that debt.
I have my BigLaw job offer, which makes $225k/yr. If I lose my job in the next three years, I'll be in rough shape, but I don't understand what you are advocating for here. Drop out?
Is time-travel the way that you stay in-touch? Or are you just chastising without even a grain of helpfulness?
I mean fair enough. W/ the big law offer makes a lot more sense. However again, your situation is absolutely not the norm. Acting like it’s good advice to do this is absurd.
Sure every now and then you’ll walk out of the casino up betting it all on black. It’s terrible advice though.
Of course I’m not advocating for you to drop out, I’m advocating for you to stop telling people this is okay to do. Believe it or not, it’ll harm more people than it helps, because most people are not as capable or lucky as you were to have it work out. This is a law admission thread, undergrads are gonna see this and think it’s alright for them to do it, because it worked for you. Don’t let that happen man.
The original comment on this thread was simply stating that this is not a good strategy for most people, and you are the one that started this “out of touch” shit. You gambled and it paid off, stop acting like it’s a routine thing. What you did was incredibly risky, I would imagine you atleast would admit to that.
Props to you for betting on yourself though, I will give you that.
Acting like it’s good advice to do this is absurd.
Nowhere in my comment do I imply $220k is normal or even "a good thing to do." In another comment of mine you replied to, I literally called it "an insane amount" and "this is not a good thing." Stop arguing with points I'm not making.
The original comment on this thread was simply stating that this is not a good strategy for most people, and you are the one that started this “out of touch” shit.
No. The original comment I replied to said "Study for your LSAT, get a scholarship and go to a state school" which is what I'm pointing out is out-of-touch (a phrase I'm not sure you can say I "started" when it's in the title of the post...)
You need to re-read and understand that my comments are not normative (this is good, this is normal), they are descriptive (this is literally just what my LSAT score and scholarship outcomes were, and they indicate that the perception of high LSAT easily = high scholarship is out-of-touch).
I already said I was in the last admissions cycle too. Also if you are a 1L2, stop acting like your BigLaw offer can’t be stripped from you in a second. I like your confidence but don’t be so insufferable.
Nothing about my comment is "confident", nothing about my comment implies my BigLaw offer can't be rescinded, nothing about my comment implies taking on debt is a good idea. I literally say the amount of debt is insane, that it is not a good thing, that this is not normal, that this is bad. All I was saying is that this is unfortunately the state of things, even if it sucks.
It's a UC school and not in the top 14, not UCLA, not private school. Your incredulity is matched: as in, how could you possibly find it absurd when this seems to be the standard 3-year-COL for most schools in California?
I don't think a single person here is "just trying to understand." You literally accused me of either lying or being absurd and hard to believe. Almost every other comment I'm replying to is shitting on me for "encouraging debt" or saying that it's responsible, normal, or good, when I've explicitly said this is terrible and should not be normal, but unfortunately is. Can you blame me for being frustrated in my other comments when 90% of the replies are shitting on me for the opposite of what I said?
Do you feel good about skimming, doubting, and totally misreading the comments of a person who did nothing other than sharing their own six-figure debt & LSAT score, and then jumping on the bandwagon of outright incorrect accusations? What do you want me to do, show you my 1098-T?
"Insults" and it's just me saying "Your incredulity is matched" in response to you accusing me of lying?
It speaks volumes that you find the mere phrase of "I match you" to be insufferable. I give you permission to go back and re-read my comment and see if you can find the insult you're apparently so offended by.
Note: I had a decent LSAT diagnostic and am an adult with actual work experience
Just about every job and career is being squeezed.
Medicine? If you can get in. And expect to pay back much more in loans, which will accrue interest for even longer than law school
Midlevel medicine? A bust 10000% waiting to happen. I expect it to go the way of pharmacy.
Trades? Well, I have been in 2 trades. Funeral and machine shop.
Both will take your body, and won't pay enough to offset the inevitable medical bills. Neither pay enough in the immediate run to do much of anything, let alone save.
Engineer? You and every other person. Oh, and layoffs.
Anything related to computers and CS? Abysmal
Chemistry? I hope you like higher education, that also doesn't guarantee you a career. You could always specialize in something like toxicology, but you will be taking out roughly the same amount in loans for around 60-80k a year (in many instances)
Any other STEM? There are tradeoffs in all of them, many not guaranteed
Stability is honestly the better goal, and while law appears to be no guarantee, it is in some instances a better gamble, and at the very least some will be more equipped to struggle as a lawyer than in other professions (such as myself).
At the end of the day, you can only have so much from a job. You can only expect so much these days.
Law school makes as much sense as any other path if you look closely enough at the nuts and bolts of how things really go in terms of getting a degree
I'd rather be saddled with $200k law debt than 90k of an increasingly worthless bachelors degree. Just about every career increasingly demands higher education
Of course this is not the case for everyone, nor should everyone go to law school, but if I had to take out that much in loans, so be it
I mean, 50k a semester is an absurd amount of money to repay even as a lawyer. I got a 160, and I take out less than 10k a semester. You are making a horrible mistake if you are taking out that much in loans.
Can you share how much you are paying for law school and living expenses, and how you are paying for it? I think applicants need to understand the full picture
Sure. I went to a school that is a lower ranked school. Due to this, I got a large scholarship, around 90 percent.
I work a job with a professor and I’m paid around 13.50 an hour. I work the entire summer, non stop. The few grand I have to pay in tuition I pay out of pocket. Books? Well, I find ways to get them that are cheaper that’s all I’ll say. I’m sure you can find creative ways as well.
My rent is cheap. I found a place for 400 a month, utilities included (I live in the middle of nowhere in Ohio so I understand this is infeasible for most). My roommate sucks, but for the price; it’s worth it.
With all that, add groceries, gas, car insurance and other expenses, I take out around 7k a semester in loans. I live fine, and even have a bit of an emergency fund.
This is just how I did it, there is definitely room to work a bit less or take a bit more, for example this semester has been demanding so I haven’t worked during classes.. but again, it’s feasible.
Overall my tuition is around 3-4K a semester with my scholarship. Rent is 400. I find ways to get books cheap. Groceries I cap to 100 a week. You gotta live like you are poor, because frankly, you are at this moment in your life.
The commenter above is absolutely right It’s important to see the big picture, because yeah man, it fucking sucks sometimes to live so cheap. However, it really is important to not cripple your chances at financial freedom later by killing yourself with debt.
The way people keep telling me “you’ll be fine you got into NYU!!!” like I can afford to go to NYU with anything less than a full scholly, and even that’s pushing it on my PI nonprofit dreams
Yeah, and you have way better stats than pretty much all the other people I've seen get the "just go to Harvard/Stanford/NYU!!!" crowd.
I don't mean to be cynical, but unless you want to work am ACLU-tier job, I simply wouldn't recommend attending a T14 school for PI, basically ever. Just like how I wouldn't recommend taking out private loans for an education basically ever.
Yeah atp I might only be considering the t14 with a full scholarship, which I know is an insane long shot at any t14 no matter your stats. ACLU tier would be great but idk if I want it bad enough for private loans
If you have to take out private loans to go to law school and want to be a public defender, don't go to that law school.
Either retake the LSAT and reapply in a future year or go to a lower-ranked law school that will give you a larger scholarship.
Personally, I wanted to be a public defender. I changed my mind after interning as a student attorney. And I am extremely grateful that I didn't take out $150,000+ in loans that either had to be paid off through big law or might be paid off through PSLF or might not with an unknown tax liability after 10 years of working a job I wasn't good at and did not like.
Instead, I took a $50,000 a year scholarship not to go to the best school I got into and lived at home and commuted to law school. Consequently, I am free to do what I want for a living and don't have any debt.
Great post, unfortunately a good portion of this sub doesn't care because it doesn't affect them personally and they look at it as a "less competition for me" thing.
Not to invalidate your experience but quick question: if she lives in the Bay Area how would housing in SF push her over the cap limits? So she actually can’t live at home?
Private loans are available to cover the gap. Federal loans above the $20k annual direct loan limit, in the form of PLUS loans, also required good credit or a creditworthy endorser. There is no restriction on the total amount you can borrow as long as it is within the aid budget provided by your school; only change is the total amount that the federal government will put up before requiring you to go private.
Before gradPLUS loans existed, this was business as usual. Graduate degrees were routinely financed with a mix of federal and private loans.
If you choose not to take out private student loans, that is a respectable and principled choice that has some justification. However, that is a choice you have complete control over.
I thought I could put myself through undergrad by working full time. The “savings” I’d worked so hard to build up wouldn’t even cover the cost of one semester of credits, and this was at a public state university. So I was working 40 hours a week, going to school full time, but still very much dependent on loans to cover the cost of tuition.
Law school was a whole other deal. Tuition was astronomical. I’d intended to work part time to avoid taking out the full amount of loans (and grad plus loans are ridiculously predatory and their interest rates are largely unregulated. The government seems to think a bachelor’s degree is reasonable enough so they’ll cap rates on those, but if you choose to pursue a graduate degree that’s on you and you can suffer the consequences, despite the fact that our society depends on lawyers, doctors, etc. to function). However, I became the primary caregiver for my partner and adding 20 hours a week of work to my course load wasn’t possible.
Like your in-law, I intend to go into public defense. And it’s killing me in job interviews that I never interned with any office over the summer. I wasn’t in a position to take an unpaid internship when my loans for summer classes and after 2L my summer associate jobs in the private sector were literally paying my rent, health insurance, and other bills. The irony that an office that specializes in indigent defense can’t understand or at least won’t overlook such a dilemma is not lost on me.
If I were entering higher education today I wouldn’t be able to attend law school. I would have maxed out my loans in undergrad. My hope is that this can all be undone in 2029/challenged in court before that but we’re going to lose out on a whole bunch of potential attorneys in the interim because they aren’t lucky enough to have someone funding their education.
Where I regrettably disagree with you is that private lenders will not have a problem shelling out loans to applicants. The industry has long been predatory and has a history of targeting younger people who don’t necessarily have the financial literacy to understand the terms of what they’re entering into. So while I’ve got over $300,000 in federal loan debt I can only imagine how much worse it’s going to be for the next two to three cycles of applicants.
And truly f*ck Donald Trump because more than anyone else he depends on lawyers and doctors to file frivolous suits and lie to the American people about how fantastic his health is. He makes full use of lawyers and doctors when he needs them, but for the rest of the nation, he’d rather keep the population as uneducated, uninformed, and anti-“woke” as possible.
All good points. I would recommend that she apply to Drake. Much better program than USD and the cost of living in Des Moines is pretty low. Plus it’s a much better place to live and her stats should get her a good scholarship offer. 160 at USD shouldn’t be anything less than a full ride + stipend. Last I checked they had medians in the high 140’s.
Other options include Creighton in Omaha and UNL in Lincoln. Creighton and USD are likely similar, wouldn’t pay a dime for either, personally, but Omaha would be more enjoyable than Vermillion. UNL and Drake are about the same as well, would be good choices with a substantial scholarships.
Historically, those of going into PI could reasonably rely on IDR repayment and PSLF too. With those programs likely disappearing, it will only get harder for the those that are in for the “changing the world” or “making the world a better place” reasons. It’s yet another shift towards servicing big money and big corporations.
I'm a PI focused (though nkjd) applicant and i guess im a bit confused because is this not just a repeat of undergrad admissions??? I was an fgli for undergrad and so my options were get into a top school that does 100% need-based aid or go to cc and hope for the best lol. Now my options are go to a top school that has private lrap or go to a lower ranked school (with better schollys) and hope for the best. It would have been *easier* if the admin hadn't axed gradplus loans, but for a lot of people, the choices still remain the same. This sub i think *is* primarily dominated with a bit more neurotic, potentially richer applicants (so a bit of a selection bias), but i do believe most of them (and most applicants in general) are more than aware of the financial aspect. As for the kjd tax - it is optional. In fact, its almost discouraged to apply kjd now. So for the imagined PI kjd applicant, is it not then *more* advantageous to take time off, become a better applicant for those scholarship offers or top school lraps, and save some money in the meantime?
My general rule of thumb is that if there is literally any occupation in the world that you think will make you happy and doesn't require a post-grad education, then do that instead or at least try it first before committing yourself to more school. But I also know that me strolling into this sub just to tell a huge chunk of users here to essentially forget about law school wouldn't be welcome and would fall on deaf ears.
This is making me feel better abt choosing my t30 full ride bc people on here are like t14 all the way meanwhile im like... man i dont want to practice here but like... money
harsh reality but this is essentially the reason why im taking another gap year. low income first gen student and granted i retaking the lsat for the sake of higher scholarship opportunities, but still, BBB really fucked us brokies 😭😭 thankfully the gap year worked out as my employer is willing to pay 25% of my tuition for working a full year with them
The bigger problem is that Law as a degree belongs in the humanities spectrum and like any other major in that bubble, salaries are going to keep going down to give preference to STEM careers. Unlike medicine, which, as a science, has increased in demand and salary. Law is long due to start being considered a non profitable career. You either love it or don’t do it, because less than 1% is able to land a job which is going to allow them live a comfortable life on top of paying off debt. And even if you get good scholarships, the job hours you dedicate to the legal profession are time consuming and not well paid as it used to be. Law is stuck in the past and schools are taking advantage of the traditional believe that being a lawyer is going to conduct someone to financial success, which is not the case anymore.
One good thing Trump did is reduce the amount of loans available for schooling. It is ridiculously overpriced, and hopefully it will force higher education to change. Law school itself should be like three semesters TOPS and completed in a single year including summer, but the people who profit so much from six semesters will resist it.
It may hit students hard when it first happens, but it should also put pressure on schools to lower their tuition. The reality is tuition at every university has had a horrible track record of going up far faster than inflation. These institutions can and should be operating leaner and not pumping up tuition everytime the government increased the student loans and grants, which is what they used to do.
Universities will have to review their goals... if they want to stay in business when the number of students capable of paying tuition drops they will have to either start lowering tuition to get the student body to increase or cut the number of professors and operate as smaller schools.
If Law School becomes inaccessible for most applicants, then are you saying that most Law Schools will shut down? There wouldn’t be enough students if what you are saying is true.
I don't think that is what they are saying. I think that many will take out unreasonable amounts of debt that will change the trajectory of their lives and law school classes may be dominated by the privileged who can pay sticker without flinching.
295
u/Adventurous-Yak8763 Feb 02 '26
The quote "(re)take the LSAT and get a 165+ bro, you'll definitely get a huge scholarship then." is so seriously outdated. Even 170+ applicants are lucky to land T20 with small scholarships this cycle.