I don’t read Dizzy’s Blog, except in those instances when it’s linked by someone like Doug, which it has been a few times in the last week or so… and it looks like it’s SSDD over there.
Generally, it’s hundreds upon hundreds of words about such riveting things as: why all guys at law school are scum, how everyone from the midwest is plain and dumpy and nowhere near as cute as she is, and (most recently) what a horrible sham law school is. Lots of clever people have already commented on the basic substance (or lack thereof) of the Law School Is A Sham argument, but there’s one thing that gets me: why are there so many people who whine about this, but so few who actually do something about it?
One that Dizzy has advanced several times, most recently in my comments, is: “once you start piling on the debt, it’s stupid to leave. Even though there’s no real chance left to gain something substantive.” Which is, for all intense porposises, a huge load of bull in most cases.
This is an economic argument that, in the general case, lacks any realistic basis in fact. The two principles that seem, at least to my only mildly economic mind1, are “sunk costs” and “opportunity cost”.
Lets use Susie as an example. She goes to Hypothetical School of Law, just completed her first year of law school on January 1st, and now has $45,000 in debt from it. She hates law school, doesn’t want to be a lawyer2, and cannot wait until she’s finished.
That $45k? It’s a “sunk cost”3. It doesn’t matter if Susie quits school or keeps going, she’s going to owe that $45k. So for Susie to say “Well, I already owe $45k, might as well keep going!” is a little silly because she’s going to owe it whether she keeps going or not.
One difference between a normal sunk cost and one with debt is that you are going to have to make one additional consideration in your economic decisions: “Will this decision allow me to pay off my debt?”
So, at the conclusion of her first year, Susie is faced with the same decision that faces every law student. In the words of The Clash: “Should I stay or should I go?” So, Susie, being a rational economic person, might go through the following analysis:
If I quit now, I will need to pay back this $45k, so whatever I do will have to involve either a) going to a different program so that I can continue to defer my loans or b) pay me enough to make payments on that loan.
If Susie wants to go to B-School, get a masters, something else like that, her problem is solved. She leaves and everyone is happier. What if she doesn’t? Now, she’s faced with two options: 1) quit and get a job, or 2) suck it up and keep going.
On the one hand, if she keeps going, she can prolong having to pay off the $45k, but she will have to pay it back eventually, and she’ll actually have to pay back MORE. Probably three times that and if she’s not going to be a lawyer, what good is my JD going to actually do for her?
If she finishes but then goes into another field, is she going to have to assure interviewers in other industries that she’s not just taking their job while she waits to find a good legal job? Is she going to be over-educated for the job she has the experience to take, but not experienced enough for the job that matches her level of education?
In raw financial terms, what is her JD worth if she’s not going to be a lawyer? My guess is that, for most industries, it would be a negligible benefit if it’s not a liability.
There’s also the issue of the additional debt for continuing on: if Susie quits after her first year, she will have two years of experience (and raises), and she’ll be paying off one-third the debt. So, if we look at a uniform date: Jan 1, 2010, here’s the situation:
If she stays she’ll be out, have one year of experience in her job, and be in the midst of paying back $135k of debt.
If she goes she’ll have been out for three years, and be in the middle of paying back $45k.
Susie not only has to consider the $90k of debt she’s going to acquire from staying, but the salay she WON’T be making during those years, AND the raises that she misses out on by not gaining the work experience. So if the job Susie is going to take (regardless of when she quits) will start her at $30k a year and give her a $2k raise per year4, the difference between staying and going is:
$90,000 in additional debt, plus
$60,000 in base salary missed out on, plus
$4,000 per year going forward
So in our hypothetical situation, it costs Susie $154k MORE to finish her law degree than it does to quit right then and move on.
So the only question Susie really has to answer is this one: is that JD worth $154,000 to her?
If the answer is “Yes”, either because of the additional earning power it will give her in the field she chooses to go into, or because of some other personal reason, then the choice is simple: Susie stays in school.
If the answer is “No”, Susie should leave.
…and if Susie’s classmates are lucky, she won’t spend the next two years being a huge, whiny, pain in the ass.
I was not an econ major in undergrad, but I took my share of econ/business classes… nevertheless, someone who knows more about it than I do will inevitably educate me about my misapplication or misunderstanding of something.
This is important, because if she DOES want to be a lawyer, she really doesn’t have a choice here. She has to go on.
I’m not sure if this is technically correct, since it’s actually a debt, but the principle should still work basically the same way in this instance.
This doesn’t look like much, but if we do % instead of raw $, the problem is magnified greatly 10-15 years down the road and amounts to a huge loss of earning power.
January 21st, 2007 at 12:12 am
Ok, I feel dumb for asking, but SSDD?
January 21st, 2007 at 12:27 am
Same Shit, Different Day
January 21st, 2007 at 2:08 pm
“if Susie quits after her first year, she will have two years of experience (and raises), and she’ll be paying off one-third the debt.”
BUt ONLY if she gets a job right after dropping out of school. The friend I have who quit after our first year, at the Dean’s “Law school is not for everyone” urging, did NOT. Since your whole “$154k saved” argument depends on this assumption, it seems like kind of a big, oh, hole, in your theory.
And $30k may seem like a reasonable, achievable salary, but I have made $30k. It did not allow, comfortably, for the $263 monthly payment that my first year student loans incurred. And that was when my rent was less than half what it is in this town.
Also, the ability to make at least $30k may not (likely will not) happen for someone who wants to stay in a small town where living expenses are cheaper. It’s not that hard to make $30k in an expensive city. But then you live in an expensive city and it is even more difficult to make that monthly payment.
I don’t think anyone who drops out could make it without the help of their parents. And I don’t have that luxury. Nor do a lot of people.
January 21st, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Since your whole “$154k saved” argument depends on this assumption, it seems like kind of a big, oh, hole, in your theory.
First of all, there’s deferment and forebearance to consider — both are options for people who have a hard time finding full-time employment or, once they do, find that they aren’t able to make enough to make the payments.
Second, it is unlikely that Susie decided she wanted to leave the minute the semester ended. Odds are this is something she’s been considering for a while. So make the decision earlier, start looking for another job.
OR… she could stay one more semester so she keeps receiving aid, but then spends most of her time looking for a new job in a different industry. Sure, her savings would be reduced, but she’d still be saving a great deal as compared to putting that off until the end of school.
Not only that, but the issues you brought up are not unique to quitting early: they are issues that would arise if Susie graduated from Law School as well. Except she’d then have the additional option of being a lawyer… gee… that’s odd… she invested some money and now has an additional job option. Maybe that JD wasn’t worthless after all.
There are a wealth of options available for someone who is looking for them. Admittedly, if Susie doesn’t want to get off her ass and investigate other options and would rather just be miserable, that will turn out to be her only option. I’m working based on the assumption that Susie actually wants to leave.
Now, as to repayment and earning capacity…
Everyone’s situation here will be different (see: forebearance and deferment) and if Susie’s background and education won’t earn her $25k+ a year (even in a smaller city) her best option will probably be to go back to school anyway, even once she finishes law school.
I, personally, could quit school today and have a job paying $40-$55k a year, in a smaller city, on the strength of my experience and undergraduate degree. Not everyone has that luxury, I admit, but what many people seem unwilling to do is to compromise their high standard of living.
This is the sense of entitlement that I’m talking about. As long as you’re not living in one of the top 10-15 most expensive cities, $30k should be enough to get you sustain you. Yes, you may have to cut down on designer clothing purchases, you might have to eat out a little less often, you might have to go out to the bars more infrequently, but it is possible.
If the problem is that Susie can’t make enough money to sustain her standard of living, she should at least be honest about why she’s not leaving law school: it’s not because she has no other options, but because she is unwilling to live within her means if her means do not enable her to spoil herself on a daily basis.
Of course, being that honest about it is much less sympathetic than her sitting around a crying that she is trapped at law school.
January 21st, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Seriously. Designer clothes purchases are the problem? $30k gives you about $1600 a month take home pay. Rent and groceries should take care of at least half that. So $263 is a really big chunk. “Cutting back” on purchases which you couldn’t afford anyway is not really going to help much.
As for a forbearance. I found this quote from the fafsa site interesting: “While it is not guaranteed, most lenders or loan servicers will try to accommodate your request so you don’t go into default or have a delinquent loan repayment. The only bad thing about a forbearance is that, unlike a deferment where the government pays the interest for you, interest continues to accumulate. So if you can’t make interest payments, you will end up paying “interest-on-interest.”" And to get an economic hardship deferrment, your income must be under the Bureau of Labor Statistics definition of “low standard of living.” It’s calculated on how much of your income goes to food, and is menat to protect people from actually going hungry. Five years ago a single person would have to make less than $12k to qualify. So good luck with that. (I like that your argument now depends on “government handouts” for the “weak,” though).
PS - a lecture on “cutting back” from someone who has obviously never been completely self-sufficient is a little hard to take. Try adding up all the financial help your parents have given you (insurance, a place to stay on breaks, rent reduction, help with that first car, the clothes they give you for Christmas) and see if the rest of us are really just wasting all our disposable income on the non-generic mac and cheese.
January 21st, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Oh, and classy quote at the top today. Obviously my “guys in law school have no respect for women” remarks were just not even a little bit true, at all.
January 21st, 2007 at 5:25 pm
First of all, Liz, the quote at the top changes every time you refresh the page from a pool of about 100 different ones… so you’re really going to have to be more specific…
Second, I know your entire worldview depends on your blief that you have it so much worse than everyone else, but I’ve got a little newsflash for you: I’ve been, for all intents and purposes, fully self-sufficient since the day I graduated from High School. So when I say that I lived on around $15k a year, it’s not because I had all sorts of help and income from my parents… it’s because I actually lived on $15k a year.
Now, I understand that you’re not so good with the maths, but $24k a year take-home pay (which is, ballpark, what 30k is going to get you) will get you $2000 a month. Someone who only brings home $1600 a month is bringing home less than $20k a year.
So, at $2,000 a month, allow even $900 for rent and groceries, now you’re sitting with $1100 for discretionary expenses. You wouldn’t really need to make a car payment, because you get a fairly reliable car for $600-$800 (total, not per month), and insurance on a car like that is negligible… but even if it was $100 a month, you’re still looking at $1000 a month, assume a $300 loan payment (You are obviously financing your loans over a very short period of time, which is not necessary) and that leaves you with $700 to play with… reserve $300 of that for bills (power, water, electric, cell, internet, etc…) and you still have $100 a week in spending money.
Gosh, what a horribly strapped life you’d lead with $100 in spending money a week. I’m sure people collecting food stamps and living on ventilation grates will feel very sorry for you.
January 21st, 2007 at 6:14 pm
I’m sorry for misjuding you on being dependent on your parents. Usually people who’ve paid their own bills are less, strident. The quote was about your salsa dancing making girls take off their underpants.
As for the math. You’re still wrong. Taxes take one-third unless you have kids (which creates a whole new set of expenses). And people usually try to put something in a 401k. Although that’s probably what you’d call a luxury.
And I can’t imagine that something like a bad case of pneumonia, rent increase, or anything like that, would completely derail all your calculations.
January 21st, 2007 at 7:32 pm
1/3? At 30k? No ma’am. Less than a quarter, actually. Run the numbers yourself:
Federal: $4122.50 ($755 + 15% of the amount over $7,550)
Indiana: $900.00 (Flat 3% rate)
FICA: $2295.00 (Flat 7.65% rate)
Total: $7317.50 (And you’re going to get AT LEAST $1200 of that back at tax time… so that takes you down to $6117.50)
So, yeah, my bad… my numbers were off by about $10 a month.
401K? Well, you’ve got that $400 a month to play with, but if this is a temporary situation — meaning you expect your income to be going up either by virtue of finding a better job or being promoted — then you can probably call investments a luxury. Long term, obviously, you’ll need to work on that.
And if you want to talk health insurance, which is a good idea, maybe that should be part of your job criteria, or you should re-factor your expenses so that you can afford it.
Listen, the bottom line is that people can — and do — live fairly comfortably on $30k a year as their TERMINAL wage, not their starting salary.
Also: If you can’t make $30k a year with your degree without a law degree… and you don’t feel like you can live on $30k a year… why on earth would you quit and go work instead of quitting and going back to school for something that might suit your tastes?
…not only that, but most loans can be handled with graduated repayment and terms of upwards of 15-20 years… so this $263 a month loan payment right away is something of a farce, too.
January 22nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
This is stupid. My point was that $300 a month is a really big chunk of $30k, or any salary that the drop out can reasonably expect to get right away. I’ve lived on $30k. I know. (Car repairs, Christmas presents, the occasional treat-your-boss-to-coffee can all really mess with a budget. Sheesh).
And your point, that people who don’t like it should leave, is a false dichotomy anyway.
Finally, the way I heard it, and the way it sounded in your email, you came here straight from undergrad, dude. That’s simply not “self-sufficient” in my book, especially if you have a place to go on breaks, (I didn’t) No matter how many extra jobs you work to keep the student loan debt down.
I like arguing, and we can keep arguing, but whether or not the dropout is going to be able to afford a designer purse (They’re at least $5k, btw, so no!) is not really the point.
You know what is intersting, though? Why do you care? Why do you want people to drop out? It doesn’t sound like you think it’s necessarily better for them, since you cheeerfully consign them to eating ramen and driving a $600 car to pay for a semester or two of law school fun.
And why are you mad at me? I’ve taken some huge hits from you and doug - even his apology (I wasn’t actually mad btw) was all “I’m sorry you’re so unhappy that you have to be CRITICAL.” And the things you’ve said… oh MY. But I laugh about y’all being like Mary Kay consultants, point out the flawed assumption in your “rudimentary” economic theory and I’m being some vicious harpy?
Even if I am being all mean and CRITICAL, so what? Law school is so perfect? You’ve said I’m full of crap and acting “entitled” (to, I don’t know, an education from a damn SCHOOL) But you never said, “Grades are EXACTLY correlated to hard work and understanding of the material.” Because we all know they’re not. And you’ve never said, “Faculty and students don’t bully eachother here.” Because we do.
When I worked a real job, I noticed that systems that rely on bullying are hte weakest around. And I think law school, at least this one, is not really training students. That, to me, is fraud and a gyp, because that’s what I paid to learn.
If you can actually address that, instead of all this economic theory crap, let’s talk. But right now, you’re coming off like a kid. And you’re going to get mad at that. And I could rephrase or something. But I can’t think of any other way to put it. You’re coming off like someone with no experience? You seem to be all theory and no proof? Nope. Not sounding better either. Sorry.
January 22nd, 2007 at 12:01 am
Oh, and the $300 loan repayment isn’t a “farce.” It’s what my friend who dropped out after her first year actually pays.
January 22nd, 2007 at 12:54 am
“I’ve lived on $30k. I know.”
That’s not very reassuring… lots of things you’ve claimed to “know” you later demonstrated you had no earthly clue about.
“And your point, that people who don’t like it should leave, is a false dichotomy anyway.”
What I actually said was that people who don’t like it should consider leaving… and that leaving is not impossible, although it might be uncomfortable.
“Finally, the way I heard it, and the way it sounded in your email, you came here straight from undergrad, dude. That’s simply not “self-sufficient” in my book, especially if you have a place to go on breaks”
Ahh yes. When you’re proven wrong, move the goalposts. Awesome. My last year of undergrad I had 3 credits per semester and worked more-or-less full time. I received almost no financial aid to speak of (far less than I had to pay in tuition) and was the IT Director for a city. I’m sorry if that doesn’t meet your definition of “self-sufficient” and “having a place to go on breaks” doesn’t negate self-sufficiency. Everyone with any sort of friend has a place to go over breaks.
“And why are you mad at me?”
I’m not.
“I … point out the flawed assumption in your ‘rudimentary’ economic theory”
The fact that you believe you’ve done this boggles my mind. You pointed out what you thought was a flawed assumption based on a very poor understanding of the argument and bad math.
“And I think law school, at least this one, is not really training students.”
Well you and I must be doing things differently, because I feel as though I’m getting plenty of training.
“If you can actually address that…”
Look, I can’t fix the fact that you seem to get as little out of law school as you possibly can. I can’t fix the fact that you’ve decided to hate it. And I can’t fix the fact that you had unrealistic expectations for law school. Nobody can, and I don’t really feel like trying to explain away perceived inadequacies in the system when they’re more likely to be your own personal inadequacies.
Not that the system is perfect, not by any stretch of the imagination, but I don’t think you’ve written a single word which resonated with me as a legitimate complaint about law school in general or IU in specific… and until you do, I don’t really have any interest in addressing those things.
January 22nd, 2007 at 1:03 am
Preach on, Brother Pete, preach on.
January 22nd, 2007 at 1:47 am
“Well you and I must be doing things differently, because I feel as though I’m getting plenty of training.”
Well, you wrote a bunch of numbers to prove a point about a life-changing decision that real people make based on a whole host of unquantifiable emotional and aesthetic factors, you called it “economics” thinking that doing so would confer legitimacy on the process, then you said a lot of uncharitable things about the person who disputed your reasoning about what the numbers mean…
And all of this was in the service of encouraging one of your peers to drop out or shut up.
Yes, you are most certainly getting trained for something. I suspect some people would even call it legal method. Just know that it really makes you look unkind to outsiders.
You needn’t similarily demonstrate your law learning on me, I suspect that I would embrace most of your potential criticisms.
January 22nd, 2007 at 2:24 am
1) What didn’t I know about again? Because I knew that you calculated your “dropping out is worth $154k” theory based on the assumption that the dropout got a job immediately, and that you forgot to include taxes in your cost of living figures.
2) Living on your own is NOT the same as living in school with Sallie Mae. Scrounging a friend’s couch for a few weeks at a time is not the same as knowing you can go home to parents who will do their best to help you out, even if that cannot be monetarily. And IT “Director?” Yeah. My friends who have this job had plenty of time to work a second job or third job, if they wanted.
3) I didn’t have unrealistic expectations for law school. I thought it was a place to learn, and that most graduates would be ok. And really, my personal inadequacies may be many and varied. But are they the reason the guy who never bought the book or did the reading can still get a B, based on some mysterious ability to “get it?” I don’t buy it.
4) You may not be mad, but you do enjoy piling up the insults. It’s like your thing. You are exactly what I’ve been complaining about. I’m not saying that to be mean. It’s honestly interesting.
January 22nd, 2007 at 10:13 am
1) You keep saying this, and even to the minor extent that it’s true, I’ve already pointed out that it’s pretty easy to make sure you have a job when it’s a conscious, considered decision… and my cost of living figures were off by $10 a month when considering taxes. So what was the problem again? Do I need to do recalculations with $1990 a month instead of $2000?
2) As I pointed out, I was getting virtually no financial aid (Sallie Mae turned me down and I had to borrow tuition money from a friend) - as for “going home” people of any age with a family that they haven’t alienated (or vice versa) can go home. Having a family that supports you doesn’t maan that you’re not being on your own… and if your friends had time to work second jobs I’m really happy for them. I did, too, it was called “school”… except instead of getting paid for this job, I had to pay for it. I’m not going to argue about this any more… whether or not you recognize the fact that I paid for everything out of my own pocket constituted me “living on my own” or not doesn’t make it any less true. It’s a nice diversionary tactic, though.
3) Law school is a place to learn, and there are lots of people doing lots of it… and most (by the numbers) graduates DO tend to be okay. The problem is that your stated expectations and the assumed expectations are vastly different… if thye weren’t, Law School, this one at least, would have met your expectations.
4) You’re basically a pro at being insulted, so I’m not surprised that some things that I’ve said have insulted you. Of course the irony of you complaining about someone else insulting you is awfully rich. And, frankly, all I’ve done here is expressed an opinion that you don’t like in a way that you don’t like… on my own personal blog… and then I have the temerity to actually defend that opinion when you come around throwing rocks. Fuck me, what an asshole.
January 22nd, 2007 at 10:22 am
Corey: I understand that reading is hard, and I’m sure you have a lot of it, so expecting you to actualy read an entry that you’re commenting on is a little much, but here’s the Cliff’s Notes version: frankly, I don’t care whether she (or most other people) do with respect to their legal education… but this “Law School is a Sham” and “I have no other options” can affect people who are considering a legal education and it’s basically bullshit. If she wants to call a spade a spade — that she’s decided (among various options) to stay in law school and she hates it, that’s fine. I’d agree with her. But this “oh poor me, my life is so hard, I hate law school and have no other choices” is just patently false. She, personally, might not LIKE the other choices as much as she likes staying in law school, but there are, in fact, other options.
And as for “looking unkind to outsiders” — I’ve looked unkind to outsiders (also known as: people who know even less about me than Liz does, and that’s saying something) since long before I arrived at law school. It doesn’t really bother me.
January 22nd, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Thanks for the entertainment!
January 22nd, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Wow.
Pete, for being a damn lawyer, you have actually have some financial sense about you. That’s good… most of my lawyer clients can’t seem to figure out how to write a check properly, much less have any other financial skills.
Your tax calc is somewhat correct… actually federal taxes owed in the end for the year would be $2,855. (assuming they are single and independent… which if you were out of school and working your parents could not claim you as a dependent). That plus 1200 is close to the amount you listed… and they would get back in a refund anything over the 2855 paid in… OR… they could revise their W-4 and have less whithheld from every paycheck.
I find it quite funny that some people can’t find a way to live on 30K a year. That’s 15 bucks an hour…
But here are some ways to save money…
1) take in a roommate
2) get a second job
3) anything else already mentioned
I also have to comment about this whole “law school is for training” bit. Now, admittedly, I have never been to law school. But no college education, whether undergrad, grad, doctorate, etc, is for training. You do not get trained while you are in school (unless you are in school for a trade, such as a/c repair, then maybe you do).
School is where you learn the mindset needed to be successful. You also learn a lot of “stuff”, for lawyers it might be laws and rules of procedure, for financial guys like me it’s how to calculate certain things, the IRS rules, etc.
So, expecting anyone to “train” you is just stupid. If you happen to pick up what you think is training along the way, maybe through just simple observation, an internship, etc… great. But that’s gravy, baby.
You get “trained” in your first job (and 2nd, and 3rd) after college!!! Ever heard the phrase “on the job training”?
Under a normal loan plan… that amount of monthly payment based on how much money is borrowed and the interest rate certainly is possible. But I would definetly look into a graduated repayment plan as Pete suggested. It’s worth a shot… you have to ask for it.
Also with Pete’s sunk cost and opportunity cost calculation… continuing to pay (or borrow) additional money for an education you don’t want is about the best definition of stupid I can think of. The phrase “throwing money down a black hole” comes into play here.
January 22nd, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Yeah. I lived in a different state than yours. My taxes were about 1/3 of my salary. And it’s generally the standard calculation people have told me to use when negotiating a salary “Your take-home pay will be two-thirds.” You ballparked pretty high to get that “$400 whole dollars to spend on whatever…” (someone who’s actually BEEN self-sufficient, and lived on a budget would know exactly how fast that disappears, btw).
And bobby honey (if that is your real name) you’re sort of taking the sense of “training” a little too literally. Sure you’ve never been to law school?
As for being “entitled…” Sallie Mae turned you down? Are you kidding me? That means somewhere there was more money in your house than a LOT of other household’s. I don’t know if you had a farm or something, but yeesh.
So go ahead and throw out a few “bad at the maths” comments (not that law students are arrogant) and huff off on a high horse to discuss football, but your economic theory stinks. Your grasp of household economics is “rudimentary” at best. And your willingness to tell other people what to do is naive, almost charmingly so.
January 22nd, 2007 at 2:14 pm
I lived in a different state than yours. My taxes were about 1/3 of my salary.
So your state income tax was up around 13%? Somehow I doubt that.
(someone who’s actually BEEN self-sufficient, and lived on a budget would know exactly how fast that disappears, btw).
This is cute: because I know how to budget and have the self-control to stick to it when I need to means that I’ve never been self-sufficient? Is there a sillier comment you could make?
Sallie Mae turned you down? Are you kidding me? That means somewhere there was more money in your house than a LOT of other household’s.
Sallie Mae isn’t a strictly need-based lender. Law Students get basically whatever they need regardless of credit because, in virtually all situations, they are going to be able to repay the loan (same with med students). It’s much more difficult to get a private loan for undergrad, especially if you’re taking more than 4 years to finish. My credit score wasn’t high enough, I couldn’t find a co-signer with better credit than I had, and I wasn’t even half-time, which, in the eyes of Sallie Mae means that I can work full time and go to school. (Which I did, and it worked, but I still needed to borrow the money up-front).
I didn’t think that I was entitled to a loan, and I wasn’t mad at private lenders for turning me down — it was my own fault that my credit was such that I was a high risk for a private loan, so I went out and found a way to pay my tuition so I could finish school.
So go ahead and throw out a few ‘bad at the maths’ comments (not that law students are arrogant)
Listen, it has nothing to do with being arrogant, your numbers simply weren’t correct. They weren’t even within spitting distance of correct. They were so wrong that they could have been (and were) disproved with two google searches and a four-function calculator.
Your grasp of household economics is “rudimentary” at best.
Says the girl claiming that it’s impossible to live on $30k a year? Pot? Kettle.
And your willingness to tell other people what to do is naive
I’d be willing to bet that you can’t back this up with a quote where I’ve actually commanded you to do something. My point, again, is that you have more options than you claim to have, and that the decision you made was not the only decision you could’ve made, but it was the most attractive one to you.
January 22nd, 2007 at 4:07 pm
You know what’s really frustrating about you, Pete? You don’t back down when someone continues to argue and you actually back up your arguments with facts. Sheesh! It’s like you’re all logical or some shit like that.
(Not that I have any actual oar to stick into this argument, I’ve never done my own taxes, my parents will help me out if I need it (though I usually don’t) and I HATE budgeting (although I’m learning, damnit)).
January 22nd, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Oh, and I love law school. I’m pretty sure that’s the trifecta.
January 22nd, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Pete: “Says the girl claiming that it’s impossible to live on $30k a year? ” Don’t put words in my mouth when what I actually said is printed a little higher on the page. And cut it out with the goalpost moving crap.
Dizzy “I have made $30k. It did not allow, comfortably, for the $263 monthly payment that my first year student loans incurred. And that was when my rent was less than half what it is in this town.”
“My point was that $300 a month is a really big chunk of $30k, or any salary that the drop out can reasonably expect to get right away. I’ve lived on $30k. I know. (Car repairs, Christmas presents, the occasional treat-your-boss-to-coffee can all really mess with a budget. Sheesh).”
If I dropped out after the first year, my payment was supposed to be $263. My friend’s payment was a little bit higher, at just up to $300. My take home pay, after taxes, plus 401k, parking, health insurance (I sprung for the dental and eye vision package - I like luxury like that) was a little less than 2/3 of my salary.
I never said you can’t live on $30k. You’re the one who said all you have to do is forego the designer purse purchases. And that’s not true. You also said, “it costs Susie $154k MORE to finish her law degree than it does to quit right then and move on.So the only question Susie really has to answer is this one: is that JD worth $154,000 to her?” And that’s not true either. Mr. Your-numbers-weren’t-within-spitting-distance-of-correct (there WERE no numbers - just the one estimate of 2/3 take home from a total salary of $30k, which again, I KNOW because I got the check every week.
And if your numbers are so close that there’s only $100 a week leftover for discretionary purchases (new contacts, pantyhose for work, a drink with friends - it goes fast). Then you’d better hope your drop out stays in this state. Because one state over and she’s screwed.
January 22nd, 2007 at 4:33 pm
And Kristina dear, he doesn’t have facts. He has a website quote about tax rates, and a hypothetical salary that we don’t even know our graduate can get. What if she’s depressed? WHat if she came here straight out of undergrad and has no work experience? What if she has ties to an expensive area? And how is she supposed to FIND a roomate? How is she goign to afford to move to this new job - since this job doesn’t have a lot of jobs? How can she afford the suits and transportation to find that new job? I swear, no one thinks about this stuff until you have to DO it, And unlike the rest of y’all, I’ve been doing it, alone, since I was 17.
January 22nd, 2007 at 4:36 pm
I also had a post, it appears to be lost now, where I pointed out that I never said it’s impossible to live on $30k, thank you don’t-move-the-goal-post-Pete, I said $300 is a big chunk. And after taxes, parking, health insurance and 401k my take-home was LESS THAN 2/3 of my salary.
January 22nd, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Well… after parking, health insurance, and 401k… then I could see take home after all that being less than 2/3 of salary. But that is more than just taxes.
This is what it boils down to. We all have to make tough decisions in life. Suck it up, and deal with it. Dizzy, you are not the first person in life who has to “do it all alone since age 17″.
The fact is… there is a pessimistic way to look at things (Dizzy) and an optimistic way to look at things (Pete). If one was in this allegedly hypothetical situation, the decisions would not be as easy to make as Pete implies, but life would not be as dire as Dizzy makes it seem to be. Or at least… one could choose to not make it as dire.
One can make it happen. Where there is a will there is a way. When life hands you lemons, make lemonade. Wow. That’s three cliches in a row. Sorry! I’m sure I’m completely off topic at this point.
People every day make it in the big world, with a lot less than this hypothetical student has. Is it easy? No. Does it suck? Yes. Does it take a lot of sacrifice, sure. But one can make it happen. Where there is a will there is a way. When life hands you lemons, make lemonade. Wow. That’s three cliches in a row. Sorry! I’m sure I’m completely off topic at this point.
January 22nd, 2007 at 5:52 pm
This is a great article… talks more about the financial side of this argument than the law school side… but still.
http://articles.moneycentral.m.....AYear.aspx
January 22nd, 2007 at 7:03 pm
This girl is able to live on 12K per year. 30K does not seem so bad.
articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt…
January 22nd, 2007 at 7:08 pm
he doesn’t have facts. He has a website quote about tax rates
Is there something more factual than tax rates?
Me: You’d pay about a quarter in taxes on a $30k salary.
You: Nuh uh! one third!
Me: *quotes tax figures, does simple math* Looks like a quarter to me.
You: LA LA LA! I CAN’T HEAR YOU! I’ve lived on my own, so I should know better than the IRS how much the taxes are!
Give me a break.
and a hypothetical salary that we don’t even know our graduate can get
I know a guy who has a GED and a criminal record who makes almost $30k a year, has to pay child support and alimony and still manages not to starve. Wonder how he does that? By taking jobs that he might not LIKE. By taking jobs that he might think are below him. By doing what he has to do to pay his bills. If this guy can make $30k a year, the only excuse for not making $30k a year is either a) laziness or b) inability to swallow one’s pride and take a job that pays the bills.
This “Oh no! I can’t make $30k a year!” Argument is total crap… although if that is the situation one has found oneself in, it’s not because they went to law school.
WHat if she came here straight out of undergrad and has no work experience? And how is she supposed to FIND a roomate? How is she goign to afford to move to this new job - since this job doesn’t have a lot of jobs?
If these questions are really that perplexing to you, and you’re not just asking them to be difficult, I imagine that you have had an extraordinarily difficult time being self-sufficient, and I do feel sorry for you. I imagine the average 8th grader could probably posit workable solutions to most of them.
I swear, no one thinks about this stuff until you have to DO it, And unlike the rest of y’all, I’ve been doing it, alone, since I was 17.
This is what we call an “appeal to authority” where Dizzy is the authority and “living” is the subject matter — issued, in this case as in most others, because the person making the statement lacks the facts and reason to back up her claims and offers, in lieu of them, her word (scout’s honor!) that she’s actually right, despite how it might look if you resort to those misleading “facts” and “reason”.
Whether or not you’ve been living on your own since you were 17 is completely immaterial. Although it is cute that after making the mistake of accusing me of having never been self-sufficient, and then persisting in that argument by changing the parameters and, finally, just insisting that you’re right (since you are obviously the arbiter of self-sufficiency, right?) — despite all of that, you still insist that you MUST know best, and that you are SURELY the only one who has been on her own. Isn’t the ability to learn from past mistakes one of the hallmarks of even the lowest forms of animal?
At any rate this experience, in theory, would give you a solid base from which you could craft more well-informed and reasonable opinions, but that seems not to be the case here… and you’re starting to sound like one of my old website trolls who frequently, before I graduated from undergrad, insisted that he was obviously right because HE had a degree and I did not.
In short: nobody cares. You’ve worn it out already.
I also had a post, it appears to be lost now, where I pointed out that I never said it’s impossible to live on $30k, thank you don’t-move-the-goal-post-Pete, I said $300 is a big chunk.
Okay, so the argument, now, is that it’s less “comfortable” in the short term to quit law school and get a job? Awesome. Now we agree. My point is that the fact that it’s less comfortable in the short term doesn’t make it a wise decision in the long run, AND that if your posts and comments would simply say that you CHOSE to stay in law school because it is more comfortable to incurr loads of unnecessary debt and put off dealing with the inevitable of finding a non-legal job that pays enough to pay your bills… well… then I’d really have no quibble here, because it would be a fair representation of the situation.
Instead, you tend to make the issue whether or not it’s SMART or POSSIBLE to quit law school, and the answer to both of those is “absolutely”.
January 22nd, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Bobby: Re the link…
Amazing what people can do when they want to. But…
I imagine that that girl doesn’t have a blog where she spends half of her time whining about how ugly and plain everyone’s clothing is. Just a guess.
Or, alternately, she’s probably never lived on her own and doesn’t realize that that extra $18k a year isn’t enough to pay a $300 a month loan payment. Duh.
January 22nd, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Has anyone else lived on $30k a year without parents? Does anyone else realize how expensive dry cleaning, pantyhose and so on are? Has anyone else ever paid to move? Found a job with no family or friend contacts and no experience? Found an apartment? Paid deposits? Paid insurance? Built a career? Moved up in a job? Earned a raise? Paid off student loans? Saved for retirement? Bought furniture? Crickets chirp…. So yes, I’m right about the things I’ve done. And the on-my-own-since-17 thing only came up to refute your poor credit rating sob story.
Besies, even your incredibly optimistic, best-case-scenario version of events gives $100 spending money. Which is not enough for savings or emergency expenses. And if you’re wrong in the slightest, say your hypothetical dropout lives in another state, she is pretty much screwed. Is that doom-and-gloom?
Maybe, but this whole thing started because you claimed that dropping out saves $154. And you’re wrong. And you can’t read very well, since no matter how many times I say the exact same thing you always go, “Oh so now you’re going to say…”
As for all your characterizations of why I stayed, so what? You’re just mad because you thought up something that seemed really smart and it won’t work the way you said it would. The grad won’t have a job the day after she graduates. Even if she did, she’s going to have a hard time making that monthly payment. Optimism is great, but stupid optimism with other people’s misery is a Republican administration.
January 22nd, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Jesus christ. You really need some help. Those questions? I’d guess you pretty well describe half of the population, and we’re all supposed to find that exceptional? Let’s have a look:
Yes, less than half that. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes (about a half-dozen times). Yes. Yes. Not in the same way that you’re probably talking about. Yes. Yes. No, I haven’t made enough money yet to allow that in any substantial way. Yes. Yes.
So there are your crickets. The very person you’re debating with has done all of the things in that list that are even remotely related here.
(As an aside: if you “built a career”, “moved up in a job”, and so on… how on earth can you not afford to quit after one year of law school? I call bullshit. Something isn’t right there… unless in the course of building that career you alienated so many people that you can’t get a letter of recommendation… which might not be so far off. It’s okay, though, they probably didn’t wear cute shoes anyway.)
And the bad credit rating thing isn’t a “sob story”. I don’t tell “sob stories” I tell the truth. My credit rating was low because I screwed stuff up while I figured out how to live on a budget (a much smaller one than we’re quibbling about) and that was the reason that Sallie Mae wouldn’t lend to me, something you doubted. I don’t want, or need, anyone’s sympathy for my credit rating or mistakes that I’ve made in the past.
Maybe, but this whole thing started because you claimed that dropping out saves $154. And you’re wrong.
So you say. For reasons and in ways that you can’t seem to list or explain. Despite the fact that my numbers do, in fact, add up. And the logic works, too.
Yeah, it’s pretty obvious why I’m wrong: because Dizzy, queen of self-sufficiency, says so. How dare I question you!
You’re just mad because you thought up something that seemed really smart and it won’t work the way you said it would.
Heh… if you tell that lie enough times someone might start to believe it. It works precisely the way I said it would, there’s independent verification from others, and really the only one disputing it is you… again, for no particular reason other than you just can’t fathom living your life with less than a thousand bucks a month of discretionary income… it’s a tough life to be so super-fabulous, isn’t it?
Give me a break.
The grad won’t have a job the day after she graduates.
She can if she wants one and works to make sure it happens. Of course, it probably won’t just be tossed in her lap… she might actually have to work for it. What a shame that would be.
Even if she did, she’s going to have a hard time making that monthly payment.
If she spends her money, and budgets as poorly, as your comments here would suggest you do, I grant that’s probably true.
If she budgets and spends like someone who can think more than five minutes ahead of the current moment in time, she’d probably be just fine.
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:27 am
“In raw financial terms, what is her JD worth if she’s not going to be a lawyer? My guess is that, for most industries, it would be a negligible benefit if it’s not a liability.”
Your guess eh? Well then my guess is your guess is wrong. Worked in a career long enough to see how extra credentials play out? In my experience, more education equals more respect and more benefit of the doubt, even if it is unrelated. Plus, the job is just more satisfying the more you can bring to bear.
“So, at $2,000 a month, allow even $900 for rent and groceries, now you’re sitting with $1100 for discretionary expenses. You wouldn’t really need to make a car payment, because you get a fairly reliable car for $600-$800 (total, not per month), and insurance on a car like that is negligible… but even if it was $100 a month, you’re still looking at $1000 a month, assume a $300 loan payment (You are obviously financing your loans over a very short period of time, which is not necessary) and that leaves you with $700 to play with… reserve $300 of that for bills (power, water, electric, cell, internet, etc…) and you still have $100 a week in spending money.”
$100 a week to buy a cake to eat! That’s a nice strawman, and it has numbers in it so you can accuse people of being ignorant about math if they dispute you … even better strawman. You forgot to think about sales tax though, since most of your budget is subject to it. Oh and gas for the car, because the rent near the job isn’t likely cheap. $600 cars last about 3 months if you actually run them. You sure as hell don’t have good medical or dental insurance, so don’t need a crown because those cost at least $2100. A serious illness will put you in the hole for good. $30K a year jobs don’t wait for you. Car accident will put you in debt at least $1500 even if yuo are partly insured.
But all this is irrelevant anyway because no one graduates from law school and works for $30K for any appreciable time.
“I’ve looked unkind to outsiders … since long before I arrived at law school. It doesn’t really bother me.”
I don’t believe you. I think it does bother you. Really real people don’t create blogs for the purpose of alienating strangers. Maybe you thought law school would reward this kind of bluster and argumentation. Some of us just don’t respect it though. Not at all.
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:07 am
This person could get a job right off the bat waiting tables (not have to wear a suit to the interview and never need to by pantyhose because she’ll probably be in some sort of pants) that would hold her over while she tried to find another job during the day. I’ve waited tables to pay the bills and a lot of the people there were actually on there own, the whole paying car payments insurance money coming out of their minimal pay check for the luxury of health insure, living on their own. Most of them had a second job, like me (school).
I’m in med school now, I got a chemE degree in undergrad just in case I didn’t get in or I didn’t like it so I would have a job where I could pay back my loans and live comfortably. If your friend didn’t do that that’s poor planning.
If someone says they can’t find a job that’s bull there are a ton of jobs out there that you don’t need suits and hose to interview for (if you can’t afford that at the moment but considering she was in law school I’m assuming she had at least one suit for some sort of interview along the line).
My brother does it everyday he has a GED, a two year stint in prison and 3 kids. Is he enjoying working everyday a week to support them? No, but he does it because he has to. Your view of the real world and real problems is extremely distorted.
I’m living on 22,000 now and doing just fine with all of my payments, picking up shifts while in med school if I need things like a night out or Christmas presents.
Whether Pete’s numbers about the 150,000 savings are right or not you’re not going to win the argument with no numbers (from an online source or not) he has numbers.
You have life experience, that we all have or at least those of us who aren’t your friends apparently and some of us even have a tougher time because we don’t have an undergrad degree or a high school degree to go with it. Now I’d say not having either one of those is poor planning, but people make it everyday with a lot more to worry about then if they can go have drinks with their friends (more like can their kids eat tonight or go on the field trip they really want to go on next week).
January 23rd, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Well then my guess is your guess is wrong.
If that’s the case then the math changes, but it would have to change an awful lot to make this a smart thing to do.
even better strawman.
You keep using that word, but I don’t think you know what it means.
You forgot to think about sales tax though, since most of your budget is subject to it.
I didn’t “forget to think about” it. It was included in all of the expenses that I was accounting for.
$600 cars last about 3 months if you actually run them.
Or more than a year, like mine did. Both of them.
don’t need a crown because those cost at least $2100. A serious illness will put you in the hole for good. $30K a year jobs don’t wait for you. Car accident will put you in debt at least $1500 even if yuo are partly insured.
Virtually no salary will stand up to this sort of logic, all you need to do is come up with an uninsured disaster large enough. But yes, in a case like these it could cause problems. These problems are commonly referred to as “life”.
But all this is irrelevant anyway because no one graduates from law school and works for $30K for any appreciable time.
Agreed. And anyone who, if they quit law school, would be subject to living a $30k a year life for the rest of their life should probably investigate other options. This was a low-estimate of a starting salary, which is not unrealistic.
I don’t believe you. I think it does bother you.
No, it really doesn’t. It might make you feel better to think so, but it doesn’t. Go back and read the archives or talk to someone who actually knows me.
Really real people don’t create blogs for the purpose of alienating strangers.
Just because it happens doesn’t mean it was the reason I created the blog. (Are you familiar with the phrase ‘unintended consequences’?) I created the blog for a great many reasons, none of which were pandering to people I consider wholly unreasonable. In my time blogging I have yet to alienate anyone whose opinion I actually have any sort of respect for.
So, in conclusion: you might want to avoid psychoanalysis of people you’ve never met and know little to nothing about. Thanks for playing, though.
January 24th, 2007 at 2:54 am
Its your blog. I only read it once or twice because this whole 2L blog proliferation thing interested me. If the 2L class is going to be collectively famous for getting drunkenly arrested and also for abusing each other on blogs then I’m mildly annoyed. The school has a decent rep for the opposite of that, and I like the idea of my degree carrying a community spirit vibe.
I joined in a bit because I thought you were being pretty mean to Dizzy. Your words and tone come off mean. In a number of ways. If you are going to write like this publically then you are going to get public comments. I’m not going to try and perfect my knowledge of you in order to perfect my analysis. I guess you can disrespect me from the polite distance that law school naturally facilitates, and I will try to stay off your blog.
I’ve seen and experienced feeling like I only had to worry about the opinion of those people I respected. Funny thing is eventually that philosophy hits a wall. I predict that yours (like mine) will be about the time you need to be promoted to a management position or elected to office. If your reasonableness filter is that narrow and you consider even rudimentary consideration to be pandering, well… people don’t like that.
January 24th, 2007 at 11:37 am
I’ll take your predictions under advisement… though I respect a pretty wide array of people (a far wider group than those I actually like), and getting promotioned and elected to offices has never been a problem for me in the past.
I find it interesting that you read Dizzy’s blog and then think other people are mean. I’m not sure I’ve met anyone, at law school or before, more cruel and mean-spirited than she is1 and, frankly, any kind of job or office that requires me to be nice to people like her, I simply don’t want.
Although I will say that she does a nice job of couching her mean comments in cutsey little disclaimers, as though that changes the substance of them.
January 25th, 2007 at 1:44 am
Pete’s not mean
Pete LIKES girls
I’m sure there’s more, but I didn’t have the energy to work through your archives. I just ran a search for your thoughts on “girl(s)”
January 25th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Wow… that’s the best you can do? A humor piece that was “mean” and a post on the social ramifications of the “shallow” insult.
You’re sure there’s more of what? Humor pieces where I poke fun at people? Comments on social situations that some people might disagree with?
Oh, the horror! How can I stand to write these things on the internet!
(These gripes from the girl who wrote “Why would that reaction even make me ‘mean’? And even if it did, so what?” emphasis mine)