Don't go.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He needs to research environmental law jobs and understand what that actually entails.

He has started that a bit.

Getting a government spot doing environmental law means you need to go to a top school and do well. Those jobs are filled with Harvard and Yale grads. You'll have an okay salary, but will be counting on the government forgiving your loans.

The other option is going into BigLaw and to defend companies in their quest to destroy the environment. You will be able to pay off your loans, but it isn't a job for a value-driven environmentalist.

If you can't get a prestigious federal job or get into Biglaw, if you are lucky, then you will make a subsistence wage filing petitions for local companies and individuals. More likely you won't get a legal job at all.

EPA is starving for attorneys, there’s been a lot of recent turnover. You need to show commitment to the mission. Most Fed attorney jobs don’t hire right out of law school though, but you definitely don’t need to go to a T14 school to get there. If he’s committed to environmental law, he should also check out Vermont Law School and Pace. uMD hs a good environmental program too.

Anonymous wrote:DD went to Columbia Law and first worked prosecuting people who abuse animals, then she went in house working for a cosmetics company (that doesn't test on animals - no surprise there).

Then they must test on human?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Work a couple years first. Go to a T14 or go for free. If you don't have either of those options, don't go. For undergrad, fit is way more important than prestige; for law school, the reverse is true.

Darn. Those slackers at UCLA law school will be disappointed to learn that they made a big mistake in law school choice. 🙄

Please understand, it doesn’t make sense, but it’s true that the T14 places meaningfully better and more consistently than the rest. Facts are often eyeroll inducing but that doesn’t make them not facts.

UCLA specifically is a strong example of my point. The LA market is not particularly robust and UCLA kids have to battle against Berkeley and Stanford grads for those spots (along with all the Harvard and Yale kids who want that warm weather). A counter example is UTexas, because the Texas market is so strong and so faithful to UT.

And it doesn’t make it a “fact” just because you say it (twice).

If you're at the top of the class at UCLA, you'll likely be fine. If you're not in the top half (in a good economy) or the top 75% (in a bad economy), you very likely will never get a job that will pay enough for you to buy a house in California. Your loans will burden you for decades. You'll struggle with a JD that harms rather than improves your job prospects.

Sorry, top 25%, not top 75%

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Work a couple years first. Go to a T14 or go for free. If you don't have either of those options, don't go. For undergrad, fit is way more important than prestige; for law school, the reverse is true.

Darn. Those slackers at UCLA law school will be disappointed to learn that they made a big mistake in law school choice. 🙄

Please understand, it doesn’t make sense, but it’s true that the T14 places meaningfully better and more consistently than the rest. Facts are often eyeroll inducing but that doesn’t make them not facts.

UCLA specifically is a strong example of my point. The LA market is not particularly robust and UCLA kids have to battle against Berkeley and Stanford grads for those spots (along with all the Harvard and Yale kids who want that warm weather). A counter example is UTexas, because the Texas market is so strong and so faithful to UT.

And it doesn’t make it a “fact” just because you say it (twice).

If you're at the top of the class at UCLA, you'll likely be fine. If you're not in the top half (in a good economy) or the top 75% (in a bad economy), you very likely will never get a job that will pay enough for you to buy a house in California. Your loans will burden you for decades. You'll struggle with a JD that harms rather than improves your job prospects.

I'm a NP, btw. But I agree with the PP. Going to a top school matters or you're rolling the dice with your future. Heck, even Georgetown Law is iffy if the economy isn't firing on all cylinders.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Work a couple years first. Go to a T14 or go for free. If you don't have either of those options, don't go. For undergrad, fit is way more important than prestige; for law school, the reverse is true.

Darn. Those slackers at UCLA law school will be disappointed to learn that they made a big mistake in law school choice. 🙄

Please understand, it doesn’t make sense, but it’s true that the T14 places meaningfully better and more consistently than the rest. Facts are often eyeroll inducing but that doesn’t make them not facts.

UCLA specifically is a strong example of my point. The LA market is not particularly robust and UCLA kids have to battle against Berkeley and Stanford grads for those spots (along with all the Harvard and Yale kids who want that warm weather). A counter example is UTexas, because the Texas market is so strong and so faithful to UT.

And it doesn’t make it a “fact” just because you say it (twice).

If you're at the top of the class at UCLA, you'll likely be fine. If you're not in the top half (in a good economy) or the top 75% (in a bad economy), you very likely will never get a job that will pay enough for you to buy a house in California. Your loans will burden you for decades. You'll struggle with a JD that harms rather than improves your job prospects.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Work a couple years first. Go to a T14 or go for free. If you don't have either of those options, don't go. For undergrad, fit is way more important than prestige; for law school, the reverse is true.

Darn. Those slackers at UCLA law school will be disappointed to learn that they made a big mistake in law school choice. 🙄

Please understand, it doesn’t make sense, but it’s true that the T14 places meaningfully better and more consistently than the rest. Facts are often eyeroll inducing but that doesn’t make them not facts.

UCLA specifically is a strong example of my point. The LA market is not particularly robust and UCLA kids have to battle against Berkeley and Stanford grads for those spots (along with all the Harvard and Yale kids who want that warm weather). A counter example is UTexas, because the Texas market is so strong and so faithful to UT.

And it doesn’t make it a “fact” just because you say it (twice).

DD went to Columbia Law and first worked prosecuting people who abuse animals, then she went in house working for a cosmetics company (that doesn't test on animals - no surprise there).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He needs to research environmental law jobs and understand what that actually entails.

He has started that a bit.

Getting a government spot doing environmental law means you need to go to a top school and do well. Those jobs are filled with Harvard and Yale grads. You'll have an okay salary, but will be counting on the government forgiving your loans.

The other option is going into BigLaw and to defend companies in their quest to destroy the environment. You will be able to pay off your loans, but it isn't a job for a value-driven environmentalist.

If you can't get a prestigious federal job or get into Biglaw, if you are lucky, then you will make a subsistence wage filing petitions for local companies and individuals. More likely you won't get a legal job at all.

This was the observation I was going to make. If you work in Big Law -- which would be helpful to pay off law school loans -- you will wind up representing corporations who have committed toxic torts and need help to prevent paying bigger fines to the government or perhaps showing that the cleanup they have already performed is sufficient. The alterhative would be working for the government at EPA or for the state equivalent, where the salaries will be smaller. One other alternative is working at plaintiffs law firms who sue on behalf of citizens or state agencies who have experienced the environmental damage. I'm not sure whether the pay is better there than at the agencies themselves.

Who knows whether the environmental law landscape will change in the next few decades? But right now it's a little bit of a Catch 22 for folks without a lot of money who want to do good. If you're going to have huge student loans, you may be at the mercy of student loan forgiveness to get those loans paid off if you're going to have a job where you are in effect representing "the environment" rather than "the companies who are effing over the environment."