SMU, Iowa, SLU, or Loyola-Chicago?

[ilsox7]

So after taxes and such you would have $1,800 a month of $25K/year. $100K in student loan debt is around another $800. So that leaves you with about a grand for everything else (rent, food, transportation, etc.). Yes, that's doable but that's not much of a life, is it?

I meant the 25K per year for people not having any/much debt.  It may be difficult starting out, but I know plenty of folks who moved up here after college and did just that.

Also, someone making $25K a year will not take home $1,800 a month after taxes and benefits and whatnot.  It will be less than that by a considerable amount (especially if there is a state income tax).  I'd count on monthly take-home being closer to $1,600.

[vap]

SMU or Iowa.  Neither would be a great option if you're paying full price.  At least at Iowa you could possibly get a research assitant position as a 2L and 3L, which would qualify you for resident tuition (roughly $18,000 this year, probably more for you).

SMU probably has better job prospects.  Check salaries at ILRG or talk to the schools directly.

To decide between these schools, I'd say go to the cheapest if all else is equal to you.

[wustl3l]

I have no idea what the point of this or your original response is. My whole point is to be very mindful of debt because even if you don't want biglaw you may be forced into it because you cannot afford your loans otherwise. This is especially true if you want/have to live in a relatively expensive city like Chicago.

So after taxes and such you would have $1,800 a month of $25K/year. $100K in student loan debt is around another $800. So that leaves you with about a grand for everything else (rent, food, transportation, etc.). Yes, that's doable but that's not much of a life, is it?

I meant the 25K per year for people not having any/much debt.  It may be difficult starting out, but I know plenty of folks who moved up here after college and did just that.

Also, someone making $25K a year will not take home $1,800 a month after taxes and benefits and whatnot.  It will be less than that by a considerable amount (especially if there is a state income tax).  I'd count on monthly take-home being closer to $1,600.

[ilsox7]

I have no idea what the point of this or your original response is. My whole point is to be very mindful of debt because even if you don't want biglaw you may be forced into it because you cannot afford your loans otherwise. This is especially true if you want/have to live in a relatively expensive city like Chicago.

Uh, the point is that you said it may be impossible to live on an annual salary of 60K in Chicago with a lot of debt.  I was simply pointing out that it is very possible to live in Chicago with either a salary of 60K and a lot of debt or a much lower salary and no debt.  Nobody would argue that debt load plays a role in the type of job people want and the location, but your statement about the plausibility of living in Chicago was incorrect. 

[1s2io72]

plausibility of living in Chicago was incorrect. 

I doubt the exact numbers were the point of the response. 

[ilsox7]

plausibility of living in Chicago was incorrect. 

I doubt the exact numbers were the point of the response. 

That's great and all, but I was simply pointing out that what was posted was incorrect.  I don't see what the big deal is here.  I am not ripping anybody or anything.  I am just saying that while debt certainly is a consideration, you can actually live in this city on much less than most people would think.  That's it.  So if someone really wants to live in Chicago, they shouldn't be scared away by the fact that their take-home pay (after taxes and loans) is relatively low.

[wustl3l]

You fail to see the forest (the fact that yes, it is possible to live in Chicago on $60K but it would be fairly miserable and why would you subject yourself to that in light of the other options that the OP has) for the trees (getting caught up in trying to prove that you're right).

plausibility of living in Chicago was incorrect. 

I doubt the exact numbers were the point of the response. 

That's great and all, but I was simply pointing out that what was posted was incorrect.  I don't see what the big deal is here.  I am not ripping anybody or anything.  I am just saying that while debt certainly is a consideration, you can actually live in this city on much less than most people would think.  That's it.  So if someone really wants to live in Chicago, they shouldn't be scared away by the fact that their take-home pay (after taxes and loans) is relatively low.