The title is a bit misleading.  I’m going to go to law school no doubt about it, the questions I’m facing now are when and where.  Traditionally students begin law school directly after college.  This three year investment comes and goes quickly.  As we have seen in class recently, there will certainly be benefits to this using our methods of present value.  As my roommate Kevin would say, law school now is worth more than law school later.  However there are many other factors which will affect my decision.  This fall, I might not get the LSAT score I’m hoping for, leaving me with very few lucrative options later down the road.  Furthermore, there must be advantages to taking a year off: a year of work experience, a trip to Greece?  Needless to say, this is going to be a difficult decision.

Let’s first look at the finances.  Law school, no matter where you go, is expensive to the tune of approximately $200,000 when it’s all said and done.  The present value of law school starting in 2016 is less than the present value of starting in 2015, however that would also mean that I would miss out on a year of work after law school.  Assuming I work during that gap year, would the difference be justifiable?  Assuming I land a stellar job, above minimum wage, I expect to make roughly $11 an hour (fingers crossed).  Assuming I work 40 hours a week all 56 weeks in the year that comes to a nice $26,000.  That’s nice, though the “average salary” after graduation at my safety school, is $75,000 a year, and at some of my reach schools the average is much higher.  Doing a little math, generously I could invest at an interest rate of 5%.  That puts the PV of my first after law school year to be approximately $65,000.  That’s much greater than $26,000, thus it makes more sense on a simple financial level to go to law school directly.

What other opportunities would I have if I delayed my law school experience?  While I could work, as I have shown above, work is not going to be a key motivator.  Experience.  I’ve learned a lot going through Carleton, however I feel that many of my skills are quite limited. The ability to solve physics equations, the keen knack for writing blog posts, etc..  I think a year of work would allow me to focus more on my ability to critically read both books and people.  Every attorney I have spoken with has encouraged me to hone my ability to look at a person to make educated observations.  I’ve gotten quite good at this, though I could be much better.  Not only would this job make me a more qualified candidate for a JD program, but it would also propel me to a higher ranked spot in my class.  Both of these are desirable outcomes which come from this job.  Being that my I value skills far above money, I would have to say that the marginal utility of taking a job has increased significantly.

There are many other options which would be afforded to me by taking a year off.  I would be able to spend some more time in Nashville (my favorite place in the world).  I could travel to other counties or perhaps just around the United States.  Travel would be enjoyable, something that I have not been able to do at Carleton.  The more I consider travel after college, the more I’m turned off by the idea.  I don’t think I would be able to enjoy travel without enough finances to be able to not worry about money.

In conclusion, I’m sure law school is going to be the place for me and I’m certain that I want to go directly after I leave Carleton.  While there are many opportunities available to me if I decide to wait a year, I don’t think any of them will provide utility to me in the way that further education will.  Now there are some other considerations that I will need to make, but those are going to come far later down the road.

Now I will be the first to admit that I do not handle my finances appropriately, as most of my income goes directly into my restaurant/booze fund, however there is ultimately a method to the madness.  Let’s work from the ground up.  Nothing is more frustrating than running out of meals in a week and being forced to use one of your guest meals in order to eat sub-par cafeteria food.  Eating meals in the dining hall is just an unfortunate reality of living at college.  Ideally, twelve meals will be eaten every week in the dining hall, no more no less.  This leaves many meals left to eat in a week that the dining hall cannot cover.  More often than not is a combination of the week day breakfasts in combination with arbitrary weekend meals.  Furthermore, there are many nights when meals are required after the closing of Sayles.  While a quesadilla is fantastic for late night pigging out, it is terrible for promoting a productive evening.   While yes, the system is designed to promote the use of Dining Dollars in Sayles, the hours that Sayles operates often does not accommodate the working Carleton student, or at least myself.

To enlighten the readers of this blog, you can often find me at either Tandem Bagels or Blue Monday Coffee House Monday-Friday from 6:30am – 9:00am.  Unfortunately, Blue Mondays only takes US Dollars while Tandem takes either US Dollars or Schillers.  With no naturally occurring income of Schillers, it does not make sense for me to put money into this arbitrary currency to purchase bagels when US currency is accepted.  Regardless, I spend my own hard earned US Dollars on coffee and bagels.  However, in an ideal world would not spend my own finances on these commodities.  In fact, when my are incredibly stressed, these are the first to go.  However, what is important to note here is that the dining dollars, which are provided in the form of a large subsidy on a termly basis, are not useful in the purchase of items which they are designed to purchase.

Ultimately, I have determined that my finances would be better distributed if Dining Dollars were distributed as Schillers rather than some arbitrary currency.  We have talked a little about inferior goods over the course of this term, as college students we have to take these to heart, living on such meager incomes.  However, it is important too to look at inferior currencies which are designed to provide Carleton students with guaranteed currencies for food, when in fact they only constrain the average student.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303873604579493330157385004?mod=LS1

Amazon.com provides an excellent market to both suppliers and buyers of all sorts of goods.  Individuals can go to their website to purchase just about everything from rubber ducks to high tech computer parts.  What’s even more impressive is the selection Amazon gives its customers, offering competitive prices, essentially making every market a competitive market.  When a customer wants to purchase a laptop, for example, they go can go to amazon to find the one that suits their fancy.  However, once they have found this product, the product of their dreams, problems begin to occur.  These problems do not affect the customer, but rather affect the seller.

Manufacturers who sell directly on Amazon have to compete with third party sellers selling either the same product or a knock off of their product.  Often these knock offs come in the form of refurbished devices, or similar products with minor flaws.  These products are offered at a discounted price, often harming the sales of the original seller.  In a competitive market, if a company is able to produce at a lower marginal cost, then the company can make the same marginal profit while selling at below the average cost.  This is a problem for multiple reasons: customers are purchasing items which are inherently inferior to the product which they wish to purchase; companies which manufacture the product lose out on sales which they otherwise would have made; and manufacturers lose profit when they lower prices to meet knock off competition.

Another problem Amazon’s sales algorithms foster is the lack of priority for manufacturer products over the products of competitors.  Say for example, Hanz is selling sweaters on Amazon for £9.99.  Amazon will have a single website for Hanz’s sweaters, stating a description and that the product is made by Hanz.  Jeffrey, Hanz’s brother purchases in bulk 100 sweaters from Hanz for £8.99 and proceeds to sell them on Amazon for the price of £9.99.  Amazon, seeing that the sweaters from both Hanz and from Jeffrey are the same put the same bar-code on both supplies.  When a consumer purchases a Hanz sweater on Amazon, the warehouse facility picks a sweater from the stock that is most convenient for shipping to the customer.  Amazon does not prioritize the manufacturer, Hanz, over the third party Jeffrey.

How does this affect the market?  Many corporations, such as Johnson & Johnson have at times refused to sell to Amazon because of this very situation. By not prioritizing the manufacturer, Amazon makes a non-competitive market a competitive market.  Instead of having multiple producers create the same product, a single producer creates a unique product which is then sold by many other corporations.  Ultimately this leads to a more competitive market in what was a non-competitive field.  This not only lowers the profits for the manufacturer, but it also harms the customer by providing false information as to where their product is coming.  Many warranties and guarantees associated with products are lost when they transfer from manufacturer to middleman to consumer.