Law School or Not? Forum

[AreJay711]

Well in this job market most majors are fucked, so it's kind of a moot point.

But pre-law just seems unnecessary. Why not study something else you're interested in?

I'm a double in Hist/Poly Sci. for the record.

I will say that my friends in the 'hard sciences' have a pretty good outlook right now- if they can get into med school.

Most majors aren't in bad shape, just most people in most majors. It is no different for undergrad than it is for law school.

[Noval]

If you want to make money - go be an investment banker or something.

Bullshit, Investment Bankers do not make Bank since 2006 now + working 120 hours/week for shit base salary, decreasing bonus and the privilege to deal with your VP's daughter PMS problems stopped to be appealing as soon as banks stopped paying 150% Bonuses and Incentives to their 22 years old Analysts.


OT:

My advice is:

Risky way: Join a no name Law School with these stats, do everything to get a scholarship and start networking as soon as possible, talk to everyone, knock everybody's door, it works even if you're not from a T-14, but there's also a chance that you may fuck up.


Safe way: Focus on Accounting, good career prospects and anyone can hire you with a low GPA due to demand, + salary is stable when you get your MBA and when you hit Senior, your salary will be enough to live a very decent life.

[ResolutePear]

If you want to make money - go be an investment banker or something.

Bullshit, Investment Bankers do not make Bank since 2006 now + working 120 hours/week for shit base salary, decreasing bonus and the privilege to deal with your VP's daughter PMS problems stopped to be appealing as soon as banks stopped paying 150% Bonuses and Incentives to their 22 years old Analysts.


OT:

My advice is:

Risky way: Join a no name Law School with these stats, do everything to get a scholarship and start networking as soon as possible, talk to everyone, knock everybody's door, it works even if you're not from a T-14, but there's also a chance that you may fuck up.


Safe way: Focus on Accounting, good career prospects and anyone can hire you with a low GPA due to demand, + salary is stable when you get your MBA and when you hit Senior, your salary will be enough to live a very decent life.

This is such horrible advice on so many levels.

I'll elaborate:
Risky Way: Yeah, this is Florida Coastal's same logic.

Safe Way: Yeah, you still need a good school + good GPA because you need to do 30 more credits to sit for a CPA exam. I swear I'll cut you if you say you don't need a CPA license. Oh, and forget getting hired by the Big4.

[Noval]

If you want to make money - go be an investment banker or something.

Bullshit, Investment Bankers do not make Bank since 2006 now + working 120 hours/week for shit base salary, decreasing bonus and the privilege to deal with your VP's daughter PMS problems stopped to be appealing as soon as banks stopped paying 150% Bonuses and Incentives to their 22 years old Analysts.


OT:

My advice is:

Risky way: Join a no name Law School with these stats, do everything to get a scholarship and start networking as soon as possible, talk to everyone, knock everybody's door, it works even if you're not from a T-14, but there's also a chance that you may fuck up.


Safe way: Focus on Accounting, good career prospects and anyone can hire you with a low GPA due to demand, + salary is stable when you get your MBA and when you hit Senior, your salary will be enough to live a very decent life.

This is such horrible advice on so many levels.

I'll elaborate:
Risky Way: Yeah, this is Florida Coastal's same logic.

Safe Way: Yeah, you still need a good school + good GPA because you need to do 30 more credits to sit for a CPA exam. I swear I'll cut you if you say you don't need a CPA license. Oh, and forget getting hired by the Big4.

Yeah yeah, you're right about the CPA requirement, but we are not talking about Finance grads that have to keep 3.8 and above at top schools to get decent jobs since it's saturated for them as well.

We're talking about Accounting students that deal with a better job market and similar salaries pretty much everywhere at the junior level.
You do NOT need to go to a Top school and get a top notch GPA to get a decent Accounting job.

Concerning the Big 4, it's over rated, not even to the BigLaw's level regarding salaries.
Big 4 Associates start at 60-75k year and work shit hours, get treated like shit and have to be part time coffee boys until they make Partner, if they do not make Partner, they either stay, get a slightly better salary and work the same shit hours, or leave with no real achievement on their record and have to start all over again outside the Big 4 market, don't come up with the "Prestige" that Big 4 give's, if you left the company, the place you apply at will know that you left for a reason, being a total suck up at the job is one of them that is recognized first most of the time.

Getting a job there is not "impressive" and working for Small/Medium/Large companies straight out school offers better opportunities for advancement and you won't have to do 25 more hours of overtime a week to sum up your 50 hours base at some Big 4 like Deloitte or KPMG, even though salary is lower at than Big 4 at lower levels, but you'll also have a lot less debts than let's say, Law grads.

[ResolutePear]

If you want to make money - go be an investment banker or something.

Bullshit, Investment Bankers do not make Bank since 2006 now + working 120 hours/week for shit base salary, decreasing bonus and the privilege to deal with your VP's daughter PMS problems stopped to be appealing as soon as banks stopped paying 150% Bonuses and Incentives to their 22 years old Analysts.


OT:

My advice is:

Risky way: Join a no name Law School with these stats, do everything to get a scholarship and start networking as soon as possible, talk to everyone, knock everybody's door, it works even if you're not from a T-14, but there's also a chance that you may fuck up.


Safe way: Focus on Accounting, good career prospects and anyone can hire you with a low GPA due to demand, + salary is stable when you get your MBA and when you hit Senior, your salary will be enough to live a very decent life.

This is such horrible advice on so many levels.

I'll elaborate:
Risky Way: Yeah, this is Florida Coastal's same logic.

Safe Way: Yeah, you still need a good school + good GPA because you need to do 30 more credits to sit for a CPA exam. I swear I'll cut you if you say you don't need a CPA license. Oh, and forget getting hired by the Big4.

Yeah yeah, you're right about the CPA requirement, but we are not talking about Finance grads that have to keep 3.8 and above at top schools to get decent jobs since it's saturated for them as well.

We're talking about Accounting students that deal with a better job market and similar salaries pretty much everywhere at the junior level.
You do NOT need to go to a Top school and get a top notch GPA to get a decent Accounting job.

Concerning the Big 4, it's over rated, not even to the BigLaw's level regarding salaries.
Big 4 Associates start at 60-75k year and work shit hours, get treated like shit and have to be part time coffee boys until they make Partner, if they do not make Partner, they either stay, get a slightly better salary and work the same shit hours, or leave with no real achievement on their record and have to start all over again outside the Big 4 market, don't come up with the "Prestige" that Big 4 give's, if you left the company, the place you apply at will know that you left for a reason, being a total suck up at the job is one of them that is recognized first most of the time.

Getting a job there is not "impressive" and working for Small/Medium/Large companies straight out school offers better opportunities for advancement and you won't have to do 25 more hours of overtime a week to sum up your 50 hours base at some Big 4 like Deloitte or KPMG, even though salary is lower at than Big 4 at lower levels, but you'll also have a lot less debts than let's say, Law grads.

The goal to landing a big 4 is not the salary. It's about the exit options. Corporations look for ex-Big4 accountants, saying that they'd prefer fresh grads is just B.S..

You can work at smaller companies, but your pay will suck unless you lateral into management within the company.

The reason why the accounting market *seems* "better" is because there really isn't a distinction that you'd get with paralegal vs. lawyer. Whether you're an auditor or a bookkeeper, you are counted as an accountant with a job.

[TheTallOne0602]

Despite some of the vitriol, this has been a relatively educational thread.

But if anyone here thinks that the list of majors+average LSATs definitively shows which majors help you prepare for the LSAT, god help you in law school. Even as a correlation those numbers are basically nonsense, much less as a causal relationship. There are so many third variables that could be throwing them off, the most obvious of which being that dumber people are more likely to do easier majors, and then do poorly on the LSAT. Or, it doesn't even have to be dumber: some people think more logically, others less so (they might make up for it with creativity or memory skills; they might not). Those who think more logically are attracted to the sciences, math, econ, and so forth. They then proceed to do well on the LSAT. This does not in ANY WAY show that those majors help you with the LSAT.

If you want to do anthropology, do freaking anthropology.

[ResolutePear]

Despite some of the vitriol, this has been a relatively educational thread.

But if anyone here thinks that the list of majors+average LSATs definitively shows which majors help you prepare for the LSAT, god help you in law school. Even as a correlation those numbers are basically nonsense, much less as a causal relationship. There are so many third variables that could be throwing them off, the most obvious of which being that dumber people are more likely to do easier majors, and then do poorly on the LSAT. Or, it doesn't even have to be dumber: some people think more logically, others less so (they might make up for it with creativity or memory skills; they might not). Those who think more logically are attracted to the sciences, math, econ, and so forth. They then proceed to do well on the LSAT. This does not in ANY WAY show that those majors help you with the LSAT.

If you want to do anthropology, do freaking anthropology.

People aren't born with Analytical skills. They need to develop them. Without a major that develops those skills in a structured sense, you won't have them. If you can't figure out elementary things like, "Jane leaves out meat the night before and in the morning there are maggots on the meat. The next night, Jane leaves the meat in the fridge and it does not have maggots in the morning. Knowing these facts, what would happen if Jane leaves the meat outside during the day?"

[Noval]

The goal to landing a big 4 is not the salary. It's about the exit options. Corporations look for ex-Big4 accountants, saying that they'd prefer fresh grads is just B.S..

You can work at smaller companies, but your pay will suck unless you lateral into management within the company.

The reason why the accounting market *seems* "better" is because there really isn't a distinction that you'd get with paralegal vs. lawyer. Whether you're an auditor or a bookkeeper, you are counted as an accountant with a job.

False, Big 4 doesn't have "amazing" exit opportunities as the big jobs in big companies are either taken or hidden, you have to network by yourself, having a Deloitte title on your record will not get you a job.Some of these positions often require 7-8 years of experience, an MBA from a decent school and Investment Banking/Management Consulting experience will definitely help but it's not a must.Networking within the big firm won't help you as well, Partners do hate career-jumpers.

If i used this logic i would say that if you study 900 hours to get your CFA, you will stand a higher chance to land an Associate position at Goldman Sachs, but in reality, you can use these 900 hours to get call interviews and eventually end up with 800-900 contacts ready to help you get a job rather than a single line in your CV that your employer takes less than 30 seconds to read before he throws it in the garbage.

[TheTallOne0602]

Despite some of the vitriol, this has been a relatively educational thread.

But if anyone here thinks that the list of majors+average LSATs definitively shows which majors help you prepare for the LSAT, god help you in law school. Even as a correlation those numbers are basically nonsense, much less as a causal relationship. There are so many third variables that could be throwing them off, the most obvious of which being that dumber people are more likely to do easier majors, and then do poorly on the LSAT. Or, it doesn't even have to be dumber: some people think more logically, others less so (they might make up for it with creativity or memory skills; they might not). Those who think more logically are attracted to the sciences, math, econ, and so forth. They then proceed to do well on the LSAT. This does not in ANY WAY show that those majors help you with the LSAT.

If you want to do anthropology, do freaking anthropology.

People aren't born with Analytical skills. They need to develop them. Without a major that develops those skills in a structured sense, you won't have them. If you can't figure out elementary things like, "Jane leaves out meat the night before and in the morning there are maggots on the meat. The next night, Jane leaves the meat in the fridge and it does not have maggots in the morning. Knowing these facts, what would happen if Jane leaves the meat outside during the day?"

I think you are putting way too much stock into college. It is not the only place you learn, nor is it the most important. If you are actually passionate about something, you will develop skills as you go along; I know that I, personally, developed much of my arguing and statistical knowledge through an avid interest in baseball.

But really, my main point was that some people will be better at these things, period. They are more likely to go in the math, science, etc. direction. But this doesn't mean they would not have developed these skills otherwise.

[ResolutePear]

Despite some of the vitriol, this has been a relatively educational thread.

But if anyone here thinks that the list of majors+average LSATs definitively shows which majors help you prepare for the LSAT, god help you in law school. Even as a correlation those numbers are basically nonsense, much less as a causal relationship. There are so many third variables that could be throwing them off, the most obvious of which being that dumber people are more likely to do easier majors, and then do poorly on the LSAT. Or, it doesn't even have to be dumber: some people think more logically, others less so (they might make up for it with creativity or memory skills; they might not). Those who think more logically are attracted to the sciences, math, econ, and so forth. They then proceed to do well on the LSAT. This does not in ANY WAY show that those majors help you with the LSAT.

If you want to do anthropology, do freaking anthropology.

People aren't born with Analytical skills. They need to develop them. Without a major that develops those skills in a structured sense, you won't have them. If you can't figure out elementary things like, "Jane leaves out meat the night before and in the morning there are maggots on the meat. The next night, Jane leaves the meat in the fridge and it does not have maggots in the morning. Knowing these facts, what would happen if Jane leaves the meat outside during the day?"

I think you are putting way too much stock into college. It is not the only place you learn, nor is it the most important. If you are actually passionate about something, you will develop skills as you go along; I know that I, personally, developed much of my arguing and statistical knowledge through an avid interest in baseball.

But really, my main point was that some people will be better at these things, period. They are more likely to go in the math, science, etc. direction. But this doesn't mean they would not have developed these skills otherwise.

It seriously dumbfounds me how you can say that too much stock is put into college. Aren't you in or planning to go to law school? How the hell are you supposed to get this "real world knowledge" which is magnitudes more important than law school but unavailable without a JD?

Even skipping that - let's say you were to go into constitutional law(yeah, I know, a stretch), where are you supposed to learn "the science of law"? Going to go read 200 years of jurisprudence and reinvent the wheel?

[nStiver]

Pear. I still want to know how much weed you smoke and how often.

[TheTallOne0602]

Despite some of the vitriol, this has been a relatively educational thread.

But if anyone here thinks that the list of majors+average LSATs definitively shows which majors help you prepare for the LSAT, god help you in law school. Even as a correlation those numbers are basically nonsense, much less as a causal relationship. There are so many third variables that could be throwing them off, the most obvious of which being that dumber people are more likely to do easier majors, and then do poorly on the LSAT. Or, it doesn't even have to be dumber: some people think more logically, others less so (they might make up for it with creativity or memory skills; they might not). Those who think more logically are attracted to the sciences, math, econ, and so forth. They then proceed to do well on the LSAT. This does not in ANY WAY show that those majors help you with the LSAT.

If you want to do anthropology, do freaking anthropology.

People aren't born with Analytical skills. They need to develop them. Without a major that develops those skills in a structured sense, you won't have them. If you can't figure out elementary things like, "Jane leaves out meat the night before and in the morning there are maggots on the meat. The next night, Jane leaves the meat in the fridge and it does not have maggots in the morning. Knowing these facts, what would happen if Jane leaves the meat outside during the day?"

I think you are putting way too much stock into college. It is not the only place you learn, nor is it the most important. If you are actually passionate about something, you will develop skills as you go along; I know that I, personally, developed much of my arguing and statistical knowledge through an avid interest in baseball.

But really, my main point was that some people will be better at these things, period. They are more likely to go in the math, science, etc. direction. But this doesn't mean they would not have developed these skills otherwise.

It seriously dumbfounds me how you can say that too much stock is put into college. Aren't you in or planning to go to law school? How the hell are you supposed to get this "real world knowledge" which is magnitudes more important than law school but unavailable without a JD?

Even skipping that - let's say you were to go into constitutional law(yeah, I know, a stretch), where are you supposed to learn "the science of law"? Going to go read 200 years of jurisprudence and reinvent the wheel?

I do not even understand your first paragraph. Are you saying that college bestows upon its students "real world knowledge"?

As far as learning how to be a lawyer, I assume I'll do that in Law School. Not sure why I would think otherwise.

But again, my point was not that I disagree with the premise that certain majors prepare you for the LSAT more effectively. I am sure some do. But simply looking at a list of which majors did better on the LSAT has almost no bearing on that (possible) reality. There are a million things that could confound this even as a correlation, much less a causal link. What is so controversial or hard to understand about that?

[ResolutePear]

Pear. I still want to know how much weed you smoke and how often.

Perhaps my body weight every couple hours or so.

Oh, I also eat shittons of this: