. Forum

[ManoftheHour]

I'm in a pretty similar boat as you (splitter, not getting T14 money, same Vandy scholly, not fooling myself into thinking Biglaw would be that great even if I could get it), and I'm not going. If I still want to go in a couple years, I might try retaking and see if an upper 170s score (right now low 170s) could get me in anywhere better. My GPA is way too low for HYS though, so it's probably not happening.

I think this really depends on what your alternatives are.... I'm in a similar boat as both of you, and I've talked to some other splitters on TLS about this, but I just can't see myself being happy with the alternatives. Accounting is an option but I know if I go that route I'll be wanting to end up in LS anyways. At this point, LS isn't getting any cheaper, employment is probably at the new "normal" so for a splitter its really now or never. I am lucky enough to have some savings but the thought of blowing it all on these ridiculous tuition rates is making me cringe.

+1. I honestly can't see myself happily doing anything else (other than say becoming a rock star or something absurd). I was thinking about accounting too but honestly, it'll only be a few years until I quit and reapply.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

I'm feeling similarly, which really frustrates me. I've worked in law in varying capacities, I want to be a lawyer, and I know that I would like it. However, there are tens of thousands of struggling attorneys desperate for work and no matter what field you go into (private or public), the market is absurdly over-saturated. I'm not sure of my chances at getting long-term employment even from a top school and given my lack of substantial scholarships, it's a scary future.

I mostly do feel like the field I want to go in to has been ruined by the greed of TTT administrators and the uninformed masses who attend those schools.

The economy generally is becoming hard for all knowledge professions, and only the most capable in these disciplines are rewarded. If you excel at the law you will find a job. However, the salaries are likely to at best plateau if not decline, so you need to minimize debt. If you don't do well on law exams you could be really screwed no matter where you attend.

[Lido997]

Making basically the exact same decision as you OP and I'd say I've hit the 50% chance I'm not going mark. Sadly, learning how rough things are right now has killed any excitement I had about going to law school and I kinda feel like that is making my decision for me.

[Iamnotworthy]

I don't think you're wrong OP. Sometimes I feel like we're the dumbest people alive for applying to law school despite all of the negativity and poor employment numbers. I'm sure if I strike out at OCI I'll be thinking back to these days and wondering why the heck I didn't listen.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

I don't think you're wrong OP. Sometimes I feel like we're the dumbest people alive for applying to law school despite all of the negativity and poor employment numbers. I'm sure if I strike out at OCI I'll be thinking back to these days and wondering why the heck I didn't listen.

The employment situation for lawyers is not worse than the general economy. The starting salary, even for non-biglaw, is much higher than 95+% of the general economy. The issue is the debt.

[throw-away-soon]

Personally I think ls kids a d bags and tools the majority of the time. I'm happy with staying in my region, and I got good money.

I like making $$$, but ill still be able to bake 15-20k during school, so I can pay out of pocket.

I was miserable bc my classmates were chodes. I want to go PI and get a Phd, I don't want big law. I want a living wage. I'd be good with 40-50k. It's plenty and I'd be able to easily pay off my loans. If you just want to make a lot of money in bogland, and you don't love law or want to serve people with your JD, beyond a lot on money, why bother? Do you think you'll be happy doing something you are doing mostly for the $?

Monster has a good article about t5 myths, 1 of which is you'll be happy as long as you make a killing.

Think about why you want to go. The only thing that's going to get me through is knowing ill be a me to work doing something I love, at little cost, in my ideal market. I hate big cities, prefer smaller or more conservative ones. I don't like NYC, Dc is okay on some parts. I say do what you love at a good price.

[Crowing]

.

[Eberry]

TCR? No. Not paying T14 at sticker is not TCR, I don't care what that one radlulz guy says.

Dead

I'm glad some finally called that radlolz guy out.

[rickgrimes69]

I've been on the road all day with nothing to do so have had this on my mind the whole time. There are a lot of interesting responses ITT - thanks for posting.

It seems like the primary concern for a lot of people concerns whether or not they think they can hit biglaw to justify heavy tuition. I'm honestly even more concerned about the amount of time I would be able to stay in biglaw, and the potential exit options from there (eventually to in-house or government positions).

Considering how important a legal career is personally is definitely important to me, and is a source of significant concern. I'm not really a type-A kind of person and dislike conflict generally (not saying I can't deal with it but that I don't get off on provoking it). I'm fairly confident that I will not enjoy litigation; however, transactional work and contracts, interpretation, negotiation, etc. are legitimately very interesting subjects to me. I also have a STEM bachelor's so IP is an option.

As far as viable alternatives to LS go, I honestly cannot see myself continuing any education with my STEM degree. It wasn't really a course of study I enjoyed; I've done some work related to it, and I pretty much despise scientific research.

My passion in UG was really for literature/language and my other degree, English. I actually had a 4.0 within that major (shouldn't have ever studied STEM lol). I have long been interested in getting a PhD in English, but as much as I would like that it just seems like a dead end that isn't going to provide real career opportunities.

I like the idea of going for one year for free and reevaluating from there, but as was already pointed out, I don't have that luxury. None of the four MO schools are going to give me a full-ride, and I don't have ties anywhere else. Moving to a state I've never lived in and racking up COL at a TTT even if tuition is free still seems like a bad choice.

Keeping in mind that deposit deadlines are not until April is credited advice. I'm not going to mass withdraw... yet. There's still a little more time to do more thinking and research.

This post made me think you might be right in not wanting to go.

Firstly, if you don't like conflict, Biglaw isn't for you. Prepare to yell at people / be yelled at, especially in NYC firms. This is especially true in litigation, but I would imagine transactional work has its fair share of screamers as well. And of course, sticker debt would basically require biglaw.

Seocnd, your STEM background gives you a pretty significant IP boost. But this is only really useful if you go into IP (obviously) and you indicated that you didn't really enjoy it. That sort of makes me think you wouldn't enjoy IP work either.

I would say maybe try working at a firm for a year as a paralegal and see if you like the environment and legal work. But definitely don't go if you have serious doubts. Law school will always be there and it's not like you're missing out on a great market or anything.

[Dr. Dre]

I'm glad some finally called that radlolz guy out.

it was a shiTTTy call out

[Crowing]

.

[rickgrimes69]

My understanding is that in-house positions are generally coveted and difficult to get for new grads. Corporations consider attorneys a necessary evil, and they aren't in the business of training newbies fresh out of school. They want somebody who has already attained the skills necessary to be an asset from day one.

What I have also been told is that transactional practice, specifically M&A, T&E, etc, are excellent segues into in-house work. You are probably more likely to have opportunities at big firms that will set you apart from the crowd when trying to make that transition. Biglaw simply gives you better exit options than many other post-grad jobs, and who doesn't want to be able to brag about their time at Cravath or whatever in an interview?

What type of STEM are you, by the way?

[pruufreadr]

What would your costs be for an English degree? The reason that I started considering law school was that I kept coming across information/ads for law school while I was researching grad school. For me, the first thing I discovered was that law school would be far less expensive. Now, I'm very excited about starting law school in the fall and eventually practicing law. Also, thanks to my law school visit, I am now also excited about assisting with legal writing.

If you are going back to school either way and cost will be a factor in the subject you study, get the costs for both--an English PhD isn't any more employable, and what are your chances for BigPublishing upon graduation?

[A. Nony Mouse]

Dear god, do not get a PhD in English. Unless you simply can't imagine doing anything else with your life (and even then, most of what you do in an English PhD program/with an English PhD bears very little relationship to studying lit as an undergrad). Because as much as people complain about the legal job market, the English PhD market is worse (there are way fewer jobs. The ones that exist pay shit and require you to be willing to go anywhere in the country. You will arguably get out of PhD school without debt - or without anything like law school debt - but the degree takes way longer and therefore you incur way more opportunity costs. Retooling to try to use your PhD for anything other than academia is worse than trying to convince employers that the JD is really a "versatile" degree. There is no such thing as BigPublishing, at least, not that cares about a PhD in English).

Sorry to hijack; just can't help myself when the PhD thing comes up.

[pruufreadr]

Dear god, do not get a PhD in English. Unless you simply can't imagine doing anything else with your life (and even then, most of what you do in an English PhD program/with an English PhD bears very little relationship to studying lit as an undergrad). Because as much as people complain about the legal job market, the English PhD market is worse (there are way fewer jobs. The ones that exist pay shit and require you to be willing to go anywhere in the country. You will arguably get out of PhD school without debt - or without anything like law school debt - but the degree takes way longer and therefore you incur way more opportunity costs. Retooling to try to use your PhD for anything other than academia is worse than trying to convince employers that the JD is really a "versatile" degree. There is no such thing as BigPublishing, at least, not that cares about a PhD in English).

Sorry to hijack; just can't help myself when the PhD thing comes up.

This was my intent. There is no BigPublishing, but there is more debt.

[Crowing]

.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Yeah, sorry, I was more responding to pruufreader, whom I don't appear to have read properly anyway, which should teach me not to post at the end of the week when I have no brain left...

[Tom Joad]

I don't have any advice. But you are cool and smart. Keep your chin up and don't let that rad lulz guy get you down.

That whatourbodiesarefor guy sent me some PMs I think would be funny if I understood what language they are in.

[WhatOurBodiesAreFor]

I'd really like to get to know you personally to see how seriously I should take your shit

Just a T14 law student, baby

What the fuck does that mean?

I'm not really sure what you asked

BURN

[banjo]

At a minimum, you can rule out PhD in English. Even with full tuition + stipend, which any respectable program will provide, that's a significantly worse option than what you have now. It will take up to three times as long as a JD for a 25% shot at a decent outcome (TT gig in the middle of nowhere). Honestly, sometimes I think T14 --> clerkship --> biglaw --> academic fellowship is a better and safer career trajectory into academia than a humanities PhD program. If you haven't seen it yet, check out http://chronicle.com/article/Graduate-S ... -the/44846

eta: Oh I see you're not seriously considering this. I'll leave this up for people visiting from the future.

[NYstate]

At a minimum, you can rule out PhD in English. Even with full tuition + stipend, which any respectable program will provide, that's a significantly worse option than what you have now. It will take up to three times as long as a JD for a 25% shot at a decent outcome (TT gig in the middle of nowhere). Honestly, sometimes I think T14 --> clerkship --> biglaw --> academic fellowship is a better and safer career trajectory into academia than a humanities PhD program. If you haven't seen it yet, check out http://chronicle.com/article/Graduate-S ... -the/44846

eta: Oh I see you're not seriously considering this. I'll leave this up for people visiting from the future.

(emphasis added)

As long as we are collecting information for the future, I want to say that the academic track into law seems to be not that safe. One problem is that once you leave a firm for academics, if you don't get a full time job in academics, you will have a hard time getting a job at a firm. You will be senior, without clients and have shown you don't want to practice law. With the impact of people getting smarter about not going ( the subject of this post) the jobs in academics are drying up.

Check out the faculty lounge blog:

Much as it may annoy a few people here:-

Schools offering VAPs are somewhat close to "trap schools" like American University offering incentives to get 1Ls in seats. Like it or not layoffs are coming - and junior professors (even tenured) will under most tenure rules take the brunt of the layoffs. Most VAPs have the credentials to survive as lawyers (more or less) and while they may not be enamoured of the possibility of actual practice, it is better than unemployment (Uh no. is right.)

Indeed, it may well be that after the shakeout and layoffs that are imminent law schools will want to see a level of practice experience on a tenure candidate's resumé than is currently considered excessive. Certainly many in the profession are pushing for 5+ and even 10+ actual practice experience to be the norm for faculties.

The typical VAP is someone who can go back to practice if things don't pan out."

Really? You think firms would be eager to hire someone who is probably a minimum of five years out of law school (clerkship plus two years practice plus two years VAP) but who likely has only very junior-level practice experience? Oh, and throw in that it's obvious that the only reason that the person is looking for a job is that s/he totally failed in an attempt to get a job in his/her preferred field (teaching) -- AND the person is probably a flight risk if the law school hiring market ever rebounds?

My guess is that firms won't want to touch failed VAPs with a ten foot pole. They'll either be able to beg and plead for the firm that they left to do a VAP to take them back, or they won't be able to practice law. Maybe the VAPs who had more substantial experience -- as in, 5+ years -- might have some success. Maybe.

I say this as someone in a similar-but-slightly-better situation. I'm not VAPing/fellowing, but I'm also doing a term-limited job. On the plus side, it's much less obvious that I am a failed academic job-seeker (for a couple of plausible reasons), and I have a good bit of meaningful practice experience. And still, a couple of recruiters have said something to the effect of "top 5 law school, federal clerkship, several years of impressive practice experience -- well, I might be able to get you a staff attorney job at a firm."

"I'm just hoping that, as Orin implies in his point (d), because I'm a relatively well-credentialed young[ish] lawyer (thought not a Supreme Court clerk by a long shot!), I'll be able to land on my feet."

Not to be debbie downer, but I'd urge you (and me, and anyone else in our boat) not to feel too overconfident that a sterling resume is going to make it easy to move back to practice. My resume is probably pretty standard academic job market fare -- good grades from a top school, clerkship, several years at an elite firm, several years doing interesting public sphere litigation, including a few cases that got national exposure (and lots of stuff that got regional exposure), lots of publications. When I realized that I probably need to go back to practice a few months ago, I sent it to a couple of recruiters that I know in my home market (a head hunter type and a firm recruiter) to gage what I should expect. Here's what they said:

Head hunter: You're too senior for firms to want you as a new associate, and you don't have any business to come in as a partner. You've also been away from private practice long enough for it to be a problem. Firms are going to think you won't be willing to bill 2200 hours again. They're also going to think that you'll get bored doing "normal" cases. Oh, and they're going to be concerned that you won't work well with partners who don't have your academic or professional credentials. I hate to break it to you, but if you have to stay in this market, you might need to start looking at staff attorney jobs. Maybe even non-doc review contract work.

Firm recruiter: Wow! That's the most impressive resume that I've seen in quite a while. You literally have everything that we say we want when we hire lateral associates or counsel. Just wow. But we totally wouldn't be interested. We hire midlevel associates with 4-5 years of experience. We take in partners with a book of business. We don't hire people that sort of fall in the middle of those two. You might see if some of the firms around town that have had higher-than-expected turnover over the past few years need any bodies.

http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2013/02 ... -trap.html

OP: sorry if I'm derailing here. Maybe I'm defensive because one of my best friends is getting a PhD in English with full stipend and she is very happy. Much happier than most law students. No idea how the job front will work out for her, but she has no debt and no living expenses now.

[romothesavior]

TCR? No. Not paying T14 at sticker is not TCR, I don't care what that one radlulz guy says.

Personally, I'd go. But that's because I'm psyched for it and it just feels right.

180, would lol again

[romothesavior]

Crowing, I think you should take another crack at WUSTL next year, and I think you're right that it was a bad idea to withdraw this year before you saw what kind of money you were looking at. I get your feelings on the LST report, it was really rough last year. Things are considerably better for the c/o 2012, and 2013 data is looking better than 2012 so far. And this is a bit of speculation, but I think things will be even better for classes after mine due to the huge shrink in class sizes.

No way is the school worth anywhere worth sticker, and you are wise to be debt averse. But for someone with strong STL ties, I think WUSTL is worth considerably more than it would be for someone from the coasts. If you could get your debt at around 100k or less, I think it would be worth considering.

[dr123]

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 0&t=192078

[Real Madrid]

Some of you people are so damn depressing. Yeah, the legal market sucks. We all know that. But some people on this board act as if we all have six-figure jobs on the table outside of law school when in reality we're looking at 35k jobs as insurance adjusters? Yes, the debt is scary, and yes, a good bit of self-reflection is necessary before entering into law school, but this "HYS with full aid or go become a used car salesman" shit is getting absurd. If you wanna get ahead in life, you're gonna have to take some risks.