MBA vs JD Forum

[panther2k]

but my LSAT would be above the 75th percentile.

I don't want to be a dick, but are you assuming you'll get a 176+ LSAT? That's quite an assumption. As a rule, I never believe anyone will do that well until they actually do, but whatever.

Are you asking about a JD/MBA (4 years), or doing an MBA and applying to another JD program (5 years). If it's the former, you'll probably have a slight boost if you're already in the MBA program. If the latter, it will probably be treated as a soft.

Woah, woah, woah... since when has a 176 been 75th percentile?

Check yah facts again buddy. 75th is around a 158. While of course nothing is certain, I think that a 160 is probably a fair score assumption for him to make.

He said 75th percentile in the context of Harvard caliber schools. So he is saying around 176.

Yep, this is what I meant.

Thanks for your thoughts, guys.

[panther2k]

One more thing, if I'm four years out of school would I still need to submit an academic LOR or could I just substitute professional ones?

[englawyer]

One more thing, if I'm four years out of school would I still need to submit an academic LOR or could I just substitute professional ones?

i would try to do a minimum of one academic. thankfully for law schools, the recommender can just submit a single generic letter and it works for all schools (unlike MBA). academic success is still the primary criteria for law schools, so no academic LOR could be a no-no.

i did one academic, one professional (I have been out of undergrad for 5 years) and managed to get into a couple great places so far.

if you are in undergrad, try to line it up now; then you can ask that prof to submit the letter when the time comes

[panther2k]

One more thing, if I'm four years out of school would I still need to submit an academic LOR or could I just substitute professional ones?

i would try to do a minimum of one academic. thankfully for law schools, the recommender can just submit a single generic letter and it works for all schools (unlike MBA). academic success is still the primary criteria for law schools, so no academic LOR could be a no-no.

i did one academic, one professional (I have been out of undergrad for 5 years) and managed to get into a couple great places so far.

if you are in undergrad, try to line it up now; then you can ask that prof to submit the letter when the time comes

What's your WE look like? I just checked your law acceptances and it looks like you're doing great there, are you having the same success with b-schools?

[englawyer]

PMed

[echoi]

LOL - I almost feel bad, but get ready people, for this is an instance where even the preface of epic wouldn't adequately frame the subsequent fail above. The poster above obviously used the term "obviously" to express his obvious understanding of what he thought was obvious. Unfortunately, you failed to consider that generality is sometimes used by a person in a position of elevated expertise in order to prevent alienating people through the use of detailed esoterica. Part of my 7+ years of financial services/investment experience involved working for an investment firm; we had roughly 100 million under management. Heard of triple-leveraged ETF's? (one of my favorite instruments at the time that I did exceedingly well with) In any case, I just had to point out that your experience radar is retardedly off - perhaps in the future you should consider the possibility that not all others are as green as you are at life. Cheers.

what a douchey sentence

It may have been a bit self-indulgent, but I wouldn't go so far as douchey. You have responded with douchey posts as well - here's on in particular:

Touche?

you searched through my posts...and countered by quoting my post in a doppelganger thread? you are douchetasticly stupid.

[MichelFoucault]

.

[KansasSplitter]

LOL - I almost feel bad, but get ready people, for this is an instance where even the preface of epic wouldn't adequately frame the subsequent fail above. The poster above obviously used the term "obviously" to express his obvious understanding of what he thought was obvious. Unfortunately, you failed to consider that generality is sometimes used by a person in a position of elevated expertise in order to prevent alienating people through the use of detailed esoterica. Part of my 7+ years of financial services/investment experience involved working for an investment firm; we had roughly 100 million under management. Heard of triple-leveraged ETF's? (one of my favorite instruments at the time that I did exceedingly well with) In any case, I just had to point out that your experience radar is retardedly off - perhaps in the future you should consider the possibility that not all others are as green as you are at life. Cheers.

Not to be too big of a dick, but I personally manage an amount similar to what your entire firm had under management (I doubt I'm going out on a limb by assuming that $70-80 million now is comparable to or exceeds the amount that $100 million at your chop shop dwindled down to after the collapse).

People here should not be wildly impressed by this dollar amount. This hardly makes you an expert on hedge funds. Did your 3 or 4 broker independent investment firm even have access to hedge funds? Were you licensed to solicit them? Highly doubtful with that paltry amount of assets and since you were obviously a junior member of the group.

Just because you had some sort of discretionary trading platform where you traded triple-leveraged ETF's does not make you a rocket scientist, nor an expert on hedge funds. The inference, in fact, is laughable. Joe Blow on Main Street USA has access to triple leveraged ETF's in his Scottrade account.

If people reading this thread want to work at a hedge fund, look at the qualifications of those who currently work at one. The credentials and skills sets they seek are very specific, and so are the educational pedigrees.

[legalnoeagle]

Like englawyer, I am also 5 years out of undergrad, and I debated applying to business school in 2008-2009 before ultimately deciding that I wanted to work in securities/corporate law before transitioning back to finance. I think what's getting lost in this debate is the frequency with which these kinds of career moves happen. It's quite common to land in "big banking" from "big law" (there are tons of Goldman MDs who formerly worked at Cravath, for example).

People are also failing to realize that the most successful ibankers reach this status because they have a rolodex of CEOs, CFOs, etc that they can pitch ideas to. At a certain level, the job description literally becomes a sales/relationship management role. An easy way to develop these connections is by being the "smart guy" (bankers expect lawyers to have all the answers) on a conference call or chain of e-mail correspondence.

I have friends in HBS and GSB, and although they managed to find jobs, they didn't seem too thrilled with the process or the outcomes. Hiring in investment banking has in fact picked up, but unless you have prior experience in finance or consulting, you don't stand a snowball's chance in hell. Hiring in consulting is suffering from the glut of former ibankers who cannot find suitable P/E opportunities yet do not want to return to the jobs they had before business school. Private equity is probably slowest of all, which is a combination of a number of things, not the least of which is the general difficulty of securing leverage, the pitiful performance of completed deals in 2008-2009, or the impending tax levy on "carried interest".

In fact, I know of two particular cases where 2nd year b-school students are interviewing with firms they turned down a few years ago, because there simply aren't that many jobs available.

[englawyer]

Like englawyer, I am also 5 years out of undergrad, and I debated applying to business school in 2008-2009 before ultimately deciding that I wanted to work in securities/corporate law before transitioning back to finance. I think what's getting lost in this debate is the frequency with which these kinds of career moves happen. It's quite common to land in "big banking" from "big law" (there are tons of Goldman MDs who formerly worked at Cravath, for example).

People are also failing to realize that the most successful ibankers reach this status because they have a rolodex of CEOs, CFOs, etc that they can pitch ideas to. At a certain level, the job description literally becomes a sales/relationship management role. An easy way to develop these connections is by being the "smart guy" (bankers expect lawyers to have all the answers) on a conference call or chain of e-mail correspondence.

I have friends in HBS and GSB, and although they managed to find jobs, they didn't seem too thrilled with the process or the outcomes. Hiring in investment banking has in fact picked up, but unless you have prior experience in finance or consulting, you don't stand a snowball's chance in hell. Hiring in consulting is suffering from the glut of former ibankers who cannot find suitable P/E opportunities yet do not want to return to the jobs they had before business school. Private equity is probably slowest of all, which is a combination of a number of things, not the least of which is the general difficulty of securing leverage, the pitiful performance of completed deals in 2008-2009, or the impending tax levy on "carried interest".

In fact, I know of two particular cases where 2nd year b-school students are interviewing with firms they turned down a few years ago, because there simply aren't that many jobs available.

great post legalnoeagle. this makes me pretty confident about going for the JD over an MBA, as I do not have any banking/finance/consulting experience on my resume, so it might be hard to make the switch through an MBA in this economy.

[badfish]

Getting an MBA is a lot like joining a frat that charges 40k dues every year. At least a JD will teach you a new skill, some might even call it a useful one.

[MichelFoucault]

Getting an MBA is a lot like joining a frat that charges 40k dues every year. At least a JD will teach you a new skill, some might even call it a useful one.

same could be said of accounting. But I don't see that as a reason to favor an accounting degree over an MBA.

[smartblonde87]

Just get a dual JD/MBA. An extra year and you get both.

[pierce_and_pierce]

Just get a dual JD/MBA. An extra year and you get both.

Its not that simple. There's a lot of money and time spent to get both, so you really have to assess the usefulness of getting the dual degree and whether its worth the investment, especially since the legal and business markets are in the shitter right now.

[APimpNamedSlickback]

Just get a dual JD/MBA. An extra year and you get both.

Its not that simple. There's a lot of money and time spent to get both, so you really have to assess the usefulness of getting the dual degree and whether its worth the investment, especially since the legal and business markets are in the shitter right now.

how, exactly, did paul owen get the fisher account. this is relevant to my interests.

[09042014]

Just get a dual JD/MBA. An extra year and you get both.

Its not that simple. There's a lot of money and time spent to get both, so you really have to assess the usefulness of getting the dual degree and whether its worth the investment, especially since the legal and business markets are in the shitter right now.

how, exactly, did paul owen get the fisher account. this is relevant to my interests.

I know expect you to stay in character all the time.

[reasonabledoubt]

LOL - I almost feel bad, but get ready people, for this is an instance where even the preface of epic wouldn't adequately frame the subsequent fail above. The poster above obviously used the term "obviously" to express his obvious understanding of what he thought was obvious. Unfortunately, you failed to consider that generality is sometimes used by a person in a position of elevated expertise in order to prevent alienating people through the use of detailed esoterica. Part of my 7+ years of financial services/investment experience involved working for an investment firm; we had roughly 100 million under management. Heard of triple-leveraged ETF's? (one of my favorite instruments at the time that I did exceedingly well with) In any case, I just had to point out that your experience radar is retardedly off - perhaps in the future you should consider the possibility that not all others are as green as you are at life. Cheers.

Not to be too big of a dick, but I personally manage an amount similar to what your entire firm had under management (I doubt I'm going out on a limb by assuming that $70-80 million now is comparable to or exceeds the amount that $100 million at your chop shop dwindled down to after the collapse).

People here should not be wildly impressed by this dollar amount. This hardly makes you an expert on hedge funds. Did your 3 or 4 broker independent investment firm even have access to hedge funds? Were you licensed to solicit them? Highly doubtful with that paltry amount of assets and since you were obviously a junior member of the group.

Just because you had some sort of discretionary trading platform where you traded triple-leveraged ETF's does not make you a rocket scientist, nor an expert on hedge funds. The inference, in fact, is laughable. Joe Blow on Main Street USA has access to triple leveraged ETF's in his Scottrade account.

If people reading this thread want to work at a hedge fund, look at the qualifications of those who currently work at one. The credentials and skills sets they seek are very specific, and so are the educational pedigrees.

It's probably not worth explaining b/c it doesn't add much to the thread, but regarding the above, I think you both took too many liberties with your inferences/deductions. I never said I worked for a hedge fund. See above. After reading the privacy/datamining thread, I'm not going to reveal too much, but it was investment related. Also, part of the reason I'm so driven to study/work in law is due to what I experienced/witnessed all around me. Anyways, without getting into too much detail, I think both of you made FAR too many assumptions. If you want details, maybe PM me, but you'll have to realize the absurdity of relying too heavily on whatever assumptions you might have made from my original post.

By the way, you personally are managing 80 million and are going to law school? You're making over half a mil/year right? Umm.... ok. Maybe I'm missing something there as well.

[smartblonde87]

Just get a dual JD/MBA. An extra year and you get both.

Its not that simple. There's a lot of money and time spent to get both, so you really have to assess the usefulness of getting the dual degree and whether its worth the investment, especially since the legal and business markets are in the shitter right now.

I just disagree. I think one year extra of time to get another graduate degree is worth it. If you're already spending x, .33x more is not a big deal. But those are my priorities... Simple answer. JD/MBA 2014!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[smartblonde87]

Just get a dual JD/MBA. An extra year and you get both.

Its not that simple. There's a lot of money and time spent to get both, so you really have to assess the usefulness of getting the dual degree and whether its worth the investment, especially since the legal and business markets are in the shitter right now.

how, exactly, did paul owen get the fisher account. this is relevant to my interests.

lol

[badfish]

Getting an MBA is a lot like joining a frat that charges 40k dues every year. At least a JD will teach you a new skill, some might even call it a useful one.

same could be said of accounting. But I don't see that as a reason to favor an accounting degree over an MBA.

Unless you're going to a top 5 business program a masters in accounting (or even a CPA) will pull more weight for you than an MBA will.

Sorry.

[MichelFoucault]

Getting an MBA is a lot like joining a frat that charges 40k dues every year. At least a JD will teach you a new skill, some might even call it a useful one.

same could be said of accounting. But I don't see that as a reason to favor an accounting degree over an MBA.

Unless you're going to a top 5 business program a masters in accounting (or even a CPA) will pull more weight for you than an MBA will.

Sorry.

This is true. I was assuming that we are talking about top programs.

[icpb]

I think the best path is: 1. go to Wharton (or a top UG and focus on business/economics/finance) for undergrad 2. if you can get 3.9+ (extremely hard) and 175+ (extremely hard), go to HYS for your JD 3. profit (straight to private equity, Goldman, JPM, etc. as associate in M&A, or McKinsey). The combination of a JD and a business mind is powerful because it enables you to understand how to set unreasonably high goals, how to think outside of the box to accomplish high goals, and to devise exit strategies in case of under-performance.

The downside to a MBA is that it's likely that you will spend 2 years as an analysts in finance/consulting (90-110 hour weeks aren't fun; 90-110 hour weeks >>>>> 60-80 hour weeks in BigLaw). Although I haven't met many MBA's from HBS/Stanford, but I know quite a few from Wharton, and their thinking ability is nothing special especially after factoring their age and amount of work experience they have.

In my view:
HYS JD = HBS/Stanford MBA > Columbia/UChicago JD = Wharton MBA > NYU JD = Kellogg/Sloan/Booth MBA ...

[justbubbles]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3FTaljUVcU

[WSJ_Law]

here is my personal MBA vs JD ranking (i am interested in both as well, and basically just want to maximize opportunities):

#1 YLS
#1 HBS
#1 GSB (Stanford Business)
#4 HLS
#4 Wharton
#4 SLS
#7 Columbia LS
#7 NYU LS
#7 Chicago LS
#10 MIT Sloan
#10 Kellogg MBA
#10 Booth MBA
#13 Columbia MBA
#14-#21 Law Schools ranked 7-14
#22 NYU Stern
#22 Tuck MBA
#22 Ross MBA
#22 Duke MBA
#26-61 Law Schools ranked 15-50

Subtle anti-Goizueta/anti-Carroll/pro-Tulane LS trolling

[Patriot1208]

here is my personal MBA vs JD ranking (i am interested in both as well, and basically just want to maximize opportunities):

#1 YLS
#1 HBS
#1 GSB (Stanford Business)
#4 HLS
#4 Wharton
#4 SLS
#7 Columbia LS
#7 NYU LS
#7 Chicago LS
#10 MIT Sloan
#10 Kellogg MBA
#10 Booth MBA
#13 Columbia MBA
#14-#21 Law Schools ranked 7-14
#22 NYU Stern
#22 Tuck MBA
#22 Ross MBA
#22 Duke MBA
#26-61 Law Schools ranked 15-50

Subtle anti-Goizueta/anti-Carroll

no?