"Don't go to law school because of opportunity cost" Forum

[DanInALionsDen]

The only reason I got my liberal arts degree was so I could get my law degree. The real opportunity cost was the four years I spent in undergrad because of this stupid American system that makes law a graduate degree and forces us all to take on 4 years of college debt before having the privilege of taking on 3 more years of law school debt. That said, I did love my time in undergrad.

[megaTTTron]

The only reason I got my liberal arts degree was so I could get my law degree. The real opportunity cost was the four years I spent in undergrad because of this stupid American system that makes law a graduate degree and forces us all to take on 4 years of college debt before having the privilege of taking on 3 more years of law school debt. That said, I did love my time in undergrad.

I totally disagree with everything except the last sentence. I have no reason or any way to back that up. But I wouldn't trade my undergrad for annnnnything. For me, law school is at the perfect time and there is no way I would have done as well (academically or socially) had I started when I was 18. Word.

[DanInALionsDen]

The only reason I got my liberal arts degree was so I could get my law degree. The real opportunity cost was the four years I spent in undergrad because of this stupid American system that makes law a graduate degree and forces us all to take on 4 years of college debt before having the privilege of taking on 3 more years of law school debt. That said, I did love my time in undergrad.

I totally disagree with everything except the last sentence. I have no reason or any way to back that up. But I wouldn't trade my undergrad for annnnnything. For me, law school is at the perfect time and there is no way I would have done as well (academically or socially) had I started when I was 18. Word.

I'm talking about financial opportunity cost, regardless of romantic observations regarding how enlightening undergrad was.

[Azmatt]

I started at 70k out of college in chemE, and I'm going to law school because my ambition exceeds the career paths available to an engineer. So yeah, all generalizations are false.

LoL Did you make a paradoxical statement on purpose?

Yes, it's one of my favorite jokes

+1 ....

--ImageRemoved--

[romothesavior]

The only reason I got my liberal arts degree was so I could get my law degree. The real opportunity cost was the four years I spent in undergrad because of this stupid American system that makes law a graduate degree and forces us all to take on 4 years of college debt before having the privilege of taking on 3 more years of law school debt. That said, I did love my time in undergrad.

I totally disagree with everything except the last sentence. I have no reason or any way to back that up. But I wouldn't trade my undergrad for annnnnything. For me, law school is at the perfect time and there is no way I would have done as well (academically or socially) had I started when I was 18. Word.

I'm talking about financial opportunity cost, regardless of romantic observations regarding how enlightening undergrad was.

I don't think this is just a romantic observation. I understand what mega is saying; there is no way I would be mature enough to handle the study of law, network, work in a big firm, etc. at 18. Nor do I think I could have handled the intensity of law school and the workload that is required at that age. My undergraduate studies set the table for me to succeed in law school, both from a maturity and an academic standpoint.

[megaTTTron]

The only reason I got my liberal arts degree was so I could get my law degree. The real opportunity cost was the four years I spent in undergrad because of this stupid American system that makes law a graduate degree and forces us all to take on 4 years of college debt before having the privilege of taking on 3 more years of law school debt. That said, I did love my time in undergrad.

I totally disagree with everything except the last sentence. I have no reason or any way to back that up. But I wouldn't trade my undergrad for annnnnything. For me, law school is at the perfect time and there is no way I would have done as well (academically or socially) had I started when I was 18. Word.

I'm talking about financial opportunity cost, regardless of romantic observations regarding how enlightening undergrad was.

I don't think this is just a romantic observation. I understand what mega is saying; there is no way I would be mature enough to handle the study of law, network, work in a big firm, etc. at 18. Nor do I think I could have handled the intensity of law school and the workload that is required at that age. My undergraduate studies set the table for me to succeed in law school, both from a maturity and an academic standpoint.

Exactly. (I'm not going to respond to Dan ). A girl once broke up with me in college using an opportunity cost analysis. No joke. How do you even respond to that? Haha, fml.

[savagedm]

Exactly. (I'm not going to respond to Dan ). A girl once broke up with me in college using an opportunity cost analysis. No joke. How do you even respond to that? Haha, fml.

use the "you arent human" defense to make her feel like shit, duh.

[DanInALionsDen]

The only reason I got my liberal arts degree was so I could get my law degree. The real opportunity cost was the four years I spent in undergrad because of this stupid American system that makes law a graduate degree and forces us all to take on 4 years of college debt before having the privilege of taking on 3 more years of law school debt. That said, I did love my time in undergrad.

I totally disagree with everything except the last sentence. I have no reason or any way to back that up. But I wouldn't trade my undergrad for annnnnything. For me, law school is at the perfect time and there is no way I would have done as well (academically or socially) had I started when I was 18. Word.

I'm talking about financial opportunity cost, regardless of romantic observations regarding how enlightening undergrad was.

I don't think this is just a romantic observation. I understand what mega is saying; there is no way I would be mature enough to handle the study of law, network, work in a big firm, etc. at 18. Nor do I think I could have handled the intensity of law school and the workload that is required at that age. My undergraduate studies set the table for me to succeed in law school, both from a maturity and an academic standpoint.

In Europe and Australia students study law in undergrad and practice after only three years of study (as opposed to the combined 7 required in America). They can handle it. I see no difference here other than the expectation. If you were expected to be able to handle studying law at 18, I'm sure you'd rise to the challenge.

[megaTTTron]

I totally disagree with everything except the last sentence. I have no reason or any way to back that up. But I wouldn't trade my undergrad for annnnnything. For me, law school is at the perfect time and there is no way I would have done as well (academically or socially) had I started when I was 18. Word.

I'm talking about financial opportunity cost, regardless of romantic observations regarding how enlightening undergrad was.

I don't think this is just a romantic observation. I understand what mega is saying; there is no way I would be mature enough to handle the study of law, network, work in a big firm, etc. at 18. Nor do I think I could have handled the intensity of law school and the workload that is required at that age. My undergraduate studies set the table for me to succeed in law school, both from a maturity and an academic standpoint.

In Europe and Australia students study law in undergrad and practice after only three years of study (as opposed to the combined 7 required in America). They can handle it. I see no difference here other than the expectation. If you were expected to be able to handle studying law at 18, I'm sure you'd rise to the challenge.

Again, wrong. In the European/ Australian system newly graduated law students are usually required to do an apprenticeship of sorts for several years and take a bar-type exam. This is what substitutes for the extra years we go to law school after undergrad (although you could say our three years is too excessive). But, generally, they do not "practice after only three years."

See: --LinkRemoved--

In the UK, for example, there are certain legal practices anyone can engage in. Outside of those, a prospective attorney has several levels of practice he or she may elect to pursue, the one with the least onerous prerequisites is a Solicitor. One of these prerequisites, after having obtained an LL.B, is to complete an exam . . .

"Having completed and passed the Legal Practice Course, the candidate is then required to serve as a minimum, two years as a Trainee Solicitor prior to admission to rolls as a UK Solicitor."

In Australia, there is a specific training program the students must take and then be "called to the bar."

[JCougar]

How about the opportunity cost of working at a horrible corporate office job in the middle of bumblefuck working with only depressed, rotund, middle-aged office ladies and grumpy old men?

I'd work for half of my salary just to get the fuck out of here. Being back on a campus with well-educated young adults for three years of my life makes opportunity cost a wash for me.

[JCougar]

How about the opportunity cost of working at a horrible corporate office job in the middle of bumblefuck working with only depressed, rotund, middle-aged office ladies and grumpy old men?

Avoid corporate law.

I could handle it if I weren't in the middle of bumblefuck. Living back in a big city again would solve most of my problems. Where I currently live, the closest thing to "culture" other than mudding, line-dancing, and civil war-reenacting is a 45 minute drive away.

[daesonesb]

Opportunity cost is definitely non-zero. Most able bodied guys could spend a summer fishing in Alaska and make about 20 G's, then come home, get a construction job for the remaining 8 months and make another 20-30 G's. That's about 40-50 G's total.

In three years, thats like 120k-150k.
Add on your law school tuition, and the true cost looks more like 300k (without interest on those loans).

You could also take a year and get a trade, and that number might even be higher. If you're Canadian, you could work on an oil rig and gross about 60-90k a year.

There is an opportunity cost to higher education, but it isn't applicable to most of us on here, because (lets face it) we aren't all cut out for that kinda shit.

[megaTTTron]

Opportunity cost is definitely non-zero. Most able bodied guys could spend a summer fishing in Alaska and make about 20 G's, then come home, get a construction job for the remaining 8 months and make another 20-30 G's. That's about 40-50 G's total.

In three years, thats like 120k-150k.
Add on your law school tuition, and the true cost looks more like 300k (without interest on those loans).

You could also take a year and get a trade, and that number might even be higher. If you're Canadian, you could work on an oil rig and gross about 60-90k a year.

There is an opportunity cost to higher education, but it isn't applicable to most of us on here, because (lets face it) we aren't all cut out for that kinda shit.

Your avatar is beautiful.

[DanInALionsDen]

Again, wrong. In the European/ Australian system newly graduated law students are usually required to do an apprenticeship of sorts for several years and take a bar-type exam. This is what substitutes for the extra years we go to law school after undergrad (although you could say our three years is too excessive). But, generally, they do not "practice after only three years."

See: --LinkRemoved--

In the UK, for example, there are certain legal practices anyone can engage in. Outside of those, a prospective attorney has several levels of practice he or she may elect to pursue, the one with the least onerous prerequisites is a Solicitor. One of these prerequisites, after having obtained an LL.B, is to complete an exam . . .

"Having completed and passed the Legal Practice Course, the candidate is then required to serve as a minimum, two years as a Trainee Solicitor prior to admission to rolls as a UK Solicitor."

In Australia, there is a specific training program the students must take and then be "called to the bar."

Were you hoping I wouldn't actually follow that link? I suggest you reread it yourself, especially the part where it says:

"In UK there is no such thing as the ‘unauthorized practice of law’ (UPL) as there is in the USA.

Even a Paralegal is permitted to practice law, as long as he or she does not violate or break the law (i.e. The Solicitors Act 1974, s20-23)"

As such, newly graduated lawyers can begin practicing after only three years of study.

As for the legal profession in Australia, I lived in Brisbane from January-June of last year and my best friend in Aus is a lawyer who graduated from the law program at the University of Queensland, and now practices at his father's firm. They can practice after three years of study, I assure you.

Moreover, even if your version were true--which it's not--this would have no baring on my original point, which is that undergrad is an added monetary expense in the course of pursuing a legal education in American, which is largely unique to our country.

[JOThompson]

My opportunity cost is almost nonexistent. I work nearly full time at retail and barely pull in $1000 a month after taxes. A PD job for $35k a year sounds mighty enticing after living on meager minimum wage.

[JCougar]

Moreover, even if your version were true--which it's not--this would have no baring on my original point, which is that undergrad is an added monetary expense in the course of pursuing a legal education in American, which is largely unique to our country.

I agree. American is an insanely expensive place to get your undergrad/law degree.

[daesonesb]

My opportunity cost is almost nonexistent. I work nearly full time at retail and barely pull in $1000 a month after taxes. A PD job for $35k a year sounds mighty enticing after living on meager minimum wage.

Damn dude. You should really look at getting a new job... there are plenty out there that will pay you more than minimum wage. House painting pays like 10 bucks an hour usually.

[megaTTTron]

Again, wrong. In the European/ Australian system newly graduated law students are usually required to do an apprenticeship of sorts for several years and take a bar-type exam. This is what substitutes for the extra years we go to law school after undergrad (although you could say our three years is too excessive). But, generally, they do not "practice after only three years."

See: --LinkRemoved--

In the UK, for example, there are certain legal practices anyone can engage in. Outside of those, a prospective attorney has several levels of practice he or she may elect to pursue, the one with the least onerous prerequisites is a Solicitor. One of these prerequisites, after having obtained an LL.B, is to complete an exam . . .

"Having completed and passed the Legal Practice Course, the candidate is then required to serve as a minimum, two years as a Trainee Solicitor prior to admission to rolls as a UK Solicitor."

In Australia, there is a specific training program the students must take and then be "called to the bar."

Were you hoping I wouldn't actually follow that link? I suggest you reread it yourself, especially the part where it says:

"In UK there is no such thing as the ‘Unauthorized Practice of Law’ (UPL) as there is in the USA.

Even a Paralegal is permitted to practice law, as long as he or she does not violate or break the law (i.e. The Solicitors Act 1974, s20-23)"

As such, newly graduated lawyers can begin practicing after only three years of study.

As for the legal profession in Australia, I lived in Brisbane from January-June of last year and my best friend in Aus is a lawyer who graduated from the law program at the University of Queensland, and now practices at his father's firm. They can practice after three years of study, I assure you.

Moreover, even if your version were true--which it's not--this would have no baring on my original point, which is that undergrad is an added monetary expense in the course of pursuing a legal education in American, which is largely unique to our country.

Just like everyone in the US can, and does represent themselves pro se? Read more than the first paragraph. Just because in the state of NY anyone can take the bar and practice w/o a law degree doesn't mean it happens. As for your friend, if my Daddy had a firm I'm sure it would be easy to be the exception too.

Regardless, the norm is for law students to participate in an apprenticeship of sorts before they practice:

"In the United Kingdom and Ireland, the legal profession is split between solicitors and barristers, and a lawyer will usually only hold one title." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitor#cite_note-1)

The least onerous being Solicitors

"Potential solicitors are then required to complete two years of apprenticeship with the simultaneous Legal Practice Course and Professional Skills Course, while potential barristers must usually complete the one year Bar Professional Training Course (formally known as the Bar Vocational Course) followed by a year of vocational training known as a pupillage." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_ ... te_note-27)

I studied abroad as well, in Scotland, at a Law School, and I can assure you that most law students do not graduate and begin immediately practicing as full fledged attorneys under the Solicitor's Act!! haha. (It it's such a poor opportunity cost for you to be in law school, why not just take the NY Bar??? Because no one does that.)

Regardless of their laws, like ours in NY, your scenario is not the norm, and your scenario doesn't then support your conclusion that "if they can do it, we can too."

Your point is that our undergrad is an added opportunity cost is meaningless. Of course it is! Any decision anyone makes is an opportunity cost. If you're saying it's bad decision, then my point refutes yours. And you're certainly not saying it's a good idea.

Their system does what we do in less time, but I would argue that the undergrad years preceding our legal education produces better lawyers than if we only required law as an undergraduate major, and the European system acknowledges this by requiring extra work after graduation to deal with certain matters.

[megaTTTron]

Moreover, even if your version were true--which it's not--this would have no baring on my original point, which is that undergrad is an added monetary expense in the course of pursuing a legal education in American, which is largely unique to our country.

I agree. American is an insanely expensive place to get your undergrad/law degree.

Now, I undoubtably agree with this.

[webbylu87]

My opportunity cost is almost nonexistent. I work nearly full time at retail and barely pull in $1000 a month after taxes. A PD job for $35k a year sounds mighty enticing after living on meager minimum wage.

I feel you. Try $800/month.