Big law is ballin', but... Forum

[WestOfTheRest]

Ya, who cares about minorities! They don't count.

I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with the conversation.

[AreJay711]

As far as happiness goes, I think people in the 50's were happier overall in spite of this because money is not all that matters.

Unless they were anything but middle class white people. Doubt the people running from the KKK in Alabama were all that happy.

Great point!

Wait...no, that has nothing to do with anything.

Ya, who cares about minorities! They don't count.

I will concede that the 50's were probably a good deal worse for minorities so it is hard to justify to make the general statement that people as a whole were better off.

[JazzOne]

Ya, who cares about minorities! They don't count.

I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with the conversation.

I'm pretty sure no one cares what you think.

[WestOfTheRest]

Ya, who cares about minorities! They don't count.

I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with the conversation.

I'm pretty sure no one cares what you think.

Dude used to be a cool guy, now he's just a douche bag.

[JazzOne]

Ya, who cares about minorities! They don't count.

I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with the conversation.

I'm pretty sure no one cares what you think.

Dude used to be a cool guy, now he's just a douche bag.

[FlamingCow]

I will concede that the 50's were probably a good deal worse for minorities so it is hard to justify to make the general statement that people as a whole were better off.

Not to mention the prevailing social norms even for middle class 50's suburbia had a lot to do with the 60's-era social explosion.

[mrmangs]

@AreJay711: Do you really think that the average person is better off now than in the '50s ? Certainly not in the US, maybe elsewhere.

In money and consumption terms? Absolutely. For example, families in the 50's didn't have cars laying around to give their children -- kids bought junk cars and fixed them up. In my high school and university most students have their own car usually 4-5 years old. Other things are the same way: we generally have more stuff than in the 50's.

As far as happiness goes, I think people in the 50's were happier overall in spite of this because money is not all that matters.

Haven't been following this thread too closely, but just skimming back, I think AreJay was concerned with refuting the following argument:

P1: GDP is the most valid measure of happiness.
P2: Our GPD has gone up since the 50s
C: We are happier than people were in the 50s.

I sympathize with AreJay in that there is a case to be made that P1 is wrong. But the conclusion still seems right, if only for other reasons (as someone already pointed out, non-white people are probably a lot happier these days).

[JazzOne]

Ya, who cares about minorities! They don't count.

I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with the conversation.

I'm pretty sure no one cares what you think.

Dude used to be a cool guy, now he's just a douche bag.

Uhhh, you know what? I fucked up. I was trolling you because I got you confused with hkfortytwo. I looked back at your posts, and you're not who I thought you were. My apologies. I retract my statements.

[beachbum]

Uhhh, you know what? I fucked up. I was trolling you because I got you confused with hkfortytwo. I looked back at your posts, and you're not who I thought you were. My apologies. I retract my statements.

--ImageRemoved--

[Aqualibrium]

Uhhh, you know what? I fucked up. I was trolling you because I got you confused with hkfortytwo. I looked back at your posts, and you're not who I thought you were. My apologies. I retract my statements.

--ImageRemoved--

I GET IT! It's funny cuz Jazz is a black guy and the other guy is a white guy! (In Peter Griffin Voice) Hahahahahahahahahaha

I dunno this just felt like Family Guy humor to me...

[prezidentv8]

Uhhh, you know what? I fucked up. I was trolling you because I got you confused with hkfortytwo. I looked back at your posts, and you're not who I thought you were. My apologies. I retract my statements.

--ImageRemoved--

I GET IT! It's funny cuz Jazz is a black guy and the other guy is a white guy! (In Peter Griffin Voice) Hahahahahahahahahaha

I dunno this just felt like Family Guy humor to me...

Here's to unity!

[observationalist]

Don't they say that after you hit 75k, increases in money don't do a huge amount for increasing your happiness after that?

The biggest leap in happiness related to income is when one gets out of extreme poverty. Otherwise our ability to quickly adapt applies to income and we quickly adjust to whatever our "regular" levels of happiness are with any added income.

I've been trying to find this Vandy Law Review article that I read a couple of weeks ago about happiness in the legal profession. It's basic gist was that lawyers that work for big firms are very unhappy. The main reason cited for this unhappiness were the hours worked. Now, these people aren't afraid to work long and tough hours. Big law, however, does bring a pretty unique combination of an adversarial system that is hyper-competitive and where you are trying to win against other hyper-competitive types while also trying to prove your worth to your firm that has a lot of other hyper-competive and extremely intelligent people.

I'm not saying this environment wouldn't be right for some people, but it does seem to be a very very small niche that makes it for longer than 8 years. What is funny to me, is that everyone is aware of this going in so the people going into it self-select believing they have "what it takes" but by and large most people still try to leave Big Law as soon as they're able to.

Glad to see people are still checking out that article (it's by Patrick Schiltz and it's called On Being a Happy, Healthy and Ethical Member of an Unhappy, Unhealthy, Unethical Profession.) It's a little old but it does do a good job explaining one way to interpret some of the studies. We were assigned this in PR but I think I first saw it a few years ago researching the entry-level hiring market.

Here's a link to the text. --LinkRemoved--

[Marionberry]

Don't they say that after you hit 75k, increases in money don't do a huge amount for increasing your happiness after that?

The biggest leap in happiness related to income is when one gets out of extreme poverty. Otherwise our ability to quickly adapt applies to income and we quickly adjust to whatever our "regular" levels of happiness are with any added income.

I've been trying to find this Vandy Law Review article that I read a couple of weeks ago about happiness in the legal profession. It's basic gist was that lawyers that work for big firms are very unhappy. The main reason cited for this unhappiness were the hours worked. Now, these people aren't afraid to work long and tough hours. Big law, however, does bring a pretty unique combination of an adversarial system that is hyper-competitive and where you are trying to win against other hyper-competitive types while also trying to prove your worth to your firm that has a lot of other hyper-competive and extremely intelligent people.

I'm not saying this environment wouldn't be right for some people, but it does seem to be a very very small niche that makes it for longer than 8 years. What is funny to me, is that everyone is aware of this going in so the people going into it self-select believing they have "what it takes" but by and large most people still try to leave Big Law as soon as they're able to.

Glad to see people are still checking out that article (it's by Patrick Schiltz and it's called On Being a Happy, Healthy and Ethical Member of an Unhappy, Unhealthy, Unethical Profession.) It's a little old but it does do a good job explaining one way to interpret some of the studies. We were assigned this in PR but I think I first saw it a few years ago researching the entry-level hiring market.

Here's a link to the text. --LinkRemoved--

Thank you very much for posting that link. Reading that both reaffirms and undermines a lot of the things I was thinking, in an entirely positive way.

[nealric]

Glad to see people are still checking out that article (it's by Patrick Schiltz and it's called On Being a Happy, Healthy and Ethical Member of an Unhappy, Unhealthy, Unethical Profession.) It's a little old but it does do a good job explaining one way to interpret some of the studies. We were assigned this in PR but I think I first saw it a few years ago researching the entry-level hiring market.

Here's a link to the text. --LinkRemoved--

I read this too back when I was applying to law schools. I am less impressed with it now than I was in then. The gist of the article is "don't do biglaw" because you will hate your life and become a horrible person. But the author only ended up in a good career outside of biglaw because he had baller credentials. Not everyone has the luxury of doing what he suggests.

[observationalist]

Glad to see people are still checking out that article (it's by Patrick Schiltz and it's called On Being a Happy, Healthy and Ethical Member of an Unhappy, Unhealthy, Unethical Profession.) It's a little old but it does do a good job explaining one way to interpret some of the studies. We were assigned this in PR but I think I first saw it a few years ago researching the entry-level hiring market.

Here's a link to the text. --LinkRemoved--

I read this too back when I was applying to law schools. I am less impressed with it now than I was in then. The gist of the article is "don't do biglaw" because you will hate your life and become a horrible person. But the author only ended up in a good career outside of biglaw because he had baller credentials. Not everyone has the luxury of doing what he suggests.

Yeah I'd agree that his conclusion of biglaw-is-bad is too simplified. Also note the subtle trolling for his former firm, when he pushes top students to consider "optimal big firms in cities like Portland and Denver and Milwaukee, rather than New York and Washington and Chicago." His audience in that article was very narrow, looking only at the top students at top law schools, not the >80% of all law students for whom choosing between large law firms and something else is not an option. It would be worth seeing him revisit the central issues a decade later, with starting salaries almost twice as high at large law firms and far less ability for law students to apply 'buyer beware' measures when seeking an entry-level job.

http://www.faegre.com/locations

[bigkahuna2020]

between going to classes, studying, working 20-40 hours per week and extracurricular activities which fall under 'work' category, many pre-law students are already working big law hours.

LoL at studying, work-study and student association party planning being considered "work"

[bigkahuna2020]

"the average South Korean works 2,390 hours each year, according to the OECD"

And that's only average. Such people are huge wimps when it comes to hours...

Yes, but the average South Korean is about half as productive as the average American. And even less productive than the average European.

I think you have it the other way around.

South Koreans are at least twice as productive as Americans. There are no unions or laws(generally) to limit productivity.

If you consider wage in the measure of productivity - yeah, we(Americans) have no chance!

Learn some real facts

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/bi ... 60695.html

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... _9485.html

"Korean employees work for the longest hours, according to a report, Monday, but their productivity per person is only about 68 percent of that of Americans, which is the world's highest."

And we are only the highest in per worker stats---the French are legendarily higher in per hour productivity

If you even lived in Asia, you realize the amount of rote, low-productivity, thoughtless busy work that is a marker of most East Asian countries

[bigkahuna2020]

"the average South Korean works 2,390 hours each year, according to the OECD"

And that's only average. Such people are huge wimps when it comes to hours...

Yes, but the average South Korean is about half as productive as the average American. And even less productive than the average European.

I think you have it the other way around.

South Koreans are at least twice as productive as Americans. There are no unions or laws(generally) to limit productivity.

If you consider wage in the measure of productivity - yeah, we(Americans) have no chance!

The American workforce (across all sectors) is still the world's most productive, and still by a good clip among OECD states. Even in heavily unionized sectors (manufacturing) we set the pace, and have still posted productivity gains throughout the recession (which contributes to the "jobless recovery" phenomenon in many sectors). This is one reason why the US economy as a whole is still the most profitable in the world, despite China's rapidly growing but still somewhat unproductive (compared to the US) economy, and despite the EU bloc being bigger overall (no one ever accused the French workforce of efficiency).

High volumes of hours worked doesn't necessarily translate into productivity. It's just that in the US, we work a lot of hours and we're highly productive.

/derail

Man for a bunch of economics and poli sci majors, TLS is woefully underinformed

"Norway, which is not an EU member, generates the most output per working hour, $37.99, a figure inflated by the country's billions of dollars in oil exports and high prices for goods at home. The U.S. is second at $35.63, about a half-dollar ahead of third-placed France.

Seven years ago, French workers produced over a dollar more on average than their American counterparts. The country led the U.S. in hourly productivity from 1994 to 2003."

The conclusion is true, but the French are highly efficient per hour (as are the Dutch and Scandi countries)

[canuck]

between going to classes, studying, working 20-40 hours per week and extracurricular activities which fall under 'work' category, many pre-law students are already working big law hours.

LoL at studying, work-study and student association party planning being considered "work"

Studying is, at least for me, at least as stressful and demanding as work. And the point above is valid. I study about 100 hours per week typically, so I guess 60 hour weeks will seem pretty relaxed by comparison

[crazycanuck]

between going to classes, studying, working 20-40 hours per week and extracurricular activities which fall under 'work' category, many pre-law students are already working big law hours.

LoL at studying, work-study and student association party planning being considered "work"

Studying is, at least for me, at least as stressful and demanding as work. And the point above is valid. I study about 100 hours per week typically, so I guess 60 hour weeks will seem pretty relaxed by comparison

Holy shit you're doing it wrong. You're studying 14 hours a day, 7 days a week. Did you include time spent in class in that 100 hours?

At any rate, I HIGHLY doubt it's anywhere close to 100 hours weeks "typically" unless you are taking 8 or 9 classes. Maybe one year at exam week you put in 100 hours. I don't even see how you could possibly have enough material to study for 100 hours per week. You have 68 hours left so assuming you sleep 6 hours a night that gives you about 20 hours a week of eating, commuting, etc.

Let's look at your schedule, you start studying at 8am technically you should be done by 10pm. But then you must have lunch in there somewhere and other wasted time so lets assume you are really efficient with your time and only have 1 hour of non-studying time that means you are at school or where ever from 8am-11pm 7 days a week. No. fucking. way.

I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit.

Although I do like your username.

[canuck]

between going to classes, studying, working 20-40 hours per week and extracurricular activities which fall under 'work' category, many pre-law students are already working big law hours.

LoL at studying, work-study and student association party planning being considered "work"

Studying is, at least for me, at least as stressful and demanding as work. And the point above is valid. I study about 100 hours per week typically, so I guess 60 hour weeks will seem pretty relaxed by comparison

Holy shit you're doing it wrong. You're studying 14 hours a day, 7 days a week. Did you include time spent in class in that 100 hours?

At any rate, I HIGHLY doubt it's anywhere close to 100 hours weeks "typically" unless you are taking 8 or 9 classes. Maybe one year at exam week you put in 100 hours. I don't even see how you could possibly have enough material to study for 100 hours per week. You have 68 hours left so assuming you sleep 6 hours a night that gives you about 20 hours a week of eating, commuting, etc.

Let's look at your schedule, you start studying at 8am technically you should be done by 10pm. But then you must have lunch in there somewhere and other wasted time so lets assume you are really efficient with your time and only have 1 hour of non-studying time that means you are at school or where ever from 8am-11pm 7 days a week. No. fucking. way.

I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit.

Although I do like your username.

Haha it's true give or take a few hours. I included class time. I pretty much am on campus every day from 8:30 am to 11 pm. I go to an insanely competitive and difficult university that is generally known for having a significantly heavier course-load than most. I'm also a little crazy and don't like not getting As.

Edit: those 100 hours definitely includes some wasted time (e.g. right now), but I'm pretty sure it's standard to include wasted time on facebook, etc. in your hours worked per day.

[bigkahuna2020]

between going to classes, studying, working 20-40 hours per week and extracurricular activities which fall under 'work' category, many pre-law students are already working big law hours.

LoL at studying, work-study and student association party planning being considered "work"

Studying is, at least for me, at least as stressful and demanding as work. And the point above is valid. I study about 100 hours per week typically, so I guess 60 hour weeks will seem pretty relaxed by comparison

You need to learn how to study properly.

[canuck]

between going to classes, studying, working 20-40 hours per week and extracurricular activities which fall under 'work' category, many pre-law students are already working big law hours.

LoL at studying, work-study and student association party planning being considered "work"

Studying is, at least for me, at least as stressful and demanding as work. And the point above is valid. I study about 100 hours per week typically, so I guess 60 hour weeks will seem pretty relaxed by comparison

You need to learn how to study properly.

Maybe you need to learn how to work properly. I love my job and generally like studying too (though around exam time it is rather stressful).

Also, I'm in the 99th GPA percentile at a top 20 world ranking school, so I would suggest my study habits are pretty solid

[bigkahuna2020]

Maybe you need to learn how to work properly. I love my job and generally like studying too (though around exam time it is rather stressful).

Also, I'm in the 99th GPA percentile at a top 20 world ranking school, so I would suggest my study habits are pretty solid

You study hard at McGill? It isn't exactly all THAT hard for most people...I mean your 4.0 ain't EASY but -the Arts curriculum at McGill isn't the hardest

Studying never compares to work. Not even intensive research compares to work done well. Studying is about getting it right, not just putting in the hours, it's totally different.

[canuck]

Maybe you need to learn how to work properly. I love my job and generally like studying too (though around exam time it is rather stressful).

Also, I'm in the 99th GPA percentile at a top 20 world ranking school, so I would suggest my study habits are pretty solid

You study hard at McGill? It isn't exactly all THAT hard for most people...I mean your 4.0 ain't EASY but -the Arts curriculum at McGill isn't the hardest

Studying never compares to work. Not even intensive research compares to work done well. Studying is about getting it right, not just putting in the hours, it's totally different.

Of course but who is to suggest I'm not getting it right? Anyways this discussion is not about my study habits, nor the difficulty any uni.

Point is, it was a valid point that many of us already study more than we would work at big law. I of course don't want to work this much my entire life, but we'll see what happens.