emciosn wrote:Read through the thread and I think this is the general rule of thumb:
Those who are in law school should generally try to convince those who are not in law school to not attend.
It's basic economics, we are trying to maximize our own utility by decreasing the amount of competition in the future. So in that sense Robot is doing it right.
I do not agree with his economic outlook. I think the economy is doing much better this year than it has over the last couple and will continue to get better. We were it a pretty deep hole so getting out takes time.
I think the whole T14 or don't go thing is a little silly. I think that people need to be more informed about job placement and salary statistics than they are but there are some good options down the list, especially good regional schools. The T3 from my home state is still placing pretty well in state. That being said there are some lower ranked school that don't place well anywhere and students still attend, a lack on information.
Overall I agree with Robot that people (those not on this site) need to be more informed about their law school decision. I think his doom and gloom assessment is a little overboard, though. I suspect he is working hard to make the job marked better for the rest of us though so hats off.
lol thx. but, i think that if law schools continue to produce JDs at the rate that they are, and if openings continue to be produced at the rate that they are, it will fundamentally change the nature of the legal profession for the worst in a way that will take a very long time to reverse. time to make partner will drastically increase, for those that make it to big law, the use of temps will increase as under-utilized lawyers are willing to work for less and less... the shift in supply demand EQ will reduce price (i.i., average salary). it's not a gimmick to dissuade people from going into the profession to better my prospects, it's to dissuade people because it's what i truly believe.
and our economy is in serious trouble. saying "it's better than it was when it was at its lowest point" isn't saying a lot, and the fact that it has improved doesn't mean we won't double dip. you're using historical data to claim that because it has gotten better, it will continue to get better. look at leading indicators, not lagging indicators, and you will see a large problem on the horizon. the US dollar is highly devalued, unemployment and home values are steady at post-crash levels and the deficit is absurd. in addition to a stagnant GDP, we have problems, and are precariously close to defaulting without raising the debt ceiling. the stimulus worked, in so far that about every job created cost $4,000,000 of stimulus money. considering how close we are to default, how much money we are bleeding in wars and entitlements, how hard unemployment has hit the youth in particular, yes we have problems, and if another economic setback occurs (for example, when unemployment benefits end for the 9% unemployed and they can't file for anymore extensions), what do we do? spend more money? there isn't anything left to spend. borrow more? we're on the edge of default. print out more dollars and reduce the interest rate? the interest rates can't go any lower and the dollar is already diluted to shit. face it, we're out of ammo. US will recover but it will be a slow recovery with more hurt to follow. trust me, i'd like to think it will get better.
i remember in my first year at [insert big four accounting firm here] when the stock market started to crash, everyone said it wasn't a big deal at first. i was the only kid in there saying that that the dow wouldn't bottom out until it hit 7,000 (it was still over 10,500 at the time). my insistence actually started annoying my co-workers. but it was so obvious i couldn't see how they couldn't see it. then it finally dipped under 7,000. and we never talked about it. i suspect they wanted to feel safe, that it wouldn't get that bad. then in the next six months, our office's audit and risk services staff was downsized by 30%. we should have all seen it coming but no one wanted to believe it. here we are again, at the brink of serious economic problems, and rather than people just acknowledging what is staring them straight in the face, they choose to get angry at the suggestion it's really that bad. the bottom line is, arithmetic still matters. and the math just doesn't add up.EDIT - to add to this, i have to ask, have any of you seen your friends packing up their desks and told to leave, and watch them struggle to get a job for nine months with no one biting despite that they did nothing wrong, that you know they're good and talented people? and then sat there waiting for your head to be next on the chopping block? the worst part was they did the layoffs in waves. 10% now, 10% three months later, etc. you never felt safe after the layoffs cos you knew there could be more (and were). it's easy to insulate yourself from economic realities when you've never seen it, people.
lastly, my argument is only that it's a dubious choice for financial reasons, but personal reasons can legitimize attending law school anyways if you truly feel strong about it. people should do what they want, but understand that they might get bent over and told to grab their ankles when they enter (or attempt to enter) the job market.