An Analysis of the Lawyer Surplus

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: An Analysis of the Lawyer Surplus

Postby robotclubmember » Tue Jun 28, 2011 4:43 pm

Samara wrote:Not to get too distracted from the original point of the thread, but the economic outlook is not as dire as you paint it. Unemployment is actually holding steady, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm, the Case-Shiller index shows the housing market to be stabilized, http://seekingalpha.com/article/277020- ... ice-trends, real estate should be able to start growing by sometime next year when the glut of foreclosures are finally unloaded, consumer debt as a share of household income is at its lowest point since 1994, http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/housedebt/, and corporate profits are at a all-time high, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/2 ... 40538.html. We aren't going to be back to "normal" tomorrow, but the next 2-3 years should see decent to strong job growth, closing this unemployment gap.


OK. BLS says unemployment holding steady. BLS is notorious for understating unemployment, and they don't factor in the fact that the real growth in the job market over the last two years has been in Wal-Mart and McDonald's. Plus you're basing your opinion on historical data without taking the effort to forecast while adjusting for known factors. Our deficit and national debt is out of control. Consumer spending is stagnant. 70% of the economy is still consumer spending so how do we grow and create new jobs if people are trying to save? Government spending is unsustainable at these levels as well and can't be compensated for with growth in GDP, which the fed expects to be around a modest 3% next year. So either gov't spending will have to fall, which reduces jobs (look at all the hiring freezes in place at DOJ, prosecutor's offices, etc), or taxes will increase which again will reduce jobs. How do we get job growth in "GOOD" jobs while fighting inflation and record deficits? Something has to give. The only way BLS can say the job market is, statistically speaking, in good shape, is if there numbers stop factoring those who are to discouraged to seek work and permanently displaced from the work force (which they do do actually). "Holding steady" at 9% is nothing to be proud of anyway, considering that that suggests a systemically flawed and inefficient economy.

The housing market is stabilized at post-crash levels, sure. Did the housing market recover? No. I will respectfully file your opinion that it will recover next year along with the opinions of everyone else who said it would have recovered by now over the last few years: in the trash can.

Samara wrote:Haha, no doubt certain people I know should probably have reconsidered law school, but I have two points to make. One, those who don't have legal field employment now may still get it in the future as the economy recovers. Yes, it's going to put them in a difficult situation until they do, but I don't think (hopefully) that's it's a lost cause. Secondly, when you compare the people I know who have succeeded and the people who haven't, the ones who did get legal field employment came into law school with strong job prospects. The ones who didn't get legal field employment went to law school because, as you mentioned, they felt like they didn't have anything else to do. Should the ones with the strong career connections not have gone to IU-Indy? My point is that plenty of people can succeed there and we shouldn't discourage those people.


See my note above re: striking out in your first year. If you didn't get the job your first year after graduating, what makes you think those people will do so swell next year, when they are competing against not only their class, but also a fresh perky class of newly minted JD's, and a new batch of top 10%'s that will be consistently given preferential treatment among an increasing surplus of lawyers and deficit of jobs?

Also, even when the economy recovers (which it will, but not soon), what about systemic and permanent changes in the legal field? Companies are increasing the hiring of contract attorneys substantially, some of those doc review jobs outsourced to India. Software is now completing functions like discovery. Less lawyers will be needed in an age of automation, globalization and an increasing amount of workers willing to take low-paying temp jobs with no benefits who can be discharged at will. The supply demand curve has shifted down, price has gone down, and the effects of automation and an increasing preference for temps will be permanent notwithstanding economic changes.

PEOPLE SHOULD BE DISCOURAGED FROM ATTENDING LAW SCHOOL. Let me be clear. The world needs lawyers, and those who truly believe that their tastes, opportunities and abilities lend themselves most to a fruitful career in law should pursue that. But the world doesn't need anywhere near the amount of lawyers being produced now. And many of the people going to law school are doing so without being fully aware of the reality that awaits them, because material information in their decision making process is being materially misrepresented in their self-reported employment data. For every TWO people that are planning to go to law school, TWO believe that they will make a great career for themselves, but ONE OF THOSE TWO IS WRONG.

If you have the numbers of blehGPAgoodLSAT and prior WE, you can make it work (though you should prob not rely so much on o self-reported data that has been obscured and gamed). You are also the exception not the rule and should not assume that your opportunities are reflective of the population of law school applicants taken as a whole.

blehGPAgoodLSAT
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:14 am

Re: An Analysis of the Lawyer Surplus

Postby blehGPAgoodLSAT » Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:16 pm

Samara wrote:Good points, however, I must point out that you forgot interest on your loans, not an insignificant amount, and the point that average SMU students are not making average salaries. If I understand the stats correctly, salaries are a bit top-heavy, even at a T50 like SMU, so if you're someone who isn't confident of placing well above the median in your class, you may want to take a long, hard look at law school. Regardless, you're right, the return on investment is usually pretty large.

That said, with your numbers and WE, you're definitely getting into the T14, possibly with money around the edge of that list. You're in a really good boat for law school. If your LSAT was more like 163 though, I'm not sure I'd give up a good position in finance for law school.


sharklasers wrote:blehGPAgoodLSAT, your math and your logic are both fucked.

LST says that only 81.8% of graduates are represented by a known salary range (derived from self-reported salaries + Article III clerkships + self-reported unemployment). So, following your method, you should at least multiply the median 120,000 * .818 = 98,160. That's also misleading, because it looks like about 3 in 10 graduates (self-reported 10% unemployment plus the 20% silent crowds) get $0, are buried in debt, and want to kill themselves, and the other 7 out of 10 are all over the place. And it's important to remember that the risk isn't spread totally equally over everyone--the wild child who breaks out in Big Dallaslaw isn't sending checks back to his bumpkin cousin eating pork and beans at the Southern Methodist shelter.


Right! That's what I missed. What I said was definitely an over-simplification and is not a crystal ball but I feel that it is a better gauge of things than one article with some scary looking data. I'm a numbers nerd and like doing the figures so I'll recalculate with your suggestions. I see now that the 120k is specific to private sector salaries so I'll redo the math with interest on the loan as well. Keeping in mind that these numbers are from the class of 2009:

Median salary at graduation from SMU Law (120,000 * 0.674) + (53755.5 (average public sector salary) * 0.036) + (0 * 0.29) = $82,815.20

ROI: ($82,815.2 * 8 (years after completion) ) - ($174,558 (cost for tuition, room & board) + $28,752 (interest on a 6% loan for 8 years @ $3,300/mo)) = $429,211.60

Amount you would have to earn now to justify NOT going to SMU at sticker: $41,746.51 or above

Now if you got a $15,000/yr scholarship from SMU the adjusted value (without going through methodology again) would be $47,037.29

These numbers seem more reasonable to me as well. All I'm saying is that before you give up hope of applying to law school, make sure you do the math yourself and see if it's worth it for you. There should be an additional non-quantifiable premium towards getting a JD just because it is sort of exciting to actually know the rules governing your every day life and having a JD behind your name does award you a certain level of respect, but these points might be unique to the way I think/my social environment.

Either way, I appreciate both your comments.

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: An Analysis of the Lawyer Surplus

Postby robotclubmember » Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:38 pm

the math looks better. but compare the ROI to someone who never went to a four year school or law school. did tech training to be a welder, got a union job and is coasting at 50k a year. build in NPV, let me know what discount rate you use (should at least be inflation). subtract the cost of the four year degree, and let us know who the winner is. it's gotta be close, close enough to question the risk.... and when you go farther down the ranking in law schools the welder will win probably (though compared to SMU, probably loses by a hair in the end)

User avatar
Hannibal
Posts: 2213
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm

Re: An Analysis of the Lawyer Surplus

Postby Hannibal » Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:39 pm

I might be able to make more money as a welder, time will (not) tell. But there's no fuckin way I want to be a welder.

scammedhard
Posts: 642
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:17 pm

Re: An Analysis of the Lawyer Surplus

Postby scammedhard » Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:45 pm

Hannibal wrote:I might be able to make more money as a welder, time will (not) tell. But there's no fuckin way I want to be a welder.

But would you like to be a lifeguard?

http://orangepunch.ocregister.com/2011/ ... 00k/44783/

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: An Analysis of the Lawyer Surplus

Postby robotclubmember » Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:46 pm

Hannibal wrote:I might be able to make more money as a welder, time will (not) tell. But there's no fuckin way I want to be a welder.


pursue the position which is most suited to your tastes, opportunities, and abilities. it's an individual decision. the point at issue is whether most law school students are adequately aware of what their "opportunities" are, or have the made their decision on faulty information and an over-inflated idea of the value of a JD. if people know the opportunities on skilled labor were in many cases equal or greater to the opportunities in law, they may re-evaluate their abilities and tastes in that context and arrive at a better answer. law school advertising, sanctioned by the ABA, is pretty misleading. follow your heart though.

scammedhard
Posts: 642
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:17 pm

Re: An Analysis of the Lawyer Surplus

Postby scammedhard » Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:48 pm

Hannibal wrote:I might be able to make more money as a welder, time will (not) tell. But there's no fuckin way I want to be a welder.

And what about becoming a prison guard?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

User avatar
Hannibal
Posts: 2213
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm

Re: An Analysis of the Lawyer Surplus

Postby Hannibal » Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:49 pm

robotclubmember wrote:
Hannibal wrote:I might be able to make more money as a welder, time will (not) tell. But there's no fuckin way I want to be a welder.


pursue the position which is most suited to your tastes, opportunities, and abilities. it's an individual decision. the point at issue is whether most law school students are adequately aware of what their "opportunities" are, or have the made their decision on faulty information and an over-inflated idea of the value of a JD. if people know the opportunities on skilled labor were in many cases equal or greater to the opportunities in law, they may re-evaluate their abilities and tastes in that context and arrive at a better answer. law school advertising, sanctioned by the ABA, is pretty misleading. follow your heart though.


Funny thing is that there are also a lot of jobs unfilled in American manufacturing. We are still a large exporter of high-quality goods. But thanks to being told we don't make stuff anymore, nobody things that a degree that helps there is worth anything.

blehGPAgoodLSAT
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:14 am

Re: An Analysis of the Lawyer Surplus

Postby blehGPAgoodLSAT » Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:52 pm

robotclubmember wrote:the math looks better. but compare the ROI to someone who never went to a four year school or law school. did tech training to be a welder, got a union job and is coasting at 50k a year. build in NPV, let me know what discount rate you use (should at least be inflation). subtract the cost of the four year degree, and let us know who the winner is. it's gotta be close, close enough to question the risk.... and when you go farther down the ranking in law schools the welder will win probably (though compared to SMU, probably loses by a hair in the end)


I'm not in the position to be a welder without going to college anymore so it doesn't really benefit me to do those calculations. :) I would agree that the pay would probably be comparable, however I'd definitely agree with Hannibal in that I would never want/couldn't see myself be happy as a welder. Lifeguard, on the other hand... sign me up.

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: An Analysis of the Lawyer Surplus

Postby robotclubmember » Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:53 pm

chem wrote:In response to robotclub on being a plumber, theres a good speech that mike rowe gave to the commerce committee.

An excerpt

[Mike Rowe]
Right now, American manufacturing is struggling to fill 200,000 vacant positions, I’m told. And there are 450,000 openings today in trades, transportation and utilities. The skills gap seems real, and it’s getting wider. In Alabama, a third of all skilled tradesmen are now over 55. They’re retiring fast, and there is really nobody to replace them.

[Mike Rowe]
Alabama’s not alone. A few months ago in Atlanta I ran into Tom Vilsack, our Secretary of Agriculture. Tom told me about a governor, he knows, who is unable to move forward on the construction of a power plant. The reason I thought was fascinating wasn’t for the lack of funds or the lack of support. It was a lack of qualified welders.

[Mike Rowe]
In general, people are surprised that high unemployment can exist at the same time as a skilled labor shortage. But they shouldn’t be. We’ve pretty much guaranteed it.

[Mike Rowe]
In high schools, the vocational arts have all but vanished. We’ve elevated the importance of “higher education” to such a lofty perch that all other forms of knowledge are now labeled as “alternative.” Millions of parents and kids see apprenticeships and really valuable on-the-job-training opportunities as “vocational consolation prizes,” best suited for those not cut out for a four-year degree. And still, we talk about creating millions of “shovel ready” jobs for a society that doesn’t really encourage people to pick up a shovel.

[Mike Rowe] Source: LYBIO.net
In a hundred different ways, I think we have slowly marginalized an entire category of critical professions, reshaping our expectations of a “good job” into something that no longer looks like work. A few years from now, an hour with a good plumber if you can find one is going to cost more than an hour with a good psychiatrist. At which point we’ll all be in need of both.


a belated but deserved +1, you sir win one free internet

blehGPAgoodLSAT
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:14 am

Re: An Analysis of the Lawyer Surplus

Postby blehGPAgoodLSAT » Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:57 pm

robotclubmember wrote:
Hannibal wrote:I might be able to make more money as a welder, time will (not) tell. But there's no fuckin way I want to be a welder.


pursue the position which is most suited to your tastes, opportunities, and abilities. it's an individual decision. the point at issue is whether most law school students are adequately aware of what their "opportunities" are, or have the made their decision on faulty information and an over-inflated idea of the value of a JD. if people know the opportunities on skilled labor were in many cases equal or greater to the opportunities in law, they may re-evaluate their abilities and tastes in that context and arrive at a better answer. law school advertising, sanctioned by the ABA, is pretty misleading. follow your heart though.


I absolutely agree with everything you said in this reply. I got the impression you were trying to discourage people who were passionate about pursuing law through telling them they'll be poor after law school, I misunderstood your sentiment. You are absolutely right that people should be adequately aware of what they would actually like to do and not go after law school because of the perceived big bucks afterwards.

User avatar
gwuorbust
Posts: 2087
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:37 pm

Re: An Analysis of the Lawyer Surplus

Postby gwuorbust » Tue Jun 28, 2011 8:24 pm

blehGPAgoodLSAT wrote:
robotclubmember wrote:
Hannibal wrote:I might be able to make more money as a welder, time will (not) tell. But there's no fuckin way I want to be a welder.


pursue the position which is most suited to your tastes, opportunities, and abilities. it's an individual decision. the point at issue is whether most law school students are adequately aware of what their "opportunities" are, or have the made their decision on faulty information and an over-inflated idea of the value of a JD. if people know the opportunities on skilled labor were in many cases equal or greater to the opportunities in law, they may re-evaluate their abilities and tastes in that context and arrive at a better answer. law school advertising, sanctioned by the ABA, is pretty misleading. follow your heart though.


I absolutely agree with everything you said in this reply. I got the impression you were trying to discourage people who were passionate about pursuing law through telling them they'll be poor after law school, I misunderstood your sentiment. You are absolutely right that people should be adequately aware of what they would actually like to do and not go after law school because of the perceived big bucks afterwards.


I think part of the problem with this is that it is terribly hard for people to know that they "Love The Law" as 0Ls. Sure they can say they do, but that is just as valid as most 0L speak (read: not really worth two cents). The practice of the law is 100% different from what you've seen and done before. And I don't care if you've been a paralegal so you "have already been there, done that." No. You edited papers and sat next to a lawyer. Get over yourself.

My SA position is very similar to what I would be doing as a lawyer at graduation. But I know that how I will practice two years after I graduate will be much different from when I start. Life is a continuous evolution. I thought I would find the practice of law awful and I find it empowering. Some people who think they'll love it end up hating it.

I think the best solution is to take on 100k of debt or less, preferably much less. But to gamble 250k on "I know I'll love international bird and space law!!!!!" is just as dumb as gambling 250k on making 160k at graduation.

User avatar
BruceWayne
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:36 pm

Re: An Analysis of the Lawyer Surplus

Postby BruceWayne » Tue Jun 28, 2011 8:36 pm

czelede wrote:Wait, so does this mean I should /self for picking T14 over T6 at sticker?


Don't let this website brainwash you. Unless the "top 6" was Harvard, Yale, or Stanford then no. The top 6 thing is something this site came up with.

blehGPAgoodLSAT
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:14 am

Re: An Analysis of the Lawyer Surplus

Postby blehGPAgoodLSAT » Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:08 pm

gwuorbust wrote:
I think part of the problem with this is that it is terribly hard for people to know that they "Love The Law" as 0Ls. Sure they can say they do, but that is just as valid as most 0L speak (read: not really worth two cents). The practice of the law is 100% different from what you've seen and done before. And I don't care if you've been a paralegal so you "have already been there, done that." No. You edited papers and sat next to a lawyer. Get over yourself.

My SA position is very similar to what I would be doing as a lawyer at graduation. But I know that how I will practice two years after I graduate will be much different from when I start. Life is a continuous evolution. I thought I would find the practice of law awful and I find it empowering. Some people who think they'll love it end up hating it.

I think the best solution is to take on 100k of debt or less, preferably much less. But to gamble 250k on "I know I'll love international bird and space law!!!!!" is just as dumb as gambling 250k on making 160k at graduation.


Mmm, I'm pretty torn right now because I--although can't know for certain as you pointed out--feel as if I am completely fascinated by the idea of studying the law but finance is such a stable thing at this point in my life that I don't know if I should actually go through with it (applying to/attending law school). I hate how it seems like every time I talk to a lawyer about law school, they make it their duty to try to convince prospective applicants to reconsider... for a while I thought maybe I was just a bad candidate but realized they say it to everyone. Is it just a big conspiracy to keep the pool of lawyers as small as possible or do all lawyers have the ambition and drive they possessed going into law school sucked out after during their 3 years?

I actually get excited on the weekends when I don't have to do banking stuff and instead can wake up early in the morning to read O'Brien's Con Law & Politics from my old jurisprudence class. Is the sensible thing really to just stick with my job now? I do enjoy finance but learning anything law related seriously feels like an absolute high for me. How big is the possibility of me hating law after law school in your opinion? Is it still 50/50? Obviously I plan on talking to my parents and people close to me about this as well but I'd be interested in TLSers' honest opinions on the matter.

blehGPAgoodLSAT
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:14 am

Re: An Analysis of the Lawyer Surplus

Postby blehGPAgoodLSAT » Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:14 pm

I have considered self studying the law to avoid getting this hunger I have for the law completely destroyed while in law school but taking a couple years off of work just to study the law on my own without knowledgeable professors who know what they're doing & a JD at the end of it all seems like such a waste. This is definitely one of the toughest decisions I've faced.

User avatar
crossarmant
Posts: 1116
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:01 am

Re: An Analysis of the Lawyer Surplus

Postby crossarmant » Tue Jun 28, 2011 10:18 pm

blehGPAgoodLSAT wrote:How big is the possibility of me hating law after law school in your opinion? Is it still 50/50?


If you're really interested in law, enough that you'd throw out a fairly lucrative career in finance, then you need to work in the legal field before school. You could hate it, because studying the law and actually doing the legwork of a lawyer are two entirely different things.

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: An Analysis of the Lawyer Surplus

Postby robotclubmember » Tue Jun 28, 2011 10:28 pm

crossarmant wrote:
blehGPAgoodLSAT wrote:How big is the possibility of me hating law after law school in your opinion? Is it still 50/50?


If you're really interested in law, enough that you'd throw out a fairly lucrative career in finance, then you need to work in the legal field before school. You could hate it, because studying the law and actually doing the legwork of a lawyer are two entirely different things.


my opinion is, in your case, with good WE and stats to get you into lower T14, you should be able to find work. i have no comment on if you will like it, but financially, the work you find will prob pay more than your finance gig, and therefore, if you're set on doing it, you should just do it asap, every year you delay is trading a year of 130~160K law salary for a year of 50~70K finance salary, and tuition is only inflating more and more, so just do it while you're young. legal experience won't help you and doesn't make sense. what are you going to work as a paralegal? you're not qualified and it doesn't make sense.

r6_philly
Posts: 10707
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:32 pm

Re: An Analysis of the Lawyer Surplus

Postby r6_philly » Wed Jun 29, 2011 12:11 am

My target is looking fine!

User avatar
Icculus
Posts: 1421
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:02 am

Re: An Analysis of the Lawyer Surplus

Postby Icculus » Wed Jun 29, 2011 12:30 am

chem wrote:In response to robotclub on being a plumber, theres a good speech that mike rowe gave to the commerce committee.

An excerpt

[Mike Rowe]
Right now, American manufacturing is struggling to fill 200,000 vacant positions, I’m told. And there are 450,000 openings today in trades, transportation and utilities. The skills gap seems real, and it’s getting wider. In Alabama, a third of all skilled tradesmen are now over 55. They’re retiring fast, and there is really nobody to replace them.

[Mike Rowe]
Alabama’s not alone. A few months ago in Atlanta I ran into Tom Vilsack, our Secretary of Agriculture. Tom told me about a governor, he knows, who is unable to move forward on the construction of a power plant. The reason I thought was fascinating wasn’t for the lack of funds or the lack of support. It was a lack of qualified welders.

[Mike Rowe]
In general, people are surprised that high unemployment can exist at the same time as a skilled labor shortage. But they shouldn’t be. We’ve pretty much guaranteed it.

[Mike Rowe]
In high schools, the vocational arts have all but vanished. We’ve elevated the importance of “higher education” to such a lofty perch that all other forms of knowledge are now labeled as “alternative.” Millions of parents and kids see apprenticeships and really valuable on-the-job-training opportunities as “vocational consolation prizes,” best suited for those not cut out for a four-year degree. And still, we talk about creating millions of “shovel ready” jobs for a society that doesn’t really encourage people to pick up a shovel.

[Mike Rowe] Source: LYBIO.net
In a hundred different ways, I think we have slowly marginalized an entire category of critical professions, reshaping our expectations of a “good job” into something that no longer looks like work. A few years from now, an hour with a good plumber if you can find one is going to cost more than an hour with a good psychiatrist. At which point we’ll all be in need of both.


+1, and this also explains the surplus in employees in not just the legal field but every field that requires a degree in higher education. I have been a teacher for the last four years, a position that requires a master's degree, and I can tell you that 50% of the people in my MAT program ended up either unemployed or underemployed. Just this past year my school was interviewing for one 8th grade social studies position and we received over 100 applications for the one position. Not to mention, in education there is no opportunity to go solo. The issue is not just the legal field, or education, but rather that everyone is told that they should attend college and attempt to find a white collar job. As a middle school teacher I have had many students who would benefit from a vocational school in high school, and I have taught high school students who were perfect candidates for two year associate or technical degrees. Unfortunately, parents have deluded themselves, and in turn their children, into believing everyone should attend a four year college and then grad school. Add on top of this the ease with which to get student loans and the unnerving number of colleges and universities, and we were bound to have a surplus of employees for these jobs and a shortage in manufacturing.

Edit: tl:dr - There is an employment surplus in most fields that require a college/master's/professional degree, many of which don't offer the opportunities a JD may offer.

flexityflex86
Posts: 973
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:06 pm

Re: An Analysis of the Lawyer Surplus

Postby flexityflex86 » Wed Jun 29, 2011 12:35 am

you are neglecting the real life benefits of having a JD such as knowing what you can get away with it, and what you can't as well as how to fend for yourself, and loved ones. i agree these aren't worth 100k or anything close but in many cases particularly if one has a background in a creative medium or as a business owner this does have some value in the tens of thousands. heck, yoga classes can run for several 1000. honestly, at the rate i pay patent lawyers, i will have saved 100k within a decade of my JD.
Last edited by flexityflex86 on Wed Jun 29, 2011 12:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

r6_philly
Posts: 10707
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:32 pm

Re: An Analysis of the Lawyer Surplus

Postby r6_philly » Wed Jun 29, 2011 12:37 am

flexityflex86 wrote:you are neglecting the real life benefits of having a JD such as knowing what you can get away with it, and what you can't as well as how to fend for yourself, and loved ones. i agree these aren't worth 100k or anything close but in many cases particularly if one has a background in a creative medium or as a business owner this does have some value in the tens of thousands. heck, yoga classes can run for several 1000.


You can buy E&E for under $200 total and get outlines for free. You are paying $150k for a JD degree which is worth the bar admission eligibility, job prospects, and networking.

flexityflex86
Posts: 973
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:06 pm

Re: An Analysis of the Lawyer Surplus

Postby flexityflex86 » Wed Jun 29, 2011 12:38 am

r6_philly wrote:
flexityflex86 wrote:you are neglecting the real life benefits of having a JD such as knowing what you can get away with it, and what you can't as well as how to fend for yourself, and loved ones. i agree these aren't worth 100k or anything close but in many cases particularly if one has a background in a creative medium or as a business owner this does have some value in the tens of thousands. heck, yoga classes can run for several 1000.


You can buy E&E for under $200 total and get outlines for free. You are paying $150k for a JD degree which is worth the bar admission eligibility, job prospects, and networking.

with this logic, the public is wasting 1000s by hiring lawyers. why get a matrimonial lawyer when you can read E&E and get a divorce on your own?

r6_philly
Posts: 10707
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:32 pm

Re: An Analysis of the Lawyer Surplus

Postby r6_philly » Wed Jun 29, 2011 12:41 am

flexityflex86 wrote:with this logic, the public is wasting 1000s by hiring lawyers. why get a matrimonial lawyer when you can read E&E and get a divorce on your own?


http://www.wethepeopleusa.com/

I know many people who used the service before (I am from a background where we can't afford attorneys), including myself. Pro se is allowed for a reason, as long as you know what you are doing. If you are advocating knowing more about the process, you can learn on your own.

Bar admission is what we can't get, so I can't represent others, like I said.

areyouinsane
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 3:22 pm

Re: An Analysis of the Lawyer Surplus

Postby areyouinsane » Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:35 am

First of all, hats off to RobotClub for his excellent advice and analysis of the abysmal legal market.

I've posted these links in other threads, but they def. warrant a re-post here. They should serve as a good wake-up call for the mouth breathers heading to NY/NJ toilets like R-N, Seton Hall, Brooklyn, NYLS etc and think "oh, if I miss Biglaw it's no biggie, I'll just work in government or legal aid:

http://articles.philly.com/2010-08-14/n ... ewer-cases

and

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/loc ... 20454.html

and

http://blogs.findlaw.com/strategist/200 ... teers.html

Legal aid and state government level law jobs are being slashed at rates never before seen. Why? Imagine you're a politician and need to cut people. Your choices are:

1.) Garbage pickup

2.) Police/firemen

3.) Makework paper pushers in the DA office or legal aid?

Ding! I'll take Number 3, Alex!

Another real problem is that temporary jobs in doc review, long the "parting gift" of the TTT'ers, have now been outsourced to India. However, if you want to sit in a grungy warehouse in North Dakota or West Virginia coding documents all day (a job about as pleasant as picking fly shit out of black pepper), you may have a shot:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/busin ... verse.html

areyouinsane
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 3:22 pm

Re: An Analysis of the Lawyer Surplus

Postby areyouinsane » Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:51 pm

be an RN or dental assistant off a 2-yr degree way better ROI than seven years of education to be a lawyer unless you're T14 material



Good advice. A girl I know is a dental X-ray tech and hygenist and is affiliated with a travelling dental clinic that provides care to soldiers on base thru a deal/contract with Uncle Sam. She was in Fort Dix, NJ last weekend and got paid a thousand bucks plus hotel and mileage for the weekend.

During the week she works as a hygenist at a dental office in northern NJ and gets $40 an hour plus free dental care for her family.

This is head and shoulders above what most non-Biglaw attorneys will make even several years into practice. As I've said before, the temp. jobs that are left in doc review pay as low as $22 an hour in NYC for admitted attorneys. The glut is far worse than you guys can imagine. Small firms nowadays rarely start anyone at a dime over 40 K.

It is indeed correct that a BA/BS degree needs, in this economy, to be viewed merely as a sunk cost and basically a 4 year waste of time, effort & money. It's beyond foolish to double down on edcuation and waste time/rack up debt for an even more worthless JD.

Accept right now that you will, in all likelihood, have a far lower standard of living and quality of life than your parents (and probably even grandparents) enjoyed. Law school will only increase that chance.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ctl95, mav1993 and 8 guests