rayiner wrote:DaftAndDirect wrote:That's definitely true for analysts. First and second year analysts get railed worse than a first or second year Big Law associate. The hours get better as you advance from associate through to VP. My understanding is that Big Law hours don't really change for the better until you make partner (this coming from a couple attorneys I know at Chicago firms).
I buy that at first most law school types don't think they'd be very good at banking. But if they spent the same amount of time and energy on learning how to use Excel/Bloomberg/CapIQ as they did poring over cases during 1L, they'd likely make a fine banking analyst. You don't have to be a mathlete to be a good analyst, you just need to know how to use the programs that do the heavy mathematical lifting for you.
An additional pro for banking is that the exit options are far more flexible than a JD.
Banking exit options are also a lot more varied in terms of compensation and less secure. The kind of insecurity lawyers felt in 2008/2009 is just a taste of what bankers have always had to deal with. Armageddon in the legal field involved about 3-4% of the NLJ250 being laid off in total. Banks have been doing lay-offs of 2-3% at a time regularly since the recession.
Ok I think this is the best answer so far: Job Security. This is something that I know little about when comparing finance to law. You say banks have been laying off 2-3% regularly. What have non-Armageddon layoffs looked like for Big Law since the recession (if you have that data)?