Why law school over MBA? Forum

[JamMasterJ]

Why not denti$try?

because law is only the second most suicide prone profession

[patentlybored]

I've read that ibankers (especially junior analysts) work a minimum of 70 hours a week, at some companies up to 100. Whereas biglaw from what ive read is more like 60 hour weeks, 80 max. So there's that ( correct me if I'm wrong)

[rayiner]

If you're good with numbers, go into banking
If you're good with words go into law
If you're too dumb to figure that out, go into retail

I used to think that too, but actually the numbers work that analysts do is quite simple, you don't need to be great at math to be able to get it done.

All things considered, an average day for an ibanker is definitely more lively than that of a biglaw lawyer.

I've been thinking about this and I have to say it really depends on the person (what you consider "lively"), the job and the department. If you're analyzing equities, you're staring at numbers all day long. If you're involved with repackaging debt, it's mostly doc review. Banking is a very broad term, broader than "lawyer" and there's a lot of variation in the field

True it is broad, but I can't think of any sub-fields that are particularly interesting at the junior level. Maybe once you're senior and running a deal team or something. Though as a senior lawyer, at least in litigation, you get to go to court and the adversarial nature of that is interesting in its own right. Much more interesting to me, anyway, than padding a bunch of boomer retirement funds, helping some PE firm loot a company, etc.

[dingbat]

Don't you mean fleecing boomer retirement funds?
It really depends on what you find interesting.

To the poster asking about time, I usually work 40 hours per week, but have clocked in 90+ between christmas and new year and have had crazy ass months where I didn't do anything other than work or sleep. I've also had days where I unexpectedly ended up working till 11 or 12 at night.

[rayiner]

Don't you mean fleecing boomer retirement funds?
It really depends on what you find interesting.

I agree it depends on what you find interesting. But like law, it's nerd work for people with the attention span to do detailed precise analysis for 12 hours each day. Which is great. There is no reason to pretend it's something broadly appealing, like being an astronaut or something. Nobody would do it if the money wasn't so good.

Which I guess is my answer to the OP. There are people who work as lawyers for low pay because they love their jobs. I worked with some lawyers last semester that got the Crawford and Fisk coal power plants shut down: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012 ... tal-groups. These folks could be making several times as much money doing something else, but don't because what they do is legitimately meaningful, interesting work.

[crazi4law]

I know that there are people who are passionate about the law, many of whom go into PI. For the majority of people though, money is the biggest incentive in going into BigLaw. So why not go into investment banking instead, which is generally more interesting and pays better? I still haven't received a satisfactory answer to this question.

[El_Sol]

I think the best answer is that you need an Ivy Business UG (or equivalent) and good amount of work experience, rather than a political science/history major and no work experience.

[BruceWayne]

I know that there are people who are passionate about the law, many of whom go into PI. For the majority of people though, money is the biggest incentive in going into BigLaw. So why not go into investment banking instead, which is generally more interesting and pays better? I still haven't received a satisfactory answer to this question.

What are you missing? THEY CAN'T. You need a very specific background to go into investment banking; one that requires you to have made the "right" choices at age 18 (i.e attended an elite undergrad). If you missed out on that boat you've missed out on ibanking. Top law schools only require a high GPA and a high LSAT.

Not to mention that the skill sets are very different. You're assed out if you aren't good at math when it comes to Ibanking. You don't need any math skills for law.

[rayiner]

I know that there are people who are passionate about the law, many of whom go into PI. For the majority of people though, money is the biggest incentive in going into BigLaw. So why not go into investment banking instead, which is generally more interesting and pays better? I still haven't received a satisfactory answer to this question.

You might ask why investment bankers don't go into the NFL, where the minimum base salary for someone straight out of college is ~$400k/year (and with a ~6 year average career length, they make that for longer than most people last in banking before being up-or-outed).

[dingbat]

I know that there are people who are passionate about the law, many of whom go into PI. For the majority of people though, money is the biggest incentive in going into BigLaw. So why not go into investment banking instead, which is generally more interesting and pays better? I still haven't received a satisfactory answer to this question.

You might ask why investment bankers don't go into the NFL, where the minimum base salary for someone straight out of college is ~$400k/year (and with a ~6 year average career length, they make that for longer than most people last in banking before being up-or-outed).

There's no up or out in banking, it's a matter of A) not fucking up and B) surviving the cut
Salaries in IBanking start lower than biglaw and there's no lockstep.
It is far riskier to go into banking than biglaw (and that's not accounting for the difference in nature if the work and the lifestyle)

[rayiner]

I know that there are people who are passionate about the law, many of whom go into PI. For the majority of people though, money is the biggest incentive in going into BigLaw. So why not go into investment banking instead, which is generally more interesting and pays better? I still haven't received a satisfactory answer to this question.

You might ask why investment bankers don't go into the NFL, where the minimum base salary for someone straight out of college is ~$400k/year (and with a ~6 year average career length, they make that for longer than most people last in banking before being up-or-outed).

There's no up or out in banking, it's a matter of A) not fucking up and B) surviving the cut
Salaries in IBanking start lower than biglaw and there's no lockstep.
It is far riskier to go into banking than biglaw (and that's not accounting for the difference in nature if the work and the lifestyle)

Aren't most analyst positions 2 year gigs? Then isn't there a big culling right before MD?

[manofjustice]

Why not denti$try?

Bigteeth is hard to get, its not all models and bottles. No one tells you about denture review

180

[dingbat]

There's no up or out in banking, it's a matter of A) not fucking up and B) surviving the cut
Salaries in IBanking start lower than biglaw and there's no lockstep.
It is far riskier to go into banking than biglaw (and that's not accounting for the difference in nature if the work and the lifestyle)

Aren't most analyst positions 2 year gigs? Then isn't there a big culling right before MD?

it might depend on the firm and practice group, I only know what im familiar with
Typically one would expect to make it to associate after 3-5 years, if you survive. One firm/practice group I'm familiar with will probably fire you for a single mistake, but generally more than a handful means no chance of promotion.
The big jump in pay is from associate to VP, which requires skill, politics and luck, but no guarantees (I've known monkeys stuck as analysts after 5 years and people who hung on as associates into their mid 30's).
VPs, Directors and to a lesser extent MDs are subject to regular cullings, but it's not like up-or-out law firms. If you're good and what you do can't be downsized, you could have a 10+ year career as a VP (if you don't lateral out).
In banking there's no pre-determined progression, so if 2 people starting together as analysts it is entirely possible that a decade later one is still an associate and the other is a Director (earning easily tenfold)
Unfortunately I don't know that much about progression beyond that, but again, there's no pre-determined culling, it's just that every so often someone at the top says cut X number of jobs and you just got to hope you survived. Even worse if they decide to shutter an entire department (as happens quite often)

[manofjustice]

Why not denti$try?

because law is only the second most suicide prone profession

TIC. I read that somewhere. Dentists were number 1.

[crazi4law]

What are you missing? THEY CAN'T. You need a very specific background to go into investment banking; one that requires you to have made the "right" choices at age 18 (i.e attended an elite undergrad). If you missed out on that boat you've missed out on ibanking. Top law schools only require a high GPA and a high LSAT.

Not to mention that the skill sets are very different. You're assed out if you aren't good at math when it comes to Ibanking. You don't need any math skills for law.

If you get into a top MBA program, it won't be too hard to get into ibanking from there. And even though you do need work experience to get into a good MBA program, previous ibanking experience is far from required.

Also, a high competency in math is definitely not required for many of the fields within ibanking. You're certainly not "assed out" if you aren't great at math.

Salaries in IBanking start lower than biglaw and there's no lockstep.
It is far riskier to go into banking than biglaw (and that's not accounting for the difference in nature if the work and the lifestyle)

Associate salaries for ibanking (after you get an MBA) are similar to biglaw, and grows exponentially as you advance within the firm. Even though ibanking is riskier, its a very valuable experience and you have many exit opportunities if you get laid off from a bulge bracket bank. Meanwhile, biglaw lawyers are increasing prone to lay-offs and job security is far from certain these days.

[BruceWayne]

If you get into a top MBA program, it won't be too hard to get into ibanking from there. And even though you do need work experience to get into a good MBA program, previous ibanking experience is far from required.

Also, a high competency in math is definitely not required for many of the fields within ibanking. You're certainly not "assed out" if you aren't great at math.

Are you serious? "If you get into a top MBA program" you're saying that like it's a cakewalk. Top MBA programs require you to have worked a quality professional job to be accepted. ITE that's simply not possible for most college graduates. A student from average state U would be luck to get any full time non food services/non retail job.

As far as the math thing is concerned you're off on that point too; although my guess is that you're like a lot of people at elite schools who have a very unrealistic view of what "not great at math" means. I know you don't need to be able to get A's in math at MIT. However, ibanks will ask for your SAT and or GMAT scores. If they see less than a 700 math score you are going to have a serious problem (or the same on the GMAT). There are many many people who can score well on the LSAT but could NEVER get a 700+ math score on the SAT or the GMAT.

[crazi4law]

In that case, let me rephrase my question. If I am currently in a top 30 college, not majoring in a useless liberal-arts subject, will most likely be able to find a decent professional job upon graduation, and scored higher than 700 on SAT math, could aiming for an MBA in the future instead of a JD make more sense? (Given the advantages of a banking career over a biglaw career as I have mentioned in previous posts)

[Joeshan520]

A student from average state U would be luck to get any full time non food services/non retail job.

I went to a State School and graduated with a liberal arts degree and I'm making 50-60k at a biglaw firm. I don't necessarily believe this is due to luck, some people are just down right lazy and don't network properly especially at places with HUGE alumni networks like state schools.

Also, I have friends in ibanking with no formal background in mathematics. It's certainly sufficient but definitely not necessary to be successful in the field.

[dingbat]

If you get into a top MBA program, it won't be too hard to get into ibanking from there.

Salaries in IBanking start lower than biglaw and there's no lockstep.
It is far riskier to go into banking than biglaw (and that's not accounting for the difference in nature if the work and the lifestyle)

Associate salaries for ibanking (after you get an MBA) are similar to biglaw, and grows exponentially as you advance within the firm.

no, it's not. Average salary is barely $100k (LinkRemoved)

[BalanceCare]

Why not denti$try?

Bigteeth is hard to get, its not all models and bottles. No one tells you about denture review

[BruceWayne]

In that case, let me rephrase my question. If I am currently in a top 30 college, not majoring in a useless liberal-arts subject, will most likely be able to find a decent professional job upon graduation, and scored higher than 700 on SAT math, could aiming for an MBA in the future instead of a JD make more sense? (Given the advantages of a banking career over a biglaw career as I have mentioned in previous posts)

LMAO now you finally get it. Think about the incredible number of qualifiers you had to make in that post. Now for a person with that VERY specific background/skill set going for the top MBA if you want to make big money DOES in fact make more sense than the JD; assuming you aren't specifically interested in law. What you need to realize is that most people at top law schools (let alone average one's ) have all the qualities that you just named. In your situation I think you should just take whatever professional position you have available to you when you graduate as opposed to going straight through to law school. Even if you decide you want to be a lawyer later your professional work experience will make you MUCH more attractive to law firms.

A student from average state U would be luck to get any full time non food services/non retail job.

I went to a State School and graduated with a liberal arts degree and I'm making 50-60k at a biglaw firm. I don't necessarily believe this is due to luck, some people are just down right lazy and don't network properly especially at places with HUGE alumni networks like state schools.

Also, I have friends in ibanking with no formal background in mathematics. It's certainly sufficient but definitely not necessary to be successful in the field.

I guess all of these people are just "lazy" then. Please be sure to spread the word and let them know.
http://news.yahoo.com/1-2-graduates-job ... 00522.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ow/256237/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/busin ... wanted=all

And I never said a formal background in math is required for ibanking--that's a strawman. But if you didn't score a 700 or greater on your SAT math or GMAT math then you're going to have a hell of a time getting into an Ibank.

[rayiner]

In that case, let me rephrase my question. If I am currently in a top 30 college, not majoring in a useless liberal-arts subject, will most likely be able to find a decent professional job upon graduation, and scored higher than 700 on SAT math, could aiming for an MBA in the future instead of a JD make more sense? (Given the advantages of a banking career over a biglaw career as I have mentioned in previous posts)

You're not getting bulge bracket with those stats unless you've got exceptional grades and connections. My brothers class at JPM is full of magna at HYP. Top banks are hiring only top kids right now, and are laying people off otherwise.

And outside of top banking jobs, I think MBA versus law is a wash financially. Median starting salary at my LS's M7 business school is 110k, with a very narrow range. The only people coming out making more than the lawyers are the 10-15% of kids going into top finance jobs. That said, those $110k jobs in things like marketing are legit interesting. You get to meet celebrities while working on product launches and stuff.

[DoctorShawHi]

some thoughts,

a. ibanking is not the only big money making career post-MBA.

b. your career options aren't in a vacuum. there are many factors that will determine where you end up. the type of undergraduate institution that you went to is one of them, but it isn't all of it. and if your goal is to just make a lot of money, you are only increasing your opportunities with a top MBA program, but even a non-stellar MBA program will get you where you need to go if you're successful in the business world. being results oriented as opposed to prestige oriented will help.

c. a liberal arts degree from a state-school is a bad idea. a liberal arts degree from a top 20 school is a less bad idea, but not the best one either. i don't know why kids keep on getting liberal arts degrees. i know that history is interesting, but shouldn't you kind of know going into it that your career potential is limited? what are you really learning?

d. about top undergrads. it also depends on your degree and the career field. this gets into a different area, but say that you're someone interested in agricultural sciences. degrees from OSU, Kansas State, Univeristy of Illinois, and Purdue are dominant. none of which are top 30 schools (I don't think). and yes, math is king these days. if you aren't good at math, you're going to have a hard go of it.

e. being successful post-MBA is usually most easily facilitated with solid work experience behind you. someone already said it, but getting solid work experience is easier said than done for college students. It's a lot of luck, a lot of hard-work, and ultimately it can go bad at any time. Law school has an advantage in this way. there are tons of students studying for a year after graduating while working retail to get that 170+ LSAT. Working a year in retail just to apply with a high test score isn't going to really hurt you for law school, it will cripple your chances at getting an elite MBA, however.

[dingbat]

some thoughts,

Nails it from left field

[tyler.durden]

some thoughts,

a. ibanking is not the only big money making career post-MBA.

b. your career options aren't in a vacuum. there are many factors that will determine where you end up. the type of undergraduate institution that you went to is one of them, but it isn't all of it. and if your goal is to just make a lot of money, you are only increasing your opportunities with a top MBA program, but even a non-stellar MBA program will get you where you need to go if you're successful in the business world. being results oriented as opposed to prestige oriented will help.

c. a liberal arts degree from a state-school is a bad idea. a liberal arts degree from a top 20 school is a less bad idea, but not the best one either. i don't know why kids keep on getting liberal arts degrees. i know that history is interesting, but shouldn't you kind of know going into it that your career potential is limited? what are you really learning?

d. about top undergrads. it also depends on your degree and the career field. this gets into a different area, but say that you're someone interested in agricultural sciences. degrees from OSU, Kansas State, Univeristy of Illinois, and Purdue are dominant. none of which are top 30 schools (I don't think). and yes, math is king these days. if you aren't good at math, you're going to have a hard go of it.

e. being successful post-MBA is usually most easily facilitated with solid work experience behind you. someone already said it, but getting solid work experience is easier said than done for college students. It's a lot of luck, a lot of hard-work, and ultimately it can go bad at any time. Law school has an advantage in this way. there are tons of students studying for a year after graduating while working retail to get that 170+ LSAT. Working a year in retail just to apply with a high test score isn't going to really hurt you for law school, it will cripple your chances at getting an elite MBA, however.

well said