Non-menial work, 8-5, ~$60K start: possible? Forum

[yabbadabbado]

Very difficult to get. Most Fed agencies only hire a handful of students nationally through their honors program per year. Trying to get one of these jobs is a crapshoot. After a few years of practice, still a crapshoot because people who have these jobs tend to stick around.

Any school you are admitted to can give you access to this guidebook:

http://www.law.arizona.edu/career/honorshandbook.cfm

There you can see how few Fed positions there are relative to the number of students who want them.

Probably administrative or regulatory law with a government agency.

How crackable are these positions?

[06072010]

You dont need a law degree to accomplish this. A couple years of experience as a paralegal would get you there

Someone mentioned being a career law clerk. What you want is a position as a legal research attorney for a court. Its pretty much the only position (aside from independent practice) that will pay good money with moderate hours.

Seriously though you should be considering paralegal work.

I'd rather not be someone's bitch indefinitely. I want to be a lawyer. The consensus seems to be that the hours part pretty much HAS to give (at least initially) unless I get really lucky with a rare firm.

Law is a service industry. You are always somebody's bitch.

[OnWisconsin]

You dont need a law degree to accomplish this. A couple years of experience as a paralegal would get you there

Someone mentioned being a career law clerk. What you want is a position as a legal research attorney for a court. Its pretty much the only position (aside from independent practice) that will pay good money with moderate hours.

Seriously though you should be considering paralegal work.

I'd rather not be someone's bitch indefinitely. I want to be a lawyer. The consensus seems to be that the hours part pretty much HAS to give (at least initially) unless I get really lucky with a rare firm.

Law is a service industry. You are always somebody's bitch.

+1 TITCR

Sebben & Sebben FTW

Think about the billable hours!

I'll finally build that lake house and run around naked all day.

HAHA! (dangly parts)

[thatsnotmyname]

Once you are in law school, what you did before does not matter. At my 1L school, several students were on conditional schollys that required them to stay just above top 1/3. Most of these kids had done well in UG and had high LSATs for the school. Result: over HALF lost their conditional schollys (along with their snide attitude) and had to pay full ticket for 2L and 3L. To add insult to injury, the #1 student in our class had a sub-150 LSAT and ended up transferring to a Top 10 school.

When people say you cannot predict your ranking or 1L grades, they mean it. Law school exams are not like the LSAT or UG in any way. It is IMPOSSIBLE to predict how well you'll do until you've taken your first set of LS exams and have your first set of grades in hand.

At T14 I wouldn't bank on breaking median, but can we please assume top 1/3 at a TTT to keep conditional scholarships? This is dragging the thread in a non-productive direction, because my confidence of this will not change. I appreciate the warnings, but please, no more.

Also, I've heard that it's common for schools like Albany to place all of the students who have the conditional scholarship offers in the same section so that they will be competing with each other. You will be directly competing with the kids who have the highest numbers at Albany for grades. Most of these students have the same though process as you, and it doesn't work out for 2/3 of them. You say you are adverse to attending a T14 at sticker because it seems like too big of a gamble. But what you are proposing seems to be an even bigger gamble (assuming that you don't drop out after 1L year if you lose your scholarship).

[thesealocust]

edit: n/m

[romothesavior]

I don't think you need to be a lawyer to accomplish your goals. There are lots of jobs that would fit your criteria.

[Scallywaggums]

Once you are in law school, what you did before does not matter. At my 1L school, several students were on conditional schollys that required them to stay just above top 1/3. Most of these kids had done well in UG and had high LSATs for the school. Result: over HALF lost their conditional schollys (along with their snide attitude) and had to pay full ticket for 2L and 3L. To add insult to injury, the #1 student in our class had a sub-150 LSAT and ended up transferring to a Top 10 school.

When people say you cannot predict your ranking or 1L grades, they mean it. Law school exams are not like the LSAT or UG in any way. It is IMPOSSIBLE to predict how well you'll do until you've taken your first set of LS exams and have your first set of grades in hand.

Wooooow... agh. That's something I can't brush aside. So should I just treat conditional schollys as poison, take the best guaranteed scholly and shoot for the best?

[Scallywaggums]

You dont need a law degree to accomplish this. A couple years of experience as a paralegal would get you there

Someone mentioned being a career law clerk. What you want is a position as a legal research attorney for a court. Its pretty much the only position (aside from independent practice) that will pay good money with moderate hours.

Seriously though you should be considering paralegal work.

I'd rather not be someone's bitch indefinitely. I want to be a lawyer. The consensus seems to be that the hours part pretty much HAS to give (at least initially) unless I get really lucky with a rare firm.

Law is a service industry. You are always somebody's bitch.

In a sense, true. But being a lawyer is a very different sense of bitch than being a law clerk.
I would also like to have a final say in what happens, to argue cases, not just research for someone.

[Scallywaggums]

Also, I've heard that it's common for schools like Albany to place all of the students who have the conditional scholarship offers in the same section so that they will be competing with each other. You will be directly competing with the kids who have the highest numbers at Albany for grades. Most of these students have the same though process as you, and it doesn't work out for 2/3 of them. You say you are adverse to attending a T14 at sticker because it seems like too big of a gamble. But what you are proposing seems to be an even bigger gamble (assuming that you don't drop out after 1L year if you lose your scholarship).

WHOA!!! Where did you hear this? Can anyone corroborate this? If true, this explains a lot, and is a deal-breaker for conditional schollys.

[acdisagod]

So what kind of grades would you need at a lower top 14 to get DOJ. Top 1/3, top 1/2?

[Scallywaggums]

Also, I've heard that it's common for schools like Albany to place all of the students who have the conditional scholarship offers in the same section so that they will be competing with each other.

This is a lie and a rumor, please do not spread it.

What DOES happen is that schools will give nearly as many contingent scholarships as there are spots to claim them (i.e. 25% of the class getting a scholarship that requires being in the top 30%). But no school actually 'section stacks', and repeating this rumor is unfair to the schools (even though the actual practice is very nearly as insidious).

Hrmmm. Anyone with insiders in Admissions? I'd like some solid anecdotal at least. Either one of these explains why people's expectations are unreasonable.

[09042014]

Go to engineering school, and do well. You can find this.

[Scallywaggums]

I don't think you need to be a lawyer to accomplish your goals. There are lots of jobs that would fit your criteria.

But do any of these jobs require a professional degree where I have a second chance to prove my academic ability and be relatively successful in the field? ... with the sort of thought process involved in logical reasoning, debate, negotiation etc?

If so, what are these jobs?

[Scallywaggums]

Go to engineering school, and do well. You can find this.

I actually thought about this, but it's a different sort of creative thinking. I'd make a better lawyer than an engineer.

[yabbadabbado]

Very few schools EVER had the gall to place ALL of the scholly students in one section. They do, however, sometimes place a disproportionate number of scholly students in one section. There is no way you'd know this until you actually show up to class and start talking to your classmates.

Even if they don't do that, it is the NORM for the schools to give out WAY MORE conditional schollys that can be kept as a matter of statistics. Think about it. These schools want to BUY as many high LSAT students as they can, but there isn't enough $ to buy as many as they want. Thus, they give out money that is "recyclable". LS administrators know that LS is a different ball game than UG or anything else, and there is no way all the scholly students can keep them, so they give out full rides to 40-60% of the class. Their ranking goes up, a bunch of those students can't make the min. GPA for scholly renewal, and they recycle "your" scholly $ to the next crop of entering students.

Even if a school with a top 1/3 scholly req. only gave out schollys to 1/3 of the students, it's still a bad deal because past performance does not predict success with LS grades. t2/3/4 schools also have low curves. The most generous curve you're going to find at schools like these is a 2.7 or 2.8 median. Curves as low as 2.5 or lower are not unheard of. Getting a 3.3 on a curve like that is a lot harder than you think and your competition in LS is smarter than you think. Also, if too many 1Ls look like they are at risk for keeping scholly $ after 1st semester, NOTHING is stopping schools from lowering the curve 2nd semester to deflate students' GPAs. Some schools also keep up the tough curve for 2L and 3L so your scholly is always at risk.

In general, I do not recommend conditional schollys. Very few students have the willpower to drop out after 1L if they don't make scholly renewal reqs. and they just end up accumulating a mountain of debt for a degree that has very little value. One situation where a conditional scholly might make sense is if you can get low in-state tuition for 2L and 3L even if you lose the $. Even then dropping out might be a better idea. Taking a conditional scholly at a tier 2/3/4 that is private or out of state is basically playing Russian roulette with your finances and career prospects, assuming your family isn't coughing up a lot of $ to pay for LS.

[icydash]

Go to engineering school, and do well. You can find this.

I actually thought about this, but it's a different sort of creative thinking. I'd make a better lawyer than an engineer.

There are a lot of types of professional schools which will allow you to be creative, home for dinner every night and monetarily successful. Business is the most obvious choice, where you'll be thinking critically, involved in creative marketing campaigns and negotiations, building something of your own (or working up the ladder to higher important positions), etc. However, like a previous poster mentioned, with engineering you can probably achieve your goals (though lots of engineers work extremely long hours, too). There is also teaching in a good school district (around 50k/yr), being a professor, working as a sound engineer in a good studio, doing something with TV or film, etc...

It sounds like you are approaching law entirely wrong. For some reason you have these strict guidelines as to what you want your lifestyle to be, and what you want to be doing while "working," and trying to cram some kind of law into meeting those needs. Instead, you should probably go out and search different kinds of jobs (even ones that don't require a professional degree; I'm not sure why this is a necessity) that fit your passions and lifestyle. Finally, from what I've seen with 4-5 friends in law school right now, most people (like 80%) who go into law school thinking they want a certain kind of law completely change over the course of law school, and end up doing something completely different. It's easy to say "yeah I'll do con law my whole life because I want to help people with issues and it fits my lifestyle" when you haven't sat through a miserable con law class.

Also, as someone previously mentioned, I'm pretty sure no schools actually section stack. However, you should be aware (which is why so many posters keep readdressing it) that your UGPA and LSAT are NOT at all good reflectors of how you'll do in law school (no offense, but especially as a psych major -- it's not that difficult to get a 3.7). Law school exams are completely arbitrary, totally from out of left field, and are going to be like nothing you've ever done before. Just because you got a 174 doesn't mean you're gunna smoke the kid who got a 155. Unfortunately, the LSAT and law school just doesn't work that way.

edit: If you want a happy and fulfilling life and MUST work in law, I would say go to the best law school you can, forget the scholarship, find an area of law you're passionate about and WANT to work in for 60+ hours a week, and tailor your social life to fit that. After 5 or 6 years of working, branch off and start your own firm (when you have the capital). Otherwise, I'd say law is not for you.

[Scallywaggums]

I've updated the Original Post in response to input. Please check it out.

I'll reply to the last two posts later. Gotta go for now.

Thank you all!

[06072010]

You dont need a law degree to accomplish this. A couple years of experience as a paralegal would get you there

Someone mentioned being a career law clerk. What you want is a position as a legal research attorney for a court. Its pretty much the only position (aside from independent practice) that will pay good money with moderate hours.

Seriously though you should be considering paralegal work.

I'd rather not be someone's bitch indefinitely. I want to be a lawyer. The consensus seems to be that the hours part pretty much HAS to give (at least initially) unless I get really lucky with a rare firm.

Law is a service industry. You are always somebody's bitch.

+1 TITCR

Sebben & Sebben FTW

Think about the billable hours!

I'll finally build that lake house and run around naked all day.

HAHA! (dangly parts)

To sleep. To sleep perchance to dream. Aye, there's the rub. HA HA! Rub.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nzc-c1-X ... re=related

[Scallywaggums]

It is the NORM for the schools to give out WAY MORE conditional schollys that can be kept as a matter of statistics. Think about it. These schools want to BUY as many high LSAT students as they can, but there isn't enough $ to buy as many as they want. Thus, they give out money that is "recyclable". LS administrators know that LS is a different ball game than UG or anything else, and there is no way all the scholly students can keep them, so they give out full rides to 40-60% of the class. Their ranking goes up, a bunch of those students can't make the min. GPA for scholly renewal, and they recycle "your" scholly $ to the next crop of entering students.

Even if a school with a top 1/3 scholly req. only gave out schollys to 1/3 of the students, it's still a bad deal because past performance does not predict success with LS grades. t2/3/4 schools also have low curves. The most generous curve you're going to find at schools like these is a 2.7 or 2.8 median. Curves as low as 2.5 or lower are not unheard of. Getting a 3.3 on a curve like that is a lot harder than you think and your competition in LS is smarter than you think. Also, if too many 1Ls look like they are at risk for keeping scholly $ after 1st semester, NOTHING is stopping schools from lowering the curve 2nd semester to deflate students' GPAs. Some schools also keep up the tough curve for 2L and 3L so your scholly is always at risk.

Yikes. Do people agree with this being the norm? Anyone with anecdotal evidence?

[Scallywaggums]

It sounds like you are approaching law entirely wrong. For some reason you have these strict guidelines as to what you want your lifestyle to be, and what you want to be doing while "working," and trying to cram some kind of law into meeting those needs.

I should have clarified at the outset: I most definitely want to go into law. Logical reasoning is my bag, and this is the most viable field in which I might excel.

Also, as I've stated before, I will be performing much better on the LSAT than I could on any other standardized test, so my foot's in the door off the bat.

So, to keep this as widely applicable as possible, let's accept that I'm definitely going to law school, and focus our thoughts on the LEAST time consuming law jobs... I'm not the only aspiring lawyer who needs 8 hours of sleep and wants a vibrant life outside my profession.

[keg411]

My dad is an attorney. He actually ended up in his position because he didn't want to work crazy hours and wanted a family. Rarely works weekends, mostly 8-5. PM me for more details, but it probably won't fit two of the things you want: 1) super interesting (though it depends what you personally find "interesting" and 2) working for an individual and not a corporation. You don't start out getting paid very much, but it is a position with room for advancement. I also don't know how crazy-rare this type of job is now and if his company is kind of a "relic" in their field.

[icydash]

It sounds like you are approaching law entirely wrong. For some reason you have these strict guidelines as to what you want your lifestyle to be, and what you want to be doing while "working," and trying to cram some kind of law into meeting those needs.

I should have clarified at the outset: I most definitely want to go into law. Logical reasoning is my bag, and this is the most viable field in which I might excel.

Also, as I've stated before, I will be performing much better on the LSAT than I could on any other standardized test, so my foot's in the door off the bat.

So, to keep this as widely applicable as possible, let's accept that I'm definitely going to law school, and focus our thoughts on the LEAST time consuming law jobs... I'm not the only aspiring lawyer who needs 8 hours of sleep and wants a vibrant life outside my profession.

Going to law school because you do well/can do well on the standardized test seems kind of silly to me. I hope you have more/better reasons.

And the only attorneys I actually know in person who come close to meeting your needs own their own practice, so it would seem that's your best bet.

[Scallywaggums]

Going to law school because you do well/can do well on the standardized test seems kind of silly to me. I hope you have more/better reasons.

That's the practical aspect.

As I said, "logical reasoning is my bag". To elaborate, I'm not just good at it, but I truly enjoy it.

I was always the annoying kid in high school who reveled in disagreement. I was a social misfit before college. I loved 'Symbolic Logic' in college, and have actually enjoyed studying for the LSAT. I will enjoy the work if it's not mundane. I'm confident that law school is the right play.

[thesealocust]

never mind

[Scallywaggums]

I was always the annoying kid in high school who reveled in disagreement. I was a social misfit before college. I will enjoy the work if it's not mundane. I'm confident that law school is the right play.

People like you are why people like me enjoy the law and law school but turn into raging alcoholics anyway.

HTH.

Hyuckles.

You mean people like me annoy you 'cause we enjoy nitpicking arguments for the hell of it... often when the actual subject matter is trivial???

HTH???