Fall 3L: Solid resume. No offers. Career dead in a ditch?

[Anonymous User]

How "lucky" for your friend that his aunt was crippled in a car accident.

I also don't see how this clears up your previous posts. You basically just reiterated that you shouldn't go to law school because of how unlikely it is that you'll "luck into" a large sum settlement case and have the know how to handle it. Which is equivalent to saying that outside of biglaw OCI, you should drop out because the chances of this happening are too remote to bank on and there's nothing in between, which I believe is the same crap you've been pushing for going on 3 pages now.

Oh how I love the 0 L "anger." It never ends. Hurry now son, and back to those Rule Against Perpetuities puzzles. Remember kid, just one "B" separates you from a 160 K position and a seat in the doc review bullpen for $17 an hour w/ no health insurance.
ROTFL!

Don't laugh, buttonpusher has a point. I went to a T50 school. Ended my 1L year just outside the top 10%. Received a B- in Con law. Had I gotten an A or A-in con law like the rest of my grades, I would have been in the top 5% and would have been accepted to a t14 law school. My friends in the top 5% all transferred to T6 schools and all of them have biglaw jobs. Now I am at a t25 and unemployed.... Out of 9 graded classes... 1 class, an 3 hr exam and 6 double spaced pages separated me from a biglaw job. The lines are extremely thin.

The problem with law is that there is literrally a line drawn in the sand. One side you get 160k, the other side you get 30k shitlaw. You either get a 100k+ job or you get a 30k job with little job mobility, there is very little in between.

[yuzu]

Some thoughts for OP:

• The Northwest is a fairly small legal market, and you may not get what you want exactly where you want. I know a lawyer, for example, who commutes from Portland to Seattle.
• A large number of the people I know in/from the NW have worked in California before. If you want to work in the NW long term, I would consider smaller Bay Area / Sacramento positions. Not that those are easy markets, but I still would suggest them as a focus. DA positions would get you courtroom experience and in my experience are well thought of.
• Being panicked and desperate will preclude you from getting a job and may also hurt your 3L grades and the impression on attorneys you meet. Two things: understand that there is more to life than getting the government job you want, and don't be afraid to get help if you need it. The happiest people I know don't have prestigious jobs, and I know people looking for jobs in the NW who'd love to be in your position. Be grateful for what you have, and don't beat yourself up over what you don't have.
• I might consider mock interviews. "Great feedback" from an employer is not very meaningful; a mock interviewer will be far more willing to be critical. I am not saying you are doing a bad job by any means, but small things in an interview can make a difference.

[REALLYBIGLAW]

The oversupply has already driven prices for basic "consumer" law like Ch 7 BK, simple wills, DWI defense, residential closings etc down to absurdly low levels, and even at those low prices most clients want "payment plans" and other nonsense. Money is scarce among the masses, and getting scarcer all the time.

Already, many of the revenue streams for shitlaw solos and small firms are long gone. Basic wills= legalzoom. DWI defense= waste of $$$- except in 0.000001% of cases a lawyer can't get you a better deal than you could get going pro se. LLC formation=online via most state's Dept of the Treasury. Also, since UPL "Unauthorized Practice of Law" rules are weakly/seldom enforced, there are tons of craigslist "doc filing" services that will basically "walk you thru" filling out stock forms for a Ch 7 or no-fault divorce, etc. Check out http://www.wethepeopleusa.com/ for a great example of this BS.

Anyone at the 2L level who missed Biglaw or dot.gov gigs has to seriously ask themselves whether it's worth throwing another 3 semesters tuition + the lost work/re-training time to find another career. I think many of you already know the answer, even if you aren't willing to admit it publicly.

This is filled with pure truth. Anyone who missed Biglaw needs to realize that small law is getting phucked right now.
Everything we do is being crushed by things like legalzoom and other online DIY operations.

Even Suzie Orman is selling a kit for $29.95 that provides:
1) Will
2) Revocable Trust
3) Financial Power of Attorney
4) Durable Power of Attorney for Healthcare

When you see things like that and legalzoom, there goes about 20% of what small law firms used to do.
Other areas are also being attacked relentlessly as described by "buttonpusher".

Just about the only reliable thing these days is gettting people out of traffic tickets.
That still pays $250 per ticket and I get about 2-3 of those each week.

[REALLYBIGLAW]

The problem with law is that there is literrally a line drawn in the sand. One side you get 160k, the other side you get 30k shitlaw. You either get a 100k+ job or you get a 30k job with little job mobility, there is very little in between.

Even if you hit that $120k-$160k BIGLAW ticket, most are not able to hold on for more than 3-5 years.
Then you are begging for shitlaw like every other TTT and TTTT loser.

[snehpets]

The problem with law is that there is literrally a line drawn in the sand. One side you get 160k, the other side you get 30k shitlaw. You either get a 100k+ job or you get a 30k job with little job mobility, there is very little in between.

Even if you hit that $120k-$160k BIGLAW ticket, most are not able to hold on for more than 3-5 years.
Then you are begging for shitlaw like every other TTT and TTTT loser.

Read this entire thread hoping we'd finally find out what the apparently horrible home market is. Disappointing.

[zomginternets]

Another first time poster strenuously agreeing with buttonpusher.. I'm sure it's not another alt.

Buttonpusher's fabulous analytic skills failed to see that the point of my post was that regardless of pre-ITE or post-ITE, people outside biglaw who graduate from "shit" schools are able to succeed where the T14 graduates have failed. He/she also conveniently ignored my question about why he thinks the prospects of him getting his 175k job in 10 years is so much more assured. Are we going to find you on a teachers forum in 10 years whining about how bad you failed at that career path and how no one should ever get their Masters in Education? Anyway, my dispute is with buttonpusher's philosophy that nothing in life is worth trying to do unless there is a 100% guarantee of making big money by following some preset formula, i.e. T14 -> good grades -> OCI -> Biglaw or else just drop out. He failed at law when he didn't get this, and thus such opportunities can't possibly exist for anyone else (barring miracles, apparently). To top it off, he then somehow thinks that his newly chosen career path is guaranteed success, as if no one in the public education system ever got laid off. His posts reeks of "I failed at law and thus I have to blame the system in order for my pride not to suffer."

[leobowski]

Another first time poster strenuously agreeing with buttonpusher.. I'm sure it's not another alt.

Buttonpusher's fabulous analytic skills failed to see that the point of my post was that regardless of pre-ITE or post-ITE, people outside biglaw who graduate from "shit" schools are able to succeed where the T14 graduates have failed. He/she also conveniently ignored my question about why he thinks the prospects of him getting his 175k job in 10 years is so much more assured. Are we going to find you on a teachers forum in 10 years whining about how bad you failed at that career path and how no one should ever get their Masters in Education? Anyway, my dispute is with buttonpusher's philosophy that nothing in life is worth trying to do unless there is a 100% guarantee of making big money by following some preset formula, i.e. T14 -> good grades -> OCI -> Biglaw or else just drop out. He failed at law when he didn't get this, and thus such opportunities can't possibly exist for anyone else (barring miracles, apparently). To top it off, he then somehow thinks that his newly chosen career path is guaranteed success, as if no one in the public education system ever got laid off. His posts reeks of "I failed at law and thus I have to blame the system in order for my pride not to suffer."

Zing.

[Voodoo94]

Buttonpusher's fabulous analytic skills failed to see that the point of my post was that regardless of pre-ITE or post-ITE, people outside biglaw who graduate from "shit" schools are able to succeed where the T14 graduates have failed. He/she also conveniently ignored my question about why he thinks the prospects of him getting his 175k job in 10 years is so much more assured. Are we going to find you on a teachers forum in 10 years whining about how bad you failed at that career path and how no one should ever get their Masters in Education? Anyway, my dispute is with buttonpusher's philosophy that nothing in life is worth trying to do unless there is a 100% guarantee of making big money by following some preset formula, i.e. T14 -> good grades -> OCI -> Biglaw or else just drop out. He failed at law when he didn't get this, and thus such opportunities can't possibly exist for anyone else (barring miracles, apparently). To top it off, he then somehow thinks that his newly chosen career path is guaranteed success, as if no one in the public education system ever got laid off. His posts reeks of "I failed at law and thus I have to blame the system in order for my pride not to suffer."

Nice try, but you have constructed a total strawman argument. The situation of a teacher not becoming a district superintendent and the current legal empolyment situation are not analogous.

For starters, a teacher, even if they never move beyond the classroom, will have a modicum of economic stability and security (not a sure bet, but more security than ANY law firm could ever hope to offer). A teacher in NY or NJ with a JD will probably top out at between $80 and $100K (depending on district) even if they were to stay in the classroom their entire career. Furthermore, they will vest a retirement package that will, well, enable them to actually retire. They will receive allowances for continuing education, COLA increases tied to CPI fluctuations and decent healthcare coverage. Furthermore, the work schedule allows them to pick up alternate sources of income either through the district (e.g. coaching or moderating an activty) or through other avenues.

Buttonpusher is not inferring that a teacher who doesn't become an administrator is a failure. To the contrary, he is pointing out that these possibilities do exist and they exist in a fairly meritocratic manner. Unlike the dying legal professions, the pedigree of one's M.Ed. doesn't predetermine the trajectory of their career. It increasingly does in law. Promotions and advancement in primary and secondary education are mostly influenced by things the applicant can control and influence through their career, rather than just grades during their first year of grad school.

[c3pO4]

Buttonpusher's fabulous analytic skills failed to see that the point of my post was that regardless of pre-ITE or post-ITE, people outside biglaw who graduate from "shit" schools are able to succeed where the T14 graduates have failed. He/she also conveniently ignored my question about why he thinks the prospects of him getting his 175k job in 10 years is so much more assured. Are we going to find you on a teachers forum in 10 years whining about how bad you failed at that career path and how no one should ever get their Masters in Education? Anyway, my dispute is with buttonpusher's philosophy that nothing in life is worth trying to do unless there is a 100% guarantee of making big money by following some preset formula, i.e. T14 -> good grades -> OCI -> Biglaw or else just drop out. He failed at law when he didn't get this, and thus such opportunities can't possibly exist for anyone else (barring miracles, apparently). To top it off, he then somehow thinks that his newly chosen career path is guaranteed success, as if no one in the public education system ever got laid off. His posts reeks of "I failed at law and thus I have to blame the system in order for my pride not to suffer."

Nice try, but you have constructed a total strawman argument. The situation of a teacher not becoming a district superintendent and the current legal empolyment situation are not analogous.

For starters, a teacher, even if they never move beyond the classroom, will have a modicum of economic stability and security (not a sure bet, but more security than ANY law firm could ever hope to offer). A teacher in NY or NJ with a JD will probably top out at between $80 and $100K (depending on district) even if they were to stay in the classroom their entire career. Furthermore, they will vest a retirement package that will, well, enable them to actually retire. They will receive allowances for continuing education, COLA increases tied to CPI fluctuations and decent healthcare coverage. Furthermore, the work schedule allows them to pick up alternate sources of income either through the district (e.g. coaching or moderating an activty) or through other avenues.

Buttonpusher is not inferring that a teacher who doesn't become an administrator is a failure. To the contrary, he is pointing out that these possibilities do exist and they exist in a fairly meritocratic manner. Unlike the dying legal professions, the pedigree of one's M.Ed. doesn't predetermine the trajectory of their career. It increasingly does in law. Promotions and advancement in primary and secondary education are mostly influenced by things the applicant can control and influence through their career, rather than just grades during their first year of grad school.

This made me think of one of the most depressing/frustrating thing about the legal industry to me--- that it revolves around success and frowns upon failure. In every other business, failure is not a prohibtion for future success. Start a company and fail? No problem. It's even possible to get laid off and find a job a few months later in most industries. But in law, any type of failure along the ladder and you are out forever. I have friends who've dropped out of UG and are in a better place than a law grad down on their luck.

[zomginternets]

Buttonpusher's fabulous analytic skills failed to see that the point of my post was that regardless of pre-ITE or post-ITE, people outside biglaw who graduate from "shit" schools are able to succeed where the T14 graduates have failed. He/she also conveniently ignored my question about why he thinks the prospects of him getting his 175k job in 10 years is so much more assured. Are we going to find you on a teachers forum in 10 years whining about how bad you failed at that career path and how no one should ever get their Masters in Education? Anyway, my dispute is with buttonpusher's philosophy that nothing in life is worth trying to do unless there is a 100% guarantee of making big money by following some preset formula, i.e. T14 -> good grades -> OCI -> Biglaw or else just drop out. He failed at law when he didn't get this, and thus such opportunities can't possibly exist for anyone else (barring miracles, apparently). To top it off, he then somehow thinks that his newly chosen career path is guaranteed success, as if no one in the public education system ever got laid off. His posts reeks of "I failed at law and thus I have to blame the system in order for my pride not to suffer."

Nice try, but you have constructed a total strawman argument. The situation of a teacher not becoming a district superintendent and the current legal empolyment situation are not analogous.

For starters, a teacher, even if they never move beyond the classroom, will have a modicum of economic stability and security (not a sure bet, but more security than ANY law firm could ever hope to offer). A teacher in NY or NJ with a JD will probably top out at between $80 and $100K (depending on district) even if they were to stay in the classroom their entire career. Furthermore, they will vest a retirement package that will, well, enable them to actually retire. They will receive allowances for continuing education, COLA increases tied to CPI fluctuations and decent healthcare coverage. Furthermore, the work schedule allows them to pick up alternate sources of income either through the district (e.g. coaching or moderating an activty) or through other avenues.

Buttonpusher is not inferring that a teacher who doesn't become an administrator is a failure. To the contrary, he is pointing out that these possibilities do exist and they exist in a fairly meritocratic manner. Unlike the dying legal professions, the pedigree of one's M.Ed. doesn't predetermine the trajectory of their career. It increasingly does in law. Promotions and advancement in primary and secondary education are mostly influenced by things the applicant can control and influence through their career, rather than just grades during their first year of grad school.

As I highlighted, my main argument is that people shouldn't abandon a chosen career path based purely on the lack of a guarantee of success. You certainly bolstered his argument that an education career could be a more stable existence (although I'm sure it's not without counter-argument). Plenty of jobs and careers have a more stable and guaranteed source of income. However, I'm saying that people shouldn't now all flock to become a public school teacher just because of such guarantees; the OP shouldn't drop out after 2 1/2 years in law school just because he isn't guaranteed a 160k job upon graduation.

Also, his post indicated that the worth of an M.Ed is that it has the potential to get one 175k. It also has the potential to not do him any better than without one. Does the possession of an M.Ed automatically bump him up a sufficient amount of money to make it worth the tuition spent? Does it guarantee that he won't ever get fired when there is a state budget crisis? If not, is it really that much more worthwhile than the JD?

Buttonpusher is saying it's not worthwhile to embark on a career with <90% chance of success. I'm saying that it is. Ultimately, we're not going to agree on what percentage makes a particular career worthwhile; some people prefer the assurance, other people are happy to forgo the assurance for the chance to do something that really excites them. It's really awesome if you have both excitement and >90% guarantee of success, but most professions don't have that luxury.

Edit: i know that this will now become about whether law is actually exciting or not. Lets just agree that it is for some, and is not for others.

[johansantana21]

Buttonpusher's fabulous analytic skills failed to see that the point of my post was that regardless of pre-ITE or post-ITE, people outside biglaw who graduate from "shit" schools are able to succeed where the T14 graduates have failed. He/she also conveniently ignored my question about why he thinks the prospects of him getting his 175k job in 10 years is so much more assured. Are we going to find you on a teachers forum in 10 years whining about how bad you failed at that career path and how no one should ever get their Masters in Education? Anyway, my dispute is with buttonpusher's philosophy that nothing in life is worth trying to do unless there is a 100% guarantee of making big money by following some preset formula, i.e. T14 -> good grades -> OCI -> Biglaw or else just drop out. He failed at law when he didn't get this, and thus such opportunities can't possibly exist for anyone else (barring miracles, apparently). To top it off, he then somehow thinks that his newly chosen career path is guaranteed success, as if no one in the public education system ever got laid off. His posts reeks of "I failed at law and thus I have to blame the system in order for my pride not to suffer."

Nice try, but you have constructed a total strawman argument. The situation of a teacher not becoming a district superintendent and the current legal empolyment situation are not analogous.

For starters, a teacher, even if they never move beyond the classroom, will have a modicum of economic stability and security (not a sure bet, but more security than ANY law firm could ever hope to offer). A teacher in NY or NJ with a JD will probably top out at between $80 and $100K (depending on district) even if they were to stay in the classroom their entire career. Furthermore, they will vest a retirement package that will, well, enable them to actually retire. They will receive allowances for continuing education, COLA increases tied to CPI fluctuations and decent healthcare coverage. Furthermore, the work schedule allows them to pick up alternate sources of income either through the district (e.g. coaching or moderating an activty) or through other avenues.

Buttonpusher is not inferring that a teacher who doesn't become an administrator is a failure. To the contrary, he is pointing out that these possibilities do exist and they exist in a fairly meritocratic manner. Unlike the dying legal professions, the pedigree of one's M.Ed. doesn't predetermine the trajectory of their career. It increasingly does in law. Promotions and advancement in primary and secondary education are mostly influenced by things the applicant can control and influence through their career, rather than just grades during their first year of grad school.

As I highlighted, my main argument is that people shouldn't abandon a chosen career path based purely on the lack of a guarantee of success. You certainly bolstered his argument that an education career could be a more stable existence (although I'm sure it's not without counter-argument). Plenty of jobs and careers have a more stable and guaranteed source of income. However, I'm saying that people shouldn't now all flock to become a public school teacher just because of such guarantees; the OP shouldn't drop out after 2 1/2 years in law school just because he isn't guaranteed a 160k job upon graduation.

Also, his post indicated that the worth of an M.Ed is that it has the potential to get one 175k. It also has the potential to not do him any better than without one. Does the possession of an M.Ed automatically bump him up a sufficient amount of money to make it worth the tuition spent? Does it guarantee that he won't ever get fired when there is a state budget crisis? If not, is it really that much more worthwhile than the JD?

Buttonpusher is saying it's not worthwhile to embark on a career with <90% chance of success. I'm saying that it is. Ultimately, we're not going to agree on what percentage makes a particular career worthwhile; some people prefer the assurance, other people are happy to forgo the assurance for the chance to do something that really excites them. It's really awesome if you have both excitement and >90% guarantee of success, but most professions don't have that luxury.

Edit: i know that this will now become about whether law is actually exciting or not. Lets just agree that it is for some, and is not for others.

It's not 90%. It's more like gambling 150k for a 10% shot from TTTs 20% shot from TT and 50% from T14s.

[Voodoo94]

As I highlighted, my main argument is that people shouldn't abandon a chosen career path based purely on the lack of a guarantee of success. You certainly bolstered his argument that an education career could be a more stable existence (although I'm sure it's not without counter-argument). Plenty of jobs and careers have a more stable and guaranteed source of income. However, I'm saying that people shouldn't now all flock to become a public school teacher just because of such guarantees; the OP shouldn't drop out after 2 1/2 years in law school just because he isn't guaranteed a 160k job upon graduation.

Also, his post indicated that the worth of an M.Ed is that it has the potential to get one 175k. It also has the potential to not do him any better than without one. Does the possession of an M.Ed automatically bump him up a sufficient amount of money to make it worth the tuition spent? Does it guarantee that he won't ever get fired when there is a state budget crisis? If not, is it really that much more worthwhile than the JD?

I think you profoundly underestimate how bad the legal job market is and the profession's long term prospects. Things are pretty bleak - especially for the low-level "retail" practitioners that comprise the majority of the state bars. Simply put, dollar for dollar, an M.Ed. is a far better investment than a JD. Unlike law, there is not a real hierarchy in places M.Eds in a rigid caste system. Furthermore, at many state institutions (e.g. SUNY) these programs can be attended for under $9K a year - less than half of what in-state tuition at SUNY's law school costs. In New York, a teacher needs a Masters by their 5th year of teaching to just keep their job, so yes, it is a worthwhile endeavor, for career stability alone.

You once again construct a strawman by saying the following: "the OP shouldn't drop out after 2 1/2 years in law school just because he isn't guaranteed a 160k job upon graduation." No one is talking here about "guarantees" or a "160K job." What we are talking about is the reasonable prospect of earning an adequate income as a lawyer to service accrued student loan debts. Do you have any idea what the monthly loan repayment schedule looks like for $150K in student loans? Answer: it's over $1,500 a month. If you can't find a legal job other than episodic $25 an hour gigs as a temp or a $40K shitlaw position, how do you pay it back? How do you move ahead? How do you buy a home? Start a family? Better yet, please tell me the career advancement opportunities for a temporary coder or an insurance defense associate at a shitlaw firm? Next, please objectively evaluate these career paths and their potential earnings while factoring in student loan debt service. Compare these bleak prospects with a public school teaching career. Any honest appraisal shows that teaching has better long term prospects for the majority of folks discerning both careers.

Please don't give me the "just do IBR" schtick. If IBR were a person, it would have even less "security" than a big law associate position. The program's costs are unsustainable in the near to long term. The GOP will likely win the Senate in 2012 and I don't see it's long term prospects as all that good for IBR

[2xHarvard]

Read this entire thread hoping we'd finally find out what the apparently horrible home market is. Disappointing.

Me too!

Nowhere in the United States is really *that* bad and we still haven't found out the no-doubt-fascinating personal reasons for the hometown exclusion. I'm staying tuned!

Advice to OP: talk (as in, in the real world) to some folks who are successful as attorneys, enjoy their jobs, and/or can tolerate what they do. Listen to their advice.

[keg411]

I hate to derail this thread more than it already has been, but:

Education is a really poor choice of alternate field, buttonpusher. First off, a M.Ed is going to cost $$... it's not the type of grad degree they pay you for. Second, teachers in NJ are being laid of in droves thanks to Chri$ Chri$tie's union busting. Getting one of those sweet NJ teaching jobs is about as hard right now as getting BigLaw, if not harder. I actually know more unemployed people with teaching degrees than those with law degrees (and these are all within the past 3 years). So unless you plan to move to an under-served area and make less then you did in Shitlaw, teaching is a horrible life decision for you BP.

FTR, I have biglaw... just wanted to warn you, BP, before you sink $$$ into a totally useless degree with the extremely remote hopes of breaking into the croneyism involved in getting some educational administration job.

[REALLYBIGLAW]

It's not 90%. It's more like gambling 150k for a 10% shot from TTTs 20% shot from TT and 50% from T14s.

Many people fail to understand that it is even worse than that. People from other industries see a starting Biglaw salary of $120k to $160k and think that every year after that is the same or higher. In reality the odds are extremely high (19 in 20) that the Biglaw associate "winners" will be gone within 3-5 years and then make significantly less than their starting salary for the remainder of their time in the legal industry.

I would say you are better off missing Biglaw and trying to land something local at $50k. At least that has a realistic chance of having some duration for your career, if you can figure out local small law and it is not a niche that is being taken by Legalzoom or Suzie Orman.

[Voodoo94]

I hate to derail this thread more than it already has been, but:

Education is a really poor choice of alternate field, buttonpusher. First off, a M.Ed is going to cost $$... it's not the type of grad degree they pay you for. Second, teachers in NJ are being laid of in droves thanks to Chri$ Chri$tie's union busting. Getting one of those sweet NJ teaching jobs is about as hard right now as getting BigLaw, if not harder. I actually know more unemployed people with teaching degrees than those with law degrees (and these are all within the past 3 years). So unless you plan to move to an under-served area and make less then you did in Shitlaw, teaching is a horrible life decision for you BP.

This is some pretty thin gruel to justify staying in the legal profession. Did you read my post above? Education Masters programs at state schools are often less than $9,000 a year - and that's if you go full time. If you go part time, the annual cost is less and is amortized over a longer period. You are likely working as a teacher while you do it. Furthermore, an M.Ed. doesn't have the opportunity costs of a JD where you take yourself out of the workforce for 3 years while racking up excessive amounts of debt most people will be unable to pay back. Getting a teaching job is harder than getting Biglaw? Get out of here. You may have to go to a higher need area, but doing so doesn't have the stigma or requirement of needing "local contacts" valued above all by firms. There's a lot more career portability in education.

Most JD grads in 2012, if they stay in law, will be lucky to find themselves making what they would have made as teachers at the 20 year mark. Factor in the student loan debt service and the thousands of dollars needed annually for CLE and licensure, and this comparison becomes even more stark.

[NinerFan]

I hate to derail this thread more than it already has been, but:

Education is a really poor choice of alternate field, buttonpusher. First off, a M.Ed is going to cost $$... it's not the type of grad degree they pay you for. Second, teachers in NJ are being laid of in droves thanks to Chri$ Chri$tie's union busting. Getting one of those sweet NJ teaching jobs is about as hard right now as getting BigLaw, if not harder. I actually know more unemployed people with teaching degrees than those with law degrees (and these are all within the past 3 years). So unless you plan to move to an under-served area and make less then you did in Shitlaw, teaching is a horrible life decision for you BP.

FTR, I have biglaw... just wanted to warn you, BP, before you sink $$$ into a totally useless degree with the extremely remote hopes of breaking into the croneyism involved in getting some educational administration job.

People aren't going to give up their plum teaching positions in nice areas. If you're a new educator, chances are you're going to get sent to a not-so-good area unless you luck out. And, with budget cuts in most states, they're looking to get rid of teachers, not hire new ones.

That said, the hours are better than shit law, and the pay is too.

[Notor]

Go the physical/occupational therapy route. You could do the prereqs at a local community college for pennies since you already have your degree in "Useless Liberal Arts Major," and then just take the GRE and apply. Everyone I know from undergrad who went this route had a job at graduation, and these fields are growing rapidly with an aging population. It pays well to boot, and you have great hours/benefits.

Dunno why the default "I failed at law" career choice is teacher, its really not that great of an option. Suck it up and take a science class, it's really not that hard, especially given how people study for law classes.

[Machine Spirit]

It's not 90%. It's more like gambling 150k for a 10% shot from TTTs 20% shot from TT and 50% from T14s.

Many people fail to understand that it is even worse than that. People from other industries see a starting Biglaw salary of $120k to $160k and think that every year after that is the same or higher. In reality the odds are extremely high (19 in 20) that the Biglaw associate "winners" will be gone within 3-5 years and then make significantly less than their starting salary for the remainder of their time in the legal industry.

I would say you are better off missing Biglaw and trying to land something local at $50k. At least that has a realistic chance of having some duration for your career, if you can figure out local small law and it is not a niche that is being taken by Legalzoom or Suzie Orman.

So are we all of the opinion that this is ButtonPusher?

Yes? Alright then.

[ToTransferOrNot]

I hate to derail this thread more than it already has been, but:

Education is a really poor choice of alternate field, buttonpusher. First off, a M.Ed is going to cost $$... it's not the type of grad degree they pay you for. Second, teachers in NJ are being laid of in droves thanks to Chri$ Chri$tie's union busting. Getting one of those sweet NJ teaching jobs is about as hard right now as getting BigLaw, if not harder. I actually know more unemployed people with teaching degrees than those with law degrees (and these are all within the past 3 years). So unless you plan to move to an under-served area and make less then you did in Shitlaw, teaching is a horrible life decision for you BP.

This is some pretty thin gruel to justify staying in the legal profession. Did you read my post above? Education Masters programs at state schools are often less than $9,000 a year - and that's if you go full time. If you go part time, the annual cost is less and is amortized over a longer period. You are likely working as a teacher while you do it. Furthermore, an M.Ed. doesn't have the opportunity costs of a JD where you take yourself out of the workforce for 3 years while racking up excessive amounts of debt most people will be unable to pay back. Getting a teaching job is harder than getting Biglaw? Get out of here. You may have to go to a higher need area, but doing so doesn't have the stigma or requirement of needing "local contacts" valued above all by firms. There's a lot more career portability in education.

Most JD grads in 2012, if they stay in law, will be lucky to find themselves making what they would have made as teachers at the 20 year mark. Factor in the student loan debt service and the thousands of dollars needed annually for CLE and licensure, and this comparison becomes even more stark.

Hi, um: Getting a teaching job - any teaching job - is no walk in the park. I know countless unemployed education degree-holders. Even folks who are qualified to teach math and science are having a tough time, and most people don't have those qualifications.

ETA: And also, someone with a JD will be more difficult to hire (they're paid as if they have a masters, meaning they hit the budget harder), and school districts aren't going to be jumping at the bits to hire "obvious fallback plan" types.

[NinerFan]

I hate to derail this thread more than it already has been, but:

Education is a really poor choice of alternate field, buttonpusher. First off, a M.Ed is going to cost $$... it's not the type of grad degree they pay you for. Second, teachers in NJ are being laid of in droves thanks to Chri$ Chri$tie's union busting. Getting one of those sweet NJ teaching jobs is about as hard right now as getting BigLaw, if not harder. I actually know more unemployed people with teaching degrees than those with law degrees (and these are all within the past 3 years). So unless you plan to move to an under-served area and make less then you did in Shitlaw, teaching is a horrible life decision for you BP.

This is some pretty thin gruel to justify staying in the legal profession. Did you read my post above? Education Masters programs at state schools are often less than $9,000 a year - and that's if you go full time. If you go part time, the annual cost is less and is amortized over a longer period. You are likely working as a teacher while you do it. Furthermore, an M.Ed. doesn't have the opportunity costs of a JD where you take yourself out of the workforce for 3 years while racking up excessive amounts of debt most people will be unable to pay back. Getting a teaching job is harder than getting Biglaw? Get out of here. You may have to go to a higher need area, but doing so doesn't have the stigma or requirement of needing "local contacts" valued above all by firms. There's a lot more career portability in education.

Most JD grads in 2012, if they stay in law, will be lucky to find themselves making what they would have made as teachers at the 20 year mark. Factor in the student loan debt service and the thousands of dollars needed annually for CLE and licensure, and this comparison becomes even more stark.

Hi, um: Getting a teaching job - any teaching job - is no walk in the park. I know countless unemployed education degree-holders. Even folks who are qualified to teach math and science are having a tough time, and most people don't have those qualifications.

Yep. This.

[Voodoo94]

Hi, um: Getting a teaching job - any teaching job - is no walk in the park. I know countless unemployed education degree-holders. Even folks who are qualified to teach math and science are having a tough time, and most people don't have those qualifications.

I was pointing out that the notion that securing a teaching job is "harder than getting Big Law" is preposterous - I never said it was easy, however.

Furthermore, unlike law, your employability as a teacher doesn't evaporate after 12 months of graduation if you don't secure a position. In law, if you don't have a job 12 months after bar admission, you probably will never get one. That's the brutal truth.

In this economy, many careers are lottery shots. That said, you will have a hard time finding one so stacked against the player and in favor of the "house" as law. The odds of securing work is much greater in other fields.

[Voodoo94]

To clarify, I am not suggesting that teaching is an "ideal" plan B for a failed law school graduate. Buttonpusher raised the point that it is a viable alternative career. He was viciously attacked and I am defending his thesis, not suggesting it as the best course of action.

For a JD under 29 with a stillborn legal career, I still think that Army OCS is the best Plan B.

http://www.armyocs.com

[ToTransferOrNot]

To clarify, I am not suggesting that teaching is an "ideal" plan B for a failed law school graduate. Buttonpusher raised the point that it is a viable alternative career. He was viciously attacked and I am defending his thesis, not suggesting it as the best course of action.

For a JD under 29 with a stillborn legal career, I still think that Army OCS is the best Plan B.

http://www.armyocs.com

I'm saying teaching's not a viable plan B for someone who had JD in-hand, though it certainly may have been a better choice in the first place. The economics of the hiring market for teachers is dismal - the market for washed-up JDs trying to get a teaching gig would be beyond absurd.

At the end of the day, our generation in general is going to have an awfully rough go of it. Best of luck to you OP.

[2xHarvard]

The military is a great career - really, at this point for OP, choosing a particular field, enlisting in that field, getting trained, and benefitting from loan repayment schemes might not be a bad idea. OCS could work too.

Other options include AmeriCorps, Jesuit Volunteer Corps, Peace Corps, etc. These (at least AC) allow you to postpone your loan payments, have the accruing interest paid by the service entity, and earn a scholarship toward your loan at the end of service.

Most importantly, all of the above would allow OP time to reflect upon his/her way forward and plan upon a line of attack for re-entry into the legal marketplace *OR* think of a different trajectory entirely.