Is Law School Worth it? Forum

[Anonymous User]

None of my other 26 year old friends are making $200k all in, and I can tell you that i-banking hours are WAY worse than biglaw hours, so I feel like law school was worth it. I had a bad week where I got crushed and billed just over 100 hours, but that was only 1 week, even the people I work with were shocked and said how abnormal that was, and my next busiest week outside of that has been about 70 billed hours. But, a friend of mine in banking is consistently spending 80-90+ hours in the office.

Most of my 26 year old friends are software engineers and are making more than $200k all in. They also have very little student debt if any when they got their job fresh out of undergrad (most went to state schools or schools in their home country where school costs little).

They work about 40 hours a week. Sometimes they're on call, but that just means they have to watch their phones for a weekend once a month, and this really annoys them. 1 doesn't answer if it's past 9pm and nothing has happened to him yet.

Some of them are actually closer to or over $300k at this point per their work titles, all in. Will be over $500,000 at this rate before they hit 30 if they keep progressing up their dev title ladder or move into management.

[JohnnieSockran]

None of my other 26 year old friends are making $200k all in, and I can tell you that i-banking hours are WAY worse than biglaw hours, so I feel like law school was worth it. I had a bad week where I got crushed and billed just over 100 hours, but that was only 1 week, even the people I work with were shocked and said how abnormal that was, and my next busiest week outside of that has been about 70 billed hours. But, a friend of mine in banking is consistently spending 80-90+ hours in the office.

Most of my 26 year old friends are software engineers and are making more than $200k all in. They also have very little student debt if any when they got their job fresh out of undergrad (most went to state schools or schools in their home country where school costs little).

They work about 40 hours a week. Sometimes they're on call, but that just means they have to watch their phones for a weekend once a month, and this really annoys them. 1 doesn't answer if it's past 9pm and nothing has happened to him yet.

Some of them are actually closer to or over $300k at this point per their work titles, all in. Will be over $500,000 at this rate before they hit 30 if they keep progressing up their dev title ladder or move into management.

I'm not suggesting that being in biglaw is the best or highest paying job you can get under age 30. I'm just saying it is undeniably a high-paying job. But not everyone wants to do biglaw, just like not everyone wants to be a software engineer.

So, responding to the OP, in my opinion, law school can be worth it, and it was for me. But, if OP has a love for software engineering or is good at it and can get a job doing that, then don't go to law school, but I'm assuming that is not OP's situation.

*Also, don't see a need for anon use.

[Anonymous User]

None of my other 26 year old friends are making $200k all in, and I can tell you that i-banking hours are WAY worse than biglaw hours, so I feel like law school was worth it. I had a bad week where I got crushed and billed just over 100 hours, but that was only 1 week, even the people I work with were shocked and said how abnormal that was, and my next busiest week outside of that has been about 70 billed hours. But, a friend of mine in banking is consistently spending 80-90+ hours in the office.

Most of my 26 year old friends are software engineers and are making more than $200k all in. They also have very little student debt if any when they got their job fresh out of undergrad (most went to state schools or schools in their home country where school costs little).

They work about 40 hours a week. Sometimes they're on call, but that just means they have to watch their phones for a weekend once a month, and this really annoys them. 1 doesn't answer if it's past 9pm and nothing has happened to him yet.

Some of them are actually closer to or over $300k at this point per their work titles, all in. Will be over $500,000 at this rate before they hit 30 if they keep progressing up their dev title ladder or move into management.

I'm not suggesting that being in biglaw is the best or highest paying job you can get under age 30. I'm just saying it is undeniably a high-paying job. But not everyone wants to do biglaw, just like not everyone wants to be a software engineer.

So, responding to the OP, in my opinion, law school can be worth it, and it was for me. But, if OP has a love for software engineering or is good at it and can get a job doing that, then don't go to law school, but I'm assuming that is not OP's situation.

*Also, don't see a need for anon use.

It's high paying in your case because you don't work that many hours. But once you get into the 70-80 hour range of some big law firm jobs, it's not high paying. In those situations they're basically making $65,000-$80,000 every 40 hours, which is average when you take into account student loans. Many, many jobs pay in this range that require less education. A tech recruiter or sales at a tech company, which requires no real formal educational requirements clears more than that on a 40 hour work week.

The actual high paying per hour legal jobs are the chill government positions or ones that involve contingency fees off big cases. Or the rare cases like yours where you get a big firm salary without having to work the hours in a non-expensive CoL market.

Either way, if you're happy with what you're doing then imo, it's "financially worth it." If your i-banking friends are happy doing 80 hours a week, then it's worth it. If you currently enjoy your job, then law school is worth it.

But if we're talking ROI of law school versus how much you make, then I think there are many better options than law unless you want contingency (but there are commission jobs that are the same), wanting to start your own business, or a clear way into a government position. Or in the cases of certain people in this thread, where they were basically unemployable prior to law school, which is probably true for a decent amount of law students.

[JohnnieSockran]

None of my other 26 year old friends are making $200k all in, and I can tell you that i-banking hours are WAY worse than biglaw hours, so I feel like law school was worth it. I had a bad week where I got crushed and billed just over 100 hours, but that was only 1 week, even the people I work with were shocked and said how abnormal that was, and my next busiest week outside of that has been about 70 billed hours. But, a friend of mine in banking is consistently spending 80-90+ hours in the office.

Most of my 26 year old friends are software engineers and are making more than $200k all in. They also have very little student debt if any when they got their job fresh out of undergrad (most went to state schools or schools in their home country where school costs little).

They work about 40 hours a week. Sometimes they're on call, but that just means they have to watch their phones for a weekend once a month, and this really annoys them. 1 doesn't answer if it's past 9pm and nothing has happened to him yet.

Some of them are actually closer to or over $300k at this point per their work titles, all in. Will be over $500,000 at this rate before they hit 30 if they keep progressing up their dev title ladder or move into management.

I'm not suggesting that being in biglaw is the best or highest paying job you can get under age 30. I'm just saying it is undeniably a high-paying job. But not everyone wants to do biglaw, just like not everyone wants to be a software engineer.

So, responding to the OP, in my opinion, law school can be worth it, and it was for me. But, if OP has a love for software engineering or is good at it and can get a job doing that, then don't go to law school, but I'm assuming that is not OP's situation.

*Also, don't see a need for anon use.

It's high paying in your case because you don't work that many hours. But once you get into the 70-80 hour range of some big law firm jobs, it's not high paying. In those situations they're basically making $65,000-$80,000 every 40 hours, which is average when you take into account student loans. Many, many jobs pay in this range that require less education. A tech recruiter or sales at a tech company, which requires no real formal educational requirements clears more than that on a 40 hour work week.

The actual high paying per hour legal jobs are the chill government positions or ones that involve contingency fees off big cases. Or the rare cases like yours where you get a big firm salary without having to work the hours in a non-expensive CoL market.

Either way, if you're happy with what you're doing then imo, it's "financially worth it." If your i-banking friends are happy doing 80 hours a week, then it's worth it. If you currently enjoy your job, then law school is worth it.

But if we're talking ROI of law school versus how much you make, then I think there are many better options than law unless you want contingency (but there are commission jobs that are the same), wanting to start your own business, or a clear way into a government position. Or in the cases of certain people in this thread, where they were basically unemployable prior to law school, which is probably true for a decent amount of law students.

Still not sure why you're anon, but whatever.

The flaw with your logic, is that dollars per hour is an imperfect measurement. Would you recommend anyone take a job paying $2000/hour, if it there's only 1 hour per month of work available?

That's an extreme example, but comparing biglaw hours and pay to 40 hour/week jobs in the $80k range is apples and oranges. Yes that guy has more free time, and also probably makes more money per hour. However, a holiday flight to visit family still costs the same amount of money no matter how many hours you work. Eating out still costs the same amount no matter how many hours you worked. A vacation to Mexico still costs the same no matter how many hours you worked.

All that is to say that dollars/hour is not a perfect measurement, because there are things you can do with more dollars (even if it means far more hours). Neither is better, and everyone has to make a personal choice, but again, apples to oranges.

[lawhopeful100]

Who is everyone friends with that everyone they know is making 200k plus lol. Good for them I guess. I went to a state college, and most people I know don't make even 100k and in fact, a few still have low paying hourly type jobs. I mean, the median household income in the US is about $58k a year. I get that the person choosing between Harvard and a full ride to Duke likely has above average alternate options, but I think for a non-trivial number of law applicants it is not easy to walk into a six figure job, and getting a big law gig is the easiest way towards getting that type of income.

[Anonymous User]

Who is everyone friends with that everyone they know is making 200k plus lol. Good for them I guess. I went to a state college, and most people I know don't make even 100k and in fact, a few still have low paying hourly type jobs. I mean, the median household income in the US is about $58k a year. I get that the person choosing between Harvard and a full ride to Duke likely has above average alternate options, but I think for a non-trivial number of law applicants it is not easy to walk into a six figure job, and getting a big law gig is the easiest way towards getting that type of income.

$200k plus is quite common in tech centric areas. Of course, the CoL in these areas are high, but so are a lot of the cities where law firms pay $160,000 plus. Quite a few state universities place very well into elite tech companies, and some place far better than a lot of elite private universities.

Also, I'll say that with the $230,000+ range they're almost all SWEs or PMs. But if we're just talking $200,000 total comp, then that includes non-SWEs as well, with titles such as Solution Engineers, Solution Architects, Partner Engineers, or even sales and certain recruiters.

[Anonymous User]

Still not sure why you're anon, but whatever.

The flaw with your logic, is that dollars per hour is an imperfect measurement. Would you recommend anyone take a job paying $2000/hour, if it there's only 1 hour per month of work available?

That's an extreme example, but comparing biglaw hours and pay to 40 hour/week jobs in the $80k range is apples and oranges. Yes that guy has more free time, and also probably makes more money per hour. However, a holiday flight to visit family still costs the same amount of money no matter how many hours you work. Eating out still costs the same amount no matter how many hours you worked. A vacation to Mexico still costs the same no matter how many hours you worked.

All that is to say that dollars/hour is not a perfect measurement, because there are things you can do with more dollars (even if it means far more hours). Neither is better, and everyone has to make a personal choice, but again, apples to oranges.

I mention the per hour pay breakdown because in the case of a firm I worked for, it had an offer to be acquired by a bigger firm. This bigger firm required big firm billable hours. So, when calculated the firm I worked for figured they'd actually be making less per hour while working harder, and so to them it was not worth being acquired.

It is a balance and a lifestyle choice. Some people see $180,000 and it's a huge number, want that status and will work the hours because it's a big number to them. Some people see $180,000 and it's not a big number at all, and want $180,000,000 or $1.8 billion (hence people leaving $200,000 careers in tech to try their hand at start-ups).

But there's really not that big of a difference between $80,000 on 40 hours + and part-time job versus $160,000 on 70 hours. It's not like with one you're staying at a sketchy airBnB in Mexico whereas with the other you're in the The W presidential suite. With either the $80,000 or $160,000 depending on where you live, you can go on a nice trip to Mexico at the Hyatt/Hilton/Marriott in either case. There's not much of a lifestyle difference, aside from maybe 1 is driving a Toyota Camry and another is driving a BMW 3.

[JohnnieSockran]

Still not sure why you're anon, but whatever.

The flaw with your logic, is that dollars per hour is an imperfect measurement. Would you recommend anyone take a job paying $2000/hour, if it there's only 1 hour per month of work available?

That's an extreme example, but comparing biglaw hours and pay to 40 hour/week jobs in the $80k range is apples and oranges. Yes that guy has more free time, and also probably makes more money per hour. However, a holiday flight to visit family still costs the same amount of money no matter how many hours you work. Eating out still costs the same amount no matter how many hours you worked. A vacation to Mexico still costs the same no matter how many hours you worked.

All that is to say that dollars/hour is not a perfect measurement, because there are things you can do with more dollars (even if it means far more hours). Neither is better, and everyone has to make a personal choice, but again, apples to oranges.

I mention the per hour pay breakdown because in the case of a firm I worked for, it had an offer to be acquired by a bigger firm. This bigger firm required big firm billable hours. So, when calculated the firm I worked for figured they'd actually be making less per hour while working harder, and so to them it was not worth being acquired.

It is a balance and a lifestyle choice. Some people see $180,000 and it's a huge number, want that status and will work the hours because it's a big number to them. Some people see $180,000 and it's not a big number at all, and want $180,000,000 or $1.8 billion (hence people leaving $200,000 careers in tech to try their hand at start-ups).

But there's really not that big of a difference between $80,000 on 40 hours + and part-time job versus $160,000 on 70 hours. It's not like with one you're staying at a sketchy airBnB in Mexico whereas with the other you're in the The W presidential suite. With either the $80,000 or $160,000 depending on where you live, you can go on a nice trip to Mexico at the Hyatt/Hilton/Marriott in either case. There's not much of a lifestyle difference, aside from maybe 1 is driving a Toyota Camry and another is driving a BMW 3.

That's actually a huge lifestyle difference (see bolded/underlined). We'll have to agree to disagree, but after taxes, that's a difference of probably around $4000 per month, and call it $2000 after making a student loan payment (using $180k scale instead of $160k, since that is the new norm). Also, with adding the part about the part-time job, you've now lost your hours argument if that guy is surpassing a 40 hour week.

I max my 401k, and still take home roughly $9,300/mo.

On $80k, that's likely a monthly take home of around $4,800, with much less than a maxed out 401k. If I make a 2000 loan payment, its still a difference between 7300 and 4800 ($2500/month).

$2500 does a lot more than take you from a Camry to a 3 series.

[Anonymous User]

Still not sure why you're anon, but whatever.

The flaw with your logic, is that dollars per hour is an imperfect measurement. Would you recommend anyone take a job paying $2000/hour, if it there's only 1 hour per month of work available?

That's an extreme example, but comparing biglaw hours and pay to 40 hour/week jobs in the $80k range is apples and oranges. Yes that guy has more free time, and also probably makes more money per hour. However, a holiday flight to visit family still costs the same amount of money no matter how many hours you work. Eating out still costs the same amount no matter how many hours you worked. A vacation to Mexico still costs the same no matter how many hours you worked.

All that is to say that dollars/hour is not a perfect measurement, because there are things you can do with more dollars (even if it means far more hours). Neither is better, and everyone has to make a personal choice, but again, apples to oranges.

I mention the per hour pay breakdown because in the case of a firm I worked for, it had an offer to be acquired by a bigger firm. This bigger firm required big firm billable hours. So, when calculated the firm I worked for figured they'd actually be making less per hour while working harder, and so to them it was not worth being acquired.

It is a balance and a lifestyle choice. Some people see $180,000 and it's a huge number, want that status and will work the hours because it's a big number to them. Some people see $180,000 and it's not a big number at all, and want $180,000,000 or $1.8 billion (hence people leaving $200,000 careers in tech to try their hand at start-ups).

But there's really not that big of a difference between $80,000 on 40 hours + and part-time job versus $160,000 on 70 hours. It's not like with one you're staying at a sketchy airBnB in Mexico whereas with the other you're in the The W presidential suite. With either the $80,000 or $160,000 depending on where you live, you can go on a nice trip to Mexico at the Hyatt/Hilton/Marriott in either case. There's not much of a lifestyle difference, aside from maybe 1 is driving a Toyota Camry and another is driving a BMW 3.

That's actually a huge lifestyle difference (see bolded/underlined). We'll have to agree to disagree, but after taxes, that's a difference of probably around $4000 per month, and call it $2000 after making a student loan payment (using $180k scale instead of $160k, since that is the new norm). Also, with adding the part about the part-time job, you've now lost your hours argument if that guy is surpassing a 40 hour week.

I max my 401k, and still take home roughly $9,300/mo.

On $80k, that's likely a monthly take home of around $4,800, with much less than a maxed out 401k. If I make a 2000 loan payment, its still a difference between 7300 and 4800 ($2500/month).

$2500 does a lot more than take you from a Camry to a 3 series.

I guess it depends on where you live and whether you have kids. I'm single and I'm pretty I could live similar to my current lifestyle on around $80,000 pre-tax. Maybe I have to move to a smaller apartment in the same neighborhood (1 bedroom to bachelor). I'd still have my same Toyota, and I know I'm not going to need to make closer to $1.6 mill as opposed to $160,000 to get the penthouse or see a drastic lifestyle change to make it worth the extra hours (for me personally, I've lived in a luxury million dollar+ house by myself and also in a sketchy house with 6 roommates and it didn't make a difference to my day-to-day happiness anyways). $160,000 vs $80,000 might be a bigger difference in cheaper cities to live, I'd imagine it would especially down south. But I don't notice anything drastic among my circle with these ranges.

For a lot of people, they don't really jump a high enough class to make those extra hours worth it. I think a lot of K-JDs see $180,000 and think their lifestyle will get drastically better or they can start planning for their future in Los Altos or Beverly Hills, and they started envisioning themselves like Harvey Specter, and then reality quickly sets in. That they're still not in that class. As well as the grind of working very long hours, which many young college aged people think they can do but can't do. Or why there are so many attorneys that get into financial trouble, because they expected a certain lifestyle that they didn't get out of law school. Or they're mad that 23 year-old Li Wei at Facebook from a non-Ivy league is driving a new Tesla and they're not.

Also, part-time gig doesn't necessarily mean hourly 20+ a week. That's a very law student way of looking at work or making money, which isn't surprising since the majority of attorneys seems to be really bad at maximizing time investment and effort to income maximization.

It could mean you spend your extra from 20-30 hours a week learning about the market and investing. It could mean learning javascript and taking side gigs for future career growth. Or teaching golf, I know a physician that teaches yoga because she enjoys it. Or time networking for business or investment opportunities. It can be extra cash for something you'd do in your free time anyways.

[Anonymous User]

To the people throwing out “a lot of my friends” make 200k+ working in tech or whatever, my friend is a software engineer at google in Silicon Valley and he DOES NOT make over 200k and he’s 28 (all-in, he’s around 195k). Titles don’t mean much because a 25 year old and 40 yer old can both have the same title at these companies and make significantly differing amounts of money.

These companies just had to release their median employee salary (I think facebook’s median employee has an all-in compensation of $240k and that is for a senior software engineer position because they outsource most of their low-level jobs).

Are there people making tons of money at 26, sure, but it’s not everyone.

I think more I-Banking people are in that 200k range at 26.

Anon because people know my username and could identify my friend.

[JohnnieSockran]

To the people throwing out “a lot of my friends” make 200k+ working in tech or whatever, my friend is a software engineer at google in Silicon Valley and he DOES NOT make over 200k and he’s 28 (all-in, he’s around 195k). Titles don’t mean much because a 25 year old and 40 yer old can both have the same title at these companies and make significantly differing amounts of money.

These companies just had to release their median employee salary (I think facebook’s median employee has an all-in compensation of $240k and that is for a senior software engineer position because they outsource most of their low-level jobs).

Are there people making tons of money at 26, sure, but it’s not everyone.

I think more I-Banking people are in that 200k range at 26.

Anon because people know my username and could identify my friend.

I'm so glad you said this. I didn't want to call out the anon above because I have no experience with young software engineers. But I figured no chance are all of them making $200k all-in as the industry norm in your mid-20s. Thank you for confirming that. Other anon seems to be trolling.

[Anonymous User]

To the people throwing out “a lot of my friends” make 200k+ working in tech or whatever, my friend is a software engineer at google in Silicon Valley and he DOES NOT make over 200k and he’s 28 (all-in, he’s around 195k). Titles don’t mean much because a 25 year old and 40 yer old can both have the same title at these companies and make significantly differing amounts of money.

These companies just had to release their median employee salary (I think facebook’s median employee has an all-in compensation of $240k and that is for a senior software engineer position because they outsource most of their low-level jobs).

Are there people making tons of money at 26, sure, but it’s not everyone.

I think more I-Banking people are in that 200k range at 26.

Anon because people know my username and could identify my friend.

Their "titles" may be the same, but their internal levels are not, and internal levels mean a lot. They're just not as title obsessed as attorneys because they're not dumb and no one needs to know what one's internal level is aside from management.

People post their internal levels on their resume or publicly on LinkedIn, so people not within the company that need to have an idea of what they make will have one (recruiters, sourcing).

Secondly, I'm not sure what your weird point about age is. Not even going to get into that. I'm also not sure what you mean by Facebook "outsource low level jobs." Do you mean entry software engineering jobs? Because plenty of E3s start out at headquarters in the US - most do.

Also, if your friend is at Google and his title is SWE, I'm assuming he has 0-1 years of experience there. If he has more experience there, that's rare and others would be at SWE III or Senior SWE already.

Also, lol at JohnnieSockran's "trolling" comment. I love it when K-JD attorneys get jealous when other people make more money on less effort. Or they find it unbelievable because 160k was their life goal and so unbelievable to them Like most attorneys offline, you can usually wait for the angry jealous "BS" call or some passive aggressive whiny remark when they find out you're in the neighborhood they want to live in or the country club their boss really wants to join.

Edit: Also, Facebook "senior" software engineers average about $295,000. Also, you're right it varies, with some reporting in at over $350,000, others over $400,000. It seems you're actually the one unfamiliar with titles or internal levels at these companies. Ask your "friend" to explain them to you better.

[BasilHallward]

None of my other 26 year old friends are making $200k all in, and I can tell you that i-banking hours are WAY worse than biglaw hours, so I feel like law school was worth it. I had a bad week where I got crushed and billed just over 100 hours, but that was only 1 week, even the people I work with were shocked and said how abnormal that was, and my next busiest week outside of that has been about 70 billed hours. But, a friend of mine in banking is consistently spending 80-90+ hours in the office.

Most of my 26 year old friends are software engineers and are making more than $200k all in. They also have very little student debt if any when they got their job fresh out of undergrad (most went to state schools or schools in their home country where school costs little).

They work about 40 hours a week. Sometimes they're on call, but that just means they have to watch their phones for a weekend once a month, and this really annoys them. 1 doesn't answer if it's past 9pm and nothing has happened to him yet.

Some of them are actually closer to or over $300k at this point per their work titles, all in. Will be over $500,000 at this rate before they hit 30 if they keep progressing up their dev title ladder or move into management.

This thread has really dovetailed and is now engaging in petty one-upmanship just because some posters are living in areas of the country where tech is prevalent and high incomes abound. This is not the rule for the rest of the country. I'm a lowly Dallas-ite and most of my college buddies aren't clearing 100k/year five years out of undergrad.

[anon sequitur]

Oh good to know you’re not trolling, was worried for a second.

[Anonymous User]

This thread has really dovetailed and is now engaging in petty one-upmanship just because some posters are living in areas of the country where tech is prevalent and high incomes abound. This is not the rule for the rest of the country. I'm a lowly Dallas-ite and most of my college buddies aren't clearing 100k/year five years out of undergrad.

"One-upmanship"? I could care less about one upping some bitter K-JDs. They can believe whatever they want to. If they want to believe everyone that makes more money than them is a troll or the only way to their $200k baller riches is through some very specific law job, go ahead. If they want to believe tech is all outsourced, and it's all some conspiracy, they can go ahead.

They can be a whiny, jealous loser all they want, just know if they say spew the same stupid garbage in person they'll look ignorant to actual rich people. They're akin to the online version of the small-town drunk at a bar that thinks he's baller with his Mercedes because it's their first time in the city. In fact, they should all form a law forum about law schools, appoint themselves as moderators, and grow fat and be bitter at people together while bragging about their 6 digit salaries on 6 digit loans.

I would prefer they keep thinking this way, it's only advantageous to the rest of us.

[Anonymous User]

I’m the anon that mentioned outsourcing. I never said tech was outsourced. I said low level positions (like custodian, low level paper pushing HR, support) are outsourced.

Also, I’m not so obsessed with my friend’s job that I ask him what level software engineer is. Maybe he makes more and is lying. I honestly don’t care.

Just like everyone else on here, I have heard of software engineers making over a million dollars. It happens, but to say that all 26 year old SWE easily make over 200k is also not true.

Also, I don’t even know why we are talking about SWE at top companies like they’re running rampant. I could never have graduated with a computer science degree, never mind with good enough grades to be employed by one of these companies. Same applies probably to most people on here.

Also, if you’re going to be a prick, at least say “I couldn’t care less.”

[Anonymous User]

I’m the anon that mentioned outsourcing. I never said tech was outsourced. I said low level positions (like custodian, low level paper pushing HR, support) are outsourced.

Also, I’m not so obsessed with my friend’s job that I ask him what level software engineer is. Maybe he makes more and is lying. I honestly don’t care.

Just like everyone else on here, I have heard of software engineers making over a million dollars. It happens, but to say that all 26 year old SWE easily make over 200k is also not true.

Also, I don’t even know why we are talking about SWE at top companies like they’re running rampant. I could never have graduated with a computer science degree, never mind with good enough grades to be employed by one of these companies. Same applies probably to most people on here.


Also, if you’re going to be a prick, at least say “I couldn’t care less.”

When did I ever say "all" software engineers? For someone so obsessed over english on internet forums you'd think you would read more carefully as opposed to jumping to conclusions.

Also, you don't need to have "good enough" grades to work at these companies. Not sure where you got that from.

[JohnnieSockran]

This thread has really dovetailed and is now engaging in petty one-upmanship just because some posters are living in areas of the country where tech is prevalent and high incomes abound. This is not the rule for the rest of the country. I'm a lowly Dallas-ite and most of my college buddies aren't clearing 100k/year five years out of undergrad.

"One-upmanship"? I could care less about one upping some bitter K-JDs. They can believe whatever they want to. If they want to believe everyone that makes more money than them is a troll or the only way to their $200k baller riches is through some very specific law job, go ahead. If they want to believe tech is all outsourced, and it's all some conspiracy, they can go ahead.

They can be a whiny, jealous loser all they want, just know if they say spew the same stupid garbage in person they'll look ignorant to actual rich people. They're akin to the online version of the small-town drunk at a bar that thinks he's baller with his Mercedes because it's their first time in the city. In fact, they should all form a law forum about top-law-schools.com, appoint themselves as moderators, and grow fat and be bitter at people together while bragging about their 6 digit salaries on 6 digit loans.

I would prefer they keep thinking this way, it's only advantageous to the rest of us.

You're right, I'm just a K-JD who hates my life because the friends of some anon tech guy make more money than me. I'm glad your friends are all doing well (kudos to them).

Regarding the bold: triggered much? Lolz.

[smokeylarue]

Lol what's with this dude egregiously trolling for Silicon Valley? Yes we get it, software engineers at the top tech companies make a lot of money.

For 95% of us, we're not cut out for computer programming or finance or medicine, therefore the route of top law school to Biglaw is one of the few clear cut ways to earn a high salary and we don't have to have any skills or science background whatsoever.

[abogadesq]

$200k is probably the exception, but even if so, keep in mind that it’s $200k in astronomically expensive area full of other similarly high-salaried residents. One of my friends was in the field and earned around that amount in the SF Bay area and his lifestyle was basically middle class.

[sunyplatt]

Well based on the comments I have seen I can only conclude that law school seems to payoff only if salary breaks six figures unless debt ratio is decreased significantly (over 50% scholarship).

I have applied but I have to admit I do not believe I will attend law school unless the sticker cost is reduced substantially. I can't see how anyone benefits from a JD paying full/near full cost for tuition unless the school regularly sends graduates to big law/large corporate firms.

Programming/Web Development, medicine and the trades seem to be a much better payoff.

I've tried learning programming but I disliked it but then again law is not all that exciting either.

[JohnnieSockran]

Well based on the comments I have seen I can only conclude that law school seems to payoff only if salary breaks six figures unless debt ratio is decreased significantly (over 50% scholarship).

I have applied but I have to admit I do not believe I will attend law school unless the sticker cost is reduced substantially. I can't see how anyone benefits from a JD paying full/near full cost for tuition unless the school regularly sends graduates to big law/large corporate firms.

Programming/Web Development, medicine and the trades seem to be a much better payoff.

I've tried learning programming but I disliked it but then again law is not all that exciting either.

I actually read an article recently that some of the trades are way down in employment numbers. You'd be shocked at how much money you can earn if you're good at your trade. Couple that with living in a low COL area, and you can feel pretty damn wealthy as a plumber, electrician, etc.

With respect to not being all that excited about law, I'd say think long and hard about that aspect before deciding whether to go to law school. Even without debt 3 years is a big time commitment if you plan to leave the profession entirely within a few years of practice.

[Anonymous User]

$200k is probably the exception, but even if so, keep in mind that it’s $200k in astronomically expensive area full of other similarly high-salaried residents. One of my friends was in the field and earned around that amount in the SF Bay area and his lifestyle was basically middle class.

$200k in astronomically expensive areas where many big law firms are like NYC is basically middle class. Especially when taking into account their 3 more years of grad school loans. Some big law firms pay less and taken into account location & cost of living.

I've already said $80,000-160,000 in big cities is essentially middle class, and not worth the extra hours anyways. What's your point?

[Right2BearArms]

Who is everyone friends with that everyone they know is making 200k plus lol. Good for them I guess. I went to a state college, and most people I know don't make even 100k and in fact, a few still have low paying hourly type jobs. I mean, the median household income in the US is about $58k a year. I get that the person choosing between Harvard and a full ride to Duke likely has above average alternate options, but I think for a non-trivial number of law applicants it is not easy to walk into a six figure job, and getting a big law gig is the easiest way towards getting that type of income.

$200k plus is quite common in tech centric areas. Of course, the CoL in these areas are high, but so are a lot of the cities where law firms pay $160,000 plus. Quite a few state universities place very well into elite tech companies, and some place far better than a lot of elite private universities.

Also, I'll say that with the $230,000+ range they're almost all SWEs or PMs. But if we're just talking $200,000 total comp, then that includes non-SWEs as well, with titles such as Solution Engineers, Solution Architects, Partner Engineers, or even sales and certain recruiters.

Good for your friends, but statistics indicate that they are not at all a representative sample of average 26-32 year old people in the US.

[lawhopeful100]

Who is everyone friends with that everyone they know is making 200k plus lol. Good for them I guess. I went to a state college, and most people I know don't make even 100k and in fact, a few still have low paying hourly type jobs. I mean, the median household income in the US is about $58k a year. I get that the person choosing between Harvard and a full ride to Duke likely has above average alternate options, but I think for a non-trivial number of law applicants it is not easy to walk into a six figure job, and getting a big law gig is the easiest way towards getting that type of income.

$200k plus is quite common in tech centric areas. Of course, the CoL in these areas are high, but so are a lot of the cities where law firms pay $160,000 plus. Quite a few state universities place very well into elite tech companies, and some place far better than a lot of elite private universities.

Also, I'll say that with the $230,000+ range they're almost all SWEs or PMs. But if we're just talking $200,000 total comp, then that includes non-SWEs as well, with titles such as Solution Engineers, Solution Architects, Partner Engineers, or even sales and certain recruiters.

Good for your friends, but statistics indicate that they are not at all a representative sample of average 26-32 year old people in the US.

This ^. How did this devolve into talking about Silicon Valley software engineers. The average household income in the US is about 58k or so a year. The average household income in a city like Atlanta, where I am, is 55k. To get back on topic, if you are one of the many college grads looking at getting a 50k a year job, that is a factor to consider in deciding whether law school is worth it.