Top Law Schools

Kant wrote: Cream always rises to the crop. Being unique does not mean a damn. But being the best does. From what I have seen on this board, either this site is full of liars or T14 acceptance and intelligence does not correlate.

Yawn. In my experience, school performance and intelligence don't really correlate. It's mostly a test of how well you can play the system and how intent you are on playing it.

shadowfrost000 wrote:

Kant wrote: Cream always rises to the crop. Being unique does not mean a damn. But being the best does. From what I have seen on this board, either this site is full of liars or T14 acceptance and intelligence does not correlate.

Yawn. In my experience, school performance and intelligence don't really correlate. It's mostly a test of how well you can play the system and how intent you are on playing it.

Performance does. The highest GPA's at my school belongs to the smartest people. Obviously there are 3.6s that are smarter than 3.9s, but there are not 3.0s that are smarter than 3.9s

Kant wrote:

shadowfrost000 wrote:

Kant wrote: Cream always rises to the crop. Being unique does not mean a damn. But being the best does. From what I have seen on this board, either this site is full of liars or T14 acceptance and intelligence does not correlate.

Yawn. In my experience, school performance and intelligence don't really correlate. It's mostly a test of how well you can play the system and how intent you are on playing it.

Performance does. The highest GPA's at my school belongs to the smartest people. Obviously there are 3.6s that are smarter than 3.9s, but there are not 3.0s that are smarter than 3.9s

shadowfrost had it right.

shadowfrost000 wrote:

Kant wrote: Cream always rises to the crop. Being unique does not mean a damn. But being the best does. From what I have seen on this board, either this site is full of liars or T14 acceptance and intelligence does not correlate.

Yawn. In my experience, school performance and intelligence don't really correlate. It's mostly a test of how well you can play the system and how intent you are on playing it.

Agreed. 3.9 gpa here. I don't consider myself intelligent by any means, but you better be sure that I'm one persistent fellow when it comes to playing the system.

bully for you, 3.9

For what it's worth, I know a 2L here who got an IP job with a firm in Chicago after only having a 1L unpaid position last summer. (Not at OCI)

I was talking to a teacher today, and he was of the opinion that if you want to be wealthy, you have to got to a top 14, and finish in the top 10%, and be willing to work your balls off. He said it was better to finish toward the top at Northwestern then toward the bottom at Harvard. He seemed to think that it was necessary to get on the Law Review as well.

Btw, here is his description of relative richness

1)Super Wealthy Gates et al
2)Wealthy 3 million or so a year
3)Rich 300 grand plus a year

Kant wrote:I was talking to a teacher today, and he was of the opinion that if you want to be wealthy, you have to got to a top 14, and finish in the top 10%, and be willing to work your balls off. He said it was better to finish toward the top at Northwestern then toward the bottom at Harvard. He seemed to think that it was necessary to get on the Law Review as well.

Btw, here is his description of relative richness

1)Super Wealthy Gates et al
2)Wealthy 3 million or so a year
3)Rich 300 grand plus a year

Ever read that book the Milionare Next Door, kind of old now, but it was a study of people with net worths over 1 million, few of them were doctors or lawyers, most owned small or mediam bizs, a hell of a lot of plumbers (who owened thier own pubmling company) had net worths over 1 million. Really instreating book. At the time (mid 90s) the most common car to be driven by a person with a net worth of over 1 million was a chevy or a buick.

Ever read that book the Milionare Next Door, kind of old now, but it was a study of people with net worths over 1 million, few of them were doctors or lawyers, most owned small or mediam bizs, a hell of a lot of plumbers (who owened thier own pubmling company) had net worths over 1 million.

I feel like that book was just common sense. Have a reasonable amount of income, don't blow your money on stupid sh-t, invest wisely, and you will accumulate wealth.

Plenty of Doctors/Lawyers only satisfy the first condition.

I always wonder why people think that getting a certain degree means they are entitled to a six-figure salary right off the bat. When I first considered going to law school, I had no idea that some firms paid $160,000 to fresh graduates. That's unheard of in any other profession except for medical school, where you are spending far more time in school/residencies. I see this as a good thing. In other professions, you have to prove yourself in the real world before you get offered this kind of money, whether it's business, accounting, engineering, architecture, etc. I think law students simply have unreal expectations. They think that working for $60k/year means your life is over. That's what most people make straight out of graduate school (sometimes they don't even make that, even for a PhD).

The law employment market is bad, but so is the employment market in practically every other profession, especially for recent graduates. The real problem isn't the legal employment market, it is the cost of law school. It has risen at a ridiculous rate over the last 15 years. Why does it keep rising? Because law students keep paying full tuition.

I can't think of another profession, either, where students are allowed to sit on their butts and have employers come to their school and seek them out and offer them six-figure salaries. Everywhere else, you have to send out resumes, network, know people, send out individualized cover letters, apply for jobs many months before you graduate, get your foot in the door any way you can, etc. Law students talk about this like it's some sort of degrading ritual, when, in fact, it's simply called "how the rest of the world gets a job." 60k is not a bad salary given you have only sacrificed 3 years of your life. The only way to make a similar amount straight out of school in such a short amount of time is to get a Master's degree in Engineering or Accounting. I know someone who got a near-perfect score on his GRE, got a full scholarship to a top 15 engineering PhD program, and it took him 5 years to complete. Although he was going to school for free and got a small stipend, that's two extra years of lost wages that a law student wouldn't have to incur. And despite doing high-profile research for NASA and being a star student, his starting salary was 98k in one of the highest cost of living areas in the country. That's an awesome starting salary for anyone, but law students seem to think that would be a tragedy if that happened to them. Anyone with good enough numbers to get into a T-14 could easily get the same deal and go to law school for very low cost or free to a lower T1, T2 or the state school where they want to practice, and if they did moderately well, they could expect a similar starting salary.

OCI isn't the only way people get employed, and if you strike out at OCI, there are plenty of other options. More law students get jobs outside of OCI in any given year than they do through OCI. So just because people (even below median T10 or top 10% T2) are striking out at OCI doesn't mean their career is shot. If you can land a 60k job somewhere in this economy without any practical work experience, consider yourself very lucky.

There's nothing wrong with legal employment or starting salaries when compared to the rest of the economy. The only thing out of whack about the whole law school experience is the cost of law school. It's a cash cow for universities, and they raise the cost at will because people are convinced they're going to make 160k per year so cost simply doesn't matter. So just don't go anywhere for full tuition, and set your expectations at making 60k/year. If you happen to do well enough for a six-figure job after only 3 years of post-graduate education without ever having any real-world experience, consider yourself very lucky no matter where you go to school. If people set their salary expectations more realistically and kept this in mind while paying out tuition, schools would be forced to lower it to a more reasonable level, just like in any other free-market. If everyone refuses to pay $40k/year to sit in a large auditorium that requires no special labs or equipment, I'll guaruntee you we'll see law school tuition start to decline. It's not like these universities can't afford it. They're raking in the money right now as it is.

JCougar wrote:I always wonder why people think that getting a certain degree means they are entitled to a six-figure salary right off the bat. When I first considered going to law school, I had no idea that some firms paid $160,000 to fresh graduates. That's unheard of in any other profession except for medical school, where you are spending far more time in school/residencies. I see this as a good thing. In other professions, you have to prove yourself in the real world before you get offered this kind of money, whether it's business, accounting, engineering, architecture, etc. I think law students simply have unreal expectations. They think that working for $60k/year means your life is over. That's what most people make straight out of graduate school (sometimes they don't even make that, even for a PhD).

The law employment market is bad, but so is the employment market in practically every other profession, especially for recent graduates. The real problem isn't the legal employment market, it is the cost of law school. It has risen at a ridiculous rate over the last 15 years. Why does it keep rising? Because law students keep paying full tuition.

I can't think of another profession, either, where students are allowed to sit on their butts and have employers come to their school and seek them out and offer them six-figure salaries. Everywhere else, you have to send out resumes, network, know people, send out individualized cover letters, apply for jobs many months before you graduate, get your foot in the door any way you can, etc. Law students talk about this like it's some sort of degrading ritual, when, in fact, it's simply called "how the rest of the world gets a job." 60k is not a bad salary given you have only sacrificed 3 years of your life. The only way to make a similar amount straight out of school in such a short amount of time is to get a Master's degree in Engineering or Accounting. I know someone who got a near-perfect score on his GRE, got a full scholarship to a top 15 engineering PhD program, and it took him 5 years to complete. Although he was going to school for free and got a small stipend, that's two extra years of lost wages that a law student wouldn't have to incur. And despite doing high-profile research for NASA and being a star student, his starting salary was 98k in one of the highest cost of living areas in the country. That's an awesome starting salary for anyone, but law students seem to think that would be a tragedy if that happened to them. Anyone with good enough numbers to get into a T-14 could easily get the same deal and go to law school for very low cost or free to a lower T1, T2 or the state school where they want to practice, and if they did moderately well, they could expect a similar starting salary.

OCI isn't the only way people get employed, and if you strike out at OCI, there are plenty of other options. More law students get jobs outside of OCI in any given year than they do through OCI. So just because people (even below median T10 or top 10% T2) are striking out at OCI doesn't mean their career is shot. If you can land a 60k job somewhere in this economy without any practical work experience, consider yourself very lucky.

There's nothing wrong with legal employment or starting salaries when compared to the rest of the economy. The only thing out of whack about the whole law school experience is the cost of law school. It's a cash cow for universities, and they raise the cost at will because people are convinced they're going to make 160k per year so cost simply doesn't matter. So just don't go anywhere for full tuition, and set your expectations at making 60k/year. If you happen to do well enough for a six-figure job after only 3 years of post-graduate education without ever having any real-world experience, consider yourself very lucky no matter where you go to school. If people set their salary expectations more realistically and kept this in mind while paying out tuition, schools would be forced to lower it to a more reasonable level, just like in any other free-market. If everyone refuses to pay $40k/year to sit in a large auditorium that requires no special labs or equipment, I'll guaruntee you we'll see law school tuition start to decline. It's not like these universities can't afford it. They're raking in the money right now as it is.

That's like telling people to stop voting Republican and Democrat.

JCougar wrote:I always wonder why people think that getting a certain degree means they are entitled to a six-figure salary right off the bat. When I first considered going to law school, I had no idea that some firms paid $160,000 to fresh graduates. That's unheard of in any other profession except for medical school, where you are spending far more time in school/residencies. I see this as a good thing. In other professions, you have to prove yourself in the real world before you get offered this kind of money, whether it's business, accounting, engineering, architecture, etc. I think law students simply have unreal expectations. They think that working for $60k/year means your life is over. That's what most people make straight out of graduate school (sometimes they don't even make that, even for a PhD).

The law employment market is bad, but so is the employment market in practically every other profession, especially for recent graduates. The real problem isn't the legal employment market, it is the cost of law school. It has risen at a ridiculous rate over the last 15 years. Why does it keep rising? Because law students keep paying full tuition.

I can't think of another profession, either, where students are allowed to sit on their butts and have employers come to their school and seek them out and offer them six-figure salaries. Everywhere else, you have to send out resumes, network, know people, send out individualized cover letters, apply for jobs many months before you graduate, get your foot in the door any way you can, etc. Law students talk about this like it's some sort of degrading ritual, when, in fact, it's simply called "how the rest of the world gets a job." 60k is not a bad salary given you have only sacrificed 3 years of your life. The only way to make a similar amount straight out of school in such a short amount of time is to get a Master's degree in Engineering or Accounting. I know someone who got a near-perfect score on his GRE, got a full scholarship to a top 15 engineering PhD program, and it took him 5 years to complete. Although he was going to school for free and got a small stipend, that's two extra years of lost wages that a law student wouldn't have to incur. And despite doing high-profile research for NASA and being a star student, his starting salary was 98k in one of the highest cost of living areas in the country. That's an awesome starting salary for anyone, but law students seem to think that would be a tragedy if that happened to them. Anyone with good enough numbers to get into a T-14 could easily get the same deal and go to law school for very low cost or free to a lower T1, T2 or the state school where they want to practice, and if they did moderately well, they could expect a similar starting salary.

OCI isn't the only way people get employed, and if you strike out at OCI, there are plenty of other options. More law students get jobs outside of OCI in any given year than they do through OCI. So just because people (even below median T10 or top 10% T2) are striking out at OCI doesn't mean their career is shot. If you can land a 60k job somewhere in this economy without any practical work experience, consider yourself very lucky.

There's nothing wrong with legal employment or starting salaries when compared to the rest of the economy. The only thing out of whack about the whole law school experience is the cost of law school. It's a cash cow for universities, and they raise the cost at will because people are convinced they're going to make 160k per year so cost simply doesn't matter. So just don't go anywhere for full tuition, and set your expectations at making 60k/year. If you happen to do well enough for a six-figure job after only 3 years of post-graduate education without ever having any real-world experience, consider yourself very lucky no matter where you go to school. If people set their salary expectations more realistically and kept this in mind while paying out tuition, schools would be forced to lower it to a more reasonable level, just like in any other free-market. If everyone refuses to pay $40k/year to sit in a large auditorium that requires no special labs or equipment, I'll guaruntee you we'll see law school tuition start to decline. It's not like these universities can't afford it. They're raking in the money right now as it is.

This is one of dumber posts I've read in a while.

rondemarino wrote:

JCougar wrote:I always wonder why people think that getting a certain degree means they are entitled to a six-figure salary right off the bat. When I first considered going to law school, I had no idea that some firms paid $160,000 to fresh graduates. That's unheard of in any other profession except for medical school, where you are spending far more time in school/residencies. I see this as a good thing. In other professions, you have to prove yourself in the real world before you get offered this kind of money, whether it's business, accounting, engineering, architecture, etc. I think law students simply have unreal expectations. They think that working for $60k/year means your life is over. That's what most people make straight out of graduate school (sometimes they don't even make that, even for a PhD).

The law employment market is bad, but so is the employment market in practically every other profession, especially for recent graduates. The real problem isn't the legal employment market, it is the cost of law school. It has risen at a ridiculous rate over the last 15 years. Why does it keep rising? Because law students keep paying full tuition.

I can't think of another profession, either, where students are allowed to sit on their butts and have employers come to their school and seek them out and offer them six-figure salaries. Everywhere else, you have to send out resumes, network, know people, send out individualized cover letters, apply for jobs many months before you graduate, get your foot in the door any way you can, etc. Law students talk about this like it's some sort of degrading ritual, when, in fact, it's simply called "how the rest of the world gets a job." 60k is not a bad salary given you have only sacrificed 3 years of your life. The only way to make a similar amount straight out of school in such a short amount of time is to get a Master's degree in Engineering or Accounting. I know someone who got a near-perfect score on his GRE, got a full scholarship to a top 15 engineering PhD program, and it took him 5 years to complete. Although he was going to school for free and got a small stipend, that's two extra years of lost wages that a law student wouldn't have to incur. And despite doing high-profile research for NASA and being a star student, his starting salary was 98k in one of the highest cost of living areas in the country. That's an awesome starting salary for anyone, but law students seem to think that would be a tragedy if that happened to them. Anyone with good enough numbers to get into a T-14 could easily get the same deal and go to law school for very low cost or free to a lower T1, T2 or the state school where they want to practice, and if they did moderately well, they could expect a similar starting salary.

OCI isn't the only way people get employed, and if you strike out at OCI, there are plenty of other options. More law students get jobs outside of OCI in any given year than they do through OCI. So just because people (even below median T10 or top 10% T2) are striking out at OCI doesn't mean their career is shot. If you can land a 60k job somewhere in this economy without any practical work experience, consider yourself very lucky.

There's nothing wrong with legal employment or starting salaries when compared to the rest of the economy. The only thing out of whack about the whole law school experience is the cost of law school. It's a cash cow for universities, and they raise the cost at will because people are convinced they're going to make 160k per year so cost simply doesn't matter. So just don't go anywhere for full tuition, and set your expectations at making 60k/year. If you happen to do well enough for a six-figure job after only 3 years of post-graduate education without ever having any real-world experience, consider yourself very lucky no matter where you go to school. If people set their salary expectations more realistically and kept this in mind while paying out tuition, schools would be forced to lower it to a more reasonable level, just like in any other free-market. If everyone refuses to pay $40k/year to sit in a large auditorium that requires no special labs or equipment, I'll guaruntee you we'll see law school tuition start to decline. It's not like these universities can't afford it. They're raking in the money right now as it is.

This is one of dumber posts I've read in a while.

JCougar wrote:I always wonder why people think that getting a certain degree means they are entitled to a six-figure salary right off the bat. When I first considered going to law school, I had no idea that some firms paid $160,000 to fresh graduates. That's unheard of in any other profession except for medical school, where you are spending far more time in school/residencies. I see this as a good thing. In other professions, you have to prove yourself in the real world before you get offered this kind of money, whether it's business, accounting, engineering, architecture, etc. I think law students simply have unreal expectations. They think that working for $60k/year means your life is over. That's what most people make straight out of graduate school (sometimes they don't even make that, even for a PhD).

The law employment market is bad, but so is the employment market in practically every other profession, especially for recent graduates. The real problem isn't the legal employment market, it is the cost of law school. It has risen at a ridiculous rate over the last 15 years. Why does it keep rising? Because law students keep paying full tuition.

I can't think of another profession, either, where students are allowed to sit on their butts and have employers come to their school and seek them out and offer them six-figure salaries. Everywhere else, you have to send out resumes, network, know people, send out individualized cover letters, apply for jobs many months before you graduate, get your foot in the door any way you can, etc. Law students talk about this like it's some sort of degrading ritual, when, in fact, it's simply called "how the rest of the world gets a job." 60k is not a bad salary given you have only sacrificed 3 years of your life. The only way to make a similar amount straight out of school in such a short amount of time is to get a Master's degree in Engineering or Accounting. I know someone who got a near-perfect score on his GRE, got a full scholarship to a top 15 engineering PhD program, and it took him 5 years to complete. Although he was going to school for free and got a small stipend, that's two extra years of lost wages that a law student wouldn't have to incur. And despite doing high-profile research for NASA and being a star student, his starting salary was 98k in one of the highest cost of living areas in the country. That's an awesome starting salary for anyone, but law students seem to think that would be a tragedy if that happened to them. Anyone with good enough numbers to get into a T-14 could easily get the same deal and go to law school for very low cost or free to a lower T1, T2 or the state school where they want to practice, and if they did moderately well, they could expect a similar starting salary.

OCI isn't the only way people get employed, and if you strike out at OCI, there are plenty of other options. More law students get jobs outside of OCI in any given year than they do through OCI. So just because people (even below median T10 or top 10% T2) are striking out at OCI doesn't mean their career is shot. If you can land a 60k job somewhere in this economy without any practical work experience, consider yourself very lucky.

There's nothing wrong with legal employment or starting salaries when compared to the rest of the economy. The only thing out of whack about the whole law school experience is the cost of law school. It's a cash cow for universities, and they raise the cost at will because people are convinced they're going to make 160k per year so cost simply doesn't matter. So just don't go anywhere for full tuition, and set your expectations at making 60k/year. If you happen to do well enough for a six-figure job after only 3 years of post-graduate education without ever having any real-world experience, consider yourself very lucky no matter where you go to school. If people set their salary expectations more realistically and kept this in mind while paying out tuition, schools would be forced to lower it to a more reasonable level, just like in any other free-market. If everyone refuses to pay $40k/year to sit in a large auditorium that requires no special labs or equipment, I'll guaruntee you we'll see law school tuition start to decline. It's not like these universities can't afford it. They're raking in the money right now as it is.

I think this is pretty much true with the cost of law schools being the real issue. However, the other real big issue is just how the whole legal profession revolves around prestige. There's really nothing wrong with starting out at $60K /year in just about any other profession because if you do great stuff you'll be going places. Law is a little different in that if you start out making $60k /year in shitlaw (e.g. personal injury work), you are pretty much stuck there forever and will never make it into a large law firm. Additionally, you get locked out of the exit options that people that formerly worked in biglaw get, such as the gvt organizations and some of the really nice and relatively prestious mid-size firms (so pretty much coming back to my first point -- if you start out in shitlaw, you probably remain there for the rest of your life and the salary there is never really great (e.g. after 5 years in personal injury you still probably will be making less then half of what a 1st year biglaw associate makes).

I actually question when that point will ever come when students decide to just stop going to law school because they feel it is just too much risk and the chances of coming out doing well are too slim. I read something on abovethelaw.com, where they showed University of California (a public school!) planning on phasing their tuition up to around $60K /year by around 2013 (at all of the campuses). Maybe the system high tuition rates just won't break down until it's up to $60k /year at all law schools and the odds of getting into biglaw (and thus, not ruining yourself financially) only go out to the top 10% of t14 grads (analysts do say the future for biglaw is uncertain at this point and probably won't return to where it was during the boom in 2007 for quite a while, if ever). But that will probably never happen, and even if it does, it's pretty questionable whether people would stop paying for it (e.g. just look at all the people at t2 or lower paying sticker to attend, which land them around a 5% shot at biglaw, (in a good economy) and getting out of their debt in the foreseeable future).

rondemarino wrote:This is one of dumber posts I've read in a while.

Why?

I agree with cougar. The L schools are taking people for a ride. What does a lawyer right of school do that could possibly be worth 160k? You know nothing when you leave school and have minimal responsibility. The day of the wealthy parasitic lawyer may be declining.

If money is so important, try doing something useful.

jackster2 wrote:I agree with cougar. The L schools are taking people for a ride. What does a lawyer right of school do that could possibly be worth 160k? You know nothing when you leave school and have minimal responsibility. The day of the wealthy parasitic lawyer may be declining.

If money is so important, try doing something useful.

jackster2 wrote:I agree with cougar. The L schools are taking people for a ride. What does a lawyer right of school do that could possibly be worth 160k? You know nothing when you leave school and have minimal responsibility. The day of the wealthy parasitic lawyer may be declining.

If money is so important, try doing something useful.

This is one of the dumber posts I've read in a while.

JCougar wrote:

rondemarino wrote:This is one of dumber posts I've read in a while.

Why?

The comparison is a poor one - every other graduate program to law. Business might be more apt, but I'm not sure.

(a) Students in PhD programs have a work product that correlates well with their post-school employment. If you can build a robot at MIT, you can build it for MegaCorp.

(b) If you haven't noticed, graduate school tuition is kind of insane at a lot of places ($35k+). But, unlike law students, Ph.D students do more than take classes. They actually work and its work people are willing to pay work.

(c) As a consequence of their working, graduate students don't come in a one-size fits all. OCI exists, but not on the scale you see in law school. The reason isn't that engineers aren't entitled fucks, its that their specialization limits them to a small fraction of the employment market.

(d) Since there is no way to ascertain merit (in the sciences you actually have substantive research to show), there's no way to know if the median numb nut at Harvard is better than someone at the top 10% of a T2. In the sciences, you can actually ascertain this. Legal employers have to take the shotgun approach. In the absence of a substantive evaluative criteria, like a body of scientific research, they use the shotgun approach - throwing 100 Harvard grads at a wall gives you more able lawyers than throwing 100 Cardozo grads at the same wall. Prestige dominates because merit is tough to quantify.

EDIT: If law school was a true apprenticeship, like almost every other graduate program, things would change.

rondemarino wrote: (b) If you haven't noticed, graduate school tuition is kind of insane at a lot of places ($35k+). But, unlike law students, Ph.D students do more than take classes. They actually work and its work people are willing to pay work.

PhD's get paid to attend school (i.e. after you figure in their research or teaching assistant, and the research assistantship can possibly be just doing your research on your own dissertation). So pretty much get paid as a 30 some year old dude to jerk around in college like a 20 year old dude. Not a bad deal if you ask me. Getting paid to attend law school on the other hand ... not really happening.

rondemarino wrote:

JCougar wrote:

rondemarino wrote:This is one of dumber posts I've read in a while.

Why?

The comparison is a poor one - every other graduate program to law. Business might be more apt, but I'm not sure.

(a) Students in PhD programs have a work product that correlates well with their post-school employment. If you can build a robot at MIT, you can build it for MegaCorp.

(b) If you haven't noticed, graduate school tuition is kind of insane at a lot of places ($35k+). But, unlike law students, Ph.D students do more than take classes. They actually work and its work people are willing to pay work.

(c) As a consequence of their working, graduate students don't come in a one-size fits all. OCI exists, but not on the scale you see in law school. The reason isn't that engineers aren't entitled fucks, its that their specialization limits them to a small fraction of the employment market.

(d) Since there is no way to ascertain merit (in the sciences you actually have substantive research to show), there's no way to know if the median numb nut at Harvard is better than someone at the top 10% of a T2. In the sciences, you can actually ascertain this. Legal employers have to take the shotgun approach. In the absence of a substantive evaluative criteria, like a body of scientific research, they use the shotgun approach - throwing 100 Harvard grads at a wall gives you more able lawyers than throwing 100 Cardozo grads at the same wall. Prestige dominates because merit is tough to quantify.

Shouldn't these mostly be reasons why lawyers should make less until they prove themselves? Point A certainly is. Point D seems to be as well. If you are an unproven commodity, you usually get less until you can prove yourself. You don't start out getting tons of money on the off chance that you might succeed -- you work under the assumption that you are not worth more than average until you prove it. Getting into and graduating with decent grades from Harvard is certainly impressive, but it doesn't prove you can be a great lawyer. As for point B, I don't know of anyone who has paid that much for grad school. I paid just over $20k per year without any scholarships, and I didn't go to a necessarily cheap school. My brother paid the same. That's pretty much the average cost for grad school, unless you're talking about B-school or Ivy League. I don't see how point C even relates to the issue at hand. All it necessarily means is it's a smaller market: lower supply, lower demand. It doesn't justify people making more or less.

My point is, law school students don't really have it worse off career-wise than anyone else even if they end up in that dreaded second hump on the salary distribution chart, aside from the sheer cost of paying tuition at sticker price. The only reason $60k looks so bad is because $160k is such a stratospheric comparison. There's no practical justification for law schools being able to charge as much as they do. The only reason they can is because about 75% of the students think they have a good chance at making $160k when they graduate, when, even in a good economy, only 25% will do so. If people below median at T10 schools have to forge for themselves finding jobs that pay a meager 80k, that's not a tragedy. That's what happens in every other profession.

rondemarino wrote:The comparison is a poor one - every other graduate program to law. Business might be more apt, but I'm not sure.

(a) Students in PhD programs have a work product that correlates well with their post-school employment. If you can build a robot at MIT, you can build it for MegaCorp.

(b) If you haven't noticed, graduate school tuition is kind of insane at a lot of places ($35k+). But, unlike law students, Ph.D students do more than take classes. They actually work and its work people are willing to pay work.

(c) As a consequence of their working, graduate students don't come in a one-size fits all. OCI exists, but not on the scale you see in law school. The reason isn't that engineers aren't entitled fucks, its that their specialization limits them to a small fraction of the employment market.

(d) Since there is no way to ascertain merit (in the sciences you actually have substantive research to show), there's no way to know if the median numb nut at Harvard is better than someone at the top 10% of a T2. In the sciences, you can actually ascertain this. Legal employers have to take the shotgun approach. In the absence of a substantive evaluative criteria, like a body of scientific research, they use the shotgun approach - throwing 100 Harvard grads at a wall gives you more able lawyers than throwing 100 Cardozo grads at the same wall. Prestige dominates because merit is tough to quantify.

EDIT: If law school was a true apprenticeship, like almost every other graduate program, things would change.

This is ridiculous. Everything you said basically proves/strengthens what Cougar posted--you just added your own twist by implicitly hinting that the current structure of law school and legal hiring is basically the lesser of two evils. Sometimes I think people on here just like to insult others and argue just for the sake of arguing.

kurama20 wrote:

rondemarino wrote:The comparison is a poor one - every other graduate program to law. Business might be more apt, but I'm not sure.

(a) Students in PhD programs have a work product that correlates well with their post-school employment. If you can build a robot at MIT, you can build it for MegaCorp.

(b) If you haven't noticed, graduate school tuition is kind of insane at a lot of places ($35k+). But, unlike law students, Ph.D students do more than take classes. They actually work and its work people are willing to pay work.

(c) As a consequence of their working, graduate students don't come in a one-size fits all. OCI exists, but not on the scale you see in law school. The reason isn't that engineers aren't entitled fucks, its that their specialization limits them to a small fraction of the employment market.

(d) Since there is no way to ascertain merit (in the sciences you actually have substantive research to show), there's no way to know if the median numb nut at Harvard is better than someone at the top 10% of a T2. In the sciences, you can actually ascertain this. Legal employers have to take the shotgun approach. In the absence of a substantive evaluative criteria, like a body of scientific research, they use the shotgun approach - throwing 100 Harvard grads at a wall gives you more able lawyers than throwing 100 Cardozo grads at the same wall. Prestige dominates because merit is tough to quantify.

EDIT: If law school was a true apprenticeship, like almost every other graduate program, things would change.

This is ridiculous. Everything you said basically proves/strengthens what Cougar posted--you just added your own twist by implicitly hinting that the current structure of law school and legal hiring is basically the lesser of two evils. Sometimes I think people on here just like to insult others and argue just for the sake of arguing.

Reread the bolded. I have no quarrel with the idea that salaries are too high, but JCougar is comparing apples to oranges. You are talking about two markets with starkly different incentives.

EDIT: Two evils? Huh?

Fight fight fight fight fight, like Tiger woods and his wife.

And Deadmau5 gets to be the referee.