Is the career outlook for a non t-14 lawyer really that bad?

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
User avatar
Matthies
Posts: 1253
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: Is the career outlook for a non t-14 lawyer really that bad?

Postby Matthies » Tue Dec 01, 2009 6:19 pm

JCougar wrote: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."


Seriously, plus 1 billion. I have been saying this for years, and it mostly lands on deaf ears. Even though the vast amgority of law studnets will not get jobs from OCI, that is about the only way the vast magority of law students look for jobs until they gradnuate without one. Only THEN do they start networking and making connctions, when its too late. People would not have to take "shit law" jobs if they put more effort into finding a job outside of thier school before 3L.

User avatar
rondemarino
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:29 am

Re: Is the career outlook for a non t-14 lawyer really that bad?

Postby rondemarino » Tue Dec 01, 2009 6:31 pm

JCougar wrote:
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.


You see why our expectations are different, right? We haven't proven a damn thing. We have no idea if we'll be good lawyers. With every other profession, there's more security in knowing that you have demonstrated the ability to succeed in the professional world. Also, we have no idea if merit will out in the professional world either. So we hedge against failure by making insanely higher financial demands at the outset (EDIT: you'll notice that the same logic dominates our thinking when we hear someone thinking about going to a lower ranked school with the intention of transferring).

User avatar
nealric
Posts: 2395
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: Is the career outlook for a non t-14 lawyer really that bad?

Postby nealric » Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:09 pm

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.


Consulting, Ibanking, Private Equity

Medical Doctors also don't really have to "hustle" for jobs. Once they complete their residency, they are golden.

In other professions, you have to prove yourself in the real world before you get offered this kind of money


I think a big part of the problem (especially on the transactional side) is that there is really no venue outside of biglaw where you can prove yourself. You can't work on billion dollar mergers without working at a big firm. Firms can only take on a limited number of people, so they need to take on the ones that they think will perform the best. From there comes the competition to get the best people, and from there comes the salary wars to get and maintain them. Now, we have a good 'ol fashioned prisoner's dilemma that prevents the market from correcting for the downturn.

User avatar
MC Southstar
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 3:27 pm

Re: Is the career outlook for a non t-14 lawyer really that bad?

Postby MC Southstar » Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:10 pm

Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: Is the career outlook for a non t-14 lawyer really that bad?

Postby JCougar » Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:47 pm

rondemarino wrote:You see why our expectations are different, right? We haven't proven a damn thing. We have no idea if we'll be good lawyers. With every other profession, there's more security in knowing that you have demonstrated the ability to succeed in the professional world. Also, we have no idea if merit will out in the professional world either. So we hedge against failure by making insanely higher financial demands at the outset (EDIT: you'll notice that the same logic dominates our thinking when we hear someone thinking about going to a lower ranked school with the intention of transferring).


In other professions, this is what's called "wagging the dog." You can demand whatever salary you want, but you're not going to get it. It has more to do with the market value for your services rather than what your demands are. I think the service I give my company right now warrants a salary increase of 100%. Guess what? I'm not going to get it, because there's other people that would do my job for what I make now (although not as well, of course :) ). Only in law is there this notion that people are entitled to print cash before even accomplishing anything real, and it's because the maket is artificially skewed in that corporate clients seem to be willing to truck in cash simply for people with a degree from certain schools, regardless of what they have accomplished. From the rest of the world's perspective, you went to a 3 year professional school after majoring in the humanities, and now you expect a salary four times that of graduates of other graduate programs of similar length? Law school is a lot of tedious work, but it's also not rocket science. $60k after three years of grad school should be considered great, and is considered great by most of the rest of the world.

Just manage your finances, and you'll be fine (in a normal economy) as long as you don't go to a T3 or T4 and graduate in the bottom half of your class. Don't take out massive living expenses loans to live in a huge, new apartment, save some money before your first year, see if your parents or grandma will give you some living expense money (even $100 extra per month can go a long way on a shoestring budget), go in-state if you can, go somewhere that offers you a scholarship in the area you want to practice, don't go out on drunken escapades every weekend and buy everyone shots, get rid of your car if you can, don't pay to study abroad, and live like most poor college students by shopping at Aldi and drinking PBR from the can. And if forced to find a job outside of OCI, don't approach law firms and interviews as if you are disappointed and have to settle for them only because you struck out at OCI. Every job that pays you anything north of $40k per year these days either completely sucks or there is tons of competition. Be lucky that, worst case scenario, you're looking at $50-60K right now, and if you didn't pay sticker and take out living expense loans for $20K/year, that's plenty of money to pay off your debts unless you have to live in New York, San Francisco, or DC. You're not going to be filthy rich straight out of school, but then again, no one gets that opportunity. Work hard anyways, and if you happen to graduate top 10%, may you be pleasantly surprised.

User avatar
nealric
Posts: 2395
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: Is the career outlook for a non t-14 lawyer really that bad?

Postby nealric » Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:55 pm

worst case scenario, you're looking at $50-60K right now


If only that were true. Even in high COL places, we are seeing a reverse auction situation where new grads are willing to work for as little as 25k. Sure, you can live on 25k, but can you live on 25k when making minimum loan payments swallows your entire salary?

Living poor can go a long way, but it hardly makes a dent in the tuition at some places. People think "I could either incur $140k in debt and live like a pauper or incur 160k in debt and live it up." Once debt reaches monopoly money levels, it's hard to emotionally justify thrift. Of course, there are low-cost options, but those aren't always available. Some states don't have state schools, people loose scholarships (a lot of T3s set it up some more than 1/2 of scholarship recipients lose them).You can try moving to a low COL place, but that can be extremely hard to do if you have no connections to those places and couldn't network there.
Last edited by nealric on Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: Is the career outlook for a non t-14 lawyer really that bad?

Postby JCougar » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:05 pm

nealric wrote:
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.


Consulting, Ibanking, Private Equity

Medical Doctors also don't really have to "hustle" for jobs. Once they complete their residency, they are golden.


What kind of consulting allows you to make six figures right off the bat? I've never heard of it. I know of some people making $70-80k, but they're also working 60 hours a week and they have PhDs. What percentage of Ibankers make $100k their very first year without any background?

Medical doctors don't have to hustle for jobs, but medical school makes law school look like a cakewalk. Just to get in requires far more rigorous undergrad credentials, and then you're there for at least 7 years counting residency.

nealric wrote:
In other professions, you have to prove yourself in the real world before you get offered this kind of money


I think a big part of the problem (especially on the transactional side) is that there is really no venue outside of biglaw where you can prove yourself. You can't work on billion dollar mergers without working at a big firm. Firms can only take on a limited number of people, so they need to take on the ones that they think will perform the best. From there comes the competition to get the best people, and from there comes the salary wars to get and maintain them. Now, we have a good 'ol fashioned prisoner's dilemma that prevents the market from correcting for the downturn.


True, and I guess SA positions are supposed to be a way to get to know someone before you commit to them 100%, but that's really not enough time to determine anything substantial. But this isn't really about whether 160k salaries are justified, it's about whether people can make it through law school and have a decent living making $55k. I think that's clearly possible unless you pay sticker somewhere or unless you live in NY, SF or DC -- in which case, you should be making more than $55k with a law degree anyways.

User avatar
nealric
Posts: 2395
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: Is the career outlook for a non t-14 lawyer really that bad?

Postby nealric » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:09 pm


What kind of consulting allows you to make six figures right off the bat? I've never heard of it. I know of some people making $70-80k, but they're also working 60 hours a week and they have PhDs. What percentage of Ibankers make $100k their very first year without any background?


Consulting out of a top B-school pays low six figures, not out of undergrad. This is management consulting (which has fairly similar recruiting patters to biglaw). The stuff most Phds do is completely different.

Ibankers at top banks make 100k+ right out of school post-bonus (or at least they did pre-ITE). It's a small percentage, but it's also a small percentage of law students who work in biglaw. Ibankers out of B-school could make 200k+ pre-ITE.

But this isn't really about whether 160k salaries are justified, it's about whether people can make it through law school and have a decent living making $55k. I think that's clearly possible unless you pay sticker somewhere or unless you live in NY, SF or DC -- in which case, you should be making more than $55k with a law degree anyways.


If everyone who struck out at OCI made 55k in a substantive legal job, I doubt too many would complain. The cold hard truth is that jobs go down into the 20k range and/or are of the doc-review variety. To make matters worse, due to market saturation, non-biglaw salaries can actually be LOWER in high COL areas.


I'm not a dyed in the wool doom-and-gloom type. But I do think people need to understand that some bright and capable LS grads will have a very tough time indeed if things don't improve substantially. I've had some insanely depressing conversations with new grads who are tenuously employed in doc review jobs.
Last edited by nealric on Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:14 pm, edited 3 times in total.

articulably suspect
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:01 am

Re: Is the career outlook for a non t-14 lawyer really that bad?

Postby articulably suspect » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:12 pm

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.


+1 this has always been my view. although, i guess if you're really lacking in intellect, it might be hard to figure out that system, which is necessary in order to game it.

User avatar
MC Southstar
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 3:27 pm

Re: Is the career outlook for a non t-14 lawyer really that bad?

Postby MC Southstar » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:15 pm

ejjones 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.


+1 this has always been my view. although, i guess if you're really lacking in intellect, it might be hard to figure out that system, which is necessary in order to game it.


Hum... I should have clarified that I don't mean they aren't correlated at all, just rather weakly. Computer scientist could make low 6 figures out of undergrad at an investment bank pre-ITE.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: Is the career outlook for a non t-14 lawyer really that bad?

Postby JCougar » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:18 pm

nealric wrote:
worst case scenario, you're looking at $50-60K right now


If only that were true. Even in high COL places, we are seeing a reverse auction situation where new grads are willing to work for as little as 25k. Sure, you can live on 25k, but can you live on 25k when making minimum loan payments swallows your entire salary?

Living poor can go a long way, but it hardly makes a dent in the tuition at some places. People think "I could either incur $140k in debt and live like a pauper or incur 160k in debt and live it up." Once debt reaches monopoly money levels, it's hard to emotionally justify thrift. Of course, there are low-cost options, but those aren't always available. Some states don't have state schools, people loose scholarships (a lot of T3s set it up some more than 1/2 of scholarship recipients lose them).You can try moving to a low COL place, but that can be extremely hard to do if you have no connections to those places and couldn't network there.


I'm saying you shouldn't be spending $140k for law school anyways. I don't really see career prospects differing much between the bottom-end of T1 schools and lower-end T3s. You pretty much should be going to school in the locality you want to practice at this point. Career prospects are not much different, but the kind of scholarships you can get at each school are. Most states have a state school where you can go for in-state. I can't think of one off the top of my head that doesn't, but the ones that don't probably don't have large populations anyways. Every state where I would want to practice has one. And if you can't get a scholarship at at least a T2 somewhere, than it's likely you're going to have to struggle at the beginning of your career no matter what you do (i.e. your GPA/test-taking ability isn't high enough to get you into any other great graduate programs). The only thing that's unfair about this whole scenario is the tuition for law school.

As for people slaving away for $25k, that's a reality of this economy and not anything else. People are doing this in whatever their profession unless they graduated from a notorious school or graduated with honors. But even now, I'll bet these people are more the exception than the rule (unless you went to a T4).

User avatar
nealric
Posts: 2395
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: Is the career outlook for a non t-14 lawyer really that bad?

Postby nealric » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:22 pm

I'm saying you shouldn't be spending $140k for law school anyways


I totally agree, but I'm saying that not everyone really has this option. Some states only have an expensive state school option. In California, for example, the state schools now cost more than a lot of privates. Heck, I pay less at GULC than people are paying at Hastings next year. Not everyone can get into a public school in their state (or get any school to offer them a scholarship for that matter). I suppose those people shouldn't go to law school, but many of them will.

But even now, I'll bet these people are more the exception than the rule (unless you went to a T4).


There may not be that many who have accepted 25k/yr jobs, but there are a LOT of people who are totally unemployed right now.

flcath
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Is the career outlook for a non t-14 lawyer really that bad?

Postby flcath » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:31 pm

kdawg666 wrote:
shadowfrost000 wrote:
kdawg666 wrote:If you have an engineering background and somewhat decent grades, both in undergrad and in law school, you will easily get a job for 100k+ starting (EASILY).


I hear this a lot but clarify please.



I have an EE background and am getting a law degree part time at a top 30 law school. Already work for a law firm as a patent agent making over 6 figures.

And it would be fairly easy to go somewhere else.

All those prone to envy here now despise you.

Not me, of course. I'm very happy for you.

articulably suspect
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:01 am

Re: Is the career outlook for a non t-14 lawyer really that bad?

Postby articulably suspect » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:33 pm

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.

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


With PHDs and hard science graduate programs, I guess they're like apprenticeships, but MA's in political science, psyhology, etc don't seem to be. I'm assuming you didn't mean to inlude these programs, did you? I have friends in these programs and from what they've told me, it doesn't seem like an apprenticeship at all, more like an extension of UG soft science course work. Honestly, the programs they're in seem like a joke

flcath
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Is the career outlook for a non t-14 lawyer really that bad?

Postby flcath » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:38 pm

nealric wrote:
worst case scenario, you're looking at $50-60K right now


If only that were true. Even in high COL places, we are seeing a reverse auction situation where new grads are willing to work for as little as 25k. Sure, you can live on 25k, but can you live on 25k when making minimum loan payments swallows your entire salary?

There is no way in hell I could live off of $25K in a primary market like NYC.

Edit: Unless that figure doesn't include the value of the food stamps I'd be getting.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: Is the career outlook for a non t-14 lawyer really that bad?

Postby JCougar » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:43 pm

nealric wrote:

What kind of consulting allows you to make six figures right off the bat? I've never heard of it. I know of some people making $70-80k, but they're also working 60 hours a week and they have PhDs. What percentage of Ibankers make $100k their very first year without any background?


Consulting out of a top B-school pays low six figures, not out of undergrad. This is management consulting (which has fairly similar recruiting patters to biglaw). The stuff most Phds do is completely different.

Ibankers at top banks make 100k+ right out of school post-bonus (or at least they did pre-ITE). It's a small percentage, but it's also a small percentage of law students who work in biglaw. Ibankers out of B-school could make 200k+ pre-ITE.


How many people get into top B-schools and then get those jobs without any previous work experience?

According to the trusty salary distribution chart, pre-ITE lawyers with $160k salaries made up 23% of the work force. I know that that is probably skewed due to response bias, but that's still not a negligible amount. And that's not including the people who make between $100-159k.

There's people who can make six figures in sales two years removed from undergrad, but those people are few and far between. Out of any of these professions, law offers the most people the most money with the least experience and the least amount of classwork. People should be happy for what they get.

nealric wrote:
But this isn't really about whether 160k salaries are justified, it's about whether people can make it through law school and have a decent living making $55k. I think that's clearly possible unless you pay sticker somewhere or unless you live in NY, SF or DC -- in which case, you should be making more than $55k with a law degree anyways.


If everyone who struck out at OCI made 55k in a substantive legal job, I doubt too many would complain. The cold hard truth is that jobs go down into the 20k range and/or are of the doc-review variety. To make matters worse, due to market saturation, non-biglaw salaries can actually be LOWER in high COL areas.

I'm not a dyed in the wool doom-and-gloom type. But I do think people need to understand that some bright and capable LS grads will have a very tough time indeed if things don't improve substantially. I've had some insanely depressing conversations with new grads who are tenuously employed in doc review jobs.


I doubt that people who graduated below median at a T14 school (especially any school that's worth paying full tuition) are going to be the ones having that problem. The bottom half of the class at Northwestern or Georgetown can find a $70k job (or a job that qualifies for LRAP) if they don't let their high expectations bite them in the butt, even ITE. Any lower than that, and you shouldn't be paying full price. If you start networking and applying for jobs outside OCI well before you graduate and you have a good attitude, you'll be able to get something.

There's always going to be people who think jobs are just going to fall into their lap simply because they went to a good school, even if they graduated bottom 25%. I don't really feel sorry for them, because every year, there's countless people that get advanced degrees in humanities or social sciences that are happy making $35k per year. Simply getting into law school shouldn't entitle you to much more than that, and neither should simply graduating. You need to work hard in any normal profession to get a job, and I just don't buy that these people doing doc review for $25k per year either went to a decent school or are making the most of their opportunity by looking for jobs anywhere they can find one and/or going out of their way to get their foot in the door somewhere. As with any system, there are going to be people weeded out that can't hack it, and if you can't get into a school other than T14 without a scholarship or in-state tuition, you have a fairly large chance of being weeded out by the economic realities of this world. If you don't like it, don't go, and get into retail management or plumbing or something. But don't complain that there are too many lawyers because you are forced to accept a $50k job.

articulably suspect
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:01 am

Re: Is the career outlook for a non t-14 lawyer really that bad?

Postby articulably suspect » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:44 pm

shadowfrost000 wrote:
ejjones 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.


+1 this has always been my view. although, i guess if you're really lacking in intellect, it might be hard to figure out that system, which is necessary in order to game it.


Hum... I should have clarified that I don't mean they aren't correlated at all, just rather weakly. Computer scientist could make low 6 figures out of undergrad at an investment bank pre-ITE.


I was referring to performance in school and intelligence. I think that success in school has a lot to due with understanding the system and playing it, especially in the soft sciences IMO. I wasn't referring to jobs and salaries. I think we're on different pages, my fault.

User avatar
MC Southstar
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 3:27 pm

Re: Is the career outlook for a non t-14 lawyer really that bad?

Postby MC Southstar » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:47 pm

ejjones wrote:
shadowfrost000 wrote:Hum... I should have clarified that I don't mean they aren't correlated at all, just rather weakly. Computer scientist could make low 6 figures out of undergrad at an investment bank pre-ITE.


I was referring to performance in school and intelligence. I think that success in school has a lot to due with understanding the system and playing it, especially in the soft sciences IMO. I wasn't referring to jobs and salaries. I think we're on different pages, my fault.


No, my first sentence was in response to you. My second was in response to the rest of the thread.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Is the career outlook for a non t-14 lawyer really that bad?

Postby rayiner » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:48 pm

The bottom half of the class at Northwestern or Georgetown can find a $70k job (or a job that qualifies for LRAP) if they don't let their high expectations bite them in the butt, even ITE


You say this based on what?

1/3 of C/O 2009 got deferred, and a lot of those folks will never get offers. Those folks went to schools ranging through the whole T14. They'll be rushing for those $70k jobs...
Last edited by rayiner on Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
nealric
Posts: 2395
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: Is the career outlook for a non t-14 lawyer really that bad?

Postby nealric » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:48 pm


There is no way in hell I could live off of $25K in a primary market like NYC.


It can most certainly be done- you just would not like the standard of living. I lived on less than $1k/mo in NYC when I was a SA (probably would have come to about $1k/mo if I had been paying for all my meals). It meant living in a hostel. For 2 months it was OK, but I would have been rather unhappy if it was my permanent life.

The bottom half of the class at Northwestern or Georgetown can find a $70k job (or a job that qualifies for LRAP) if they don't let their high expectations bite them in the butt, even ITE


LRAP maybe, but I know a TON of people (even in the top half) who can't find jobs paying anywhere close to $70k.

User avatar
Matthies
Posts: 1253
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: Is the career outlook for a non t-14 lawyer really that bad?

Postby Matthies » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:56 pm

nealric wrote:

There is no way in hell I could live off of $25K in a primary market like NYC.


It can most certainly be done- you just would not like the standard of living. I lived on less than $1k/mo in NYC when I was a SA (probably would have come to about $1k/mo if I had been paying for all my meals). It meant living in a hostel. For 2 months it was OK, but I would have been rather unhappy if it was my permanent life.

The bottom half of the class at Northwestern or Georgetown can find a $70k job (or a job that qualifies for LRAP) if they don't let their high expectations bite them in the butt, even ITE


LRAP maybe, but I know a TON of people (even in the top half) who can't find jobs paying anywhere close to $70k.


Well doc review here is paying 30-35 an hour, thats sixty 60k and I know a few who have jobs lined till May when there firm deferal is over. Its bad, but there is stuff out there, you just got to look harder than symplicity and craigslist to find it. And get the hell out of NYC. WTF I got an unsolicted e-mail from NYC bar examiners saying the would take my MBE score and all i had to do was sit for the NY satate day in Feb. If your bleeding your own people why the F are you sending me e-mails to come get lic in your state. no f-ing thank you.

flcath
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Is the career outlook for a non t-14 lawyer really that bad?

Postby flcath » Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:01 pm

nealric wrote:

There is no way in hell I could live off of $25K in a primary market like NYC.


It can most certainly be done- you just would not like the standard of living. I lived on less than $1k/mo in NYC when I was a SA (probably would have come to about $1k/mo if I had been paying for all my meals). It meant living in a hostel. For 2 months it was OK, but I would have been rather unhappy if it was my permanent life.

I'm not trying to harp on a point that I know you probably made off-hand, but I really had no idea this could be done. You can pay rent + utilities + food + transportation + [strike]taxes[/strike] for $2K/month? (Anywhere, let alone NY?) On the plus side, even the crappiest LRAPs will cover you when you're pulling down that kind of flow (or lack thereof).

You can make $25K/yr. without a HS diploma. Also, I'm told the average debt load for a GED is far less than that of a JD.

flcath
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Is the career outlook for a non t-14 lawyer really that bad?

Postby flcath » Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:08 pm

rayiner wrote:
The bottom half of the class at Northwestern or Georgetown can find a $70k job (or a job that qualifies for LRAP) if they don't let their high expectations bite them in the butt, even ITE


You say this based on what?

1/3 of C/O 2009 got deferred, and a lot of those folks will never get offers. Those folks went to schools ranging through the whole T14. They'll be rushing for those $70k jobs...

What are these $70K jobs? I seriously do not know.

User avatar
nealric
Posts: 2395
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: Is the career outlook for a non t-14 lawyer really that bad?

Postby nealric » Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:10 pm

You can pay rent + utilities + food + transportation + taxes for $2K/month? (Anywhere, let alone NY?)


I'm unsure of whether this was sarcastic or not, but the budget went something like this:

Rent + Utilities: $450 (it was a hostel)
Food: $300/mo
Transportation: $80/mo (subway pass)
$130 left to spare for all other things

I wasn't counting taxes- $1k was the budget. But taxes are pretty darn low when you make $25k/yr.

What are these $70K jobs? I seriously do not know.


Mostly federal government.

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: Is the career outlook for a non t-14 lawyer really that bad?

Postby dresden doll » Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:11 pm

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.


:roll: While you're at it, let law schools know they should charge us lower tuition so we don't need that 160k to pay off our loans.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.