Princeton grad applying top schools Forum

[A. Nony Mouse]

I understand your point, but the idea that the economic value of law school is different based on what your other options are is not at all the same as saying that law school is about signaling intelligence, which got raised somewhere along the line. Like, going to law school because you can't get a decent job (which I think is overstated, but using that assumption) is one thing, but going to law school because it's "probably most valuable as a method of signaling your intelligence/work ethic after an unimpressive undergrad" is just not the same thing.

[Gstate]

haha ok so just to put this back on track here I'd make 3 points:

1. My goal would be to run my own practice doing patent or corporate transactions of the type you mentioned earlier for companies out in the west coast. The idea of working at a big law firm is unappealing because from a money perspective I think it makes no sense to trade in an inv banking gig for a biglaw gig at a 200$k+ debt price tag. So, when you say that law school channels you for biglaw, how universal is this amongst graduates? Is it required and for how long is it required?

2. I am fine being on the legal side of the field, not the business side. Obviously preparing documents isn't the most exciting thing in the world but it is also less high risk than the business side from an income perspective. This is ok with me.

3. Related to point #1, my primary aim is to run my own business. Since legal services are in demand and can only be provided by people with a JD, I thought it was a more viable and less high risk option than let's say starting a tech firm with a high rate of failure. As much as I love school, the primary motivation for me is acquiring a skill that will allow me to start a business based on that skill and make income

Considering this, what is your view?

[jbagelboy]

Its sad that people on here reduce law school to a signaling credential. No wonder so many people are dissatisfied.

also, can I just go back to this and LOL?

just lol. forever.

(I'm not dissatisfied with law school, btw. I'm very happy with it and it's already gotten me jobs and access to great people that I could never have gotten without it.

approaching major life decisions with some critical distance is a decent skill that should be encouraged. especially on a board where people who are young and relatively inexperienced are deciding to saddle themselves with 6 figure debt.)

I'm not saying law school has no signaling value in its profession, which should be obvious; quite the opposite: you should choose a law school based on how well it will position you for the legal job market. To answer your question, I chose my school based on the balance of debt/cost, personal life (SO/geography), and professional opportunity in law (employment and academic power in my field). Having a JD from a top law school allows me to sit for the bar and practice in a desirable position. Just going to an elite college doesn't offer this. It offers different value but one does not replace the other.

If you couch all your decisions in sheer economic opportunity cost, you are more likely to land in a qualitatively unsatisfying position since the substance does not pertain to your interests. I am strongly in favor of choosing non-law options instead of law school, and most strongly opposed to taking on high debt for a JD, since it is such a limiting degree that offers a license to one profession. It is NOT a general signaling tool and that is precisely the point. That's what's important for OP and what we completely agree on: don't go to law school for general interest if you have other options (which this OP does). That does not in any way support a general statement about people who attend prestigious private colleges who actually want to practice law, because you can't practice without a JD.

And if I'm not mistaken, I'm several years senior to you in the legal world, and I worked in a high powered field before starting.. So how am I not approaching with critical distance?

[WhiteCollarBlueShirt]

haha ok so just to put this back on track here I'd make 3 points:

1. My goal would be to run my own practice doing patent or corporate transactions of the type you mentioned earlier for companies out in the west coast. The idea of working at a big law firm is unappealing because from a money perspective I think it makes no sense to trade in an inv banking gig for a biglaw gig at a 200$k+ debt price tag. So, when you say that law school channels you for biglaw, how universal is this amongst graduates? Is it required and for how long is it required?

2. I am fine being on the legal side of the field, not the business side. Obviously preparing documents isn't the most exciting thing in the world but it is also less high risk than the business side from an income perspective. This is ok with me.

3. Related to point #1, my primary aim is to run my own business. Since legal services are in demand and can only be provided by people with a JD, I thought it was a more viable and less high risk option than let's say starting a tech firm with a high rate of failure. As much as I love school, the primary motivation for me is acquiring a skill that will allow me to start a business based on that skill and make income

Considering this, what is your view?

To make the type of money that I think you want, you in all likelihood need the institutional knowledge that only a relatively large and connected firm can provide. If and when you break out on your own, it would be at least 10 years down the road and at the point you're handcuffs will look like a decoration in the lobby of a Trump tower.

There are a lot more barriers to entry to what you envision than a JD alone, unless you're happy with a substantially lower income in the name of being your own boss. If you actually want to a run a business in SV, try fintech... if you want a stable upper middle class income, but horrible/boring hours, then do West Coast biglaw and keep in mind that it's becoming more common for law firms to hire non-JD's to run the financial-business side of the law firm.

[Gstate]

The fact is that I'm pretty shitty at math and quant skills. Its part of the reason I wasn't super psyched about inv banking. The GMAT relies on that significantly more than the LSAT. An MBA program relies more on those skills than a JD program. If I want to get in to a program, let alone succeed in one, it follows that I'd do the JD. At a very basic level that is the logic. The question then becomes: do you have to obtain the JD at an expensive and prestigious place? Or do you take a scholarship at a lesser school ?

[Gstate]

The other question would be, if not law school, what else do I do? I have a bachelors in politics from a great school, sure, but it's not exactly a computer science degree that is actually in demand.

[cavalier1138]

The other question would be, if not law school, what else do I do? I have a bachelors in politics from a great school, sure, but it's not exactly a computer science degree that is actually in demand.

You seem to be working in jobs that make you quite a bit of money already (and since this seems to be your main goal, that's why I'm ignoring other factors), so I'm not sure why you're discounting the value of that degree.

[Gstate]

I have been working in these jobs so far as an intern and now a first year, but it's quickly becoming apparent that I'll reach my ceiling with my lack of interest/ proficiency in hard may/quant skills. Frankly, when you read politico more than the wall at journal, I think it's a good indicator you're not interested in finance

[landshoes]

I have been working in these jobs so far as an intern and now a first year, but it's quickly becoming apparent that I'll reach my ceiling with my lack of interest/ proficiency in hard may/quant skills. Frankly, when you read politico more than the wall at journal, I think it's a good indicator you're not interested in finance

What you need to do is not make the same mistake that got you into finance. Figure out what you want to do. It's not law. Maybe you're interested in politics--why aren't you looking into that? No quant skills required.

[Gstate]

Politics would be something of interest at a much later stage. I want to actually work in a private sector job before going to work in government. Also I have no interest in being paid little as a government employee

[landshoes]

Its sad that people on here reduce law school to a signaling credential. No wonder so many people are dissatisfied.

also, can I just go back to this and LOL?

just lol. forever.

(I'm not dissatisfied with law school, btw. I'm very happy with it and it's already gotten me jobs and access to great people that I could never have gotten without it.

approaching major life decisions with some critical distance is a decent skill that should be encouraged. especially on a board where people who are young and relatively inexperienced are deciding to saddle themselves with 6 figure debt.)

I'm not saying law school has no signaling value in its profession, which should be obvious; quite the opposite: you should choose a law school based on how well it will position you for the legal job market. To answer your question, I chose my school based on the balance of debt/cost, personal life (SO/geography), and professional opportunity in law (employment and academic power in my field). Having a JD from a top law school allows me to sit for the bar and practice in a desirable position. Just going to an elite college doesn't offer this. It offers different value but one does not replace the other.

If you couch all your decisions in sheer economic opportunity cost, you are more likely to land in a qualitatively unsatisfying position since the substance does not pertain to your interests. I am strongly in favor of choosing non-law options instead of law school, and most strongly opposed to taking on high debt for a JD, since it is such a limiting degree that offers a license to one profession. It is NOT a general signaling tool and that is precisely the point. That's what's important for OP and what we completely agree on: don't go to law school for general interest if you have other options (which this OP does). That does not in any way support a general statement about people who attend prestigious private colleges who actually want to practice law, because you can't practice without a JD.

And if I'm not mistaken, I'm several years senior to you in the legal world, and I worked in a high powered field before starting.. So how am I not approaching with critical distance?

TBH we agree on basically everything substantive. I don't approach things with the same underlying beliefs, but if we agree on the outcome, it doesn't matter if we disagree about how to get there.

TL;dr: don't go to law school if you don't want to be a lawyer (regardless of why you want to be a lawyer)

[landshoes]

Politics would be something of interest at a much later stage. I want to actually work in a private sector job before going to work in government. Also I have no interest in being paid little as a government employee

1) Law school is like getting negative income for 3 years
2) It's way way less fun than working as an aide for a congressman or senator in DC or working at most SV entry-level kid-from-Princeton jobs
3) Law school will always be there
4) You're young, presumably healthy, with no dependents, so don't be scared of being temporarily low-income if it puts something on your resume that helps you get the job you eventually want

Are you from a poor family? Do you not have a good idea of what jobs are out there? Ask Princeton's career services people to help you. I'm 100% serious about this. Go there and proactively bug them until they help you find a job that sounds genuinely interesting to you.

If you're from a well-off family, then you have to realize that you have been spoiled by being sold the idea that there is some mystical job out there that pays a lot, and is inherently interesting. With a few exceptions, jobs are one or the other until you have skills/credentials that employers can't get elsewhere. You are likely 5-10 years away from that, at the soonest, given your lack of quant skills.

[WhiteCollarBlueShirt]

I have been working in these jobs so far as an intern and now a first year, but it's quickly becoming apparent that I'll reach my ceiling with my lack of interest/ proficiency in hard may/quant skills. Frankly, when you read politico more than the wall at journal, I think it's a good indicator you're not interested in finance

If you read politico more than WSJ, then you certainly do not want to be reading Deal Pipeline, HF Law Report or whatever other legal rag there is covering the legal side of these transactions.

But noted. Just FYI, corporate legal writing is less writing and more use of commas, notwithstanding the foregoing, for the avoidance of doubt, etc. But your call, I'd call you informed at this point.

[Gstate]

Consensus view here is: don't go.

In terms of alternatives, few have been proposed. The one recommendation is to speak to career services, but in terns of educational attainment, so far people are saying to do nothing.

Unsure how wise it is to stuck with a bachelors degree in politics only...

[dabigchina]

Consensus view here is: don't go.

In terms of alternatives, few have been proposed. The one recommendation is to speak to career services, but in terns of educational attainment, so far people are saying to do nothing.

Unsure how wise it is to stuck with a bachelors degree in politics only...

Your politics degree has already gotten you a better job than99% of legal jobs. I don't think the whole useless liberal arts degree paradigm applies to you.

[jbagelboy]

Consensus view here is: don't go.

In terms of alternatives, few have been proposed. The one recommendation is to speak to career services, but in terns of educational attainment, so far people are saying to do nothing.

Unsure how wise it is to stuck with a bachelors degree in politics only...

Your politics degree has already gotten you a better job than99% of legal jobs. I don't think the whole useless liberal arts degree paradigm applies to you.

you're exaggerating the quality and significance of an entry level analyst job. it's not better than 99% of legal jobs. and it's far from a certain prospect after the contract is up (no job security). I've never really understood the TLS hard-on for finance. It's a good job out of college but it has basically all the downsides of biglaw with even less staying power and a far less established route to the top. I'm sure OP also has some friends from college that are struggling. But yes, his degree is far from useless.

I don't fully understanding your underlying motivations, OP. If you want to have your own law practice and provide a service to clients, then by all means, go to law school! Just keep your debt low so your opportunities for entrepreneurship won't be as limited. If you really just think of the law practice as a means to break into something else or for a high salary, then I agree with these other posters that law school is misguided for you, since its NOT the most lucrative option NOR the most flexible.

If you are interested in politics and policy--I'm a TPM/politico/economist junkie as well--you could consider getting an MPA degree after a few more years in finance/on the hill, but I don't think it's really necessary.

[Budfox55]

Just to point out and clear up a few things in this thread that I have seen continuously throughout TLS concerning Finance/investment banking and start-up/VC. Please realize that most of you who have no experience with finance and start-ups sound as ignorant as 0Ls talking about biglaw life. If you want to give advice about law and the legal profession, great, but please be cautious when you start recommending to head into X industry because of YZ reasons. I'm a 0L so I won't comment on the legal work aspects of it except for what i've learn from my discussion with ex-bankers turned lawyers and from what I've seen concerning a law degree in the start-up scene. I have worked at an investment bank and currently work for a "unicorn" start-up (think spotify, uber, etc) in a capacity where I deal with different, smaller, start-ups and VCs on a daily basis.

I've read the "most people in law would have killed to start off in investment banking as a 22 year old" so many times here. This may be shocking to some of you, but theres a good chunk of IB analysts who wish everyday that they just took the LSAT and applied to law school as well. And many ending up doing that. Investment banking fucking sucks. I have spoken to attorney's who've done this and they all think they made the right decision (all litigators). I've also read about people on this forum who made that decision and hated it (seems to be mostly transactional types). Its very much a "grass is greener on the other side" thing and has a lot to do with your own personal values and motivations behind working in a certain industry. There are for sure attorneys who should have 100% gone the banking/finance route instead, however that isn't everybody. For some people, law may be a better alternative.

As for what the OP mentioned before concerning transaction law firms who work with startups, these 100% exist and I have worked with some these firms. They're essentially start-ups that provide legal services to other startups. They also all generally really enjoy it from my conversations with them because they work more in a advisory capacity for their clients and a lot of the decisions that they make are literally life or death decisions for these startups. They seemed to all have worked in biglaw for less than 2 years, many dipping only a few months in. all of the attorneys I've met at these firms went to top undergrads schools and many were able to get their job by using their undergrad network rather than law school network.

Which leads to my next point about signaling. Going to a top undergrad, working at JPM, and going to law school, combined with being able to sell a story about entrepreneurial spirit and why business, is good enough signaling for a lot of VCs and start-ups. People on this board seem to be very adamant about how a legal education doesn't teach you anything about running a business, which I'm sure is true, but neither does business school lol. And VCs and start-up types know this. The main reason why you go to B-school is for the stamp on your resume and the network, but OP already has a great network. Many start-up founders also see a lot of value in hiring a JD early on. Like I said, a lot of these start-ups go through legal decisions that are literally life-or-death and so many people see the value of having a lawyer as a co-founder or someone involved early on. Again, these guys also seemed to have used their undergrad network (Bob the biglaw attorney's frat bro decides to start a company. Said frat-bro's idea would deal with possibly murky legal issues and asks Bob to join. Bob says fuck biglaw and joins as a co-founder). Tbh I've met more attorney's in the start-up scene than I would have thought. Not as many as ex bigtech or bankers, but still more than I expected.

Caveats:

I don't know what % of attorneys try to break into the start-up/VC scene, so I have no idea how likely it is. However I'll ask actual law school students/practicing attorneys, how many people do you know are ACTUALLY gunning for these types of jobs? I feel like there may be a lot of ppl who say they're interested, but don't put in the work or actually try. Also, not many who try may have the network that OP has which seems to help immensely.

if I had to guess, it seemed like all of these attorneys came from wealthy families as they didn't have to stay in biglaw long.

I agree with the sentiment that if OP does not want to be a lawyer, than he probably shouldn't go to law school. If I wanted to work at an early stage start-up, I would have worked in tech after JPM (could literally be in sales) and then leverage the banking/tech sales experience to some start-up. I don't think going to law school and taking on debt would be the right decision to maximize your chance of attaining that goal.

[BayCat24]

Just to point out and clear up a few things in this thread that I have seen continuously throughout TLS concerning Finance/investment banking and start-up/VC. Please realize that most of you who have no experience with finance and start-ups sound as ignorant as 0Ls talking about biglaw life. If you want to give advice about law and the legal profession, great, but please be cautious when you start recommending to head into X industry because of YZ reasons. I'm a 0L so I won't comment on the legal work aspects of it except for what i've learn from my discussion with ex-bankers turned lawyers and from what I've seen concerning a law degree in the start-up scene. I have worked at an investment bank and currently work for a "unicorn" start-up (think spotify, uber, etc) in a capacity where I deal with different, smaller, start-ups and VCs on a daily basis.

I've read the "most people in law would have killed to start off in investment banking as a 22 year old" so many times here. This may be shocking to some of you, but theres a good chunk of IB analysts who wish everyday that they just took the LSAT and applied to law school as well. And many ending up doing that. Investment banking fucking sucks. I have spoken to attorney's who've done this and they all think they made the right decision (all litigators). I've also read about people on this forum who made that decision and hated it (seems to be mostly transactional types). Its very much a "grass is greener on the other side" thing and has a lot to do with your own personal values and motivations behind working in a certain industry. There are for sure attorneys who should have 100% gone the banking/finance route instead, however that isn't everybody. For some people, law may be a better alternative.

As for what the OP mentioned before concerning transaction law firms who work with startups, these 100% exist and I have worked with some these firms. They're essentially start-ups that provide legal services to other startups. They also all generally really enjoy it from my conversations with them because they work more in a advisory capacity for their clients and a lot of the decisions that they make are literally life or death decisions for these startups. They seemed to all have worked in biglaw for less than 2 years, many dipping only a few months in. all of the attorneys I've met at these firms went to top undergrads schools and many were able to get their job by using their undergrad network rather than law school network.

Which leads to my next point about signaling. Going to a top undergrad, working at JPM, and going to law school, combined with being able to sell a story about entrepreneurial spirit and why business, is good enough signaling for a lot of VCs and start-ups. People on this board seem to be very adamant about how a legal education doesn't teach you anything about running a business, which I'm sure is true, but neither does business school lol. And VCs and start-up types know this. The main reason why you go to B-school is for the stamp on your resume and the network, but OP already has a great network. Many start-up founders also see a lot of value in hiring a JD early on. Like I said, a lot of these start-ups go through legal decisions that are literally life-or-death and so many people see the value of having a lawyer as a co-founder or someone involved early on. Again, these guys also seemed to have used their undergrad network (Bob the biglaw attorney's frat bro decides to start a company. Said frat-bro's idea would deal with possibly murky legal issues and asks Bob to join. Bob says fuck biglaw and joins as a co-founder). Tbh I've met more attorney's in the start-up scene than I would have thought. Not as many as ex bigtech or bankers, but still more than I expected.

Caveats:

I don't know what % of attorneys try to break into the start-up/VC scene, so I have no idea how likely it is. However I'll ask actual law school students/practicing attorneys, how many people do you know are ACTUALLY gunning for these types of jobs? I feel like there may be a lot of ppl who say they're interested, but don't put in the work or actually try. Also, not many who try may have the network that OP has which seems to help immensely.

if I had to guess, it seemed like all of these attorneys came from wealthy families as they didn't have to stay in biglaw long.

I agree with the sentiment that if OP does not want to be a lawyer, than he probably shouldn't go to law school. If I wanted to work at an early stage start-up, I would have worked in tech after JPM (could literally be in sales) and then leverage the banking/tech sales experience to some start-up. I don't think going to law school and taking on debt would be the right decision to maximize your chance of attaining that goal.

Are you referring to the house hold VC/Emerging company firms (Cooley, Fenwick, WSGR, GD etc)? Or are you referring to smaller/more specialized shops? I would love to hear more about this.

I tend to agree that a JD is not the scarlet letter that many on this site make it out to be, but absent going to an elite undergrad and having founders as friends, where do you find the opportunities to sell yourself as an attractive hire to start ups?

[Budfox55]

Just to point out and clear up a few things in this thread that I have seen continuously throughout TLS concerning Finance/investment banking and start-up/VC. Please realize that most of you who have no experience with finance and start-ups sound as ignorant as 0Ls talking about biglaw life. If you want to give advice about law and the legal profession, great, but please be cautious when you start recommending to head into X industry because of YZ reasons. I'm a 0L so I won't comment on the legal work aspects of it except for what i've learn from my discussion with ex-bankers turned lawyers and from what I've seen concerning a law degree in the start-up scene. I have worked at an investment bank and currently work for a "unicorn" start-up (think spotify, uber, etc) in a capacity where I deal with different, smaller, start-ups and VCs on a daily basis.

I've read the "most people in law would have killed to start off in investment banking as a 22 year old" so many times here. This may be shocking to some of you, but theres a good chunk of IB analysts who wish everyday that they just took the LSAT and applied to law school as well. And many ending up doing that. Investment banking fucking sucks. I have spoken to attorney's who've done this and they all think they made the right decision (all litigators). I've also read about people on this forum who made that decision and hated it (seems to be mostly transactional types). Its very much a "grass is greener on the other side" thing and has a lot to do with your own personal values and motivations behind working in a certain industry. There are for sure attorneys who should have 100% gone the banking/finance route instead, however that isn't everybody. For some people, law may be a better alternative.

As for what the OP mentioned before concerning transaction law firms who work with startups, these 100% exist and I have worked with some these firms. They're essentially start-ups that provide legal services to other startups. They also all generally really enjoy it from my conversations with them because they work more in a advisory capacity for their clients and a lot of the decisions that they make are literally life or death decisions for these startups. They seemed to all have worked in biglaw for less than 2 years, many dipping only a few months in. all of the attorneys I've met at these firms went to top undergrads schools and many were able to get their job by using their undergrad network rather than law school network.

Which leads to my next point about signaling. Going to a top undergrad, working at JPM, and going to law school, combined with being able to sell a story about entrepreneurial spirit and why business, is good enough signaling for a lot of VCs and start-ups. People on this board seem to be very adamant about how a legal education doesn't teach you anything about running a business, which I'm sure is true, but neither does business school lol. And VCs and start-up types know this. The main reason why you go to B-school is for the stamp on your resume and the network, but OP already has a great network. Many start-up founders also see a lot of value in hiring a JD early on. Like I said, a lot of these start-ups go through legal decisions that are literally life-or-death and so many people see the value of having a lawyer as a co-founder or someone involved early on. Again, these guys also seemed to have used their undergrad network (Bob the biglaw attorney's frat bro decides to start a company. Said frat-bro's idea would deal with possibly murky legal issues and asks Bob to join. Bob says fuck biglaw and joins as a co-founder). Tbh I've met more attorney's in the start-up scene than I would have thought. Not as many as ex bigtech or bankers, but still more than I expected.

Caveats:

I don't know what % of attorneys try to break into the start-up/VC scene, so I have no idea how likely it is. However I'll ask actual law school students/practicing attorneys, how many people do you know are ACTUALLY gunning for these types of jobs? I feel like there may be a lot of ppl who say they're interested, but don't put in the work or actually try. Also, not many who try may have the network that OP has which seems to help immensely.

if I had to guess, it seemed like all of these attorneys came from wealthy families as they didn't have to stay in biglaw long.

I agree with the sentiment that if OP does not want to be a lawyer, than he probably shouldn't go to law school. If I wanted to work at an early stage start-up, I would have worked in tech after JPM (could literally be in sales) and then leverage the banking/tech sales experience to some start-up. I don't think going to law school and taking on debt would be the right decision to maximize your chance of attaining that goal.

Are you referring to the house hold VC/Emerging company firms (Cooley, Fenwick, WSGR, GD etc)? Or are you referring to smaller/more specialized shops? I would love to hear more about this.

I tend to agree that a JD is not the scarlet letter that many on this site make it out to be, but absent going to an elite undergrad and having founders as friends, where do you find the opportunities to sell yourself as an attractive hire to start ups?

EDIT: read this on my phone and somehow managed to miss a line of the questions.

A combination of both (Originally only said smaller/specialized).

Honestly, a lot of it seems to be network/connections based. Try attending start-up networking events? There are a bunch in ever city. I'm also not actually interested in this myself so i haven't looked too much into it. Its more that when a lawyer that I come into contact with finds out that I'm heading to law school, he/she begins to tell me their life story and gives me advice lol.

[WhiteCollarBlueShirt]

I have spoken to attorney's who've done this and they all think they made the right decision (all litigators).

Just for those of you who want his TL/DR version.

[Gstate]

Consensus view here is: don't go.

In terms of alternatives, few have been proposed. The one recommendation is to speak to career services, but in terns of educational attainment, so far people are saying to do nothing.

Unsure how wise it is to stuck with a bachelors degree in politics only...

Your politics degree has already gotten you a better job than99% of legal jobs. I don't think the whole useless liberal arts degree paradigm applies to you.

you're exaggerating the quality and significance of an entry level analyst job. it's not better than 99% of legal jobs. and it's far from a certain prospect after the contract is up (no job security). I've never really understood the TLS hard-on for finance. It's a good job out of college but it has basically all the downsides of biglaw with even less staying power and a far less established route to the top. I'm sure OP also has some friends from college that are struggling. But yes, his degree is far from useless.

I don't fully understanding your underlying motivations, OP. If you want to have your own law practice and provide a service to clients, then by all means, go to law school! Just keep your debt low so your opportunities for entrepreneurship won't be as limited. If you really just think of the law practice as a means to break into something else or for a high salary, then I agree with these other posters that law school is misguided for you, since its NOT the most lucrative option NOR the most flexible.

If you are interested in politics and policy--I'm a TPM/politico/economist junkie as well--you could consider getting an MPA degree after a few more years in finance/on the hill, but I don't think it's really necessary.

So as someone who did the entry level analyst job yes many of you on here are overestimating the job security and quality. That aside,

1. The point made earlier about meeting Young the lawyers who did about two years at a big firm before starting their own and giving legal advisory service to start ups I found to be most interesting this is probably exactly what I would like to do. Again, not actually running their company, but providing advisory service. Clearly not something that can be done without a JD, no?

2. Relatedly, the topic of debt. Clearly starting your own firm would be much easier with little debt from law school . However, if you want the prestige of a big name like a Columbia or Berkeley, you'll have to pay up and get into loads of debt. The only way to escape with little debt is have the grades for a Berkeley or Columbia but leverage them into a scholarship at a UVA or Michigan for instance. Would you advise doing this in order to minimize debt ? Specifically, for someone like me who wants to go to the west coast and advise start up companies, does it make sense to go to a UVA or Duke Michigan (even if it could be a full scholarship or very close to it) and miss out on being in law School in the Bay Area (Berkeley) or give up a good network (Columbia)?

[Budfox55]

Consensus view here is: don't go.

In terms of alternatives, few have been proposed. The one recommendation is to speak to career services, but in terns of educational attainment, so far people are saying to do nothing.

Unsure how wise it is to stuck with a bachelors degree in politics only...

Your politics degree has already gotten you a better job than99% of legal jobs. I don't think the whole useless liberal arts degree paradigm applies to you.

you're exaggerating the quality and significance of an entry level analyst job. it's not better than 99% of legal jobs. and it's far from a certain prospect after the contract is up (no job security). I've never really understood the TLS hard-on for finance. It's a good job out of college but it has basically all the downsides of biglaw with even less staying power and a far less established route to the top. I'm sure OP also has some friends from college that are struggling. But yes, his degree is far from useless.

I don't fully understanding your underlying motivations, OP. If you want to have your own law practice and provide a service to clients, then by all means, go to law school! Just keep your debt low so your opportunities for entrepreneurship won't be as limited. If you really just think of the law practice as a means to break into something else or for a high salary, then I agree with these other posters that law school is misguided for you, since its NOT the most lucrative option NOR the most flexible.

If you are interested in politics and policy--I'm a TPM/politico/economist junkie as well--you could consider getting an MPA degree after a few more years in finance/on the hill, but I don't think it's really necessary.

So as someone who did the entry level analyst job yes many of you on here are overestimating the job security and quality. That aside,

1. The point made earlier about meeting Young the lawyers who did about two years at a big firm before starting their own and giving legal advisory service to start ups I found to be most interesting this is probably exactly what I would like to do. Again, not actually running their company, but providing advisory service. Clearly not something that can be done without a JD, no?

2. Relatedly, the topic of debt. Clearly starting your own firm would be much easier with little debt from law school . However, if you want the prestige of a big name like a Columbia or Berkeley, you'll have to pay up and get into loads of debt. The only way to escape with little debt is have the grades for a Berkeley or Columbia but leverage them into a scholarship at a UVA or Michigan for instance. Would you advise doing this in order to minimize debt ? Specifically, for someone like me who wants to go to the west coast and advise start up companies, does it make sense to go to a UVA or Duke Michigan (even if it could be a full scholarship or very close to it) and miss out on being in law School in the Bay Area (Berkeley) or give up a good network (Columbia)?

Responded to your PM, but will also answer on here since you posted on the thread.

1. They didn't start their own firm. Sorry if I gave that impression. They just got a job there. There are more senior guys at these law firms. Its also technically transactional work, however its not like you're dealing with Walmart that has done a million deals and has a template where you change a few details. These start-ups are typically pretty cash-lite (they are start-ups of course) and so if they get fucked on one contract, that could be it. Also, they will often come to them for other legal issues such as entering a new market, trademark/copyright issues, etc. I don't know if they would do say trademark work themselves, but they'll be the point of first contact. And honestly, like I mentioned on the thread, it seemed like everyone I've met kind of got the job through someone they knew. Not 100% sure though as I'm not interested in pursuing this work and so haven't really asked too many questions.

2. I have no clue. Like i said I'm a 0L myself. I don't think theres much of a diff between NYU and say UVA or Mich. But I don't know for sure. Either way though, if you have a huge debt load, you're not going to be able to do this line of work for a while anyway. Also it seems like the longer you're in biglaw, the longer these start-up doors start to close. So I would probably take the money in this situation.

[Budfox55]

I have spoken to attorney's who've done this and they all think they made the right decision (all litigators).

Just for those of you who want his TL/DR version.

Lol. Much appreciated.

[jnwa]

Consensus view here is: don't go.

In terms of alternatives, few have been proposed. The one recommendation is to speak to career services, but in terns of educational attainment, so far people are saying to do nothing.

Unsure how wise it is to stuck with a bachelors degree in politics only...

Your politics degree has already gotten you a better job than99% of legal jobs. I don't think the whole useless liberal arts degree paradigm applies to you.

you're exaggerating the quality and significance of an entry level analyst job. it's not better than 99% of legal jobs. and it's far from a certain prospect after the contract is up (no job security). I've never really understood the TLS hard-on for finance. It's a good job out of college but it has basically all the downsides of biglaw with even less staying power and a far less established route to the top. I'm sure OP also has some friends from college that are struggling. But yes, his degree is far from useless.

I don't fully understanding your underlying motivations, OP. If you want to have your own law practice and provide a service to clients, then by all means, go to law school! Just keep your debt low so your opportunities for entrepreneurship won't be as limited. If you really just think of the law practice as a means to break into something else or for a high salary, then I agree with these other posters that law school is misguided for you, since its NOT the most lucrative option NOR the most flexible.

If you are interested in politics and policy--I'm a TPM/politico/economist junkie as well--you could consider getting an MPA degree after a few more years in finance/on the hill, but I don't think it's really necessary.

So as someone who did the entry level analyst job yes many of you on here are overestimating the job security and quality. That aside,

1. The point made earlier about meeting Young the lawyers who did about two years at a big firm before starting their own and giving legal advisory service to start ups I found to be most interesting this is probably exactly what I would like to do. Again, not actually running their company, but providing advisory service. Clearly not something that can be done without a JD, no?

2. Relatedly, the topic of debt. Clearly starting your own firm would be much easier with little debt from law school . However, if you want the prestige of a big name like a Columbia or Berkeley, you'll have to pay up and get into loads of debt. The only way to escape with little debt is have the grades for a Berkeley or Columbia but leverage them into a scholarship at a UVA or Michigan for instance. Would you advise doing this in order to minimize debt ? Specifically, for someone like me who wants to go to the west coast and advise start up companies, does it make sense to go to a UVA or Duke Michigan (even if it could be a full scholarship or very close to it) and miss out on being in law School in the Bay Area (Berkeley) or give up a good network (Columbia)?

I got a named full tuition+10k/yr stipend, scholly at Mich with essentially your numbers. Didnt bother negotiating scholarships anywhere else but im sure youd get good offers from UVA, Cornell, GTown, NW and if you get into Berkeley, you might be able to get them to match the scholarship. Unless youre deadset on a t6 school, you shouldnt be paying very much to go to law school if thats what you choose. If you dont get into Berkeley i would highly advise not passing up a full ride or close to it, to pay sticker at Columbia. I got into Columbia as well and never really considered it because of the astronomical cost.

[dabigchina]

Just to point out and clear up a few things in this thread that I have seen continuously throughout TLS concerning Finance/investment banking and start-up/VC. Please realize that most of you who have no experience with finance and start-ups sound as ignorant as 0Ls talking about biglaw life. If you want to give advice about law and the legal profession, great, but please be cautious when you start recommending to head into X industry because of YZ reasons. I'm a 0L so I won't comment on the legal work aspects of it except for what i've learn from my discussion with ex-bankers turned lawyers and from what I've seen concerning a law degree in the start-up scene. I have worked at an investment bank and currently work for a "unicorn" start-up (think spotify, uber, etc) in a capacity where I deal with different, smaller, start-ups and VCs on a daily basis.

I've read the "most people in law would have killed to start off in investment banking as a 22 year old" so many times here. This may be shocking to some of you, but theres a good chunk of IB analysts who wish everyday that they just took the LSAT and applied to law school as well. And many ending up doing that. Investment banking fucking sucks. I have spoken to attorney's who've done this and they all think they made the right decision (all litigators). I've also read about people on this forum who made that decision and hated it (seems to be mostly transactional types). Its very much a "grass is greener on the other side" thing and has a lot to do with your own personal values and motivations behind working in a certain industry. There are for sure attorneys who should have 100% gone the banking/finance route instead, however that isn't everybody. For some people, law may be a better alternative.

As for what the OP mentioned before concerning transaction law firms who work with startups, these 100% exist and I have worked with some these firms. They're essentially start-ups that provide legal services to other startups. They also all generally really enjoy it from my conversations with them because they work more in a advisory capacity for their clients and a lot of the decisions that they make are literally life or death decisions for these startups. They seemed to all have worked in biglaw for less than 2 years, many dipping only a few months in. all of the attorneys I've met at these firms went to top undergrads schools and many were able to get their job by using their undergrad network rather than law school network.

Which leads to my next point about signaling. Going to a top undergrad, working at JPM, and going to law school, combined with being able to sell a story about entrepreneurial spirit and why business, is good enough signaling for a lot of VCs and start-ups. People on this board seem to be very adamant about how a legal education doesn't teach you anything about running a business, which I'm sure is true, but neither does business school lol. And VCs and start-up types know this. The main reason why you go to B-school is for the stamp on your resume and the network, but OP already has a great network. Many start-up founders also see a lot of value in hiring a JD early on. Like I said, a lot of these start-ups go through legal decisions that are literally life-or-death and so many people see the value of having a lawyer as a co-founder or someone involved early on. Again, these guys also seemed to have used their undergrad network (Bob the biglaw attorney's frat bro decides to start a company. Said frat-bro's idea would deal with possibly murky legal issues and asks Bob to join. Bob says fuck biglaw and joins as a co-founder). Tbh I've met more attorney's in the start-up scene than I would have thought. Not as many as ex bigtech or bankers, but still more than I expected.

Caveats:

I don't know what % of attorneys try to break into the start-up/VC scene, so I have no idea how likely it is. However I'll ask actual law school students/practicing attorneys, how many people do you know are ACTUALLY gunning for these types of jobs? I feel like there may be a lot of ppl who say they're interested, but don't put in the work or actually try. Also, not many who try may have the network that OP has which seems to help immensely.

if I had to guess, it seemed like all of these attorneys came from wealthy families as they didn't have to stay in biglaw long.

I agree with the sentiment that if OP does not want to be a lawyer, than he probably shouldn't go to law school. If I wanted to work at an early stage start-up, I would have worked in tech after JPM (could literally be in sales) and then leverage the banking/tech sales experience to some start-up. I don't think going to law school and taking on debt would be the right decision to maximize your chance of attaining that goal.

Aren't you a 0L? IMO spending 3 years not working + potentially spendnig 100k+ because "it sucks a little less than investment banking" sounds like a not great reason to go to law school. Plus, making 100+ as a 22 year old sounds pretty sweet to me. I had to pull 90% of the hours ibankers did for like 40% of the pay before law school. It could definitely be worse.

BTW OP: you're going to have a very difficult time finding a job as an IP attorney without a technical background, especially in the bay area.