The fundamental problem with 0L's. Forum

[TheSpanishMain]

I wasn't miserable working big law, but paying loans sucked. The pay is the only day to day bright side of the job. The work was punctuated by bright points, but $8k in your bank account each month was regular. But at the beginning of the month you pay half out in loans then half the rest to Manhattan rent, and spend all month watching what's left pretty carefully. That sucks.

Right. So, since I'm guessing you're now doing something besides big law, do you think you would've wanted to stick around had you been actually banking the money as opposed to losing it to loan payments? Or would the thought have been "Fuck this, I don't have to be here anymore, I'm out."

I'm just trying to get a sense of how much of the misery people experience is the innate awfulness of the job and how much of it is busting your ass without being able to save/enjoy the money. I don't particularly like running on the treadmill, but I'd like it even less if I burned 0 calories while doing it.

[rayiner]

I wasn't miserable working big law, but paying loans sucked. The pay is the only day to day bright side of the job. The work was punctuated by bright points, but $8k in your bank account each month was regular. But at the beginning of the month you pay half out in loans then half the rest to Manhattan rent, and spend all month watching what's left pretty carefully. That sucks.

Right. So, since I'm guessing you're now doing something besides big law, do you think you would've wanted to stick around had you been actually banking the money as opposed to losing it to loan payments? Or would the thought have been "Fuck this, I don't have to be here anymore, I'm out."

I'm just trying to get a sense of how much of the misery people experience is the innate awfulness of the job and how much of it is busting your ass without being able to save/enjoy the money. I don't particularly like running on the treadmill, but I'd like it even less if I burned 0 calories while doing it.

I left to clerk, but I actually enjoyed my first year in big law. Then again, our department was understaffed so we got put on some real cases instead of doc review, I had a clerkship lined up so I wasn't worried about money/job security. Removing those two pain points made a huge difference.

[Mal Reynolds]

Pain points?

[n1o2c3a4c5h6e7t]

Question for the attorneys ITT who do regret law school. If you didn't go to law school, what would you have done instead?

A classmate with my same major that was not related to sciences went back to school for 2 years and got an engineering degree. That would have been an awesome choice.

Out of curiosity, did this friend go back to get an undergraduate degree in engineering or did he go to graduate school?

I'm in a similar situation in that I have a non-science major and that's left me a bit uncertain as to the alternatives I have to attending law school. Specifically, I'm curious, if I decided to go back to school for a science or engineering degree, as to whether I'd have to go back for another undergraduate degree (in which case, I wonder how much stigma would be attached to going back to undergraduate shortly after graduating and with no real work experience in order to get another degree) or if it would be better to apply directly to graduate school for the science/engineering degree (in which case, I wonder how severe of a disadvantage I would be left with for not having that undergraduate background in the subject area).

Curious about this as well.

[Johann]

Question for the attorneys ITT who do regret law school. If you didn't go to law school, what would you have done instead?

A classmate with my same major that was not related to sciences went back to school for 2 years and got an engineering degree. That would have been an awesome choice.

Out of curiosity, did this friend go back to get an undergraduate degree in engineering or did he go to graduate school?

I'm in a similar situation in that I have a non-science major and that's left me a bit uncertain as to the alternatives I have to attending law school. Specifically, I'm curious, if I decided to go back to school for a science or engineering degree, as to whether I'd have to go back for another undergraduate degree (in which case, I wonder how much stigma would be attached to going back to undergraduate shortly after graduating and with no real work experience in order to get another degree) or if it would be better to apply directly to graduate school for the science/engineering degree (in which case, I wonder how severe of a disadvantage I would be left with for not having that undergraduate background in the subject area).

Curious about this as well.

He went back for a BS in civil. It took 3 years of classes (but this was at local state school tuition of <10k a year) and then did a coop the 4th year which sounds like a year-long paid internship. Obviously less risk/less reward than law, but the lifestyle is great. He said to go the masters route would have had to take 1.5-2 years of classes first. Seems to genuinely enjoy his work. Not always cooped up in office. Uses his brain though. Standard work weeks. Solid pay. Again, law at the right price can be worthwhile. Just something to consider.

[thejerseykid]

A classmate with my same major that was not related to sciences went back to school for 2 years and got an engineering degree. That would have been an awesome choice.

Out of curiosity, did this friend go back to get an undergraduate degree in engineering or did he go to graduate school?

I'm in a similar situation in that I have a non-science major and that's left me a bit uncertain as to the alternatives I have to attending law school. Specifically, I'm curious, if I decided to go back to school for a science or engineering degree, as to whether I'd have to go back for another undergraduate degree (in which case, I wonder how much stigma would be attached to going back to undergraduate shortly after graduating and with no real work experience in order to get another degree) or if it would be better to apply directly to graduate school for the science/engineering degree (in which case, I wonder how severe of a disadvantage I would be left with for not having that undergraduate background in the subject area).

Curious about this as well.

He went back for a BS in civil. It took 3 years of classes (but this was at local state school tuition of <10k a year) and then did a coop the 4th year which sounds like a year-long paid internship. Obviously less risk/less reward than law, but the lifestyle is great. He said to go the masters route would have had to take 1.5-2 years of classes first. Seems to genuinely enjoy his work. Not always cooped up in office. Uses his brain though. Standard work weeks. Solid pay. Again, law at the right price can be worthwhile. Just something to consider.

Absolutely. That sounds pretty nice.

Right now I'm not too satisfied with the options I've got in terms of law school.

I can either move out West and attend UCLA/USC for a decent price which is great except for the fact that I'd be moving away from all of my family, all of whom are in or near Jersey or I could stay in the East and either attend Rutgers for free which would save me money and allow me to stay close to home but would also leave me with poor employment prospects or attend GW at a similar cost to that of the CA schools.

Honestly GW is probably my best bet in this situation but, I'm not too big a fan of the D.C. schools.

Anyway, all this is to say that, because I've already taken a year off to retake the LSAT and failed to improve my score, I'm seriously starting to consider some alternatives.

[klondike5]

I've always said that we should have some kind of color coding system so people can tell which posters are 0L, current students, grads, etc. It would be especially helpful if polls could reflect this information. I can't count how many times we have had to account for the 0L factor in polls, where grads are in almost complete agreement, yet 0L's treat the poll as a genuine debate. It becomes unnecessarily difficult for the OP in such cases to parse the info and realize that the poll results are misleading.

This was a bunch of pages ago but I didn't see anybody comment on it. I really like this idea. Color coding or titles would be easy to see in every discussion. It would help so much to know if you are getting advice from somebody who actually does what you are wanting to do instead of somebody who may be less knowledgeable, or at an earlier stage in the process than you. I would put more stock in what a 1L/2L/3L says in a chances thread, or what a practicing attorney says in a school choices or hiring discussion simply because they have true practical experience in the matter. When I get a PM or a reply from somebody I usually look to see post count or join date, but doesn't always mean something. Megaposters usually give solid advice, but there is no consensus on most things. Just because somebody posts a lot or has been here for a while doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. I've been here for a long time and I am an idiot.

[shifty_eyed]

A classmate with my same major that was not related to sciences went back to school for 2 years and got an engineering degree. That would have been an awesome choice.

Out of curiosity, did this friend go back to get an undergraduate degree in engineering or did he go to graduate school?

I'm in a similar situation in that I have a non-science major and that's left me a bit uncertain as to the alternatives I have to attending law school. Specifically, I'm curious, if I decided to go back to school for a science or engineering degree, as to whether I'd have to go back for another undergraduate degree (in which case, I wonder how much stigma would be attached to going back to undergraduate shortly after graduating and with no real work experience in order to get another degree) or if it would be better to apply directly to graduate school for the science/engineering degree (in which case, I wonder how severe of a disadvantage I would be left with for not having that undergraduate background in the subject area).

He went back for a BS in civil. It took 3 years of classes (but this was at local state school tuition of <10k a year) and then did a coop the 4th year which sounds like a year-long paid internship. Obviously less risk/less reward than law, but the lifestyle is great. He said to go the masters route would have had to take 1.5-2 years of classes first. Seems to genuinely enjoy his work. Not always cooped up in office. Uses his brain though. Standard work weeks. Solid pay. Again, law at the right price can be worthwhile. Just something to consider.

Absolutely. That sounds pretty nice.

Right now I'm not too satisfied with the options I've got in terms of law school.

I can either move out West and attend UCLA/USC for a decent price which is great except for the fact that I'd be moving away from all of my family, all of whom are in or near Jersey or I could stay in the East and either attend Rutgers for free which would save me money and allow me to stay close to home but would also leave me with poor employment prospects or attend GW at a similar cost to that of the CA schools.

Honestly GW is probably my best bet in this situation but, I'm not too big a fan of the D.C. schools.

Anyway, all this is to say that, because I've already taken a year off to retake the LSAT and failed to improve my score, I'm seriously starting to consider some alternatives.

Engineering is harder and more miserable than law school if you aren't good at math/science. I'd take law school over the upper level math and science courses I took any day, well at least most days lol. And the classes I took are probably entry-level for engineering (multivar. calc/organic chem/etc.) Better job outlook, sure, but you have to be able to make it through the "weed out" classes. The good thing is that you can dip your toe in before completely committing yourself to it.

[rouser]

sweatshop.

I think more 0L's should go through the vault100 comments and see if you find a single firm that doesn't say "brutal hours" or "bring a sleeping bag" or "they burn out their juniors." People should know that the golden turkey is a rat before they go for it.

[n1o2c3a4c5h6e7t]

What are the most desirable jobs from a lifestyle perspective? Is a 40hr week possible? 50?

[Pneumonia]

I've always said that we should have some kind of color coding system so people can tell which posters are 0L, current students, grads, etc. It would be especially helpful if polls could reflect this information. I can't count how many times we have had to account for the 0L factor in polls, where grads are in almost complete agreement, yet 0L's treat the poll as a genuine debate. It becomes unnecessarily difficult for the OP in such cases to parse the info and realize that the poll results are misleading.

This was a bunch of pages ago but I didn't see anybody comment on it. I really like this idea. Color coding or titles would be easy to see in every discussion. It would help so much to know if you are getting advice from somebody who actually does what you are wanting to do instead of somebody who may be less knowledgeable, or at an earlier stage in the process than you. I would put more stock in what a 1L/2L/3L says in a chances thread, or what a practicing attorney says in a school choices or hiring discussion simply because they have true practical experience in the matter. When I get a PM or a reply from somebody I usually look to see post count or join date, but doesn't always mean something. Megaposters usually give solid advice, but there is no consensus on most things. Just because somebody posts a lot or has been here for a while doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. I've been here for a long time and I am an idiot.

I also would be a huge fan of something like this. Obviously this might cause a huge pain for the mods though, and if it was a "self-identify" thing then it would be susceptible to abuse. Would love to see something like it though. The other day somebody posted that they were "pretty sure DesertFox is a 0L" or some such nonsense which I think in and of itself is a strong argument for something like the above being a good idea.

[A. Nony Mouse]

What are the most desirable jobs from a lifestyle perspective? Is a 40hr week possible? 50?

Yes - state/federal government (still depending on the agency a bit, though).

[ggocat]

I've always said that we should have some kind of color coding system so people can tell which posters are 0L, current students, grads, etc. It would be especially helpful if polls could reflect this information. I can't count how many times we have had to account for the 0L factor in polls, where grads are in almost complete agreement, yet 0L's treat the poll as a genuine debate. It becomes unnecessarily difficult for the OP in such cases to parse the info and realize that the poll results are misleading.

This was a bunch of pages ago but I didn't see anybody comment on it. I really like this idea. Color coding or titles would be easy to see in every discussion. It would help so much to know if you are getting advice from somebody who actually does what you are wanting to do instead of somebody who may be less knowledgeable, or at an earlier stage in the process than you. I would put more stock in what a 1L/2L/3L says in a chances thread, or what a practicing attorney says in a school choices or hiring discussion simply because they have true practical experience in the matter. When I get a PM or a reply from somebody I usually look to see post count or join date, but doesn't always mean something. Megaposters usually give solid advice, but there is no consensus on most things. Just because somebody posts a lot or has been here for a while doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. I've been here for a long time and I am an idiot.

I also would be a huge fan of something like this. Obviously this might cause a huge pain for the mods though, and if it was a "self-identify" thing then it would be susceptible to abuse. Would love to see something like it though. The other day somebody posted that they were "pretty sure DesertFox is a 0L" or some such nonsense which I think in and of itself is a strong argument for something like the above being a good idea.

Posters can already self identify this information. Many do not.

[HRomanus]

I also would be a huge fan of something like this. Obviously this might cause a huge pain for the mods though, and if it was a "self-identify" thing then it would be susceptible to abuse. Would love to see something like it though. The other day somebody posted that they were "pretty sure DesertFox is a 0L" or some such nonsense which I think in and of itself is a strong argument for something like the above being a good idea.

The phpBB2 platform that this forum uses is antiquated (developed 2002) and is very limited for custom coding ability. I think the only way to do this would be a moderator adding titles individually - and these would have to be updated every year for students. The idea is phenomenal though - I think it'd be possible on the IPB forum platform. In high school, I worked in tech support for the largest phpBB2 forum hosting company in the world and the platform is very limited.

[thejerseykid]

Engineering is harder and more miserable than law school if you aren't good at math/science. I'd take law school over the upper level math and science courses I took any day, well at least most days lol. And the classes I took are probably entry-level for engineering (multivar. calc/organic chem/etc.) Better job outlook, sure, but you have to be able to make it through the "weed out" classes. The good thing is that you can dip your toe in before completely committing yourself to it.

I have no doubt engineering is tough. I've got a few engineers in my family and I was actually considering it when I started college but changed my mind because I "wanted to do something different". Yeah...

[yomisterd]

So, I'm a 0L who is currently employed as a high school educator. Together with my SO we have 100k+ in UG debt and maybe make 60k together. We live in Manhattan. My job is pretty miserable, I regularly come home ready to quit. My hours in school aren't big-law-ish, but the additional time planning definitely brings it up. While I do have "fulfilling" moments, I really dislike the whole thing.

So what everyone is saying about big law? Sounds great to me. 100k more, I get to work with psychopaths that are marginally intelligent, and get to sit in an air-conditioned office? Getting yelled at by partners at a big law firm rather than shitty adolescents? Sign me up.

Me: naive, stupid, broken, or other?

[lecsa]

Engineering is harder and more miserable than law school if you aren't good at math/science. I'd take law school over the upper level math and science courses I took any day, well at least most days lol. And the classes I took are probably entry-level for engineering (multivar. calc/organic chem/etc.) Better job outlook, sure, but you have to be able to make it through the "weed out" classes. The good thing is that you can dip your toe in before completely committing yourself to it.

I have no doubt engineering is tough. I've got a few engineers in my family and I was actually considering it when I started college but changed my mind because I "wanted to do something different". Yeah...

Organic chemistry isn't an engineering class unless you're a chemical engineer.

The good news about engineering (depending on the school) is that you can graduate with a 2.X GPA and still get a job. You don't need to be smart (at most schools) or do well to get an engineering degree - you just have to pass.

[Lwoods]

What are the most desirable jobs from a lifestyle perspective? Is a 40hr week possible? 50?

Yes - state/federal government (still depending on the agency a bit, though).

Yeah, looking at legal jobs, government. For many firm jobs--particularly the types of firms that actually hire first year attorneys--you'll have billable hours. I was just remarking with a co-worker the other day about how when I looked at jobs prior to law school, I'd look at the work/life balance and think it was an asset to the job if people went home at 5pm and didn't appear over-worked. But with legal jobs, particularly in this economy, I wanted to hear in interviews that people were busy, because that meant there would be hours. If there are hours to be worked, then I get to keep the job I tried so hard to get in the first place. That's what the problem was in the blog post linked in OP: the attorney didn't have hours. Now, he also didn't care to fight for the hours, but simply not begging for work is not typically the type of thing that gets one fired in regular office jobs.

I'm a 3L, and I'm looking forward to working again. I'm probably one of the more optimistic/encouraging posters on this site, too, when advising 0Ls. I think if after careful deliberation and thorough research, people want to be lawyers, they should pursue it. But they should go in with eyes wide open. And that's where the frustration of recent grads come in--when they try to deliver information and people refuse to see it. They try to give the tools, solid insight, and it's ignored.

If you want work/life balance to be a consideration in your career, law is probably not the best field for you. The exception would be if you can and want to dedicate your career to government work. And even then, you may have crazy hours (e.g., certain prosecutors' offices). And the pay is not so great. Sometimes it's downright horrible.
I'm not sure law really has the equivalent of medicine's ROAD specialties--those areas of practice that have both decent/predictable hours and high salaries (radiology, ophthalmology, anesthesiology, dermatology).

[aboutmydaylight]

Engineering is harder and more miserable than law school if you aren't good at math/science. I'd take law school over the upper level math and science courses I took any day, well at least most days lol. And the classes I took are probably entry-level for engineering (multivar. calc/organic chem/etc.) Better job outlook, sure, but you have to be able to make it through the "weed out" classes. The good thing is that you can dip your toe in before completely committing yourself to it.

I have no doubt engineering is tough. I've got a few engineers in my family and I was actually considering it when I started college but changed my mind because I "wanted to do something different". Yeah...

Organic chemistry isn't an engineering class unless you're a chemical engineer.

The good news about engineering (depending on the school) is that you can graduate with a 2.X GPA and still get a job. You don't need to be smart (at most schools) or do well to get an engineering degree - you just have to pass.

2.X and get a shitty engineering job where all you can look forward to is a mid career salary of ~80/90k. Unless you get a M.Eng. (good luck getting into a good program with a 2.X) or go into management (back to school again for an even more "worthless" degree just so your company can pay you more), you'll probably never make anything close to what a first year associate in big law makes for MOST engineering fields. Of course the hours are much better, there's way less risk (probably no loans), and maybe you enjoy it more.

[n1o2c3a4c5h6e7t]

What are the most desirable jobs from a lifestyle perspective? Is a 40hr week possible? 50?

Yes - state/federal government (still depending on the agency a bit, though).

Yeah, looking at legal jobs, government. For many firm jobs--particularly the types of firms that actually hire first year attorneys--you'll have billable hours. I was just remarking with a co-worker the other day about how when I looked at jobs prior to law school, I'd look at the work/life balance and think it was an asset to the job if people went home at 5pm and didn't appear over-worked. But with legal jobs, particularly in this economy, I wanted to hear in interviews that people were busy, because that meant there would be hours. If there are hours to be worked, then I get to keep the job I tried so hard to get in the first place. That's what the problem was in the blog post linked in OP: the attorney didn't have hours. Now, he also didn't care to fight for the hours, but simply not begging for work is not typically the type of thing that gets one fired in regular office jobs.

I'm a 3L, and I'm looking forward to working again. I'm probably one of the more optimistic/encouraging posters on this site, too, when advising 0Ls. I think if after careful deliberation and thorough research, people want to be lawyers, they should pursue it. But they should go in with eyes wide open. And that's where the frustration of recent grads come in--when they try to deliver information and people refuse to see it. They try to give the tools, solid insight, and it's ignored.

If you want work/life balance to be a consideration in your career, law is probably not the best field for you. The exception would be if you can and want to dedicate your career to government work. And even then, you may have crazy hours (e.g., certain prosecutors' offices). And the pay is not so great. Sometimes it's downright horrible.
I'm not sure law really has the equivalent of medicine's ROAD specialties--those areas of practice that have both decent/predictable hours and high salaries (radiology, ophthalmology, anesthesiology, dermatology).

This seems entirely fair. Even if a 40hr week is all but precluded in law, there have to be ranges though. There's clearly a difference between working 50hr weeks and 70hr weeks in NYC biglaw, which after taxes and CoL seems like a terrible tradeoff.

[rad lulz]

What are the most desirable jobs from a lifestyle perspective? Is a 40hr week possible? 50?

Yes - state/federal government (still depending on the agency a bit, though).

Yeah, looking at legal jobs, government. For many firm jobs--particularly the types of firms that actually hire first year attorneys--you'll have billable hours. I was just remarking with a co-worker the other day about how when I looked at jobs prior to law school, I'd look at the work/life balance and think it was an asset to the job if people went home at 5pm and didn't appear over-worked. But with legal jobs, particularly in this economy, I wanted to hear in interviews that people were busy, because that meant there would be hours. If there are hours to be worked, then I get to keep the job I tried so hard to get in the first place. That's what the problem was in the blog post linked in OP: the attorney didn't have hours. Now, he also didn't care to fight for the hours, but simply not begging for work is not typically the type of thing that gets one fired in regular office jobs.

I'm a 3L, and I'm looking forward to working again. I'm probably one of the more optimistic/encouraging posters on this site, too, when advising 0Ls. I think if after careful deliberation and thorough research, people want to be lawyers, they should pursue it. But they should go in with eyes wide open. And that's where the frustration of recent grads come in--when they try to deliver information and people refuse to see it. They try to give the tools, solid insight, and it's ignored.

If you want work/life balance to be a consideration in your career, law is probably not the best field for you. The exception would be if you can and want to dedicate your career to government work. And even then, you may have crazy hours (e.g., certain prosecutors' offices). And the pay is not so great. Sometimes it's downright horrible.
I'm not sure law really has the equivalent of medicine's ROAD specialties--those areas of practice that have both decent/predictable hours and high salaries (radiology, ophthalmology, anesthesiology, dermatology).

This seems entirely fair. Even if a 40hr week is all but precluded in law, there have to be ranges though. There's clearly a difference between working 50hr weeks and 70hr weeks in NYC biglaw, which after taxes and CoL seems like a terrible tradeoff.

The problem w working in biglaw or similar firms who do corporate defense is not just length of hours but inability to respect free time and variability of schedule

Oh you scheduled a nice night on the town w your so?

Sorry dude a deal is heating up today. You gotta work until 3 am for a couple days

Working 8-8 every day is tiring but not horrible

Working until 2 am for 4 days in a row then the next week sitting on your hands and wondering where your hours are going to come from because you're not staffed on any active deals

Is a very stressful way to go about life

[rayiner]

The problem w working in biglaw or similar firms who do corporate defense is not just length of hours but inability to respect free time and variability of schedule

Oh you scheduled a nice night on the town w your so?

Sorry dude a deal is heating up today. You gotta work until 3 am for a couple days

Working 8-8 every day is tiring but not horrible

Working until 2 am for 4 days in a row then the next week sitting on your hands and wondering where your hours are going to come from because you're not staffed on any active deals

Is a very stressful way to go about life

At least on the corporate side, the variability really interacts in a bad way with the "face time" requirements. You get into the office at 9 because that's when the partner you work for does, watch ESPN 360 until 4 pm and maybe do an hour of billable work in that time, and then the client drops a whole bunch of documents on your lap and you have to work until 2am because he needs them by the morning.

[kalvano]

So, I'm a 0L who is currently employed as a high school educator. Together with my SO we have 100k+ in UG debt and maybe make 60k together. We live in Manhattan. My job is pretty miserable, I regularly come home ready to quit. My hours in school aren't big-law-ish, but the additional time planning definitely brings it up. While I do have "fulfilling" moments, I really dislike the whole thing.

So what everyone is saying about big law? Sounds great to me. 100k more, I get to work with psychopaths that are marginally intelligent, and get to sit in an air-conditioned office? Getting yelled at by partners at a big law firm rather than shitty adolescents? Sign me up.

Me: naive, stupid, broken, or other?

My wife is a teacher. Your job is in no way comparable to the unpleasantness of Biglaw.

[n1o2c3a4c5h6e7t]

The problem w working in biglaw or similar firms who do corporate defense is not just length of hours but inability to respect free time and variability of schedule

Oh you scheduled a nice night on the town w your so?

Sorry dude a deal is heating up today. You gotta work until 3 am for a couple days

Working 8-8 every day is tiring but not horrible

Working until 2 am for 4 days in a row then the next week sitting on your hands and wondering where your hours are going to come from because you're not staffed on any active deals

Is a very stressful way to go about life

At least on the corporate side, the variability really interacts in a bad way with the "face time" requirements. You get into the office at 9 because that's when the partner you work for does, watch ESPN 360 until 4 pm and maybe do an hour of billable work in that time, and then the client drops a whole bunch of documents on your lap and you have to work until 2am because he needs them by the morning.

How do biglaw associates maintain a marriage/family? I can't imagine a wife will be pleased if she has to eat dinner alone and raise a kid by herself for too long. Biglaw sounds like a really miserable way to spend several years, in NYC anyway.

[jk148706]

Serious question: I'm shooting for big/mid law in a secondary market. I realize the pay isn't as high, but is it just as demanding work?