Going from a good job to law school Forum

[UVAIce]

I think it's absolutely insane to pay $60K/year for a drama degree, much moreso than law. But that contributes nothing to the discussion of whether a law degree is worth the price.

FWIW, no, I don't think the job prospects for liberal arts majors are any where near as bad as for law grads. Having a liberal arts major in college doesn't give you a 50% chance of working in a job that doesn't require a college degree, as far as I know. And at least you haven't tacked on more debt at that point.

Actually, most of the statistics I've read have the undermployment rate (college grads with a job that doesn't require a college degree) at around 50% or worse.

Edit: As much as I hate Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/1 ... 62712.html

[jbagelboy]

Oh, and as was mentioned above, saying you want to leave a job that you find mind-numbing/soul-sucking to go into Biglaw is a bit like saying "I feel very cold, so to warm up I'd like to light myself on fire."

And yet, you and I both have chosen this path. If we strictly wanted to make a lot of money, we would be investment bankers -- although those jobs dried up just as quickly after 2008, even if they have rebounded faster. Don't forget that WE are entering into this profession and we each have our reasons for doing so.

Some people hate law school, some love it. Some hate college, others love it, some hate shellfish, others love it, ect. I'm sorry for those who have had a shit experience, or witnessed the shit experiences of others - among my friends and acquaintances at top law schools, I can say that those who hated law school had reasons to do so beyond the erudition, the curve, or the corruption of the establishment; they were intellectually self-indulgent and stunk of special snowflake. Others have liked it, and more importantly, love the legal work they are doing post-grad. Call it mindless, but the reality is while both corporate and public interest-related work have their dryness and their tedium, there is interesting material to be found in transaction and litigation. And as others have brought up, on a comparative basis? All entry level work blows shit. Most people who have entered the job market (except for super engaged software engineers and start-up people) at a starting capacity have experienced this same "mindlessness". Of course law school is a horrible way to escape frustrations on that level, but to damn the entire industry as morbidly dull remains an exaggeration.

And FWIW I agree with much of what UVAIce is saying here (except I love Arianna & the post). It's not as though work abounds outside of law. Now as for the continuation of this debate regarding legal job prospects and the failure/nature of legal education vis a vis anything else:

[RoaringMice]

I always thought that a lot of consulting firms, and other companies for that matter, would subsidize the cost of an MBA for their employees if they agreed to come back. Is that true?

Some do. On the other side of things, some employers that hire out of the elite MBA programs have loan forgiveness programs, and other programs for their MBAs. For example, my employer paid your loans for you if you agreed to work for us for five years. We also gave you a housing allowance, a company car, and a very, very nice salary with bonus.

[t-14orbust]

I always thought that a lot of consulting firms, and other companies for that matter, would subsidize the cost of an MBA for their employees if they agreed to come back. Is that true?

Some do. On the other side of things, some employers that hire out of the elite MBA programs have loan forgiveness programs, and other programs for their MBAs. For example, my employer paid your loans for you if you agreed to work for us for five years. We also gave you a housing allowance, a company car, and a very, very nice salary with bonus.

How can I get in on this lol

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

And yet, you and I both have chosen this path. If we strictly wanted to make a lot of money, we would be investment bankers -- although those jobs dried up just as quickly after 2008, even if they have rebounded faster. Don't forget that WE are entering into this profession and we each have our reasons for doing so.

Some people hate law school, some love it. Some hate college, others love it, some hate shellfish, others love it, ect. I'm sorry for those who have had a shit experience, or witnessed the shit experiences of others - among my friends and acquaintances at top law schools, I can say that those who hated law school had reasons to do so beyond the erudition, the curve, or the corruption of the establishment; they were intellectually self-indulgent and stunk of special snowflake. Others have liked it, and more importantly, love the legal work they are doing post-grad. Call it mindless, but the reality is while both corporate and public interest-related work have their dryness and their tedium, there is interesting material to be found in transaction and litigation. And as others have brought up, on a comparative basis? All entry level work blows shit. Most people who have entered the job market (except for super engaged software engineers and start-up people) at a starting capacity have experienced this same "mindlessness". Of course law school is a horrible way to escape frustrations on that level, but to damn the entire industry as morbidly dull remains an exaggeration.

I wasn't arguing that everyone in Biglaw is miserable--YMMV. It certainly runs the spectrum from hate to love. My point was the average job satisfaction in Biglaw is comparatively low, and burnout is high and significant. I think going into law purely for the money is dumb, because if you don't really love what you do you'll burn out very quickly. But the mere dissatisfaction with a current position is certainly a very poor reason, by itself, to go into Biglaw, which just seems statistically likely to be dissatisfying for those who are only in it for the money. I don't intend to damn the whole profession, as the experiences are too varied to make any blanket claim over how much a given individual will like his/her job.

Also, FWIW, I think law is a safer financial decision than IB for your twenties. My understanding is that IB has a few rainmaking types, but many more who make an entry-level salary somewhere in the low six figures (I seem to recall $110-120k thrown around as a figure). If we posit that Biglaw provides the top 5k or so jobs per year, I would be willing to bet the median of the top 5k IB jobs per year is lower, even if maybe the average is higher (skewed by the rainmakers). Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that even in the bulge bracket, the analysts mostly make $75-125k for the first year or two. I think law is the only profession where it is realistic to presume that you might be making $160k at age 25.

[jingosaur]

And yet, you and I both have chosen this path. If we strictly wanted to make a lot of money, we would be investment bankers -- although those jobs dried up just as quickly after 2008, even if they have rebounded faster. Don't forget that WE are entering into this profession and we each have our reasons for doing so.

Some people hate law school, some love it. Some hate college, others love it, some hate shellfish, others love it, ect. I'm sorry for those who have had a shit experience, or witnessed the shit experiences of others - among my friends and acquaintances at top law schools, I can say that those who hated law school had reasons to do so beyond the erudition, the curve, or the corruption of the establishment; they were intellectually self-indulgent and stunk of special snowflake. Others have liked it, and more importantly, love the legal work they are doing post-grad. Call it mindless, but the reality is while both corporate and public interest-related work have their dryness and their tedium, there is interesting material to be found in transaction and litigation. And as others have brought up, on a comparative basis? All entry level work blows shit. Most people who have entered the job market (except for super engaged software engineers and start-up people) at a starting capacity have experienced this same "mindlessness". Of course law school is a horrible way to escape frustrations on that level, but to damn the entire industry as morbidly dull remains an exaggeration.

I wasn't arguing that everyone in Biglaw is miserable--YMMV. It certainly runs the spectrum from hate to love. My point was the average job satisfaction in Biglaw is comparatively low, and burnout is high and significant. I think going into law purely for the money is dumb, because if you don't really love what you do you'll burn out very quickly. But the mere dissatisfaction with a current position is certainly a very poor reason, by itself, to go into Biglaw, which just seems statistically likely to be dissatisfying for those who are only in it for the money. I don't intend to damn the whole profession, as the experiences are too varied to make any blanket claim over how much a given individual will like his/her job.

Also, FWIW, I think law is a safer financial decision than IB for your twenties. My understanding is that IB has a few rainmaking types, but many more who make an entry-level salary somewhere in the low six figures (I seem to recall $110-120k thrown around as a figure). If we posit that Biglaw provides the top 5k or so jobs per year, I would be willing to bet the median of the top 5k IB jobs per year is lower, even if maybe the average is higher (skewed by the rainmakers). Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that even in the bulge bracket, the analysts mostly make $75-125k for the first year or two. I think law is the only profession where it is realistic to presume that you might be making $160k at age 25.

IB is a dying animal. A good number of people that I work with started out in IB, worked 100 hour weeks for 9 months, and then got fired either the week before or right after bonuses, depending on the bank. 90% are out after 2 years.

[Rahviveh]

And yet, you and I both have chosen this path. If we strictly wanted to make a lot of money, we would be investment bankers -- although those jobs dried up just as quickly after 2008, even if they have rebounded faster. Don't forget that WE are entering into this profession and we each have our reasons for doing so.

Some people hate law school, some love it. Some hate college, others love it, some hate shellfish, others love it, ect. I'm sorry for those who have had a shit experience, or witnessed the shit experiences of others - among my friends and acquaintances at top law schools, I can say that those who hated law school had reasons to do so beyond the erudition, the curve, or the corruption of the establishment; they were intellectually self-indulgent and stunk of special snowflake. Others have liked it, and more importantly, love the legal work they are doing post-grad. Call it mindless, but the reality is while both corporate and public interest-related work have their dryness and their tedium, there is interesting material to be found in transaction and litigation. And as others have brought up, on a comparative basis? All entry level work blows shit. Most people who have entered the job market (except for super engaged software engineers and start-up people) at a starting capacity have experienced this same "mindlessness". Of course law school is a horrible way to escape frustrations on that level, but to damn the entire industry as morbidly dull remains an exaggeration.

I wasn't arguing that everyone in Biglaw is miserable--YMMV. It certainly runs the spectrum from hate to love. My point was the average job satisfaction in Biglaw is comparatively low, and burnout is high and significant. I think going into law purely for the money is dumb, because if you don't really love what you do you'll burn out very quickly. But the mere dissatisfaction with a current position is certainly a very poor reason, by itself, to go into Biglaw, which just seems statistically likely to be dissatisfying for those who are only in it for the money. I don't intend to damn the whole profession, as the experiences are too varied to make any blanket claim over how much a given individual will like his/her job.

Also, FWIW, I think law is a safer financial decision than IB for your twenties. My understanding is that IB has a few rainmaking types, but many more who make an entry-level salary somewhere in the low six figures (I seem to recall $110-120k thrown around as a figure). If we posit that Biglaw provides the top 5k or so jobs per year, I would be willing to bet the median of the top 5k IB jobs per year is lower, even if maybe the average is higher (skewed by the rainmakers). Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that even in the bulge bracket, the analysts mostly make $75-125k for the first year or two. I think law is the only profession where it is realistic to presume that you might be making $160k at age 25.

Holy shit this clown is annoying *facepalm*

Arent you a 0L why the fuck do I always see you typing out essays on life in biglaw

[timbs4339]

5) whatever Paul Campos and the pessimist brigade might say about a JD, it is an education that forces you to think in a unique way with a unique skill set, and that life reward that is consistently underappreciated on this forum. )

Despite not actually having spent a minute in law school you're already displaying the cognitive style law school produces, or more accurately reinforces, which is to say a tendency to talk out of one's ass about something one knows nothing about, while maintaining an air of tremendous self-confidence.

Seriously, what is this unique intellectual skill set that law school supposedly bequeaths on its adepts? Thrill me with your acumen, 0L.

You mistake my point as an insult to you and your work. Couldn't be farther from the truth, I respect you and what you've brought to this community.

I don't feel the need to justify anecdotal reports, just as they serve zero utility as persuasive evidence. OP is trying to make a decision on a particular basis, I am providing elements of my own thought process. As I said, they can (and will) be chopped up and carried, but it makes little difference to the advise: figure out both quantitatively and qualitatively what a JD will do for you, don't attend for the wrong reasons and without careful considerations.

I have nothing to prove to you on this point or any other. I am an incoming 1L at CLS, and I have a sufficient idea of the nature of legal instruction to know that it is different from anything I have studied up to this point. Attorneys, whether they hate or love their job, acknowledge that law school teaches you to think in a particular way. The ROI of that cognitive process is not relevant to this point, as I have made quantitative judgements elsewhere.

ETA: moreover, your sarcasm aside, Im glad to hear you think Ill make a good law student (despite the fact that the profession relies heavily on a set of written fact and precedent and the application of that black letter and precedent, not just speaking out of your ass).

God you even write like an insufferable 0L. What a long winded way to say "I don't know what the fuck I am talking about and I sure am proud of it."

The good news is that even if CLS is complete bullshit, you'll fit in perfectly there.

[timbs4339]

The problem is that people like Mr. Campos focus a lot of time and effort on what law school teaches, etc., but not so much on what the real problem is. First, the economoy is TERRIBLE for people under 30. And yes, most people who go to "law school" are not going to be lawyers, but that has little do with the cost of school or the type of education they receive. They're unemployed because there are too many graduates and essentially anyone who wants to go to law school can get in somewhere if they have a college degree.

Campos focuses very little on "what law school teaches" compared to "what law school costs" and "how many students there are." It's a point that causes some confusion among the academy because they are so used to having the curriculum battle. What little he does talk about it the curriculum is mostly derivative of the fact that students are paying many times what they paid for the exact same curriculum 20 or 30 years ago, without anyone bothering to really sit down and figure out if it is an effective teaching method.

[NYstate]

The problem is that people like Mr. Campos focus a lot of time and effort on what law school teaches, etc., but not so much on what the real problem is. First, the economoy is TERRIBLE for people under 30. And yes, most people who go to "law school" are not going to be lawyers, but that has little do with the cost of school or the type of education they receive. They're unemployed because there are too many graduates and essentially anyone who wants to go to law school can get in somewhere if they have a college degree.

Campos focuses very little on "what law school teaches" compared to "what law school costs" and "how many students there are." It's a point that causes some confusion among the academy because they are so used to having the curriculum battle. What little he does talk about it the curriculum is mostly derivative of the fact that students are paying many times what they paid for the exact same curriculum 20 or 30 years ago, without anyone bothering to really sit down and figure out if it is an effective teaching method.

UValce:
Did you really just claim that Prof. Campos doesn't focus on employment?
May I introduce you to his archived blog: inside the lawschool scam . He had to stop posting in February. Almost all of the articles focus on the oversupply of lawyers and the cost of the education.

http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/?m=1

[jbagelboy]

5) whatever Paul Campos and the pessimist brigade might say about a JD, it is an education that forces you to think in a unique way with a unique skill set, and that life reward that is consistently underappreciated on this forum. )

Despite not actually having spent a minute in law school you're already displaying the cognitive style law school produces, or more accurately reinforces, which is to say a tendency to talk out of one's ass about something one knows nothing about, while maintaining an air of tremendous self-confidence.

Seriously, what is this unique intellectual skill set that law school supposedly bequeaths on its adepts? Thrill me with your acumen, 0L.

You mistake my point as an insult to you and your work. Couldn't be farther from the truth, I respect you and what you've brought to this community.

I don't feel the need to justify anecdotal reports, just as they serve zero utility as persuasive evidence. OP is trying to make a decision on a particular basis, I am providing elements of my own thought process. As I said, they can (and will) be chopped up and carried, but it makes little difference to the advise: figure out both quantitatively and qualitatively what a JD will do for you, don't attend for the wrong reasons and without careful considerations.

I have nothing to prove to you on this point or any other. I am an incoming 1L at CLS, and I have a sufficient idea of the nature of legal instruction to know that it is different from anything I have studied up to this point. Attorneys, whether they hate or love their job, acknowledge that law school teaches you to think in a particular way. The ROI of that cognitive process is not relevant to this point, as I have made quantitative judgements elsewhere.

ETA: moreover, your sarcasm aside, Im glad to hear you think Ill make a good law student (despite the fact that the profession relies heavily on a set of written fact and precedent and the application of that black letter and precedent, not just speaking out of your ass).

God you even write like an insufferable 0L. What a long winded way to say "I don't know what the fuck I am talking about and I sure am proud of it."

The good news is that even if CLS is complete bullshit, you'll fit in perfectly there.

Cool story bro

Seriously, is this just part of your initiation into an NYU alumni society, trashing on cls kids online? Seems fishy. Why are you so angry? Nothing I said is unreasonable, although i grant my phone forum type is a little "long winded". I feel like Ive had parallel debates before: in the Choosing threads, we share our experiences, acquired insight, and also our thought processes for making these challenging decisions. OP asked about going to law school from consulting, and I presented my trajectory and reflections. We're all just twenty-somethings trying to figure out life paths in recession. Chill out

[timbs4339]

Cool story bro

Seriously, is this just part of your initiation into an NYU alumni society, trashing on cls kids online? Seems fishy. Why are you so angry? Nothing I said is unreasonable, although i grant my phone forum type is a little "long winded". I feel like Ive had parallel debates before: in the Choosing threads, we share our experiences, acquired insight, and also our thought processes for making these challenging decisions. OP asked about going to law school from consulting, and I presented my trajectory and reflections. We're all just twenty-somethings trying to figure out life paths in recession. Chill out

I'm a CLS graduate who is trying to give you a bit of advice. My background is well known around these parts.

Come back after legal methods or the first month of 1L and let's see if you still think the casebook method is all that. I'm an attorney who is telling you that it aint.

[jbagelboy]

Cool story bro

Seriously, is this just part of your initiation into an NYU alumni society, trashing on cls kids online? Seems fishy. Why are you so angry? Nothing I said is unreasonable, although i grant my phone forum type is a little "long winded". I feel like Ive had parallel debates before: in the Choosing threads, we share our experiences, acquired insight, and also our thought processes for making these challenging decisions. OP asked about going to law school from consulting, and I presented my trajectory and reflections. We're all just twenty-somethings trying to figure out life paths in recession. Chill out

I'm a CLS graduate who is trying to give you a bit of advice. My background is well known around these parts.

Come back after legal methods or the first month of 1L and let's see if you still think the Socratic Method is just all that.

See I thought you were at CLS! And your vitriol towards your otherwise alma mater gave me pause. You've given advice is the c/o and ask threads, thanks again for that.

I thought Legal Methods was supposed to be bullshit, so I probably wont be paying much attention -- lots of college friends to see in the city those first few weeks. But ill give a mid semester report

Where are you working now?

[Ruluo]

And yet, you and I both have chosen this path. If we strictly wanted to make a lot of money, we would be investment bankers -- although those jobs dried up just as quickly after 2008, even if they have rebounded faster. Don't forget that WE are entering into this profession and we each have our reasons for doing so.

Some people hate law school, some love it. Some hate college, others love it, some hate shellfish, others love it, ect. I'm sorry for those who have had a shit experience, or witnessed the shit experiences of others - among my friends and acquaintances at top law schools, I can say that those who hated law school had reasons to do so beyond the erudition, the curve, or the corruption of the establishment; they were intellectually self-indulgent and stunk of special snowflake. Others have liked it, and more importantly, love the legal work they are doing post-grad. Call it mindless, but the reality is while both corporate and public interest-related work have their dryness and their tedium, there is interesting material to be found in transaction and litigation. And as others have brought up, on a comparative basis? All entry level work blows shit. Most people who have entered the job market (except for super engaged software engineers and start-up people) at a starting capacity have experienced this same "mindlessness". Of course law school is a horrible way to escape frustrations on that level, but to damn the entire industry as morbidly dull remains an exaggeration.

I wasn't arguing that everyone in Biglaw is miserable--YMMV. It certainly runs the spectrum from hate to love. My point was the average job satisfaction in Biglaw is comparatively low, and burnout is high and significant. I think going into law purely for the money is dumb, because if you don't really love what you do you'll burn out very quickly. But the mere dissatisfaction with a current position is certainly a very poor reason, by itself, to go into Biglaw, which just seems statistically likely to be dissatisfying for those who are only in it for the money. I don't intend to damn the whole profession, as the experiences are too varied to make any blanket claim over how much a given individual will like his/her job.

Also, FWIW, I think law is a safer financial decision than IB for your twenties. My understanding is that IB has a few rainmaking types, but many more who make an entry-level salary somewhere in the low six figures (I seem to recall $110-120k thrown around as a figure). If we posit that Biglaw provides the top 5k or so jobs per year, I would be willing to bet the median of the top 5k IB jobs per year is lower, even if maybe the average is higher (skewed by the rainmakers). Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that even in the bulge bracket, the analysts mostly make $75-125k for the first year or two. I think law is the only profession where it is realistic to presume that you might be making $160k at age 25.

Bulge bracket IB right now for first year is 10k signing + 70k base + ~40k bonus ...and of course that's right out of school--without the law school debt and 3 years of opportunity cost

Third year at a MM PE fund (yes, most people flee banking), is ~200k (so already ahead of biglaw associates), and it typically scales much more quickly than biglaw if I understand correctly

At the fund where I work, partners (reached at around age 36) get a base + bonus (though bonuses are really static and are basically deferred comp) of ~650k + carry, and of course the carry can outstrip the base and bonus in good years...

[blsingindisguise]

I'm a CLS graduate who is trying to give you a bit of advice. My background is well known around these parts.

Come back after legal methods or the first month of 1L and let's see if you still think the casebook method is all that. I'm an attorney who is telling you that it aint.

The casebook method teaches you certain things you need for litigation practice imo. I don't really think you need three years of it, but you do need it. I don't think it teaches you any special broader "way to think," in fact I don't even think it really teaches you to think like a litigator, because you aren't taking a side and there's no strategy, so it leaves out a lot of the considerations you actually face as a litigator, and instead you just sit around philosophizing about B:PL and law and econ theory and whether an action "sounds in contract or tort" as if any of that shit actually matters when you're briefing a case in 2013. But you still need to understand how to read a case, how to understand what it holds and does not hold, what judges like to hang their hats on when they make decisions, etc.

[jbagelboy]

I'm a CLS graduate who is trying to give you a bit of advice. My background is well known around these parts.

Come back after legal methods or the first month of 1L and let's see if you still think the casebook method is all that. I'm an attorney who is telling you that it aint.

The casebook method teaches you certain things you need for litigation practice imo. I don't really think you need three years of it, but you do need it. I don't think it teaches you any special broader "way to think," in fact I don't even think it really teaches you to think like a litigator, because you aren't taking a side and there's no strategy, so it leaves out a lot of the considerations you actually face as a litigator, and instead you just sit around philosophizing about B:PL and law and econ theory and whether an action "sounds in contract or tort" as if any of that shit actually matters when you're briefing a case in 2013. But you still need to understand how to read a case, how to understand what it holds and does not hold, what judges like to hang their hats on when they make decisions, etc.

Thanks!

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

And yet, you and I both have chosen this path. If we strictly wanted to make a lot of money, we would be investment bankers -- although those jobs dried up just as quickly after 2008, even if they have rebounded faster. Don't forget that WE are entering into this profession and we each have our reasons for doing so.

Some people hate law school, some love it. Some hate college, others love it, some hate shellfish, others love it, ect. I'm sorry for those who have had a shit experience, or witnessed the shit experiences of others - among my friends and acquaintances at top law schools, I can say that those who hated law school had reasons to do so beyond the erudition, the curve, or the corruption of the establishment; they were intellectually self-indulgent and stunk of special snowflake. Others have liked it, and more importantly, love the legal work they are doing post-grad. Call it mindless, but the reality is while both corporate and public interest-related work have their dryness and their tedium, there is interesting material to be found in transaction and litigation. And as others have brought up, on a comparative basis? All entry level work blows shit. Most people who have entered the job market (except for super engaged software engineers and start-up people) at a starting capacity have experienced this same "mindlessness". Of course law school is a horrible way to escape frustrations on that level, but to damn the entire industry as morbidly dull remains an exaggeration.

I wasn't arguing that everyone in Biglaw is miserable--YMMV. It certainly runs the spectrum from hate to love. My point was the average job satisfaction in Biglaw is comparatively low, and burnout is high and significant. I think going into law purely for the money is dumb, because if you don't really love what you do you'll burn out very quickly. But the mere dissatisfaction with a current position is certainly a very poor reason, by itself, to go into Biglaw, which just seems statistically likely to be dissatisfying for those who are only in it for the money. I don't intend to damn the whole profession, as the experiences are too varied to make any blanket claim over how much a given individual will like his/her job.

Also, FWIW, I think law is a safer financial decision than IB for your twenties. My understanding is that IB has a few rainmaking types, but many more who make an entry-level salary somewhere in the low six figures (I seem to recall $110-120k thrown around as a figure). If we posit that Biglaw provides the top 5k or so jobs per year, I would be willing to bet the median of the top 5k IB jobs per year is lower, even if maybe the average is higher (skewed by the rainmakers). Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that even in the bulge bracket, the analysts mostly make $75-125k for the first year or two. I think law is the only profession where it is realistic to presume that you might be making $160k at age 25.

Holy shit this clown is annoying *facepalm*

Arent you a 0L why the fuck do I always see you typing out essays on life in biglaw

Yeah, I'm not afraid of this stupid "LOL UR SO STUPID 0L" shit anymore. It's a crutch used by people who aren't content to just disagree with an opinion, the other person has to be WRONG. You know how I can tell this argument from authority crap is lazy? Because it's rarely, if ever, accompanied with concrete reasons for explaining why someone's wrong. Seriously, any time you feel compelled to do this with me or anyone else, highlight the part you think is wrong and say why you think it's wrong, offering supporting evidence. I'll always respond to that. None of the people who said "blah blah you're a 0L blah blah" ever gave me a real argument, so I'm not going to bother contesting that. Either offer some constructive criticism or just ignore it. Hell, you can block my posts if you think they're so annoying. You willingly ventured onto a forum where people are going to talk about their opinions on Biglaw.

Boy, I'm so glad I'll be a 1L in two weeks and then magically the wisdom of everything will rain upon me as I authoritatively slam my dick down on TLS, laughing at the noobish 0Ls who spout crazy ideas like "some people burn out of Biglaw, whereas others enjoy it."

[paglababa]

And yet, you and I both have chosen this path. If we strictly wanted to make a lot of money, we would be investment bankers -- although those jobs dried up just as quickly after 2008, even if they have rebounded faster. Don't forget that WE are entering into this profession and we each have our reasons for doing so.

Some people hate law school, some love it. Some hate college, others love it, some hate shellfish, others love it, ect. I'm sorry for those who have had a shit experience, or witnessed the shit experiences of others - among my friends and acquaintances at top law schools, I can say that those who hated law school had reasons to do so beyond the erudition, the curve, or the corruption of the establishment; they were intellectually self-indulgent and stunk of special snowflake. Others have liked it, and more importantly, love the legal work they are doing post-grad. Call it mindless, but the reality is while both corporate and public interest-related work have their dryness and their tedium, there is interesting material to be found in transaction and litigation. And as others have brought up, on a comparative basis? All entry level work blows shit. Most people who have entered the job market (except for super engaged software engineers and start-up people) at a starting capacity have experienced this same "mindlessness". Of course law school is a horrible way to escape frustrations on that level, but to damn the entire industry as morbidly dull remains an exaggeration.

I wasn't arguing that everyone in Biglaw is miserable--YMMV. It certainly runs the spectrum from hate to love. My point was the average job satisfaction in Biglaw is comparatively low, and burnout is high and significant. I think going into law purely for the money is dumb, because if you don't really love what you do you'll burn out very quickly. But the mere dissatisfaction with a current position is certainly a very poor reason, by itself, to go into Biglaw, which just seems statistically likely to be dissatisfying for those who are only in it for the money. I don't intend to damn the whole profession, as the experiences are too varied to make any blanket claim over how much a given individual will like his/her job.

Also, FWIW, I think law is a safer financial decision than IB for your twenties. My understanding is that IB has a few rainmaking types, but many more who make an entry-level salary somewhere in the low six figures (I seem to recall $110-120k thrown around as a figure). If we posit that Biglaw provides the top 5k or so jobs per year, I would be willing to bet the median of the top 5k IB jobs per year is lower, even if maybe the average is higher (skewed by the rainmakers). Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that even in the bulge bracket, the analysts mostly make $75-125k for the first year or two. I think law is the only profession where it is realistic to presume that you might be making $160k at age 25.

Holy shit this clown is annoying *facepalm*

Arent you a 0L why the fuck do I always see you typing out essays on life in biglaw

Yeah, I'm not afraid of this stupid "LOL UR SO STUPID 0L" shit anymore. It's a crutch used by people who aren't content to just disagree with an opinion, the other person has to be WRONG. You know how I can tell this argument from authority crap is lazy? Because it's rarely, if ever, accompanied with concrete reasons for explaining why someone's wrong. Seriously, any time you feel compelled to do this with me or anyone else, highlight the part you think is wrong and say why you think it's wrong, offering supporting evidence. I'll always respond to that. None of the people who said "blah blah you're a 0L blah blah" ever gave me a real argument, so I'm not going to bother contesting that. Either offer some constructive criticism or just ignore it. Hell, you can block my posts if you think they're so annoying. You willingly ventured onto a forum where people are going to talk about their opinions on Biglaw.

Boy, I'm so glad I'll be a 1L in two weeks and then magically the wisdom of everything will rain upon me as I authoritatively slam my dick down on TLS, laughing at the noobish 0Ls who spout crazy ideas like "some people burn out of Biglaw, whereas others enjoy it."

174

[Lost_Dreams]

OP,

Do you work in Mgmt consulting? (strategy, ops, etc) Or Tech consulting?

If formal, don't do law school. If latter, I could see why you'd want to go back to a completely unrelated area of study for grad school.

FWIW, if you truly work at a top tier mgmt consulting firm, you would be crazy to go to law school on your dime. Top consulting firms sponsor many of their consulting analysts to go attend MBA, basically guaranteeing them that a job is waiting for them after they complete their MBA while paying for their tuition, then the MBA is just a two year holiday party for these folks.

I currently work as a tech consultant at a big shop (think IBM, ACN, Deloitte, etc) and I am debating whether to go for MBA or law school in near future. I make 85k now, work 40-45 hours per week, and working conditions are good, but I just don't see myself doing IT consulting for the rest of my life. If I was in a strategy consulting role, I would never give up that job to go back to school, unless my employer is paying for all the schooling.

[jingosaur]

Lost_Dreams,

You've pretty much hit the nail on the head. Please PM me about your thought process in this since I'm sure that we share a lot of same thoughts and there's probably a good chance that we actually know each other IRL.

My job title actually says "Strategy" in it, but the vast majority of what I've done has been IT focused. In fact, I would say that about 90% of the project work that I've done has been software testing. My biggest fear about MBA admissions is that when I talk about my actual day to day work in my interviews (I'm not going to lie about what I do), they're going to reject me since the work that I do is the consulting equivalent of Doc Review.

I was lucky enough to get into an industry group that actually caters to my long term goals and I do work in addition to my client work that kind of gets me to my goals, but this work is very limited (think 4-8 hours a week). My company doesn't pay for MBAs unless you're 7+ years out of UG and your options of where you can go are extremely limited. I heard that someone once got a part-time MBA at Stern paid for like 4 years out or something and was pretty shocked.

I think it's the nature of the work that gets a lot of people like Lost_Dreams and me thinking about other options and since I'm VERY vocal about what I plan on doing, a lot of people (from work and not work) approach me on a daily basis and ask me whether they should consider business school or law school. That's why I started this thread.

[Balthy]

Holy shit this clown is annoying *facepalm*

Arent you a 0L why the fuck do I always see you typing out essays on life in biglaw

Yeah, I'm not afraid of this stupid "LOL UR SO STUPID 0L" shit anymore. It's a crutch used by people who aren't content to just disagree with an opinion, the other person has to be WRONG. You know how I can tell this argument from authority crap is lazy? Because it's rarely, if ever, accompanied with concrete reasons for explaining why someone's wrong. Seriously, any time you feel compelled to do this with me or anyone else, highlight the part you think is wrong and say why you think it's wrong, offering supporting evidence. I'll always respond to that. None of the people who said "blah blah you're a 0L blah blah" ever gave me a real argument, so I'm not going to bother contesting that. Either offer some constructive criticism or just ignore it. Hell, you can block my posts if you think they're so annoying. You willingly ventured onto a forum where people are going to talk about their opinions on Biglaw.

Boy, I'm so glad I'll be a 1L in two weeks and then magically the wisdom of everything will rain upon me as I authoritatively slam my dick down on TLS, laughing at the noobish 0Ls who spout crazy ideas like "some people burn out of Biglaw, whereas others enjoy it."

180.

ChampagnePapi, let me try some of my own ad hominem: You're a fucking douche bag.

[blsingindisguise]

Yeah, I'm not afraid of this stupid "LOL UR SO STUPID 0L" shit anymore. It's a crutch used by people who aren't content to just disagree with an opinion, the other person has to be WRONG. You know how I can tell this argument from authority crap is lazy? Because it's rarely, if ever, accompanied with concrete reasons for explaining why someone's wrong. Seriously, any time you feel compelled to do this with me or anyone else, highlight the part you think is wrong and say why you think it's wrong, offering supporting evidence. I'll always respond to that. None of the people who said "blah blah you're a 0L blah blah" ever gave me a real argument, so I'm not going to bother contesting that.

Of course you would feel this way, you're an 0L.

[timbs4339]

I'm a CLS graduate who is trying to give you a bit of advice. My background is well known around these parts.

Come back after legal methods or the first month of 1L and let's see if you still think the casebook method is all that. I'm an attorney who is telling you that it aint.

The casebook method teaches you certain things you need for litigation practice imo. I don't really think you need three years of it, but you do need it. I don't think it teaches you any special broader "way to think," in fact I don't even think it really teaches you to think like a litigator, because you aren't taking a side and there's no strategy, so it leaves out a lot of the considerations you actually face as a litigator, and instead you just sit around philosophizing about B:PL and law and econ theory and whether an action "sounds in contract or tort" as if any of that shit actually matters when you're briefing a case in 2013. But you still need to understand how to read a case, how to understand what it holds and does not hold, what judges like to hang their hats on when they make decisions, etc.

I think it probably teaches you something. It would be difficult to sit in a classroom for three years and not at least advance some skill. But they could design "Reading a Case 101" that teaches you in a month everything that you're expected to learn by osmosis during 1L. The very basic lack of feedback almost guarantees that whatever they are doing is going to be an ineffective teaching method.

[NYstate]

Yeah, I'm not afraid of this stupid "LOL UR SO STUPID 0L" shit anymore. It's a crutch used by people who aren't content to just disagree with an opinion, the other person has to be WRONG. You know how I can tell this argument from authority crap is lazy? Because it's rarely, if ever, accompanied with concrete reasons for explaining why someone's wrong. Seriously, any time you feel compelled to do this with me or anyone else, highlight the part you think is wrong and say why you think it's wrong, offering supporting evidence. I'll always respond to that. None of the people who said "blah blah you're a 0L blah blah" ever gave me a real argument, so I'm not going to bother contesting that.

Of course you would feel this way, you're an 0L.

Odds on when he posts his first post bitching out 0Ls for being clueless noobs? Think it will take him as long as two months?

[timbs4339]

Cool story bro

Seriously, is this just part of your initiation into an NYU alumni society, trashing on cls kids online? Seems fishy. Why are you so angry? Nothing I said is unreasonable, although i grant my phone forum type is a little "long winded". I feel like Ive had parallel debates before: in the Choosing threads, we share our experiences, acquired insight, and also our thought processes for making these challenging decisions. OP asked about going to law school from consulting, and I presented my trajectory and reflections. We're all just twenty-somethings trying to figure out life paths in recession. Chill out

I'm a CLS graduate who is trying to give you a bit of advice. My background is well known around these parts.

Come back after legal methods or the first month of 1L and let's see if you still think the Socratic Method is just all that.

See I thought you were at CLS! And your vitriol towards your otherwise alma mater gave me pause. You've given advice is the c/o and ask threads, thanks again for that.

I thought Legal Methods was supposed to be bullshit, so I probably wont be paying much attention -- lots of college friends to see in the city those first few weeks. But ill give a mid semester report

Where are you working now?

Well, it's important to separate what is bad about CLS specifically versus what is bad about all top law schools. The education you get at CLS (at least during 1L) is going to be no different than at any of the other schools. So my complaints there aren't any reason to hate the school.

I actually work as a clerk. Ironically it's the one job that law school classes actually attempt to prepare you for.

LM is bullshit. But it's a very different type of bullshit depending on the professor.