The fundamental problem with 0L's. Forum

[Theopliske8711]

Aren't there those studies that show that the bleaker someone presents a given situation to a crowd, the less receptive the crowd will be to that information? I feel like this is the case with TLS.

[Hipster but Athletic]

Trivializing rejecting advice pertaining to general populations from prolific internet, anti-law school evangelists as merely "special snowflaking" is some bullshit.

[Hipster but Athletic]

Aren't there those studies that show that the bleaker someone presents a given situation to a crowd, the less receptive the crowd will be to that information? I feel like this is the case with TLS.

"Dear guy I don't know, everything sucks!" --love, stranger.

(Stranger later on opines about the stubbornness of his audience)

[Hipster but Athletic]

"What law school should I go to?"
"Don't go to law school"
"That's not helpful"
"SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE!!!"

[rayiner]

A story about a dude whose a self described shitty attorney, leaving his office before 5, and generally not giving a shit, being politely asked to leave his firm with a 3 month notice in 2009 hardly says anything.

Special fucking snowflakes man.

This site is so enamored with downside risk its hilarious. Yes, literally everyone becomes this guy. If not, you're a special snowflake.

And then everyone spends thousands of threads/comments wondering why no one actually listens to good advice and why credible people are completely ignored.

People are enamored with downside risk because 0L's don't sufficiently account for it. They talk about paying sticker at Harvard being okay, because you're guaranteed to get big law, as if getting big law is winning the game.

Not everyone will become this guy. But even out of the minority of people who get who get big law, who get V5, half of everyone will become this guy. They'll quit their $185k/year job within three years because they can't stand it anymore.

[TheSpanishMain]

People are enamored with downside risk because 0L's don't sufficiently account for it. They talk about paying sticker at Harvard being okay, because you're guaranteed to get big law, as if getting big law is winning the game.

Not everyone will become this guy. But even out of the minority of people who get who get big law, who get V5, half of everyone will become this guy. They'll quit their $185k/year job within three years because they can't stand it anymore.

This is what gets me. People talk about debt being justified if it means increased odds of big law, as though that's some great prize. It sounds fucking awful, and even worse to know you're trapped by the debt weenie aimed right at your tender butthole.

If it helps, TLS convinced me a long time ago. It's the reason I'm going to GULC for free over NU for big debt, despite the (gasp) lower Big Law placement.

[Tiago Splitter]

People talk about debt being justified if it means increased odds of big law, as though that's some great prize.

The problem is that about a third, and perhaps more, of the jobs worth having out of law school are biglaw jobs. If you go and you don't have clearly defined non-biglaw goals then you're going for biglaw, whether you like it or not.

[Young Marino]

I have no idea why anyone would voluntarily put themselves in 300k of debt.

Before I had ever heard of TLS or LST or knew any of the financial details of law school, I decided that the absolute maximum debt I was willing to take out was however much I could pay back in two years of firm work.

The more time I spend on TLS, the more convinced I am that most people choose Harvard (or whatever prestige thing) primarily for the sense of validation that comes with it. Vague talk about opening doors, job security, geographic flexibility, exit options, etc from people who don't actually know what they're talking about (includes 0Ls AND current students) seems like pretty obvious rationalization for just doing what their egos wanted to do all along.

I used to have a desire to warn people away from this 200-300k debt nonsense, but now I kinda just say fuck it. Prestige whores gunna prestige whore. Someone wants to spend way more money than they or their family have in order to show off a Harvard degree/Ferrari/McMansion? Go for it. But I DGAF about the self-imposed plight of their high debt.

Caveat: Low SES people contemplating paying sticker at Mercer are obviously still worthy of saving.

This. All the article really did for me is reinforce the notion of "fuck corporate slavery, work in government" which the belief I've had from the beginning

[rayiner]

The purpose of this thread is not to tell people what to do. Its to inquire into why they listen to parents (out of touch), professors (self interested), and each other (clueless), but not to either people who went to law school and had it turn out badly, or those who went and had it turn out well. The guy in the story I linked is not some JDU bad outcome. He's the good outcome! HLS then three years at a V5. Way better than almost all you 0L's can hope for. 90% of 1L's, in the moments before their first exam, would claw each others' eyes out to be him.

[Tiago Splitter]

The purpose of this thread is not to tell people what to do. Its to inquire into why they listen to parents (out of touch), professors (self interested), and each other (clueless), but not to either people who went to law school and had it turn out badly, or those who went and had it turn out well. The guy in the story I linked is not some JDU bad outcome. He's the good outcome! HLS then three years at a V5. Way better than almost all you 0L's can hope for.

There's no inquiry needed. They listen to the people who tell them what they want to hear.

[Paul Campos]

(1) The notion that trying to make the cost-benefit issues involved in going to law school right now more transparent has no effect on decision making is completely at odds with the evidence, which shows law school applications are down nearly 40% since 2010. That's a radical change, which is in large part a product of consciousness-raising, which TLS has played a role in producing.

(2) A certain segment of 0Ls are naturally ineducable, and not all of them are going to Florida Coastal. In this thread there's a guy going to Harvard this fall who insisted on arguing with me a few days ago about the fact regarding changes in effective tuition at law schools, a subject about which there are maybe five people at most who know as much as I do, and about which he knows nothing. But he got a very high LSAT score.

(3) The highly unusual combination of stress and boredom involved in being a big law associate is impossible to convey to people who haven't done it, but what's particularly provoking is the level of self-satisfied cluelessness that produces people who say things like "high-paying jobs are going to be demanding," as if the problem with the sort of people who manage to get a spot at DPW and end up hating it is their inherent laziness.

[nebula666]

Currently trying to convince a 0L friend not go to western new england for law school. It's like talking to a brick wall.

[Tiago Splitter]

(1) The notion that trying to make the cost-benefit issues involved in going to law school right now more transparent has no effect on decision making is completely at odds with the evidence, which shows law school applications are down nearly 40% since 2010. That's a radical change, which is in large part a product of consciousness-raising, which TLS has played a role in producing.

Currently trying to convince a 0L friend not go to western new england for law school. It's like talking to a brick wall.

This is why the key is to get the information out before people ever take the LSAT. Once they pass that point, and particularly if they get a score which they consider good, the odds of keeping them out of law school are very low. At that point the cognitive dissonance becomes too strong.

[rad lulz]

.

[rayiner]

(3) The highly unusual combination of stress and boredom involved in being a big law associate is impossible to convey to people who haven't done it, but what's particularly provoking is the level of self-satisfied cluelessness that produces people who say things like "high-paying jobs are going to be demanding," as if the problem with the sort of people who manage to get a spot at DPW and end up hating it is their inherent laziness.

All I want is for 0L's to really internalize that 95% of people who get into a big law firm are very hard workers, yet half will not make it more than three years. Just think of that before posting about how you plan to pay off $300k sticker at NYU by paying down $60k each year for five years.

Big law would be 10x better without the debt hanging over your head. Getting yelled at by a partner for coding some document as 2b instead of 2c takes on an existential dimension that wouldn't exist if it were just a job, instead of a lifeline in the face of crushing debt.

[kaiser]

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.

[JustHawkin]

Currently trying to convince a 0L friend not go to western new england for law school. It's like talking to a brick wall.

Also witnessing/experiencing this. I've given up. Go ahead, take a chance.

Sorry I'm not sorry.

[thesealocust]

In all fairness, there are a lot of great outcomes for people who are leaving (voluntarily or otherwise) big firms within the first few years, and those great options by and large were made easier by the tour of duty at Name & Ampersands LLP.

I know people who have rage quit within 3 years for big law firms but are now happily working at hedge funds, federal government positions, at clerkships, in happier firm jobs, etc.

$300,000 in debt is obviously still questionable and obviously you can't count on an indefinite biglaw salary, but a few years of biglaw salary + a more stable and less remunerative exit is still a pretty good outcome and one that probably actually can justify a fair amount of debt.

[DrStudMuffin]

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

I think this is an important point that was passed over earlier ITT. It's not like most recent college grads are swimming in lucrative career opportunities. Assuming you're actually interested in legal work (or what you perceive legal work to be, at least), then going to an elite law school with significant debt may actually be your least awful option in terms of upward financial/professional mobility.

Another point I'd like to make is that the tone in these threads can be so ridiculously condescending that it's no wonder 0Ls don't want to listen. People who are a year or two out of school talk down to 0L's like we're a unified class of clueless morons who are giving up rewarding and stable careers to plunge headfirst into NYU at sticker over a basket full of T-14 full rides. I get that special snowflakes need to be slapped into reality, but I think some people could stand to at least slouch down a little bit on their high horse.

I will admit though, I previously fell into the camp of "I've shoveled cow shit in 90+ heat as a job before, how bad can sitting in an air-conditioned office doing tedious work and occasionally getting yelled at be?" Without threads from practicing attorneys in biglaw with large debt loads, I would have no way of knowing to seriously consider how miserable it can be. So, thanks for that.

TL;DR: Most 0L's have shitty alternatives, the tone in these threads is generally condescending, but I do still really appreciate you folks and your advice.

[wons]

This "50% are pushed out by the end of year 3" meme is total bullshit, and it's a shame that it gets pimped on unsuspecting 0Ls as truth, because it leads them to go to crappier schools to limit debt burden, hedging against imaginary risk.

(1) Of my LS friends, the vast majority - i'd guess 80% or more - are still at big firms, now into year 4. About a quarter of those still at firms have already lateraled, but, they're still making NYC market.

(2) Of the ones that have left big firm practice, only one was "pushed" out. The others took attractive in-house jobs or midlaw jobs voluntarily, and all of them are women who didn't intend to have long-term high-intensity careers.

(3) Of the ~80% still at firms, I'd say about a third don't like their jobs, a third are neutral, and a third like working in biglaw. This makes working in biglaw like any other human activity, in that some folks like it and some folks don't like it.
Sadly, folks who hate it disproprortionately have the time to post on the internet. Hopefully the slow spring in the high-yield and M&A markets will bring out some more posters like me to counterbalance the folks who are sulking behind their desks, ruing the day they decided to go to school?

(4) Absent adverse economic circumstances, associates are rarely "pushed out" before year 3 - year 3 is when reviews start to get some teeth. Why? If you work hard and are generally normal, firms are very unlikely to "push you out" right before you get most profitable. "Pushing out" really happens in earnest from years 4-6 (assuming a standard 7 to 8 year partner track).

(5) If you are pushed out, you're not stuck in field of corn somewhere in Kansas with your thumb up your ass. Most groups you've worked with for several years have a vested interest in having you land on your feet at a potential client, since you're a great source for future business. It's socially more delicate to find a place at another firm, but I know a couple of folks who were Weiled last year and both had new jobs at peer firms so fast they were never unemployed. FWIW, the higher up the food chain you start, the easier it is to land when you get pushed out - I don't think folks laid off from a Kasowitz get snapped up as quickly.

[copingtrope]

you're trapped by the debt weenie aimed right at your tender butthole.

Nice.

Currently trying to convince a 0L friend not go to western new england for law school. It's like talking to a brick wall.

Also witnessing/experiencing this. I've given up. Go ahead, take a chance.

Sorry I'm not sorry.

Guy I know just signed up to pay full tuition at JMLS--didn't see anything wrong with it. When I tried to convince him to retake his 137, he said he didn't need to because he got admitted to law school and that's what matters.

[ggocat]

This "50% are pushed out by the end of year 3" meme is total bullshit
...
(4) Absent adverse economic circumstances, associates are rarely "pushed out" before year 3 - year 3 is when reviews start to get some teeth. Why? If you work hard and are generally normal, firms are very unlikely to "push you out" right before you get most profitable. "Pushing out" really happens in earnest from years 4-6 (assuming a standard 7 to 8 year partner track).

Notwithstanding anything else you've said, let's just clear this up. Assuming "pushed out" means what people are saying in this thread--voluntary and involuntary leaving the firm--the numbers are indeed significant.

The National Association for Law Placement Foundation reports that the rate of associate attrition is the highest it has ever been—37 percent of associates leaving within the first three years and 77 percent leaving within five years. And the senior associates are leaving when they are most valuable to their firms—when they have enough experience to know what they are doing and when their rates are profitable.

http://www.americanbar.org/publications ... 4_an1.html
This is from 2007.

[TheSpanishMain]

This "50% are pushed out by the end of year 3" meme is total bullshit
...
(4) Absent adverse economic circumstances, associates are rarely "pushed out" before year 3 - year 3 is when reviews start to get some teeth. Why? If you work hard and are generally normal, firms are very unlikely to "push you out" right before you get most profitable. "Pushing out" really happens in earnest from years 4-6 (assuming a standard 7 to 8 year partner track).

Notwithstanding anything else you've said, let's just clear this up. Assuming "pushed out" means what people are saying in this thread--voluntary and involuntary leaving the firm--the numbers are indeed significant.

The National Association for Law Placement Foundation reports that the rate of associate attrition is the highest it has ever been—37 percent of associates leaving within the first three years and 77 percent leaving within five years. And the senior associates are leaving when they are most valuable to their firms—when they have enough experience to know what they are doing and when their rates are profitable.

http://www.americanbar.org/publications ... 4_an1.html
This is from 2007.

I'm a 0L so I don't claim to know anything about Big Law or Big Law survival rates, but I think the term "pushed out" is misleading when used to describe someone voluntarily leaving. Someone who works for a few years in Big Law, pays down debt, and then chooses to take a pay cut to go somewhere with more livable hours/a better lifestyle is not being "pushed out." That may well have been their plan all along.

[ggocat]

I'm a 0L so I don't claim to know anything about Big Law or Big Law survival rates, but I think the term "pushed out" is misleading when used to describe someone voluntarily leaving. Someone who works for a few years in Big Law, pays down debt, and then chooses to take a pay cut to go somewhere with more livable hours/a better lifestyle is not being "pushed out." That may well have been their plan all along.

Yes, I agree if "pushed out" means only involuntary departure, then the poster I quoted was arguing a straw man.

[kaiser]

Whoever said that most people are "pushed out" after 3-4 years? There is indeed substantial attrition at the 3-4 mark, but thats mostly from voluntary departure. Not sure when the neverending game of telephone that is TLS mistranslated this one.