The fundamental problem with 0L's. Forum

[dwil770]

We prefer "0L" as the plural. Thanks.

"The pack of 0L shuffled from one building to the next on their ASW tour."

[wons]

I'm not responding to a strawman. I'm responding to the OP, who said:

"For half of everyone, law school will not lead to gainful employment. Among the other half, 80% will not get a big firm that justifies the crippling debt. Of those who do get big law, half will leave or be pushed out within three years, long before paying off loans."

This is simply untrue. I don't think its even true that any individual biglaw firm has 50% attrition within three years; its more like 25-33%. But setting that aside, that attrition is composed of a very small number of "pushed out" folks, who were generally fired for damn good cause, and folks who voluntarily left to lateral to other firms or to move in-house. The people who voluntarily leave, as you would expect, are disproportionately folks who had little debt to begin with and paid it off prior to leaving.

So the trope about being unable to pay off law school debt (or significantly pay down the debt to a level commensurate with a non-BigLaw salary) prior to leaving BigLaw is generally false. However, anyone who thinks they're going to be living large on a BigLaw salary while paying down $250K of debt to a reasonable level that can be serviced with a non-BigLaw job has another think coming, that's for sure.

[bk1]

Are we really quibbling over the difference between "half" and "37%" (as reported in 2007)?

[worldtraveler]

I think you can be pushed out as in you are asked to leave or pushed out as in your brain cannot take it anymore and makes you leave.

[dwil770]

I'm not responding to a strawman. I'm responding to the OP, who said:

"For half of everyone, law school will not lead to gainful employment. Among the other half, 80% will not get a big firm that justifies the crippling debt. Of those who do get big law, half will leave or be pushed out within three years, long before paying off loans."

This is simply untrue. I don't think its even true that any individual biglaw firm has 50% attrition within three years; its more like 25-33%. But setting that aside, that attrition is composed of a very small number of "pushed out" folks, who were generally fired for damn good cause, and folks who voluntarily left to lateral to other firms or to move in-house. The people who voluntarily leave, as you would expect, are disproportionately folks who had little debt to begin with and paid it off prior to leaving.

So the trope about being unable to pay off law school debt (or significantly pay down the debt to a level commensurate with a non-BigLaw salary) prior to leaving BigLaw is generally false. However, anyone who thinks they're going to be living large on a BigLaw salary while paying down $250K of debt to a reasonable level that can be serviced with a non-BigLaw job has another think coming, that's for sure.

Life is something that leads to positive outcomes way less often as a % than going to law school does.

[Nelson]

Optimism bias is a force too strong to be overcome by statistics for a lot of people.

[Tiago Splitter]

Are we really quibbling over the difference between "half" and "37%" (as reported in 2007)?

In 2011 it was 25% out after three years. Certainly makes sense that fewer people leave voluntarily now as compared to 2007.

[kaiser]

The fundamental problem with law students in general: can't stay on track with the mindless quibbling.

[rayiner]

It's true that the attrition in the first three years is mostly voluntary. I think that fact should given 0L's even more pause, not placate their concerns. Here's a job that people who have gunned hard all their lives can't stand for three years while getting paid $160-185k. Maybe it's true that the folks who leave early are disproportionately ones that had little debt. Doesn't that mean that others want to leave too, but can't because of their debt burden?

I actually kinda like big law. But I have to concede that this: --LinkRemoved--, is closer to the truth than the image firms try to portray to hapless 2L SA's. I disagree with Will (the People's Therapist), that big law partners are not "nice people." I think most are perfectly fine people in their personal lives. What they aren't is your friend. You work for them and make them money, but any need you have for their time creates an impediment to their going home to their kids. Corporate America is not a pleasant place, and it's particularly unpleasant in the financial world law firms inhabit, and most prospective 0L's are entirely unprepared for that unpleasantness.

Re: the point about the high horse. The reason recent grads are condescending is that they're close enough to the 0L decision to be able to remember their own thought process at the time. From the day you start orientation to the day you're sitting at your desk as a second year, layers of the onion are pealed away. The first few weeks of law school are jovial and collegial. Things tense up during first semester finals, but people remain in high spirits. Before going on winter break, everyone congratulates each other for getting through their first semester. Then when first semester grades come out, the first layer is peeled away. Illusions about "how I will do" come crashing down. Then second semester grades come out, then OCI happens, and then the 3L job search happens, and then the post-graduation job search happens. And at each step, more layers of the onion are peeled away.

A similar process happens when you start at a firm. As a summer associate, everything is great. Then when some people get no-offered, a layer of the onion peels away. Then you start full time, and go through orientation, and you're working hard but at least you're in it together. But then someone leaves as a first year because they can't stand it, and a layer of the onion is peeled away. The partners who are working with you try to be as nice as they can (or don't), but then you screw up for the first time, in a substantial way, and another layer of the onion is peeled away.

At the end of the day, there are plenty of people who like the job. But most 0L's are not prepared to really understand whether they will be one of those people. I think most people on TLS have internalized the idea that there is a big risk that you won't get big law. I think most people on TLS have yet to realize that there is also a big risk that you won't be able to tolerate big law. And when deciding whether to pay $300k at NYU, that risk must be considered.

[lawhopeful10]

The attrition rate also might depend on the market. Lawyers from big law firms in Atlanta come to talk to us and said in New York they obviously expect a lot of people will no longer be there after 3 years but that is not their expectation here. I don't know if that is the case but it is not the first time I have heard that the attrition rate is not the same in many secondary markets. Although most big firm opportunities are in New York it might be worth thinking about how attrition rates may differ.

[Theopliske8711]

Wons, you attacked the general recommendation in this forum that applicants minimize debt burden by going to lower ranked schools since the attrition rate isn't as high as normally stated here. So, are you saying that taking on an extra 100K+ of debt with a 37% chance of getting the soft boot after 3 years isn't incredibly risky?

[Nelson]

Wons, you attacked the general recommendation in this forum that applicants minimize debt burden by going to lower ranked schools since the attrition rate isn't as high as normally stated here. So, are you saying that taking on an extra 100K+ of debt with a 37% chance of getting the soft boot after 3 years isn't incredibly risky?

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.

[Theopliske8711]

Yea, but I'm just asking wons, is the 37% chance worth 100K+ extra?

I'm a 0L this isn't a leading question, , and while I don't have this consideration yet, I'm legitimately curious.

[wons]

Wons, you attacked the general recommendation in this forum that applicants minimize debt burden by going to lower ranked schools since the attrition rate isn't as high as normally stated here. So, are you saying that taking on an extra 100K+ of debt with a 37% chance of getting the soft boot after 3 years isn't incredibly risky?

Its incredibly risky. It might also be the correct decision. The upside of having a successful career as an attorney in biglaw is very large.

What I'm trying to say is that the decision needs to be considered with all factors included. Lets assume you're at CCN or better school, where, assuming you want it, go to class and keep your nose out of the powder, you'll end up with a BigLaw job.

(1) There is a chance you'll crash and burn in 3 years, either because you get pushed out or you're psychologically unable to handle the job. That risk is small. (FWIW, in my experience, the "psychologically unequipped group" is nearly 100% K-JD, and has as much to do with the shock of gainful employment in an office, which is inherently 50% shitty, rather than anything specific to BigLaw.)

(2) There is a chance the job will be OK - you'll be OK at it, you wont like it but it wont consume your soul - in other words, its just a job. This is probably the most likely outcome. You're unlikely to make partner in this scenario, but you're also unlikely to crash out with your debt unpaid and no future. Generally, you take down a big chunk, or maybe all, of your debt before leaving and end up 9 to 5ing (more like 9 to 6ing, but who's counting?) in-house somewhere.

(3) There's a chance you'll love the job and/or be really good at it. In this case, you have a good shot at making partner somewhere - maybe not at your initial firm, but the firm you lateral down to or the one after that. This doesn't guarantee rainbows and lollipops for the rest of your days - its a GRIND - but all jobs that pay as much as BigLaw are GRINDS. BigLaw, long-term, is no better or worse than another other career path in that regard, arguably a bit better because unlike a corporate or finance job, you dont have a boss. This group is small, but I'd argue the same size or maybe a bit bigger than the crash and burners.

So with that in mind, the questions when you pick a school in the upper echelon are:

(A) Does going to one school over the other change the balance between groups (2) and (3) above? Generally, I would argue, the folks who are going to go down in flames are going to go down in flames wherever they go to school, b/c going off the rails has nothing to do with pedigree.

(B) How much value to I put on the increased chance of ending up in group 3 as I ascend up the LS ladder?

In light of this, I would add that not all BigLaw jobs are created equal (working at a lockstep firm is better than non-lockstep, lateral ops are better from a better firm and lead to longer career lengths, etc) and not all new hires at BigLaw firms are given the same opportunities.

When I was applying to school, I had a big scholorship offer from an MVP (my father's alma mater, no less) and nothing from the CCN I landed at. My father URGED me to go to CCN because his view - as a partner at a BigLaw firm! - was that you did everything you can to push yourself as high up the ladder as you could on day one of your job, because it was so hard to move up the ladder and much easier to fall down. In his view - and I was paying out of savings when he gave me this advice - HE thought it was worth it for the lotto ticket. That said, my risk tolerance was probably much higher than the average person because I was never going to be starving no matter what happened. But I think that framing it as "my risk tolerance is such that I may make a choice that is slightly suboptimal from an expected value perspective, because I have no cushion and I'd rather take chips off the table now and this is the best decision for me" is probably more accurate than "OMG THERES NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NORTHWESTERN EMPLOYMENT AND NYU EMPLOYMENT TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN".

[d cooper]

I think there is a tendency among some law grads to idealize jobs in other sectors as if they're some great free-lunch alternative that they missed out on. I have friends in Big Tech as software engineers. Their jobs are extremely tedious, require 60+ hours weekly, and there is a constant pressure to handle more and more work and projects. Many of them are on-call constantly, and if a system goes down at 3:00 a.m. you're expected to handle it. All of this for substantially less than the market rate for Big Law associates.

It may or may not be better than working in Big Law, depending on your temperament or proclivity for the work — that's not my point. I just think a law grad saying s/he should have become a programmer is probably mostly due to a grass-is-greener mentality.

[bk1]

I think there is a tendency among some law grads to idealize jobs in other sectors as if they're some great free-lunch alternative that they missed out on. I have friends in Big Tech as software engineers. Their jobs are extremely tedious, require 60+ hours weekly, and there is a constant pressure to handle more and more work and projects. Many of them are on-call constantly, and if a system goes down at 3:00 a.m. you're expected to handle it. All of this for substantially less than the market rate for Big Law associates.

It may or may not be better than working in Big Law, depending on your temperament or proclivity for the work — that's not my point. I just think a law grad saying s/he should have become a programmer is probably mostly due to a grass-is-greener mentality.

Getting an engineering degree is far less risky than a law degree though.

[BigBlackTruck]

I think there is a tendency among some law grads to idealize jobs in other sectors as if they're some great free-lunch alternative that they missed out on. I have friends in Big Tech as software engineers. Their jobs are extremely tedious, require 60+ hours weekly, and there is a constant pressure to handle more and more work and projects. Many of them are on-call constantly, and if a system goes down at 3:00 a.m. you're expected to handle it. All of this for substantially less than the market rate for Big Law associates.

It may or may not be better than working in Big Law, depending on your temperament or proclivity for the work — that's not my point. I just think a law grad saying s/he should have become a programmer is probably mostly due to a grass-is-greener mentality.

This is true for most people I know as well. Even though the tech companies offer perks such as massages, free food, free alcohol, "unlimited vacation", my friends that work there hate their job.

These jobs aren't easy to get, either.

[NeedAnExit]

(1) There is a chance you'll crash and burn in 3 years, either because you get pushed out or you're psychologically unable to handle the job. That risk is small. (FWIW, in my experience, the "psychologically unequipped group" is nearly 100% K-JD, and has as much to do with the shock of gainful employment in an office, which is inherently 50% shitty, rather than anything specific to BigLaw.)

(2) There is a chance the job will be OK - you'll be OK at it, you wont like it but it wont consume your soul - in other words, its just a job. This is probably the most likely outcome. You're unlikely to make partner in this scenario, but you're also unlikely to crash out with your debt unpaid and no future. Generally, you take down a big chunk, or maybe all, of your debt before leaving and end up 9 to 5ing (more like 9 to 6ing, but who's counting?) in-house somewhere.

(3) There's a chance you'll love the job and/or be really good at it. In this case, you have a good shot at making partner somewhere - maybe not at your initial firm, but the firm you lateral down to or the one after that. This doesn't guarantee rainbows and lollipops for the rest of your days - its a GRIND - but all jobs that pay as much as BigLaw are GRINDS. BigLaw, long-term, is no better or worse than another other career path in that regard, arguably a bit better because unlike a corporate or finance job, you dont have a boss. This group is small, but I'd argue the same size or maybe a bit bigger than the crash and burners.

I just wanted to point out which group of the three you fall into is also largely dependent on factors outside of your control. I fall into Group 1, and I'd like to think that I'm not psychologically deficient (although who knows? I may be less equipped to deal with biglaw than many of my peers). I spent 2 years in consulting prior to law school, and while I did not enjoy it per se, I certainly found it more tolerable than biglaw. I'm also on pace (if I stayed the entire year, which I won't) to bill about 2800 hours this year, which is far far more than I ever worked in consulting.
I tend to think the specific matter, midlevel, partner, etc. that you're dealing with has a massive impact on both your happiness and development as an attorney, and if you get in put in the wrong situation right off the bat, you're going to have a tough time.

[wons]

I don't disagree with you, escept to add that firms aren't entirely naive about which assignments will burn out all but the toughest of associates, and which are more rewarding / sustainable, and they have some discretion as to how assignments are given out. That's one of the reasons why pedigree matters - because if it earns you a pass on one or two dog assignments as a junior, its a huge edge.

As you become a midlevel, I think your assignment flow becomes almost entirely based on folks' experience working with you when you were a junior. So school matters less in terms of what you end up working on.

I just wanted to point out which group of the three you fall into is also largely dependent on factors outside of your control. I fall into Group 1, and I'd like to think that I'm not psychologically deficient (although who knows? I may be less equipped to deal with biglaw than many of my peers). I spent 2 years in consulting prior to law school, and while I did not enjoy it per se, I certainly found it more tolerable than biglaw. I'm also on pace (if I stayed the entire year, which I won't) to bill about 2800 hours this year, which is far far more than I ever worked in consulting.
I tend to think the specific matter, midlevel, partner, etc. that you're dealing with has a massive impact on both your happiness and development as an attorney, and if you get in put in the wrong situation right off the bat, you're going to have a tough time.

[rayiner]

For situations like life where you're not a repeat player, the expected value isn't as relevant as the modal outcome. The modal outcome is this: you go to UVA for free, get big law, burn out in 3 years, and settle into an in-house job with some money in the bank. Or, you go to Columbia sticker, get big law, burn out in 3 years, and settle into an in-house job with $200k of debt still hanging over your head. There's some differences at the margins, but this is the most likely outcome in each case.

Re: engineering, so I was an engineer before I went to law school. In terms of hours, law isn't any worse. However, the debt changes everything. A pedigreed and young engineer knows, in his darkest moments, that if he quits or gets fired, he can have another job lined up within a week or two. And he puts his extra money into savings, not into paying off loans. I would go to law school, if given the option to do it again, but I didn't appreciate as a 0L how much those factors would matter.

[wons]

For situations like life where you're not a repeat player, the expected value isn't as relevant as the modal outcome. The modal outcome is this: you go to UVA for free, get big law, burn out in 3 years, and settle into an in-house job with some money in the bank. Or, you go to Columbia sticker, get big law, burn out in 3 years, and settle into an in-house job with $200k of debt still hanging over your head. There's some differences at the margins, but this is the most likely outcome in each case.

Except there's no evidence that 3 year burn out is the modal outcome in BigLaw, and certainly not from the HYSCCN schools. That's the myth that's essential to the "take the money and run" approach to selecting a school.

[jbagelboy]

Just fyi, wons never took on debt for school since daddy was a partner :/ pretty much says it all as far as his or her commentary is concerned. I know that stinks of ad hominem, but it's directly relevant to and has evidently coloured his or her experience.

That being said, I agree with him or her there are differences between schools and outcomes that justify increased debt sometimes, but only within reason

[InTheHouse]

I think there is a tendency among some law grads to idealize jobs in other sectors as if they're some great free-lunch alternative that they missed out on. I have friends in Big Tech as software engineers. Their jobs are extremely tedious, require 60+ hours weekly, and there is a constant pressure to handle more and more work and projects. Many of them are on-call constantly, and if a system goes down at 3:00 a.m. you're expected to handle it. All of this for substantially less than the market rate for Big Law associates.

It may or may not be better than working in Big Law, depending on your temperament or proclivity for the work — that's not my point. I just think a law grad saying s/he should have become a programmer is probably mostly due to a grass-is-greener mentality.

Having worked in both sectors, my impression is that job dissatisfaction runs much higher in law than in tech. This shouldn't be surprising given that our UG majors give us a much better impression of what we'll be doing on a day to day basis as an engineer than Arts & Flowers majors give people an impression of what they'll be doing on a day to day basis as an attorney. People can and very often do switch out of engineering after their sophomore year because the subject matter is too dry, too hard, etc .... The people who finally make it to graduation as engineering majors are the masochists who actually love the work and/or the grind.

There's almost no UG major out there that can give you a flavor what life as an attorney is going to be. The problem with law school, even if it gives you a good idea of what to expect in the future, is that you're committed to staying the course. You can't change your major like in undergrad. The second you pay your first semester's tuition, you're mostly locked in.

[rayiner]

For situations like life where you're not a repeat player, the expected value isn't as relevant as the modal outcome. The modal outcome is this: you go to UVA for free, get big law, burn out in 3 years, and settle into an in-house job with some money in the bank. Or, you go to Columbia sticker, get big law, burn out in 3 years, and settle into an in-house job with $200k of debt still hanging over your head. There's some differences at the margins, but this is the most likely outcome in each case.

Except there's no evidence that 3 year burn out is the modal outcome in BigLaw, and certainly not from the HYSCCN schools. That's the myth that's essential to the "take the money and run" approach to selecting a school.

I worked at a V10 (left to clerk), and my starting class was probably 75% HYSCCN. Everyone was plotting their exit almost from Day 1. I just perused the bios of the M&A group, and 75% of all the associates are 2010 or later (i.e. just starting their 4th full year).

[blergy]

How do people on this site have thousands of posts?