Life as a unicorn Forum

[TheSpanishMain]

I'll be interested to see the opinions of people who have transitioned out of BigLaw. One of the arguments raised in defense of BL is usually something like, "Yeah, BL sucks and it's miserable, but it will pave the way for me to get to the job I really want." It'll be interesting to see how many people look back and go, "Yeah, it was miserable but it was worth it in the end" versus "It was miserable and I wish I hadn't done it."

[A. Nony Mouse]

I mean, it makes sense that happy people comment less than the unhappy ones. The thing is, it's not just posters on TLS who dislike working in biglaw; it's kind of a truism all over the legal internet that biglaw sucks except for a small subset of people.

We all mostly have anecdotes, but they tend to lean in the same direction. I know a woman who spent all of law school talking about how excited she was to work biglaw, that was all she wanted to do, she worked for the same firm both 1L and 2L summer, and still only lasted 6 months full time. I don't work in biglaw, but the people I know here who came from biglaw are all deliriously happy that they got out. To go to Spanish Main's question, it probably did help them get this job, but it wasn't the only way they could have got this job. But this also goes back to the issue, do 0L's really know what they want the biglaw job to get them, or do they just think that's how it works, biglaw gets you somewhere better.

(I was absolutely in that position when I started law school, so I don't mean it as an insult, just a descriptor.)

Does that all mean any given 0L will hate it? No, but it's worth paying attention to.

[09042014]

But you're not even providing evidence for the claim, and it's not as obvious as you make it. I agree the far left is more likely to randomly come on, but outside of that, the vast majority of opinions we have are from people who didn't just up and join recently. And of course, some of the ones that did just join do like the job. There was a poster about 6 months back I think I'd never seen before who started a thread about how he really liked BigLaw even though much of it was brutal. wons I don't think has been around that long, and he(?) is clearly very pleased with his job.

Evidence: social/leisure activities -> happiness and less available time for TLS
Sadness -> lack of desire for socialization and leisure activities -> more time for TLS

I am just making a claim about probability, and the claim is fairly intuitive. I didn't think it was that controversial to make that claim.

The recency of someone joining is not really relevant. I would claim long time poster that is happy in BL is less likely than longtime poster that is unhappy in BL to post.

Your post also made me think about another source of sampling bias. Since TLS skews negative on BL lifestyle (at least in the on-topics), then posters who take this position will find more support for their opinion and are thus encouraged to continue the expression of it. An individual with an opinion contrary to the majority viewpoint, is less likely to receive support, will feel less "inclusion" among posters, and feel overwhelmed if attempting to refute or discredit the majority. This further tips posters in one direction.


All of this is just an attempt to look at TLS wisdom critically. Everyone should evaluate the source of advice before taking it. It is also entirely possible that BL is absolutely horrible and everyone hates it. This would also lead to TLS being overly negative about BL. But I think the former explanation (about sociological factors impacting the sample) is also valid to consider.

Go stalk Ray's, IAFG, and my post history. We were you. Defending the big law career move, saying it can't be that bad, and that people are just sad sack pussies.

We are posting from work. It's not like I could be watching a ball game right now.

I think one huge flaw is you assume people who stop posting when they get biglaw do it because they are having too much fun. Which is pretty ridiculous for people who continue to TLS through law school (when you have almost infinite rec time). I'd bet its exactly the opposite. People stop posting because they are too fucking busy. I only post when I'm not busy. Ray's megaposting again cause he is in a clerkship.

I'd assume people who have the time to post are probably more happy due to less work than those who don't have time.

The common wisdom on TLS was "shut up, don't complain about big law you lucky bitches, some of us don't even have jobs" until very recently. It isn't an echochamber yet.

Stop pretending you are rationally evaluating sampling bias. You are brainstorming rationalizations to discount our opinion so you can justify paying stricker at columbia.

[Elston Gunn]

Evidence: social/leisure activities -> happiness and less available time for TLS
Sadness -> lack of desire for socialization and leisure activities -> more time for TLS

This is ridiculous. How much time you spend on the internet is a terrible indicator of how happy you are.

[09042014]

Evidence: social/leisure activities -> happiness and less available time for TLS
Sadness -> lack of desire for socialization and leisure activities -> more time for TLS

This is ridiculous. How much time you spend on the internet is a terrible indicator of how happy you are.

I wouldn't go that far. It isn't coincidence that the lounge is a graveyard of preexisting marriage, but a better than Match.com for pinning together lonely nerds.

But when you throw a demanding job in the mix, it's stupid to think that happiness would cause preexisiting posters to stop. It's the hours stupid.

[rayiner]

Not at all disagreeing with anything that's been said but just curious as to what people think of as being better in terms of professional employment experiences? Many people in consulting/ibanking are miserable, "start ups" are the in thing but i'd say its mostly people chasing fluff. Again, defintely agree that it's not work going into 6 figure debt if you are going to end up beind miserable/hating your life etc., but curious to see if people have had professional experiences they genuinely loved/were excited about for longer than a 3 month internship

My friend from law school, who went to a PD's office in Miami called me one day about 6 months after starting work. She talked my ear off for half an hour about how much she loved her job. Indeed, there are times, in-between long stretches of doc review, when I loved my big law job. I'm not saying that any other professional field is categorically better. I think, on the whole, engineering startups have more happy people, but at the same time I think engineers are just happier people generally, and more prone to drinking the kool-aid wherever they are.

This sounds trite, but I criticize big law not because I think people shouldn't go to law school, but because I think people go to law school for the wrong reasons and with unrealistic expectations. They don't really know what they want to do, so they chase prestige and ranking, and work themselves into a debt situation where they have to go to that V5 just to make their loan payments. They also assume that this will be a ticket to a six-figure salary for life.

You can say that you don't actually think these things, but odds are you do, because the actions you take give away these assumptions. As a 0L, I said I didn't think these things, but the fact is that my actions manifestly give away these assumptions.

Let me break down some categories of people who I know became disillusioned with legal practice:

1) People who have an academic/intellectual bent. The cynicism and zero-sum nature of law school and legal practices destroys most of these people. If your reason for picking a school is "academia" or "clerking" then there's a high risk of falling into this category.

2) People who think it's a solid ticket to a six figure salary. I think in general these people underestimate how hard the work is, how unpleasant the coworkers are, and overestimate how good the exit options are. If the prospect of landing a $70k/year government job after a three-year stint at a V5 would make you regret going to law school, you're at risk of landing in this category.

3) People who go to law school as a default, because "the job market is bad for non-STEM majors." I think the most recent statistics have 47% of recent college graduates in jobs that require a college degree, versus 57% of recent law school graduates in jobs that require a law degree. The job market is a little bit better for lawyers, but not by much. More than anything, this reasoning shows a shocking lack of imagination. It makes no more sense to get a JD "by default" as it does to pursue a masters degree in nursing "by default."

4) People who overestimate the generality of a law degree. Unlike finance and consulting and even engineering, a law degree limits your employability more than expanding it. It's a highly specific credential, and the cost-pressures in the industry force people to specialize even more highly within particular sub-fields. It's very difficult to "pivot" to something else with a law degree. If you get a JD, and specialize in securities work (as a firm might force you to do, based on its needs), and after five years you burn out, you will only be marketable for securities lawyer roles. If you don't have a defined idea of what you want to do after a "few years in big law" you run the risk of falling into this category.

[buffalo_]

I think one huge flaw is you assume people who stop posting when they get biglaw do it because they are having too much fun. Which is pretty ridiculous for people who continue to TLS through law school (when you have almost infinite rec time). I'd bet its exactly the opposite. People stop posting because they are too fucking busy. I only post when I'm not busy. Ray's megaposting again cause he is in a clerkship.

I'd assume people who have the time to post are probably more happy due to less work than those who don't have time.

You equate busy-ness with unhappiness, which is untrue. Some of the happiest people I know are always busy running from one obligation to another and never have time to themselves. Being busy may be a contributing factor to unhappiness but it is too far to equate the two. It is possible that happy BigLawyers are not posting because they are having fun doing other things or because they don't exist. Both CAN be true. And just because less busy people (which in your argument are assumed to be happier) have more available time to post, what they choose to do with the time may be other activities that make them happy. Unless posting makes you happy, you aren't spending your free time posting just because you are less busy.

ETA: While it seems reasonable to say, in LS there are "happy" posters that are posting (not filling up their free time with other activities), the marginal cost of free time is less. When you have less free time, each available hour is more valuable, and posting on TLS might be below other things on your list. So while you would have posted in LS, since you had lots of time to go around, a lack of time means some leisure activities get sacrificed. I would guess online message boards would not be super high on the priority list of leisure activities to keep.

Additionally 0Ls and LS have a greater propensity to post than practicing lawyers (happy or otherwise) because most of the on-topics are directly targeted toward that audience. There is simply more "stuff" to read and contribute to when you are a student. I would venture to say more TLSers do not ever approach the off-topic threads. And regardless of how big the lounge is, the posts are more generic, meaning people can have the conversations with whoever they have the greatest social bonds with (which may or may not be TLSers, but regardless it provides an logical exit opportunity).

Stop pretending you are rationally evaluating sampling bias. You are brainstorming rationalizations to discount our opinion so you can justify paying stricker at columbia.

Although I disagree with your evaluation of my motives (also not paying sticker), the truth of your claim about my motives does not refute that "I am rationally evaluating sampling bias." Both can be true simultaneously.

[09042014]

I think one huge flaw is you assume people who stop posting when they get biglaw do it because they are having too much fun. Which is pretty ridiculous for people who continue to TLS through law school (when you have almost infinite rec time). I'd bet its exactly the opposite. People stop posting because they are too fucking busy. I only post when I'm not busy. Ray's megaposting again cause he is in a clerkship.

I'd assume people who have the time to post are probably more happy due to less work than those who don't have time.

You equate busy-ness with unhappiness, which is untrue. Some of the happiest people I know are always busy running from one obligation to another and never have time to themselves. Being busy may be a contributing factor to unhappiness but it is too far to equate the two. It is possible that happy BigLawyers are not posting because they are having fun doing other things or because they don't exist. Both CAN be true. And just because less busy people (which in your argument are assumed to be happier) have more available time to post, what they choose to do with the time may be other activities that make them happy. Unless posting makes you happy, you aren't spending your free time posting just because you are less busy.

Stop pretending you are rationally evaluating sampling bias. You are brainstorming rationalizations to discount our opinion so you can justify paying stricker at columbia.

Although I disagree with your evaluation of my motives (also not paying sticker), the truth of your claim about my motives does not refute that "I am rationally evaluating sampling bias." Both can be true simultaneously.

So you are going to rag on me for implying business in big law means unhappiness when you are outright stating that posting on tls means unhappiness. Ok bro. Why not apply some of your LSAT arguments to yourself next time.

Unless posting makes you happy, you aren't spending your free time posting just because you are less busy.

I clearly like posting on TLS. So that is a pretty big unless you've got yourself there.

Although I disagree with your evaluation of my motives (also not paying sticker), the truth of your claim about my motives does not refute that "I am rationally evaluating sampling bias." Both can be true simultaneously.

1) You are the AT&T of people

2) I wasn't saying that motivations prevent you rationally evaluating sampling bias. The reason I don't believe you are, is because you are only thinking of potential biases of one side the argument. While you could be doing both, you are not.

3) The opposite of batman

[buffalo_]

See my edit.

You can attack all you want. You aren't going to convince me that individuals that work a demanding job with limited free time that are happy choose to spend that limited free time posting in on-topic law school discussion forums with the same frequency as individuals that work a demanding job with limited free time that are disgruntled. It is obvious that it will skew to the disgruntled. This makes no value judgement about posting, just that there is likely to be sampling bias because people naturally like to talk about what is making them unhappy.

And heck, if posting on TLS makes you happy, then more power to you. I enjoy reading many of the posts on here and contributing when I can. It's totally fine. It's just not what most people will choose, so it is likely to be sacrificed for other activities when free time becomes a scarcer resource. I bet there would be very few single activities as specific as posting on TLS that MOST people would prefer to do. So I cannot see how this is controversial or taken as a judgement on someone's choices.

[rayiner]

You aren't going to convince me

The heart of 0L logic.

[beepboopbeep]

Just because there might be sampling bias doesn't mean the underlying sample is unskewed.

The "I bet things aren't as bad as people on here say, because we just get the unhappy ones. There must be happy biglaw associates out there!" argument is just the next step after the "I'll be well above median because I'm smart!" thing. Maybe it's true and you will be that unicorn. But assuming that basically everyone on this site who has worked in biglaw is accurately representing both their experience and that of their coworkers, you're really fighting the odds.

edit: I should've learned from the post above me. Clear this is going nowhere.

[IAFG]

You aren't going to convince me

The heart of 0L logic.

You just hate your job more intensely than all the people who aren't megaposting. If you really had any potential for success and happiness in this profession, you'd never have heard of "the Internet." brb going to go tell the partnership-track internet megaposter up the hall how fucked he actually is.

[buffalo_]

Just because there might be sampling bias doesn't mean the underlying sample is unskewed.

Have qualified every post with this.

[buffalo_]

You aren't going to convince me

The heart of 0L logic.

Out of context quoting and ad hominem attacks are sure indicators of correctness.

Those arguing against me are literally advocating the position that considering the possibility for sampling bias is wrong. I have always qualified that the underlying reality may be fully rendered by TLS. You could argue that sampling bias does not exist (as DF does with some ad hominem sprinkled in), but it would be foolish not to consider the possibility of it.

[09042014]

You aren't going to convince me

The heart of 0L logic.

Out of context quoting and ad hominem attacks are sure indicators of correctness.

Those arguing against me are literally advocating the position that considering the possibility for sampling bias is wrong. I have always qualified that the underlying reality may be fully rendered by TLS. You could argue that sampling bias does not exist (as DF does with some ad hominem sprinkled in), but it would be foolish not to consider the possibility of it.

I'm not claiming the sample is unbiased, but you have no damn idea in what manner it is biased. Unsurprisingly you are cocksure that it's biased in the direction that confirms what you want to believe.

[IAFG]

as ray already pointed out, DF, ray and I are some of the happiest firm-employed people i know from my school. if i had any reason to think i was an outlier i would probably not post about work at all.

[rayiner]

You aren't going to convince me

The heart of 0L logic.

Out of context quoting and ad hominem attacks are sure indicators of correctness.

Those arguing against me are literally advocating the position that considering the possibility for sampling bias is wrong. I have always qualified that the underlying reality may be fully rendered by TLS. You could argue that sampling bias does not exist (as DF does with some ad hominem sprinkled in), but it would be foolish not to consider the possibility of it.

Ad hominem is a fallacy in the context of pure logic. But in an empirical context, many invalid ad hominem arguments are in fact valid arguments based on credibility. It is perfectly acceptable to attack an expert witness's conclusion on the grounds that the subject under consideration is outside his particular area of expertise. That is essentially what we're doing when we point out that you're a 0L. People reading this thread shouldn't take our word as gospel just because we're practicing lawyers, but I think the fact that our opinion is informed by our circle of friends and coworkers and that your's is bare conjecture should be considered in weighing credibility.

I quote:

You aren't going to convince me that individuals that work a demanding job with limited free time that are happy choose to spend that limited free time posting in on-topic law school discussion forums with the same frequency as individuals that work a demanding job with limited free time that are disgruntled. It is obvious that it will skew to the disgruntled.

You're not simply raising the possibility of sampling bias. You're raising nothing more than the bare possibility, and then asserting that it's "obvious" that posts will skew negative, and that you won't be convinced otherwise.

As an aside, your point about "limited free time" makes little sense in ways that would be obvious to you if you weren't a 0L. Why do you think it's the case you can work a twelve hour day in big law and bill five or six hours? There's a limited range of things you can do with downtime at a law firm, and being snarky on the internet is IMHO, more fun than serial watching shows on Netflix and less expensive than compulsive online shopping.

[dcpanther]

.

[SemperLegal]

I don't think anyone can seriously argue that being in Biglaw isn't objectively terrible. Every poster here says it, ATL says it, and nearly every Business Insider/Forbes/US News study lists them among the least happy. Hell, even the smallest bit of logic tells you that to do doc review and other monkey work for 160k, when applicants are desperate for work, proves that Biglaw is terrible. The only good thing is the money.

The issue is that if you take out 6 figures of debt, the high-pay incentive is being massively disincentiveed by the increasing loan payments.

Yale at 200k is 100% the wrong choice because you can't deduct student loan payments and end up losing $24k of AFTER tax money. The better chance at clerkships don't really improve it unless you want to be a federal judge (which is a dumb dream).

If your family is willing to foot the bill, make them pay for something useful or let them keep their hard earned money.

[IAFG]

I don't think anyone can seriously argue that being in Biglaw isn't objectively terrible.

Funnily enough, all of the posters buffalo_ is annoyed with have a more nuanced (and biglaw-positive) view than this.

[rayiner]

My friend from law school, who went to a PD's office in Miami called me one day about 6 months after starting work. She talked my ear off for half an hour about how much she loved her job. Indeed, there are times, in-between long stretches of doc review, when I loved my big law job. I'm not saying that any other professional field is categorically better. I think, on the whole, engineering startups have more happy people, but at the same time I think engineers are just happier people generally, and more prone to drinking the kool-aid wherever they are....

Thanks for the response. I agree that as a 0L I am guilty of assuming away a lot (e.g. work is pretty mediocre now, so why not get paid 6 figures to do it). I guess I'm wondering what the "reasonable" expectation regarding professional satisfaction should be for a prospective law school student. If you've worked for a few years prior, you can compare it to the industry(ies) you've been in, but otherwise what should you base your choice on? I'd venture that most people who leave law school end up doing something in biglaw and that at least half of those people either came in with vague ideas of PI, government, corporate counsel, etc.

This is the hard part, and I don't know if I have a good answer. At one level, it's easy to say that half the people who go to law school shouldn't, for the simple fact that only 57% get bar-required legal jobs, and it's pretty easy to figure out based on school rank if you're in a high-risk pool for not getting a job.

Going a couple of levels forward, I think most people who go into private practice won't really enjoy making a 20+ year career out of it, and a sizable minority won't get something that they really enjoy after a stint in private practice. But how do you figure out if there is a high-risk you'll fall into that group? I don't think at that level you can rely on firm rank or anything like that.

I think at the very least, there should be someone concrete you can point to where you can say "I'd really enjoy having his job." Preferably, more than one someone. Then you figure out what he did to get where he is, and if that path is still tractable given the changes in the job market in the intervening decades.

This doesn't sound like much, but I'd say the majority of 0L's don't have this much insight into what they want to do. That's why they say things like "I'd like to do a few years in big law" or "I'd like to clerk." Those are rest stops on a highway, not a career, and saying you're going to law school to do those things is like saying "I'm off to hit up the Maryland House on Exit 57B."

[09042014]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgSJUzYCGtc

Buffalo, what are your thoughts on this video.

[buffalo_]

Ad hominem is a fallacy in the context of pure logic. But in an empirical context, many invalid ad hominem arguments are in fact valid arguments based on credibility. It is perfectly acceptable to attack an expert witness's conclusion on the grounds that the subject under consideration is outside his particular area of expertise. That is essentially what we're doing when we point out that you're a 0L. People reading this thread shouldn't take our word as gospel just because we're practicing lawyers, but I think the fact that our opinion is informed by our circle of friends and coworkers and that your's is bare conjecture should be considered in weighing credibility.

I agree with this, my opinion should not carry the weight of those with more information and experience. I guess all I can say is that OP's post was saying "look at how miserable this guy is, therefore law school is only worth $90K, unless you have rich parents." I was taking issue with using "this guy" or posts like the one's by "this guy" as the reasoning for saying the debt isn't worth it. And in that context, sampling bias is a worthwhile consideration. I regret if I moved the debate to the sampling bias of TLS posters in general and away from posters like the one OP cited. But I think it is not unreasonable to argue there is sampling bias among those who would anonymously start new topics that state how good or bad big law is. There isn't really much reason to create a "I LOVE BIGLAW SO MUCH" post, there isn't an audience that would gain from it. It's not crazy to think a disgruntled person is more likely to create an analogous "I HATE MY LIFE" post.

As an aside, your point about "limited free time" makes little sense in ways that would be obvious to you if you weren't a 0L. Why do you think it's the case you can work a twelve hour day in big law and bill five or six hours? There's a limited range of things you can do with downtime at a law firm, and being snarky on the internet is IMHO, more fun than serial watching shows on Netflix and less expensive than compulsive online shopping.

I could have also been more clear about this. I was intending "free time" to mean time out of the office. I understand that there are obviously limited activities one can do when they have downtime and need to be in the office.

[rayiner]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgSJUzYCGtc

Buffalo, what are your thoughts on this video.

Holy shit. Don't just listen to the words, but pay attention to their intonation, word choice, facial expressions, and vocal pauses. The first guy uses the word "nice" which is something I found myself compulsively using in big law (along with "interesting") to mean "not terrible." The woman uses the word "fulfilling" in the same way. The second guy has this huge pause as he's thinking of how to phrase things, and hedges with "on the balance."

[IAFG]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgSJUzYCGtc

Buffalo, what are your thoughts on this video.

Holy shit. Don't just listen to the words, but pay attention to their intonation, word choice, facial expressions, and vocal pauses. The first guy uses the word "nice" which is something I found myself compulsively using in big law (along with "interesting") to mean "not terrible." The woman uses the word "fulfilling" in the same way. The second guy has this huge pause as he's thinking of how to phrase things, and hedges with "on the balance."

And then the woman died of a heart-related issue.