I want to make a lot of money. T1 with $$ or reapply Forum

[vanwinkle]

Year off and reapply.

This. Late apps + WLs at T14s = "we would take you if we had space".

[Stanford4Me]

Year off and reapply.

This. Late apps + WLs at T14s = "we would take you if we had space".

[vanwinkle]

Fair enough. The point remains the same...for the pure pursuit of cash, law school isn't the best choice.

I think this is true.

I was at a CB at a firm (and this was a big, V20-type firm) and ended up in a long conversation with a partner about pay, hours, work, etc. It was wonderfully candid (and probably why they didn't make me an offer) but what he ended up saying to me was, "If you do the math on how many hours you have to put in here, most associates end up making an hourly wage not much more than they could get in a number of other fields, and most don't make it to partner. This isn't something you should try to get into because you like the money. If you want to be wealthy, you have to go work for yourself, because entrepreneurship is where the real money is. This... you'd better have another, better reason for doing this."

[Patriot1208]

If you want models and bottles, get an MBA. Law ain't for you.

Except most MBA's make less than biglaw.

[MrPapagiorgio]

If you want models and bottles, get an MBA. Law ain't for you.

Except most MBA's make less than biglaw.

In the beginning, sure, no other degree but a JD can offer $160,000 to start in a field in which you have no experience. But longer term, especially when the chances of you making partner are taken into consideration, MBA would probably be a better choice.

But if you're ultimate point is that entrepreneurship/small business start-up is greater than either MBA and JD, then you're absolutely correct.

[Patriot1208]

If you want models and bottles, get an MBA. Law ain't for you.

Except most MBA's make less than biglaw.

In the beginning, sure, no other degree but a JD can offer $160,000 to start in a field in which you have no experience. But longer term, especially when the chances of you making partner are taken into consideration, MBA would probably be a better choice.

Not really, unless we are limiting this to about 6-10 mba programs. Most MBA's will be stuck in middle management making just over 100k for most of their lives. Over a lifetime this is probably less than those who started in biglaw.

ETA I agree start ups is the best chance at making the most money, but a vast majority of people in start ups will flame out without making much money as well.

[FiveSermon]

If you want models and bottles, get an MBA. Law ain't for you.

Except most MBA's make less than biglaw.

Comparing MBA to biglaw is unfair. Most lawyers don't end up in biglaw.

[Patriot1208]

If you want models and bottles, get an MBA. Law ain't for you.

Except most MBA's make less than biglaw.

Comparing MBA to biglaw is unfair. Most lawyers don't end up in biglaw.

Sure but an MBA, as far as future income, is about as big of a gamble as LS is. The top schools provide the vast majority of the consulting, banking, finance, and top industry jobs. Outside of the top mba programs the top students have an opportunity for some of these high earning jobs and the rest go to pretty normal jobs. It's pretty much the same exact structure. Sure, an MBA on average may make more than a JD on average, but not by much.

[vanwinkle]

In the beginning, sure, no other degree but a JD can offer $160,000 to start in a field in which you have no experience.

1) For the vast majority of the 40,000 law school graduates each year, a JD cannot offer $160,000 to start, period.

2) That is not a stable wage. You are not being offered a wage that high and an understanding that as long as you perform adequately you will continue seeing periodic raises in income and job security. Every other field that offers high starting wages offers a more stable employment structure. The $160K/salary is premised in part on the knowledge that the majority of those who begin working there will work at that salary (or marginally higher, with "step" increases) for a few years and then exit or be pushed out. Many who leave never end up at that salary level again.

3) Is the ability to make $160K+ for 3-4 years worth $160K+ in debt? By the time you've paid off the loans you needed to get the degree in the first place, you're likely to be on your way out the door. That's about 6-7 years of your life to gain a lot of valuable legal experience but end up losing your high income just as you were getting ahead.

"But I can get $160K with a JD!" is a great way to prove you don't know what you're getting yourself into.

[MrPapagiorgio]

In the beginning, sure, no other degree but a JD can offer $160,000 to start in a field in which you have no experience.

1) For the vast majority of the 40,000 law school graduates each year, a JD cannot offer $160,000 to start, period.

2) That is not a stable wage. You are not being offered a wage that high and an understanding that as long as you perform adequately you will continue seeing periodic raises in income and job security. Every other field that offers high starting wages offers a more stable employment structure. The $160K/salary is premised in part on the knowledge that the majority of those who begin working there will work at that salary (or marginally higher, with "step" increases) for a few years and then exit or be pushed out. Many who leave never end up at that salary level again.

3) Is the ability to make $160K+ for 3-4 years worth $160K+ in debt? By the time you've paid off the loans you needed to get the degree in the first place, you're likely to be on your way out the door. That's about 6-7 years of your life to gain a lot of valuable legal experience but end up losing your high income just as you were getting ahead.

"But I can get $160K with a JD!" is a great way to prove you don't know what you're getting yourself into.

Ok I never intended for that statement to require such a detailed analysis. It was a simple statement, meaning that JD's, with no prior work experience, can give one the opportunity (obviously not for the majority, but the possibility exists) to make $160K the first year out but this is not a viable long-term option for many, which is why my next sentence advocated an MBA over a JD for long-term money making (which is what OP is focused on).

[vanwinkle]

Ok I never intended for that statement to require such a detailed analysis. It was a simple statement, meaning that JD's, with no prior work experience, can give one the opportunity (obviously not for the majority, but the possibility exists) to make $160K the first year out but this is not a viable long-term option for many, which is why my next sentence advocated an MBA over a JD for long-term money making (which is what OP is focused on).

Well, we can agree on that. I was more trying to address OP's apparent belief through that anyway.

[MrPapagiorgio]

Ok I never intended for that statement to require such a detailed analysis. It was a simple statement, meaning that JD's, with no prior work experience, can give one the opportunity (obviously not for the majority, but the possibility exists) to make $160K the first year out but this is not a viable long-term option for many, which is why my next sentence advocated an MBA over a JD for long-term money making (which is what OP is focused on).

Well, we can agree on that. I was more trying to address OP's apparent belief through that anyway.

Oh, I thought this:

"But I can get $160K with a JD!" is a great way to prove you don't know what you're getting yourself into.

was directed at me. Just wanted some clarity.

[BarbellDreams]

Law school wont give you a great shot at money, but you have heard that from a lot of people in this thread already. Its very true, but if you're still sticking with law school then I would do this:

I would wait a year and work at a job that pays the most you can get, save up as much as possible and reapply on September 1st. Go to the school with the best placement stats you can get into in the T14 and use whatever money you saved to at least help with the debt for 1L. This doesn't by ANY MEANS guarantee biglaw or midlaw, but I think its the best route you have given the situation, stats, desires, etc.

[Patriot1208]

I feel the need to point out that all only on a website like TLS do you people talking about being in the top 1% of lifetime earnings in one of the richest countries in the world as "not making that much". There certainly is a large gap between those at the very top and those who make the top 1% cut off, but it's still rich by any objective measure.

[Flips88]

I'm guessing your doucheness shined through on your app and hence why you're WLd everywhere. with a 172 or 173 and a 3.45 you should at least be getting in to GULC, Cornell, probably Duke. You also probably should've gotten a full ride from WUSTL.

Like everyone else said, there's a shit load of other ways to make money. Find one.

[MrPapagiorgio]

I feel the need to point out that all only on a website like TLS do you people talking about being in the top 1% of lifetime earnings in one of the richest countries in the world as "not making that much". There certainly is a large gap between those at the very top and those who make the top 1% cut off, but it's still rich by any objective measure.

Depends on how you want to live. A couple hundred thousand in NYC is more than enough to live comfortably. But if you're goal is to live like a baller (private jet, phantom w/driver, 3000 sqft. penthouse apartment/upper east side townhouse), that isn't enough. It's all about what you consider "rich." At the tippy top of the 1%, sure, they are objectively rich. But making $500,000 isn't rich to everyone. Will it be comfortable? Yes. Will everyone be happy with it? No.

[Patriot1208]

I feel the need to point out that all only on a website like TLS do you people talking about being in the top 1% of lifetime earnings in one of the richest countries in the world as "not making that much". There certainly is a large gap between those at the very top and those who make the top 1% cut off, but it's still rich by any objective measure.

Depends on how you want to live. A couple hundred thousand in NYC is more than enough to live comfortably. But if you're goal is to live like a baller (private jet, phantom w/driver, 3000 sqft. penthouse apartment/upper east side townhouse), that isn't enough. It's all about what you consider "rich." At the tippy top of the 1%, sure, they are objectively rich. But making $500,000 isn't rich to everyone. Will it be comfortable? Yes. Will everyone be happy with it? No.

The point is that how you want to live isn't actually taken into account when determining if someone is rich or not. Everyone wants more money, including those making seven figures. You are still rich by any objective measure whether you are happy with that or not.

[Flips88]

I feel the need to point out that all only on a website like TLS do you people talking about being in the top 1% of lifetime earnings in one of the richest countries in the world as "not making that much". There certainly is a large gap between those at the very top and those who make the top 1% cut off, but it's still rich by any objective measure.

Depends on how you want to live. A couple hundred thousand in NYC is more than enough to live comfortably. But if you're goal is to live like a baller (private jet, phantom w/driver, 3000 sqft. penthouse apartment/upper east side townhouse), that isn't enough. It's all about what you consider "rich." At the tippy top of the 1%, sure, they are objectively rich. But making $500,000 isn't rich to everyone. Will it be comfortable? Yes. Will everyone be happy with it? No.

$500,000/yr makes you rich. It is absurd to think otherwise.

[JOThompson]

Year off and reapply.

And apply early next time!

[vanwinkle]

$500,000/yr makes you rich. It is absurd to think otherwise.

I dunno, a prominent part of one political party seems to think otherwise. It can't be absurd to think otherwise, unless that means that they're all being ... Ohhhhh.

[bk1]

$500,000/yr makes you rich. It is absurd to think otherwise.

I dunno, a prominent part of one political party seems to think otherwise. It can't be absurd to think otherwise, unless that means that they're all being ... Ohhhhh.

[Verity]

Ok I never intended for that statement to require such a detailed analysis. It was a simple statement, meaning that JD's, with no prior work experience, can give one the opportunity (obviously not for the majority, but the possibility exists) to make $160K the first year out but this is not a viable long-term option for many, which is why my next sentence advocated an MBA over a JD for long-term money making (which is what OP is focused on).

Well, we can agree on that. I was more trying to address OP's apparent belief through that anyway.

If you're so pessimistic about this, why are you studying law? Are you a JD/MBA?

[Patriot1208]

Ok I never intended for that statement to require such a detailed analysis. It was a simple statement, meaning that JD's, with no prior work experience, can give one the opportunity (obviously not for the majority, but the possibility exists) to make $160K the first year out but this is not a viable long-term option for many, which is why my next sentence advocated an MBA over a JD for long-term money making (which is what OP is focused on).

Well, we can agree on that. I was more trying to address OP's apparent belief through that anyway.

If you're so pessimistic about this, why are you studying law? Are you a JD/MBA?

Because he goes to Harvard so he isn't so worried about what the rest of us need to worry about.

[bartleby]

so if you graduated UG with a liberal arts major and don't want to work/can't get a job at starbucks, would law school still be a bad investment?

[bk1]

so if you graduated UG with a liberal arts major and don't want to work/can't get a job at starbucks, would law school still be a bad investment?

If you can't get a job at Starbucks or find gainful employment, I think there is something wrong with you (unless you live in bumfucknowheresville where there are very few jobs). Considering that you are the source of the problem, I don't think law school is going to change that.