Not going to T6 law school with scholarship to pursue other careers Forum

[tbird12345]

In this application cycle I was fortunate to have received a full-tuition scholarship from a T6 law school. But over the summer, I thought about whether I should go to law school at all because long-term employment prospects are still risky. After their 3-4 year stint at a law firm, many associates cannot find an in-house or government job, and have to change careers. I got my bachelors this year, and it would be easier to change paths now to a more stable field like actuarial science or health care rather than later if I cannot obtain long-term legal employment and have to explain why I am switching from the legal field. I am more interested in the law (like using logic and crafting arguments), but the most important factor for me is having a stable income and being able to raise a family. Do you have any advice for me?

[rpupkin]

In this application cycle I was fortunate to have received a full-tuition scholarship from a T6 law school. But over the summer, I thought about whether I should go to law school at all because long-term employment prospects are still risky. After their 3-4 year stint at a law firm, many associates cannot find an in-house or government job, and have to change careers. I got my bachelors this year, and it would be easier to change paths now to a more stable field like actuarial science or health care rather than later if I cannot obtain long-term legal employment and have to explain why I am switching from the legal field. I am more interested in the law (like using logic and crafting arguments), but the most important factor for me is having a stable income and being able to raise a family. Do you have any advice for me?

Don't go to law school if you don't want to, but the bolded isn't generally true for graduates of T6 law schools.

And while there's nothing wrong with being a paper pusher in actuarial science or health care, you're probably going to make less money than you would as a paper pusher in the law. I think there are good reasons to avoid law as a career path (most law jobs involve a lot of work), but as a non-STEM major with a full ride to a T6, you're probably costing yourself a fair bit of income over the course of your career by pursuing something else. Again, there's nothing wrong with that, but don't delude yourself into thinking that you are likely to make more money in another career.

[TheSpanishMain]

In this application cycle I was fortunate to have received a full-tuition scholarship from a T6 law school. But over the summer, I thought about whether I should go to law school at all because long-term employment prospects are still risky. After their 3-4 year stint at a law firm, many associates cannot find an in-house or government job, and have to change careers. I got my bachelors this year, and it would be easier to change paths now to a more stable field like actuarial science or health care rather than later if I cannot obtain long-term legal employment and have to explain why I am switching from the legal field. I am more interested in the law (like using logic and crafting arguments), but the most important factor for me is having a stable income and being able to raise a family. Do you have any advice for me?

I applaud you for being cautious, and I'm generally pretty risk averse, but a free law degree from Chicago/Columbia/NYU is a pretty damn good deal.

I'd consider maybe deferring for a year and thinking it over. If you decide not to go, that's fine. If you got a full ride to a T6 school, you presumably have great credentials and will find something else.

[star fox]

Do whatever you want

[krads153]

The question is - what do you want to do with your life? If you don't want to work in an office 12 hours a day, or whatever, then don't go to law school.

Law degrees are not IMO "versatile". Only go to law school if you want to be a lawyer.

Many people leave practice after biglaw because they realize they don't like being a lawyer. I think that explains a bunch of people who leave the law after working at a firm - they just don't like it. Anecdotally, maybe around 1/4 to 1/3 of the people I know who left large firms have left law entirely.

if you want a 9 to 5 job that leaves more time for having a family, I'd also caution against going into law. Firms almost never have those hours, and a lot of public interest jobs require longer hours than 9 to 5. Only jobs that may offer those hours are government and some in house jobs (and not even most). In a lot of in house jobs you still have to work 10 hours a day.

So for QOL purposes, if you want more free time, don't go into law.

[Johann]

I'd roll the actuary way. Much more flexibility in quality of life, great money, and you can live wherever. Being an actuary is basically just as lucrative as a lawyer if you arent at a lockstep firm in a major city. Something that does not get factored in nearly enough is if you want to be a lawyer and make money, you basically have to commit yourself to a city.

[thesealocust]

After their 3-4 year stint at a law firm, many associates cannot find an in-house or government job, and have to change careers.

What on earth made you think this? While nobody is guaranteed a job for life, most people that leave their first law firm land at a new job of their choosing. Some people deliberately move further from the profession, but the lateral market is pretty hot and it's a blatant misrepresentation to say "many associates cannot find an in-house or government job." Source: graduated law school three years ago and am aware of my surroundings.

[krads153]

I'd roll the actuary way. Much more flexibility in quality of life, great money, and you can live wherever. Being an actuary is basically just as lucrative as a lawyer if you arent at a lockstep firm in a major city. Something that does not get factored in nearly enough is if you want to be a lawyer and make money, you basically have to commit yourself to a city.

Isn't it really hard to pass the actuary exams (there's something like 6 to 9 of them, I believe)?

[crazycanuck]

I had the numbers to get into top programs (176/3. but didn't go to law school and it was the best decision I never made.

Take some time off and work and explore career options. See what you like and what you don't like. Your LSAT score is good for a while. Dot go because you feel like you have to.

[Lawdood]

It's free.

DO IT.

It will help you in any career you decide to do later.

[koalacity]

It's free.

DO IT.

It will help you in any career you decide to do later.

Just want to point out that this poster literally just graduated high school. HIGH SCHOOL.

Seriously, do not give career advice to anyone here when you haven't even started your freshman year of college yet.

[Hornet2011]

It's ultimately your call -- and I know you probably know already to do this but I think it is worth stating nonetheless -- but please be sure to decline very respectfully if that is the route you choose to take. In my personal opinion, (and anybody is free to disagree with me) I would give a personal phone call and give some quality reasons why you are declining. This will not only help you if you to decide to apply again in the future but I think you "owe" it to the school since they have been counting on you this whole time.

[omegaweapon]

It's free.

DO IT.

It will help you in any career you decide to do later.

Three years of your life and lost income aren't free bro.

[Elston Gunn]

It's ultimately your call -- and I know you probably know already to do this but I think it is worth stating nonetheless -- but please be sure to decline very respectfully if that is the route you choose to take. In my personal opinion, (and anybody is free to disagree with me) I would give a personal phone call and give some quality reasons why you are declining. This will not only help you if you to decide to apply again in the future but I think you "owe" it to the school since they have been counting on you this whole time.

what?

[Hornet2011]

I am not implying that the poster "owes" anything to the school, thus the quotation marks, but since deposits have already been paid and given the significant amount of merit aid allotted to this student that could have gone to others earlier and helped secure a stronger class for this school, I believe having a respectful and polite conversation regarding the reasons for withdrawing is the most likely way for this poster to mitigate being looked negatively upon In future cycles.

[BizBro]

I am not implying that the poster "owes" anything to the school, thus the quotation marks, but since deposits have already been paid and given the significant amount of merit aid allotted to this student that could have gone to others earlier and helped secure a stronger class for this school, I believe having a respectful and polite conversation regarding the reasons for withdrawing is the most likely way for this poster to mitigate being looked negatively upon In future cycles.

Lol you don't turn down a full ride T6 and apply to later cycles. I'd recommend not going if you are not interested in the life styles mentioned above. But if you do decide to go in the future, not sure if you'll be offered another T6 full ride (at least by the same school). I might be wrong as I don't have any data, statistical or anecdotal, but it might be something to consider.

[tbird12345]

Thank you for all of the thoughtful responses so far. I'm still looking at what other things I can do instead of going to law school.

In this application cycle I was fortunate to have received a full-tuition scholarship from a T6 law school. But over the summer, I thought about whether I should go to law school at all because long-term employment prospects are still risky. After their 3-4 year stint at a law firm, many associates cannot find an in-house or government job, and have to change careers. I got my bachelors this year, and it would be easier to change paths now to a more stable field like actuarial science or health care rather than later if I cannot obtain long-term legal employment and have to explain why I am switching from the legal field. I am more interested in the law (like using logic and crafting arguments), but the most important factor for me is having a stable income and being able to raise a family. Do you have any advice for me?

I applaud you for being cautious, and I'm generally pretty risk averse, but a free law degree from Chicago/Columbia/NYU is a pretty damn good deal.

I'd consider maybe deferring for a year and thinking it over. If you decide not to go, that's fine. If you got a full ride to a T6 school, you presumably have great credentials and will find something else.

I talked to the school and while it said I can defer my acceptance, I can't defer my scholarship.

After their 3-4 year stint at a law firm, many associates cannot find an in-house or government job, and have to change careers.

What on earth made you think this? While nobody is guaranteed a job for life, most people that leave their first law firm land at a new job of their choosing. Some people deliberately move further from the profession, but the lateral market is pretty hot and it's a blatant misrepresentation to say "many associates cannot find an in-house or government job." Source: graduated law school three years ago and am aware of my surroundings.

In your experience, how long do people stay at their BigLaw firm? What percent of people are forced out of the law (they want to stay indefinitely in BigLaw or lateral somewhere else, but are not hired)? I'm a 0L and not informed about the legal market, so I would like to know some numbers.

I'd roll the actuary way. Much more flexibility in quality of life, great money, and you can live wherever. Being an actuary is basically just as lucrative as a lawyer if you arent at a lockstep firm in a major city. Something that does not get factored in nearly enough is if you want to be a lawyer and make money, you basically have to commit yourself to a city.

Isn't it really hard to pass the actuary exams (there's something like 6 to 9 of them, I believe)?

I'm decent at math, so I think it will be OK.

I am not implying that the poster "owes" anything to the school, thus the quotation marks, but since deposits have already been paid and given the significant amount of merit aid allotted to this student that could have gone to others earlier and helped secure a stronger class for this school, I believe having a respectful and polite conversation regarding the reasons for withdrawing is the most likely way for this poster to mitigate being looked negatively upon In future cycles.

What reasons should I give for withdrawing? I don't think the school would like this reason where I say I'm unsure about whether law school is for me after I applied and they bought what I wrote in my personal statement.

[KMart]

It's free.

DO IT.

It will help you in any career you decide to do later.

Please stop giving advice for the next 5 years.

[thesealocust]

In your experience, how long do people stay at their BigLaw firm? What percent of people are forced out of the law (they want to stay indefinitely in BigLaw or lateral somewhere else, but are not hired)? I'm a 0L and not informed about the legal market, so I would like to know some numbers.

It's very firm, region, and practice area dependent - but attrition picks up significantly starting around the two year mark, and by the end of year three roughly half the associates have moved on from the biggest firms (which are the easiest to see the data from). But lots of them move to other law firms, and few - if any - are leaving involuntarily that soon.

There are exceptions on an individual level, exceptions for firms that hit financial difficulties, etc. - but the high attrition rate in biglaw is by and large (a) voluntary and (b) comes with a good to great job change for whoever is leaving the firm. A lot of employers simply don't hire fresh law school grads because they know there will be so many refuges coming out of biglaw - there are lots of places to go after your first firm gig.

I'm pretty comfortable saying almost nobody is "forced out of the law" (by your standard of wanting to stay, then trying but not getting hired). Surely some struggle, and during harder economic times it was different, but these days the lateral markets are actually pretty hot.

Your mental model for biglaw should be that people don't stay long, but not that their career is over when they leave. Even at "up or out" firms, (a) most departures are voluntary rather than being pushed out and (b) the firms really do provide support finding future jobs and often give you months to stay employed while looking.

[Desert Fox]

[thesealocust]

Yep - plus, I think the most common move for juniors I saw was big firm X to big firm Y.

[Desert Fox]

[thesealocust]

Yep - plus, I think the most common move for juniors I saw was big firm X to big firm Y.

That's really only a stopgap. Sure, it means that the 50% attrition by year three is misleading (since they lateral to another firm), but the number of senior associate jobs are way lower than junior.

True, but it's partially structural - it's clear there are a crop of firms that rarely hire laterals but hire shitloads of law students, and other firms that hire few or no law students but shitloads of laterals. So there are still more juniors than seniors, but there are more seniors than you would expect if you're only thinking about the Skaddens of the world.

[Desert Fox]

[krads153]

I'd roll the actuary way. Much more flexibility in quality of life, great money, and you can live wherever. Being an actuary is basically just as lucrative as a lawyer if you arent at a lockstep firm in a major city. Something that does not get factored in nearly enough is if you want to be a lawyer and make money, you basically have to commit yourself to a city.

Isn't it really hard to pass the actuary exams (there's something like 6 to 9 of them, I believe)?

I'm decent at math, so I think it will be OK.

My friend has a PhD in math from MIT and was bitching about the actuary exams (and instead became a CFA)....I don't know if it was because there's too many exams or whatever (not sure all of them are even quant), but apparently even Math PhDs from MIT bitch about actuary exams.