JD Unemployment Reaches New High (15%) Forum

[UVAIce]

This all just reminds me that if I wash out of big law my plan is to go into IT. The problem with law, at least for our generation, is that if you trip up at any stage of the process you're essentially hosed. You have to go to the right law school (do well on the LSAT), do relatively well while you're at the right law school, interview well at your law school's OCI, get an offer over the summer, do relatively well as a young associate so you have some kind of stable exit options. Oh, and if at any point and time during this process the economy crumbles, the firm you chose decides to implode, or any other black swan out of our control then you're stock with a lot of debt and fairly meager job opportunities.

To put this in statistical terms, let's say that you have an 80% chance of being successful at every stage of the process, which is probably being a little too optimistic. For this five stage process, you have a roughly 33% chance of making out like a bandit. I would not gamble at that casino - but wait, I have!

I think people who want to be attorneys should go to law school; it should not be your backup plan to make $$$ because your undergrad degree didn't pan out. There are other options that are both cheaper and have a higher probability of leading to $$.

meh. i'm sure I would rather be a city prosecutor/small law entrepreneur/bottom-barrel legal job than IT or any comparable technical job.

I always thought the kind of people who go into IT are the exact opposite of those that go into law in that they like more technical/analytical stuff and don't have to worry so much about writing, interpretation, rhetoric, business, deals, etc.

$$ should not be the main objective in whatever career you choose.

Want money? be a bartender for a few years and save up 50k. buy a subway, collect the 50-80k in profit per year until you can buy more subways, rinse and repeat.

Have you ever seen what a city prosecutor/small law entrepreneur/doc review guy has to do?

I also love your business strategy, here is mine: buy out of the money puts one year our, market crashes, profit.

[starry eyed]

This all just reminds me that if I wash out of big law my plan is to go into IT. The problem with law, at least for our generation, is that if you trip up at any stage of the process you're essentially hosed. You have to go to the right law school (do well on the LSAT), do relatively well while you're at the right law school, interview well at your law school's OCI, get an offer over the summer, do relatively well as a young associate so you have some kind of stable exit options. Oh, and if at any point and time during this process the economy crumbles, the firm you chose decides to implode, or any other black swan out of our control then you're stock with a lot of debt and fairly meager job opportunities.

To put this in statistical terms, let's say that you have an 80% chance of being successful at every stage of the process, which is probably being a little too optimistic. For this five stage process, you have a roughly 33% chance of making out like a bandit. I would not gamble at that casino - but wait, I have!

I think people who want to be attorneys should go to law school; it should not be your backup plan to make $$$ because your undergrad degree didn't pan out. There are other options that are both cheaper and have a higher probability of leading to $$.

meh. i'm sure I would rather be a city prosecutor/small law entrepreneur/bottom-barrel legal job than IT or any comparable technical job.

I always thought the kind of people who go into IT are the exact opposite of those that go into law in that they like more technical/analytical stuff and don't have to worry so much about writing, interpretation, rhetoric, business, deals, etc.

$$ should not be the main objective in whatever career you choose.

Want money? be a bartender for a few years and save up 50k. buy a subway, collect the 50-80k in profit per year until you can buy more subways, rinse and repeat.

Have you ever seen what a city prosecutor/small law entrepreneur/doc review guy has to do?

I also love your business strategy, here is mine: buy out of the money puts one year our, market crashes, profit.

whoa, i pump the breaks on doc review.- i just meant what others might call shit law

my point is in order to make real money... that requires ownership.

in fairness...smart management makes the subways a million times safer than gambling on options lol

[PeanutsNJam]

in order to make real money... that requires ownership.

This is true. Your "invest 50k for 50k/year return in Subway" is not. It's more like invest 100k in a startup, pray really hard, and in 10 years, if that company goes public, sell your equity for tens of millions of dollars.

Or, start your own business, pray really hard, and in 10 years, if your company goes public, sunbathe on a yacht while you stress about how to spend your money.

[starry eyed]

in order to make real money... that requires ownership.

This is true. Your "invest 50k for 50k/year return in Subway" is not. It's more like invest 100k in a startup, pray really hard, and in 10 years, if that company goes public, sell your equity for tens of millions of dollars.

Or, start your own business, pray really hard, and in 10 years, if your company goes public, sunbathe on a yacht while you stress about how to spend your money.

or somehow raise enough capital to buy an established brand name franchise... much less risk.

yea subway would require more like 200-300k investment, but you if you have 25% you can get loans. reason i use subway as an example is bc it is one of the cheapest franchise options
Entrepreneurship is not just go big or go home

[AReasonableMan]

UVAIce is correct. If you understand the market you can make much more in the stock market, it's much safer and you would save a lot of time. The idea Subway is a sure fire way to make profits is false. It's a good option if you and four friends immigrate to the US from a developing country with no advanced degree, struggle to speak English, are largely unemployable outside of minimum wage jobs and each have 10k in savings.

You are essentially paying Subway about 12% of what you make, a 15k downpayment franchise fee and are responsible for the improvements. If you ever breach the agreement in any way, Subway can revoke the agreement and keep your money. What's more is any creative idea you have becomes Subway property. For example, if the guy in Florida who invented the $5 footlong pitch had run his own whole in the wall in the hospital with other crappy $3/pound meat, he'd be a multimillionaire. Want to create a new veggie option with falafel and have tahini sauce available for every sandwich? That's now Subway's property, and not yours. Subway could have the franchisee down the block have the same stuff, and can also control how much you charge for it.

You're bound by all promotions, and you're also banking on Subway remaining #1 for the foreseeable future. Their pitch is essentially healthy sandwiches for cheap. In the past year we've seen the end of the $5 footlong, and disclosures of the fact that Subway's meat uses a ton of fillers and that their bread even has the same fillers found in yoga mats. In most places Subway is more expensive than much better sandwiches, and if you look at the profitability by city, you'll see they're doing well in large cities where the real estate and thus the risk are much higher.

[starry eyed]

UVAIce is correct. If you understand the market you can make much more in the stock market, it's much safer and you would save a lot of time. The idea Subway is a sure fire way to make profits is false. It's a good option if you and four friends immigrate to the US from a developing country with no advanced degree, struggle to speak English, are largely unemployable outside of minimum wage jobs and each have 10k in savings.

You are essentially paying Subway about 12% of what you make, a 15k downpayment franchise fee and are responsible for the improvements. If you ever breach the agreement in any way, Subway can revoke the agreement and keep your money. What's more is any creative idea you have becomes Subway property. For example, if the guy in Florida who invented the $5 footlong pitch had run his own whole in the wall in the hospital with other crappy $3/pound meat, he'd be a multimillionaire. Want to create a new veggie option with falafel and have tahini sauce available for every sandwich? That's now Subway's property, and not yours. Subway could have the franchisee down the block have the same stuff, and can also control how much you charge for it.

You're bound by all promotions, and you're also banking on Subway remaining #1 for the foreseeable future. Their pitch is essentially healthy sandwiches for cheap. In the past year we've seen the end of the $5 footlong, and disclosures of the fact that Subway's meat uses a ton of fillers and that their bread even has the same fillers found in yoga mats. In most places Subway is more expensive than much better sandwiches, and if you look at the profitability by city, you'll see they're doing well in large cities where the real estate and thus the risk are much higher.

yea subway imo will on the downward trend in a few years. While they have the convenient factor nailed, consumers are demanding quality/transparent ingredients, and they aren't getting that from subway.
Fast-casual is hurting sit down restaurants and fast food and i think that's where the best investments lay- chipotle, pei wei, pizza locale etc.

[starry eyed]

and how can you make more in the stock market when you don't have access to the same information as the wall st traders/hedge funds/ i banks etc. Even those guys don't beat the s and p 500.

It's a safe way to make a ~10% yearly return

[PeanutsNJam]

10% is very optimistic. It's closer to 5%. By 5% I mean just dumping money into a mutual fund.

I read a few investing books. It's all about long-term (10+ years) planning and a lot of patience, as well as learning to fight popular opinion. Once something is publicly known to be making money, it's too late (California Gold Rush).

Oh, you can get rich from the stock market. Invest 1k/month (smart-ly) into a very diverse portfolio (stocks, funds, bonds), and you'll have like 1 mil in assets in ~10 years. It compounds from there, so in your 40's you'll be pretty rich I guess. Somewhere along the line, invest half a mil into a budding company, let that turn into 7 figures, and there's your yacht. But you basically have to graduate debt free, get biglaw, and then invest most of your income, so you live your 20's as if you're knee deep in debt. It's also a lot of work to manage your own portfolio. You could pay somebody to do it, but then you're paying somebody to do it.

But investing isn't a "get rich quick" scheme. The only way to get that rich that quickly is to start a business or win the lottery.

[AReasonableMan]

The more general point is illustrated:

Law is pretty zero sum. There tend to be winners and losers, and the initial categorization can sometimes be more about random chance than merit. Further, those who win Round 1 are given big advantages in terms of income, training and resume prestige that enhance their changes of winning subsequent rounds while those who get left behind are largely restricted in their career trajectory. Because there is not a 1:1 correlation b/w merit and winning round 1, the entire pursuit is a major risk.

Subway, Chipotle or any other arbitrary stoner idea reflect a hypothetical middle ground between these 2 extremes.

[starry eyed]

The more general point is illustrated:

Law is pretty zero sum. There tend to be winners and losers, and the initial categorization can sometimes be more about random chance than merit. Further, those who win Round 1 are given big advantages in terms of income, training and resume prestige that enhance their changes of winning subsequent rounds while those who get left behind are largely restricted in their career trajectory. Because there is not a 1:1 correlation b/w merit and winning round 1, the entire pursuit is a major risk.

Subway, Chipotle or any other arbitrary stoner idea reflect a hypothetical middle ground between these 2 extremes.

nice touch

[bearsfan23]

This all just reminds me that if I wash out of big law my plan is to go into IT. The problem with law, at least for our generation, is that if you trip up at any stage of the process you're essentially hosed. You have to go to the right law school (do well on the LSAT), do relatively well while you're at the right law school, interview well at your law school's OCI, get an offer over the summer, do relatively well as a young associate so you have some kind of stable exit options. Oh, and if at any point and time during this process the economy crumbles, the firm you chose decides to implode, or any other black swan out of our control then you're stock with a lot of debt and fairly meager job opportunities.

To put this in statistical terms, let's say that you have an 80% chance of being successful at every stage of the process, which is probably being a little too optimistic. For this five stage process, you have a roughly 33% chance of making out like a bandit. I would not gamble at that casino - but wait, I have!

This is true for literally any private sector profession/job. I love when posters on TLS criticize the legal profession solely b/c they have no idea how the real world works. People get laid off ALL THE TIME. A lot of those people have significant debt.

And a 33% chance at success? Maybe at UVA, but not at any decent law school. I've been shocked at how easy it is to get BigLaw at my school

[AReasonableMan]

This all just reminds me that if I wash out of big law my plan is to go into IT. The problem with law, at least for our generation, is that if you trip up at any stage of the process you're essentially hosed. You have to go to the right law school (do well on the LSAT), do relatively well while you're at the right law school, interview well at your law school's OCI, get an offer over the summer, do relatively well as a young associate so you have some kind of stable exit options. Oh, and if at any point and time during this process the economy crumbles, the firm you chose decides to implode, or any other black swan out of our control then you're stock with a lot of debt and fairly meager job opportunities.

To put this in statistical terms, let's say that you have an 80% chance of being successful at every stage of the process, which is probably being a little too optimistic. For this five stage process, you have a roughly 33% chance of making out like a bandit. I would not gamble at that casino - but wait, I have!

This is true for literally any private sector profession/job. I love when posters on TLS criticize the legal profession solely b/c they have no idea how the real world works. People get laid off ALL THE TIME. A lot of those people have significant debt.

And a 33% chance at success? Maybe at UVA, but not at any decent law school. I've been shocked at how easy it is to get BigLaw at my school

You're misunderstanding his formula.

The fact you're already at this "shockingly easy" school would change his equation. It's like the Venetian offering you 400:1 odds on the Twins winning the World Series now in March, and then waiting till they're in Game 7 of the World Series to say, "You're wrong - the odds of the Twins winning the series aren't 400 to 1."

Personal attack is always an effective way to communicate, but in between the anger and condescending disregard for his school, maybe try to understand the point you're attacking?

[UVAIce]

This all just reminds me that if I wash out of big law my plan is to go into IT. The problem with law, at least for our generation, is that if you trip up at any stage of the process you're essentially hosed. You have to go to the right law school (do well on the LSAT), do relatively well while you're at the right law school, interview well at your law school's OCI, get an offer over the summer, do relatively well as a young associate so you have some kind of stable exit options. Oh, and if at any point and time during this process the economy crumbles, the firm you chose decides to implode, or any other black swan out of our control then you're stock with a lot of debt and fairly meager job opportunities.

To put this in statistical terms, let's say that you have an 80% chance of being successful at every stage of the process, which is probably being a little too optimistic. For this five stage process, you have a roughly 33% chance of making out like a bandit. I would not gamble at that casino - but wait, I have!

This is true for literally any private sector profession/job. I love when posters on TLS criticize the legal profession solely b/c they have no idea how the real world works. People get laid off ALL THE TIME. A lot of those people have significant debt.

And a 33% chance at success? Maybe at UVA, but not at any decent law school. I've been shocked at how easy it is to get BigLaw at my school

I don't think it's that difficult to get quality employment out of UVA either, but it's a different story starting from block one taking the LSAT. And just making it into big law isn't the end of the story.

And no, most students do not have the amount of debt that you take on in law school. Taking out $100,000 of student loans is the norm from the T-14. That puts the borrower in the ~96th percentile of student loan borrowers. If you took sticker at the T-14 you're somewhere in the ~99.5th percentile of student loan borrowers (over $200k). So sure, people can burn out of any number of careers, but they probably don't have to service a ~$2,000+ monthly student loan payment.

There is also a kind of weird circular logic for many who go into big law. They go into big law to pay off the student loans they accrued to get big law in the first place and then they leave. It begs the question: are the "exit options" worth it? I think if you're dream is to be a prosecutor (etc.) then it probably is as we're not talking about an economic decision. But if you just want a comfortable job that pays fairly well then it should make you wonder.

Law school does pay off for some people, but it most certainly does not for a number of a students.

[FSK]

Turn this discussion on its head a bit. Lets say you're a 2L who just missed OCI, but goes to a reasonable school with reasonable grades. What do you tell them to do? How do they get out of the rat race? What if they're a liberal arts grad with no other useful experience?

[starry eyed]

I don't think it's that difficult to get quality employment out of UVA either, but it's a different story starting from block one taking the LSAT. And just making it into big law isn't the end of the story.

And no, most students do not have the amount of debt that you take on in law school. Taking out $100,000 of student loans is the norm from the T-14. That puts the borrower in the ~96th percentile of student loan borrowers. If you took sticker at the T-14 you're somewhere in the ~99.5th percentile of student loan borrowers (over $200k). So sure, people can burn out of any number of careers, but they probably don't have to service a ~$2,000+ monthly student loan payment.

There is also a kind of weird circular logic for many who go into big law. They go into big law to pay off the student loans they accrued to get big law in the first place and then they leave. It begs the question: are the "exit options" worth it? I think if you're dream is to be a prosecutor (etc.) then it probably is as we're not talking about an economic decision. But if you just want a comfortable job that pays fairly well then it should make you wonder.

Law school does pay off for some people, but it most certainly does not for a number of a students.

this is an underrated question that most don't think about enough. Also is it a coincidence that this most favored career path never involves business development?

[AReasonableMan]

Turn this discussion on its head a bit. Lets say you're a 2L who just missed OCI, but goes to a reasonable school with reasonable grades. What do you tell them to do? How do they get out of the rat race? What if they're a liberal arts grad with no other useful experience?

This has to be the worst position to be in mentally because you weren't adequately prepared for failure. Statistically, any game that has a winner or loser and is scored based off a figure of greater than 1 will eventually have a close finish. So in a best of 3 contest you'll eventually have a 2-1 finish. If the fab 5/North Carolina game wasn't down to the wire then Chris Webber's timeout wouldn't have been so big. Mathematically, someone with great grades at a great school with great interviewing skills will eventually strike out just as someone with none of the 3 will eventually get hired.

[ReasonableNprudent]

Turn this discussion on its head a bit. Lets say you're a 2L who just missed OCI, but goes to a reasonable school with reasonable grades. What do you tell them to do? How do they get out of the rat race? What if they're a liberal arts grad with no other useful experience?

This has to be the worst position to be in mentally because you weren't adequately prepared for failure. Statistically, any game that has a winner or loser and is scored based off a figure of greater than 1 will eventually have a close finish. So in a best of 3 contest you'll eventually have a 2-1 finish. If the fab 5/North Carolina game wasn't down to the wire then Chris Webber's timeout wouldn't have been so big. Mathematically, someone with great grades at a great school with great interviewing skills will eventually strike out just as someone with none of the 3 will eventually get hired.

So, basically, anecdotes are useless.

I say with reasonable grades from a reasonable school someone should stay the course. Losing out at one round of interviews prior to even being 2/3 of the way done law school cannot be indicative of that person's entire employment prospects.

The scamblog rhetoric is indeed a little bit "the sky is falling." Many below average students from bottom barrel schools wind up chiseling out a career that is above average for the general population (I don't say this to advocate TTTs and TTTTs). The rhetoric is, however, good for lowering enrollment and shrinking the employment pool.

No doubt, there was a time when the rhetoric was more accurate than today. And most of this caution is still good advice, I believe.

[Tiago Splitter]

The rhetoric is, however, good for lowering enrollment and shrinking the employment pool.

No doubt, there was a time when the rhetoric was more accurate than today. And most of this caution is still good advice, I believe.

This is where I'm at. The rhetoric has done a lot of good and there's no reason to stop it when we're on the 20th mile of the marathon after stumbling drunk to the starting line just a few short years ago. And the truth is that most people going to law school still shouldn't, or should go for a lot cheaper. The fact that 80% of the class of 2018 will be employed in some kind of legal job (shitty or otherwise) rather than the 60% or whatever from the class of 2014 doesn't change that.

[AReasonableMan]

The rhetoric is, however, good for lowering enrollment and shrinking the employment pool.

No doubt, there was a time when the rhetoric was more accurate than today. And most of this caution is still good advice, I believe.

This is where I'm at. The rhetoric has done a lot of good and there's no reason to stop it when we're on the 20th mile of the marathon after stumbling drunk to the starting line just a few short years ago. And the truth is that most people going to law school still shouldn't, or should go for a lot cheaper. The fact that 80% of the class of 2018 will be employed in some kind of legal job (shitty or otherwise) rather than the 60% or whatever from the class of 2014 doesn't change that.

This assumes your personality, drive and intellect all don't change over the course of the marathon. For example, while a shoe shiner and a man who lost 2 million dollars in the 1929 stock market crash may both have the same amount of money, the latter may be psychologically broken where as the former may smile as he breathes in the crisp autumn air.

[Tiago Splitter]

wait what

[AReasonableMan]

wait what

I skimmed what you said and thought it was about being in the 20th mile of law school race having struck out. In relation to what you actually wrote it makes no sense. It was in reply to ReasonablenPrudent.

[ReasonableNprudent]

wait what

I skimmed what you said and thought it was about being in the 20th mile of law school race having struck out. In relation to what you actually wrote it makes no sense. It was in reply to ReasonablenPrudent.

I understood what you meant. An expectation of success and a result of anything short of that is depressing; combine that phenomenon with concerted effort and a history of achievement and the "failure" is even more demoralizing. Contrast this feeling of failure with someone who had nothing to begin with and never hoped for anything more than a simple life shining shoes with meager wages. The shoe shiner is not disappointed (or worse, spiritually broken) due to the failure and is content having accomplished that in which he has placed the effort of his actions.


A 2L striking out at OCI should not be so hard on herself, though. There is plenty of time for future misery. Also, misery never help, it always hurts. Onward to victory!



But, yes, in regards to Tiago's comment, 0Ls with little interest in practicing law and/or no other apparently visible viable options should not go to law school just because. One should also do a cost/benefit analysis, and probably >50% of entrants should just stay away based on such an analysis.

[JCougar]

And no, most students do not have the amount of debt that you take on in law school. Taking out $100,000 of student loans is the norm from the T-14. That puts the borrower in the ~96th percentile of student loan borrowers. If you took sticker at the T-14 you're somewhere in the ~99.5th percentile of student loan borrowers (over $200k). So sure, people can burn out of any number of careers, but they probably don't have to service a ~$2,000+ monthly student loan payment.

There is also a kind of weird circular logic for many who go into big law. They go into big law to pay off the student loans they accrued to get big law in the first place and then they leave.

This is really the best point made in a while. People fail in every profession. Very few do so while accumulating so much debt that is non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. There's only a few graduate degrees that cost as much or close to as much as a law degree. MBA students graduate with significantly less debt because it's two years and people's employers usually pay for a portion of the cost (god help you if you are a K-MBA paying sticker at a TTT business school, but if you are, then an MBA will be just as scammy as a law degree). And a good proportion do them while they are working so COL loans aren't an issue. PhD students routinely are covered by grants and stipends to the point where a lot pay zero tuition and have their living expenses covered (instead of debt-financed). I think the only degree that gives you more debt initially is an MD, but of course, the AMA actually makes sure there are jobs for most of their grads...so paying off MD debt is painstaking, but it's still more of a sure thing.

The only program where you are seen completely as a statistic--a figurative ATM from which to take as much money from as humanly possible, even if it's money you haven't earned yet and are statistically likely never to actually earn during the course of your entire life--is a JD. It's just a scam piled on top of a pyrmaid scheme piled on top of a fraud piled on top of a con game. It's really impossible to believe that these people get away with such massive, socially-harmful grift, and at the same time get to take advantage of the public's trust in well-regarded institutions of public education. They're worse than the investment banks that invented shit like MBS's and CDS's that were based on flawed assumptions about the market. These people are real, actual con men. Their shortcoming isn't a mistaken assumption--their shortcoming is a very basic and fundamental lack of moral and fiscal accountability.

[jepper]

I agree it's ridiculous how much it costs and the majority don't receive the value of what they pay for, but comparing it to MBSs and CDSs is a little extreme. It's not that difficult to find out what actual employment statistics are and what your student loan debt will be at the end of three years. With MBSs and CDSs the people selling them didn't even know what they were selling. You say it's scheme on top of fraud on top of con, but it really isn't that opaque.

[JCougar]

I agree it's ridiculous how much it costs and the majority don't receive the value of what they pay for, but comparing it to MBSs and CDSs is a little extreme. It's not that difficult to find out what actual employment statistics are and what your student loan debt will be at the end of three years. With MBSs and CDSs the people selling them didn't even know what they were selling. You say it's scheme on top of fraud on top of con, but it really isn't that opaque.

It's true that there's more information out there at this time about your hit or miss job prospects. But law schools are still secretive about just how little hope there is for students who miss out on the OCI boat, and the government hides the actual repayment rates of college grads. They mention that default rates are around like 7% or something (don't remember the actual number), but an astounding number of people on PAYE are making $0 payments each month, and these people don't count in the "default" category. I actually got an e-mail from the fed loan servicer a little over a year ago encouraging me to sign up for PAYE instead of using deferments, and it said that 70% of people on PAYE are making $0 payments each month.

I wonder what the real default rate is when all these people are factored in to the total. 50%? A lot of this debt is never, ever getting paid off. And then you meet these older attorneys in doc review, etc. that have more debt than when they graduated...and that was even back when law school was much cheaper. Can't imagine what these current classes are going to be like in 20 years. Lots of tax bombs, I guess.