Big law is ballin', but... Forum

[prezidentv8]

@AreJay711: Do you really think that the average person is better off now than in the '50s ? Certainly not in the US, maybe elsewhere.

In money and consumption terms? Absolutely. For example, families in the 50's didn't have cars laying around to give their children -- kids bought junk cars and fixed them up. In my high school and university most students have their own car usually 4-5 years old. Other things are the same way: we generally have more stuff than in the 50's.

As far as happiness goes, I think people in the 50's were happier overall in spite of this because money is not all that matters.

Haha...main point is probably correct, but I'm not sure about where you're placing "average." I consider myself well above average, and the car I was able to afford in high school was 21 years old, and not fancy. And I'm pretty young, so this wasn't that long ago.

[fugitivejammer]

I love listening to ppl complain about biglaw .

Look - first off, ur not going to b working 80/hr weeks for ever. busy weeks, i'm sure. When ur making this kinda $$ out school, u will (and should b) workin pretty hard. Secondly, the job you r workin at doesn't need to always provide u life purpose and such, so y r there ppl on this thread expecting this much from a biglaw job??? that's insane.

I have worked, and known many ppl to work crazy hours in all kinds of fields, and job satisfaction and life "purpose" or "happiness" CAN be obtained by those who are mature enough to handle it. Some people just cannot handle stress the same way, approach a long week ahead of them positively, and keep their energy up through such a task - and if that's u, then maybe biglaw isn't the way to go.

Not trying b discouraging or anything, but I just think it's important that ppl realize that a biglaw job is JUST a job, and while u should probably find and hang on to the things u enjoy about the experience, u shouldn't expect the job to just absorb ur life and provide u the purpose u r searching for. Honestly, for me, being in the military, I have worked some of the longest/stressful weeks u can possibly imagine in a job i didn't like, but I find I got the most satisfaction and enjoyment out of those times simply because I was able to get through it and take the challenge on. Those obstacles weren't always very interesting or w/e, but that's not what matters to me, and I hold that same mindset in any job/task i do. I think that's how ppl should approach this whole biglaw thing. I know miltary-biglaw comparison isn't exactly the best, but my pt still holds.

[northwood]

life is what you make it. you can either live to work, or work to live, the choice is yours. Just remember that you had a choice, no matter how bad the consequences are. You choose to do this, or you choose to do that. If you want big money, you must accept big responsibility and longer hours. You can still manage to have a family and a life, you just have to learn how to manage your time.

as for the posts about having a lot of money, but nothing to show for it. Its called a savings account/ investments. Once you have saved enough, put out your resume, change jobs, and go enjoy your hard earned money. If you're lucky enough. If you dont make it, then you will be striving for that goal all of the way to the end. There is no sure thing in this life, never has been, never will be. Learn from your past, live in the present, and plan for tomorrow.

If you come to realize that you hate your job, leave the field. You wont be the first, and most certainly wont be the last. A lot of people change careers, some go back to school 2 times or more after their first degree. There is no set age cut off from going to school, and no set time table to get things done.

[mrmangs]

I agree with the other posts to an extent - but this, *THIS* is the goal. Even if I don't get into Ivy, I'll be damned if my next kids won't. I'll work my keyboard into dust if it'll mean that my kids are twice as successful than I.

Mr. Pear Man, I understand where you are coming from and agree with a lot you've said. Bringing in the big bucks ensures that you can provide for your family. You can afford the best for your children, and, as long as you take pains not to spoil them, this can only be a good thing. For one, you can provide them with the best possible education money can afford.

However, I would point out that the only way to be sure your child will take advantage of the best opportunities is if they are raised well. Too many kids in private schools and top universities waste their lives away or otherwise don't live up to their potentials. Admittedly, many students do this, period. In my experience, however, the common denominator is that they've been raised poorly, whether this be due to the parents not being around because they were busy working their asses off to pay for country club memberships and golf lessons or because the parents were unemployed, lazy, and didn't instill a love of knowledge in their children. I can tell you that a stable, loving, and nurturing family of modest means is probably doing a better job of ensuring their kids' future success and happiness than an extremely wealthy family where the parents aren't around to give the kids the attention they need.

Two caveats: (1) many poor families consist of parents working their asses off as well and (2) not all loving families place a huge emphasis on education or have ambitions for their kids to attend Ivy league schools (in other words, success is a relative term).

[aquaokay]

Why do you expect that just because you won't enjoy it nobody else will?

Humans have needs. Relatedness, competence and autonomy are the three core needs. You'll likely be missing out on one of these if your whole life is work. Empirically, people who work this much are, on average, miserable. Not everyone will be and I hope none of you will be...but chances are life is going to suck.

Empirically? I'd really like to see that data... because I've never felt more alive then when I have purpose 24/7. Some downtime is nice, but as long as I'm putting food on the table and providing myself with a comfortable lifestyle, I'd be willing to push 80 hours.

As for *enjoying* the money... there's always downtime for that and there's always a savings account with your name on it(I'd hope).

I agree with you that it's always fulfilling to feel like you have a purpose and to always be moving, although I think that it's preferable to have your purpose in life be more than just your job. It is of course very possible to feel fulfilled at work, and yet unfulfilled personally and at home. I think most people would agree that who they are is more than just their job, and when you work 80 hours a week it would seem difficult to cultivate any other aspect of yourself. How complete are you and your life as a whole, if the only think you ever read is court documents, and the only one's you interact with are clients and co-workers? That life seems potentially very fulfilling in regards to work, but very unfulfilling as a whole if you have any ambitions and goals outside of work.

[canuck]

I agree with the other posts to an extent - but this, *THIS* is the goal. Even if I don't get into Ivy, I'll be damned if my next kids won't. I'll work my keyboard into dust if it'll mean that my kids are twice as successful than I.

Mr. Pear Man, I understand where you are coming from and agree with a lot you've said. Bringing in the big bucks ensures that you can provide for your family. You can afford the best for your children, and, as long as you take pains not to spoil them, this can only be a good thing. For one, you can provide them with the best possible education money can afford.

However, I would point out that the only way to be sure your child will take advantage of the best opportunities is if they are raised well. Too many kids in private schools and top universities waste their lives away or otherwise don't live up to their potentials. Admittedly, many students do this, period. In my experience, however, the common denominator is that they've been raised poorly, whether this be due to the parents not being around because they were busy working their asses off to pay for country club memberships and golf lessons or because the parents were unemployed, lazy, and didn't instill a love of knowledge in their children. I can tell you that a stable, loving, and nurturing family of modest means is probably doing a better job of ensuring their kids' future success and happiness than an extremely wealthy family where the parents aren't around to give the kids the attention they need.

Two caveats: (1) many poor families consist of parents working their asses off as well and (2) not all loving families place a huge emphasis on education or have ambitions for their kids to attend Ivy league schools (in other words, success is a relative term).

The wise one is wise.

A loving, supportive middle-income family provides not only a much better life, but better opportunities to their children than rich, absentee parents.

Don't disagree with this without doing some research please. I've studied child development and human motivation extensively.

[JazzOne]

I agree with the other posts to an extent - but this, *THIS* is the goal. Even if I don't get into Ivy, I'll be damned if my next kids won't. I'll work my keyboard into dust if it'll mean that my kids are twice as successful than I.

Mr. Pear Man, I understand where you are coming from and agree with a lot you've said. Bringing in the big bucks ensures that you can provide for your family. You can afford the best for your children, and, as long as you take pains not to spoil them, this can only be a good thing. For one, you can provide them with the best possible education money can afford.

However, I would point out that the only way to be sure your child will take advantage of the best opportunities is if they are raised well. Too many kids in private schools and top universities waste their lives away or otherwise don't live up to their potentials. Admittedly, many students do this, period. In my experience, however, the common denominator is that they've been raised poorly, whether this be due to the parents not being around because they were busy working their asses off to pay for country club memberships and golf lessons or because the parents were unemployed, lazy, and didn't instill a love of knowledge in their children. I can tell you that a stable, loving, and nurturing family of modest means is probably doing a better job of ensuring their kids' future success and happiness than an extremely wealthy family where the parents aren't around to give the kids the attention they need.

Two caveats: (1) many poor families consist of parents working their asses off as well and (2) not all loving families place a huge emphasis on education or have ambitions for their kids to attend Ivy league schools (in other words, success is a relative term).

The wise one is wise.

A loving, supportive middle-income family provides not only a much better life, but better opportunities to their children than rich, absentee parents.

Don't disagree with this without doing some research please. I've studied child development and human motivation extensively.

$50K sucks, yo. That is all.

[ResolutePear]

I agree with the other posts to an extent - but this, *THIS* is the goal. Even if I don't get into Ivy, I'll be damned if my next kids won't. I'll work my keyboard into dust if it'll mean that my kids are twice as successful than I.

Mr. Pear Man, I understand where you are coming from and agree with a lot you've said. Bringing in the big bucks ensures that you can provide for your family. You can afford the best for your children, and, as long as you take pains not to spoil them, this can only be a good thing. For one, you can provide them with the best possible education money can afford.

However, I would point out that the only way to be sure your child will take advantage of the best opportunities is if they are raised well. Too many kids in private schools and top universities waste their lives away or otherwise don't live up to their potentials. Admittedly, many students do this, period. In my experience, however, the common denominator is that they've been raised poorly, whether this be due to the parents not being around because they were busy working their asses off to pay for country club memberships and golf lessons or because the parents were unemployed, lazy, and didn't instill a love of knowledge in their children. I can tell you that a stable, loving, and nurturing family of modest means is probably doing a better job of ensuring their kids' future success and happiness than an extremely wealthy family where the parents aren't around to give the kids the attention they need.

Two caveats: (1) many poor families consist of parents working their asses off as well and (2) not all loving families place a huge emphasis on education or have ambitions for their kids to attend Ivy league schools (in other words, success is a relative term).

The wise one is wise.

A loving, supportive middle-income family provides not only a much better life, but better opportunities to their children than rich, absentee parents.

Don't disagree with this without doing some research please. I've studied child development and human motivation extensively.

I think I know what a child needs as...

I was once a child!

I would of preferred to hack bundles of cash to throw at bullies at a school which was a predominately different race than I. I couldn't go anywhere else because that's all that could be afforded by my parents.

If I would of had a "nice" school and tutors, chances are I wouldn't even know my parents are missing if I did everything "right".

[jas5076]

If 80 hour work weeks scare you why are you even thinking of going to law school unless you're going with $$$.

This is a dumb statement

[mrmangs]

I agree with the other posts to an extent - but this, *THIS* is the goal. Even if I don't get into Ivy, I'll be damned if my next kids won't. I'll work my keyboard into dust if it'll mean that my kids are twice as successful than I.

Mr. Pear Man, I understand where you are coming from and agree with a lot you've said. Bringing in the big bucks ensures that you can provide for your family. You can afford the best for your children, and, as long as you take pains not to spoil them, this can only be a good thing. For one, you can provide them with the best possible education money can afford.

However, I would point out that the only way to be sure your child will take advantage of the best opportunities is if they are raised well. Too many kids in private schools and top universities waste their lives away or otherwise don't live up to their potentials. Admittedly, many students do this, period. In my experience, however, the common denominator is that they've been raised poorly, whether this be due to the parents not being around because they were busy working their asses off to pay for country club memberships and golf lessons or because the parents were unemployed, lazy, and didn't instill a love of knowledge in their children. I can tell you that a stable, loving, and nurturing family of modest means is probably doing a better job of ensuring their kids' future success and happiness than an extremely wealthy family where the parents aren't around to give the kids the attention they need.

Two caveats: (1) many poor families consist of parents working their asses off as well and (2) not all loving families place a huge emphasis on education or have ambitions for their kids to attend Ivy league schools (in other words, success is a relative term).

The wise one is wise.

A loving, supportive middle-income family provides not only a much better life, but better opportunities to their children than rich, absentee parents.

Don't disagree with this without doing some research please. I've studied child development and human motivation extensively.

I think I know what a child needs as...

I was once a child!

I would of preferred to hack bundles of cash to throw at bullies at a school which was a predominately different race than I. I couldn't go anywhere else because that's all that could be afforded by my parents.

If I would of had a "nice" school and tutors, chances are I wouldn't even know my parents are missing if I did everything "right".

Actually, many people don't know what's best for them. And, if having once been a child was a sufficient condition on knowing what children need, no one would be a bad parent (at least, not nearly as many would be... assuming not all bad parents are intentionally ignoring the needs of their children). Also, to be fair, it's a bit facetious to make the choice out to be between (a) work a ridiculous amount of hours and be a millionaire or (b) don't work a ridiculous amount of hours and be poor, but have time for your kids. There is a middle ground.

Finally, family priorities also come into play (e.g., a middle-class family that puts education first will make sacrifices to get the kids into a good school and tutored if they need it). There are plenty of lazy, drugged out, stupid, etc. rich kids at private schools and top UGs. They had tutors and good schooling. For some kids, that's enough. For many it's not. Parent interaction, the availability of role-models, and family values all play a determinative role.

[motiontodismiss]

@AreJay711: Do you really think that the average person is better off now than in the '50s ? Certainly not in the US, maybe elsewhere.

In money and consumption terms? Absolutely. For example, families in the 50's didn't have cars laying around to give their children -- kids bought junk cars and fixed them up. In my high school and university most students have their own car usually 4-5 years old. Other things are the same way: we generally have more stuff than in the 50's.

As far as happiness goes, I think people in the 50's were happier overall in spite of this because money is not all that matters.

Haha...main point is probably correct, but I'm not sure about where you're placing "average." I consider myself well above average, and the car I was able to afford in high school was 21 years old, and not fancy. And I'm pretty young, so this wasn't that long ago.

We have more, but we're also leveraged up to our eyeballs. At the end of the day we're all fucked.

[canuck]

I agree with the other posts to an extent - but this, *THIS* is the goal. Even if I don't get into Ivy, I'll be damned if my next kids won't. I'll work my keyboard into dust if it'll mean that my kids are twice as successful than I.

Mr. Pear Man, I understand where you are coming from and agree with a lot you've said. Bringing in the big bucks ensures that you can provide for your family. You can afford the best for your children, and, as long as you take pains not to spoil them, this can only be a good thing. For one, you can provide them with the best possible education money can afford.

However, I would point out that the only way to be sure your child will take advantage of the best opportunities is if they are raised well. Too many kids in private schools and top universities waste their lives away or otherwise don't live up to their potentials. Admittedly, many students do this, period. In my experience, however, the common denominator is that they've been raised poorly, whether this be due to the parents not being around because they were busy working their asses off to pay for country club memberships and golf lessons or because the parents were unemployed, lazy, and didn't instill a love of knowledge in their children. I can tell you that a stable, loving, and nurturing family of modest means is probably doing a better job of ensuring their kids' future success and happiness than an extremely wealthy family where the parents aren't around to give the kids the attention they need.

Two caveats: (1) many poor families consist of parents working their asses off as well and (2) not all loving families place a huge emphasis on education or have ambitions for their kids to attend Ivy league schools (in other words, success is a relative term).

The wise one is wise.

A loving, supportive middle-income family provides not only a much better life, but better opportunities to their children than rich, absentee parents.

Don't disagree with this without doing some research please. I've studied child development and human motivation extensively.

$50K sucks, yo. That is all.

If you read the article at the beginning of this thread you would see that the original prospect was small-town living on about $100K/year. That is pretty damn comfy for a small town. It may not be bottles in the club, but I think I'd live comfortably with it.

I think it is completely possible to make 6 figures and work reasonable hours 50-60 per week. People do it all the time with BAs....certainly a law degree can't hurt.

[whymeohgodno]

If you read the article at the beginning of this thread you would see that the original prospect was small-town living on about $100K/year. That is pretty damn comfy for a small town. It may not be bottles in the club, but I think I'd live comfortably with it.

I think it is completely possible to make 6 figures and work reasonable hours 50-60 per week. People do it all the time with BAs....certainly a law degree can't hurt.

If you were magically given a law degree it wouldn't hurt. What hurts is that people are taking out loans in excess of 150k in order to get this degree.

[canuck]

If you read the article at the beginning of this thread you would see that the original prospect was small-town living on about $100K/year. That is pretty damn comfy for a small town. It may not be bottles in the club, but I think I'd live comfortably with it.

I think it is completely possible to make 6 figures and work reasonable hours 50-60 per week. People do it all the time with BAs....certainly a law degree can't hurt.

If you were magically given a law degree it wouldn't hurt. What hurts is that people are taking out loans in excess of 150k in order to get this degree.

Go to a school on big scholly = problem solved (obviously, if the grades/LSAT aren't there then IMO one should not become a lawyer period)

[ResolutePear]

If you read the article at the beginning of this thread you would see that the original prospect was small-town living on about $100K/year. That is pretty damn comfy for a small town. It may not be bottles in the club, but I think I'd live comfortably with it.

I think it is completely possible to make 6 figures and work reasonable hours 50-60 per week. People do it all the time with BAs....certainly a law degree can't hurt.

If you were magically given a law degree it wouldn't hurt. What hurts is that people are taking out loans in excess of 150k in order to get this degree.

Go to a school on big scholly = problem solved (obviously, if the grades/LSAT aren't there then IMO one should not become a lawyer period)

Even if it's free - it's not *really* free. If making 50k, modest - no?, you still just lost 150k by not working. Oh, and 3 years of your life.

[Hedwig]

Don't they say that after you hit 75k, increases in money don't do a huge amount for increasing your happiness after that?

[JazzOne]

I think it is completely possible to make 6 figures and work reasonable hours 50-60 per week. People do it all the time with BAs....certainly a law degree can't hurt.

I wonder how many years it takes those BAs to earn six figures. What industries do you suppose pay that well?

[DreamShake]

Don't they say that after you hit 75k, increases in money don't do a huge amount for increasing your happiness after that?

Don't remember the exact figure, but yes, there's an approximate point at which (most) people start to experience diminishing returns. Pretty steep curve, too--once you hit the hedonic treadmill, you basically plateau.

FWIW, happiness/wealth correlations are extremely weak once you pass the poverty threshold.

Edit: FWIW pt. II: Like Pear, my dad worked very long hours. He was extremely successful, climbed the corporate ladder very quickly, ran operations in entire countries/continents, etc. Made beaucoups bucks. He had several heart attacks, gambled away his money, and I graduated high school with my family on welfare.

Many people have stories like this, and they can probably all tell you the same thing: being away from home for the overwhelming majority of a child's life precludes being a good father and generally places the burden of mentorship almost completely on the mother or siblings. I went to private school till 8th grade and received a great education, but I went to jail five years later because I had no clue what life was about.

"Being there" a reasonable amount does not guarantee success, but it provides the opportunity for it. Overwork can have serious health consequences, and the fact that you sink yourself into one task so completely essentially mandates that you "put all your eggs in one basket." This is a risky proposition even if you take an optimistic view on longterm health--risky for the lawyer and his family.

Edit again: spelling fail

[floppymex]

-

[re-applicant]

Don't they say that after you hit 75k, increases in money don't do a huge amount for increasing your happiness after that?

Don't remember the exact figure, but yes, there's an approximate point at which (most) people start to experience diminishing returns. Pretty steep curve, too--once you hit the hedonic treadmill, you basically plateau.

FWIW, happiness/wealth correlations are extremely weak once you pass the poverty threshold.

While I'm a fan of the spirit of those studies, the application of their results is limited. The people I know in careers set to take them well above that point also happen to be the kind of people who would be pretty unhappy about being stuck at a 75k salary for the rest of their lives. The fact that they, at higher pay grades, are just as happy as people with lower salaries does not mean that they themselves would be just as happy at a lower salary.

[DreamShake]

Don't they say that after you hit 75k, increases in money don't do a huge amount for increasing your happiness after that?

Don't remember the exact figure, but yes, there's an approximate point at which (most) people start to experience diminishing returns. Pretty steep curve, too--once you hit the hedonic treadmill, you basically plateau.

FWIW, happiness/wealth correlations are extremely weak once you pass the poverty threshold.

While I'm a fan of the spirit of those studies, the application of their results is limited. The people I know in careers set to take them well above that point also happen to be the kind of people who would be pretty unhappy about being stuck at a 75k salary for the rest of their lives. The fact that they, at higher pay grades, are just as happy as people with lower salaries does not mean that they themselves would be just as happy at a lower salary.

Depends. Longitudinal studies could probably address this point to some extent. However--and this is purely speculation on my part--I guess that such individuals would not really differentiate between $75k and $750k if not for the accoutrements of wealth, particularly status. They'd probably be satisfied with a 75k salary if they already had status and nice status symbols, like fancy cars and big houses. Salaries just mediate their sense of self-efficacy/self-worth by quantifying it.

[Korey]

I don't really understand why working so much is easily considered as something that will ruin one's quality of life. I am sure there are many people who would jump on the opportunity to make biglaw money despite the hours.


When its all said and done, IMO:
Making more than my parents combined at age 55 when I'm 26? Yeah. I'd work 80 hours for that.

ITE I guess it just depends on your personal priorities.

[canuck]

1) No way am I making 50K out of law school. Not working 80 hours a week is certainly not a sufficient condition for getting this screwed (I almost get paid this much at my summer job and I work 40 hours a week + mail-it-in Fridays).

2) Most professional jobs will eventually pay you 6 figures if you work your way to the top. Not gonna to start naming them all, but to give you an idea of the breadth: in Canada once you hit senior management in the government (director) you are making $115 000 and work your way up from there. To get there people stay past 5 and may come in early at times, but don't live at work.

[ResolutePear]

I think it is completely possible to make 6 figures and work reasonable hours 50-60 per week. People do it all the time with BAs....certainly a law degree can't hurt.

I wonder how many years it takes those BAs to earn six figures. What industries do you suppose pay that well?

CPA's and Engineering majors... though tbh, CPA's are usually 150 credits so it's a master.. though you can just double major.

[AreJay711]

I think it is completely possible to make 6 figures and work reasonable hours 50-60 per week. People do it all the time with BAs....certainly a law degree can't hurt.

I wonder how many years it takes those BAs to earn six figures. What industries do you suppose pay that well?

CPA's and Engineering majors... though tbh, CPA's are usually 150 credits so it's a master.. though you can just double major.

A lot of people do regardless of major... and a lot of people don't regardless of major. Most federal workers in D.C. will make nearly that much if they stay in long enough and will surpass it if they enter management. I know people making 100K in the gov with their GED so it really depends on the person.