Why Biglaw? Forum

[sublime]

..

[SPerez]

If I was thinking about law today I don't know what I would have done, but if I still decided to go to law school I hope I wouldn't take on 100+k of debt.

That's how much someone who gets a half scholarship in-state at Tech will take on. Do you feel hypocritical for trying to lure students into attending your school at that cost?
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... osts/2013/

And the majority of students (~2/3) at Tech pay sticker, it seems.

http://www.law.ttu.edu/prospective/fina ... olarships/

I'll respond to this because my whole purpose being on TLS is answering legitimate questions openly and honestly. However like I said, this thread isn't about me or my school. If you want, I'd be happy to share my thoughts on my profession, why I love my job, and how I approach it in another thread.

So to answer your question, I don't "lure" anyone. I talk to students who already want to go to law school. If they can't tell me why they want to be a lawyer (not just why they want to go to law school), I tell them not to apply until they have a better answer.

I'm honest with people about their options. Our top recruits with full rides typically also have full rides to at least one of Houston, Baylor, and SMU. If they tell me they want to work in Houston and has a full-ride at UH, then I'll tell them about why we're different but I'll also tell them UH is probably their best choice. I spent like an hour talking to an admit once whose dream was to be a SCOTUS clerk. None of the person's other options were HYSCCN or any of the next 25 letters. I'll spare you the details, but the gist was that while it wasn't impossible to get to the SCOTUS from a non-elite school it would be long odds and a long road. The question would be whether it would be worth forgoing other options and making the sacrifices it would take for the extremely low odds of reaching that goal.

Both stories are examples of how general rules of thumb don't always apply to individual situations. If I'm talking to someone who says they are very concerned with debt and I'm not able to give them a scholarship, then we talk about what their other options are. Maybe their next best options is really good. Maybe their best option is working for a few years to save money and study more for the LSAT. Maybe they shouldn't go to law school at all. It all depends.

Do I wish we still received the same amount of support from the state that we used to so that we could still charge under $10k? Of course. We are not "cheap", but we're a good value relative to the other options students have. We may not be the right choice for everyone, but we're a great choice for a lot of people. I do think there is sometimes a point where if a person's choice is between a specific school and not going to school the choice should be not going to school, though.

This does relate to my original post insomuch as I do hope prospective applicants don't feel like their only option is to start their career in Biglaw and pick an expensive schools that feed into Biglaw.

[Crowing]

[*]Exit Options - Some people want to end up as in-house counsel, AUSA, etc, and in some cases going into biglaw makes sense for ending up in that position (even if it's not necessarily the only way to get there).

This is my main concern really (and actually probably the two eventual career paths that are most interesting to me at the moment). Maybe it's wiser financially and from an overall happiness standpoint to take the money for school and pass up biglaw, but especially in a profession that seems to shut doors very early in the weeding out process, it's hard to stray away from the most open-ended path when you're still figuring out just what it is you want to do. As a 1L, I worry all the time about what a future life in biglaw (no matter how brief) might entail, but it's hard to see any better path at the moment.

Also I understand taking less debt out so you don't need biglaw to pay off loans, but that picture doesn't seem so clear cut either. It's not like lower-ranked schools are rattling off 90%+ employment rates into low-paying legal jobs; the schools that feed largely into biglaw are also the schools that are feeding into JD-required jobs, period.

[Danger Zone]

If I was thinking about law today I don't know what I would have done, but if I still decided to go to law school I hope I wouldn't take on 100+k of debt.

That's how much someone who gets a half scholarship in-state at Tech will take on. Do you feel hypocritical for trying to lure students into attending your school at that cost?
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... osts/2013/

And the majority of students (~2/3) at Tech pay sticker, it seems.

http://www.law.ttu.edu/prospective/fina ... olarships/

I'll respond to this because my whole purpose being on TLS is answering legitimate questions openly and honestly. However like I said, this thread isn't about me or my school. If you want, I'd be happy to share my thoughts on my profession, why I love my job, and how I approach it in another thread.

So to answer your question, I don't "lure" anyone. I talk to students who already want to go to law school. If they can't tell me why they want to be a lawyer (not just why they want to go to law school), I tell them not to apply until they have a better answer.

I'm honest with people about their options. Our top recruits with full rides typically also have full rides to at least one of Houston, Baylor, and SMU. If they tell me they want to work in Houston and has a full-ride at UH, then I'll tell them about why we're different but I'll also tell them UH is probably their best choice. I spent like an hour talking to an admit once whose dream was to be a SCOTUS clerk. None of the person's other options were HYSCCN or any of the next 25 letters. I'll spare you the details, but the gist was that while it wasn't impossible to get to the SCOTUS from a non-elite school it would be long odds and a long road. The question would be whether it would be worth forgoing other options and making the sacrifices it would take for the extremely low odds of reaching that goal.

Both stories are examples of how general rules of thumb don't always apply to individual situations. If I'm talking to someone who says they are very concerned with debt and I'm not able to give them a scholarship, then we talk about what their other options are. Maybe their next best options is really good. Maybe their best option is working for a few years to save money and study more for the LSAT. Maybe they shouldn't go to law school at all. It all depends.

Do I wish we still received the same amount of support from the state that we used to so that we could still charge under $10k? Of course. We are not "cheap", but we're a good value relative to the other options students have. We may not be the right choice for everyone, but we're a great choice for a lot of people. I do think there is sometimes a point where if a person's choice is between a specific school and not going to school the choice should be not going to school, though.

This does relate to my original post insomuch as I do hope prospective applicants don't feel like their only option is to start their career in Biglaw and pick an expensive schools that feed into Biglaw.

Could you respond to Prof Campos's point?

Per a new study by the New America foundation, the median educational debt incurred by 2012 law school graduates with such debt was $140,000. The 75th percentile was $193,000.

Saying that students shouldn't incur this sort of debt is tantamount to saying that most people who are going to law school shouldn't go to law school. Telling individuals to take lower-cost options ignores that such options aren't available to most law students, because the financial structure of legal education in America requires the large majority of current law students to incur six figures of educational debt. If they didn't, law schools as they're currently constituted couldn't operate.

[Beercules]

If I was thinking about law today I don't know what I would have done, but if I still decided to go to law school I hope I wouldn't take on 100+k of debt.

That's how much someone who gets a half scholarship in-state at Tech will take on. Do you feel hypocritical for trying to lure students into attending your school at that cost?
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... osts/2013/

And the majority of students (~2/3) at Tech pay sticker, it seems.

http://www.law.ttu.edu/prospective/fina ... olarships/

I'll respond to this because my whole purpose being on TLS is answering legitimate questions openly and honestly. However like I said, this thread isn't about me or my school. If you want, I'd be happy to share my thoughts on my profession, why I love my job, and how I approach it in another thread.

So to answer your question, I don't "lure" anyone. I talk to students who already want to go to law school. If they can't tell me why they want to be a lawyer (not just why they want to go to law school), I tell them not to apply until they have a better answer.

I'm honest with people about their options. Our top recruits with full rides typically also have full rides to at least one of Houston, Baylor, and SMU. If they tell me they want to work in Houston and has a full-ride at UH, then I'll tell them about why we're different but I'll also tell them UH is probably their best choice. I spent like an hour talking to an admit once whose dream was to be a SCOTUS clerk. None of the person's other options were HYSCCN or any of the next 25 letters. I'll spare you the details, but the gist was that while it wasn't impossible to get to the SCOTUS from a non-elite school it would be long odds and a long road. The question would be whether it would be worth forgoing other options and making the sacrifices it would take for the extremely low odds of reaching that goal.

Both stories are examples of how general rules of thumb don't always apply to individual situations. If I'm talking to someone who says they are very concerned with debt and I'm not able to give them a scholarship, then we talk about what their other options are. Maybe their next best options is really good. Maybe their best option is working for a few years to save money and study more for the LSAT. Maybe they shouldn't go to law school at all. It all depends.

Do I wish we still received the same amount of support from the state that we used to so that we could still charge under $10k? Of course. We are not "cheap", but we're a good value relative to the other options students have. We may not be the right choice for everyone, but we're a great choice for a lot of people. I do think there is sometimes a point where if a person's choice is between a specific school and not going to school the choice should be not going to school, though.

This does relate to my original post insomuch as I do hope prospective applicants don't feel like their only option is to start their career in Biglaw and pick an expensive schools that feed into Biglaw.

This doesn't really answer the question.

Law school is too damn expensive. That's why people want/need BigLaw.

/thread

[phillywc]

I think you understate the money factor. I'm going into biglaw 100% for money. I come from a poor family. I had to work full time during undergrad. I want a comfortable living for my family. I don't think that is something that should be looked down on, as you do in OP.

[californiauser]

*

[IAFG]

I think you understate the money factor. I'm going into biglaw 100% for money. I come from a poor family. I had to work full time during undergrad. I want a comfortable living for my family. I don't think that is something that should be looked down on, as you do in OP.

I hope you're content with the post biglaw money factor too, because biglaw isn't an end goal.

[TheSpanishMain]

deleted

[hdunlop]

I can see the complaints about the tone of the original message with regard to money though I don't think it was necessarily intended that way. I'm planning on selling out myself, even while I try to make decisions now that would limit my debt, because the nest egg you can build with three years in biglaw buys options, and because I think it would be an interesting (however miserable) experience. I'm glad for this thread, because it is interesting to hear others' thinking.

[n1o2c3a4c5h6e7t]

I think you understate the money factor. I'm going into biglaw 100% for money. I come from a poor family. I had to work full time during undergrad. I want a comfortable living for my family. I don't think that is something that should be looked down on, as you do in OP.

I hope you're content with the post biglaw money factor too, because biglaw isn't an end goal.

Inhouse is extremely profitable (100-300k), isn't it? What are the poor outcomes that you are implying?

[phillywc]

I think you understate the money factor. I'm going into biglaw 100% for money. I come from a poor family. I had to work full time during undergrad. I want a comfortable living for my family. I don't think that is something that should be looked down on, as you do in OP.

I hope you're content with the post biglaw money factor too, because biglaw isn't an end goal.

In house? Gov?

My parents grew up in the housings projects. If I made 100k+ as my endgame outcome, I'd be easily the most successful person in my family and thrilled with that. I could help pay for my kids education on that. I don't expect to be making biglaw for much more than 3-5 years. But Law School is a way for me to change my life and the life of my family, I don't see why I shouldn't gun for Big Law...

[SFrost]

Regarding the salary thing ... (not to bring it up anymore than that):

It was public record and the right of tax payers in the area to know and scrutinize. Public servants lose certain privacy privileges, no?

I also think the pay was very relevant to the perspective of dean Perez. I mean this in the most respectful way (and I do appreciate his contribution to these boards) but I think his attitude on big law shows a certain degree of him being out of touch. He's in a job that is very rare, quite comfortable, and makes a very decent wage. He's talking to people who are going into historically unprecedented debt about why they want to go after a career path that can actually service that debt. Perspective and context matters, in that case.

Again, I appreciate admissions officials coming here, but I wonder how much they can speak to actual legal careers and debt management when they are quite removed from these subjects?

[JustHawkin]

My parents grew up in the housings projects. If I made 100k+ as my endgame outcome, I'd be easily the most successful person in my family and thrilled with that. I could help pay for my kids education on that. I don't expect to be making biglaw for much more than 3-5 years. But Law School is a way for me to change my life and the life of my family, I don't see why I shouldn't gun for Big Law...

+1000

[Nomo]

Do I wish we still received the same amount of support from the state that we used to so that we could still charge under $10k? Of course. We are not "cheap", but we're a good value relative to the other options students have. We may not be the right choice for everyone, but we're a great choice for a lot of people. I do think there is sometimes a point where if a person's choice is between a specific school and not going to school the choice should be not going to school, though.

A good value relative to schools that are an absolutely terrible value . . . sure. But, still a bad value; and a terrible mistake for many.

But, at least we've got an agreement that "sometimes" a person's best choice isn't going to law school. I think its clear that this "sometimes" applies to nearly every student at about 30 ABA accredited law schools. And there really isn't any dispute that the "sometimes" applies to anyone paying sticker at Texas Tech who needs to borrow money to cover those costs.

[IAFG]

I think you understate the money factor. I'm going into biglaw 100% for money. I come from a poor family. I had to work full time during undergrad. I want a comfortable living for my family. I don't think that is something that should be looked down on, as you do in OP.

I hope you're content with the post biglaw money factor too, because biglaw isn't an end goal.

Inhouse is extremely profitable (100-300k), isn't it? What are the poor outcomes that you are implying?

Most people are taking a paycut when it's time to go.

[Danger Zone]

I think you understate the money factor. I'm going into biglaw 100% for money. I come from a poor family. I had to work full time during undergrad. I want a comfortable living for my family. I don't think that is something that should be looked down on, as you do in OP.

I hope you're content with the post biglaw money factor too, because biglaw isn't an end goal.

Inhouse is extremely profitable (100-300k), isn't it? What are the poor outcomes that you are implying?

Most people are taking a paycut when it's time to go.

A paycut from 160k+? Boo fucking hoo.

[bk1]

A paycut from 160k+? Boo fucking hoo.

It's more like a paycut from 200k (accounting for bonuses and raises) but this paycut can be problematic for people who still owe significant money on their loans (which isn't an unreasonable scenario to be in for someone who took out sticker debt and leaves biglaw after 3-4 years).

[SPerez]

My intention for this thread wasn't to crap on people interested in making a good living as a lawyer. Where I come from on this is that from my experience, if you pick a job just for the money it will never be enough. If you already know you want to be a lawyer, there's nothing wrong with trying to maximize your income doing something you want to do. But I worry a lot of people are looking at Biglaw only for the money, which I think leads to people having a horrible experience, leaving the profession, and bad-mouthing it to prospective applicants. I'm glad that others responded to my questions with their reasons so that future applicants can at least get an idea of some of the things they should be considering. Because I'm young enough to know how to use the internet but also old enough to remember the days before the internet, I've seen how it has changed law school applicants. There's so much "data" out there, many have trouble finding the "information". The internet tends to distill all the nuance out of advice, which can lead to bad decisions just like having no information. I think the responses to my question here have helped add to the "information" out there. I'm learning, too, and that's why I come here.

My intention of this thread also was not to rehash the same old "law school sucks/don't go" discussion. There are plenty of other places where that discussion is happening so I'm not going to help hijack my own thread. Maybe one of these days I'll finally get around to hosting a Google Hangout for TLS'ers and then we can get into my opinions on the state of legal education, etc. If you want to ask me questions in my other thread, feel free to post there, too.

[Pneumonia]

I don't think "love what you do" is necessarily a flame but I do think "know what you'll love as a college student" is.

[SPerez]

I also think the pay was very relevant to the perspective of dean Perez. I mean this in the most respectful way (and I do appreciate his contribution to these boards) but I think his attitude on big law shows a certain degree of him being out of touch. He's in a job that is very rare, quite comfortable, and makes a very decent wage. He's talking to people who are going into historically unprecedented debt about why they want to go after a career path that can actually service that debt. Perspective and context matters, in that case.

Again, I appreciate admissions officials coming here, but I wonder how much they can speak to actual legal careers and debt management when they are quite removed from these subjects?

I start from the other end of your statement, which is to say why take on enormous debt that forces you into a career path you might hate just to service that debt? The original question was basically why does everyone want this particular kind of job that a lot of people hate? The most common response is because you have to in order to pay off the debt you take on choosing a school that helps you get the job in the first place. If that's the job you've always wanted, then great. But if it's not?

You're right that admissions people are not career services people. We know about job stuff because you guys ask us about it, but they're the ones that really get into it deep. I'm actually in the minority (albeit a growing one, I think) of admissions people that have not practiced. Most of my colleagues have spent at least some time in practice. But I know what it's like to be stressed about finding a job. I wasn't at the top of my class at UT. I didn't get my first job until 2 weeks before the bar exam. There probably weren't many people in my class that made less, but it was enough for me because I made choices that minimized my debt and was lucky enough to be in a position to make those choices. When it comes to the more junior people in many offices, a lot of them graduated in the last few years so they probably are VERY aware of things like debt and employment prospects.

And while I've never worked in BigLaw (or as a judicial clerk or as an AG or as a prosecutor or ...), I talk to prospective students and my own law students every single day. That only gives me a local/Texas perspective, though, so that's where TLS and the rest of the internets come in. I consider it part of my job to stay up to date and in touch with the climate out there.

[Danger Zone]

A paycut from 160k+? Boo fucking hoo.

It's more like a paycut from 200k (accounting for bonuses and raises) but this paycut can be problematic for people who still owe significant money on their loans (which isn't an unreasonable scenario to be in for someone who took out sticker debt and leaves biglaw after 3-4 years).

Assuming you've been paying for three to four years, your debt is certainly manageable by that point, even on a meager 100k salary.

[minnbills]

lol at the people saying they want biglaw for reasons other than money/prestige/bragging rights.

[bk1]

Assuming you've been paying for three to four years, your debt is certainly manageable by that point, even on a meager 100k salary.

Assuming your living expenses in NYC are 60k, you make the Cravath scale with bonus (108k, 118k, 130k after taxes for first 3 years), and you start with 280k debt, your debt will still be around 140k after 3 years of payments. You then move to a 100k salary which nets you 66k after taxes. At this point it seems unlikely that you're going to significantly alter your standard of living and your new job won't even allow you to cover your interest payments while maintaining your standard of living.

[Danger Zone]

Why not alter your standard of living? With all the free time from the quality of life upgrade, you can move to Jersey, have time to commute, not be required to constantly buy take out. And from my understanding, 100k is on the very low end of the scale for someone with three years of biglaw experience.