OLD SCHOOL (must be 30 and over ITT) Forum

[rinkrat19]

Biglaw is such a small, selective world that I doubt they'll have to hange their policies at all for gen y. Those who come in with that attitude will not get biglaw jobs or won't make it past their first year. Biglaw is just too lucrative to make demands. There will always be a few people willing to work long hours for big money. I like flexibilty and vacation just as much as the next guy, but I jumped at the chance to make $3K/week.

It may take a generation (or more) to change the biglaw culture, if it ever happens... when Gen Yers are senior partners, maybe they'll let the junior associates work 4 long days and take Fridays off (or whatever), because they wish they could've done it when they were junior associates.

But the culture can change--it's not totally static, even if it's slower to shift than some other industries. I venture to say that office life in Biglaw now is not identical to how it was in the 1950s. For one thing, women get to be something besides secretaries nowadays.

I don't think those Gen Yers will ever get the chance to be biglaw partners. If I work my ass off and make partner, there is no way I'm going to let the next crop of recruits work less than I did. Obviously, I can't predict the future, and nothing is static, but I am highly skeptical that the most lucrative jobs in law will not be filled by the hardest working people. I want to make a shitload of money, and I'm willing to work harder than the next guy to make that happen. There are a lot of my classmates with the exact same attitude.

Just because you want the ability to shift your hours around doesn't mean you're working any fewer hours overall or that you're necessarily lazier. Someone in a regular 9-5 job who works 4x10s and gets their Fridays off isn't lazier than someone who works 5x8s, they just weighed the relative values of weekend vs. evenings and made the trade.

The attitude isn't "I don't want to do the work," it's "I want to do the work on my own schedule, and why the fuck should you care what my schedule is, if my work is getting done properly?"

[JazzOne]

Biglaw is such a small, selective world that I doubt they'll have to hange their policies at all for gen y. Those who come in with that attitude will not get biglaw jobs or won't make it past their first year. Biglaw is just too lucrative to make demands. There will always be a few people willing to work long hours for big money. I like flexibilty and vacation just as much as the next guy, but I jumped at the chance to make $3K/week.

It may take a generation (or more) to change the biglaw culture, if it ever happens... when Gen Yers are senior partners, maybe they'll let the junior associates work 4 long days and take Fridays off (or whatever), because they wish they could've done it when they were junior associates.

But the culture can change--it's not totally static, even if it's slower to shift than some other industries. I venture to say that office life in Biglaw now is not identical to how it was in the 1950s. For one thing, women get to be something besides secretaries nowadays.

I don't think those Gen Yers will ever get the chance to be biglaw partners. If I work my ass off and make partner, there is no way I'm going to let the next crop of recruits work less than I did. Obviously, I can't predict the future, and nothing is static, but I am highly skeptical that the most lucrative jobs in law will not be filled by the hardest working people. I want to make a shitload of money, and I'm willing to work harder than the next guy to make that happen. There are a lot of my classmates with the exact same attitude.

Just because you want the ability to shift your hours around doesn't mean you're working any fewer hours overall or that you're necessarily lazier. Someone in a regular 9-5 job who works 4x10s and gets their Fridays off isn't lazier than someone who works 5x8s, they just weighed the relative values of weekend vs. evenings and made the trade.

The attitude isn't "I don't want to do the work," it's "I want to do the work on my own schedule, and why the fuck should you care what my schedule is, if my work is getting done properly?"

And the attitude of biglaw partners is "you do what I fucking tell you to do or I'll find the next guy who is willing to do it my way."

[rinkrat19]

I don't think those Gen Yers will ever get the chance to be biglaw partners. If I work my ass off and make partner, there is no way I'm going to let the next crop of recruits work less than I did. Obviously, I can't predict the future, and nothing is static, but I am highly skeptical that the most lucrative jobs in law will not be filled by the hardest working people. I want to make a shitload of money, and I'm willing to work harder than the next guy to make that happen. There are a lot of my classmates with the exact same attitude.

Just because you want the ability to shift your hours around doesn't mean you're working any fewer hours overall or that you're necessarily lazier. Someone in a regular 9-5 job who works 4x10s and gets their Fridays off isn't lazier than someone who works 5x8s, they just weighed the relative values of weekend vs. evenings and made the trade.

The attitude isn't "I don't want to do the work," it's "I want to do the work on my own schedule, and why the fuck should you care what my schedule is, if my work is getting done properly?"

And the attitude of biglaw partners is "you do what I fucking tell you to do or I'll find the next guy who is willing to do it my way."

Just like 40 years ago it was "Woman, get your ass back behind that typewriter."

[sidhesadie]

While I understand what you're saying about at NU, going full time and seeing your kids in the evening, wasn't that ONLY IF your wife went to work full time?
So your infant and toddler who are, in scenario A (T2) mostly home with Mommy, are now, in scenario B (NU), in daycare all day while mommy is the full time job, that she is going to be able to get in a new city with no connections.

Did I misunderstand that? I don't want to be harsh on you if I'm just misunderstanding the situation, but I don't see how putting an infant in daycare when they could be with their mother (I'm not slamming on daycare, but if you have the option to have the child's actual parent with an infant, I think that's pretty darn preferable), could ever in any realm shake out to be the better choice. If your kids were school aged that would be different, but they are really, really little. And I can see why your wife is upset, she has a three month old baby. You said she was going to get to be mostly home with that baby, and now you want to instead have her be away from it 10 hours a day (8 hours plus daycare drop off time, travel time, it's going to be 10 hours). I'd want to simultaneously sob into my coffee and clock you upside the head with the morning egg pan if I were her.

[sidhesadie]

I don't think those Gen Yers will ever get the chance to be biglaw partners. If I work my ass off and make partner, there is no way I'm going to let the next crop of recruits work less than I did. Obviously, I can't predict the future, and nothing is static, but I am highly skeptical that the most lucrative jobs in law will not be filled by the hardest working people. I want to make a shitload of money, and I'm willing to work harder than the next guy to make that happen. There are a lot of my classmates with the exact same attitude.

Just because you want the ability to shift your hours around doesn't mean you're working any fewer hours overall or that you're necessarily lazier. Someone in a regular 9-5 job who works 4x10s and gets their Fridays off isn't lazier than someone who works 5x8s, they just weighed the relative values of weekend vs. evenings and made the trade.

The attitude isn't "I don't want to do the work," it's "I want to do the work on my own schedule, and why the fuck should you care what my schedule is, if my work is getting done properly?"

And the attitude of biglaw partners is "you do what I fucking tell you to do or I'll find the next guy who is willing to do it my way."

Just like 40 years ago it was "Woman, get your ass back behind that typewriter."

And a lot of 'em wish it still was, but we're not going! LOL.

I do think there will be shifts in the next 50 years but it won't be soon enough to change things for any of us, I don't think.

[JazzOne]

I don't think those Gen Yers will ever get the chance to be biglaw partners. If I work my ass off and make partner, there is no way I'm going to let the next crop of recruits work less than I did. Obviously, I can't predict the future, and nothing is static, but I am highly skeptical that the most lucrative jobs in law will not be filled by the hardest working people. I want to make a shitload of money, and I'm willing to work harder than the next guy to make that happen. There are a lot of my classmates with the exact same attitude.

Just because you want the ability to shift your hours around doesn't mean you're working any fewer hours overall or that you're necessarily lazier. Someone in a regular 9-5 job who works 4x10s and gets their Fridays off isn't lazier than someone who works 5x8s, they just weighed the relative values of weekend vs. evenings and made the trade.

The attitude isn't "I don't want to do the work," it's "I want to do the work on my own schedule, and why the fuck should you care what my schedule is, if my work is getting done properly?"

And the attitude of biglaw partners is "you do what I fucking tell you to do or I'll find the next guy who is willing to do it my way."

Just like 40 years ago it was "Woman, get your ass back behind that typewriter."

That's a straw man, and I think you know it. Allowing women into the workforce was a nationwide movement backed by litigation. Letting people have flexible schedules doesn't implicate basic notions of fairness and justice, especially when there are plenty of people willing to follow the existing program.

[emhellmer]

I hadn't even considered biglaw as an option until I spoke with a senior partner at a biglaw firm here in Houstin. He told me that he does most of his work from home and makes his own schedule, as do many of the associates. That schedule involves working 70 hours a week and a few all-nighters a month, sure. I'm okay with the hours, but I do want flexibility. I said I'd be perfectly happy going to the office from 8-5, spending the evening with my kid, working from home until midnight or so, and working on the weekends from home. He said there's no reason to spend 8-5 in the office, and that time in the office does not equal hours billed anyway, so he never worries about it.

Anyway, I'm definitely of the "why the hell do you care about my schedule as long as I get my work done?" school of thought. My last job was flexible and I worked long (albiet a little inconsistent) hours, definitely 60+ and loved it. My current job is strictly 8-5 monday through friday with a 1 hour lunch break. We even get in trouble for checking our work e-mail from home and working after hours! I think it's ridiculous

Anyway, I found that conversation with the partner encouraging. It might just be at his firm, and he might be a tad out of touch with the junior associates though.

[JazzOne]

I think face time at the office is essential if you want any shot at making partner.

I'm not trying to take a hard line here. Technology definitely makes it possible to work a more flexible schedule. But some have argued that Gen Yers want lower hours and more vacation. I just can't imagine that happening without lower salary expectations.

[Stringer Bell]

Personally, I wouldn't go full ride anywhere except HYS (where, frankly, most people don't go full ride...). I think an equally good strategy for people without stellar numbers is to find a strong regional school and get that 3/4 to full ride. Your employment chances are a little worse... but you are in less debt (and that might allow you to take a job that pays less, but has less hours... so you can see your family).

Your conclusion isn't necessarily wrong, but employment chance are more than "a little worse". Pre-ITE t14 schools sent 60-70% of their grads into biglaw. Compare that to a school like Houston which is about as good as a T2 can be sending 15-20% of their grads into biglaw. This past OCI T6 supposedly sent 65-70% into biglaw while MVPDNC sent 40%-45% or so. I would be shocked if Houston is sending 10% into biglaw right now or that even half their grads can find paid legal work based on what I have heard from some people that went to school there.

And many private practices that don't pay market still work their employees hard.

[JazzOne]

And many private practices that don't pay market still work their employees hard.

Right. And employers receive droves of resumes even for shitty legal jobs with low pay.

I even read an account on JDU of a shitlaw firm recruiting JDs to work for FREE so they could gain experience.

[Stringer Bell]

I don't think those Gen Yers (who want flexibility over money) will ever get the chance to be biglaw partners. If I work my ass off and make partner, there is no way I'm going to let the next crop of recruits work less than I did. Obviously, I can't predict the future, and nothing is static, but I am highly skeptical that the most lucrative jobs in law will not be filled by the hardest working people. I want to make a shitload of money, and I'm willing to work harder than the next guy to make that happen. There are a lot of my classmates with the exact same attitude.

+1

EDIT: Outside of the classmate part since I'm 0L.

[emhellmer]

I think face time at the office is essential if you want any shot at making partner.

I'm not trying to take a hard line here. Technology definitely makes it possible to work a more flexible schedule. But some have argued that Gen Yers want lower hours and more vacation. I just can't imagine that happening without lower salary expectations.

+1 about face time. Sure, and at first one might even be advised to make some of that face time on the evenings and weekends when possible so that everyone can see what a hard and dedicated worker you are Also, you shouldn't dismiss the importance of chatting around the water cooler. Of course, there is a difference between being able to leave at 4 in order to catch your kid's soccer game and finish your work after they are in bed and being chained to your desk for 36 hours like it used to be before the internet and cell phones. I think the younger generation is so used to the internet and cell phones that we think a desk REQUIREMENT is a little silly.

I agree...fewer hours and more vacation would probably mean lower salary assuming you don't get as much work done (which if highly probable).

[JazzOne]

I think face time at the office is essential if you want any shot at making partner.

I'm not trying to take a hard line here. Technology definitely makes it possible to work a more flexible schedule. But some have argued that Gen Yers want lower hours and more vacation. I just can't imagine that happening without lower salary expectations.

+1 about face time. Sure, and at first one might even be advised to make some of that face time on the evenings and weekends when possible so that everyone can see what a hard and dedicated worker you are Also, you shouldn't dismiss the importance of chatting around the water cooler. Of course, there is a difference between being able to leave at 4 in order to catch your kid's soccer game and finish your work after they are in bed and being chained to your desk for 36 hours like it used to be before the internet and cell phones. I think the younger generation is so used to the internet and cell phones that we think a desk REQUIREMENT is a little silly.

I agree...fewer hours and more vacation would probably mean lower salary assuming you don't get as much work done (which if highly probable).

I'm slowly coming around to the point of view that technology will sufficiently change attitudes such that the biglaw culture will change as well. But some of the Gen Y arguments sound like entitlement to me, and in my experience, that just doesn't fly with biglaw partners. No one is obligated to give you a lucrative job with the accommodations you desire.

[ArghItsBlarg]

While I understand what you're saying about at NU, going full time and seeing your kids in the evening, wasn't that ONLY IF your wife went to work full time?
So your infant and toddler who are, in scenario A (T2) mostly home with Mommy, are now, in scenario B (NU), in daycare all day while mommy is the full time job, that she is going to be able to get in a new city with no connections.

Did I misunderstand that? I don't want to be harsh on you if I'm just misunderstanding the situation, but I don't see how putting an infant in daycare when they could be with their mother (I'm not slamming on daycare, but if you have the option to have the child's actual parent with an infant, I think that's pretty darn preferable), could ever in any realm shake out to be the better choice. If your kids were school aged that would be different, but they are really, really little. And I can see why your wife is upset, she has a three month old baby. You said she was going to get to be mostly home with that baby, and now you want to instead have her be away from it 10 hours a day (8 hours plus daycare drop off time, travel time, it's going to be 10 hours). I'd want to simultaneously sob into my coffee and clock you upside the head with the morning egg pan if I were her.

We already live in the north burbs of Chicago. We're not moving anywhere for my school, so she wouldn't be looking in an unfamiliar city, just a city that hasn't had any leads in her industry in a few years. She wants to work and, prior to being laid off, had worked happily for 10 years, but she has social anxiety and can't stand interviewing and the constant rejection of a job search.

We both believe that our son has received tremendous benefit, academically and socially, from his time in daycare (at Montessouri) and so we want him to stay there. My wife would love to stay home with the baby, but we can't afford to keep him in daycare on just my salary, so she has to put the baby into part-time day care to work to be able to afford to put our son in daycare. We're aware of the ridiculousness of the situation. Even were my wife able to stay home full time with the baby, we'd eventually start looking toward putting her into a daycare situation around toddlerhood so she could get those same benefits our son got.

As far as the tradeoff, in this magical theoretical world in my head, if my wife found a FT job and NU gave me a decent scholarship, that would mean that 1) I could help with the kids in the morning; 2) we'd go to school/work respectively; 3) she'd pick up the kids from school and 4) I'd be home in advance of dinner and we'd have the night as a family. This would last for only 3 years and then I'd be (ostensibly) working again. We'd have some debt.

Compare that to the T2 option, wherein law school is free, but I 1)have enough time in the mornings to get the kids dressed and then I have to leave; 2) come home around 10-10:30pm four nights/week. For four years with at least one summer semester.

That's not an unattractive tradeoff for her as, at least for now, she likes having me around.

If it makes you feel any better, when I look back on my childhood I have many wonderful memories of my father, and never felt like he wasn't around. It's that whole quality time > quantity time thing :wink: Of course, now that I have a kid I understand that there are purely selfish reasons to want to spend time with your kids too.

The school health insurance may be bad, but you might want to look into seeing if your children would qualify for SCHIP insurance. If they do, look into the providors who accept it. It might be an option worth considering.

That actually does help a lot :) And Illinois SCHIP is bad, most providers won't take it, and those that do won't take it as a long-term solution.

[firemed]

Personally, I wouldn't go full ride anywhere except HYS (where, frankly, most people don't go full ride...). I think an equally good strategy for people without stellar numbers is to find a strong regional school and get that 3/4 to full ride. Your employment chances are a little worse... but you are in less debt (and that might allow you to take a job that pays less, but has less hours... so you can see your family).

Your conclusion isn't necessarily wrong, but employment chance are more than "a little worse". Pre-ITE t14 schools sent 60-70% of their grads into biglaw. Compare that to a school like Houston which is about as good as a T2 can be sending 15-20% of their grads into biglaw. This past OCI T6 supposedly sent 65-70% into biglaw while MVPDNC sent 40%-45% or so. I would be shocked if Houston is sending 10% into biglaw right now or that even half their grads can find paid legal work based on what I have heard from some people that went to school there.

And many private practices that don't pay market still work their employees hard.

I think you missed several important parts of my post. First, I wasn't necessarily talking about Biglaw. Also, as I pointed out, you would want to go virtually for free. Now if the T2 was full ride, fuck it... go to a T14 full ride. But I was talking about going to the T2 with a scholly. I also pointed out that you would have to have less than stellar numbers. Stellar numbers people qualify for T14, usually with a scholly. So this plan is for people in a certain position, and not for others. The T2 has worse employment prospects, but if you go for free... then it doesn't matter as much if you are unemployed afterwards.

Also, Some regional schools can do very well. Houston has to compete with many other schools in TX. But U Wash, the school in Idaho, Michigan State (who only has any real competition from U of M who sends more than half their grads out of state, and Mercy who ends up with almost all their grads staying in the Detroit metro area), many of the schools in the midwest like U of Kansas, etc. Are all good options for someone who doesn't want to work biglaw.

I might be a little biased though.... In my case I will be attending the only LS in the state. While we have basically no biglaw here, ~75% of last years grads got jobs from what I can tell.

Of course, NM is kind of a weird legal market. We offer no reciprocity, and apart from the occasional grad from out of state who comes back to NM, basically all the lawyers here come from here. (Shame is, I can't get reciprocity elsewhere) So here in NM there is always jobs, either at midsized firms, small firms, DA or PD offices, local government counsel, metro or small county bench, etc. Sometimes you have to go rural.... but after my wife finishes school, I have no issues moving to Taos, Las Vegas, Las Cruces, etc. (but not Sante Fe... they pay there like you live in NM, but charge for everything like you live in San Fransisco) The economy has hit here too... so that we have gone from 90% to the 75% employment listed, but the majority of people are still getting jobs.

[emhellmer]

Some of the Gen Y arguments sound like entitlement to me, and in my experience, that just doesn't fly with biglaw partners. No one is obligated to give you a lucrative job with the accommodations you desire.

I think the issue with Gen Y is that many are willing to work for less money if they have the accomodations that they desire. Much of the HR stuff I've heard is that those accomodations are 1) flexibility, 2) positive affirmation, and 3) a sense that one's work has a positive impact. It isn't necessarily that the younger generation doesn't want to work hard, it is that they value quality of life over money, and quality of life considerations don't necesarily = fewer hours, but rather those three factors. I think that the feeling of entitlement to positive affirmation is a common stereotype (the "t-ball generation" thing; everyone gets a trophy just for participating).

[Stringer Bell]

I think you missed several important parts of my post. First, I wasn't necessarily talking about Biglaw. Also, as I pointed out, you would want to go virtually for free. Now if the T2 was full ride, fuck it... go to a T14 full ride. But I was talking about going to the T2 with a scholly. I also pointed out that you would have to have less than stellar numbers. Stellar numbers people qualify for T14, usually with a scholly. So this plan is for people in a certain position, and not for others. The T2 has worse employment prospects, but if you go for free... then it doesn't matter as much if you are unemployed afterwards.

Also, Some regional schools can do very well. Houston has to compete with many other schools in TX. But U Wash, the school in Idaho, Michigan State (who only has any real competition from U of M who sends more than half their grads out of state, and Mercy who ends up with almost all their grads staying in the Detroit metro area), many of the schools in the midwest like U of Kansas, etc. Are all good options for someone who doesn't want to work biglaw.

I might be a little biased though.... In my case I will be attending the only LS in the state. While we have basically no biglaw here, ~75% of last years grads got jobs from what I can tell.

Of course, NM is kind of a weird legal market. We offer no reciprocity, and apart from the occasional grad from out of state who comes back to NM, basically all the lawyers here come from here. (Shame is, I can't get reciprocity elsewhere) So here in NM there is always jobs, either at midsized firms, small firms, DA or PD offices, local government counsel, metro or small county bench, etc. Sometimes you have to go rural.... but after my wife finishes school, I have no issues moving to Taos, Las Vegas, Las Cruces, etc. (but not Sante Fe... they pay there like you live in NM, but charge for everything like you live in San Fransisco) The economy has hit here too... so that we have gone from 90% to the 75% employment listed, but the majority of people are still getting jobs.

I understood your post but my qualm with it was the slightly worse job prospects part. They are going to be significantly worse for the most part. Trading debt for worse job prospects can be reasonable, but there is definitely a trade off.

Do you mind sharing where you got that employment figure from? Sorry to be skeptical, but if UNM is sending 75% of their grads into paid legal work that would be damn impressive. While they are the only school in the state, the population of New Mexico is less than the city of Houston. It seems hard for me to believe that there are a few hundred new legal jobs there every year right now. Most of the economy is based off of military contracts and tourism right?

You may be right about UNM, but folks from Iowa (a good school that owns it's state and historically sent grads out of state) on here that had median grades have had problems finding work. Someone on here that's top 20% from Notre Dame can't get an interview in South Bend Indiana.

[firemed]

I understood your post but my qualm with it was the slightly worse job prospects part. They are going to be significantly worse for the most part. Trading debt for worse job prospects can be reasonable, but there is definitely a trade off.

Do you mind sharing where you got that employment figure from? Sorry to be skeptical, but if UNM is sending 75% of their grads into paid legal work that would be damn impressive. While they are the only school in the state, the population of New Mexico is less than the city of Houston. It seems hard for me to believe that there are a few hundred new legal jobs there every year right now. Most of the economy is based off of military contracts and tourism right?

You may be right about UNM, but folks from Iowa (a good school that owns it's state and historically sent grads out of state) on here that had median grades have had problems finding work. Someone on here that's top 20% from Notre Dame can't get an interview in South Bend Indiana.

My numbers come from talking with about 10 grads from UNM last year or the year before. 2 of them are unemployed, and one is clerking for free. I discussed with them what some of their classmates are doing as well. So, admittedly, not the worlds best sample.

Please do remember that we have nearly 3 million people here in the state, but only graduate 100 new lawyers a year. And the Bar here is super protectionist, so that people from out of state rarely come here. I have met only two t14 and one T1 here, and all of them were NM residents who went out of state for LS. I am sure there are other T14 people (some of my professors are fur shur) who came from out of state, but they really do seem to be the exception, not the rule.

Also, out of those 100 grads, a significant minority (5-10 a year) go work for their tribes or the feds in indian law somewhere out of state every year. UNM is kind of the Harvard of Native American law.

And yes, tourism and military are a large part of the economy, but also recall that both in the Farmington area and the Southeast part of the state have huge natural gas reserves that make companies like Haliburton a shitload of money.

[Stringer Bell]

I didn't realize UNM's class was that small. I can see your point.

[pkt63]

Hi all, I'm 33, just finishing up my apps, expect to start this fall. Where I live, there is a decent T2 school, but my husband and I both agree it seems like kind of a waste, and I should go somewhere...more challenging. However, he just found a great new job 6 months ago (after being unemployed for 1.5 years) so it's a little hard to consider having him go through the job hunt again if we move. Right now, we are considering trying to make it work with him still at home, but it's hard to know how that will really feel until we have my actual choices in front of us.

It makes me really wish I had done law school as a single woman. Unfortunately, he and I have been together almost 15 years now, so I guess that never would have worked. But, all the exciting research programs and extra-curricular opportunities sound so fantastic and I would love to immerse myself in all of that...but I think it's just not realistic in a marriage, whether we were living together or not.

Well, my apps are pretty late in the process so who knows where i will get in, and of course I am applying to the local T2. I just feel like I want to do something more...remarkable. But, who knows, the financing situation may be a big deciding factor as well!

[JazzOne]

Hi all, I'm 33, just finishing up my apps, expect to start this fall. Where I live, there is a decent T2 school, but my husband and I both agree it seems like kind of a waste, and I should go somewhere...more challenging. However, he just found a great new job 6 months ago (after being unemployed for 1.5 years) so it's a little hard to consider having him go through the job hunt again if we move. Right now, we are considering trying to make it work with him still at home, but it's hard to know how that will really feel until we have my actual choices in front of us.

It makes me really wish I had done law school as a single woman. Unfortunately, he and I have been together almost 15 years now, so I guess that never would have worked. But, all the exciting research programs and extra-curricular opportunities sound so fantastic and I would love to immerse myself in all of that...but I think it's just not realistic in a marriage, whether we were living together or not.

Well, my apps are pretty late in the process so who knows where i will get in, and of course I am applying to the local T2. I just feel like I want to do something more...remarkable. But, who knows, the financing situation may be a big deciding factor as well!

lol @ unfortunately

[pkt63]

Ha! I definitely didn't mean it that way!

[TexasRed]

New here, but fit here

Just turned 34 and will finish my bachelor's after this semester. My wife is in full support and even picking up the slack so I can focus on school full time. Our kids are up for whatever adventure we head out on.

As far as background, I have management experience with a large (fortune 1000) company and Exec. VP/owner experience with a smaller firm (sub $10MM/yr). Not sure what that will open up or close in terms of law.

[Smitten]

Hi all, I'm 33, just finishing up my apps, expect to start this fall. Where I live, there is a decent T2 school, but my husband and I both agree it seems like kind of a waste, and I should go somewhere...more challenging. However, he just found a great new job 6 months ago (after being unemployed for 1.5 years) so it's a little hard to consider having him go through the job hunt again if we move. Right now, we are considering trying to make it work with him still at home, but it's hard to know how that will really feel until we have my actual choices in front of us.

It makes me really wish I had done law school as a single woman. Unfortunately, he and I have been together almost 15 years now, so I guess that never would have worked But, all the exciting research programs and extra-curricular opportunities sound so fantastic and I would love to immerse myself in all of that...but I think it's just not realistic in a marriage, whether we were living together or not.

Well, my apps are pretty late in the process so who knows where i will get in, and of course I am applying to the local T2. I just feel like I want to do something more...remarkable. But, who knows, the financing situation may be a big deciding factor as well!

I totally know what you mean. I love my husband so much and so happy he will be with me through this new adventurous law school thing, but damn it would have been easier to go when I had more time, less commitment, and was only making decisions for one.

[firemed]

Hi all, I'm 33, just finishing up my apps, expect to start this fall. Where I live, there is a decent T2 school, but my husband and I both agree it seems like kind of a waste, and I should go somewhere...more challenging. However, he just found a great new job 6 months ago (after being unemployed for 1.5 years) so it's a little hard to consider having him go through the job hunt again if we move. Right now, we are considering trying to make it work with him still at home, but it's hard to know how that will really feel until we have my actual choices in front of us.

It makes me really wish I had done law school as a single woman. Unfortunately, he and I have been together almost 15 years now, so I guess that never would have worked. But, all the exciting research programs and extra-curricular opportunities sound so fantastic and I would love to immerse myself in all of that...but I think it's just not realistic in a marriage, whether we were living together or not.

Well, my apps are pretty late in the process so who knows where i will get in, and of course I am applying to the local T2. I just feel like I want to do something more...remarkable. But, who knows, the financing situation may be a big deciding factor as well!

I hear you on this. I wanted adventure, an elite and amazing school, and to live somewhere else. Unfortunately the choices I have made combined with the circumstances of my life mean that the above is very unlikely to happen.

Oh well... I figure though that we simply have to make the best of the life we have. And I hear you that being single would simplify this a lot. But, then again, I don't think I would give up my wife and kiddo for anything.

I hope you get some big schollys at the schools that offer you the challenge you want. Good luck!