The Law School Scam Forum

[071816]

(4) JD's are luxury items, as no one ever NEEDS a law degree

Huh? I thought you needed an ABA-accredited degree to take the bar in almost all states (with the notable exception of California).

Wrong.

You can practice in the following states without a law degree: California, New York, Washington, Virginia, Vermont, Maine, and Wyoming. The first three states on the list are possibly the only four that realistically could lure most TLSers.

FWIW, anyone who watches Suits should have known that NY was on the list.

Of course. Because Suits is known for its accurate portrayal of the legal field.

[PDaddy]

Do you mean I won't be making the median salary listed on Brooklyn Law School's webpage????

Who to believe... Well respected intellectual law school administrators with years of experience who fully understand the legal ramifications of providing faulty statistics or some randos on the internet with a blog

Obviously we should believe the "randos" on the blog, because these "...well respected" [sic] intellectuals are nothing of the kind. They are hypocrites who have perpetrated mass-scale fraud(s) upon the public, yet would not hesitate to boot a student (or remove him from consideration) for a similar, albeit smaller scale, act.

[xeoh85]

I think the job prospects are too risky to justify law school unless you

1) Have the money to pay for school without incurring debt
2) Have a job lined up (through family or something along those lines - guaranteed employment) which requires a JD
3) Get accepted to to HYS, maybe T6 and plan on exchanging your life for studying to out-compete your [equally competent] peers
4) Get a 1/2 to full scholarship to a Tier 1 and are okay with staying in the area after graduation.

It is unfortunately not what aspiring law students want to hear, but given the present legal job market and unsustainably high tuition rates, I strongly agree with the above advice.

[MTal]

Do you mean I won't be making the median salary listed on Brooklyn Law School's webpage????

Who to believe... Well respected intellectual law school administrators with years of experience who fully understand the legal ramifications of providing faulty statistics or some randos on the internet with a blog

I think it's fair to say Bernie Madoff also understood the legal ramifications of what he was doing.

[PDaddy]

Of course. Because Suits is known for its accurate portrayal of the legal field.

It actually gets some things right, as can be seen from the factual representation of the NY bar rules. Mike apparently took the bar w/o a J.D., and that is realistic b/c NY in fact allows this.

I'll admit that I smh when Mike was trying to get Rachel to study for an LSAT that was just a few weeks away...one for which she had clearly not registered. I also smh @ the repeated use of the term "LSAT's". In real life the "LSAT's" is/are the "LSAT", even if you can think of the LSAT as a series of five mini tests and an unscored writing section. Some of the show is realistic, and some of it isn't.

[NYC Law]

I think the job prospects are too risky to justify law school unless you

1) Have the money to pay for school without incurring debt
2) Have a job lined up (through family or something along those lines - guaranteed employment) which requires a JD
3) Get accepted to to HYS, maybe T6 and plan on exchanging your life for studying to out-compete your [equally competent] peers
4) Get a 1/2 to full scholarship to a Tier 1 and are okay with staying in the area after graduation.

It is unfortunately not what aspiring law students want to hear, but given the present legal job market and unsustainably high tuition rates, I strongly agree with the above advice.

Shit just got real

[Aberzombie1892]

(4) JD's are luxury items, as no one ever NEEDS a law degree

Huh? I thought you needed an ABA-accredited degree to take the bar in almost all states (with the notable exception of California).

No one NEEDS to practice law. Think about it.

There are only two types of people that truly believe that they NEED a law degree:
1. People that didn't accomplish anything in undergrad (wrong major, wrong GPA, etc.). Those people would benefit from going back to undergrad and getting another major/degree. Instead, they flock to law school because (A) they would be embarrassed if they told their family/friends that they needed to go back to undergrad, (B) they are happy that law school has no prerequisites, and (C) their wasted time in undergrad is validated by their heavily inflated GPA's (at "Prestigious" institutions) helping them get into a "good" law school.
2. People whose immediate family members have THEIR OWN law firm. This reasoning is more acceptable, but these types of people are still choosing to pursue law over other occupations that do not require three years of school and $90,000 worth of (non-dischargable) debt.

While MTAL (or whatever his name is) is pretty annoying, he is (sort of) right in that some people may honestly be better off just entering the workforce - especially those that do not, in lack of better terms, have money to burn.

[JoeFish]

No one NEEDS to practice law. Think about it.

There are only two types of people that truly believe that they NEED a law degree:
1. People that didn't accomplish anything in undergrad (wrong major, wrong GPA, etc.). Those people would benefit from going back to undergrad and getting another major/degree. Instead, they flock to law school because (A) they would be embarrassed if they told their family/friends that they needed to go back to undergrad, (B) they are happy that law school has no prerequisites, and (C) their wasted time in undergrad is validated by their heavily inflated GPA's (at "Prestigious" institutions) helping them get into a "good" law school.
2. People whose immediate family members have THEIR OWN law firm. This reasoning is more acceptable, but these types of people are still choosing to pursue law over other occupations that do not require three years of school and $90,000 worth of (non-dischargable) debt.

While MTAL (or whatever his name is) is pretty annoying, he is (sort of) right in that some people may honestly be better off just entering the workforce - especially those that do not, in lack of better terms, have money to burn.

No one NEEDS to be a Lawyer or Doctor or Firefighter or Chemist or Chef or Mechanic or Plumber. Think about it.
There are only two types of people that truly believe that they NEED to do substantial work for a living:
1. People who aren't athletic enough to play in Professional Sports Leagues.
2. People whose immediate family members didn't leave them more than $10,000,000 in a will or fund.

... Geeze, honestly, you comment was... well... let's just say I don't find your reasoning sound

[jared6180]

I am still in undergrad, and have wanted to go to law school for a while now. I have not performed as well as I would have liked thus far because of some family reasons, and for a while because I suffer from a disability from my time in the Army, however over the last year I have gotten better. ANYHOW, because of my low GPA I most likely have no chance at a T10 school, but I still want to go. I guess I am just crazy enough (thank you US ARMY) to believe that if you do what you are passionate about the $$$ will come with time and experience. I may not start out in BigLaw, I may NEVER step foot into a BigLaw firm for an interview, but I still believe I want to be an attorney. If all else fails I will put my name on a door, print 1,000 business cards, buy a billboard, and do DUIs and Criminal Defense cases for 25-30 years, but at the very least I am still working in the field I love.

If you can't find a job, go make yourself a job, and stop whining on a blog about how bad you have it. Take the time and energy you put into a blog and write something of substance that matters, and that could change your world.

[PDaddy]

The basic argument seems to be:
(1) there are more law grads than there will ever be jobs
(2) all law schools manipulate their post-graduation employment stats
(3) Law school tuition is way too high, and thus
(4) Nobody should go to law school unless it's HYS/T6 or they don't have to pay for most of it.
Any thoughts?

Try these:
(4) JD's are luxury items, as no one ever NEEDS a law degree (replace 4)
(5) Litigation skills aren't useful for any other occupation
(6) JD's are only truly useful for practicing law, and they are merely resume lines of prestige when you apply for other jobs (NCAA, Compliance, Contracts, Negotiators, etc.)

That sums it up. But yes, the search function is useful.

Re: #5: Litigation skills, which include advocating for or against a course of action, are useful in corporate boardrooms, in consulting and in the classroom, as well as in many other areas.

Re: #6 JD's are only truly essential for practicing law, and not really so. many lawyers are "reading law" in states where it is allowed (NY, Virginia, Washington, California, etc.), and earning their licenses when allowed to sit for the bar. The skills one can acquire while earning a JD such as superior oratory, writing, reasoning skills are applicable to just about any field.

And think about this: in theory, a JD can do anything an MBA can do, but an MBA cannot defend a party in court or sue on another person's behalf.

[PDaddy]

If you can't find a job, go make yourself a job, and stop whining on a blog about how bad you have it. Take the time and energy you put into a blog and write something of substance that matters, and that could change your world.

Well said! Too many people are waiting to be recruited instead of making their own way, which is a weak thing to do for people who claim to be so strong-minded. Hang your shingle if you want to be a lawyer, or use your degree in a diffferent way. think outside of the box.

I strongly disagree with anyone who says that a law degree is limiting. To the contrary, it's the most flexible professional degree you can have. As stated before, a JD can do anything an MBA/MA/MS can do, but an MBA/MA/MS cannot defend clients or sue other parties in court on behalf of clients. The portability and flexibility of a JD is evidenced by the diverse fields in which you see lawyers practicing, including professional sports, Hollywood, Wall Street, academia, the non-profit sector, Broadway and other arts, the medical field, entrepreneurship, politics/public policy/government, etc.

[Aberzombie1892]

[quote="PDaddy"]
I have to disagree with #5. You can be an effective advocate without knowing the FRCP, or any of the other rules related to litigating. There is a difference between being a good advocate and being a good litigator - you don't need a JD for the former.

I agree with #6 to a certain extent. While I agree that those skills are conveyed to students during law school and are extremely useful, not many people, outside of legal employers, hire JD's for those skills. As such, I feel as though it would be foolhardy to justify law school on those grounds (although I do agree)..

JD and MBA thing. While it is true that some JD students can do the same things as MBA students, most MBA employers won't hire JDs for positions generally reserved for MBAs. I believe that this is primarily true because two people entering any law school can take dramatically different courses/have dramatically different experiences - and MBA employers would only be interested in business related courses. MBA employers know that 99.99% of MBA programs teach the same core courses and, these employers want to hire people who have taken these courses. Controlling for pre-MBA experience, any two candidates from any MBA program will have acquired similar skills through school (though these skill sets would be differentiated through internships and electives). Law schools are similar in that they have core courses, but these courses have minimal use outside of policy/drafting/litigating. Students in law school that are interested in business would have to take more business oriented courses to try to be attractive to MBA employers, and that fact, combined with the fact that many MBA employers are really certain what is exactly taught to JD students in these courses, make them hesitant to hire JD students. More directly, you can get a law degree and not know how to read a balance sheet. In fact, I don't recall that documents, or any other relevant business documents, being covered in Business Enterprises (although they were covered in Corporate Finance). So while MBAs can't practice law like JDs, most MBA employers won't hire JDs (controlling for pre-law school experience).

PDaddy, where have you been? I haven't seen you around in while.

[MrAnon]

Top law students typically lack the quant and communicative skills of top MBA students.

Ditto for TTT law students vs. TTT MBA students.

[MC Southstar]

Top law students typically lack the quant and communicative skills of top MBA students.

Ditto for TTT law students vs. TTT MBA students.

Even if this were true, it would have nothing to do with the education imo.

[minnbills]

FWIW my aunt manages the north american compliance operations of a fortune 500 company and she thinks JDs are a big advantage for people in corporate jobs, even if not compliance or in-house work. Basically, she said they're not going to give you a big salary right away but people with JDs tend to really outpace BAs for promotions.

A family friend who was a high-level corporate guy also claimed JDs are valued for positions in strategic, though you have to go to a highly-ranked school to get your foot in the door.

[bahari2010]

The idea that a J.D. is an asset in seeking a job outside of the legal industry is simply laughable. I have spoken with about two dozen alums from the classes of 2009 and 2010 from the major northern Calif. law schools (none from Berkeley) and those not working in the legal field found that having a J.D. on their resume branded them as overqualified or a flight risk. Talk to some actual law grads rather than some family member relating their second-hand knowledge.

P.S. Most M.B.A.'s are part timers going to school at their employer's expense.

[minnbills]

The idea that a J.D. is an asset in seeking a job outside of the legal industry is simply laughable.

Actually I was referring to the degree's value once you're in a career. So maybe you could read a little more carefully next time?

[dood]

Shit just got real

[dood]

The idea that a J.D. is an asset in seeking a job outside of the legal industry is simply laughable.

u are laughable, u aspie.

u r foreign?

[bahari2010]

The idea that a J.D. is an asset in seeking a job outside of the legal industry is simply laughable.

Actually I was referring to the degree's value once you're in a career. So maybe you could read a little more carefully next time?

Actually, your comment is not clear on if you have the job or not. Nevertheless, I stand by what I said.

[bahari2010]

The idea that a J.D. is an asset in seeking a job outside of the legal industry is simply laughable.

u are laughable, u aspie.

u r foreign?

Whatever, but anyway, as a person with a disability (not an aspie) who has long been active in disability rights name calling serves no purpose.

And no, American since 1683:)

[minnbills]

The idea that a J.D. is an asset in seeking a job outside of the legal industry is simply laughable.

Actually I was referring to the degree's value once you're in a career. So maybe you could read a little more carefully next time?

Actually, your comment is not clear on if you have the job or not. Nevertheless, I stand by what I said.

I made no indication that I have "the job."

[taxman128]

I think the job prospects are too risky to justify law school unless you

1) Have the money to pay for school without incurring debt

Having the money to pay for law school with risky job prospects does not make it a good investment.

[sunynp]

You can take the bar in NY without going to law school, but you have to do an apprentice program. Suits isn't real! Who knew! There is a thread about Suits on here somewhere and I posted the rules about admission to NY in it.

[bk1]

Necromancy with no good cause should be a bannable offense.