Top Law Schools

I was wondering if any current or former JD/MBA have any input on their experience and any advice. Thanks.

Seems like Goodwin Proctor thinks it is a good idea

--LinkRemoved--

droges wrote:I was wondering if any current or former JD/MBA have any input on their experience and any advice. Thanks.

Is it a three or four year (combine JD/MBA) program?

I am no expert but I believe its due to where the MBA is from. An MBA is becoming more and more common, and like a JD, it makes a world of difference where its from. Interesting article in the WSJ today about the MBA: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 07744.html

top30man wrote:I am no expert but I believe its due to where the MBA is from. An MBA is becoming more and more common, and like a JD, it makes a world of difference where its from. Interesting article in the WSJ today about the MBA: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 07744.html

+1

I've considered it, but only if I could get it from Northwestern/Kellogg.

Opie wrote:

top30man wrote:I am no expert but I believe its due to where the MBA is from. An MBA is becoming more and more common, and like a JD, it makes a world of difference where its from. Interesting article in the WSJ today about the MBA: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 07744.html

+1

I've considered it, but only if I could get it from Northwestern/Kellogg.

Refuckingdiculous anti-Harvard trolling.

+1

I've considered it, but only if I could get it from Northwestern/Kellogg.

Exactly. If its from a school that is t14/25(etc) for both then it would be much more attractive.

TCR is Penn/Wharton. The red sea will fucking part for you

Well I'm at a top 25 law school, not too sure the ranking on the business school but I know its pretty reputable. It would be a 4 year joint program

droges wrote:Well I'm at a top 25 law school, not too sure the ranking on the business school but I know its pretty reputable. It would be a 4 year joint program

Dude at my uncle's firm just graduated JD/MBA in 3 years by taking summer classes at night and doing SA during the day. Hell on earth, but it was worth it. He just started last month with second-year status.

minnbills wrote:TCR is Penn/Wharton. The red sea will fucking part for you

When I visited a friend at Penn, he was the only guy among the ten or so people I met who was only getting the JD. IIRC, Penn offers the JD/MBA in only three years, so if you have an extra $75000 to burn, why wouldn't you do it?

MrPapagiorgio wrote:

Opie wrote:

top30man wrote:I am no expert but I believe its due to where the MBA is from. An MBA is becoming more and more common, and like a JD, it makes a world of difference where its from. Interesting article in the WSJ today about the MBA: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 07744.html

+1

I've considered it, but only if I could get it from Northwestern/Kellogg.

Refuckingdiculous anti-Harvard trolling.

NU does do in 3 years after all.

kahechsof wrote:

MrPapagiorgio wrote:

Opie wrote:

top30man wrote:I am no expert but I believe its due to where the MBA is from. An MBA is becoming more and more common, and like a JD, it makes a world of difference where its from. Interesting article in the WSJ today about the MBA: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 07744.html

+1

I've considered it, but only if I could get it from Northwestern/Kellogg.

Refuckingdiculous anti-Harvard trolling.

NU does do in 3 years after all.

Well, I wasn't intending it to be anti-Harvard. That would be a great degree too, as would Penn/Wharton, but I hate the East coast and wouldn't go to either even with a full-ride.

And the 3 years is nice.

I don't see the point really. The JD won't help you for MBA recruiting, and the MBA will only really help you for WLRK. It's also a ton more money.

JD will get you almost all jobs you can get with an MBA IF you attend a top school. You can still get management consulting pretty easily. I guess the MBA will help you get I-Banking, which is hard with only a JD.

JD/MBA is bad because it signals to legal employers that you are a flight risk.

JD/MBA is good if you want to upgrade your path to C-LEVEL executive and plan to go the business route first.

TaipeiMort wrote:JD will get you almost all jobs you can get with an MBA IF you attend a top school. You can still get management consulting pretty easily. I guess the MBA will help you get I-Banking, which is hard with only a JD.

JD/MBA is bad because it signals to legal employers that you are a flight risk.

JD/MBA is good if you want to upgrade your path to C-LEVEL executive and plan to go the business route first.

That's a pretty sound analysis. I've worked with two different HR executives (Sr. Level in big corporations) with JD/MBA. I think if you are wanting to go the corp route in HR, investment, or something that requires a good understanding of the law AND of how the company does business, it could help. I don't think there are ANY jobs that would require or even recommend it though.

ETA: also, both of those execs had 25+ years in the business. They both started as labor negotiators and moved their way up the corporate ladder. Not the way most of us want to do things.

I know some people say that the JD/MBA looks bad to law firms because it makes you look like a flight risk? Does everyone feel this way? I have a hard time believing that firms would reject a JD/MBA because he or she got another degree. Goodwin Proctor seemed to see it as a positive so where is this coming from?

TaipeiMort wrote:JD will get you almost all jobs you can get with an MBA IF you attend a top school. You can still get management consulting pretty easily. I guess the MBA will help you get I-Banking, which is hard with only a JD.

JD/MBA is bad because it signals to legal employers that you are a flight risk.

JD/MBA is good if you want to upgrade your path to C-LEVEL executive and plan to go the business route first.

This is stupid and wrong and somehow perpetuated ad nauseum on these boards. Law firms like it and so do top business school employers. Talk to some actual J.D./M.B.A.s from top schools and I guarantee you that 98% don't regret it. It may be a different story from a non-top school, but if you're at a school that is good in both it's more than worth it.

TaipeiMort wrote:JD will get you almost all jobs you can get with an MBA IF you attend a top school. You can still get management consulting pretty easily. I guess the MBA will help you get I-Banking, which is hard with only a JD.

JD/MBA is bad because it signals to legal employers that you are a flight risk.

JD/MBA is good if you want to upgrade your path to C-LEVEL executive and plan to go the business route first.

This is pretty wrong on every count. If by "get management consulting pretty easily" you mean "hire 1-2 people from each T6," then sure. Also, good luck trying to get a banking, private equity, hedge fund, or general managerial job with a JD. They will laugh in your face.

As for the flight risk point, no, it's just not true (unless you have a really nonsensical story like trying to be an appellate litigator with a JD/MBA). There's a reason most firms give JD/MBA bonuses, actively recruit JD/MBAs (my summer firm was explicitly trying to increase its recruiting of JD/MBAs) and sponsor JD/MBA associations at law schools.

droges wrote:I know some people say that the JD/MBA looks bad to law firms because it makes you look like a flight risk? Does everyone feel this way? I have a hard time believing that firms would reject a JD/MBA because he or she got another degree. Goodwin Proctor seemed to see it as a positive so where is this coming from?

It is pretty much absolutely wrong, and from going through the process firsthand, no, virtually nobody feels this way.

Not to mention, firms want 90% of the class to be a flight risk - that's what the entire business model is predicated on.

HamDel wrote:

TaipeiMort wrote:JD will get you almost all jobs you can get with an MBA IF you attend a top school. You can still get management consulting pretty easily. I guess the MBA will help you get I-Banking, which is hard with only a JD.

JD/MBA is bad because it signals to legal employers that you are a flight risk.

JD/MBA is good if you want to upgrade your path to C-LEVEL executive and plan to go the business route first.

This is stupid and wrong and somehow perpetuated ad nauseum on these boards. Law firms like it and so do top business school employers. Talk to some actual J.D./M.B.A.s from top schools and I guarantee you that 98% don't regret it. It may be a different story from a non-top school, but if you're at a school that is good in both it's more than worth it.

First, I am a student at The University of Chicago and have a couple friends who have done/ are currently in the JD/MBA program. Second, I have had years of international work experience, some at an executive level, which has enabled me to work with CLOs, General Counsels, and other C-level execs and have discussed with them this topic. Third, I personally considered going this route and decided against it.

SOME law firms do appreciate this experience. These are firms in NYC and Chicago that are not heavily invested in retaining you as an attorney, but value any additional knowledge you temporarily bring to the table-- the Kirklands, Cravaths, and PaulWeiss, DPW, Skaddens of the world. In this context, an MBA is good because it will help you tremendously when you go in-house. I have a good friend who is Assistant GC at a Fortune 500 company who said to me point blank: "Pretty much everyone in the legal department wishes they had an MBA." There are mobility ceilings in-house (especially if you want to make the C-level jump) that not having either: 1) A top-25 MBA, 2) Goldman, McKinsey, or Bain on resume, or 3) Strong, lengthy economics/finance/accounting/other real appreciable managerial experience will create.

FOR MOST law firms, ie. if you want to start at a firm that actually provides you a meaningful chance at partner (such as a major litigation shop, a boutique, a big law satellite firm with a low-leverage number), an MBA from Wharton/Booth/HBS/Kellogg will HURT you big time. These firms that want to INVEST in you. The firms that have 5-person SA classes and strong, but leanly staffed offices don't want some guy who is going to jump after three years to work in-house at Procter and Gamble. An MBA will hurt you big time with these firms, even when the knowledgebase itself will help you within the position. The MBA in this case is not good, and should be concealed when applying.

imchuckbass58 wrote:

droges wrote:I know some people say that the JD/MBA looks bad to law firms because it makes you look like a flight risk? Does everyone feel this way? I have a hard time believing that firms would reject a JD/MBA because he or she got another degree. Goodwin Proctor seemed to see it as a positive so where is this coming from?

It is pretty much absolutely wrong, and from going through the process firsthand, no, virtually nobody feels this way.

Not to mention, firms want 90% of the class to be a flight risk - that's what the entire business model is predicated on.

I guess we have two different world-views. IMO the JD/MBA fits well with the NYC Biglaw model. However, I think the NYC Biglaw model is for risk-averse kids who don't want to cut their teeth early before they pay their loans off. If you are talking boutiques/leanly-staffed corporate practices that will give you a real shot at partner and GC lateral (ie. outside of NYC and Chicago), the MBA is a death knell. They want to develop their people.

TaipeiMort wrote:

HamDel wrote:

TaipeiMort wrote:JD will get you almost all jobs you can get with an MBA IF you attend a top school. You can still get management consulting pretty easily. I guess the MBA will help you get I-Banking, which is hard with only a JD.

JD/MBA is bad because it signals to legal employers that you are a flight risk.

JD/MBA is good if you want to upgrade your path to C-LEVEL executive and plan to go the business route first.

This is stupid and wrong and somehow perpetuated ad nauseum on these boards. Law firms like it and so do top business school employers. Talk to some actual J.D./M.B.A.s from top schools and I guarantee you that 98% don't regret it. It may be a different story from a non-top school, but if you're at a school that is good in both it's more than worth it.

First, I am a student at The University of Chicago and have a couple friends who have done/ are currently in the JD/MBA program. Second, I have had years of international work experience, some at an executive level, which has enabled me to work with CLOs, General Counsels, and other C-level execs and have discussed with them this topic. Third, I personally considered going this route and decided against it.

SOME law firms do appreciate this experience. These are firms in NYC and Chicago that are not heavily invested in retaining you as an attorney, but value any additional knowledge you temporarily bring to the table-- the Kirklands, Cravaths, and PaulWeiss, DPW, Skaddens of the world. In this context, an MBA is good because it will help you tremendously when you go in-house. I have a good friend who is Assistant GC at a Fortune 500 company who said to me point blank: "Pretty much everyone in the legal department wishes they had an MBA." There are mobility ceilings in-house (especially if you want to make the C-level jump) that not having either: 1) A top-25 MBA, 2) Goldman, McKinsey, or Bain on resume, or 3) Strong, lengthy economics/finance/accounting/other real appreciable managerial experience will create.

FOR MOST law firms, ie. if you want to start at a firm that actually provides you a meaningful chance at partner (such as a major litigation shop, a boutique, a big law satellite firm with a low-leverage number), an MBA from Wharton/Booth/HBS/Kellogg will HURT you big time. These firms that want to INVEST in you. The firms that have 5-person SA classes and strong, but leanly staffed offices don't want some guy who is going to jump after three years to work in-house at Procter and Gamble. An MBA will hurt you big time with these firms, even when the knowledgebase itself will help you within the position. The MBA in this case is not good, and should be concealed when applying.

Yes, you are the only one on this board with any experience related to this... Also I'm sure it was very hard to give up your position as CEO of Vodafone to go to law school. Give me a break, you don't know anything and it's quite obvious from your stock advice.

HamDel wrote:

TaipeiMort wrote:

HamDel wrote:

TaipeiMort wrote:JD will get you almost all jobs you can get with an MBA IF you attend a top school. You can still get management consulting pretty easily. I guess the MBA will help you get I-Banking, which is hard with only a JD.

JD/MBA is bad because it signals to legal employers that you are a flight risk.

JD/MBA is good if you want to upgrade your path to C-LEVEL executive and plan to go the business route first.

This is stupid and wrong and somehow perpetuated ad nauseum on these boards. Law firms like it and so do top business school employers. Talk to some actual J.D./M.B.A.s from top schools and I guarantee you that 98% don't regret it. It may be a different story from a non-top school, but if you're at a school that is good in both it's more than worth it.

First, I am a student at The University of Chicago and have a couple friends who have done/ are currently in the JD/MBA program. Second, I have had years of international work experience, some at an executive level, which has enabled me to work with CLOs, General Counsels, and other C-level execs and have discussed with them this topic. Third, I personally considered going this route and decided against it.

SOME law firms do appreciate this experience. These are firms in NYC and Chicago that are not heavily invested in retaining you as an attorney, but value any additional knowledge you temporarily bring to the table-- the Kirklands, Cravaths, and PaulWeiss, DPW, Skaddens of the world. In this context, an MBA is good because it will help you tremendously when you go in-house. I have a good friend who is Assistant GC at a Fortune 500 company who said to me point blank: "Pretty much everyone in the legal department wishes they had an MBA." There are mobility ceilings in-house (especially if you want to make the C-level jump) that not having either: 1) A top-25 MBA, 2) Goldman, McKinsey, or Bain on resume, or 3) Strong, lengthy economics/finance/accounting/other real appreciable managerial experience will create.

FOR MOST law firms, ie. if you want to start at a firm that actually provides you a meaningful chance at partner (such as a major litigation shop, a boutique, a big law satellite firm with a low-leverage number), an MBA from Wharton/Booth/HBS/Kellogg will HURT you big time. These firms that want to INVEST in you. The firms that have 5-person SA classes and strong, but leanly staffed offices don't want some guy who is going to jump after three years to work in-house at Procter and Gamble. An MBA will hurt you big time with these firms, even when the knowledgebase itself will help you within the position. The MBA in this case is not good, and should be concealed when applying.

Yes, you are the only one on this board with any experience related to this... Also I'm sure it was very hard to give up your position as CEO of Vodafone to go to law school. Give me a break, you don't know anything and it's quite obvious from your stock advice.

Say what you want. I did not come online to start an argument. I don't want to out myself so I can't talk much more about my work experience and do not appreciate being called a liar. However, I'm not saying don't go for the MBA or that it wont help. I'm saying that the nature of the second class of firms currently dictates that they are very wary of flight risks (why regional offices require ties and want to know that you are interested in their core practice) and having an MBA screams that you wont stay with them long-term. IF you want NYC Biglaw, then an MBA would be great and wont hurt you even intially. Long-term the MBA will help for most. Short-term it presents a hurdle for a very large chunk of firms.

I think the "hate" is mostly for kids with no professional work experience that think a high gmat is the only thing required to get into a top mba program and think that despite having no meaningful experience will suddenly be a serious recruit for associate level roles in ib or consulting(these jobs, unlike biglaw, require 3-5 years to go from analyst to associate) if they somehow backdoor their way into a good mba program. Also, there are very few career paths that require both a jd and a mba, and even less that require one without prior work experience.

When it gets down to it, top mba programs are really for people who have been in finance or consulting for several years, need a mba to get promoted, and need 2 years off from their crazy work hours. Also without work experience you won't have much to add to class discussions/projects.

If you want to be a lawyer, get a jd, if you want to be a banker and didn't goto ivy undergrad, rock the gmat and get into mit or lse masters of finance. If you feel you need a mba to move up in law, get a jd, work in law for a few years, then get the mba if explicitly required for promotion at your firm.