Post removed.
Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 1:47 pm
Post removed.
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=250311
Not sure how maximizing your earning potential hurts life in general.Mack.Hambleton wrote:Just dont go straight through..
It hurts for admissions, OCI, and life in general.
There's a solid chance you won't maximize your earning potential.lawman84 wrote:Not sure how maximizing your earning potential hurts life in general.Mack.Hambleton wrote:Just dont go straight through..
It hurts for admissions, OCI, and life in general.
You don't maximize your earning potential when you strike out because you have 0 work experience unlike the vast majority of your classmateslawman84 wrote:Not sure how maximizing your earning potential hurts life in general.Mack.Hambleton wrote:Just dont go straight through..
It hurts for admissions, OCI, and life in general.
Yeah, there are a lot of assumptions behind the idea that starting law school sooner will maximize your earning potential.lawman84 wrote:Not sure how maximizing your earning potential hurts life in general.Mack.Hambleton wrote:Just dont go straight through..
It hurts for admissions, OCI, and life in general.
In the case of a person who has a shot at schools like Stanford and Harvard based on their stats out of college, they can maximize their earning potential. But I'll concede that I shouldn't have put it in such concrete terms. They can maximize their earning potential. It's on them.A. Nony Mouse wrote:Yeah, there are a lot of assumptions behind the idea that starting law school sooner will maximize your earning potential.lawman84 wrote:Not sure how maximizing your earning potential hurts life in general.Mack.Hambleton wrote:Just dont go straight through..
It hurts for admissions, OCI, and life in general.
Puhlease. You're not going to strike out at a T6/T14 unless you do poorly in terms of grades and/or are a terrible interviewer. Time off might help the former but I don't see it being a big help for the latter. And if he is a terrible interviewer, what job is he going to get out of college?Mack.Hambleton wrote:You don't maximize your earning potential when you strike out because you have 0 work experience unlike the vast majority of your classmateslawman84 wrote:Not sure how maximizing your earning potential hurts life in general.Mack.Hambleton wrote:Just dont go straight through..
It hurts for admissions, OCI, and life in general.
I don't know what the OP's stats are but if his chances at some T6 schools are around 50%, he'll likely be fine.BigZuck wrote:There's a solid chance you won't maximize your earning potential.lawman84 wrote:Not sure how maximizing your earning potential hurts life in general.Mack.Hambleton wrote:Just dont go straight through..
It hurts for admissions, OCI, and life in general.
Plus it hurts life in general.
Definitely take at least 3 or 4 years off before law school. Your early 20s are far too precious.
Amen.lawman84 wrote:In the case of a person who has a shot at schools like Stanford and Harvard based on their stats out of college, they can maximize their earning potential. But I'll concede that I shouldn't have put it in such concrete terms. They can maximize their earning potential. It's on them.A. Nony Mouse wrote:Yeah, there are a lot of assumptions behind the idea that starting law school sooner will maximize your earning potential.lawman84 wrote:Not sure how maximizing your earning potential hurts life in general.Mack.Hambleton wrote:Just dont go straight through..
It hurts for admissions, OCI, and life in general.
Puhlease. You're not going to strike out at a T6/T14 unless you do poorly in terms of grades and/or are a terrible interviewer. Time off might help the former but I don't see it being a big help for the latter. And if he is a terrible interviewer, what job is he going to get out of college?Mack.Hambleton wrote:You don't maximize your earning potential when you strike out because you have 0 work experience unlike the vast majority of your classmateslawman84 wrote:Not sure how maximizing your earning potential hurts life in general.Mack.Hambleton wrote:Just dont go straight through..
It hurts for admissions, OCI, and life in general.
I'm not buying the fear mongering here. Also, the guy has some work experience.
I don't know what the OP's stats are but if his chances at some T6 schools are around 50%, he'll likely be fine.BigZuck wrote:There's a solid chance you won't maximize your earning potential.lawman84 wrote:Not sure how maximizing your earning potential hurts life in general.Mack.Hambleton wrote:Just dont go straight through..
It hurts for admissions, OCI, and life in general.
Plus it hurts life in general.
Definitely take at least 3 or 4 years off before law school. Your early 20s are far too precious.
Every year off is every year that you're not earning lawyer money. If you have the stats to go K-JD at a T14 school with money and know you want to go to law school, might as well do it. I'm not saying it's the right move for everyone but it's the right move for some.
What's the major issue?BigZuck wrote:I think you're underestimating how easy it is to strike out and I think you're also ignoring the major issue with going to law school as a 22/23/24 year old.
Well, yes, it does matter. Because after you exit, you're still getting paid like a lawyer. Which is likely more than you're making straight out of undergrad.(but in certain cases, that might not be true...those are more the exceptions though)Mack.Hambleton wrote:Also that it really doesn't matter when you do your 3-5 years of biglaw (if you're able to get it)
BigZuck wrote:it hurts life in general.
...
Your early 20s are far too precious.
What's so precious about them? I'm genuinely curious.(seriously, not being sarcastic)BigZuck wrote:BigZuck wrote:it hurts life in general.
...
Your early 20s are far too precious.
Yeah, exactly. I'm not going to say that no one should ever go K-JD; it's an individual decision and everyone has to make it for themselves. But (and I know I've said this in another thread) this maximization and "making lawyer money" idea assumes someone is going to go biglaw and stay biglaw, and to be brutally honest, most K-JDs are probably the least qualified among law school applicants to realistically assess what their long-term career is going to be. (I know that sounds super obnoxious, the condescending "you'll understand when you're older," but there's not much I can do about that.) You might strike out - it's unlikely, but possible. You might discover you hate law, or at least that you hate biglaw, which is wayyyyyyy more likely. That's all totally normal and if it turns out you don't want law (or biglaw) you have plenty of time to make a change, but it just doesn't make much sense to talk about the advantage to maximizing lawyer money when you have no idea where you'll be in 10 years. Besides, plenty of lawyers make $40-60k, so "lawyer" money doesn't really mean much.Mack.Hambleton wrote:Also that it really doesn't matter when you do your 3-5 years of biglaw (if you're able to get it)
Yea but when I say terrible, I don't really mean inexperienced. I mean one of those people that are terrible to the point of social awkwardness.A. Nony Mouse wrote:Yeah, exactly. I'm not going to say that no one should ever go K-JD; it's an individual decision and everyone has to make it for themselves. But (and I know I've said this in another thread) this maximization and "making lawyer money" idea assumes someone is going to go biglaw and stay biglaw, and to be brutally honest, most K-JDs are probably the least qualified among law school applicants to realistically assess what their long-term career is going to be. (I know that sounds super obnoxious, the condescending "you'll understand when you're older," but there's not much I can do about that.) You might strike out - it's unlikely, but possible. You might discover you hate law, or at least that you hate biglaw, which is wayyyyyyy more likely. That's all totally normal and if it turns out you don't want law (or biglaw) you have plenty of time to make a change, but it just doesn't make much sense to talk about the advantage to maximizing lawyer money when you have no idea where you'll be in 10 years. Besides, plenty of lawyers make $40-60k, so "lawyer" money doesn't really mean much.Mack.Hambleton wrote:Also that it really doesn't matter when you do your 3-5 years of biglaw (if you're able to get it)
Also, taking time off and actually working full-time at something definitely makes you a better interviewer. Plain old interviewing for jobs makes you a better interviewer.
Many more than HYS but still not that high of a percentage. And even less of those people will strike out entirely.Mack.Hambleton wrote:Maybe at HYS aspies are the only ones striking out, but at lower T14 there are definitely many more people to account for who have no offers after OCI
I think you're creating an artificially narrow category of "terrible interviewer," though. There are lots of reasons why a terrible interviewer is terrible, not limited to fundamental failure of social skills.lawman84 wrote:Yea but when I say terrible, I don't really mean inexperienced. I mean one of those people that are terrible to the point of social awkwardness.A. Nony Mouse wrote:Also, taking time off and actually working full-time at something definitely makes you a better interviewer. Plain old interviewing for jobs makes you a better interviewer.
As far as liking or not liking biglaw goes, I just don't see how that changes as you age. So assuming that you'll spend the same amount of time in biglaw, I'm just saying that I think it's a safe assumption you'll make more after you exit biglaw than you will in the however many years you take off after undergrad. Is that true in every case? No. But I think it'll be true more often than not.
Five of the lower T14s have BL+FC rates in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. And no it's not all self selection.lawman84 wrote:Many more than HYS but still not that high of a percentage. And even less of those people will strike out entirely.Mack.Hambleton wrote:Maybe at HYS aspies are the only ones striking out, but at lower T14 there are definitely many more people to account for who have no offers after OCI
That's true. I am.A. Nony Mouse wrote:I think you're creating an artificially narrow category of "terrible interviewer," though. There are lots of reasons why a terrible interviewer is terrible, not limited to fundamental failure of social skills.lawman84 wrote:Yea but when I say terrible, I don't really mean inexperienced. I mean one of those people that are terrible to the point of social awkwardness.A. Nony Mouse wrote:Also, taking time off and actually working full-time at something definitely makes you a better interviewer. Plain old interviewing for jobs makes you a better interviewer.
As far as liking or not liking biglaw goes, I just don't see how that changes as you age. So assuming that you'll spend the same amount of time in biglaw, I'm just saying that I think it's a safe assumption you'll make more after you exit biglaw than you will in the however many years you take off after undergrad. Is that true in every case? No. But I think it'll be true more often than not.