For those in BL, would you have gone into coding? Forum

[Anonymous User]

but they might have been better informed from going to an "elite" undergrad. therefore, maybe people in biglaw who have no substantive interest are more likely to come from a less "elite" undergrad

I think there’s some truth to this. At my top undergrad (HYP), the people who were money-motivated and had their eye on the ball almost exclusively went into finance (the IB —> PE/HF track). At least that’s how it played out in my graduating class 5-10 years ago.

There of course *is* a big chunk of students who eventually went on to law school; but a majority go to an elite LS, i.e., HYS — undergrad grade inflation clearly helps in admissions, as does our law school’s incestuous preference for its own undergrad students — and thereafter to high-flying public interest or government roles.

Those of us grinding it out in biglaw are very clearly chumps. We could have been grinding for >2x the pay in buy-side finance by this point.

I seriously doubt that most people in biglaw are capable of handling a job in buy-side finance. One of the most important skills in that field is comfort with quantitative calculations, which is probably the thing lawyers are absolutely the worst at. Maybe like M&A associates at a v5 could complain, but your average v30 rando litigation associate or cap markets diligence monkey has zero capability of working in buy-side finance.

Lol. Another brilliant take.

[Anonymous User]

but they might have been better informed from going to an "elite" undergrad. therefore, maybe people in biglaw who have no substantive interest are more likely to come from a less "elite" undergrad

I think there’s some truth to this. At my top undergrad (HYP), the people who were money-motivated and had their eye on the ball almost exclusively went into finance (the IB —> PE/HF track). At least that’s how it played out in my graduating class 5-10 years ago.

There of course *is* a big chunk of students who eventually went on to law school; but a majority go to an elite LS, i.e., HYS — undergrad grade inflation clearly helps in admissions, as does our law school’s incestuous preference for its own undergrad students — and thereafter to high-flying public interest or government roles.

Those of us grinding it out in biglaw are very clearly chumps. We could have been grinding for >2x the pay in buy-side finance by this point.

I seriously doubt that most people in biglaw are capable of handling a job in buy-side finance. One of the most important skills in that field is comfort with quantitative calculations, which is probably the thing lawyers are absolutely the worst at. Maybe like M&A associates at a v5 could complain, but your average v30 rando litigation associate or cap markets diligence monkey has zero capability of working in buy-side finance.

You say this as if there aren't a bunch of people in biglaw with MBAs or business backgrounds, let alone people who actually did exit to finance roles.

[Anonymous User]

but they might have been better informed from going to an "elite" undergrad. therefore, maybe people in biglaw who have no substantive interest are more likely to come from a less "elite" undergrad

I think there’s some truth to this. At my top undergrad (HYP), the people who were money-motivated and had their eye on the ball almost exclusively went into finance (the IB —> PE/HF track). At least that’s how it played out in my graduating class 5-10 years ago.

There of course *is* a big chunk of students who eventually went on to law school; but a majority go to an elite LS, i.e., HYS — undergrad grade inflation clearly helps in admissions, as does our law school’s incestuous preference for its own undergrad students — and thereafter to high-flying public interest or government roles.

Those of us grinding it out in biglaw are very clearly chumps. We could have been grinding for >2x the pay in buy-side finance by this point.

I seriously doubt that most people in biglaw are capable of handling a job in buy-side finance. One of the most important skills in that field is comfort with quantitative calculations, which is probably the thing lawyers are absolutely the worst at. Maybe like M&A associates at a v5 could complain, but your average v30 rando litigation associate or cap markets diligence monkey has zero capability of working in buy-side finance.

You say this as if there aren't a bunch of people in biglaw with MBAs or business backgrounds, let alone people who actually did exit to finance roles.

Sorry - how many biglaw people exactly exited directly to buy-side finance roles? Some incredibly tiny percentage of exits? Basically impossible to do without a strong pre-biglaw finance background, super hotshot credentials, or a very tight relationship with a client. 99% of biglaw lawyers would die for a legit buyside finance role, and ain't many of them getting it.

[Anonymous User]

As has already been said, lawyers are also risk averse. I can't stress how attractive it is for risk averse semi-good test takers who know little of the world to have a direct, predictable path to a multi-6-figure salary. Few college students know what a products counsel does, much less how to become one. But most students know that biglaw lawyers make good money.

This. People seem to drastically underestimate the number of people who go to law school on the "might as well go to law school" path. And I actually think this is even more true for highly talented students than for others, because for them law school seems to offer even more certainty of a six-figure income. Call me cynical, but for a lot of people at T-14s and in Big Law, the main reason they are there is definitely not substantive interest.

Surprised by your disagreement regarding math skills given your experience as a teacher. Surely, you’ve encountered variation among students, and perhaps even met a prodigy or two? Also note that my point wasn’t just about math, but about the kind of intelligence that seems to absorb logic/math/STEM education more easily, relatively speaking. I went to junior high and high school with a math prodigy—I’m willing to bet my left nut his ability is innate.

I’ve also been around STEM professionals of varying degrees of ability. The top tier are usually both well-prepped and naturally inclined. Those with natural ability really stand out, both in class and in the workplace. The merely well-prepped aren’t thriving in classes like discrete math / number theory. They don’t code up a networked PvP Tetris game over the weekend just for kicks and to flex at you in retaliation for kicking their butt in Tetris on PS2. They aren’t coding up a DVR just for kicks. People like SBF are the kings of SV—and you’ll find very few of that type in big law.

I'm not the original anon you were replying to, but my concern with this is that while I agree innate ability exists, I think it is very easy to conflate innate ability with opportunity. Like with your example of SBF, no doubt he is of above average intelligence, but I find it difficult to determine how much of his ability is derived from his innate talent vs how much is derived from the fact that his parents are two Stanford law professors who had both the knowledge and the means to provide him elite educational opportunities that other parents can’t provide to their children. Same with his GF. Again, I’m sure her innate intelligence is above average, but I tend to believe her being a math whiz had as much or more to do with her being born to two MIT professors than it had to do with her innate ability.

I say all of this because while I was no prodigy, I do think I had more innate ability in math than anything else (the math section was always my best section on the SAT despite the fact I never studied for it, I got a perfect score on the logic games section, etc.). That’s probably the main reason I would have gone into programming if I could do it over again: I honestly think I’d be better at it than I am at practicing law. I also think I’d enjoy it more.

But coming from a working-class family and attending a high school where 90% of the students qualified for free lunch and 3 AP courses were offered, I really had no idea what coding even was until much later on, even after attending an elite college for undergrad. When you come from that background and do well in school, you look around you and see that all the wealthy, successful people seem to be lawyers and it makes you want to set yourself on that track too.

Were we classmates? JK, it sounds like you’re from the East Coast. Similar background here in all respects (but from the West Coast, so everyone went into tech)—poor AF, working class, naturally smart (especially in math), had planned on getting a union job at UPS or NUMMI (the plant that’s now Tesla) before I got my act together at the end of my sophomore year in HS. Fell into coding during college after realizing it was a good way to make some money and was smart enough to bootstrap myself and earn a place at a top company at the time (and in R&D).

Along the way, I met some of the most pretentious people I’ve ever encountered—MIT tech bro transplants in SV. The kind of people who’ll show up at your GF’s house for a party and stare YOU down, asking WTF you are (actually happened to me. this guy just made $35m on the Akamai IPO and was acting like the biggest D in the room). I’ve also met some really smart people and soon developed a pretty good ability to discern natural talent vs preparation, and the degrees between them.

I’ve met and worked with people like SBF/his GF—academic families, obviously intelligent and well-resourced, as well as people more like me (but much smarter)—shit education, zero resources, who compete at the same level as the SBFs. I think my original point stands and is aligned with what most folks have already said here—BL lawyers can probably get some kind of coding job if they tried (after retooling), but it’s highly unlikely they’d be at the top of that game, as an architect at Apple let’s say or a L7 at Google (sorry if I got the designation wrong but you know what I mean). That’s not to say they can’t excel in other tech functions. Look at the OG BL super tech bro—Thiel, or that annoying woman who led Reddit as CEO for a while.

[Anonymous User]

As has already been said, lawyers are also risk averse. I can't stress how attractive it is for risk averse semi-good test takers who know little of the world to have a direct, predictable path to a multi-6-figure salary. Few college students know what a products counsel does, much less how to become one. But most students know that biglaw lawyers make good money.

This. People seem to drastically underestimate the number of people who go to law school on the "might as well go to law school" path. And I actually think this is even more true for highly talented students than for others, because for them law school seems to offer even more certainty of a six-figure income. Call me cynical, but for a lot of people at T-14s and in Big Law, the main reason they are there is definitely not substantive interest.

Surprised by your disagreement regarding math skills given your experience as a teacher. Surely, you’ve encountered variation among students, and perhaps even met a prodigy or two? Also note that my point wasn’t just about math, but about the kind of intelligence that seems to absorb logic/math/STEM education more easily, relatively speaking. I went to junior high and high school with a math prodigy—I’m willing to bet my left nut his ability is innate.

I’ve also been around STEM professionals of varying degrees of ability. The top tier are usually both well-prepped and naturally inclined. Those with natural ability really stand out, both in class and in the workplace. The merely well-prepped aren’t thriving in classes like discrete math / number theory. They don’t code up a networked PvP Tetris game over the weekend just for kicks and to flex at you in retaliation for kicking their butt in Tetris on PS2. They aren’t coding up a DVR just for kicks. People like SBF are the kings of SV—and you’ll find very few of that type in big law.

I'm not the original anon you were replying to, but my concern with this is that while I agree innate ability exists, I think it is very easy to conflate innate ability with opportunity. Like with your example of SBF, no doubt he is of above average intelligence, but I find it difficult to determine how much of his ability is derived from his innate talent vs how much is derived from the fact that his parents are two Stanford law professors who had both the knowledge and the means to provide him elite educational opportunities that other parents can’t provide to their children. Same with his GF. Again, I’m sure her innate intelligence is above average, but I tend to believe her being a math whiz had as much or more to do with her being born to two MIT professors than it had to do with her innate ability.

I say all of this because while I was no prodigy, I do think I had more innate ability in math than anything else (the math section was always my best section on the SAT despite the fact I never studied for it, I got a perfect score on the logic games section, etc.). That’s probably the main reason I would have gone into programming if I could do it over again: I honestly think I’d be better at it than I am at practicing law. I also think I’d enjoy it more.

But coming from a working-class family and attending a high school where 90% of the students qualified for free lunch and 3 AP courses were offered, I really had no idea what coding even was until much later on, even after attending an elite college for undergrad. When you come from that background and do well in school, you look around you and see that all the wealthy, successful people seem to be lawyers and it makes you want to set yourself on that track too.

Were we classmates? JK, it sounds like you’re from the East Coast. Similar background here in all respects (but from the West Coast, so everyone went into tech)—poor AF, working class, naturally smart (especially in math), had planned on getting a union job at UPS or NUMMI (the plant that’s now Tesla) before I got my act together at the end of my sophomore year in HS. Fell into coding during college after realizing it was a good way to make some money and was smart enough to bootstrap myself and earn a place at a top company at the time (and in R&D).

Along the way, I met some of the most pretentious people I’ve ever encountered—MIT tech bro transplants in SV. The kind of people who’ll show up at your GF’s house for a party and stare YOU down, asking WTF you are (actually happened to me. this guy just made $35m on the Akamai IPO and was acting like the biggest D in the room). I’ve also met some really smart people and soon developed a pretty good ability to discern natural talent vs preparation, and the degrees between them.

I’ve met and worked with people like SBF/his GF—academic families, obviously intelligent and well-resourced, as well as people more like me (but much smarter)—shit education, zero resources, who compete at the same level as the SBFs. I think my original point stands and is aligned with what most folks have already said here—BL lawyers can probably get some kind of coding job if they tried (after retooling), but it’s highly unlikely they’d be at the top of that game, as an architect at Apple let’s say or a L7 at Google (sorry if I got the designation wrong but you know what I mean). That’s not to say they can’t excel in other tech functions. Look at the OG BL super tech bro—Thiel, or that annoying woman who led Reddit as CEO for a while.

Forget L7, L4/5 entry-level coders make more than post-biglaw in-house lawyers.

[laanngo]

Forget L7, L4/5 entry-level coders make more than post-biglaw in-house lawyers.

How would you characterize the risk assessment for biglaw vs bigtech? BL partners make bank but it's up or out to get there. BT you can generally stay a while since you wrote the code but it's hard to make as much money as a BL partner without ascending to middle management, which requires soft skills.

[Sackboy]

You all kind of suck. Kindly go do coding if that's what you want to do.

[Anonymous User]

Forget L7, L4/5 entry-level coders make more than post-biglaw in-house lawyers.

How would you characterize the risk assessment for biglaw vs bigtech? BL partners make bank but it's up or out to get there. BT you can generally stay a while since you wrote the code but it's hard to make as much money as a BL partner without ascending to middle management, which requires soft skills.

Too many variables to consider wrt BT. I will say that once you hit 40s+, if you’re not a standout developer, you’ll start getting nervous about job security. Best case is specializing in something that younger coders don’t get into if your goal is to stay a coder—e.g., we had some old timers who specialized in PLSQL—older/obscure DB tech. Another good option for middle-of-the-pack coders is to get good at common enterprise development tools, so that you can be a useful staff coder at large companies that tend to use such things. You can also consider transitioning into tech sales, especially early on in your career.

Someone made a dig at PMs earlier. It’s a common route to take, and a good one if you have great organization and communication skills, but opens up competition from MBA types. Tough to make a lasting career out of this though if you’re middle-of-the-pack, unless you move to lesser-known companies or can get yourself into a large company with a well-developed PM track (at that point it’d be more as a project/program manager).

[Anonymous User]

Forget L7, L4/5 entry-level coders make more than post-biglaw in-house lawyers.

How would you characterize the risk assessment for biglaw vs bigtech? BL partners make bank but it's up or out to get there. BT you can generally stay a while since you wrote the code but it's hard to make as much money as a BL partner without ascending to middle management, which requires soft skills.

Google: "tech" "overemployment" "600K"

This figure beats partner-level income at most markets and, adjusting for COL, probably matches junior partners in NYC (and those who aren't rainmakers).

[Anonymous User]

Forget L7, L4/5 entry-level coders make more than post-biglaw in-house lawyers.

How would you characterize the risk assessment for biglaw vs bigtech? BL partners make bank but it's up or out to get there. BT you can generally stay a while since you wrote the code but it's hard to make as much money as a BL partner without ascending to middle management, which requires soft skills.

Google: "tech" "overemployment" "600K"

This figure beats partner-level income at most markets and, adjusting for COL, probably matches junior partners in NYC (and those who aren't rainmakers).

Most mid-level coders make 250-350 all in. Very few break that ceiling to get into the 350-500 range or beyond (unless it’s a situation where your RSUs go gangbusters). The good news is that the 250-350 jobs aren’t very demanding, if you’re lucky. When you get passed that level, there’s a good possibility you’ll be much busier (but not at BL levels for sure, unless you hit director level or higher). But note that these are experienced coder jobs. Not sure if someone fresh from coding camp (as a retooled BL assoc) can start at 250 ITE.

Partners in NYC M&A/finance, etc. make about $750-850 starting and ramp up to over a mil in about 3 years. I’ve heard of RE finance partners getting over a mil in year 1. Mid-level partners make around $1.5-2.5m (3-8 years as partner).

If you can stick it out in BL, it’s still a better bet if your goal is to make money (and to do so well into your 50s and possibly beyond).

[Anonymous User]

As has already been said, lawyers are also risk averse. I can't stress how attractive it is for risk averse semi-good test takers who know little of the world to have a direct, predictable path to a multi-6-figure salary. Few college students know what a products counsel does, much less how to become one. But most students know that biglaw lawyers make good money.

This. People seem to drastically underestimate the number of people who go to law school on the "might as well go to law school" path. And I actually think this is even more true for highly talented students than for others, because for them law school seems to offer even more certainty of a six-figure income. Call me cynical, but for a lot of people at T-14s and in Big Law, the main reason they are there is definitely not substantive interest.

Surprised by your disagreement regarding math skills given your experience as a teacher. Surely, you’ve encountered variation among students, and perhaps even met a prodigy or two? Also note that my point wasn’t just about math, but about the kind of intelligence that seems to absorb logic/math/STEM education more easily, relatively speaking. I went to junior high and high school with a math prodigy—I’m willing to bet my left nut his ability is innate.

I’ve also been around STEM professionals of varying degrees of ability. The top tier are usually both well-prepped and naturally inclined. Those with natural ability really stand out, both in class and in the workplace. The merely well-prepped aren’t thriving in classes like discrete math / number theory. They don’t code up a networked PvP Tetris game over the weekend just for kicks and to flex at you in retaliation for kicking their butt in Tetris on PS2. They aren’t coding up a DVR just for kicks. People like SBF are the kings of SV—and you’ll find very few of that type in big law.

I'm not the original anon you were replying to, but my concern with this is that while I agree innate ability exists, I think it is very easy to conflate innate ability with opportunity. Like with your example of SBF, no doubt he is of above average intelligence, but I find it difficult to determine how much of his ability is derived from his innate talent vs how much is derived from the fact that his parents are two Stanford law professors who had both the knowledge and the means to provide him elite educational opportunities that other parents can’t provide to their children. Same with his GF. Again, I’m sure her innate intelligence is above average, but I tend to believe her being a math whiz had as much or more to do with her being born to two MIT professors than it had to do with her innate ability.

I say all of this because while I was no prodigy, I do think I had more innate ability in math than anything else (the math section was always my best section on the SAT despite the fact I never studied for it, I got a perfect score on the logic games section, etc.). That’s probably the main reason I would have gone into programming if I could do it over again: I honestly think I’d be better at it than I am at practicing law. I also think I’d enjoy it more.

But coming from a working-class family and attending a high school where 90% of the students qualified for free lunch and 3 AP courses were offered, I really had no idea what coding even was until much later on, even after attending an elite college for undergrad. When you come from that background and do well in school, you look around you and see that all the wealthy, successful people seem to be lawyers and it makes you want to set yourself on that track too.

Were we classmates? JK, it sounds like you’re from the East Coast. Similar background here in all respects (but from the West Coast, so everyone went into tech)—poor AF, working class, naturally smart (especially in math), had planned on getting a union job at UPS or NUMMI (the plant that’s now Tesla) before I got my act together at the end of my sophomore year in HS. Fell into coding during college after realizing it was a good way to make some money and was smart enough to bootstrap myself and earn a place at a top company at the time (and in R&D).

Along the way, I met some of the most pretentious people I’ve ever encountered—MIT tech bro transplants in SV. The kind of people who’ll show up at your GF’s house for a party and stare YOU down, asking WTF you are (actually happened to me. this guy just made $35m on the Akamai IPO and was acting like the biggest D in the room). I’ve also met some really smart people and soon developed a pretty good ability to discern natural talent vs preparation, and the degrees between them.

I’ve met and worked with people like SBF/his GF—academic families, obviously intelligent and well-resourced, as well as people more like me (but much smarter)—shit education, zero resources, who compete at the same level as the SBFs. I think my original point stands and is aligned with what most folks have already said here—BL lawyers can probably get some kind of coding job if they tried (after retooling), but it’s highly unlikely they’d be at the top of that game, as an architect at Apple let’s say or a L7 at Google (sorry if I got the designation wrong but you know what I mean). That’s not to say they can’t excel in other tech functions. Look at the OG BL super tech bro—Thiel, or that annoying woman who led Reddit as CEO for a while.

Forget L7, L4/5 entry-level coders make more than post-biglaw in-house lawyers.

I think L4/L5s are mid-level coders, not every-level. I know someone trying to get promoted to L6 (that’ll be $500k-700k comp, I think).

[Anonymous User]

Most mid-level coders make 250-350 all in. Very few break that ceiling to get into the 350-500 range or beyond (unless it’s a situation where your RSUs go gangbusters). The good news is that the 250-350 jobs aren’t very demanding, if you’re lucky. When you get passed that level, there’s a good possibility you’ll be much busier (but not at BL levels for sure, unless you hit director level or higher). But note that these are experienced coder jobs. Not sure if someone fresh from coding camp (as a retooled BL assoc) can start at 250 ITE.

Partners in NYC M&A/finance, etc. make about $750-850 starting and ramp up to over a mil in about 3 years. I’ve heard of RE finance partners getting over a mil in year 1. Mid-level partners make around $1.5-2.5m (3-8 years as partner).

If you can stick it out in BL, it’s still a better bet if your goal is to make money (and to do so well into your 50s and possibly beyond).

Re: the bolded, are you talking about FAANG? Because this is demonstrably false if you're talking about all coders.

Re: the underlined, I assume you're talking about literally all partners and not biglaw / V50. If the later, also false.

[melgibsonfan]

Forget L7, L4/5 entry-level coders make more than post-biglaw in-house lawyers.

How would you characterize the risk assessment for biglaw vs bigtech? BL partners make bank but it's up or out to get there. BT you can generally stay a while since you wrote the code but it's hard to make as much money as a BL partner without ascending to middle management, which requires soft skills.

Google: "tech" "overemployment" "600K"

This figure beats partner-level income at most markets and, adjusting for COL, probably matches junior partners in NYC (and those who aren't rainmakers).

Most mid-level coders make 250-350 all in. Very few break that ceiling to get into the 350-500 range or beyond (unless it’s a situation where your RSUs go gangbusters). The good news is that the 250-350 jobs aren’t very demanding, if you’re lucky. When you get passed that level, there’s a good possibility you’ll be much busier (but not at BL levels for sure, unless you hit director level or higher). But note that these are experienced coder jobs. Not sure if someone fresh from coding camp (as a retooled BL assoc) can start at 250 ITE.

Partners in NYC M&A/finance, etc. make about $750-850 starting and ramp up to over a mil in about 3 years. I’ve heard of RE finance partners getting over a mil in year 1. Mid-level partners make around $1.5-2.5m (3-8 years as partner).

If you can stick it out in BL, it’s still a better bet if your goal is to make money (and to do so well into your 50s and possibly beyond).

These are the sort of erroneous comments, flippantly made, that should be posted anonymously as to avoid embarrassing your pseudonymous username.

[Anonymous User]

Forget L7, L4/5 entry-level coders make more than post-biglaw in-house lawyers.

How would you characterize the risk assessment for biglaw vs bigtech? BL partners make bank but it's up or out to get there. BT you can generally stay a while since you wrote the code but it's hard to make as much money as a BL partner without ascending to middle management, which requires soft skills.

Google: "tech" "overemployment" "600K"

This figure beats partner-level income at most markets and, adjusting for COL, probably matches junior partners in NYC (and those who aren't rainmakers).

Most mid-level coders make 250-350 all in. Very few break that ceiling to get into the 350-500 range or beyond (unless it’s a situation where your RSUs go gangbusters). The good news is that the 250-350 jobs aren’t very demanding, if you’re lucky. When you get passed that level, there’s a good possibility you’ll be much busier (but not at BL levels for sure, unless you hit director level or higher). But note that these are experienced coder jobs. Not sure if someone fresh from coding camp (as a retooled BL assoc) can start at 250 ITE.

Partners in NYC M&A/finance, etc. make about $750-850 starting and ramp up to over a mil in about 3 years. I’ve heard of RE finance partners getting over a mil in year 1. Mid-level partners make around $1.5-2.5m (3-8 years as partner).

If you can stick it out in BL, it’s still a better bet if your goal is to make money (and to do so well into your 50s and possibly beyond).

These are the sort of erroneous comments, flippantly made, that should be posted anonymously as to avoid embarrassing your pseudonymous username.

Not at all. Take this for what it is—anecdotes from an anon with some insight into SV and tech. Don’t get so butt-hurt over it.

[melgibsonfan]

Forget L7, L4/5 entry-level coders make more than post-biglaw in-house lawyers.

How would you characterize the risk assessment for biglaw vs bigtech? BL partners make bank but it's up or out to get there. BT you can generally stay a while since you wrote the code but it's hard to make as much money as a BL partner without ascending to middle management, which requires soft skills.

Google: "tech" "overemployment" "600K"

This figure beats partner-level income at most markets and, adjusting for COL, probably matches junior partners in NYC (and those who aren't rainmakers).

Most mid-level coders make 250-350 all in. Very few break that ceiling to get into the 350-500 range or beyond (unless it’s a situation where your RSUs go gangbusters). The good news is that the 250-350 jobs aren’t very demanding, if you’re lucky. When you get passed that level, there’s a good possibility you’ll be much busier (but not at BL levels for sure, unless you hit director level or higher). But note that these are experienced coder jobs. Not sure if someone fresh from coding camp (as a retooled BL assoc) can start at 250 ITE.

Partners in NYC M&A/finance, etc. make about $750-850 starting and ramp up to over a mil in about 3 years. I’ve heard of RE finance partners getting over a mil in year 1. Mid-level partners make around $1.5-2.5m (3-8 years as partner).

If you can stick it out in BL, it’s still a better bet if your goal is to make money (and to do so well into your 50s and possibly beyond).

These are the sort of erroneous comments, flippantly made, that should be posted anonymously as to avoid embarrassing your pseudonymous username.

Not at all. Take this for what it is—anecdotes from an anon with some insight into SV and tech. Don’t get so butt-hurt over it.

SWEs make much more than that at comparable seniority levels as a partner (non equity or equity) and they’ve already enjoyed appreciating stock during the time lawyers were in law school or slaving as an associate.

[Anonymous User]

Most mid-level coders make 250-350 all in. Very few break that ceiling to get into the 350-500 range or beyond (unless it’s a situation where your RSUs go gangbusters). The good news is that the 250-350 jobs aren’t very demanding, if you’re lucky. When you get passed that level, there’s a good possibility you’ll be much busier (but not at BL levels for sure, unless you hit director level or higher). But note that these are experienced coder jobs. Not sure if someone fresh from coding camp (as a retooled BL assoc) can start at 250 ITE.

Partners in NYC M&A/finance, etc. make about $750-850 starting and ramp up to over a mil in about 3 years. I’ve heard of RE finance partners getting over a mil in year 1. Mid-level partners make around $1.5-2.5m (3-8 years as partner).

If you can stick it out in BL, it’s still a better bet if your goal is to make money (and to do so well into your 50s and possibly beyond).

Re: the bolded, are you talking about FAANG? Because this is demonstrably false if you're talking about all coders.

Re: the underlined, I assume you're talking about literally all partners and not biglaw / V50. If the later, also false.

Please interpret this in whatever way gets under your skin the most.

[Anonymous User]

Forget L7, L4/5 entry-level coders make more than post-biglaw in-house lawyers.

How would you characterize the risk assessment for biglaw vs bigtech? BL partners make bank but it's up or out to get there. BT you can generally stay a while since you wrote the code but it's hard to make as much money as a BL partner without ascending to middle management, which requires soft skills.

Google: "tech" "overemployment" "600K"

This figure beats partner-level income at most markets and, adjusting for COL, probably matches junior partners in NYC (and those who aren't rainmakers).

Most mid-level coders make 250-350 all in. Very few break that ceiling to get into the 350-500 range or beyond (unless it’s a situation where your RSUs go gangbusters). The good news is that the 250-350 jobs aren’t very demanding, if you’re lucky. When you get passed that level, there’s a good possibility you’ll be much busier (but not at BL levels for sure, unless you hit director level or higher). But note that these are experienced coder jobs. Not sure if someone fresh from coding camp (as a retooled BL assoc) can start at 250 ITE.

Partners in NYC M&A/finance, etc. make about $750-850 starting and ramp up to over a mil in about 3 years. I’ve heard of RE finance partners getting over a mil in year 1. Mid-level partners make around $1.5-2.5m (3-8 years as partner).

If you can stick it out in BL, it’s still a better bet if your goal is to make money (and to do so well into your 50s and possibly beyond).

These are the sort of erroneous comments, flippantly made, that should be posted anonymously as to avoid embarrassing your pseudonymous username.

Not at all. Take this for what it is—anecdotes from an anon with some insight into SV and tech. Don’t get so butt-hurt over it.

SWEs make much more than that at comparable seniority levels as a partner (non equity or equity) and they’ve already enjoyed appreciating stock during the time lawyers were in law school or slaving as an associate.

That’s recent history, with stock appreciation and free-money-fueled talent grabs. If you’re talking about an SWE with 10 years of exp who has some sort of hook (e.g., very good generally, very good at a particular platform/tech, has a hard to find skill in old tech), then sure he can break out of that mid-level range. If you’re talking about a mom that does 9-5 coding Java as a staff engineer with a similar amount of exp., then expect to be caught up in that ceiling.

[melgibsonfan]

How would you characterize the risk assessment for biglaw vs bigtech? BL partners make bank but it's up or out to get there. BT you can generally stay a while since you wrote the code but it's hard to make as much money as a BL partner without ascending to middle management, which requires soft skills.

Google: "tech" "overemployment" "600K"

This figure beats partner-level income at most markets and, adjusting for COL, probably matches junior partners in NYC (and those who aren't rainmakers).

Most mid-level coders make 250-350 all in. Very few break that ceiling to get into the 350-500 range or beyond (unless it’s a situation where your RSUs go gangbusters). The good news is that the 250-350 jobs aren’t very demanding, if you’re lucky. When you get passed that level, there’s a good possibility you’ll be much busier (but not at BL levels for sure, unless you hit director level or higher). But note that these are experienced coder jobs. Not sure if someone fresh from coding camp (as a retooled BL assoc) can start at 250 ITE.

Partners in NYC M&A/finance, etc. make about $750-850 starting and ramp up to over a mil in about 3 years. I’ve heard of RE finance partners getting over a mil in year 1. Mid-level partners make around $1.5-2.5m (3-8 years as partner).

If you can stick it out in BL, it’s still a better bet if your goal is to make money (and to do so well into your 50s and possibly beyond).

These are the sort of erroneous comments, flippantly made, that should be posted anonymously as to avoid embarrassing your pseudonymous username.

Not at all. Take this for what it is—anecdotes from an anon with some insight into SV and tech. Don’t get so butt-hurt over it.

SWEs make much more than that at comparable seniority levels as a partner (non equity or equity) and they’ve already enjoyed appreciating stock during the time lawyers were in law school or slaving as an associate.

That’s recent history, with stock appreciation and free-money-fueled talent grabs. If you’re talking about an SWE with 10 years of exp who has some sort of hook (e.g., very good generally, very good at a particular platform/tech, has a hard to find skill in old tech), then sure he can break out of that mid-level range. If you’re talking about a mom that does 9-5 coding Java as a staff engineer with a similar amount of exp., then expect to be caught up in that ceiling.

The comparison for that mom doing Java is a paralegal. People without BAs can do coding boot camps and get employed. You’re not comparing apples with apples.

[Anonymous User]

Google: "tech" "overemployment" "600K"

This figure beats partner-level income at most markets and, adjusting for COL, probably matches junior partners in NYC (and those who aren't rainmakers).

Most mid-level coders make 250-350 all in. Very few break that ceiling to get into the 350-500 range or beyond (unless it’s a situation where your RSUs go gangbusters). The good news is that the 250-350 jobs aren’t very demanding, if you’re lucky. When you get passed that level, there’s a good possibility you’ll be much busier (but not at BL levels for sure, unless you hit director level or higher). But note that these are experienced coder jobs. Not sure if someone fresh from coding camp (as a retooled BL assoc) can start at 250 ITE.

Partners in NYC M&A/finance, etc. make about $750-850 starting and ramp up to over a mil in about 3 years. I’ve heard of RE finance partners getting over a mil in year 1. Mid-level partners make around $1.5-2.5m (3-8 years as partner).

If you can stick it out in BL, it’s still a better bet if your goal is to make money (and to do so well into your 50s and possibly beyond).

These are the sort of erroneous comments, flippantly made, that should be posted anonymously as to avoid embarrassing your pseudonymous username.

Not at all. Take this for what it is—anecdotes from an anon with some insight into SV and tech. Don’t get so butt-hurt over it.

SWEs make much more than that at comparable seniority levels as a partner (non equity or equity) and they’ve already enjoyed appreciating stock during the time lawyers were in law school or slaving as an associate.

That’s recent history, with stock appreciation and free-money-fueled talent grabs. If you’re talking about an SWE with 10 years of exp who has some sort of hook (e.g., very good generally, very good at a particular platform/tech, has a hard to find skill in old tech), then sure he can break out of that mid-level range. If you’re talking about a mom that does 9-5 coding Java as a staff engineer with a similar amount of exp., then expect to be caught up in that ceiling.

The comparison for that mom doing Java is a paralegal. People without BAs can do coding boot camps and get employed. You’re not comparing apples with apples.

To be frank—your statement is ridiculous. That mom doing Java is more akin to a 3rd year assoc. doing just enough to get his bonus (but nothing more). There are a lot of unmotivated workers in tech who’ve benefited from the free money of the past 10-15 years.

Let’s see how far a boot camp grad can go now that he’s competing with a pool of laid off experienced SWEs.

I get that you don’t need a BA to code. I made a statement about no guard rails around competition some time up in this thread. Heck, my own cousin got into coding out of HS and started making more than me (I was an SWE with a few years of exp at the time). That was an eye opener and one factor that pushed me towards retooling into BL.

[melgibsonfan]

Most mid-level coders make 250-350 all in. Very few break that ceiling to get into the 350-500 range or beyond (unless it’s a situation where your RSUs go gangbusters). The good news is that the 250-350 jobs aren’t very demanding, if you’re lucky. When you get passed that level, there’s a good possibility you’ll be much busier (but not at BL levels for sure, unless you hit director level or higher). But note that these are experienced coder jobs. Not sure if someone fresh from coding camp (as a retooled BL assoc) can start at 250 ITE.

Partners in NYC M&A/finance, etc. make about $750-850 starting and ramp up to over a mil in about 3 years. I’ve heard of RE finance partners getting over a mil in year 1. Mid-level partners make around $1.5-2.5m (3-8 years as partner).

If you can stick it out in BL, it’s still a better bet if your goal is to make money (and to do so well into your 50s and possibly beyond).

These are the sort of erroneous comments, flippantly made, that should be posted anonymously as to avoid embarrassing your pseudonymous username.

Not at all. Take this for what it is—anecdotes from an anon with some insight into SV and tech. Don’t get so butt-hurt over it.

SWEs make much more than that at comparable seniority levels as a partner (non equity or equity) and they’ve already enjoyed appreciating stock during the time lawyers were in law school or slaving as an associate.

That’s recent history, with stock appreciation and free-money-fueled talent grabs. If you’re talking about an SWE with 10 years of exp who has some sort of hook (e.g., very good generally, very good at a particular platform/tech, has a hard to find skill in old tech), then sure he can break out of that mid-level range. If you’re talking about a mom that does 9-5 coding Java as a staff engineer with a similar amount of exp., then expect to be caught up in that ceiling.

The comparison for that mom doing Java is a paralegal. People without BAs can do coding boot camps and get employed. You’re not comparing apples with apples.

To be frank—your statement is ridiculous. That mom doing Java is more akin to a 3rd year assoc. doing just enough to get his bonus (but nothing more). There are a lot of unmotivated workers in tech who’ve benefited from the free money of the past 10-15 years.

Let’s see how far a boot camp grad can go now that he’s competing with a pool of laid off experienced SWEs.

I get that you don’t need a BA to code. I made a statement about no guard rails around competition some time up in this thread. Heck, my own cousin got into coding out of HS and started making more than me (I was an SWE with a few years of exp at the time). That was an eye opener and one factor that pushed me towards retooling into BL.

Cool beans. You’re either lying or you made an awful life decision. Here’s your gold sticker since everyone is a winner, now be on your way.

[laanngo]

I get that you don’t need a BA to code. I made a statement about no guard rails around competition some time up in this thread. Heck, my own cousin got into coding out of HS and started making more than me (I was an SWE with a few years of exp at the time). That was an eye opener and one factor that pushed me towards retooling into BL.

So why do you need a JD to practice law? Why can't people go to lawyering boot camps?

[nixy]

I get that you don’t need a BA to code. I made a statement about no guard rails around competition some time up in this thread. Heck, my own cousin got into coding out of HS and started making more than me (I was an SWE with a few years of exp at the time). That was an eye opener and one factor that pushed me towards retooling into BL.

So why do you need a JD to practice law? Why can't people go to lawyering boot camps?

Because you can’t get a job without a JD. Because there’s a profession that exists that’s already set up gatekeeping through licensure and that’s not going away.

[laanngo]

I get that you don’t need a BA to code. I made a statement about no guard rails around competition some time up in this thread. Heck, my own cousin got into coding out of HS and started making more than me (I was an SWE with a few years of exp at the time). That was an eye opener and one factor that pushed me towards retooling into BL.

So why do you need a JD to practice law? Why can't people go to lawyering boot camps?

Because you can’t get a job without a JD. Because there’s a profession that exists that’s already set up gatekeeping through licensure and that’s not going away.

Yes but why?

[nixy]

I get that you don’t need a BA to code. I made a statement about no guard rails around competition some time up in this thread. Heck, my own cousin got into coding out of HS and started making more than me (I was an SWE with a few years of exp at the time). That was an eye opener and one factor that pushed me towards retooling into BL.

So why do you need a JD to practice law? Why can't people go to lawyering boot camps?

Because you can’t get a job without a JD. Because there’s a profession that exists that’s already set up gatekeeping through licensure and that’s not going away.

Yes but why?

Because history. Because credentialism and professionalization. It's because of social and economic conditions in the late 19th c/first half of the 20th, which is when the legal profession developed largely into the form it has today, not for any substantive reason about the nature of law versus the nature of coding. It's not a productive comparison.

[nealric]

I get that you don’t need a BA to code. I made a statement about no guard rails around competition some time up in this thread. Heck, my own cousin got into coding out of HS and started making more than me (I was an SWE with a few years of exp at the time). That was an eye opener and one factor that pushed me towards retooling into BL.

So why do you need a JD to practice law? Why can't people go to lawyering boot camps?

Because you can’t get a job without a JD. Because there’s a profession that exists that’s already set up gatekeeping through licensure and that’s not going away.

Yes but why?

Because history. Because credentialism and professionalization. It's because of social and economic conditions in the late 19th c/first half of the 20th, which is when the legal profession developed largely into the form it has today, not for any substantive reason about the nature of law versus the nature of coding. It's not a productive comparison.

Agreed generally. But to add to that, there are significant sociopolitical considerations related to the practice of law that simply don't exist for coding and other technical professions.

If you negligently represent a murder defendant, an innocent could go to prison for life (or worse), if you code negligently, the software doesn't work. If someone's app rollout gets delayed, it's not of much concern to society as a whole. I get that the software could be for flying a passenger aircraft, but there's (at least supposed to be) separate regulatory oversight for such things. Think of mechanical engineering: you don't need a license to design a car, but you do need a license to sign off on a bridge design. Why? Because if your car is no good, it simply won't work or won't sell (assuming the design gets past other regulatory oversight hurdles). If your bridge falls down, a lot of people are going to die. We (as a society) tend to demand licenses for jobs where poor work could have massive consequences and for which the buyer of the service may be ill-equipped to evaluate quality.

On the historical front, law used to be one of the few accepted occupations for nobility (who, in feudal times were not supposed to work). This meant that in the past, lawyers were mostly from the upper classes. At a minimum, lawyers were better educated than average (given that until the mid- 19th century and even beyond, most of the poor and working classes were functionally illiterate). As such, they had the political power to control access to their profession. Coding has no such historical baggage.

As a practical matter, one could probably teach an intelligent person who could otherwise excel in law school to be a lawyer in a "lawyering boot camp." Tack on another couple months of intensive bar prep and they could probably pass the bar as it exists today too. In fact, within a few years such a person would probably be more or less indistinguishable professionally from someone who went to law school, other than probably knowing less about legal issues outside their practice area. You already have something almost like this in the form of online California-accredited schools (albeit without the speed). But such programs just don't attract the type of person would get into a T14 law school, and I expect neither would a lawyering boot camp.

From an economic perspecive, the existence of coding boot camps was largely spurred by a huge increase in demand for people who could code. There just weren't enough comp sci majors out there to fill all the demand. But to the extent there is unmet demand in law, it's mostly coming from people who couldn't afford to pay even a "boot camp" lawyer charging much lower rates (i.e. indigent criminal defendants).