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

[Anonymous User]

I literally need a paralegal’s help to make an excel spreadsheet. So, no. I’m a senior biglaw associate and although I have a pro-level talent in an art (think acting, music) and have done it professionally in the past, I still couldn’t see myself realistically doing anything besides what I’m doing now.

At the end of the day, you shouldn’t go to law or medicine or coding or whatever because you perceive an incrementally more favorable ratio in some combo of QOL/oppo cost/hours worked/total comp/comp potential. Even at 9-5, workdays are way too long for this stuff to be the only metrics in deciding what you should do (or for the purposes of this thread, I suppose, to talk about how you should have done something else).

You should go into whichever one of these things play best to your intellectual strengths. My intellectual strengths, I felt, were reasoning through things and writing about them. No way in hell could I do anything with math, data, tech, or science. I did my art professionally for a year and consciously decided I did not want that life (but all of my peers in that industry thought I was crazy for wanting to stop and do law instead).

This is why I always find the “I banker vs biglaw vs coding vs medicine” discussions to be silly. It’s also why I’m consistently so shocked when people tell me they gave up solid coding jobs where they made solid money and routinely got promoted to make nothing for 3 years and take out tons of loans…for this insane industry that I work in that most people don’t like. It’s also why I’m never shocked when so many junior associates hate their lives and burn out—most never should have gone into law to begin with.

Co-signed (except for being a professional artist lol my skills are not good). I also changed careers and picked law because I’m good at writing and sifting through large quantities of boring material to identify the relevant stuff (and had quite a lot of public speaking experience). I do think people can learn most things and shouldn’t just shy away from STEM in a knee jerk way, but I agree that people do tend to have strengths/weaknesses and that playing to your strengths makes sense.

When I was applying to law school the scamblog crowd was getting underway, and while they did a good thing in alerting people to the fact that law isn’t a guaranteed path to a lucrative career (models and bottles!), it seemed to foster this reaction on various corners of the internet that no one should go to law school (fair enough) and everyone should go into nursing instead, because it was portable and in demand and frequently well paid and you’d have so much more control over your life, without the costs of going to med school and being a doctor. Leaving aside how accurate this was (which is pretty dubious - I don’t think anyone I saw saying this actually worked as a nurse and I don’t really see people say it now), it just always baffled me how it flat out ignored questions of temperament or ability.

I actually had a law school classmate quit halfway through to become a nurse (which they love so it was a great choice), but generally, I could not understand what about having wanted to go to law school would make anyone remotely suited to be a nurse. And nursing isn’t exactly an easy profession that just anyone is going to be good at. I would be a TERRIBLE nurse (probably second only to being a terrible coder).

That’s not to say people shouldn’t become nurses - or coders - but that there’s often weird kind of idealization of some kind of “other” job based on its characteristics on paper, without any really serious understanding of what it entails or whether a given person would be remotely suited to it.

(Not saying that anyone in particular in this thread who wishes they’d gone into coding is fooling themselves or anything! Just it’s funny to how how there can be this fetishization of whatever job looks different from whatever’s causing us misery at the moment.)

[Anonymous User]

Inb4 every V10 associate claims they have would have easily been FAANG senior SWEs, no problem, or maybe VPs at an investment bank, or maybe first chair of the New York Philharmonic.

LOL this. I studied physics in undergrad and did quite well at it (top of my class), including coding. But I absolutely hated it. It's boring as all hell and debugging a program (or editing someone else's code) is 100x worse than any edits I've received on a brief.

Even with my credentials, it would have been hard to get a job at a FAANG right out of college. My friend who did end up at one was a triple major in math, physics, and computer science, graduated in 3 years, and was better at coding than I could ever be in a million years. The interview process he went through was reminiscent of consulting interviews from a non-Ivy, but with more of a technical bent.

i always got the sense that getting FAANG wasn't really harder from a good school than getting biglaw was from a t14 school. look at the numbers of people going into faang from a good undergrad, it's not like a small minority of people who study cs, which is like the biggest major at a lot of schools. and folks at good schools not getting faang aren't getting paid much below faang. at my law school, vast majority of folks went to top 10-15 undergrads where faangs recruit. yeah not literally 100% of people going to biglaw could have done CS, but like probably at least half could if they started late high school or early undergrad.

Physics poster again. I was not at a T10-15 undergrad, so you're right that it would have been easier to get a FAANG job from there.

That said, I work in IP lit mostly with T14 law school grads who have great undergrad credentials as well. Given their track record on more complicated technologies like data compression, wireless communications, etc., I can confidently say that your average top law school grad (even those with strong UG credentials who presumably did well on their math SAT portion) would have had slim to no chance understanding what they would have needed to in order to land a FAANG coding job. That's literally why they need me on the team to break this stuff down for them.

My point is that the people doing well in CS at T10-15 undergrads are precisely the types of people who do well in substantive FAANG interviews. It's not that FAANG companies put weight in the T10-15 credential alone.

[flowersandsunshine]

Yeah, I took a Java coding class in college and I could not code for shit. So no, I would not have gone into coding because I was terrible at it.

Yup, same. In fact I actually went into undergrad thinking I'd major in computer science. Noped out of that one real fast after seeing my first semester grade.

[Anonymous User]

I could have. Did a coding bootcamp of sorts, ended up giving a conference talk at a major conference, and had job prospects. I bailed at that point, because I realized that while I liked learning how to code (and still like doing some hobby projects) I didn't want to make it a career.

There are a few drivers of that: for one, the industry is disproportionately chasing the new shiny thing when it comes to languages, architecture and deployment patterns, etc., and also has not figured out how to evaluate job candidates except largely by puzzle-style coding exercises. In other words, depth is not especially favored. And looking around at who was who in the communities I was a part of, that seemed to translate into a form of age discrimination.

Law is the opposite: I'm going to be more and more credible because I'm getting older, and the more expertise I develop in a certain area the more valuable I'll be.

I also realized that while I like problem-solving, and coding scratched that itch along one dimension, I like being engaged with people and dealing with problems that more directly affect them. I like writing, and coding scratched that itch to a degree (especially because you get to see your writing do something or not, in which case the compiler helps you figure out what to fix) but I prefer prose rhetoric.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

Inb4 every V10 associate claims they have would have easily been FAANG senior SWEs, no problem, or maybe VPs at an investment bank, or maybe first chair of the New York Philharmonic.

A lot of V10 corporate associates could probably be banking VPs, although the mathematically illiterate and socially challenged could not. Banks are starved for warm bodies and have been hiring MBAs from mediocre schools recently. From there, VP is one promotion away. My guess is around 20% of v10 corp associates could do perfectly fine in banking

[Anonymous User]

Inb4 every V10 associate claims they have would have easily been FAANG senior SWEs, no problem, or maybe VPs at an investment bank, or maybe first chair of the New York Philharmonic.

A lot of V10 corporate associates could probably be banking VPs, although the mathematically illiterate and socially challenged could not. Banks are starved for warm bodies and have been hiring MBAs from mediocre schools recently. From there, VP is one promotion away. My guess is around 20% of v10 corp associates could do perfectly fine in banking

Likely true, though banking is the one job that is even more miserable than corporate biglaw. The bigger question is could those v10 corp associates make it in PE/hedge funds post-banking, and that is a much more significant question mark.

[Anonymous User]

Senior associate in patent lit (EE). My spouse (EE/CS) is a software engineer and works way more than I do (and I’m billing 2000-2100 hrs/year) for less than 1/4 of the money. I didn’t pay for law school. So no.

[Anonymous User]

Nope. Zero interest in the work, and I'd have been bad at it. I like the law, and maybe I'm good at it? I dream about having been a paleontologist and studying dinosaurs all day, but not coding.

[ninthcircuitattorney]

Took a class focused on htlm at Harvard.
Most boring crap in the world, figuring out that " c:!;@:: { k } " will cause an image to appear. Civil procedure is wild porn by comparison. Besides, about 10 years ago, the New Yorker had an article that said that superstar coders can command up to $150 an hour. So, no, would not want to go into coding. The grass is always greener only in people's heads.

[Anonymous User]

I do sometimes wonder about, like, selling cars for a living. Or selling some other product that I enjoy--maybe propane and propane accessories like Hank Hill, or selling comic books or baseball cards or working in a toy store, or being a butcher, because I like steak. But there's a lot less money in that, so I don't do it.

[Anonymous User]

Nope. I went to a target UG for FAANG. Took a CS class, did well enough to pull an A, but I actively disliked the idea of doing that for a living. Part of it was not being particularly interested in writing codes, etc; part of it was not liking the CS crowd. I have many friends who work at FAANG or similar tech companies; I do envy their stock options and fewer hours, but no, I do not want their job.

[Spartan_Alum_12]

Senior associate in patent lit (EE). My spouse (EE/CS) is a software engineer and works way more than I do (and I’m billing 2000-2100 hrs/year) for less than 1/4 of the money. I didn’t pay for law school. So no.

Also EE but patent pros (at boutique not big law though). No regrets and would not want to work as a coder or engineer.

[Anonymous User]

https://www.teamblind.com/post/Working- ... E-KpJHFy2Z

You don't need a long list of degrees, you don't need to go to a top school, you don't need to slog your butt off like lawyers, investment bankers or doctors. But you can rival them in TC.

What do you guys think?

TC: 257k

[Anonymous User]

https://www.teamblind.com/post/Working- ... E-KpJHFy2Z

You don't need a long list of degrees, you don't need to go to a top school, you don't need to slog your butt off like lawyers, investment bankers or doctors. But you can rival them in TC.

What do you guys think?

TC: 257k

I love how in the comments there everyone is complaining about how tech sucks and ppl in tech suck

grass is always greener

[Anonymous User]

Why is this thread being revived? Haven't we already settled that most lawyers couldn't have succeeded to a high paying tech job even if they tried?

[jotarokujo]

Why is this thread being revived? Haven't we already settled that most lawyers couldn't have succeeded to a high paying tech job even if they tried?

nah

[Anonymous User]

https://www.teamblind.com/post/Working- ... E-KpJHFy2Z

You don't need a long list of degrees, you don't need to go to a top school, you don't need to slog your butt off like lawyers, investment bankers or doctors. But you can rival them in TC.

What do you guys think?

TC: 257k

I love how in the comments there everyone is complaining about how tech sucks and ppl in tech suck

grass is always greener

Doesn't seem to be the overwhelming sentiment in the thread.

[Anonymous User]

Why is this thread being revived? Haven't we already settled that most lawyers couldn't have succeeded to a high paying tech job even if they tried?

nah

Okay why don't you go study for a few months, try to sit for a coding interview at Google, and then report back.

[Anonymous User]

Why is this thread being revived? Haven't we already settled that most lawyers couldn't have succeeded to a high paying tech job even if they tried?

nah

Okay why don't you go study for a few months, try to sit for a coding interview at Google, and then report back.

That's not really the point, though. It's 4 years for SDEs and 7 years for law. Former makes $250K long-term while attorneys are lucky to make that going in-house after grinding through biglaw. But yeah, I suppose it is a moot point now since we can't turn back time.

[Anonymous User]

Why is this thread being revived? Haven't we already settled that most lawyers couldn't have succeeded to a high paying tech job even if they tried?

nah

Okay why don't you go study for a few months, try to sit for a coding interview at Google, and then report back.

That's not really the point, though. It's 4 years for SDEs and 7 years for law. Former makes $250K long-term while attorneys are lucky to make that going in-house after grinding through biglaw. But yeah, I suppose it is a moot point now since we can't turn back time.

But actually it is. Did you not read anything else in this thread? I hate to burst your bubble, but most lawyers wouldn't have made it through an engineering or comp sci degree. A few months, 4 years, it doesn't matter. If you think that it's the schooling that made the difference then you clearly don't understand how this all works. Attorneys just don't think the same way as coders. I would know because I'm one of the rare few that did do a science/engineering degree before law school. I now work in IP lit, where most of my non-technical colleagues - even the best and brightest attorneys among us - are incapable of understanding the complicated comp sci topics necessary to pass the interview stage for a high paying coding gig. I'm not tooting my own horn either - I did some coding back in college and can keep up with engineers at the client, but there's no way I was good enough to snag a gig at a FAANG. We can romanticize the top earners in the software industry as much as we want, just as they romanticize the partners making seven figures. But in the end of the day, as the previous poster said, it's mostly a case of the grass is always greener.

[Anonymous User]

Why is this thread being revived? Haven't we already settled that most lawyers couldn't have succeeded to a high paying tech job even if they tried?

nah

Okay why don't you go study for a few months, try to sit for a coding interview at Google, and then report back.

That's not really the point, though. It's 4 years for SDEs and 7 years for law. Former makes $250K long-term while attorneys are lucky to make that going in-house after grinding through biglaw. But yeah, I suppose it is a moot point now since we can't turn back time.

But actually it is. Did you not read anything else in this thread? I hate to burst your bubble, but most lawyers wouldn't have made it through an engineering or comp sci degree. A few months, 4 years, it doesn't matter. If you think that it's the schooling that made the difference then you clearly don't understand how this all works. Attorneys just don't think the same way as coders. I would know because I'm one of the rare few that did do a science/engineering degree before law school. I now work in IP lit, where most of my non-technical colleagues - even the best and brightest attorneys among us - are incapable of understanding the complicated comp sci topics necessary to pass the interview stage for a high paying coding gig. I'm not tooting my own horn either - I did some coding back in college and can keep up with engineers at the client, but there's no way I was good enough to snag a gig at a FAANG. We can romanticize the top earners in the software industry as much as we want, just as they romanticize the partners making seven figures. But in the end of the day, as the previous poster said, it's mostly a case of the grass is always greener.

I agree with your post to a point. Getting a job at Google would take well over 4 months and perhaps over 4 years. But I don't think cognitive ability is the limiting factor for long-term SDE II/L5 positions paying $250K TC, especially after 8-10 YOE. Your analogy to BL partners would be L6+/hedge fund SDEs making $400-600K. As with most thing, learning is just repetition. Grind LC long enough and you're bound to do well in coding interviews. The issue is most people don't invest the time or simply can't get into the "grind mindset." But this isn't an issue of intellect or way of thinking - at least to a point.

[Anonymous User]

I was a financial engineering student whose friends are all software engineers except for those who went into pure math or physics. I have no regrets, even though I was a better CS student than law student. Law is way more interesting as a career to me.

[Anonymous User]

In terms of alternative careers in which I could have done well, finance comes to my mind as I was always good with numbers and math in general. But law is the field where I can make the most use out of my attention to detail whereas the business world is much more about the big picture. Never thought about being a software engineer. Not something I like. I regret why I didn't take a coding course as an elective in college or law school.

[Anonymous User]

Why is this thread being revived? Haven't we already settled that most lawyers couldn't have succeeded to a high paying tech job even if they tried?

nah

Okay why don't you go study for a few months, try to sit for a coding interview at Google, and then report back.

That's not really the point, though. It's 4 years for SDEs and 7 years for law. Former makes $250K long-term while attorneys are lucky to make that going in-house after grinding through biglaw. But yeah, I suppose it is a moot point now since we can't turn back time.

But actually it is. Did you not read anything else in this thread? I hate to burst your bubble, but most lawyers wouldn't have made it through an engineering or comp sci degree. A few months, 4 years, it doesn't matter. If you think that it's the schooling that made the difference then you clearly don't understand how this all works. Attorneys just don't think the same way as coders. I would know because I'm one of the rare few that did do a science/engineering degree before law school. I now work in IP lit, where most of my non-technical colleagues - even the best and brightest attorneys among us - are incapable of understanding the complicated comp sci topics necessary to pass the interview stage for a high paying coding gig. I'm not tooting my own horn either - I did some coding back in college and can keep up with engineers at the client, but there's no way I was good enough to snag a gig at a FAANG. We can romanticize the top earners in the software industry as much as we want, just as they romanticize the partners making seven figures. But in the end of the day, as the previous poster said, it's mostly a case of the grass is always greener.

I agree with your post to a point. Getting a job at Google would take well over 4 months and perhaps over 4 years. But I don't think cognitive ability is the limiting factor for long-term SDE II/L5 positions paying $250K TC, especially after 8-10 YOE. Your analogy to BL partners would be L6+/hedge fund SDEs making $400-600K. As with most thing, learning is just repetition. Grind LC long enough and you're bound to do well in coding interviews. The issue is most people don't invest the time or simply can't get into the "grind mindset." But this isn't an issue of intellect or way of thinking - at least to a point.

Fair that it's probably an easier path to $200-$250k, but realize that most coders don't even make that. I also disagree that if you grind it long enough you could magically ace a FAANG coding interview (or a higher paying SD gig). Competition for those jobs are much steeper than we face even for most biglaw jobs. Google has a hire rate of something like 0.2%. CSM by comparison would have offered roughly the top 10% of my T14. Even if you say my T14 pre-selected the top 10% of law school applicants, you're still talking about a 1% vs. 0.2% acceptance rate.

[Anonymous User]

Why is this thread being revived? Haven't we already settled that most lawyers couldn't have succeeded to a high paying tech job even if they tried?

nah

Okay why don't you go study for a few months, try to sit for a coding interview at Google, and then report back.

That's not really the point, though. It's 4 years for SDEs and 7 years for law. Former makes $250K long-term while attorneys are lucky to make that going in-house after grinding through biglaw. But yeah, I suppose it is a moot point now since we can't turn back time.

But actually it is. Did you not read anything else in this thread? I hate to burst your bubble, but most lawyers wouldn't have made it through an engineering or comp sci degree. A few months, 4 years, it doesn't matter. If you think that it's the schooling that made the difference then you clearly don't understand how this all works. Attorneys just don't think the same way as coders. I would know because I'm one of the rare few that did do a science/engineering degree before law school. I now work in IP lit, where most of my non-technical colleagues - even the best and brightest attorneys among us - are incapable of understanding the complicated comp sci topics necessary to pass the interview stage for a high paying coding gig. I'm not tooting my own horn either - I did some coding back in college and can keep up with engineers at the client, but there's no way I was good enough to snag a gig at a FAANG. We can romanticize the top earners in the software industry as much as we want, just as they romanticize the partners making seven figures. But in the end of the day, as the previous poster said, it's mostly a case of the grass is always greener.

I agree with your post to a point. Getting a job at Google would take well over 4 months and perhaps over 4 years. But I don't think cognitive ability is the limiting factor for long-term SDE II/L5 positions paying $250K TC, especially after 8-10 YOE. Your analogy to BL partners would be L6+/hedge fund SDEs making $400-600K. As with most thing, learning is just repetition. Grind LC long enough and you're bound to do well in coding interviews. The issue is most people don't invest the time or simply can't get into the "grind mindset." But this isn't an issue of intellect or way of thinking - at least to a point.

Fair that it's probably an easier path to $200-$250k, but realize that most coders don't even make that. I also disagree that if you grind it long enough you could magically ace a FAANG coding interview (or a higher paying SD gig). Competition for those jobs are much steeper than we face even for most biglaw jobs. Google has a hire rate of something like 0.2%. CSM by comparison would have offered roughly the top 10% of my T14. Even if you say my T14 pre-selected the top 10% of law school applicants, you're still talking about a 1% vs. 0.2% acceptance rate.

True, but (1) I wouldn't narrow the comparison to FAANG only since many other companies (DoorDash, Uber, etc.) pay SDEs similar salaries, and (2) the hypothetical looks at BL lawyers making the switch. Many SDEs at the bottom of the ladder (i.e., those making less than $250K) don't have the work ethic or desire to climb higher, and they probably wouldn't have made it to/far in BL (as a hypothetical law student/associate) either. Nor am I saying bottom of the ladder attorneys can necessarily make the switch. But I believe those working in BL have the work ethics to eventually make it to SDE II/L5 roles within their lifetime, where they would get paid more for fewer hours than their in-house counterparts.