Another employment post Forum

[Anonymous User]

I would recommend not going to law school if:

1. You have a lot of undergrad debt (if that debt is for a non-science/business major, you messed your life up)
2. You are a first generation graduate from college
3. You are an international student and you have no connections to anywhere in the US.

Other than that, law school can be a good experience. You have to be logical and weigh your bets. For me, that meant skipping out on paying sticker to a school that would have cost me around $200,000 to go to a school that cost me significantly less than $50,000. Now that OCI is winding down, I do not regret that decision one bit.

Had I taken this advice to heart a couple of years ago, I wouldn't have gone to law school as I fit into slot 1 and 2 (well, ~$65K in undergrad/grad school debt pre-law school). Yet, I think being a first gen college student has been helpful in my interviews. Some interviewers were visibly impressed by my background -- coming from a lower income background to make it to one of HYS and performing reasonably well. I'm definitely not top of the class, but if I had to guess, I'd be around median. Good enough for a pretty nice job, especially ITE, doing just what I want to do and making nearly 4x what I made before coming to law school.

Well what I mean is, the first generation college graduate would be better off doing one of the following than going to law school:
1. Entering the workforce
2. Attending Med school
3. Going to Business School
4. Getting a Ph. D.

Why take an unnecessary risk?

#2 is probably true, and mayyyyyyyybe #4, depending on the field. However, the workforce isn't some promised land for young graduates right now. Plus, those who actually had the chops to go to medical school -- both aptitude as demonstrated in pre-med coursework and MCAT scores, in addition to desire -- probably did go.

What I don't understand is you saying that law is built so much on connections and getting jobs with not stellar grades requires some kind of hook-up, but then advocating business school. From those I know who are in business school, it's not like the population there is much different than that which you'd find at law school.

[vanwinkle]

What I don't understand is you saying that law is built so much on connections and getting jobs with not stellar grades requires some kind of hook-up, but then advocating business school. From those I know who are in business school, it's not like the population there is much different than that which you'd find at law school.

I was just thinking this exact same thing.

[terran1]

Well what I mean is, the first generation college graduate would be better off doing one of the following than going to law school:
1. Entering the workforce
2. Attending Med school
3. Going to Business School
4. Getting a Ph. D.

Why take an unnecessary risk?

Are all law students this out of touch with reality? I realize TLS isn't a representative sample of law students. Nor is this thread, which is a homing beacon for students sick of OCI, representative of all students on TLS. Given that, why is this viewpoint so prevalent?

I'd imagine if there were a top-med-schools.com, there would be a post in which frustrated med students and residents espoused these exact same views about the opportunities afforded a top law school graduate. Similarly, PhD students outside the top programs all around the world would chortle if they read this. The grass just alway seems greener.

The economy is bad, I understand, but it's not in a legal recession. It's in a recession--period. Everybody, from Goldman MDs, to construction contractors, car mechanics, retail clerks, nannies, entreprenuers, and physicians is feeling the squeeze. I realize that in many of these professions no debt is assumed upfront (aside from physicans and entreprenuers). On the other hand, many of these professionals will have no fungible skills to take from one employer to the next if/when they lose an existing position.

Is law schol a riskier bet than it was 5 years ago? Sure. Did the recession screw a lot of deserving candidates? Yep. Does it still reprsent the best chance many people have of entering the top 5-7% of all earners ($100K) at some point in their lifetimes? Demonstrably.

[Anonymous User]

Two relevant questions on this coming from a 1L:

1. A poster above says YLS students are maybe even getting multiple offers... so if YLS maybe gets multiple offers, are we to assume the majority of T6 students are lucky to even get one offer? Is that how bad this economy is? (I assumed people that high up in the rankings had at least a couple top offers...)

2. I am sick of people acting like "oh business would be much more fun than LS, etc." Am I missing something here? How would you recommend the typical law school applicant - a lib. arts grad- to go get a business job? Especially if out of college for more than a year. ITE is getting a business job above low-paying customer service shit even possible? I'd be interested in knowing that especially

[bigben]

Shouldn't this poll just be renamed "Do you have an offer or a good chance at one?"

What kind of mentally challenged person would make a recommendation based on this, rather than the aggregate information they've gained from going through process?

[Aberzombie1892]

A lot of people are missing the point.

Living expenses has been included in "tuition" for the purposes of below

MBA -> 1 year of paying tuition/1 year of lost opportunities
JD -> 3 years of paying tuition/3 years of lost opportunities

One could attend MBA school, get screwed by the job market, and still not be in a horrendous position. All that has been lost is 1 year of tuition and 1 year that could have been spent on working somewhere (earning income).

If one attends law school, gets screwed by the job market, then one is in a horrible position. One has lost 3 years worth of tuition and 3 years worth of earning income (even on a full ride, you need money for living, which averages out to around $60,000 for 3 years + other costs).

I can confidently say that the job markets for the two degrees are similar in that the top of the heap makes $$$. Why would one voluntarily choose the longer and more expensive gamble versus the shorter one? (assuming one is motivated by becoming middle class or higher as soon as possible - as well as paying back loans as soon as possible). Especially if one knows that he/she is in a tight financial situation, it would not make sense to pursue law school.

Also Ph. D candidates receive a lot of assistance in the form of assistantships (teaching courses in return for help on tuition). Therefore, one could finish with a relatively low balance owed to Wells Fargo/law school of his/her choice. This is important because most Ph. D's do not make a ton of money right out school (but the low loans balances make this feasible). However, many will make up for this over time.

I will agree that entering the workforce sucks at the moment. However, my statement was for general circumstances, and not only when the economy sucks (i.e. this would apply even back in 2006/2007).

[edcrane]

Aren't most MBA programs 2 years in length?

[270910]

Aren't most MBA programs 2 years in length?

Yep.

[09042014]

Most MBA's are just as TTT as law schools are. And they are almost as expensive. The good ones are almost unattainable unless you are already have a decent career. And you leave a solid career to go to an MBA program.

Entering the work force might suck, however it's a debt free option. Less reward but must less risk.

Funded PhD's are basically like entering a regimented workforce. You spend 7 years and you got a small chance of actually making it or not. Even science PhD's have crappy job outlook. I hear engineering is better because there is industry who will hire you. But the average person can't get into a PhD in engineering program. It's like telling someone to join the NFL.


Med School is a good option right now, as always.

[tysmiller]

(even on a full ride, you need money for living, which averages out to around $60,000 for 3 years + other costs).

Your other arguments aside, can we all agree to stop including "cost of living" as a law school cost? I cannot understand how some people seem to think that if you are not in law school you magically will no longer need to pay rent or buy food.

[270910]

Most MBA's are just as TTT as law schools are. And they are almost as expensive. The good ones are almost unattainable unless you are already have a decent career. And you leave a solid career to go to an MBA program.

Entering the work force might suck, however it's a debt free option. Less reward but must less risk.

Funded PhD's are basically like entering a regimented workforce. You spend 7 years and you got a small chance of actually making it or not. Even science PhD's have crappy job outlook. I hear engineering is better because there is industry who will hire you. But the average person can't get into a PhD in engineering program. It's like telling someone to join the NFL.


Med School is a good option right now, as always.

The bottom line is that life is hard and rising to the top of any field will require sacrifice, luck, and talent. Which strongly supports making your choice based on something you a) love and b) don't suck at, then hoping for the best.

[edcrane]

(even on a full ride, you need money for living, which averages out to around $60,000 for 3 years + other costs).

Your other arguments aside, can we all agree to stop including "cost of living" as a law school cost? I cannot understand how some people seem to think that if you are not in law school you magically will no longer need to pay rent or buy food.

I think that people include COL as a roughly proxy for opportunity cost + the increase in COL. This makes sense if you think you wouldn't be able to save much if you were working instead of attending law school. If this assumption is wrong, COL + tuition will understate the total cost of attendance.

[rayiner]

(even on a full ride, you need money for living, which averages out to around $60,000 for 3 years + other costs).

Your other arguments aside, can we all agree to stop including "cost of living" as a law school cost? I cannot understand how some people seem to think that if you are not in law school you magically will no longer need to pay rent or buy food.

Cost of living is usually a stand-in for income foregone while in law school. You can leave it out, but then you have to add back in the income you forgo over 3 years. Even if you work a crappy hourly job at Walmart this comes out to $60k over 3 years.

[Aberzombie1892]

Most MBA's are just as TTT as law schools are. And they are almost as expensive. The good ones are almost unattainable unless you are already have a decent career. And you leave a solid career to go to an MBA program.

Entering the work force might suck, however it's a debt free option. Less reward but must less risk.

Funded PhD's are basically like entering a regimented workforce. You spend 7 years and you got a small chance of actually making it or not. Even science PhD's have crappy job outlook. I hear engineering is better because there is industry who will hire you. But the average person can't get into a PhD in engineering program. It's like telling someone to join the NFL.


Med School is a good option right now, as always.

I agree that most MBA programs suck. However, the same is true for law schools. I was primarily comparing the 1 year sunk cost to to the three year sunk cost (MBA v. JD). Would you rather be out of $50,000 and 1 year of your life and have no job or $150,000 and 3 years of your life with no job? I know you didn't exactly disagree, I'm just restating my argument.

I agree with the risk statement. However, it is difficulty to gauge the statistical risk of any of the grad/professional school programs (bar MDs).

The benefit to Ph.D's is that most graduates will not have a ton of tuition debt. True, entry pay is offensive depending on what one pursues (I hear history Ph.D's are making $25,000 or less - before the economy became bad). However, business Ph.D's are in high demand and make just as much as engineering Ph.D's.

[09042014]

Most MBA's are just as TTT as law schools are. And they are almost as expensive. The good ones are almost unattainable unless you are already have a decent career. And you leave a solid career to go to an MBA program.

Entering the work force might suck, however it's a debt free option. Less reward but must less risk.

Funded PhD's are basically like entering a regimented workforce. You spend 7 years and you got a small chance of actually making it or not. Even science PhD's have crappy job outlook. I hear engineering is better because there is industry who will hire you. But the average person can't get into a PhD in engineering program. It's like telling someone to join the NFL.


Med School is a good option right now, as always.

I agree that most MBA programs suck. However, the same is true for law schools. I was primarily comparing the 1 year sunk cost to to the three year sunk cost (MBA v. JD). Would you rather be out of $50,000 and 1 year of your life and have no job or $150,000 and 3 years of your life with no job? I know you didn't exactly disagree, I'm just restating my argument.

I agree with the risk statement. However, it is difficulty to gauge the statistical risk of any of the grad/professional school programs (bar MDs).

The benefit to Ph.D's is that most graduates will not have a ton of tuition debt. True, entry pay is offensive depending on what one pursues (I hear history Ph.D's are making $25,000 or less - before the economy became bad). However, business Ph.D's are in high demand and make just as much as engineering Ph.D's.

MBAs are two years.

[frost]

^ right, plus a PhD takes 4-6 years so it's a longer time commitment and a much longer trajectory before you make decent money. also I would argue that a law grad still has a better chance of getting a job despite the large loans because the degree sells itself better than, let's say, an anthro phd.

[Anonymous User]

case western or pitt?

The OCI at my T2 has been predictably brutal. That's not really shocking. The bad part is that it doesn't seem like Law Review with top 10% is safe for ANY job anymore. My school has always dominated its region (it's basically the only school for a fairly large metro area), but there are simply no jobs anymore. Only about half of last year's LR class got a job through OCI, though I don't know how much of that was a result of self-selection. I guess the good news is that they all had jobs somewhere, though I don't know how many of those positions lead to offers. There are a couple 3L's on LR that are doing OCI now, but no more than one or two. It seems like several firms are just going through the motions at OCI this year as very very few students that I know of are getting callbacks. You essentially needed to be on Law Review for a shot at a screener, and I have no idea what they're looking for to give you a callback.

[Anonymous User]

Shouldn't this poll just be renamed "Do you have an offer or a good chance at one?"

TITCR

[Anonymous User]

Case Western definitely doesn't dominate its region. Cleveland State arguably has more pull in the region. Pitt doesn't dominate its region either.

case western or pitt?

The OCI at my T2 has been predictably brutal. That's not really shocking. The bad part is that it doesn't seem like Law Review with top 10% is safe for ANY job anymore. My school has always dominated its region (it's basically the only school for a fairly large metro area), but there are simply no jobs anymore. Only about half of last year's LR class got a job through OCI, though I don't know how much of that was a result of self-selection. I guess the good news is that they all had jobs somewhere, though I don't know how many of those positions lead to offers. There are a couple 3L's on LR that are doing OCI now, but no more than one or two. It seems like several firms are just going through the motions at OCI this year as very very few students that I know of are getting callbacks. You essentially needed to be on Law Review for a shot at a screener, and I have no idea what they're looking for to give you a callback.

[Anonymous User]

it truly is a question of do you have Biglaw.

before today - had no offers - law school sucks

now - offers - law school is great

[pocket herc]

has aberzombie absorbed that MBA programs last two years yet?

[BunkMoreland]

While I generally agree with the assessment that it depends on whether you have an offer, I also think if you aren't the type of person who can handle these constant fucking stressful situations/deadlines/decision points then you shouldn't go to law school. The entire process is just gut-wrenching, starting from LSAT to first semester grades to 2L OCI to getting a permanent offer to passing the bar to etc...

[Anonymous User]

I agree with those who are saying the grass only looks greener elsewhere. Do people think there are young grads just snapping up jobs right and left? Most of my friends out of college are either a) still looking for a job or b) doing something they don't particularly enjoy to pay the rent. Getting a great firm job isn't guaranteed, but neither is anything else right now.

Law school seems fine to me as long as you like the law and would like being a lawyer. If you're T14, all the better.

[bigben]

Shouldn't this poll just be renamed "Do you have an offer or a good chance at one?"

TITCR

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 7#p3430187

[kurla88]

If you want to be a lawyer, sure.

This is the only credited response.

I know people who rocked out at OCI. I know people who did terrible. Neither really has anything to do with recommending law school. Should people think long and hard about how much debt they're willing to take on and what their real odds are at a job, particularly their dream job? Yes. But at the end of the day, you have zero shot at being a lawyer (and for most of us, zero shot at a 160k job too, if that's your goal) without going to law school.