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

[Anonymous User]

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.

Agree to disagree. Based on my experience with attorneys trying to understand complicated technical concepts, I don't think your average motivated, high performing BL attorney could make it in the software space.

[Spartan_Alum_12]

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.

Agree to disagree. Based on my experience with attorneys trying to understand complicated technical concepts, I don't think your average motivated, high performing BL attorney could make it in the software space.

I agree with you. Even though I have a BSEE I think I would have struggled to do well in the software space. I wasn't a great engineering student and went to lower tier law school (so not dealing with great intelligence here), but it's not easy stuff. I don't think most non-technical lawyers that even went to top schools could just switch to coding and thrive.

[Anonymous User]

I’m sure there are some lawyers who’d do great at coding (and some coders who’d be terrible lawyers), but I agree that they’re totally different fields that play to different strengths. I’ve never understood “just do coding bro” as applied to the many many law students/lawyers who didn’t go into coding because they didn’t like/weren’t interested in that arena.

[Anonymous User]

I can think of about a dozen jobs I'd rather have than being a lawyer and none of them are coder, banker or doctor. It'd be writer, comedian, actor, professional athlete, etc.

I think people underestimate how easy of a job we have compared to the other professions mentioned here.

You might think I'm pulling your leg here, but I mean it when I say this is one of the easiest, high earning jobs around.

1. Easy to get the job. You just need 1 test - the LSAT. Do well once in your life. Not even the whole day - just manage to not fuck up for 4 hours, and you'll get into a T14 spot. Once admitted to a T14, biglaw is essentially guaranteed after your FIRST year. The next two years of law school, you get to completely chill - just don't fail. Bask in the glory that you're soon to be in the top 5% income bracket of America. Compare this to what it takes to land a FAANG, IB or medical residency and it's not even close on what has the lowest barrier of entry.

2. Your performance has zero bearing on your compensation. At most jobs, you'll ultimately reach a ceiling where people realize you're just not capable of more. For most lawyers, that's middle manager (mid-level associate) and your salary will cap out. Here in BigLaw, you could be the worst associate in your class and you will get paid the same as the best. Further, you will get a significant and increasing annual salary bump, regardless of your performance.

3. Tough to get fired. IBankers get fired left and right. Most jobs will cut you as soon as you fuck up. It's so impossibly hard to get fired in BigLaw that one of the best firms in the world is famous for firing their associates during the worst recession in modern history. Think about that. During a terrible economy where most businesses fired people and some of the most prestigious companies went out of business, a biglaw firm got a bad rep for letting some associates go. It's so hard to get fired here, that if you do, the firm gets a bad rep. Eventually, you may get pushed out - but like, not even really. They'll keep you around well past your due date until you've collected a cool $1-2million in compensation, and then will push you into a chill role with a client provided you're not a fuckup.

4. The exit opportunities are easy. So at some point, you'd think the gig would be up, right? Sure, I landed myself in this incredible position, but eventually when I go interview for a new job, I need to know my shit. Ibankers, consultants, coders, etc. all have to still perform in a job interview to get hired to their exit opp and prove they know shit. In-house is just OCI pt. 2. Just chat with some legal folks, talk about hobbies, boom new 9-5 job that pays at least $150k/year.

5. Low stress. Okay, I'm going to get a massive amount of pushback on this one. I'm a midlevel M&A associate. My brother is a surgeon. Every working day for him is life and death. I have other friends who are traders and engineers. They all have stressful jobs where if they fuck up, someone's life will be affected. By comparison, all of my stress is self-created. Every deadline, is more or less a made up deadline. What will realistically happen to me if I miss it? I get yelled at by a partner? Let me refer you back to point #3 above. Our job is so low stress that most of us have done it drunk at some point (usually at several points throughout the year). Not a single doctor, engineer or teacher I know ever has.

So, long roundabout way to say this, but grass is always greener on the other side. We don't have it so bad.

Edit: formatting.

[tlsguy2020]

Echoing the poster above. If I had to pick another job, it wouldn’t be something that’d squeeze out a few extra 100k in net worth. Instead it’d be something that’d require taking more risks i.e comedian, journalist, opening a clothing shop.

Within the universe of jobs that do pay a lot of money, I have always wondered if I should have gone into tech sales. I’m fairly social, I enjoy winning people over. Recruiting is one of my favorite administrative parts of Biglaw. Seems like low barrier to entry for sales positions and high upside.

[nealric]

Not in Biglaw anymore, but I certainly don't have any desire to go back and do coding. I took Compsci 101 in college to see if I would like it (was basically just an intro Java coding class). I hated it. Found it extremely tedious. You spend 5% of the time planning on what you are going to do, 20% of the time implementing it, and 75% of the time figuring out why what you just didn't isn't working like you expected it to. I'm sure that ratio isn't so bad for more experienced folks, but you do see massive software companies spending YEARS getting software to work as intended. Heck, MS windows took decades to get reasonably stable.

Anyhow, I can see how a certain personality type would like coding. If you are the sort who finds Sudoku enjoyable, you might like coding. If you are like me and think of Sodoku like being assigned 5th grade math homework, that's for the birds.

As for whether it's a better way to earn a living, just like law there's a massive variation. I have a relative who dropped out of college, did the "learn to code" thing when smartphones were brand new, and made 7 figures selling a company. His experience is nothing like folks doing low end coding jobs making 5 figures doing routine repetitive stuff for companies you've never heard of. Likewise, there are lawyers making 7 figures doing interesting work, and lawyers making low 5 figures doing scut work. You probably aren't going to end up on the glamorous side of any profession if you are someone who doesn't have aptitude for it.

[Anonymous User]

The long comment above is pretty good. Ease of entry is a huge factor!

To push back on stress/workload -- in most corporate jobs you don't actually work all day. It's very common in a ton of jobs to have only like 2-3 hours of substantive work a day. We bill avg 8-10 hours a day. It's a MUCH harder workday than the other fields.

As an aside, it's pretty weird that lawyers don't have substantive interviews. Even just like a basic copyedit, make sure you have attention to detail, stuff like that? There are associates that manage a 5-7 yr career simply jumping around from firm to firm, being completely useless throughout.

[jotarokujo]

I’m sure there are some lawyers who’d do great at coding (and some coders who’d be terrible lawyers), but I agree that they’re totally different fields that play to different strengths. I’ve never understood “just do coding bro” as applied to the many many law students/lawyers who didn’t go into coding because they didn’t like/weren’t interested in that arena.

"just do coding bro" is said to people who are considering law school solely to earn money but have no actual desire to be a lawyer or idea what being a lawyer entails. it's to prevent the miserable biglawyer who's just there for money when they could have done something at least more lucrative, if not something they enjoy more

[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?

Well if it wasn't settled a page ago it's certainly settled now.

[Sackboy]

The long comment above is pretty good. Ease of entry is a huge factor!

To push back on stress/workload -- in most corporate jobs you don't actually work all day. It's very common in a ton of jobs to have only like 2-3 hours of substantive work a day. We bill avg 8-10 hours a day. It's a MUCH harder workday than the other fields.

As an aside, it's pretty weird that lawyers don't have substantive interviews. Even just like a basic copyedit, make sure you have attention to detail, stuff like that? There are associates that manage a 5-7 yr career simply jumping around from firm to firm, being completely useless throughout.

They're rare, but I've had a substantive interview as a lawyer. I thought it did fine, but I thought it was rather silly. Beyond broad concepts and a few key specifics in a practice area, it's absolutely unnecessary for me to know the specifics of most law on the fly.

[Anonymous User]

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.

Agree to disagree. Based on my experience with attorneys trying to understand complicated technical concepts, I don't think your average motivated, high performing BL attorney could make it in the software space.

Just to add perspective from the tech side of things (in addition to the earlier post on Blind, but with N > 900 responses): https://www.reddit.com/r/cscareerquesti ... t_devs_not

[Anonymous User]

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.

Agree to disagree. Based on my experience with attorneys trying to understand complicated technical concepts, I don't think your average motivated, high performing BL attorney could make it in the software space.

Just to add perspective from the tech side of things (in addition to the earlier post on Blind, but with N > 900 responses): https://www.reddit.com/r/cscareerquesti ... t_devs_not

[Anonymous User]

I can think of about a dozen jobs I'd rather have than being a lawyer and none of them are coder, banker or doctor. It'd be writer, comedian, actor, professional athlete, etc.

I think people underestimate how easy of a job we have compared to the other professions mentioned here.

You might think I'm pulling your leg here, but I mean it when I say this is one of the easiest, high earning jobs around.

1. Easy to get the job. You just need 1 test - the LSAT. Do well once in your life. Not even the whole day - just manage to not fuck up for 4 hours, and you'll get into a T14 spot. Once admitted to a T14, biglaw is essentially guaranteed after your FIRST year. The next two years of law school, you get to completely chill - just don't fail. Bask in the glory that you're soon to be in the top 5% income bracket of America. Compare this to what it takes to land a FAANG, IB or medical residency and it's not even close on what has the lowest barrier of entry.

2. Your performance has zero bearing on your compensation. At most jobs, you'll ultimately reach a ceiling where people realize you're just not capable of more. For most lawyers, that's middle manager (mid-level associate) and your salary will cap out. Here in BigLaw, you could be the worst associate in your class and you will get paid the same as the best. Further, you will get a significant and increasing annual salary bump, regardless of your performance.

3. Tough to get fired. IBankers get fired left and right. Most jobs will cut you as soon as you fuck up. It's so impossibly hard to get fired in BigLaw that one of the best firms in the world is famous for firing their associates during the worst recession in modern history. Think about that. During a terrible economy where most businesses fired people and some of the most prestigious companies went out of business, a biglaw firm got a bad rep for letting some associates go. It's so hard to get fired here, that if you do, the firm gets a bad rep. Eventually, you may get pushed out - but like, not even really. They'll keep you around well past your due date until you've collected a cool $1-2million in compensation, and then will push you into a chill role with a client provided you're not a fuckup.

4. The exit opportunities are easy. So at some point, you'd think the gig would be up, right? Sure, I landed myself in this incredible position, but eventually when I go interview for a new job, I need to know my shit. Ibankers, consultants, coders, etc. all have to still perform in a job interview to get hired to their exit opp and prove they know shit. In-house is just OCI pt. 2. Just chat with some legal folks, talk about hobbies, boom new 9-5 job that pays at least $150k/year.

5. Low stress. Okay, I'm going to get a massive amount of pushback on this one. I'm a midlevel M&A associate. My brother is a surgeon. Every working day for him is life and death. I have other friends who are traders and engineers. They all have stressful jobs where if they fuck up, someone's life will be affected. By comparison, all of my stress is self-created. Every deadline, is more or less a made up deadline. What will realistically happen to me if I miss it? I get yelled at by a partner? Let me refer you back to point #3 above. Our job is so low stress that most of us have done it drunk at some point (usually at several points throughout the year). Not a single doctor, engineer or teacher I know ever has.

So, long roundabout way to say this, but grass is always greener on the other side. We don't have it so bad.

Edit: formatting.

This is so amazingly accurate and should be required reading for any law student. Yes, of course, the job sucks sometimes. But we get drilled in our head for three years straight biglaw will be hell. But at least a significant degree of any pain on the job is by our own creation where we don't manage expectations/self-impose stress.

That being said, I mostly would leave leave BL because it's so rote and mind-numbing. Never do I feel like I actually added something important and oft, at the end of the day, I tell myself a high schooler could have done what I did that day. Which again goes to that this job really isn't that bad, in a way.

[Anonymous User]

I’m sure there are some lawyers who’d do great at coding (and some coders who’d be terrible lawyers), but I agree that they’re totally different fields that play to different strengths. I’ve never understood “just do coding bro” as applied to the many many law students/lawyers who didn’t go into coding because they didn’t like/weren’t interested in that arena.

"just do coding bro" is said to people who are considering law school solely to earn money but have no actual desire to be a lawyer or idea what being a lawyer entails. it's to prevent the miserable biglawyer who's just there for money when they could have done something at least more lucrative, if not something they enjoy more

So it makes sense to tell them to code when they’re just considering the job to earn money and have no actual desire to be a coder or know what being a coder entails? That sounds like a recipe for success.

[Anonymous User]

I’m sure there are some lawyers who’d do great at coding (and some coders who’d be terrible lawyers), but I agree that they’re totally different fields that play to different strengths. I’ve never understood “just do coding bro” as applied to the many many law students/lawyers who didn’t go into coding because they didn’t like/weren’t interested in that arena.

"just do coding bro" is said to people who are considering law school solely to earn money but have no actual desire to be a lawyer or idea what being a lawyer entails. it's to prevent the miserable biglawyer who's just there for money when they could have done something at least more lucrative, if not something they enjoy more

So it makes sense to tell them to code when they’re just considering the job to earn money and have no actual desire to be a coder or know what being a coder entails? That sounds like a recipe for success.

It's marginally better than saying take an extra 3 years and six figures of debt to end up at roughly the same career comp and job satisfaction...

The problem here is that if you're entering college trying to maximize salary with minimal risk, the two paths we're talking about here are somewhat mutually exclusive. I say that because you could try your hand at comp sci and get terrible grades, even if you don't hate it. That might DQ you from getting into a top law school. On the other hand, try getting a coding job with an English major. Not easy.

What we're saying here is if you had to pick something, and if you have any propensity for coding whatsoever (you can find this out in high school), I would 100% recommend the comp sci degree. Even if you don't end up at Google, you'll still have better career options than a liberal arts major. And even if your grades aren't great, you can still get to biglaw through a lower ranked school (firms will dip pretty low for IP positions).

Caveat here is that I still think most of the pre-law types have zero aptitude for coding. The above is not an option for most.

[Anonymous User]

Not directly responsive to the title question, but Axios and others have been reporting recently on big waves of tech sector layoffs, following on the heels of market dips. Those layoffs are most concentrated in startups & 2nd-tier mid-sized players, but even some big names (Netflix) are cutting. One of the virtues of biglaw (versus tech specifically, but also versus many other high-paying industries) is the relatively high job security — 2008/GFC notwithstanding.

[jotarokujo]

I’m sure there are some lawyers who’d do great at coding (and some coders who’d be terrible lawyers), but I agree that they’re totally different fields that play to different strengths. I’ve never understood “just do coding bro” as applied to the many many law students/lawyers who didn’t go into coding because they didn’t like/weren’t interested in that arena.

"just do coding bro" is said to people who are considering law school solely to earn money but have no actual desire to be a lawyer or idea what being a lawyer entails. it's to prevent the miserable biglawyer who's just there for money when they could have done something at least more lucrative, if not something they enjoy more

So it makes sense to tell them to code when they’re just considering the job to earn money and have no actual desire to be a coder or know what being a coder entails? That sounds like a recipe for success.

It's marginally better than saying take an extra 3 years and six figures of debt to end up at roughly the same career comp and job satisfaction...

The problem here is that if you're entering college trying to maximize salary with minimal risk, the two paths we're talking about here are somewhat mutually exclusive. I say that because you could try your hand at comp sci and get terrible grades, even if you don't hate it. That might DQ you from getting into a top law school. On the other hand, try getting a coding job with an English major. Not easy.

What we're saying here is if you had to pick something, and if you have any propensity for coding whatsoever (you can find this out in high school), I would 100% recommend the comp sci degree. Even if you don't end up at Google, you'll still have better career options than a liberal arts major. And even if your grades aren't great, you can still get to biglaw through a lower ranked school (firms will dip pretty low for IP positions).

Caveat here is that I still think most of the pre-law types have zero aptitude for coding. The above is not an option for most.

see i actually don't think we sort people that effectively based on talents. i dont think most people are in their best possible job (best being combination of enjoyment+compensation). and i think that's partially because information is not that effectively disseminated

but also there are many more lucrative things than law school out of undergrad that aren't comp sci that many (most?) biglawyers who hate it could have pursued

[Anonymous User]

I’m sure there are some lawyers who’d do great at coding (and some coders who’d be terrible lawyers), but I agree that they’re totally different fields that play to different strengths. I’ve never understood “just do coding bro” as applied to the many many law students/lawyers who didn’t go into coding because they didn’t like/weren’t interested in that arena.

"just do coding bro" is said to people who are considering law school solely to earn money but have no actual desire to be a lawyer or idea what being a lawyer entails. it's to prevent the miserable biglawyer who's just there for money when they could have done something at least more lucrative, if not something they enjoy more

So it makes sense to tell them to code when they’re just considering the job to earn money and have no actual desire to be a coder or know what being a coder entails? That sounds like a recipe for success.

It's marginally better than saying take an extra 3 years and six figures of debt to end up at roughly the same career comp and job satisfaction...

The problem here is that if you're entering college trying to maximize salary with minimal risk, the two paths we're talking about here are somewhat mutually exclusive. I say that because you could try your hand at comp sci and get terrible grades, even if you don't hate it. That might DQ you from getting into a top law school. On the other hand, try getting a coding job with an English major. Not easy.

What we're saying here is if you had to pick something, and if you have any propensity for coding whatsoever (you can find this out in high school), I would 100% recommend the comp sci degree. Even if you don't end up at Google, you'll still have better career options than a liberal arts major. And even if your grades aren't great, you can still get to biglaw through a lower ranked school (firms will dip pretty low for IP positions).

Caveat here is that I still think most of the pre-law types have zero aptitude for coding. The above is not an option for most.

Yeah, I don’t think we really disagree. If someone has a predisposition for coding and shows up trying to decide between law and coding, I definitely agree that coding saves you 3 years in school and debt for those 3 years. I was more assessing “just do coding bro” in a vacuum - like you, I think that most people considering prelaw probably aren’t interested in and don’t show any predisposition or aptitude for coding. So in the absence of that, “just do coding bro” seems sort of like “just go be a professional athlete bro” or something - kind of unhelpful when you don’t know anything about a person. (I’d probably also go back to the start and push back on maximizing salary with minimal risk as the *only* considerations for a job, but that’s a bit of a tangent.)

[Anonymous User]

but also there are many more lucrative things than law school out of undergrad that aren't comp sci that many (most?) biglawyers who hate it could have pursued

You mean finance/IB/consulting? Or do you mean just general business roles? Like the long post above noted, the former category is harder to get for most (not virtually automatic like it is for BL after getting into a T14) and the latter has a less clear path to six figures. Either path involves more risk than coding/BL (assuming you can get into a relatively good law school).

To add some color - MBA admissions seem subjective and risky to me compared to law school admissions which are roughly just a question of GPA/LSAT. I have a friend with a 750 GMAT, decent UG GPA for business school, and an interesting background who didn't get into a single T10 business school. That same percentile for LSAT would have got him a look at at least a few T14s. Lawyers are inherently risk averse.

[Anonymous User]

but also there are many more lucrative things than law school out of undergrad that aren't comp sci that many (most?) biglawyers who hate it could have pursued

You mean finance/IB/consulting? Or do you mean just general business roles? Like the long post above noted, the former category is harder to get for most (not virtually automatic like it is for BL after getting into a T14) and the latter has a less clear path to six figures. Either path involves more risk than coding/BL (assuming you can get into a relatively good law school).

To add some color - MBA admissions seem subjective and risky to me compared to law school admissions which are roughly just a question of GPA/LSAT. I have a friend with a 750 GMAT, decent UG GPA for business school, and an interesting background who didn't get into a single T10 business school. That same percentile for LSAT would have got him a look at at least a few T14s. Lawyers are inherently risk averse.

I hate the idea that a career isn’t worth aiming for unless it earns you 6 figures out of school.

[Anonymous User]

but also there are many more lucrative things than law school out of undergrad that aren't comp sci that many (most?) biglawyers who hate it could have pursued

You mean finance/IB/consulting? Or do you mean just general business roles? Like the long post above noted, the former category is harder to get for most (not virtually automatic like it is for BL after getting into a T14) and the latter has a less clear path to six figures. Either path involves more risk than coding/BL (assuming you can get into a relatively good law school).

To add some color - MBA admissions seem subjective and risky to me compared to law school admissions which are roughly just a question of GPA/LSAT. I have a friend with a 750 GMAT, decent UG GPA for business school, and an interesting background who didn't get into a single T10 business school. That same percentile for LSAT would have got him a look at at least a few T14s. Lawyers are inherently risk averse.

I hate the idea that a career isn’t worth aiming for unless it earns you 6 figures out of school.

Yeah, I think people with little to no work experience think the money is all that it's about, but when you've been working for a while, you realize that liking your job -- the thing you spend a significant portion of your time as adult doing -- is also incredibly important. But the people who were just chasing dollars in undergrad/early career often have not spent the time to figure out what it is that they actually like doing in a job and so have a difficult time identifying the field in which they will be successful and happy, which leads to a lot of unhappy people plugging away in jobs they hate for 40+ hours a week for 40+ years - no fun.

[Anonymous User]

but also there are many more lucrative things than law school out of undergrad that aren't comp sci that many (most?) biglawyers who hate it could have pursued

You mean finance/IB/consulting? Or do you mean just general business roles? Like the long post above noted, the former category is harder to get for most (not virtually automatic like it is for BL after getting into a T14) and the latter has a less clear path to six figures. Either path involves more risk than coding/BL (assuming you can get into a relatively good law school).

To add some color - MBA admissions seem subjective and risky to me compared to law school admissions which are roughly just a question of GPA/LSAT. I have a friend with a 750 GMAT, decent UG GPA for business school, and an interesting background who didn't get into a single T10 business school. That same percentile for LSAT would have got him a look at at least a few T14s. Lawyers are inherently risk averse.

I hate the idea that a career isn’t worth aiming for unless it earns you 6 figures out of school.

Yeah, I think people with little to no work experience think the money is all that it's about, but when you've been working for a while, you realize that liking your job -- the thing you spend a significant portion of your time as adult doing -- is also incredibly important. But the people who were just chasing dollars in undergrad/early career often have not spent the time to figure out what it is that they actually like doing in a job and so have a difficult time identifying the field in which they will be successful and happy, which leads to a lot of unhappy people plugging away in jobs they hate for 40+ hours a week for 40+ years - no fun.

Wanting six figures and chasing dollars are two different things. We don't need to start a debate about cost/standard of living, but I don't think it's unreasonable to want six figures to raise a family in a high COL area. That's different from chasing a dollar (e.g., looking for high six figures in BL or coding).

We have to strike a balance here. On the one hand, money isn't worth hating your life for. On the other hand, the idea that everybody can just do whatever they want and everything will work financially is misleading and leads to a lot of unhappy college graduates with debt they can't pay off.

[Anonymous User]

but also there are many more lucrative things than law school out of undergrad that aren't comp sci that many (most?) biglawyers who hate it could have pursued

You mean finance/IB/consulting? Or do you mean just general business roles? Like the long post above noted, the former category is harder to get for most (not virtually automatic like it is for BL after getting into a T14) and the latter has a less clear path to six figures. Either path involves more risk than coding/BL (assuming you can get into a relatively good law school).

To add some color - MBA admissions seem subjective and risky to me compared to law school admissions which are roughly just a question of GPA/LSAT. I have a friend with a 750 GMAT, decent UG GPA for business school, and an interesting background who didn't get into a single T10 business school. That same percentile for LSAT would have got him a look at at least a few T14s. Lawyers are inherently risk averse.

I hate the idea that a career isn’t worth aiming for unless it earns you 6 figures out of school.

Yeah, I think people with little to no work experience think the money is all that it's about, but when you've been working for a while, you realize that liking your job -- the thing you spend a significant portion of your time as adult doing -- is also incredibly important. But the people who were just chasing dollars in undergrad/early career often have not spent the time to figure out what it is that they actually like doing in a job and so have a difficult time identifying the field in which they will be successful and happy, which leads to a lot of unhappy people plugging away in jobs they hate for 40+ hours a week for 40+ years - no fun.

Wanting six figures and chasing dollars are two different things. We don't need to start a debate about cost/standard of living, but I don't think it's unreasonable to want six figures to raise a family in a high COL area. That's different from chasing a dollar (e.g., looking for high six figures in BL or coding).

We have to strike a balance here. On the one hand, money isn't worth hating your life for. On the other hand, the idea that everybody can just do whatever they want and everything will work financially is misleading and leads to a lot of unhappy college graduates with debt they can't pay off.

You weren’t responding directly to me, but I said I hate the idea that a career isn’t worth aiming for unless it earns you 6 figures out of school. I didn’t say that everyone can just do whatever they want and everything will work financially. In particular, I don’t like the idea that earning 6 figures *the year you graduate from school* should determine what you do. What I wish is that people had better information about the *variety* of jobs out there *and how their earning capacity develops over time.* I know it sounds incredibly boomer to talk about working your way up a career ladder so I won’t say that exactly, but I do think people are very bad at thinking longer term. Because I do think that being a job you hate is worse for you long term than not making 6 figures.

(I also think that “wanting 6 figures to raise a family in a HCOL area” presumes a lot - that you want to raise a family, that you want to live in a HCOL area, that you don’t have a working spouse maybe - that generally doesn’t apply right out of school. Obviously those things can apply, but I don’t think a ton of people deciding between coding or law school for the money are actually facing these circumstances *right at the start of their career.*)

That said - I’m way more sympathetic to the “chase the dollars” approach for people who grew up in poverty and have to support their family and/or want to be able to materially contribute to their community. Still don’t think law/coding are the only way to do that, but there’s a meaningful motive there.

I’ll also be a cliche and point out that quite a bit of research suggests that not having enough money absolutely contributes to unhappiness, but once your needs are met and after about $75k, more money doesn’t make you happier. (Like I can see that stretching up to what’s technically 6 figures in HCOL areas, but it’s not like people debating coding v. law purely for the money are expecting to make $100k. They’re talking about making more.)

[AJordan]

but also there are many more lucrative things than law school out of undergrad that aren't comp sci that many (most?) biglawyers who hate it could have pursued

You mean finance/IB/consulting? Or do you mean just general business roles? Like the long post above noted, the former category is harder to get for most (not virtually automatic like it is for BL after getting into a T14) and the latter has a less clear path to six figures. Either path involves more risk than coding/BL (assuming you can get into a relatively good law school).

To add some color - MBA admissions seem subjective and risky to me compared to law school admissions which are roughly just a question of GPA/LSAT. I have a friend with a 750 GMAT, decent UG GPA for business school, and an interesting background who didn't get into a single T10 business school. That same percentile for LSAT would have got him a look at at least a few T14s. Lawyers are inherently risk averse.

I hate the idea that a career isn’t worth aiming for unless it earns you 6 figures out of school.

Yeah, I think people with little to no work experience think the money is all that it's about, but when you've been working for a while, you realize that liking your job -- the thing you spend a significant portion of your time as adult doing -- is also incredibly important. But the people who were just chasing dollars in undergrad/early career often have not spent the time to figure out what it is that they actually like doing in a job and so have a difficult time identifying the field in which they will be successful and happy, which leads to a lot of unhappy people plugging away in jobs they hate for 40+ hours a week for 40+ years - no fun.

This argument gets a lot tougher to make once anyone but you relies on your income.

[nixy]

Yeah, I think people with little to no work experience think the money is all that it's about, but when you've been working for a while, you realize that liking your job -- the thing you spend a significant portion of your time as adult doing -- is also incredibly important. But the people who were just chasing dollars in undergrad/early career often have not spent the time to figure out what it is that they actually like doing in a job and so have a difficult time identifying the field in which they will be successful and happy, which leads to a lot of unhappy people plugging away in jobs they hate for 40+ hours a week for 40+ years - no fun.

This argument gets a lot tougher to make once anyone but you relies on your income.

Are you suggesting that it’s impossible to support a family on a job that you like? Because that’s all the above post is saying, that people should think about what they like to do, not *only* what will make the *most* money. The point isn’t “don’t worry at all about making money!”, it’s “don’t worry *only* about money, think about both salary *and* job satisfaction.”