Top Law Schools

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/busin ... ner&st=cse

Opinions?

nooyyllib wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/busin ... ner&st=cse

Opinions?

If you like WV, and have no debt it's a pretty sweet option. Otherwise it kinda sucks.

Desert Fox wrote:

nooyyllib wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/busin ... ner&st=cse

Opinions?

If you like WV, and have no debt it's a pretty sweet option. Otherwise it kinda sucks.

haha srsly

Desert Fox wrote:

nooyyllib wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/busin ... ner&st=cse

Opinions?

If you like WV, and have no debt it's a pretty sweet option. Otherwise it kinda sucks.

It is only lack luster if you like WV. $30K a year after loans an taxes is doing pretty good there. It is probably better than 80K in NYC if you like outdoorsy stuff. With no loans it is pretty good:

http://realestate.aol.com/resale-homes/ ... 2_32722271


http://realestate.aol.com/resale-homes/ ... 2_32722296

AreJay711 wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

nooyyllib wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/busin ... ner&st=cse

Opinions?

If you like WV, and have no debt it's a pretty sweet option. Otherwise it kinda sucks.

It is only lack luster if you like WV. $30K a year after loans an taxes is doing pretty good there. It is probably better than 80K in NYC if you like outdoorsy stuff. With no loans it is pretty good:

http://realestate.aol.com/resale-homes/ ... 2_32722271


http://realestate.aol.com/resale-homes/ ... 2_32722296

Paying off sticker at a t14 is a lot of money. It's 25-30K in AFTER tax money per year.

Take home pay in WV on 60K is 45K. You are talking 15-20K extra to live on. You can't pay off your loans in ten years on this salary.

.

AreJay711 wrote:
http://realestate.aol.com/resale-homes/ ... 2_32722271


http://realestate.aol.com/resale-homes/ ... 2_32722296

damn, that second house is actually pretty awesome...

ak13 wrote:

AreJay711 wrote:
http://realestate.aol.com/resale-homes/ ... 2_32722271


http://realestate.aol.com/resale-homes/ ... 2_32722296

damn, that second house is actually pretty awesome...

yeah. too bad it's planted firmly in WV

I agree with the article addressing the resentment that can come out of the disparity in salaries. I think the worst part of this plan comes when you look at the growing prices associated with a legal education it's a scary step in lowering attorney salaries while we as a generation are getting the shaft in paying for school.

glitter178 wrote:

ak13 wrote:

AreJay711 wrote:
http://realestate.aol.com/resale-homes/ ... 2_32722271


http://realestate.aol.com/resale-homes/ ... 2_32722296

damn, that second house is actually pretty awesome...

yeah. too bad it's planted firmly in WV

unfortunately good point

I am from WV. My dad is 50 and is making 600K p/y as a lawyer in WV.

Shit ain't that bad, trust me.

Anonymous User wrote:I am from WV. My dad is 50 and is making 600K p/y as a lawyer in WV.

Shit ain't that bad, trust me.

FTFY.

Maybe not for you. some people like the big fish, small pond. i get it.

but your story isn't the common one.
it's not even the uncommon one.

I love that this thread seizes on the byline and nothing else. Who cares where it is? It's a national trend.

I think it's good, unless the profit per hour of these lawyers is out of whack with their lower compensation, and if they can't pay back loans with it. But although the problem of law school cost + law firm compensation is one every recent grad feels, the law schools and law firms aren't exactly coordinating their plans for our benefit. The firms will pay what they're willing to pay. And as someone mentioned, this 'farming out' of work to secondary markets probably results in a more stable national legal employment market, with opportunities available outside the home market when the local economy isn't booming.

Not too bad of a deal. Employed in bumfuck WV > Unemployed in NYC

With all due respect, I think you guys missed the main point here.

Quote from article:
“Everyone acknowledges that $160,000 is too much, but they don’t want to back down because that signals they’re just a midmarket firm,” said Mr. Henderson. “It’s a big game of chicken.”

I think it's not about whether or not these non-partner-track jobs have merit, but what will happen to traditional partner-track jobs in the very near future now that firms are no longer taking in money hand over fist.

Is the old paradigm just a house of cards?

Rock-N-Roll wrote:With all due respect, I think you guys missed the main point here.

Quote from article:
“Everyone acknowledges that $160,000 is too much, but they don’t want to back down because that signals they’re just a midmarket firm,” said Mr. Henderson. “It’s a big game of chicken.”

I think it's not about whether or not these non-partner-track jobs have merit, but what will happen to traditional partner-track jobs in the very near future now that firms are no longer taking in money hand over fist.

Is the old paradigm just a house of cards?

But firms are making money hand over fist.

Rock-N-Roll wrote:With all due respect, I think you guys missed the main point here.

Quote from article:
“Everyone acknowledges that $160,000 is too much, but they don’t want to back down because that signals they’re just a midmarket firm,” said Mr. Henderson. “It’s a big game of chicken.”

I think it's not about whether or not these non-partner-track jobs have merit, but what will happen to traditional partner-track jobs in the very near future now that firms are no longer taking in money hand over fist.

Is the old paradigm just a house of cards?

I can't get over how someone can say $160,000 is too much when many law students are forced to take on $120,000+ debt to cover tuition.

Haha bizarre. I know and went to school with the Fronterion guy quoted in the article.

In-sourcing does seem like a good idea that's politically more palatable than out-sourcing. I do worry about it bringing down the prestige of not only the entire profession, but of the "Big Law" subset of the profession specifically (and yea I'm aware it's already light years from what it used to be).

The existence of a second tier will force people who finally land that elusive, traditional Big Law job to qualify that they are partner track and not one of "those" lesser associates. I know this is an incredibly elitist concern, but for a profession that's been historically obsessed with prestige...I think it's a valid one.

Desert Fox wrote:

Rock-N-Roll wrote:With all due respect, I think you guys missed the main point here.

Quote from article:
“Everyone acknowledges that $160,000 is too much, but they don’t want to back down because that signals they’re just a midmarket firm,” said Mr. Henderson. “It’s a big game of chicken.”

I think it's not about whether or not these non-partner-track jobs have merit, but what will happen to traditional partner-track jobs in the very near future now that firms are no longer taking in money hand over fist.

Is the old paradigm just a house of cards?

But firms are making money hand over fist.

The pay rates have to be high if they want you to work as many hours as biglaw associates do. Afterall, PPP are not determined by the amount of hours the partner billed, but the number of associate hours they were able to sell.

Desert Fox wrote: But firms are making money hand over fist.

I don't understand. I thought it was pretty much a fact that firms were not making what they were pre-economy-crash, and thereby, less money trickling down to associates?

Anonymous User wrote: I can't get over how someone can say $160,000 is too much when many law students are forced to take on $120,000+ debt to cover tuition.

That's fine. But the firms set starting salaries not the law schools.

bdubs wrote: The pay rates have to be high if they want you to work as many hours as biglaw associates do. Afterall, PPP are not determined by the amount of hours the partner billed, but the number of associate hours they were able to sell.

It depends what the market will bear, right? Firms are saying they are billing less now. In response they are hiring less, and creating these in-source type jobs (described in article). So say it's either take an 60-80hr/wk job for $90,000 or no job at all, I think a lot of law school grads would take it right now.

.

My question is how does this reflect numbers for "big firms that hired graduates" more bull****? I wonder if even the current numbers are B.S?

Oh a note, one thing that most people don't correctly understand is interest rates. Being 200k+ in debt to private loan companies because you couldn't raise enough from the government is a totally different story/situation then someone with 50k in debt in unsubsidized staffords.

.

Rock-N-Roll wrote:

Desert Fox wrote: But firms are making money hand over fist.

I don't understand. I thought it was pretty much a fact that firms were not making what they were pre-economy-crash, and thereby, less money trickling down to associates?

Go look at firm revenue and firm profit per partner. Firm revenue took a 5-15% dip on average for one year. And have been growing again.

The problem was that when the crash happened, they had too many attorneys and not enough work. So they fired a bunch and now it's back to being even. This entire ITE was a reaction to over hiring the years immediately preceding the crash.

The entire big law layoff is just a problem of the leverage model they use, combined with the partnership model. These firms need 500K/partner every single year or they implode. 400K this year, 600K next year isn't good enough.

TL;DR; shockingly lawyers run their business like retards.

Some people actually prefer rural areas over concrete shitholes that require an hour+ commute every day. I know this may be a difficult concept for some of you to understand--not everyone wants to live in NYC/DC.