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

[laanngo]

What percentage of lawyers have taken even 1 programming class?

All of the software developers I know at FAANGs are self taught and haven't taken a single programming class in their lives. Comp sci courses are not programming classes - they instead focus on the theory behind computers/programing. This brings us back to one of the main points about getting a job at a FAANG. It's not enough to know how to write code - any bozo with some time on their hands can learn to do that. It's about how you think and solve problems in a way that can be implemented using code. IMHO most lawyers don't have the math/science horsepower to think through problems in that way.

Edit: grammar (i.e., exposing myself as a STEM type)

even if true we could expand the question to "or being a PM at a tech company" which similarly does not require a rather work-intensive graduate degree and has fewer hours and good pay. at the end of the day the reason has to be because they enjoy the law more

I remember an anecdote I read from a Teach for America alum who said they chose a career teaching over attending HLS, then mentioned they hadn't applied to a single law school. Some of the posts on this thread have the same veneer of narcissism. A lot of jobs are hard. If you've made it to biglaw, it's because you're good at what you do - getting into a T19 law school.

[Anonymous User]

What percentage of lawyers have taken even 1 programming class?

All of the software developers I know at FAANGs are self taught and haven't taken a single programming class in their lives. Comp sci courses are not programming classes - they instead focus on the theory behind computers/programing. This brings us back to one of the main points about getting a job at a FAANG. It's not enough to know how to write code - any bozo with some time on their hands can learn to do that. It's about how you think and solve problems in a way that can be implemented using code. IMHO most lawyers don't have the math/science horsepower to think through problems in that way.

Edit: grammar (i.e., exposing myself as a STEM type)

even if true we could expand the question to "or being a PM at a tech company" which similarly does not require a rather work-intensive graduate degree and has fewer hours and good pay. at the end of the day the reason has to be because they enjoy the law more

I remember an anecdote I read from a Teach for America alum who said they chose a career teaching over attending HLS, then mentioned they hadn't applied to a single law school. Some of the posts on this thread have the same veneer of narcissism. A lot of jobs are hard. If you've made it to biglaw, it's because you're good at what you do - getting into a T19 law school.

I am so glad I got to work in biglaw rather than code or “be a pm”. I don’t love the law or biglaw. It’s a client services job and I don’t hate it.

[laanngo]

What percentage of lawyers have taken even 1 programming class?

All of the software developers I know at FAANGs are self taught and haven't taken a single programming class in their lives. Comp sci courses are not programming classes - they instead focus on the theory behind computers/programing. This brings us back to one of the main points about getting a job at a FAANG. It's not enough to know how to write code - any bozo with some time on their hands can learn to do that. It's about how you think and solve problems in a way that can be implemented using code. IMHO most lawyers don't have the math/science horsepower to think through problems in that way.

Edit: grammar (i.e., exposing myself as a STEM type)

even if true we could expand the question to "or being a PM at a tech company" which similarly does not require a rather work-intensive graduate degree and has fewer hours and good pay. at the end of the day the reason has to be because they enjoy the law more

I remember an anecdote I read from a Teach for America alum who said they chose a career teaching over attending HLS, then mentioned they hadn't applied to a single law school. Some of the posts on this thread have the same veneer of narcissism. A lot of jobs are hard. If you've made it to biglaw, it's because you're good at what you do - getting into a T19 law school.

I am so glad I got to work in biglaw rather than code or “be a pm”. I don’t love the law or biglaw. It’s a client services job and I don’t hate it.

Care to explain?

[Anonymous User]

I think the average law student/lawyer probably could have done a STEM degree or med school. I taught math before law school and so much of math/science education seems designed to neg people out of the field more than actually teaching them. With reforms made to our education system to get rid of this insipid "math people vs. humanities people" meme the vast majority of law students/lawyers could easily have been doctors/mathematicians/etc.

The reality is also that it doesn't actually take that much quantitative horsepower to be a garden-variety coder. Setting up a database doesn't require a deep understanding of complex analysis or stochastic calculus. In the same way that you don't actually need to be a very good writer (or logician, for that matter) to be a lawyer.

We can agree to disagree about whether your average law biglaw lawyer could have done a STEM degree or could learn to code. I have my doubts - I work in IP lit with countless HLS grads with an english/poli sci UG degrees who fail to understand basic scientific/technical topics despite hours of coaching/reading. This is a good thing - if they can't get it then neither can a jury, but that's what informs my opinions here.

But that's not the question in this thread. Knowing how to code or graduating with a STEM degree are different from landing a FAANG coding job that pays biglaw money for 9-5 hours. The question is not whether they can code or do science, but whether they can excel at it to the level required to land one of these jobs. I graduated at the top of my class with a STEM degree and then went to a T10 law school, but I don't even think I'm good enough to do that. Sure, I'd say an HLS grad has a better chance than some other person chosen at random, and sure not every coder at Amazon is a savant, but I maintain that most biglaw folks couldn't have landed one of the jobs this thread was originally about even if they tried.

Edit: to be fair, I also don't think my friends with FAANG coding jobs could do what we do. Many (not all) are poor writers and have a hard time expressing themselves.

[Anonymous User]

I think the average law student/lawyer probably could have done a STEM degree or med school. I taught math before law school and so much of math/science education seems designed to neg people out of the field more than actually teaching them. With reforms made to our education system to get rid of this insipid "math people vs. humanities people" meme the vast majority of law students/lawyers could easily have been doctors/mathematicians/etc.

The reality is also that it doesn't actually take that much quantitative horsepower to be a garden-variety coder. Setting up a database doesn't require a deep understanding of complex analysis or stochastic calculus. In the same way that you don't actually need to be a very good writer (or logician, for that matter) to be a lawyer.

We can agree to disagree about whether your average law biglaw lawyer could have done a STEM degree or could learn to code. I have my doubts - I work in IP lit with countless HLS grads with an english/poli sci UG degrees who fail to understand basic scientific/technical topics despite hours of coaching/reading. This is a good thing - if they can't get it then neither can a jury, but that's what informs my opinions here.

But that's not the question in this thread. Knowing how to code or graduating with a STEM degree are different from landing a FAANG coding job that pays biglaw money for 9-5 hours. The question is not whether they can code or do science, but whether they can excel at it to the level required to land one of these jobs. I graduated at the top of my class with a STEM degree and then went to a T10 law school, but I don't even think I'm good enough to do that. Sure, I'd say an HLS grad has a better chance than some other person chosen at random, and sure not every coder at Amazon is a savant, but I maintain that most biglaw folks couldn't have landed one of the jobs this thread was originally about even if they tried.

Edit: to be fair, I also don't think my friends with FAANG coding jobs could do what we do. Many (not all) are poor writers and have a hard time expressing themselves.

I'm the second anon from above. I don't think I disagree with you on some level. I think the reality is that the people getting 9-5 coding jobs at FAANGs are probably overqualified mostly -- far smarter than they need to be for what they do (which is why the job is just 9-5). The lawyers couldn't compete for those jobs not because they couldn't do them necessarily, but because there are better people applying (I realize that there is a subset of the jobs that do in fact require strength, but I'm not convinced it's that large).

We're also probably talking about different levels of horsepower. When I think of legitimately high quantitative horsepower, I'm ruling out, for example all the data science python monkeys, which are jobs I think a lot of lawyers could do.

[Anonymous User]

I think the average law student/lawyer probably could have done a STEM degree or med school. I taught math before law school and so much of math/science education seems designed to neg people out of the field more than actually teaching them. With reforms made to our education system to get rid of this insipid "math people vs. humanities people" meme the vast majority of law students/lawyers could easily have been doctors/mathematicians/etc.

The reality is also that it doesn't actually take that much quantitative horsepower to be a garden-variety coder. Setting up a database doesn't require a deep understanding of complex analysis or stochastic calculus. In the same way that you don't actually need to be a very good writer (or logician, for that matter) to be a lawyer.

We can agree to disagree about whether your average law biglaw lawyer could have done a STEM degree or could learn to code. I have my doubts - I work in IP lit with countless HLS grads with an english/poli sci UG degrees who fail to understand basic scientific/technical topics despite hours of coaching/reading. This is a good thing - if they can't get it then neither can a jury, but that's what informs my opinions here.

But that's not the question in this thread. Knowing how to code or graduating with a STEM degree are different from landing a FAANG coding job that pays biglaw money for 9-5 hours. The question is not whether they can code or do science, but whether they can excel at it to the level required to land one of these jobs. I graduated at the top of my class with a STEM degree and then went to a T10 law school, but I don't even think I'm good enough to do that. Sure, I'd say an HLS grad has a better chance than some other person chosen at random, and sure not every coder at Amazon is a savant, but I maintain that most biglaw folks couldn't have landed one of the jobs this thread was originally about even if they tried.

Edit: to be fair, I also don't think my friends with FAANG coding jobs could do what we do. Many (not all) are poor writers and have a hard time expressing themselves.

I'm the second anon from above. I don't think I disagree with you on some level. I think the reality is that the people getting 9-5 coding jobs at FAANGs are probably overqualified mostly -- far smarter than they need to be for what they do (which is why the job is just 9-5). The lawyers couldn't compete for those jobs not because they couldn't do them necessarily, but because there are better people applying (I realize that there is a subset of the jobs that do in fact require strength, but I'm not convinced it's that large).

We're also probably talking about different levels of horsepower. When I think of legitimately high quantitative horsepower, I'm ruling out, for example all the data science python monkeys, which are jobs I think a lot of lawyers could do.

Yeah I totally agree with you on most of this - that was probably our disconnect. I have a really good friend/former classmate making close to 7 figures at Google and he could do his job in his sleep, and I could probably do it as well with my minimal self-taught C++/matlab/python/shell script experience. But the only reason Google hired him is because he was ridiculously well-qualified and killed it in the substantive interviews. This is probably true for all but a handful of FAANG employees. I liken this corporate biglaw - we take people from the top of their class at T14s to do stuff that anybody with a pulse and stamina could do. The work isn't hard, but getting there is.

The one nuance I'd add is maybe some of these FAANG jobs are 9-5s because the people they hire are overqualified. Could your standard python monkey do the job in 8 hours/day? Maybe not.

We still may disagree on what level of coding your standard biglaw associate could handle, but that's less relevant to the thread headline since we both agree on the qualifications point.

[jotarokujo]

I remember an anecdote I read from a Teach for America alum who said they chose a career teaching over attending HLS, then mentioned they hadn't applied to a single law school. Some of the posts on this thread have the same veneer of narcissism. A lot of jobs are hard. If you've made it to biglaw, it's because you're good at what you do - getting into a T19 law school.

sure, you can expand it to any number of well paying jobs out of undergrad that ultimately make more than the average biglawyer route. most folks in biglaw could have done something more lucrative when you take into account that tuition+3 years opportunity cost and short biglaw tenures. at the end of the day, the first answer will always be substantive interest

[Anonymous User]

I remember an anecdote I read from a Teach for America alum who said they chose a career teaching over attending HLS, then mentioned they hadn't applied to a single law school. Some of the posts on this thread have the same veneer of narcissism. A lot of jobs are hard. If you've made it to biglaw, it's because you're good at what you do - getting into a T19 law school.

sure, you can expand it to any number of well paying jobs out of undergrad that ultimately make more than the average biglawyer route. most folks in biglaw could have done something more lucrative when you take into account that tuition+3 years opportunity cost and short biglaw tenures. at the end of the day, the first answer will always be substantive interest

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

[jotarokujo]

I remember an anecdote I read from a Teach for America alum who said they chose a career teaching over attending HLS, then mentioned they hadn't applied to a single law school. Some of the posts on this thread have the same veneer of narcissism. A lot of jobs are hard. If you've made it to biglaw, it's because you're good at what you do - getting into a T19 law school.

sure, you can expand it to any number of well paying jobs out of undergrad that ultimately make more than the average biglawyer route. most folks in biglaw could have done something more lucrative when you take into account that tuition+3 years opportunity cost and short biglaw tenures. at the end of the day, the first answer will always be substantive interest

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

if someone really was unaware of banking, consulting, accounting, sales, quant, tech (pm or engineering), etc and thought biglaw had the highest expected value for them monetarily without regard for substantive preferences, then they made a miscalculation. if that really is a significant portion of people in biglaw, then that's unfortunate and seems inefficient. if so, colleges should probably educate folks more about careers

[Anonymous User]

I remember an anecdote I read from a Teach for America alum who said they chose a career teaching over attending HLS, then mentioned they hadn't applied to a single law school. Some of the posts on this thread have the same veneer of narcissism. A lot of jobs are hard. If you've made it to biglaw, it's because you're good at what you do - getting into a T19 law school.

sure, you can expand it to any number of well paying jobs out of undergrad that ultimately make more than the average biglawyer route. most folks in biglaw could have done something more lucrative when you take into account that tuition+3 years opportunity cost and short biglaw tenures. at the end of the day, the first answer will always be substantive interest

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

if someone really was unaware of banking, consulting, accounting, sales, quant, tech (pm or engineering), etc and thought biglaw had the highest expected value for them monetarily without regard for substantive preferences, then they made a miscalculation. if that really is a significant portion of people in biglaw, then that's unfortunate and seems inefficient. if so, colleges should probably educate folks more about careers

You realize this couldn't be further from my point, right?

[jotarokujo]

You realize this couldn't be further from my point, right?

i don't really think the law school route is significantly less risky than consulting, banking, accounting, tech etc. If students have that misconception, seems like there's a problem in their information streams

the reason it's probably riskier is that law school is a massive up front cost, in money, opportunity cost, and effort

i agree that once someone is in law school, biglaw is the safest thing someone can do. but it isn't the safest thing right out of undergrad

[Anonymous User]

I think the average law student/lawyer probably could have done a STEM degree or med school. I taught math before law school and so much of math/science education seems designed to neg people out of the field more than actually teaching them. With reforms made to our education system to get rid of this insipid "math people vs. humanities people" meme the vast majority of law students/lawyers could easily have been doctors/mathematicians/etc.

The reality is also that it doesn't actually take that much quantitative horsepower to be a garden-variety coder. Setting up a database doesn't require a deep understanding of complex analysis or stochastic calculus. In the same way that you don't actually need to be a very good writer (or logician, for that matter) to be a lawyer.

We can agree to disagree about whether your average law biglaw lawyer could have done a STEM degree or could learn to code. I have my doubts - I work in IP lit with countless HLS grads with an english/poli sci UG degrees who fail to understand basic scientific/technical topics despite hours of coaching/reading. This is a good thing - if they can't get it then neither can a jury, but that's what informs my opinions here.

But that's not the question in this thread. Knowing how to code or graduating with a STEM degree are different from landing a FAANG coding job that pays biglaw money for 9-5 hours. The question is not whether they can code or do science, but whether they can excel at it to the level required to land one of these jobs. I graduated at the top of my class with a STEM degree and then went to a T10 law school, but I don't even think I'm good enough to do that. Sure, I'd say an HLS grad has a better chance than some other person chosen at random, and sure not every coder at Amazon is a savant, but I maintain that most biglaw folks couldn't have landed one of the jobs this thread was originally about even if they tried.

Edit: to be fair, I also don't think my friends with FAANG coding jobs could do what we do. Many (not all) are poor writers and have a hard time expressing themselves.

Agree 100% here. Former software engineer from a top comp sci program, R&D jobs at top SV companies, master’s degree, moved to PM before transition into law. Also an oldie, so pre-FAANG (but not by much). Many of my friends from my prior career are now snr levels (many at FAANG or just below in prestige). Biggest difference in ability, generally speaking and based on what I’ve observed, is reading comprehension. It was the most difficult part of the LSAT among the STEM friends I studied with back in the day, and the part they never adequately mastered for the test. Logic games, on the other hand, were a piece of cake. Similar pattern with the GRE—math was perfect or near perfect, while the rest was just good enough for STEM graduate programs.

I’m sure some lawyers can learn to code well enough to land some kind of tech job, but most lawyers do not have the educational background or (most importantly, IMHO) an innate ability necessary to do so at the highest level.

Also, why would you want to leave a profession that pays you well and protects you from competition? In SV, you’re up against talent from every domain, every country, including talented people without even a college education. Are you sure you can survive, let alone thrive, in that kind of Thunderdome?

[Anonymous User]

I’m sure some lawyers can learn to code well enough to land some kind of tech job, but most lawyers do not have the educational background or (most importantly, IMHO) an innate ability necessary to do so at the highest level.

Former math teacher from above--going to hardcore disagree with this. Innate ability in mathematics is a horrifyingly bad concept that needs to be completely abandoned. We don't really think about innate ability in humanities (save for the arts, where it's equally bad). It's not borne out by any pedagogical data and it's simply not real. It's all in the training and how students are prioritized by their parents/teachers on a subconscious level.

Call me pygmalion, but I believe that anyone of biglaw-level intelligence has all the horsepower needed to get a FAANG job. If they can't, then either (a) they've bought into the meme that there are math people and non-math people and they aren't a math person or (b) they're just not trying hard enough.

Now, a person on a biglaw track may not be able to get FAANG because of dumb credentialism (in the same way law schools massively overrate GPA/LSAT over resume), but that's not relevant to my particular point.

[Anonymous User]

I’m sure some lawyers can learn to code well enough to land some kind of tech job, but most lawyers do not have the educational background or (most importantly, IMHO) an innate ability necessary to do so at the highest level.

Former math teacher from above--going to hardcore disagree with this. Innate ability in mathematics is a horrifyingly bad concept that needs to be completely abandoned. We don't really think about innate ability in humanities (save for the arts, where it's equally bad). It's not borne out by any pedagogical data and it's simply not real. It's all in the training and how students are prioritized by their parents/teachers on a subconscious level.

Call me pygmalion, but I believe that anyone of biglaw-level intelligence has all the horsepower needed to get a FAANG job. If they can't, then either (a) they've bought into the meme that there are math people and non-math people and they aren't a math person or (b) they're just not trying hard enough.

Now, a person on a biglaw track may not be able to get FAANG because of dumb credentialism (in the same way law schools massively overrate GPA/LSAT over resume), but that's not relevant to my particular point.

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

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

[Anonymous User]

I can buy into the concept of math ability being innate at the very tip top of performance - like someone solving complicated problems at 8 or something - in the same way that there are music prodigies who can sit down at a piano as a child and just play things they’ve heard without any instruction. But I think that kind of innate ability is extremely rare and not something that should govern standard pedagogy, and that your average person who says “I’m just not good at math” is actually talking about training/attitude rather than aptitude.

Like I’ll be honest, I’m abysmal at math, but I was also one of those obnoxiously early-blooming smart kids who was ahead of my grade in *everything,* including math and science, until 6th grade math and 7th grade science when I had truly awful teachers and decided I didn’t like it and was bad at it. It was also still an era where girls were assumed to be less good at STEM subjects. There’s no objective reason I couldn’t learn to do math any more than any other subject.

I also think the example of someone coding up a game over the weekend conflates interest with ability.

[Anonymous User]

I have a STEM background, and I'm aware that my math and coding abilities wouldn't have gotten me far in the software world.

That being said, just as there are major differences within Big Law, there are also major differences regarding the barriers to entry within FAANG and other major tech firms. Scoring a $120K SDE1 job at Amazon isn't particularly an amazing feat. I'm absolutely confident that anyone in Big Law could have gotten a job at Amazon during the boom in 2021 if they just grinded leetcode for a few months. But what's the point when you'll get paid less than working in Big Law? Especially since Amazon has an even worse culture than some firms out there. But scoring a $500K job at Jane Street is an amazing achievement, and yeah that's probably something most lawyers can't do.

Also, I feel like some people in this thread are really overestimating how much programmers make in general.

[Anonymous User]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jotarokujo]

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

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

I just don't see how biglaw is less risky than doing consulting/banking/tech/other lucrative thing out of undergrad. law requires a massive investment upfront whereas the jobs out of college are basically secured by your internships in college. if someone failed to get a good internship in college then maybe they could reactively go into law, but i suspect you would say that is also not common. so to the extent substantive interest is not driving people to law, i don't think it's about risk aversion, it's about lack of knowledge during college about well paying jobs. lack of knowledge is often because there are unfair knowledge disparities by SES. if so we should predict that the average non-substantively interested biglawyer is of lower SES than non-substantively interested tech or consultants

at my undergrad, law was definitely seen as something todo if you were better off though, whereas the few people who actually came from poorer backgrounds went the quant/tech/financial engineer route to maximize money. but they might have been better informed from going to an "elite" undergrad. therefore, maybe people in biglaw who have no substantive interest are more likely to come from a less "elite" undergrad

the "go into tech despite no interest because it's lucrative" is extremely common. like 40% of undergrads or something insane at Stanford study CS, not all of them are that interested or particularly talented in programming. since tech is a much more optimal route to easy money than biglaw, that is why im so skeptical about going to biglaw for "safe money" - you would expect those people with no substantive preference to just do tech

[Anonymous User]

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

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

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

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

[Anonymous User]

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

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

I just don't see how biglaw is less risky than doing consulting/banking/tech/other lucrative thing out of undergrad. law requires a massive investment upfront whereas the jobs out of college are basically secured by your internships in college. if someone failed to get a good internship in college then maybe they could reactively go into law, but i suspect you would say that is also not common. so to the extent substantive interest is not driving people to law, i don't think it's about risk aversion, it's about lack of knowledge during college about well paying jobs. lack of knowledge is often because there are unfair knowledge disparities by SES. if so we should predict that the average non-substantively interested biglawyer is of lower SES than non-substantively interested tech or consultants

at my undergrad, law was definitely seen as something todo if you were better off though, whereas the few people who actually came from poorer backgrounds went the quant/tech/financial engineer route to maximize money. but they might have been better informed from going to an "elite" undergrad. therefore, maybe people in biglaw who have no substantive interest are more likely to come from a less "elite" undergrad

the "go into tech despite no interest because it's lucrative" is extremely common. like 40% of undergrads or something insane at Stanford study CS, not all of them are that interested or particularly talented in programming. since tech is a much more optimal route to easy money than biglaw, that is why im so skeptical about going to biglaw for "safe money" - you would expect those people with no substantive preference to just do tech

You strike me as someone who comes from an incredibly privileged background. At my non-elite state school, I had no idea what consultants/bankers did, much less what the path to those jobs looked like.

That's important because for many of these jobs, timing is everything. Sure, the careers you list are lucrative, but you also have to start planning for those early on. My senior year I realized I might be interested in consulting, but as most of my peers at higher ranked institutions already knew, the ship had already sailed by then (at least for the big firms). On the other hand, if you follow your passions in undergrad only to find yourself staring at abysmal job prospects senior year, taking the LSAT and going to law school look like a low-risk, high reward option, especially if you're a good test taker and value credentials/titles. Plus, it's pretty easy to see how the path to biglaw is literally paved for you from a T14, whereas finding your way into a high paying job in one of the careers you identified requires more pathfinding if you're not in one of a handful of elite undergrad institutions.

I see what you're saying about financial risk, but I don't think the people we're talking about here look at it from that lens. Society portrays lawyers as elites who make a lot of money, and from the perspective of a college senior all you have to do to become a lawyer is take the LSAT your senior year and attend law school. Of course we all know it's much more complicated than that, but it's enough to draw students in in a way that's different from consulting/banking/tech/other lucrative thing out of undergrad.

[Anonymous User]

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

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

I just don't see how biglaw is less risky than doing consulting/banking/tech/other lucrative thing out of undergrad. law requires a massive investment upfront whereas the jobs out of college are basically secured by your internships in college. if someone failed to get a good internship in college then maybe they could reactively go into law, but i suspect you would say that is also not common. so to the extent substantive interest is not driving people to law, i don't think it's about risk aversion, it's about lack of knowledge during college about well paying jobs. lack of knowledge is often because there are unfair knowledge disparities by SES. if so we should predict that the average non-substantively interested biglawyer is of lower SES than non-substantively interested tech or consultants

at my undergrad, law was definitely seen as something todo if you were better off though, whereas the few people who actually came from poorer backgrounds went the quant/tech/financial engineer route to maximize money. but they might have been better informed from going to an "elite" undergrad. therefore, maybe people in biglaw who have no substantive interest are more likely to come from a less "elite" undergrad

the "go into tech despite no interest because it's lucrative" is extremely common. like 40% of undergrads or something insane at Stanford study CS, not all of them are that interested or particularly talented in programming. since tech is a much more optimal route to easy money than biglaw, that is why im so skeptical about going to biglaw for "safe money" - you would expect those people with no substantive preference to just do tech

You strike me as someone who comes from an incredibly privileged background. At my non-elite state school, I had no idea what consultants/bankers did, much less what the path to those jobs looked like.

That's important because for many of these jobs, timing is everything. Sure, the careers you list are lucrative, but you also have to start planning for those early on. My senior year I realized I might be interested in consulting, but as most of my peers at higher ranked institutions already knew, the ship had already sailed by then (at least for the big firms). On the other hand, if you follow your passions in undergrad only to find yourself staring at abysmal job prospects senior year, taking the LSAT and going to law school look like a low-risk, high reward option, especially if you're a good test taker and value credentials/titles. Plus, it's pretty easy to see how the path to biglaw is literally paved for you from a T14, whereas finding your way into a high paying job in one of the careers you identified requires more pathfinding if you're not in one of a handful of elite undergrad institutions.

I see what you're saying about financial risk, but I don't think the people we're talking about here look at it from that lens. Society portrays lawyers as elites who make a lot of money, and from the perspective of a college senior all you have to do to become a lawyer is take the LSAT your senior year and attend law school. Of course we all know it's much more complicated than that, but it's enough to draw students in in a way that's different from consulting/banking/tech/other lucrative thing out of undergrad.

+1

Smart people who didn't grow up in big metro areas barely know what banking/finance/consulting are, much less how to get into them. The role models are generally lawyers/doctors/business owners. And if you are squeamish around blood and not extroverted, lawyer seems like by far the most natural path to financial success. Also lets you just spend your first couple of college years studying hard and not worrying about your career, which is what most non-prep school kids want to do.

[Anonymous User]

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

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

I just don't see how biglaw is less risky than doing consulting/banking/tech/other lucrative thing out of undergrad. law requires a massive investment upfront whereas the jobs out of college are basically secured by your internships in college. if someone failed to get a good internship in college then maybe they could reactively go into law, but i suspect you would say that is also not common. so to the extent substantive interest is not driving people to law, i don't think it's about risk aversion, it's about lack of knowledge during college about well paying jobs. lack of knowledge is often because there are unfair knowledge disparities by SES. if so we should predict that the average non-substantively interested biglawyer is of lower SES than non-substantively interested tech or consultants

at my undergrad, law was definitely seen as something todo if you were better off though, whereas the few people who actually came from poorer backgrounds went the quant/tech/financial engineer route to maximize money. but they might have been better informed from going to an "elite" undergrad. therefore, maybe people in biglaw who have no substantive interest are more likely to come from a less "elite" undergrad

the "go into tech despite no interest because it's lucrative" is extremely common. like 40% of undergrads or something insane at Stanford study CS, not all of them are that interested or particularly talented in programming. since tech is a much more optimal route to easy money than biglaw, that is why im so skeptical about going to biglaw for "safe money" - you would expect those people with no substantive preference to just do tech

You strike me as someone who comes from an incredibly privileged background. At my non-elite state school, I had no idea what consultants/bankers did, much less what the path to those jobs looked like.

That's important because for many of these jobs, timing is everything. Sure, the careers you list are lucrative, but you also have to start planning for those early on. My senior year I realized I might be interested in consulting, but as most of my peers at higher ranked institutions already knew, the ship had already sailed by then (at least for the big firms). On the other hand, if you follow your passions in undergrad only to find yourself staring at abysmal job prospects senior year, taking the LSAT and going to law school look like a low-risk, high reward option, especially if you're a good test taker and value credentials/titles. Plus, it's pretty easy to see how the path to biglaw is literally paved for you from a T14, whereas finding your way into a high paying job in one of the careers you identified requires more pathfinding if you're not in one of a handful of elite undergrad institutions.

I see what you're saying about financial risk, but I don't think the people we're talking about here look at it from that lens. Society portrays lawyers as elites who make a lot of money, and from the perspective of a college senior all you have to do to become a lawyer is take the LSAT your senior year and attend law school. Of course we all know it's much more complicated than that, but it's enough to draw students in in a way that's different from consulting/banking/tech/other lucrative thing out of undergrad.

+1

Smart people who didn't grow up in big metro areas barely know what banking/finance/consulting are, much less how to get into them. The role models are generally lawyers/doctors/business owners. And if you are squeamish around blood and not extroverted, lawyer seems like by far the most natural path to financial success. Also lets you just spend your first couple of college years studying hard and not worrying about your career, which is what most non-prep school kids want to do.

Yes, agreed. I think jotarokuji is pretty correct for elite undergrads, based on my memories of my own elite-type undergrad (I took a different path so didn't go to law school right out of undergrad). But I agree that biglaw/law school doesn't look like a financial risk if you take those kinds of elite-school-only finance/IB/consulting options off the table, because the "known" alternatives are mostly med school (offputting for non-science types) or coding (ditto) or working your way up through generic jobs. I agree with jotarokujo that lack of exposure/access to certain kinds of jobs plays a big part in this, but that for people not at those kinds of undergrads, law school seems less risky. Heck, I went back to law school after a different career in part because it seemed less risky.

[Anonymous User]

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

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

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

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

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

[Anonymous User]

Yes, agreed. I think jotarokuji is pretty correct for elite undergrads, based on my memories of my own elite-type undergrad (I took a different path so didn't go to law school right out of undergrad). But I agree that biglaw/law school doesn't look like a financial risk if you take those kinds of elite-school-only finance/IB/consulting options off the table, because the "known" alternatives are mostly med school (offputting for non-science types) or coding (ditto) or working your way up through generic jobs. I agree with jotarokujo that lack of exposure/access to certain kinds of jobs plays a big part in this, but that for people not at those kinds of undergrads, law school seems less risky. Heck, I went back to law school after a different career in part because it seemed less risky.

You raise another really good point - don't like 60% of T14 1Ls have post-grad experience? If you need a career reboot, law school looks really easy as compared to trying to break into consulting/banking/tech without the proper credentials/off the beaten path. Going back for a masters in engineering or something similar without a background in STEM is pretty much a non-starter. I recognize that $250k of debt isn't really "easy," but non-quant types see the $200k+ starting salary and think that kind of $$$ won't be a big deal. Literally nobody at my T14 had any concerns about paying back their loans (if daddy wasn't paying), and I don't think they were thinking about opportunity costs either.

[jotarokujo]

Yes, agreed. I think jotarokuji is pretty correct for elite undergrads, based on my memories of my own elite-type undergrad (I took a different path so didn't go to law school right out of undergrad). But I agree that biglaw/law school doesn't look like a financial risk if you take those kinds of elite-school-only finance/IB/consulting options off the table, because the "known" alternatives are mostly med school (offputting for non-science types) or coding (ditto) or working your way up through generic jobs. I agree with jotarokujo that lack of exposure/access to certain kinds of jobs plays a big part in this, but that for people not at those kinds of undergrads, law school seems less risky. Heck, I went back to law school after a different career in part because it seemed less risky.

You raise another really good point - don't like 60% of T14 1Ls have post-grad experience? If you need a career reboot, law school looks really easy as compared to trying to break into consulting/banking/tech without the proper credentials/off the beaten path. Going back for a masters in engineering or something similar without a background in STEM is pretty much a non-starter. I recognize that $250k of debt isn't really "easy," but non-quant types see the $200k+ starting salary and think that kind of $$$ won't be a big deal. Literally nobody at my T14 had any concerns about paying back their loans (if daddy wasn't paying), and I don't think they were thinking about opportunity costs either.

fair enough, i do think the folks who are non KJD/career reboot are more deliberate and that kind of falls into "substantive preference" for me or is more likely to.

and also fair enough that some jobs more lucrative than biglaw are only available to top undergrads. but honestly if you take into account the opportunity cost, time value of everything, and a limit on biglaw years, stuff that is accessible to more people like sales or accounting exceed the law route in terms of money. also banking is pretty lax with undergrad prestige compared to consulting. also there's more to consulting than MBB.

i do agree that objectively, law school gets relatively better the less prestigious a person's undergrad. but even still i think folks at non elite undergrads deserve to have more career information granted to them through their university - it's a dumb system to rely on social connections for information. so i think none of our thoughts are mutually exclusive