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

[nealric]

Yes, an anecdotal sample size of 2 (1?), compared to N > 900 in the linked thread. I'm convinced.

ETA: AFAIK, the engineer-turned-BL only did their undergrad studies in stem or whatever before making the switch. The hardest part about becoming a SDE is getting your foot in the door, and the experiences posted ITT are a far cry from those actually working in the industry for 5 or more years.

I'm not parsing all 900+ reddit comments from that thread, but from skimming, it looks like it's a subset of tech people saying "can you believe that there are tech people out there getting paid so badly," which doesn't seem to prove exactly what you're saying it proves. Also, a bunch of people who are already in the field saying "if you're in tech you can make X amount and you need to negotiate and get paid more" also doesn't say anything about whether lawyers can make it in tech. Saying "you don't have to be special *as a tech person* to make $200-250k as a programmer" isn't the same as saying "anyone can make $200-250K as a programmer."

I mean, I do actually think that most people can learn most things, give time and the opportunity and proper instruction. But I don't think that means anyone who's heading to biglaw would be equally successful at coding.

Eh. I agree that lawyers likely won't be successful in coding and that, numerically, the positions paying software engineers $250K+ are probably less than 10-25% of all roles. But to say that lawyers -- people who have a predisposition to work in a sweatshop for 60-80 hours a week -- aren't able to replicate the skills necessary for software engineer positions that pay $250K (many of which are filled by people with 1-2 YOE, see Microsoft SDE II and levels.fyi) -- within their 40-year career span is something I just can't believe.

Again, I have no problem with paying a premium for working in an industry that makes me want to pull my hair out less. But that's not what this conversation is saying.

ETA: Here's another thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/cscareerquesti ... ng_theres/

This thread is not exactly on point either, and there is some pushback against OP's comment that FAANG isn't for the "genius" or "top 10%." But I think the comments illustrate that many people working in the industry believe the limiting factors to climbing in TC as a software engineer are what I previously mentioned ITT: (1) desire and (2) work ethics (grinding LC). Not intelligence or special talent.

I go back to my post above. Could I theoretically have learned software development well enough to make a decent career in it? Probably. But because it wasn't something I enjoyed AT ALL, and because my aptitude for it was fairly low, it just wasn't something that made sense for me.

I mentioned in another thread about comp that "comparison is the thief of joy." If you are constantly comparing your job to jobs in different professions, you are always going to be miserable. There's always going to be someone out there with a better job than yours in some form. At the same time, there are people for whom doing law would be like me doing coding. I've definitely encountered people in the legal field who should have done something else. Those are the folks who should consider a career change. It's one thing if biglaw makes you miserable due to culture, constant deamnds, etc.- that you can fix with a move in-house, government, small firm, etc. It's another if you don't like drafting briefs or doing deals (or whatever your practice is). If you think you'd still hate if even if you got paid $300k+ for a chill 9-5, then perhaps you should evaluate a career change.

[Anonymous User]

https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Jo ... DE)/Salary
https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Jo ... ate-Career
https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Jo ... mer/Salary
https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Jo ... ate-Career

https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-j ... mer/salary
https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-j ... per/salary

[/thread]

This is interesting since government data puts the median comp at $120K. Also not sure how equity is treated in these metrics.

[Anonymous User]

https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Jo ... DE)/Salary
https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Jo ... ate-Career
https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Jo ... mer/Salary
https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Jo ... ate-Career

https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-j ... mer/salary
https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-j ... per/salary

[/thread]

This is interesting since government data puts the median comp at $120K. Also not sure how equity is treated in these metrics.

Link or it didn't happen.

[Anonymous User]

https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Jo ... DE)/Salary
https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Jo ... ate-Career
https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Jo ... mer/Salary
https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Jo ... ate-Career

https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-j ... mer/salary
https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-j ... per/salary

[/thread]

This is interesting since government data puts the median comp at $120K. Also not sure how equity is treated in these metrics.

Link or it didn't happen.

Not sure if you were being rhetorical, but here:

https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes151252.htm

[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.

not just finance, but also sales, quant (harder to get), accounting. it's not hard to find a more lucrative career if you take the average biglaw tenure which is only a few years

we have to go to the starting for a lot of biglaw lawyers who hate it, which is a pretty good undergrad school with a good gpa. i find folks who actually went to a less reputable undergrad and had no more lucrative options don't hate biglaw as much

Agree - I found the same thing. The people with mediocre resumes and not much drive in life were perfectly happy to ride the biglaw train and be treated like a peon. The people who went to HLS or whatever with a 4.0 from Princeton undergrad and a 175 LSAT were fuming at being treated like a bumbling idiot who can't be trusted to move a comma around. It's the people in the latter group who ultimately could have been doing a lot more exciting things with their lives (like MBB to being an executive at a small or mid-sized company).

The job satisfaction in biglaw is uniquely miserable compared to most jobs, and the rampant incidence of divorce, obesity, mental health issues and desperate unhappiness should not be ignored.

Love this guy. My local bodega chain needs an “executive” it’s definitely a “small to mid” company that needs a high powered 4.0 Princeton grad.

[Anonymous User]

Cats out of the bag. Everyone knows software engineers are overpaid now. People think it's because they work harder or have some special skill, but really it's because tech companies dominate their respective markets (name a OS other than Windows/IOS or a phone other than Android/IOS). Not to mention even smaller companies require tech infrastructure so demand always outpaces supply. In this sense, the tech field is unique, hence the grads with 0-3 YOE making $150K - $250K working 25-40 hours a week.

[RedNewJersey]

In light of the layoffs across tech, the question in my mind is whether supply will catch up and end the decade-or-so of high compensation for tech workers. The number of computer science graduates keeps increasing, and there are no guild-imposed licensure requirements like medicine or law. Maybe there just aren't enough people that *can* do high-level coding, so they will have outsized compensation in the foreseeable future. But, maybe there are.

[Anonymous User]

Most of the layoffs in tech are not software engineers though. They are ancillary cost professions. If anything this proves even during downtimes there is safety in highly technical skills.

[Anonymous User]

In light of the layoffs across tech, the question in my mind is whether supply will catch up and end the decade-or-so of high compensation for tech workers. The number of computer science graduates keeps increasing, and there are no guild-imposed licensure requirements like medicine or law. Maybe there just aren't enough people that *can* do high-level coding, so they will have outsized compensation in the foreseeable future. But, maybe there are.

Tieing this sentiment to the OP, do we really think there is some special skill that justifies the compensation? Software engineers at FAANG regularly gripe about WLB issues whenever they find themselves working past 5pm. Many proclaim they work less than 40 hours a week. On the other hand, biglaw attorneys work 10+ hours a day. If those 10+ hours were spent working through LeetCode (to ace tech interviews), could attorneys still not make it to FAANG?

Biglaw associates routinely counter that the average software engineer doesn't make it into FAANG/similar compensation. But the average software engineer doesn't put in as many hours, or perhaps even have the desire or discipline, as biglaw associates. This is also evidenced by the fact that many biglaw associates come from top tier undergrads (which tech companies use as a heuristic, regardless of degree) whereas many SWE applicants lack such credentials. Sure, studying humanities at an undergrad ivy or T20 (UChicago/Rice/WashU/Emory/et al.) doesn't fast track you to a SWE position. But it does show your capability to learn and work hard.

[Anonymous User]

Eh, I think most people can learn most things with enough hard work and effort, but I don’t think that means all associates would be able to transfer to coding successfully just by dint of hard work. For one thing, the fact that many SWE applicants don’t have the same top tier credentials as biglaw associates doesn’t mean they’re actually less intelligent or capable. For another, SWEs not working more than 40 hours a week doesn’t mean they couldn’t, if they’d gone into law instead of coding. Someone who can brute force their way into coding by working way more hours than another person doesn’t necessarily seem better suited to the job to me.

[Anonymous User]

Eh, I think most people can learn most things with enough hard work and effort, but I don’t think that means all associates would be able to transfer to coding successfully just by dint of hard work. For one thing, the fact that many SWE applicants don’t have the same top tier credentials as biglaw associates doesn’t mean they’re actually less intelligent or capable. For another, SWEs not working more than 40 hours a week doesn’t mean they couldn’t, if they’d gone into law instead of coding. Someone who can brute force their way into coding by working way more hours than another person doesn’t necessarily seem better suited to the job to me.

Not necessarily disagreeing with anything being said here, but technically people work long hours to advance in any profession. Maybe one might have to put in longer hours for the same success in one profession relative to the other, but one could argue it's hard to imagine putting in more hours than that required for biglaw.

[laanngo]

Eh, I think most people can learn most things with enough hard work and effort, but I don’t think that means all associates would be able to transfer to coding successfully just by dint of hard work. For one thing, the fact that many SWE applicants don’t have the same top tier credentials as biglaw associates doesn’t mean they’re actually less intelligent or capable. For another, SWEs not working more than 40 hours a week doesn’t mean they couldn’t, if they’d gone into law instead of coding. Someone who can brute force their way into coding by working way more hours than another person doesn’t necessarily seem better suited to the job to me.

Not necessarily disagreeing with anything being said here, but technically people work long hours to advance in any profession. Maybe one might have to put in longer hours for the same success in one profession relative to the other, but one could argue it's hard to imagine putting in more hours than that required for biglaw.

You think they put longer hours in IB?

[Anonymous User]

I'm curious why the discourse here is about being a SWE at a FAANG instead of going at it alone. If you're in biglaw, you're smart, you can learn coding so you can start your own company. Why not do that instead of fantasizing about working for other people? Starting your own gig is where the real money/freedom is.

[laanngo]

I'm curious why the discourse here is about being a SWE at a FAANG instead of going at it alone. If you're in biglaw, you're smart, you can learn coding so you can start your own company. Why not do that instead of fantasizing about working for other people? Starting your own gig is where the real money/freedom is.

Why work "for other people" in BigLaw?

[Anonymous User]

I'm curious why the discourse here is about being a SWE at a FAANG instead of going at it alone. If you're in biglaw, you're smart, you can learn coding so you can start your own company. Why not do that instead of fantasizing about working for other people? Starting your own gig is where the real money/freedom is.

Why work "for other people" in BigLaw?

Because SBF killed my last startup idea before I could get it off the ground, so I'm stuck here until I come up with something more interesting.

[butonawednesday]

I'm curious why the discourse here is about being a SWE at a FAANG instead of going at it alone. If you're in biglaw, you're smart, you can learn coding so you can start your own company. Why not do that instead of fantasizing about working for other people? Starting your own gig is where the real money/freedom is.

Why work "for other people" in BigLaw?

Because SBF killed my last startup idea before I could get it off the ground, so I'm stuck here until I come up with something more interesting.

Don't dispair. Sammy will soon be at MDC Brooklyn. The trial will go on for 8 months and he will never be released. Unless a pardon....

[Anonymous User]

I'm curious why the discourse here is about being a SWE at a FAANG instead of going at it alone. If you're in biglaw, you're smart, you can learn coding so you can start your own company. Why not do that instead of fantasizing about working for other people? Starting your own gig is where the real money/freedom is.

Why work "for other people" in BigLaw?

Because SBF killed my last startup idea before I could get it off the ground, so I'm stuck here until I come up with something more interesting.

Don't dispair. Sammy will soon be at MDC Brooklyn. The trial will go on for 8 months and he will never be released. Unless a pardon....

Oh I didn't lose money with FTX lol, there's just now a lack of VC appetite for crypto-space startups. I'm looking into other ventures instead while coasting.

[butonawednesday]

I'm curious why the discourse here is about being a SWE at a FAANG instead of going at it alone. If you're in biglaw, you're smart, you can learn coding so you can start your own company. Why not do that instead of fantasizing about working for other people? Starting your own gig is where the real money/freedom is.

Why work "for other people" in BigLaw?

Because SBF killed my last startup idea before I could get it off the ground, so I'm stuck here until I come up with something more interesting.

Don't dispair. Sammy will soon be at MDC Brooklyn. The trial will go on for 8 months and he will never be released. Unless a pardon....

Oh I didn't lose money with FTX lol, there's just now a lack of VC appetite for crypto-space startups. I'm looking into other ventures instead while coasting.

I'm just amazed that new money is coming into Bitcoin after the last 3 weeks of unpleasantness. 15k to 18k. How? People have short memories. Soon it will all be forgotten and there will be money to fund your startup. "Sammy, as your attorney, I advise you to take the lower bunk".

[laanngo]

What percentage of lawyers have taken even 1 programming class?

[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)

[jotarokujo]

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

[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)

Then what kind of horsepower do lawyers have?

[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)

Then what kind of horsepower do lawyers have?

You're not proving anything with that question - I don't have to specify what lawyers are good at for you to understand what they are bad at. Anyway, some people get math/science, some don't. Most (not all) lawyers don't, and I don't think that's controversial. Just ask any random law student or lawyer whether they think they could have done a STEM degree or med school and see what they say. Sorry if you take offense to that.

[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)

Then what kind of horsepower do lawyers have?

You're not proving anything with that question - I don't have to specify what lawyers are good at for you to understand what they are bad at. Anyway, some people get math/science, some don't. Most (not all) lawyers don't, and I don't think that's controversial. Just ask any random law student or lawyer whether they think they could have done a STEM degree or med school and see what they say. Sorry if you take offense to that.

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.

[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)

Then what kind of horsepower do lawyers have?

You're not proving anything with that question - I don't have to specify what lawyers are good at for you to understand what they are bad at. Anyway, some people get math/science, some don't. Most (not all) lawyers don't, and I don't think that's controversial. Just ask any random law student or lawyer whether they think they could have done a STEM degree or med school and see what they say. Sorry if you take offense to that.

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.