It's not too late to rethink this whole endeavor! Forum

[T14_Scholly]

I took a sizeable scholarship at the best school in the city I most want to practice in, and I am going to bust my butt both inside and outside the classroom to make sure I find meaningful employment. I am going to join the local Inns of Court, the local ABA, and take advantage of every networking opportunity I can...

So a fundamental and necessary part of your strategy is to get top grades, which you are going to "bust your butt" to do. At bottom, then, your claimed smart preparation for the current legal market doesn't amount to much. Everyone wants to get top grades. The state of the market dictates that most law school applicants simply shouldn't be going to law school.

[Mr. Matlock]

First of all, I can assure you that I'm just me. I just think that it's an interesting discussion that a lot of people here seem very uncomfortable having. I guess that's fine. As I mentioned earlier, optimism bias, positive illusions, etc.

How did most of the big firms stay extremely profitable during a horrible economy? By laying off massive amounts of attorneys and scaling back hiring. I think that's the entire point. A smaller legal market = less opportunities, especially when more and more people are flooding it.

TTT grads are not stealing jobs from T30 students or especially T14 students. Those schools are still doing relatively well, and any employment hits taken have been caused by the economy as a whole - you can't possibly expect that the legal industry would be 100% insulated from a downturn that has affected every industry in the country.

TT-TTTT grads will have a MUCH tougher time - but to insinuate that the top schools will have unemployment skyrocketing because TTT's are clogging the market is ridiculous. The T30 as a whole may have slightly increased class sizes, but not to such an extent that they will substantially saturate the market.

This is not to say that the market is not saturated as a whole, however; the top schools are simply much better protected against the saturation.

I knew it was only a matter of time before the T15's through 30 began circling the wagons here. There's comfort in numbers. It's only a matter of time before a UCI attendee shows up and tries to crash the party.

I'm happy and content with my decision and prospects and really don't give a shit what anyone thinks. It's a 3 day weekend. I'm smoking cigars (Rocky Patel Edges... check the out! ) and baby-back ribs to celebrate.

[bankruptedcasino]

Those are the guys that went to law school when it cost $1200 bucks a semester.

Why does this matter? Because they didn't graduate from school with crippling debt while working for pennies? They also graduated at a time when you could buy a car for $800 and a house for $10,000.

The median household income in 1980 was $17k, or roughly the same amount in today's dollars as it is today when adjusted for inflation (see: --LinkRemoved--). Today attorneys with 20 years of experience are making 300% of TODAY's median household income ($150k average on $48k median).

What will the median income for a 20-year attorney be in 2033? What will the average student debt be in 2033 for JDs? I'm guessing higher - much higher - on both. And we'll probably be having a discussion saying, "I would NEVER go to law school with $300k in debt. These 0L's are idiots!"

I still say its an investment in your future. An investment that pays BIG dividends two or three decades down the line.

Always Credited wrote:
I have concrete information from a multitude of firms in locations spread across the country showing hiring trends from the T30 pre-ITE as well as ITE. The numbers change, but not drastically. If you choose your school wisely based on your own personal goals, investigate their statistics accordingly for your own areas on interest, and do something besides pray for a job at OCI, you'll be a-OK barring several factors contingent to any area of business (incredibly out of shape, ugly, terrible personality, ect).


Maybe one of the best paragraphs I've ever read on this site.

Also, I second this. Hoping for handouts is foolish. Hoping OCI will give you the "handout" of a job is also foolish. You have to earn it and work for it. Networking is a HUGE part of that.

[Always Credited]

TTT grads are not stealing jobs from T30 students or especially T14 students. Those schools are still doing relatively well, and any employment hits taken have been caused by the economy as a whole - you can't possibly expect that the legal industry would be 100% insulated from a downturn that has affected every industry in the country.

TT-TTTT grads will have a MUCH tougher time - but to insinuate that the top schools will have unemployment skyrocketing because TTT's are clogging the market is ridiculous. The T30 as a whole may have slightly increased class sizes, but not to such an extent that they will substantially saturate the market.

This is not to say that the market is not saturated as a whole, however; the top schools are simply much better protected against the saturation.

From a recent article I read:

Northwestern typically places about 70% of its graduates at the nation's largest 250 firms, where starting salaries often soften the debt burden. But with law firms cutting salaries and hiring fewer graduates last year because of the economy, Northwestern sent just 55.9% of its 2009 graduates to the largest firms, according to the National Law Journal.

A 15% decrease in placement in the NLJ250 is significant. Regardless of what happens in TT-TTTT, what was good enough a few years ago at NW to grab these jobs is no longer good enough in many cases.

I'll direct you to the second sentence of my statement that you quoted. There is no evidence to suggest that the jobs that would have otherwise went to Northwestern grads went instead to the glut of TTT grads saturating the market, so the argument that increased class sizes of TTT's have led to a much tougher market and less opportunity for top school grads still doesn't hold water.

I never said that there weren't less jobs - I simply said that times aren't tougher on the students of top schools in large part because TTT's threw their doors wide open to anyone with $200k.

[WhoIsJohnGalt]

TTT grads are not stealing jobs from T30 students or especially T14 students. Those schools are still doing relatively well, and any employment hits taken have been caused by the economy as a whole - you can't possibly expect that the legal industry would be 100% insulated from a downturn that has affected every industry in the country.

TT-TTTT grads will have a MUCH tougher time - but to insinuate that the top schools will have unemployment skyrocketing because TTT's are clogging the market is ridiculous. The T30 as a whole may have slightly increased class sizes, but not to such an extent that they will substantially saturate the market.

This is not to say that the market is not saturated as a whole, however; the top schools are simply much better protected against the saturation.

From a recent article I read:

Northwestern typically places about 70% of its graduates at the nation's largest 250 firms, where starting salaries often soften the debt burden. But with law firms cutting salaries and hiring fewer graduates last year because of the economy, Northwestern sent just 55.9% of its 2009 graduates to the largest firms, according to the National Law Journal.

A 15% decrease in placement in the NLJ250 is significant. Regardless of what happens in TT-TTTT, what was good enough a few years ago at NW to grab these jobs is no longer good enough in many cases.

I'll direct you to the second sentence of my statement that you quoted. There is no evidence to suggest that the jobs that would have otherwise went to Northwestern grads went instead to the glut of TTT grads saturating the market, so the argument that increased class sizes of TTT's have led to a much tougher market and less opportunity for top school grads still doesn't hold water.

I never said that there weren't less jobs - I simply said that times aren't tougher on the students of top schools in large part because TTT's threw their doors wide open to anyone with $200k.

I don't think I ever argued that TTT's are increasing their class sizes and it's hurting top grads. Everyone is hurting for the same reason, less jobs.

A market can be saturated in two ways: 1) more people entering the market or 2) less availability of what people enter the market for. When there are 55.9 jobs to be filled instead of 70 by a class of the same size, the market is more saturated.

[WhoIsJohnGalt]

[

quote="bankruptedcasino"]

Those are the guys that went to law school when it cost $1200 bucks a semester.

Why does this matter? Because they didn't graduate from school with crippling debt while working for pennies? They also graduated at a time when you could buy a car for $800 and a house for $10,000.

The median household income in 1980 was $17k, or roughly the same amount in today's dollars as it is today when adjusted for inflation (see: --LinkRemoved--). Today attorneys with 20 years of experience are making 300% of TODAY's median household income ($150k average on $48k median).

What will the median income for a 20-year attorney be in 2033? What will the average student debt be in 2033 for JDs? I'm guessing higher - much higher - on both. And we'll probably be having a discussion saying, "I would NEVER go to law school with $300k in debt. These 0L's are idiots!"

I still say its an investment in your future. An investment that pays BIG dividends two or three decades down the line.

OK, you got me, I was making those numbers up. You just had to get technical with census links and whatnot. Here's the deal though, that investment pays big dividends when you can get a legal job. I think we all agree that the market isn't good. I think most of us are overestimating our ability to succeed in this market. I mentioned it a while ago but in 1980, you couldn't just export legal work to India like you can today. Times really have changed and I think that historical trends and data on the legal industry are no longer accurate predictors of the future.

Oil drilling trends up until 2 months ago are probably not good indicators of the future. Paradigm shift? I'm sure that's in a Malcolm Gladwell book somewhere.

[Yacht_Party]

[

quote="bankruptedcasino"]

Those are the guys that went to law school when it cost $1200 bucks a semester.

Why does this matter? Because they didn't graduate from school with crippling debt while working for pennies? They also graduated at a time when you could buy a car for $800 and a house for $10,000.

The median household income in 1980 was $17k, or roughly the same amount in today's dollars as it is today when adjusted for inflation (see: --LinkRemoved--). Today attorneys with 20 years of experience are making 300% of TODAY's median household income ($150k average on $48k median).

What will the median income for a 20-year attorney be in 2033? What will the average student debt be in 2033 for JDs? I'm guessing higher - much higher - on both. And we'll probably be having a discussion saying, "I would NEVER go to law school with $300k in debt. These 0L's are idiots!"

I still say its an investment in your future. An investment that pays BIG dividends two or three decades down the line.

OK, you got me, I was making those numbers up. You just had to get technical with census links and whatnot. Here's the deal though, that investment pays big dividends when you can get a legal job. I think we all agree that the market isn't good. I think most of us are overestimating our ability to succeed in this market. I mentioned it a while ago but in 1980, you couldn't just export legal work to India like you can today. Times really have changed and I think that historical trends and data on the legal industry are no longer accurate predictors of the future.

Oil drilling trends up until 2 months ago are probably not good indicators of the future. Paradigm shift? I'm sure that's in a Malcolm Gladwell book somewhere.

Love this.

[Matthies]

I am going to a school that most of you anti-law school folks would say makes me "screwed." But I did exactly what AC just said: I picked my school based on personal goals. I took a sizeable scholarship at the best school in the city I most want to practice in, and I am going to bust my butt both inside and outside the classroom to make sure I find meaningful employment. I am going to join the local Inns of Court, the local ABA, and take advantage of every networking opportunity I can, and I'm going to show very early on that I want to be in that market. Am I going to Yale? No I'm not. But I picked a school that can and should help me accomplish my end goal, and if you think that is a poor decision, then I really don't know what to say to you.

This is what I did, worked for me. I mean sure, I don't have as much free time as I would like to bicth on the internet about how hard it is to find legal work, cause, um, I'm working right now, and when I was not working I was working on trying to get work.

I can't say that's worked for everyone in my class, in fact my best friend, bless his heart, has no job a year after graduation. We had lunch on Wednesday, and he started in on how the school failed him, and I basically said STFU, you have applied for 10 jobs in the last year, 10, all from simplicity I know, because I proof read your cover letters for you.

So this morning I call him at eight AM, he's asleep. I'm like I got a project I can't do for another lawyer, a really well-known lawyer, if you do well on this gig it could lead to some steady contract work and possible a fulltime offer, here his number call him ASAP. His response? I'll call him around 11 after I get back from the gym. WTF. No forget it, I'm not risking my rep on your anymore.

I wish I could say my friend was not typical of many of the people I went to LS with. But he is. They lack drive, they lack desire, and they lack the basic common sense skills for finding or creating opportunities for themselves. Unless the school hands them a job most of this kids will fail.

Call it the shitty economy, call it what you want, but there is work out there, and you can make good money at it. The ABA reports 70% of lawyers work in firms with less that 50 employees, yet 90% of law students aim, research, and post stats about the top 250 law firms in the country. What happens when they don't get jobs at those firms? They have no clue what to do with themselves after that. Yes the legal economy sucks, but there still is legal work out there to be had, good paying work, if people just understood how to find it instead of waiting for it to be handed to them then bitch about it rather than being proactive, when it's not.

Also I'm billing TLS for this advice or marking it down as probono hours.

[RickyMack]

I can't say that's worked for everyone in my class, in fact my best friend, bless his heart, has no job a year after graduation. We had lunch on Wednesday, and he started in on how the school failed him, and I basically said STFU, you have applied for 10 jobs in the last year, 10, all from simplicity I know, because I proof read your cover letters for you.

So this morning I call him at eight AM, he's asleep. I'm like I got a project I can't do for another lawyer, a really well-known lawyer, if you do well on this gig it could lead to some steady contract work and possible a fulltime offer, here his number call him ASAP. His response? I'll call him around 11 after I get back from the gym. WTF. No forget it, I'm not risking my rep on your anymore.

I wish I could say my friend was not typical of many of the people I went to LS with. But he is. They lack drive, they lack desire, and they lack the basic common sense skills for finding or creating opportunities for themselves. Unless the school hands them a job most of this kids will fail.

I would say your friend is typical of most UG grads right now as well. I have two friends a fellow poli sci grad and an civ engineer grad, both unemployed after we graduated almost two years ago. Both still living with their parents not even hustling to find a part time job.

I'm currently working a contract gig with Sony doing QC work on notebooks. My poli sci friend, also a bit of a techie, is also from my hometown so when a spot opened up which was guaranteed work off my referral I brought it up to my friend. I had major difficulty getting him to apply and he literally asked me: hey can I start two weeks later because I have a trip to Chicago planned and I can't get a refund on my tickets. My boss was actually cool with it and said he could start later, but after my friend told me that he would probably quit after three months because he had other things lined up, I decided not to tell him the offer still stood. It's nine months later and none of those "opportunities" materialized.

The civ engineer friend does not know anything about applying for jobs and refuses to look at any entry level work or any other work that doesn't pertain to his field of study. I don't know anything about the engineering field, from what some of my hard science major friends tell me it would be the death of their career to go into anything other than what you studied for; but to me you go where the work is even if it means doing a crappy part time job like Best Buy. Unlike most of my friends I don't have my parents bankrolling me.

Is going to law school a big gamble? Hell yeah! Even with a 100k debt I think it's more of a meaningful investment than continuing my QC job or sitting at my parents home collecting unemployment checks. As far as crippling debt is concerned the implementation of IBR (not talking about the debt forgiveness but loan repayments based on earned income and family size relative to debt) should help with that for folks taking out federal loans.

[RickyMack]

.

[MrKappus]

At Yale it doesn't matter as much, but at HLS, a couple L's makes finding [strike]work[/strike] a biglaw position [strike]hard[/strike] less likely.

Fixed.