What encourages you to attend law school among all the negativity? Forum

[Cogburn87]

I don’t chalk it all up to luck. I suppose it’s possible that Tom Brady and LeBron James are really lucky or perhaps they are on the first string because they are talented. After 3 months as an SA and 8 months as an associate what I’ve continually seen is that certain people continually receive better assignments. There are first years handling bigger cases than 3rd years, I don’t believe that this is necessarily attributed to luck.

would u say ur the Tom Brady of ur law firm?

[bjsesq]

I don’t chalk it all up to luck. I suppose it’s possible that Tom Brady and LeBron James are really lucky or perhaps they are on the first string because they are talented. After 3 months as an SA and 8 months as an associate what I’ve continually seen is that certain people continually receive better assignments. There are first years handling bigger cases than 3rd years, I don’t believe that this is necessarily attributed to luck.

I spotted the narcissist.

[djbatista]

You know I find it pretty rude to attack a person just because they believe in hard work and the success that ultimately comes because of it. This is exactly the proper attitude for success, not the moping around about debt and citing others' failure statistics that are so common around here.

[bjsesq]

You know I find it pretty rude to attack a person just because they believe in hard work and the success that ultimately comes because of it. This is exactly the proper attitude for success, not the moping around about debt and citing others' failure statistics that are so common around here.

So you assume that those of us who pay attention to the debt and failure statistics don't believe in hard work. Seems pretty legit; 10/10; would bang.

[djbatista]

I never argued you didn't believe in success from hard work, just that you attacked him for citing this belief in a positive way. Which you did. There's a difference between being aware that some people don't make it and justifying not pursuing a profession on those grounds.

[bjsesq]

There's a difference between being aware that some people don't make it and justifying not pursuing a profession on those grounds.

What's the difference? What percentage of people need to not make it at what cost until you think we're not being negative nancy's but good judges of risk?

[blsingindisguise]

Law school was free and I didn't have much opportunity cost -- poor grades liberal arts major several years out of school with no career path. Worked out ok for me with that cost/benefit, but I wouldn't recommend it to everyone.

[djbatista]

There's a difference between being aware that some people don't make it and justifying not pursuing a profession on those grounds.

What's the difference? What percentage of people need to not make it at what cost until you think we're not being negative nancy's but good judges of risk?

TBH I'm not really trying to articulate some type of percentage classification between being negative vs. assessing risks. I AM trying to say that when you're living life in a successful way you don't dwell on failures but rather successes, and you take risks as you see fit to maximize your potential. As long as you aren't being patently unrealistic it's a good way to live your life. A person who goes into law school and comes out with debt but finds a nice law job that pays even around 70K with benefits is far better situated than a person with no debt who is making 40-60K as a standard office worker. There's more potential for growth and success, a better lifestyle with more money in the bank, and opportunities lateraling to different types of firms and connecting with other people, as well as the specialized knowledge of beginning one's own practice in the future. Many attorneys become filthy rich this way.

[bjsesq]

There's a difference between being aware that some people don't make it and justifying not pursuing a profession on those grounds.

What's the difference? What percentage of people need to not make it at what cost until you think we're not being negative nancy's but good judges of risk?

TBH I'm not really trying to articulate some type of percentage classification between being negative vs. assessing risks. I AM trying to say that when you're living life in a successful way you don't dwell on failures but rather successes, and you take risks as you see fit to maximize your potential. As long as you aren't being patently unrealistic it's a good way to live your life. A person who goes into law school and comes out with debt but finds a nice law job that pays even around 70K with benefits is far better situated than a person with no debt who is making 40-60K as a standard office worker. There's more potential for growth and success, a better lifestyle with more money in the bank, and opportunities lateraling to different types of firms and connecting with other people, as well as the specialized knowledge of beginning one's own practice in the future. Many attorneys become filthy rich this way.

.....this doesn't really answer anything and assumes success. Most law students would be thrilled to graduate with a "nice law job that pays even around 70k with benefits." This completely misses the point people are making.

[OhBoyOhBortles]

There's a difference between being aware that some people don't make it and justifying not pursuing a profession on those grounds.

What's the difference? What percentage of people need to not make it at what cost until you think we're not being negative nancy's but good judges of risk?

TBH I'm not really trying to articulate some type of percentage classification between being negative vs. assessing risks. I AM trying to say that when you're living life in a successful way you don't dwell on failures but rather successes, and you take risks as you see fit to maximize your potential. As long as you aren't being patently unrealistic it's a good way to live your life. A person who goes into law school and comes out with debt but finds a nice law job that pays even around 70K with benefits is far better situated than a person with no debt who is making 40-60K as a standard office worker. There's more potential for growth and success, a better lifestyle with more money in the bank, and opportunities lateraling to different types of firms and connecting with other people, as well as the specialized knowledge of beginning one's own practice in the future. ManyA handful of very fortunate attorneys become filthy rich this way.

ftfy.

Also, what makes you an authority on "living life in a successful way?" If you've experienced enough success to teach individuals ITT about how to live life in a successful way, why are you going to law school?

[blsingindisguise]

There's a difference between being aware that some people don't make it and justifying not pursuing a profession on those grounds.

What's the difference? What percentage of people need to not make it at what cost until you think we're not being negative nancy's but good judges of risk?

TBH I'm not really trying to articulate some type of percentage classification between being negative vs. assessing risks. I AM trying to say that when you're living life in a successful way you don't dwell on failures but rather successes, and you take risks as you see fit to maximize your potential. As long as you aren't being patently unrealistic it's a good way to live your life. A person who goes into law school and comes out with debt but finds a nice law job that pays even around 70K with benefits is far better situated than a person with no debt who is making 40-60K as a standard office worker. There's more potential for growth and success, a better lifestyle with more money in the bank, and opportunities lateraling to different types of firms and connecting with other people, as well as the specialized knowledge of beginning one's own practice in the future. Many attorneys become filthy rich this way.

I completely disagree. Living your life "in a successful way" requires honest assessment of risk/benefit. The fact that you assume a guy with a 70k salary (after three years of lost salary) with "debt" (note unspecified amount) is just per se better off than the office worker making 40-60k with no debt shows vague and fuzzy thinking on your part. If you want to make it as a lawyer I suggest working on that.

[djbatista]

There's a difference between being aware that some people don't make it and justifying not pursuing a profession on those grounds.

What's the difference? What percentage of people need to not make it at what cost until you think we're not being negative nancy's but good judges of risk?

TBH I'm not really trying to articulate some type of percentage classification between being negative vs. assessing risks. I AM trying to say that when you're living life in a successful way you don't dwell on failures but rather successes, and you take risks as you see fit to maximize your potential. As long as you aren't being patently unrealistic it's a good way to live your life. A person who goes into law school and comes out with debt but finds a nice law job that pays even around 70K with benefits is far better situated than a person with no debt who is making 40-60K as a standard office worker. There's more potential for growth and success, a better lifestyle with more money in the bank, and opportunities lateraling to different types of firms and connecting with other people, as well as the specialized knowledge of beginning one's own practice in the future. Many attorneys become filthy rich this way.

I completely disagree. Living your life "in a successful way" requires honest assessment of risk/benefit. The fact that you assume a guy with a 70k salary (after three years of lost salary) with "debt" (note unspecified amount) is just per se better off than the office worker making 40-60k with no debt shows vague and fuzzy thinking on your part. If you want to make it as a lawyer I suggest working on that.

I agree, but if your assessment of benefit/risk is "bad idea because it doesn't work out for some other people" then you're completely taking yourself and your own potential our of the equation. Moreover, yes making 70K with some debt, and more growth opportunity, is better than the former situation. More money to invest and save is better even if you have to make an additional monthly payment

[bjsesq]

I agree, but if your assessment of benefit/risk is "bad idea because it doesn't work out for some other people" then you're completely taking yourself and your own potential our of the equation.

And we're back to the fuzziness. What does this even mean?

[blsingindisguise]

There's a difference between being aware that some people don't make it and justifying not pursuing a profession on those grounds.

What's the difference? What percentage of people need to not make it at what cost until you think we're not being negative nancy's but good judges of risk?

TBH I'm not really trying to articulate some type of percentage classification between being negative vs. assessing risks. I AM trying to say that when you're living life in a successful way you don't dwell on failures but rather successes, and you take risks as you see fit to maximize your potential. As long as you aren't being patently unrealistic it's a good way to live your life. A person who goes into law school and comes out with debt but finds a nice law job that pays even around 70K with benefits is far better situated than a person with no debt who is making 40-60K as a standard office worker. There's more potential for growth and success, a better lifestyle with more money in the bank, and opportunities lateraling to different types of firms and connecting with other people, as well as the specialized knowledge of beginning one's own practice in the future. Many attorneys become filthy rich this way.

I completely disagree. Living your life "in a successful way" requires honest assessment of risk/benefit. The fact that you assume a guy with a 70k salary (after three years of lost salary) with "debt" (note unspecified amount) is just per se better off than the office worker making 40-60k with no debt shows vague and fuzzy thinking on your part. If you want to make it as a lawyer I suggest working on that.

I agree, but if your assessment of benefit/risk is "bad idea because it doesn't work out for some other people" then you're completely taking yourself and your own potential our of the equation. Moreover, yes making 70K with some debt, and more growth opportunity, is better than the former situation. More money to invest and save is better even if you have to make an additional monthly payment

"an additional monthly payment" lol. Do you realize how big a monthly payment is on 200k debt? On a ten-year plan it's probably more than half of your take-home pay if you are lucky enough to actually get 70K out of school.

[djbatista]

There's a difference between being aware that some people don't make it and justifying not pursuing a profession on those grounds.

What's the difference? What percentage of people need to not make it at what cost until you think we're not being negative nancy's but good judges of risk?

TBH I'm not really trying to articulate some type of percentage classification between being negative vs. assessing risks. I AM trying to say that when you're living life in a successful way you don't dwell on failures but rather successes, and you take risks as you see fit to maximize your potential. As long as you aren't being patently unrealistic it's a good way to live your life. A person who goes into law school and comes out with debt but finds a nice law job that pays even around 70K with benefits is far better situated than a person with no debt who is making 40-60K as a standard office worker. There's more potential for growth and success, a better lifestyle with more money in the bank, and opportunities lateraling to different types of firms and connecting with other people, as well as the specialized knowledge of beginning one's own practice in the future. Many attorneys become filthy rich this way.

I completely disagree. Living your life "in a successful way" requires honest assessment of risk/benefit. The fact that you assume a guy with a 70k salary (after three years of lost salary) with "debt" (note unspecified amount) is just per se better off than the office worker making 40-60k with no debt shows vague and fuzzy thinking on your part. If you want to make it as a lawyer I suggest working on that.

I agree, but if your assessment of benefit/risk is "bad idea because it doesn't work out for some other people" then you're completely taking yourself and your own potential our of the equation. Moreover, yes making 70K with some debt, and more growth opportunity, is better than the former situation. More money to invest and save is better even if you have to make an additional monthly payment

"an additional monthly payment" lol. Do you realize how big a monthly payment is on 200k debt? On a ten-year plan it's probably more than half of your take-home pay if you are lucky enough to actually get 70K out of school.

Yes, on a 20 year plan you're looking at just under 1k a month. If this is your situation you need to go for biglaw or a high paying job to justify it. I really can't imagine most people being able to pay back 200K on a ten year plan.

I agree, but if your assessment of benefit/risk is "bad idea because it doesn't work out for some other people" then you're completely taking yourself and your own potential our of the equation.

And we're back to the fuzziness. What does this even mean?

If you don't understand this I won't bother going any further into it.

[bjsesq]

I agree, but if your assessment of benefit/risk is "bad idea because it doesn't work out for some other people" then you're completely taking yourself and your own potential our of the equation.

And we're back to the fuzziness. What does this even mean?

If you don't understand this I won't bother going any further into it.

Nice cop out. Some of us think a person considering taking out a quarter of a million dollars in debt think people should have more than just some Tony Robbins-esque platitudes to back up their play, but you do you.

[blsingindisguise]

Yes, on a 20 year plan you're looking at just under 1k a month. If this is your situation you need to go for biglaw or a high paying job to justify it.

Not sure where you're getting that, I used a loan calculator got over $1500/month on a 20-year plan with a rate of 6.8% -- you do realize there's this thing called interest that compounds over time, right?

But no worries, if that's your situation (i.e. the situation of anyone paying full price for law school today), just do high paying job bro. You should be a life coach.

[djbatista]

Yes, on a 20 year plan you're looking at just under 1k a month. If this is your situation you need to go for biglaw or a high paying job to justify it.

Not sure where you're getting that, I used a loan calculator got over $1500/month on a 20-year plan with a rate of 6.8% -- you do realize there's this thing called interest that compounds over time, right?

But no worries, if that's your situation (i.e. the situation of anyone paying full price for law school today), just do high paying job bro. You should be a life coach.

Ok credited my estimate may have been off, but tbh it doesn't take away from the main point. IF you're 200K in debt because you went to a T5 at sticker, make it work for you. If it isn't for you fine but don't discourage other people who have the drive and talent to be successful by taking the risk. Also, have actually thought about becoming a life coach but I haven't actually done anything yet so...

[bjsesq]

If it isn't for you fine but don't discourage other people who have the drive and talent to be successful by taking the risk.

What in the actual fuck. Are you fucking mentally retarded?

[djbatista]

If it isn't for you fine but don't discourage other people who have the drive and talent to be successful by taking the risk.

What in the actual fuck. Are you fucking mentally retarded?

Bro interesting thing is I meant to ask you same a few posts back but I was too polite.

[bjsesq]

If it isn't for you fine but don't discourage other people who have the drive and talent to be successful by taking the risk.

What in the actual fuck. Are you fucking mentally retarded?

Bro interesting thing is I meant to ask you same a few posts back but I was too polite.

It's absolutely bizarre to me that you think people taking sticker at say, University of Florida, is an objectively good move and justify it as "drive to be successful." You suck at understanding risk and justify it by claiming that you are driven. Drive means precisely dick if it isn't backing up smart plays. You aren't making one, you downsy fuck.

[djbatista]

If it isn't for you fine but don't discourage other people who have the drive and talent to be successful by taking the risk.

What in the actual fuck. Are you fucking mentally retarded?

Bro interesting thing is I meant to ask you same a few posts back but I was too polite.

It's absolutely bizarre to me that you think people taking sticker at say, University of Florida, is an objectively good move and justify it as "drive to be successful." You suck at understanding risk and justify it by claiming that you are driven. Drive means precisely dick if it isn't backing up smart plays. You aren't making one, you downsy fuck.

Lol at you thinking you know me because you've gone through my posts. Anyway you're entitled to your opinion just as I am to mine. Learn some manners and self control.

[bjsesq]

Lol at you thinking you know me because you've gone through my posts. Anyway you're entitled to your opinion just as I am to mine. Learn some manners and self control.

You're entitled to your opinion. You aren't entitled to passing it off as if it is true and possibly fucking some naive 0Ls over in the process.

[djbatista]

Lol at you thinking you know me because you've gone through my posts. Anyway you're entitled to your opinion just as I am to mine. Learn some manners and self control.

You're entitled to your opinion. You aren't entitled to passing it off as if it is true and possibly fucking some naive 0Ls over in the process.

Well man that would be your opinion. Let's just agree to disagree.

[bjsesq]

Lol at you thinking you know me because you've gone through my posts. Anyway you're entitled to your opinion just as I am to mine. Learn some manners and self control.

You're entitled to your opinion. You aren't entitled to passing it off as if it is true and possibly fucking some naive 0Ls over in the process.

Well man that would be your opinion. Let's just agree to disagree.

No. Your position has the possibility of doing people real harm and I'll shit on it if/when I see it.