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

[starry eyed]

money and prestige encourages me to attend law school despite the negativity

what you weren't ok working as a tax preparer at h and r block?

"there's no risk and it's safe, it's the better option"- TLS

The problem is that law school is a significant risk that appeals to a group of people who is largely risk-adverse. It seems safe, but it's really not. Lawyers are enablers for the people who actually took risks and earned huge premiums for it.

i actually learn from your posts.

yea i actually never considered this, fair point

do you think the qualities that make them risk adverse also makes them unattractive to legal employers?

another question is: does it EVER makes sense to pay say...100k for a TTT? risk averse student vs non-risk averse

[PariSiamo]

money and prestige encourages me to attend law school despite the negativity

what you weren't ok working as a tax preparer at h and r block?

"there's no risk and it's safe, it's the better option"- TLS

The problem is that law school is a significant risk that appeals to a group of people who is largely risk-adverse. It seems safe, but it's really not. Lawyers are enablers for the people who actually took risks and earned huge premiums for it.

i actually learn from your posts.

yea i actually never considered this, fair point

I think his posting is consistently high quality. It's actually pretty impressive.

[starry eyed]

money and prestige encourages me to attend law school despite the negativity

what you weren't ok working as a tax preparer at h and r block?

"there's no risk and it's safe, it's the better option"- TLS

The problem is that law school is a significant risk that appeals to a group of people who is largely risk-adverse. It seems safe, but it's really not. Lawyers are enablers for the people who actually took risks and earned huge premiums for it.

i actually learn from your posts.

yea i actually never considered this, fair point

I think his posting is consistently high quality. It's actually pretty impressive.

yea and poor zach is trying to be influential but he largely gets tuned out, take notes zach.

[UnicornHunter]

money and prestige encourages me to attend law school despite the negativity

what you weren't ok working as a tax preparer at h and r block?

"there's no risk and it's safe, it's the better option"- TLS

The problem is that law school is a significant risk that appeals to a group of people who is largely risk-adverse. It seems safe, but it's really not. Lawyers are enablers for the people who actually took risks and earned huge premiums for it.

i actually learn from your posts.

yea i actually never considered this, fair point

do you think the qualities that make them risk adverse also makes them unattractive to legal employers?

another question is: does it EVER makes sense to pay say...100k for a TTT? risk averse student vs non-risk averse

First question, no, because legal employers aren't looking for revolutionary thinkers or people who are going to show more than a modicum of creativity. They're looking for people who will produce binders and binders full of grammatically and technically correct grunt work. Maybe a certain level of risk-taking will be rewarded in terms of figuring out whose really on the partner track, but it's still probably a much lower level than what you'd be rewarded for in the business world. This is why law review is valued so highly in legal employment. It shows a willingness to spend an ungodly amount of hours working on someone else's work in return for a little bit of recognition.

Second question, maybe, but probably not. Certainly, ex-post there are people who have great outcomes from TTT's - P side lawyers who hit on a couple big cases come to mind. But ex-ante: that seems like a tougher bet. I suppose there might be some combination of circumstances where it makes sense, but as a general rule (regardless of risk-preference) I'd say no. The problem is that most people convince themselves that they'll like law or that they'll be good at law school before they go, so it's really really hard to say who is actually right about that. Without any way to accurately predict who will do well, optimism is pretty unwarranted when it comes to law school.

[starry eyed]

I disagree with part of your first answer. This maybe impossible to answer, but smaller firms must be looking for someone with partnership potential (someone creative and someone who could potentially expand the firm) moreso than biglaw where it doesn't really matter if the person has no shot in hell at being partner, as long as they can grind through the work. That's just me theorizing, not evidence to back it up. I mean that has to explain why NYC/DC only cares about grades, bc they know none of the ppl they hire are gonna be partner anyway.

i just don't think non-nyc biglaw partners prefer dull, detail-oriented people bc i don't see how that benefits the firm long term. not only do they have to work next to this person, but they would like to be able to leave him with clients or let him work with minimal supervision.

and a lot of these TTT grads start out making 50k but within a few years are approaching six figures. That part gets left out on here. We just assume that they make 50k their whole lives.

[TLSModBot]

This maybe impossible to answer, but smaller firms must be looking for someone with partnership potential (someone creative and someone who could potentially expand the firm) moreso than biglaw where it doesn't really matter if the person has no shot in hell at being partner, as long as they can grind through the work. That's just me theorizing, not evidence to back it up.

Sort of but not necessarily as a rule - for a good understanding of how large and smaller firm hiring/partnership promotion dynamics work (and the incentives/constraints behind them), I recommend reading The Elastic Tournament by Galanter and Palay. Galanter did a follow up article to this in 2008 that recontextualizes the book for the current economy.

[starry eyed]

This maybe impossible to answer, but smaller firms must be looking for someone with partnership potential (someone creative and someone who could potentially expand the firm) moreso than biglaw where it doesn't really matter if the person has no shot in hell at being partner, as long as they can grind through the work. That's just me theorizing, not evidence to back it up.

Sort of but not necessarily as a rule - for a good understanding of how large and smaller firm hiring/partnership promotion dynamics work (and the incentives/constraints behind them), I recommend reading The Elastic Tournament by Galanter and Palay. Galanter did a follow up article to this in 2008 that recontextualizes the book for the current economy.

thanks i'll check it out, i'm being sincere

[TLSModBot]

This maybe impossible to answer, but smaller firms must be looking for someone with partnership potential (someone creative and someone who could potentially expand the firm) moreso than biglaw where it doesn't really matter if the person has no shot in hell at being partner, as long as they can grind through the work. That's just me theorizing, not evidence to back it up.

Sort of but not necessarily as a rule - for a good understanding of how large and smaller firm hiring/partnership promotion dynamics work (and the incentives/constraints behind them), I recommend reading The Elastic Tournament by Galanter and Palay. Galanter did a follow up article to this in 2008 that recontextualizes the book for the current economy.

thanks i'll check it out, i'm being sincere

The second half gets really econ-heavy, but the first half does a great job talking about the history of law firms and how economically the modern firm functions.

[Tiago Splitter]

Tiago correct me if I'm wrong, but the state of legal hiring today is the same as before the legal bubble (prior to 2005- 2008), we just have not known because schools were not required to be transparent.

Also, In that article i posted itt, Paul Campos criticizes law school by comparing it to med school by saying that pretty much 100% of med students become doctors. Well what else are they gonna do? They picked a pretty narrow path, that limited them to that profession exculsively. Law and business are interchangeable; i'm not saying that 40% of law grads are working lucrative business jobs, but enough may hate law enough where they will expand into other things; doctors cannot do that.

this anti-law school movement is becoming just as obnoxious as the people who used to primp law school as a prestigious accomplishment

Yes the state of legal hiring is basically what it was in the early aughts. But that point only serves the pro-law school argument if you're going to argue that the "new normal" is more "the way things have always been." The problem is that things have always been pretty bad but with lower tuition.

I don't think your Campos criticism here is fair because there aren't lots of lucrative non-law jobs for law grads, especially when you consider the cost of law school. Hell there really aren't a lot of lucrative legal jobs, but at least people working low paying JD-required work can say they had to go to law school to get there. Going to a top school does open up options but many students even at HYS realize after the fact that law school wasn't necessary.

and a lot of these TTT grads start out making 50k but within a few years are approaching six figures. That part gets left out on here. We just assume that they make 50k their whole lives.

Do you have a source for this? If anything I feel like many of the people starting at 50k in legal jobs end up in non-legal careers fairly quickly. Doc review pays 50k if you can get enough hours.

I think we're largely on the same page; take out the bottom of the barrel law grads and the picture isn't so bleak anymore. But the reason we can feel confident of that going forward is because the scamblogs, transparency movement, outspoken law profs etc. have reduced the number of people matriculating from 52k down to about 35k this fall.

[starry eyed]

yea i agree with you 100%. and i guess i'm not helping to continue to bring that enrollment # down.

[PhilippeStandingOnIt]

Why law school, despite the negativity?

I'm stuck in a dead end career path that I hate. I make ~$40k; if I stick it out I might make ~75k in 20 years. I don't just hate my job; I'm embarrassed by it. When people ask me what I do for a living, I mumble, if I don't lie outright. Law school is a desperate attempt at an "out".

That said, law school is a pretty miserable out for most people in most situations. I tried to mitigate this by going into my LSAT prep and application cycle resolved that if I didn't get a good school/scholarship outcome, I would walk away and find something else. At the beginning of the cycle, I had a dollar amount in my head of how much money, all in, I was willing to pay for a legal education. This would define a good outcome. I ended up with a full scholarship at a T50 in a low COL area, so I'm pressing on.

That said, I'm still gambling that 3-years of time and cost of living is worth whatever career outcome I get. Hopefully I'll be making more money in 3 years, but there is a very significant risk that I could be making the same $40k hoping for $75k in 20 years.

At least I will no longer be embarrassed to tell people what I do...probably.

All that said, I am extremely excited (naive?) to go to law school. I find the subject matter incredibly interesting (naive?), and do think I will enjoy a legal career more than my current job (naive?), but I worry that just speaks to he shittiness of my current job.

Also, this...

Path dependency and cognitive dissonance. People go to school their whole life with the assumption that better grades + more school will equal a better life. When confronted with evidence that that' not true, they tend to ignore it. Law school is a lot like tic-tac-toe and nuclear war.

I'm stuck in the education>>>career model, and don't know how to get out, other than to turn my back on all of it and take up a trade. I frequently wonder if that would be the smarter option.

[xiao_long]

Also, In that article i posted itt, Paul Campos criticizes law school by comparing it to med school by saying that pretty much 100% of med students become doctors. Well what else are they gonna do? They picked a pretty narrow path, that limited them to that profession exculsively. Law and business are interchangeable; i'm not saying that 40% of law grads are working lucrative business jobs, but enough may hate law enough where they will expand into other things; doctors cannot do that.

This is one of the most flawed assumptions I have come across on TLS.

Medicine and law are both trade schools. They qualify you for professional licensure. They don't qualify you for anything other than the intended trade. To say law and business are interchangeable is just downright asinine.

[starry eyed]

Also, In that article i posted itt, Paul Campos criticizes law school by comparing it to med school by saying that pretty much 100% of med students become doctors. Well what else are they gonna do? They picked a pretty narrow path, that limited them to that profession exculsively. Law and business are interchangeable; i'm not saying that 40% of law grads are working lucrative business jobs, but enough may hate law enough where they will expand into other things; doctors cannot do that.

This is one of the most flawed assumptions I have come across on TLS.

Medicine and law are both trade schools. They qualify you for professional licensure. They don't qualify you for anything other than the intended trade. To say law and business are interchangeable is just downright asinine.

I'm saying that some one who goes to law school probably has an interest in business moreso than a med student and it can lead to intermingling between law and business - that's what i meant by interchangeable. Sorry for poor word choice.

surely you can find a more flawed assumption than that?

[A. Nony Mouse]

I'm saying that some one who goes to law school probably has an interest in business moreso than a med student and it can lead to intermingling between law and business - that's what i meant by interchangeable. Sorry for poor word choice.

surely you can find a more flawed assumption than that?

I'm sure there are more flawed assumptions, but I don't agree with this at all. Law students are less willing to deal with blood and bodily fluids than med students are, but beyond that I don't think you can generalize. There is some overlap between law and business, but I'm sure there's overlap between medicine and business (e.g. health care management stuff).

[RCSOB657]

I'm stuck in the education>>>career model

You're not alone, the percentage of incoming college freshman since 1960s has increased every year that say their goal for getting an education is to be well off (to a point now in which this answer is a super majority). The number of respondents that have answered for life enrichment has inversely dropped in that same time frame. Personally, I'm in the latter camp and thus think those that would answer as the former are not only going to hate their life when/if they fail but but also do not understand some people think differently and may not really care.

[ymmv]

It's not uncommon these days for med grads to forego residency and go right to work for industry (pharm biz consultants, etc.) with their MD. These places court students aggressively at good schools and it's not just a fallback option for people who don't match, especially since the people interested in it often skip match altogether. Good money without the grueling years of residency, especially if med school makes you realize you don't actually want to be a doctor.

[starry eyed]

I'm stuck in the education>>>career model

You're not alone, the percentage of incoming college freshman since 1960s has increased every year that say their goal for getting an education is to be well off (to a point now in which this answer is a super majority). The number of respondents that have answered for life enrichment has inversely dropped in that same time frame. Personally, I'm in the latter camp and thus think those that would answer as the former are not only going to hate their life when/if they fail but but also do not understand some people think differently.

pretty solid post right here (not baiting you)

yea and to what someone else mentioned about being ashamed in his current job...

being able to tell basic girls that you're a lawyer is a big plus too
(they don't know or care to know the dif between doc reviewer and rainmaker)

joking but its true

[RCSOB657]

Recently, I transported dead bodies from crime scenes, hospitals, nursing homes, etc for over a year while in school. While dating, I've only told one woman that and she is a cop so I knew she could handle it. That was just a job, means to an end, and I certainly did not like some aspects of it.

My first time through college when I was 17, I was in the same "I want to do this for a good job" camp as most other people are. I did not really know any better. I've grown up since then, and my viewpoint on the reason I wanted to go to school had changed to the other side, as mentioned above. Call it corny or call me a prole, but finishing my undergrad and what I do in graduate school is for life enrichment - to be a better person, some places call it being a citizen-lawyer. If I wanted money I would have gone to med school and stayed right here at GRU for it this fall.

[Lawperson2018]

I was interested in law school in undergrad, but I told myself “get a job first. Experience the real world. If you’re still interested in law school in a few years, revisit the idea.” I was willing to walk away from law school if I found a satisfying career elsewhere. After several years working my way up the ladder with my current employer, I decided I was still interested in law school, but I told myself “don’t even apply if your LSAT isn’t sufficient to potentially warrant some good offers.” I was willing to walk away from law school even as I was studying for the LSAT. After applying, I was still prepared to forgo law school if my only options were high debt at mediocre schools.

Law school is still an excellent career decision for some people, if certain conditions are met. Part of the reason that law school gets a bad rap is because many people still assume it’s the safe bet it was thirty years ago and rush in headfirst, sinking ungodly amounts of cash and time into something without a clear understanding of the potential outcomes and consequences.

The negativity isn’t such a bitter pill to swallow provided you’ve carefully rationalized your decision and made sane choices; in that case, you will have studied the situation enough to realize that many of the potential pitfalls associate with law school are self-inflicted by irrational choices. Yes, the law market is rough right now, but it’s not a complete disaster unless you still insist on going even in the face of overwhelmingly bad debt/school options.

(edit: still a bright-eyed, bushy-tailed 0L, so perhaps things get bleaker after a year or two of school)

[starry eyed]

I was interested in law school in undergrad, but I told myself “get a job first. Experience the real world. If you’re still interested in law school in a few years, revisit the idea.” I was willing to walk away from law school if I found a satisfying career elsewhere. After several years working my way up the ladder with my current employer, I decided I was still interested in law school, but I told myself “don’t even apply if your LSAT isn’t sufficient to potentially warrant some good offers.” I was willing to walk away from law school even as I was studying for the LSAT. After applying, I was still prepared to forgo law school if my only options were high debt at mediocre schools.

Law school is still an excellent career decision for some people, if certain conditions are met. Part of the reason that law school gets a bad rap is because many people still assume it’s the safe bet it was thirty years ago and rush in headfirst, sinking ungodly amounts of cash and time into something without a clear understanding of the potential outcomes and consequences.

The negativity isn’t such a bitter pill to swallow provided you’ve carefully rationalized your decision and made sane choices; in that case, you will have studied the situation enough to realize that many of the potential pitfalls associate with law school are self-inflicted by irrational choices. Yes, the law market is rough right now, but it’s not a complete disaster unless you still insist on going even in the face of overwhelmingly bad debt/school options.

(edit: still a bright-eyed, bushy-tailed 0L, so perhaps things get bleaker after a year or two of school)

do you have a link that says otherwise?

[A. Nony Mouse]

Part of the reason that law school gets a bad rap is because many people still assume it’s the safe bet it was thirty years ago[/size] and rush in headfirst, sinking ungodly amounts of cash and time into something without a clear understanding of the potential outcomes and consequences.

do you have a link that says otherwise?

Paul Campos has pointed out any number of times on his blog that the costs of law school 30 years ago were absolutely miniscule compared to what they are today, and that law school tuition has risen many times the rate of inflation. It used to be much safer to go to law school if it only cost about $30k, rather than $250k.

If you're saying there aren't a lot of people who rush in this way, TLS is a pretty small proportion of law school applicants. Fewer people make these assumptions with the rise of the transparency movement, but I'm sure people still do.

[Lawperson2018]

Part of the reason that law school gets a bad rap is because many people still assume it’s the safe bet it was thirty years ago

do you have a link that says otherwise?

Median law school tuition from 1985 adjusted for inflation

Public: $3,746
Private: $15,438

Median law school tuition from 2011 (so it’s likely a bit higher now) adjusted for inflation

Public: $20,076
Private: $39,915

Higher education is a bubble at the moment and tuition is increasing far above inflation
(http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewconten ... aul_campos)

The median starting salaries based on firm size:

2-10
1985: $21,900
2000: $40,000

26-50
1985: $33,700
2000: $60,000

101+
1985: $40,500
2000: $120,000

(http://www.nalp.org/2001junemploymenttrends)

While it’s still possible to pay down your debt, it has become less realistic to do so outside of a BigLaw job. Notice the growth in the salary gap between firm sizes. Whereas you could reasonably hope to service your law school debt at most law firms in 1985, it is now almost impossible to do so at a small firm. People are forced into 70+ hour a week BigLaw jobs now out of necessity instead of by choice and this doesn’t lead to the same quality of life as small firm work or choosing BigLaw because you’ll be able to laugh all the way to the bank.

The other problem is that the ability of law graduates to obtain relevant jobs is shrinking, which further exacerbates the problem. Not only are there fewer types of employment where you can reasonably pay off your debt, but there are less graduates actually entering the employment field they spent three years preparing for

Overall employment for the Class of 2013 was 84.5% with 64.4% in legal employment (http://www.nalp.org/uploads/Classof2013 ... ndings.pdf)
Overall employment for the Class of 1985 was 91.5% with 81.6% in legal employment
(http://www.nalp.org/2005juntrends)

[starry eyed]

i think it's interesting to see that in 1985, biglaw jobs paid the equivalent of 87k in today's dollars. (40k back then)

i don't think you adjusted the salaries for inflation:

1985
2-10 firm: 46k
26-50 firm: 72k
100+ : 87k

2000
2-10 firm: 54k
26-50 firm: 82k
100+ : 164k

it seems like it is now higher risk higher reward than it used to be, which can be mitigated with scholarships.

[JGMotorsport]

I think we're largely on the same page; take out the bottom of the barrel law grads and the picture isn't so bleak anymore. But the reason we can feel confident of that going forward is because the scamblogs, transparency movement, outspoken law profs etc. have reduced the number of people matriculating from 52k down to about 35k this fall.

Here's an important detail for smart 0ls looking beyond LA NYC DC Chicago, we will be graduating among the least competitive class that is the smallest in size since the 70s.

What keeps me interested it deep ties and connections to a few firms in my home state who already want me to work there. To me, if you can attend a good value school (instate if it's a good one) then we might just end up alright. Worst case scenario I walk out 80k debt working small law in a lucrative practice.

[LA Spring]

If you want to avoid the negativity of law school; only apply to a T14 or highly ranked tier-1. For this you will likely need a minimum 3.6 GPA/168 LSAT. These stats should provide you admittance (with a suitable tier-1 scholly).

Your chances are then favorable in landing one of the 10,000 law firm openings paying six figures. (FWIW: There are roughly 7,500 grads from the top 25 schools, so the odds should be on your side).