I am not alone! Forum

[thelaststraw05]

because....what, some law grads can't secure jobs within 9 months? Neither can a lot of other graduates in other fields. Others argue that the debt doesn't make the expenditure worth it.

Almost 40%

Many of those employed are doing doc review as well.

I mean, there are just quite a few holes in the prof's argument that most seasoned TLSers are able to spot pretty quicky. Like when he cites $110,000/whatever as the median pay for lawyers, he doesn't mention that many law gradues (and this has been going on for decades) never work in law in the first place. A better question would have been: "what is the median pay for law school graduates." etc. etc

Those who aren't employed in a legal job a year after law school are generally unlikely to get a legal job.

If you are hiring for an entry level job at your firm which would you prefer, a fresh law school graduate or someone who is a year removed from law school and hasn't been using is law degree at all?

Most likely the person fresh from law school who has much more recent experience using Lexis and Westlaw. Someone who is not jaded by a year of searching (unsuccessfully) for a legal job.

The people who do end up getting a job after more than a year aren't getting jobs that pay biglaw salaries, they are getting jobs that pay wages similar to what you can get out of law school.

Now if we look a little deeper at the numbers we'll see that people graduating from T1 law schools (and particularly the T14 law schools) have higher than average employment rates. That means that the unemployment rates coming from the T2 and lower schools are even worse than 40%.

ETA: Pulling from the article -

"According to NALP, the proportion of 2010 graduates who accepted jobs for which a bar license was required was 68.4 percent — the lowest percentage ever measured."

"Law student borrowing has jumped 50 percent since 2001."

"Too many law school pricing structures are premised on exploiting demand for seats in entering classes, and I agree with the view that the rate of tuition increase is unsustainable."

[somethingsome]

Deleted

[thelaststraw05]

Those who aren't employed in a legal job a year after law school are generally unlikely to get a legal job.

If you are hiring for an entry level job at your firm which would you prefer, a fresh law school graduate or someone who is a year removed from law school and hasn't been using is law degree at all?

Please offer STATISTICAL support for these statements.

What if the reason the person hasn't gotten hired yet is because he/she hasn't taken/passed the bar?

I just had an attorney tell me: "If I get two applications: one from Harvard and one from Rutgers and the Harvard kid hasn't passed the bar yet but the Rutgers kid has, the Rutgers kid gets the job. Every time."

Trying (and failing) to find data I had seen before. Essentially through about 9 months the unemployment rate drops. Once you get beyond 9 months, the unemployment rate stays fairly steady.

Now the second part is purely inference. Why would the unemployment rate level off after 9 months to a year? There are a number of options one being that you now have the pick between fresh law student and year old law student. Another option is everyone who is still unemployed just objectively sucks and nobody wants them. Another option is the still unemployed folks have gotten burned out and stopped applying to places. The choices are nearly endless.

[tttterrific]

I just had an attorney tell me: "If I get two applications: one from Harvard and one from Rutgers and the Harvard kid hasn't passed the bar yet but the Rutgers kid has, the Rutgers kid gets the job. Every time."

This is a common fallacy at TTT schools. People believe that those at Harvard, or T6 schools, or T14 schools, or what have you, are actually less qualified than they are but with better pedigrees. The reality is, they often have more impressive pre-law backgrounds (part of how they got into their school to begin with) and have only added to that in law school. The choice, in this job market, may very well be between a Harvard student and a Rutgers student, but that doesn't mean that only those at lower ranked schools are capable of: passing the bar, having unique work experience, being hard workers, practical lawyering skills, and a dozen other things I often see on TLS in comparisons.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

Those who aren't employed in a legal job a year after law school are generally unlikely to get a legal job.

If you are hiring for an entry level job at your firm which would you prefer, a fresh law school graduate or someone who is a year removed from law school and hasn't been using is law degree at all?

Please offer STATISTICAL support for these statements.

What if the reason the person hasn't gotten hired yet is because he/she hasn't taken/passed the bar?

I just had an attorney tell me: "If I get two applications: one from Harvard and one from Rutgers and the Harvard kid hasn't passed the bar yet but the Rutgers kid has, the Rutgers kid gets the job. Every time."

See Cravath Hiring Model for why that person is most likely shut out of biglaw. Mid-law firms usually operate on the same system. Small firms take people more on a need basis. But people just graduating law school are in a better position to use their school's resources (as little as they may be for some CSO's). In any case, small firm hiring will be a lot more random and varied. Biglaw, on the other hand, actually has a very linear process: 2L SA, get offer after summer, go to firm after graduation (or clerkship first, then graduation). Biglaw is also the best way for students attending at sticker to pay off loans.

More reading:
http://www.policymic.com/article/show/id/920/op/no
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/career/markettrends/

[LockBox]

I just had an attorney tell me: "If I get two applications: one from Harvard and one from Rutgers and the Harvard kid hasn't passed the bar yet but the Rutgers kid has, the Rutgers kid gets the job. Every time."

This is a common fallacy at TTT schools. People believe that those at Harvard, or T6 schools, or T14 schools, or what have you, are actually less qualified than they are but with better pedigrees. The reality is, they often have more impressive pre-law backgrounds (part of how they got into their school to begin with) and have only added to that in law school. The choice, in this job market, may very well be between a Harvard student and a Rutgers student, but that doesn't mean that only those at lower ranked schools are capable of: passing the bar, having unique work experience, being hard workers, practical lawyering skills, and a dozen other things I often see on TLS in comparisons.

I could be wrong but I don't think Sirhcyam was saying that students from lower ranked schools are the ONLY ones capable of what you've noted...but that it would be Rutgers>Harvard if the Rutgers lawyer has passed bar and is, therefore, ready to work.

[somethingsome]

Deleted

[Richie Tenenbaum]

Those who aren't employed in a legal job a year after law school are generally unlikely to get a legal job.

If you are hiring for an entry level job at your firm which would you prefer, a fresh law school graduate or someone who is a year removed from law school and hasn't been using is law degree at all?

Please offer STATISTICAL support for these statements.

What if the reason the person hasn't gotten hired yet is because he/she hasn't taken/passed the bar?

I just had an attorney tell me: "If I get two applications: one from Harvard and one from Rutgers and the Harvard kid hasn't passed the bar yet but the Rutgers kid has, the Rutgers kid gets the job. Every time."

See Cravath Hiring Model for why that person is most likely shut out of biglaw. Mid-law firms usually operate on the same system. Small firms take people more on a need basis. But people just graduating law school are in a better position to use their school's resources (as little as they may be for some CSO's). In any case, small firm hiring will be a lot more random and varied. Biglaw, on the other hand, actually has a very linear process: 2L SA, get offer after summer, go to firm after graduation (or clerkship first, then graduation). Biglaw is also the best way for students attending at sticker to pay off loans.

More reading:
http://www.policymic.com/article/show/id/920/op/no
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/career/markettrends/

The point of the article was big law represents only a small chunk of successful lawyers. You act like small firm lawyers are making nothing. Sure they may start out poor, but they are still better than most other professions if you go by mid-career salary.

And to LockBox: You're right. That is what I was saying.

If a person goes to law school for cheap, there is nothing wrong with small law firms. But when a person is 150k-200k in debt, making 40-50k with greater long-term potential seems like a poor financial choice. Especially when you take into account that small firm jobs are just waiting to be plucked up by those that don't get biglaw. Just go look at the 3L /w no jobs thread. Many plan on trying to find something at a small firm, but there isn't really an abundance of optimism about how easy this will be (and there are plenty of people from good schools with good grades in that thread).

[somethingsome]

Deleted

[Blessedassurance]

You live and you learn. That's all there is to it.

[somethingsome]

Deleted

[kwais]

Those who aren't employed in a legal job a year after law school are generally unlikely to get a legal job.

If you are hiring for an entry level job at your firm which would you prefer, a fresh law school graduate or someone who is a year removed from law school and hasn't been using is law degree at all?

Please offer STATISTICAL support for these statements.

What if the reason the person hasn't gotten hired yet is because he/she hasn't taken/passed the bar?

I just had an attorney tell me: "If I get two applications: one from Harvard and one from Rutgers and the Harvard kid hasn't passed the bar yet but the Rutgers kid has, the Rutgers kid gets the job. Every time."

I have friends who are working in shitlaw in Florida and their attorneys are always telling them this sort of crap. Do you know why? Because if a Rutgers grad who works shitlaw at 45 years old has to look you in the eye and say "Harvard is better", then he deflates his sense of self. Please take these people with a grain of salt. Bar passage? Give me a fucking break.

[beachbum]

So students at his law school should not be there? They (or the majority of them or bottom 90% or whatever you want to say) would have been better off not attending?

Based on the SLU law students I've spoken with: yes, absolutely.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

If a person goes to law school for cheap, there is nothing wrong with small law firms. But when a person is 150k-200k in debt, making 40-50k with greater long-term potential seems like a poor financial choice. Especially when you take into account that small firm jobs are just waiting to be plucked up by those that don't get biglaw. Just go look at the 3L /w no jobs thread. Many plan on trying to find something at a small firm, but there isn't really an abundance of optimism about how easy this will be (and there are plenty of people from good schools with good grades in that thread).

Key word here is "seems." People used to make the same argument about college (maybe some still do). When you compare the medians for someone who gets a job right out of high school to someone who goes to a four year college and then gets a job, the high school graduate actually wins out (or, they are very close) in earnings for the first ten years. I once read that it works something like this:

HS: 30-30-32-34-36-38-40-40-40-40...
College: 0-0-0-0-38-38-42-44-48-50-55...
Law School: 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-45-45-55-60-75...

The numbers represent the salary in thousands, the dashes represent a new year.

Your hypo with made up numbers is why I'm fine with the idea of minimizing debt to go to a law school where biglaw chances are not great. But you really think you want to be paying off 150-200k off of a salary that starts at ~45k?

And for a good chunk of overall law students, small firms aren't even an option. They can choose between contract doc review type work or a non-legal job. For the former, long-term prospect don't increase in time and for the latter the JD will probably end up being more harmful than helpful in finding a non-legal job.

[Nicholasnickynic]

Shocker! Professor at a (barely) TT law school wants to convince you it's actually not a terrible idea to go there and pay his salary with your tuition dollars!

Your argument's reasoning is flawed because your argument presumes that if a person stands to reap benefits from advice given, then said advice has no merit.

He never said his advice has no merit. He is just understandably skeptical of it. If the CEO of a cigarette company gives me an argument as to why cigarettes aren't bad for me, my conclusion isn't that he must be wrong due to his vested interest. But I take his advice with an insanely huge grain of salt.

The comment is sarcastically implying that the exact opposite is true - namely, it IS a terrible idea to go to law school to pay his salary.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't take the professors words with a grain of salt...and i'm a 0L but I have a hard time with a lot of people on a pre-law board continually bash the prospects of a law career because....what, some law grads can't secure jobs within 9 months? Neither can a lot of other graduates in other fields. Others argue that the debt doesn't make the expenditure worth it...perhaps this is the case for some but it should be noted that some feel the costs are worth it while accepting the risks involved.

[tttterrific]

I just had an attorney tell me: "If I get two applications: one from Harvard and one from Rutgers and the Harvard kid hasn't passed the bar yet but the Rutgers kid has, the Rutgers kid gets the job. Every time."

This is a common fallacy at TTT schools. People believe that those at Harvard, or T6 schools, or T14 schools, or what have you, are actually less qualified than they are but with better pedigrees. The reality is, they often have more impressive pre-law backgrounds (part of how they got into their school to begin with) and have only added to that in law school. The choice, in this job market, may very well be between a Harvard student and a Rutgers student, but that doesn't mean that only those at lower ranked schools are capable of: passing the bar, having unique work experience, being hard workers, practical lawyering skills, and a dozen other things I often see on TLS in comparisons.

I could be wrong but I don't think Sirhcyam was saying that students from lower ranked schools are the ONLY ones capable of what you've noted...but that it would be Rutgers>Harvard if the Rutgers lawyer has passed bar and is, therefore, ready to work.

Just a general observation. On TLS, these comparisons are almost always Harvard student with nothing else vs. TTT grad who is amazing in every way, which is unrealistic.

Having gone to a TTT, I can say that this sort of wishful thinking, combined with a sense that the TTT students must have some advantage, is prevalent. I can't count the number of times my classmates talked about how people who went to T6 schools were just nerds with no social skills who will be "outlawyered" in the courtroom every day by the TTT grads.

[Nicholasnickynic]

I just had an attorney tell me: "If I get two applications: one from Harvard and one from Rutgers and the Harvard kid hasn't passed the bar yet but the Rutgers kid has, the Rutgers kid gets the job. Every time."

This is a common fallacy at TTT schools. People believe that those at Harvard, or T6 schools, or T14 schools, or what have you, are actually less qualified than they are but with better pedigrees. The reality is, they often have more impressive pre-law backgrounds (part of how they got into their school to begin with) and have only added to that in law school. The choice, in this job market, may very well be between a Harvard student and a Rutgers student, but that doesn't mean that only those at lower ranked schools are capable of: passing the bar, having unique work experience, being hard workers, practical lawyering skills, and a dozen other things I often see on TLS in comparisons.

I could be wrong but I don't think Sirhcyam was saying that students from lower ranked schools are the ONLY ones capable of what you've noted...but that it would be Rutgers>Harvard if the Rutgers lawyer has passed bar and is, therefore, ready to work.

Just a general observation. On TLS, these comparisons are almost always Harvard student with nothing else vs. TTT grad who is amazing in every way, which is unrealistic.

Having gone to a TTT, I can say that this sort of wishful thinking, combined with a sense that the TTT students must have some advantage, is prevalent. I can't count the number of times my classmates talked about how people who went to T6 schools were just nerds with no social skills who will be "outlawyered" in the courtroom every day by the TTT grads.

lolcatz

[Nicholasnickynic]

I just had an attorney tell me: "If I get two applications: one from Harvard and one from Rutgers and the Harvard kid hasn't passed the bar yet but the Rutgers kid has, the Rutgers kid gets the job. Every time."

This is a common fallacy at TTT schools. People believe that those at Harvard, or T6 schools, or T14 schools, or what have you, are actually less qualified than they are but with better pedigrees. The reality is, they often have more impressive pre-law backgrounds (part of how they got into their school to begin with) and have only added to that in law school. The choice, in this job market, may very well be between a Harvard student and a Rutgers student, but that doesn't mean that only those at lower ranked schools are capable of: passing the bar, having unique work experience, being hard workers, practical lawyering skills, and a dozen other things I often see on TLS in comparisons.

I could be wrong but I don't think Sirhcyam was saying that students from lower ranked schools are the ONLY ones capable of what you've noted...but that it would be Rutgers>Harvard if the Rutgers lawyer has passed bar and is, therefore, ready to work.

Just a general observation. On TLS, these comparisons are almost always Harvard student with nothing else vs. TTT grad who is amazing in every way, which is unrealistic.

Having gone to a TTT, I can say that this sort of wishful thinking, combined with a sense that the TTT students must have some advantage, is prevalent. I can't count the number of times my classmates talked about how people who went to T6 schools were just nerds with no social skills who will be "outlawyered" in the courtroom every day by the TTT grads.

ALSO:

The amount of being a lawyer that involves being in a court room is small.
The amount of in-court work where what you do has a big impact on the case is even smaller.

I love how it goes both ways:
Elite grads have no social skills (They are just all brains)

Also, its better to take a tier 3 over an elite school in the hypo where the elite didn't pass the bar. But I thought they were all brains??

[somethingsome]

Deleted

[Nicholasnickynic]

I NEVER said that people at "TTT's" would be in any way better off than those at T6's. I am simply arguing that people at lower-ranked schools can still make decent money in the long run.

The point about Harvard and Rutgers was simply to illustrate that a lot of recent law school graduates have not passed the bar. Therefore, there are certain firms that simply will not consider hiring them regardless of their school's reputation.

What?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Xywqv1cDH8

[somethingsome]

Deleted

[romothesavior]

You live and you learn. That's all there is to it.

True. Be thankful for what you have and hope for the best.

LOLOLOLOL you 0Ls get more insufferable every year. You sound like my mother.

[romothesavior]

[quote="Sirhcyam"]
Key word here is "seems." People used to make the same argument about college (maybe some still do). When you compare the medians for someone who gets a job right out of high school to someone who goes to a four year college and then gets a job, the high school graduate actually wins out (or, they are very close) in earnings for the first ten years. I once read that it works something like this:

HS: 30-30-32-34-36-38-40-40-40-40...
College: 0-0-0-0-38-38-42-44-48-50-55...
Law School: 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-45-45-55-60-75...

The numbers represent the salary in thousands, the dashes represent a new year.[/quote]
For someone who demands STATISTICAL evidence, you sure do like to pull stuff out of your ass.

Is your college grad example working as a bartender, or is he just retarded? What the hell is he doing that he's only making 18k more than he was 7 years before? Also you ignore the very strong possibility that a law grad will never work as a lawyer. Many thousands of people are graduating each year with a completely worthless degree.

[bk1]

I NEVER said that people at "TTT's" would be in any way better off than those at T6's. I am simply arguing that people at lower-ranked schools can still make decent money in the long run.

The point about Harvard and Rutgers was simply to illustrate that a lot of recent law school graduates have not passed the bar. Therefore, there are certain firms that simply will not consider hiring them regardless of their school's reputation.

You do realize that higher ranked schools generally have higher bar passage rates, right?

[somethingsome]

Deleted