Is Law School the new "College?" Forum

[Patriot1208]

You took the highest COL city in the entire country, which has also been well documented as paying their public service workers well above other cities, even in CA, and used that as an example?

80,000 dollars in SF is the equivalent of about 38,000 in most midwestern cities according to COL calculators. C'mon now.

Read the posts above. The discussion was about CA specifically. And for those of us living in CA, SF COL is not too far above other CA cities like LA, San Diego, Berkeley, Palo Alto...The point was not about COL anyway, but you're right that anything in SF's probably a high example even for CA, it's just the city I'm most familiar with.

It's the second or third most expensive city in the country (depending on your metric).

According to the federal government pay scale, it is the highest.

[reverendt]

I'm debating whether to go to law school this fall.

I'm sick of the direction most of these discussions go in terms of money/jobs, etc. so PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING.

LAWYERS WONT MAKE MUCH MONEY: If you are going to law school simply for the exclusive title of "Esq.", which allows you to charge $250 per hour in your job, you're an idiot.

You're clearly the most qualified person around here to make that determination.
Thank you for setting us all straight.

If it wasn't for wanna-be 0Ls the rest of us wouldn't know what to do!

[iamcutdacheck]

Yeah, your perspective might be a little different if you had these jobs in CA, the land of fire/police chiefs, city electricians, prison guards, tenured state university professors, etc...making above $100K/year base. On the down side, the state's bankrupt and rapidly becoming a cautionary tale for the future of the US economy...Oh, and these high paying public sector jobs in CA heavily depend on cronyism and/or very restrictive hiring policies. I'd get the hell out of here ASAP if it wasn't my home...

Exactly. The sense of entitlement is insane. With that said, I think that figure of 100k is a bit high.

It definitely seems high, but unfortunately it's not too gross an exaggeration. To be clear, I wasn't talking about entry level, though that's not bad either. Just google CA salaries for the jobs I listed if you're curious. Also, check sfgate for a recent story about SF city electricians, some making above $100K & others close to it, who recently were caught embezzling from the city. CSU and UC professor salaries are public record and you could check them via sfgate too (google "uc salaries"). And I know many high UC tenured prof salaries are base and require very little teaching. It's not like all those profs earning the big bucks bring in a shitload of grants (as some do) to justify their pay either.

The problem with CA is that PD and FD jobs allow almost unlimited overtime to be paid and it is milking the state dry. I have a friend who is a LA County Sheriff and he makes close to $100K a year. This state is indeed on the cusp of financial oblivion and I would urge any prospective law students to avoid any school in the state with the exception of Stanford or Berkeley. CA just sucks right now and will probably suck for a long time. Our budget deficit isn't going anywhere for a long time. Plus, good ole' Arnie just cut pay for state workers, not to mention that almost every government agency in CA is on a hiring freeze, including PD and FD.
The profs making tons of money at CSU's is true as well. I went to CSUN and the profs would complain about their work load to the students, then, as you go to the parking lot, you see them get into a Lexus or BMW and drive away. It just seems like a shitty system....at least at CSUN.

A fellow matador!

Cal State Northridge is the definition of wasteful spending

[GettingReady2010]

This chime in goes for the "is a cop worth $100,000 a year." There is no economic rationale that's equipped to answer that, going completely off the cuff I'd say in SF there is no way in hell the cops are worth that, the city is super safe and peaceful even at its worst. For Oakland, I think 100k should be the entry level. Those cops go into warzones, and lots of them end up dead, I think 4 were killed last year.

The military also goes into warzones, and I'm pretty sure more than four died last year. Yet, they get paid like 30k a year.

If cops are getting 100k a year in SF, that is not because no one will do it for cheaper, it's because it is either A) unionized or B) the public doesn't care how much it spends.

[bilbobaggins]

This chime in goes for the "is a cop worth $100,000 a year." There is no economic rationale that's equipped to answer that, going completely off the cuff I'd say in SF there is no way in hell the cops are worth that, the city is super safe and peaceful even at its worst. For Oakland, I think 100k should be the entry level. Those cops go into warzones, and lots of them end up dead, I think 4 were killed last year.

The military also goes into warzones, and I'm pretty sure more than four died last year. Yet, they get paid like 30k a year.

If cops are getting 100k a year in SF, that is not because no one will do it for cheaper, it's because it is either A) unionized or B) the public doesn't care how much it spends.

Show me an active duty soldier in a war zone only making $30k a year. National guard gives about $20k in bonuses just to enlist. Not to mention free housing, meals, etc. All pay earned in combat zones is also tax free.

[stratocophic]

This chime in goes for the "is a cop worth $100,000 a year." There is no economic rationale that's equipped to answer that, going completely off the cuff I'd say in SF there is no way in hell the cops are worth that, the city is super safe and peaceful even at its worst. For Oakland, I think 100k should be the entry level. Those cops go into warzones, and lots of them end up dead, I think 4 were killed last year.

The military also goes into warzones, and I'm pretty sure more than four died last year. Yet, they get paid like 30k a year.

If cops are getting 100k a year in SF, that is not because no one will do it for cheaper, it's because it is either A) unionized or B) the public doesn't care how much it spends.

Show me an active duty soldier in a war zone only making $30k a year. National guard gives about $20k in bonuses just to enlist. Not to mention free housing, meals, etc. All pay earned in combat zones is also tax free.

That's the significant part. Take-home pay is huge when pretty much every major expense is covered for you, regardless of how low it may seem on the surface.

[GettingReady2010]

This chime in goes for the "is a cop worth $100,000 a year." There is no economic rationale that's equipped to answer that, going completely off the cuff I'd say in SF there is no way in hell the cops are worth that, the city is super safe and peaceful even at its worst. For Oakland, I think 100k should be the entry level. Those cops go into warzones, and lots of them end up dead, I think 4 were killed last year.

The military also goes into warzones, and I'm pretty sure more than four died last year. Yet, they get paid like 30k a year.

If cops are getting 100k a year in SF, that is not because no one will do it for cheaper, it's because it is either A) unionized or B) the public doesn't care how much it spends.

Show me an active duty soldier in a war zone only making $30k a year. National guard gives about $20k in bonuses just to enlist. Not to mention free housing, meals, etc. All pay earned in combat zones is also tax free.

Ok, an E-1 in the USMC gets absolutely no sign on bonus and makes under 20k a year.

[bilbobaggins]

This chime in goes for the "is a cop worth $100,000 a year." There is no economic rationale that's equipped to answer that, going completely off the cuff I'd say in SF there is no way in hell the cops are worth that, the city is super safe and peaceful even at its worst. For Oakland, I think 100k should be the entry level. Those cops go into warzones, and lots of them end up dead, I think 4 were killed last year.

The military also goes into warzones, and I'm pretty sure more than four died last year. Yet, they get paid like 30k a year.

If cops are getting 100k a year in SF, that is not because no one will do it for cheaper, it's because it is either A) unionized or B) the public doesn't care how much it spends.

Show me an active duty soldier in a war zone only making $30k a year. National guard gives about $20k in bonuses just to enlist. Not to mention free housing, meals, etc. All pay earned in combat zones is also tax free.

Ok, an E-1 in the USMC gets absolutely no sign on bonus and makes under 20k a year.

You can correct me if I'm wrong, but very few individuals are E-1s for over 6 months and very few individuals will be in war zones in the first 6 months (given that training is roughly 4 months if you do not specialize). When you factor in free housing, meals, etc and taking home 100% of any money earned in a month where the marine is in a combat zone, an 18 year old E-1 is definitely making more than any cop of the same level of experience.

[Patriot1208]

The military also goes into warzones, and I'm pretty sure more than four died last year. Yet, they get paid like 30k a year.

If cops are getting 100k a year in SF, that is not because no one will do it for cheaper, it's because it is either A) unionized or B) the public doesn't care how much it spends.

Show me an active duty soldier in a war zone only making $30k a year. National guard gives about $20k in bonuses just to enlist. Not to mention free housing, meals, etc. All pay earned in combat zones is also tax free.

Ok, an E-1 in the USMC gets absolutely no sign on bonus and makes under 20k a year.

You can correct me if I'm wrong, but very few individuals are E-1s for over 6 months and very few individuals will be in war zones in the first 6 months (given that training is roughly 4 months if you do not specialize). When you factor in free housing, meals, etc and taking home 100% of any money earned in a month where the marine is in a combat zone, an 18 year old E-1 is definitely making more than any cop of the same level of experience.

Yes but you can hover around E-2 to E-3 for awhile. Also, although it doesn't say it on it's website, police departments like San Franciscon almost uniformely take only those with college degrees. They don't "require" it but there are so many applicants that unless you have something else seperating you, like 8 years work experience in a smaller PD, than you are likely not getting hired on. And an E-1 Marine is someone directly out of highschool with no real work experience.

[GettingReady2010]

I don't understand the outrageous salary of biglaw associates or SF cops. There is so much competition for these jobs, yet the pay keeps going up.

[drdolittle]

I don't understand the outrageous salary of biglaw associates or SF cops. There is so much competition for these jobs, yet the pay keeps going up.

The issue with law is that the education today costs so much, which is one reason why starting biglaw salaries are so high. It's not surprising though that many biglaw associates bolt for in-house counsel jobs for less money, but generally better QOL, once their loans are paid off and they have enough experience to make the switch.

[GettingReady2010]

I don't understand the outrageous salary of biglaw associates or SF cops. There is so much competition for these jobs, yet the pay keeps going up.

The issue with law is that the education today costs so much, which is one reason why starting biglaw salaries are so high. It's not surprising though that many biglaw associates bolt for in-house counsel jobs for less money, but generally better QOL, once their loans are paid off and they have enough experience to make the switch.

Yes, but that's not a firm's problem. It seems like firms that usually start their associates at 160 could easily lower it to 120 and they would still get flooded with highly qualified applicants. I'm obviously missing something, because if firms could do this, they would.

[Pizon]

Somewhat off topic, but my friends who either have just a high school degree or some credits at a community college refer to law school as "college."

They also refer to all law school-owned housing as "dorms."

[waitlisted1]

I'm debating whether to go to law school this fall.

I'm sick of the direction most of these discussions go in terms of money/jobs, etc. so PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING.

LAWYERS WONT MAKE MUCH MONEY: If you are going to law school simply for the exclusive title of "Esq.", which allows you to charge $250 per hour in your job, you're an idiot.

You're clearly the most qualified person around here to make that determination.
Thank you for setting us all straight.

If it wasn't for wanna-be 0Ls the rest of us wouldn't know what to do!

While that might have been harsh, I've worked in a law firm for a few years now. In fact, I'd think I'm more qualified to say that than some 1L or 2L who went straight into law school after college and has no real-world experience. Talk to any lawyer, especially the young ones and they'll back me up on what I said.

Your opinion of my qualifications does not effect the truth/falsity of my statement. You would have made more of a point by proving that my statement was wrong than just by saying that I'm not qualified to say that.

[waitlisted1]

Somewhat off topic, but my friends who either have just a high school degree or some credits at a community college refer to law school as "college."

They also refer to all law school-owned housing as "dorms."

No, actually you are right on topic. However, I was kind of hoping for more opinions of law school graduates/current students. But yea, your post was on topic and supports my point that at least alot of the younger generation (I prob only have a few years on you) is looking at law school like another college.

The posts about the California PD are a little off topic, but they do touch on a point made in the original post...and it was somewhat productive in that they kind of came to some sort of conclusion (that SF cops have it prettyyy nice).

[GettingReady2010]

Somewhat off topic, but my friends who either have just a high school degree or some credits at a community college refer to law school as "college."

They also refer to all law school-owned housing as "dorms."

No, actually you are right on topic. However, I was kind of hoping for more opinions of law school graduates/current students. But yea, your post was on topic and supports my point that at least alot of the younger generation (I prob only have a few years on you) is looking at law school like another college.

The posts about the California PD are a little off topic, but they do touch on a point made in the original post...and it was somewhat productive in that they kind of came to some sort of conclusion (that SF cops have it prettyyy nice).

The truth is that higher education has become the norm. Think about our parents' generation (assuming you're 20 something), college in general was kind of a big deal. Now college seems basically like an extension of high school while law school is like college. What's next? Will getting your PhD be the norm?

[legalease9]

Somewhat off topic, but my friends who either have just a high school degree or some credits at a community college refer to law school as "college."

They also refer to all law school-owned housing as "dorms."

No, actually you are right on topic. However, I was kind of hoping for more opinions of law school graduates/current students. But yea, your post was on topic and supports my point that at least alot of the younger generation (I prob only have a few years on you) is looking at law school like another college.

The posts about the California PD are a little off topic, but they do touch on a point made in the original post...and it was somewhat productive in that they kind of came to some sort of conclusion (that SF cops have it prettyyy nice).

The truth is that higher education has become the norm. Think about our parents' generation (assuming you're 20 something), college in general was kind of a big deal. Now college seems basically like an extension of high school while law school is like college. What's next? Will getting your PhD be the norm?

It wouldn't suprise me, or at least masters/professional degrees. With the federal student loan system (which I love don't get me wrong), Its becoming easier and easier to fund more and more education. It used to be that if you couldn't come up with the tuition money, you couldn't go to College. Now everyone has the ability (albiet with debt) to go to college for as long as they want.

[GettingReady2010]

Somewhat off topic, but my friends who either have just a high school degree or some credits at a community college refer to law school as "college."

They also refer to all law school-owned housing as "dorms."

No, actually you are right on topic. However, I was kind of hoping for more opinions of law school graduates/current students. But yea, your post was on topic and supports my point that at least alot of the younger generation (I prob only have a few years on you) is looking at law school like another college.

The posts about the California PD are a little off topic, but they do touch on a point made in the original post...and it was somewhat productive in that they kind of came to some sort of conclusion (that SF cops have it prettyyy nice).

The truth is that higher education has become the norm. Think about our parents' generation (assuming you're 20 something), college in general was kind of a big deal. Now college seems basically like an extension of high school while law school is like college. What's next? Will getting your PhD be the norm?

It wouldn't suprise me, or at least masters/professional degrees. With the federal student loan system (which I love don't get me wrong), Its becoming easier and easier to fund more and more education. It used to be that if you couldn't come up with the tuition money, you couldn't go to College. Now everyone has the ability (albiet with debt) to go to college for as long as they want.

There some good and bad things about this. First, it's good because it keeps people out of the workforce which keeps unemployment lower. At the same time, it's bad, because (in general) you're not learning much of anything that you can actually apply in real life. For example, does a business admin major learn anything about how to start up and run a successful business? In fact, I doubt that med students (except for maybe during their residency) learn much that they can actually use while in surgery. Additionally, I'm an 0L so I don't know for sure, but I have a feeling that 85-95% of what I will be learning in law school will not show me how to practice law.

Anyone else feel like education in America (to a certain extent) is a worthless scam?

[bk1]

There some good and bad things about this. First, it's good because it keeps people out of the workforce which keeps unemployment lower. At the same time, it's bad, because (in general) you're not learning much of anything that you can actually apply in real life. For example, does a business admin major learn anything about how to start up and run a successful business? In fact, I doubt that med students (except for maybe during their residency) learn much that they can actually use while in surgery. Additionally, I'm an 0L so I don't know for sure, but I have a feeling that 85-95% of what I will be learning in law school will not show me how to practice law.

Anyone else feel like education in America (to a certain extent) is a worthless scam?

While it may not help people do their jobs, I would prefer a worldly/educated populace to one with purely work-based skills. But hey I'm the kind of Nazi who would force people to become well-versed in world literature and all the sciences if I ran things.

[GettingReady2010]

There some good and bad things about this. First, it's good because it keeps people out of the workforce which keeps unemployment lower. At the same time, it's bad, because (in general) you're not learning much of anything that you can actually apply in real life. For example, does a business admin major learn anything about how to start up and run a successful business? In fact, I doubt that med students (except for maybe during their residency) learn much that they can actually use while in surgery. Additionally, I'm an 0L so I don't know for sure, but I have a feeling that 85-95% of what I will be learning in law school will not show me how to practice law.

Anyone else feel like education in America (to a certain extent) is a worthless scam?

While it may not help people do their jobs, I would prefer a worldly/educated populace to one with purely work-based skills. But hey I'm the kind of Nazi who would force people to become well-versed in world literature and all the sciences if I ran things.

It just seems like education in the U.S. is incorrectly preparing us. For example, lets say for your 3rd year of law school you worked for free at a law firm. That person is going to be much better prepared for the market than someone who sat in a classroom for their 3rd year learning abstract legal theory.

While it may not help people do their jobs, I would prefer a worldly/educated populace to one with purely work-based skills.

Wouldn't you prefer to employ someone who can do the job the best. I would like someone who is most able to increase the profits of my company rather than someone I can discuss Hemingway with by the water cooler.

[bilbobaggins]

There some good and bad things about this. First, it's good because it keeps people out of the workforce which keeps unemployment lower. At the same time, it's bad, because (in general) you're not learning much of anything that you can actually apply in real life. For example, does a business admin major learn anything about how to start up and run a successful business? In fact, I doubt that med students (except for maybe during their residency) learn much that they can actually use while in surgery. Additionally, I'm an 0L so I don't know for sure, but I have a feeling that 85-95% of what I will be learning in law school will not show me how to practice law.

Anyone else feel like education in America (to a certain extent) is a worthless scam?

While it may not help people do their jobs, I would prefer a worldly/educated populace to one with purely work-based skills. But hey I'm the kind of Nazi who would force people to become well-versed in world literature and all the sciences if I ran things.

It just seems like education in the U.S. is incorrectly preparing us. For example, lets say for your 3rd year of law school you worked for free at a law firm. That person is going to be much better prepared for the market than someone who sat in a classroom for their 3rd year learning abstract legal theory.

While it may not help people do their jobs, I would prefer a worldly/educated populace to one with purely work-based skills.

Wouldn't you prefer to employ someone who can do the job the best. I would like someone who is most able to increase the profits of my company rather than someone I can discuss Hemingway with by the water cooler.

False dichotomy of the day (which is tough on TLS).

[bk1]

Wouldn't you prefer to employ someone who can do the job the best. I would like someone who is most able to increase the profits of my company rather than someone I can discuss Hemingway with by the water cooler.

False dichotomy of the day (which is tough on TLS).

Yeah, why can't we have someone who can do both?

[legalease9]

There some good and bad things about this. First, it's good because it keeps people out of the workforce which keeps unemployment lower. At the same time, it's bad, because (in general) you're not learning much of anything that you can actually apply in real life. For example, does a business admin major learn anything about how to start up and run a successful business? In fact, I doubt that med students (except for maybe during their residency) learn much that they can actually use while in surgery. Additionally, I'm an 0L so I don't know for sure, but I have a feeling that 85-95% of what I will be learning in law school will not show me how to practice law.

Anyone else feel like education in America (to a certain extent) is a worthless scam?

While it may not help people do their jobs, I would prefer a worldly/educated populace to one with purely work-based skills. But hey I'm the kind of Nazi who would force people to become well-versed in world literature and all the sciences if I ran things.

It just seems like education in the U.S. is incorrectly preparing us. For example, lets say for your 3rd year of law school you worked for free at a law firm. That person is going to be much better prepared for the market than someone who sat in a classroom for their 3rd year learning abstract legal theory.

While it may not help people do their jobs, I would prefer a worldly/educated populace to one with purely work-based skills.

Wouldn't you prefer to employ someone who can do the job the best. I would like someone who is most able to increase the profits of my company rather than someone I can discuss Hemingway with by the water cooler.

But at the end of the day, college makes you more employable. And Masters degree makes you even more employable than that. So graduating from college shows something to the businesses that makes them think its in their best financial interest to hire you over the high school diploma grad. Why?

I think its for two reasons. I think University, no matter where you go or what you study, will make you a better, clearer writer. There are just too many classes that require writing. Businesses like that.

Secondly I think that, on average, the more education you have, the more obedient to and respectful of authority you are. Whether that is a cause or effect of attendance at College (I tend to think cause) employers like to see that. They want some one who does what they are told.

[GettingReady2010]

There some good and bad things about this. First, it's good because it keeps people out of the workforce which keeps unemployment lower. At the same time, it's bad, because (in general) you're not learning much of anything that you can actually apply in real life. For example, does a business admin major learn anything about how to start up and run a successful business? In fact, I doubt that med students (except for maybe during their residency) learn much that they can actually use while in surgery. Additionally, I'm an 0L so I don't know for sure, but I have a feeling that 85-95% of what I will be learning in law school will not show me how to practice law.

Anyone else feel like education in America (to a certain extent) is a worthless scam?

While it may not help people do their jobs, I would prefer a worldly/educated populace to one with purely work-based skills. But hey I'm the kind of Nazi who would force people to become well-versed in world literature and all the sciences if I ran things.

It just seems like education in the U.S. is incorrectly preparing us. For example, lets say for your 3rd year of law school you worked for free at a law firm. That person is going to be much better prepared for the market than someone who sat in a classroom for their 3rd year learning abstract legal theory.

While it may not help people do their jobs, I would prefer a worldly/educated populace to one with purely work-based skills.

Wouldn't you prefer to employ someone who can do the job the best. I would like someone who is most able to increase the profits of my company rather than someone I can discuss Hemingway with by the water cooler.

But at the end of the day, college makes you more employable. And Masters degree makes you even more employable than that. So graduating from college shows something to the businesses that makes them think its in their best financial interest to hire you over the high school diploma grad. Why?

I think its for two reasons. I think University, no matter where you go or what you study, will make you a better, clearer writer. There are just too many classes that require writing. Businesses like that.

Secondly I think that, on average, the more education you have, the more obedient to and respectful of authority you are. Whether that is a cause or effect of attendance at College (I tend to think cause) employers like to see that. They want some one who does what they are told.

But at the end of the day, college makes you more employable. And Masters degree makes you even more employable than that. So graduating from college shows something to the businesses that makes them think its in their best financial interest to hire you over the high school diploma grad. Why?

I'm not disputing that. Higher education does indeed make you more employable, but I was mainly suggesting that a lot of what you learn is not applicable to the real world (i.e. a lot of theory).

I think its for two reasons. I think University, no matter where you go or what you study, will make you a better, clearer writer. There are just too many classes that require writing. Businesses like that.

This is certainly true, but it seems like writing and the vast majority of things you're taught in college can be learned on your own (maybe even more).

Secondly I think that, on average, the more education you have, the more obedient to and respectful of authority you are. Whether that is a cause or effect of attendance at College (I tend to think cause) employers like to see that. They want some one who does what they are told.

You may be right that employers perceive educated people to be more obedient to authority, but I'm not sure this is completely true. I think often times you'll find that the blue-collar factory worker has a better work ethic than many college grads who think their entitled to being pampered the rest of their life.

[GettingReady2010]

Wouldn't you prefer to employ someone who can do the job the best. I would like someone who is most able to increase the profits of my company rather than someone I can discuss Hemingway with by the water cooler.

False dichotomy of the day (which is tough on TLS).

Yeah, why can't we have someone who can do both?

Of course. I was trying to say that the ability to do one's job (IMO) dwarfs intellectual background. Sure it's better to have both, but the former is vastly more important. I think when hiring people, employers hire individuals almost entirely in an effort to better the company rather than a way to enhance their social life.