Should I hold my future for my BF?? Forum

[DELG]

No aspect of life (wedding planning, pregnancy, young children) can't be shared with school or work. If you think you can't plan a wedding while being a law student, there is no way you can pull off being a working mom.

[AReasonableMan]

Also, excuse double post, but:

That part is obviously up to you entirely, but he is correct that if you want to get married and have kids, law school would be a significant hindrance.

So again, I've said a lot, but I'd only weigh up your desire for a career and for a family - pursuing your current career goals would impede familial goals and vice versa, so that's something to consider. Doing both is possible, but you're BF is right that they aren't both very practical.

What???????????

The OP mentioned having kids. The OP is 25, and plans on two years of undergrad and three of law school, making the OP at least in her 30s when she starts law school. Can you imagine a junior associate taking large amounts of time off every couple years for maternity and still being very successful? It's hard enough as it is to be successful without the issues of pregnancy, childbirth, and maternity leave in the mix. It's also medically not advisable (though still possible) to start having kids after 35. The older a woman is, the greater the likelihood for complications.

Below is a link for just one example, but there are many other kinds of birth complications that become increasingly more likely as a woman becomes older.

http://www.ds-health.com/risk.htm

As I said, this is a concern for the OP to weigh. She could still quite reasonably decide f-all and still go ahead with her plans of law school and becoming a mother, but it should not presented as if it is of little difference. Like I said, there's no reason her career plans should complicate plans for marriage - but I can easily see how her career plans would make her plans for raising a family more difficult.

Your math doesn't add up....if she's 25 now and has 2 years of undergrad left, wouldn't she start law school at 27?

Also female associates have children all the time......this isn't the 1980s.

It should be added that I have multiple friends who had children during law school as 2Ls and 3Ls, and even more who had children as young associates. They all seem to be doing just fine.

Yeah, I think the post I quoted is exaggerating the risks here. Professional women like biglaw associates have kids all the time. There's a reason firms offer maternity leave. And people have kids while in law school (and even after age 35). To the extent that mommy-tracking and schedule conflicts with child care and so on is a concern, that's not limited to law - any woman who works has to deal with these things, but they're not good reasons not to have kids if you want kids. They're reasons to make sure your partner is on your side and fully invested in child care/parenting. There's no need to choose between going to law school and having children.

Yeah. You really have to go person specific when you consider the difficulty of these situations. The average person, male or female, wouldn't be able to get into a good law school or be able to do well enough in law school to get a job as an associate so we're already speaking about an unrepresentative sample that by and large filters out people who are lazy, dysfunctional or stupid. In addition, you have to be really good at delaying the need for instant gratification to have gotten the degree and the job. Thus, a significant percentage of the people who would be terrible parents are already eliminated. There are definitely challenges mothers in big law face, but they're also likelier to be uniquely talented enough to succeed both professionally and personally than average people. Lastly, big law is a disproportionately intense sector of the legal market, and is unrepresentative of lawyers as a whole.

[Troianii]

Also, excuse double post, but:

That part is obviously up to you entirely, but he is correct that if you want to get married and have kids, law school would be a significant hindrance.

So again, I've said a lot, but I'd only weigh up your desire for a career and for a family - pursuing your current career goals would impede familial goals and vice versa, so that's something to consider. Doing both is possible, but you're BF is right that they aren't both very practical.

What???????????

The OP mentioned having kids. The OP is 25, and plans on two years of undergrad and three of law school, making the OP at least in her 30s when she starts law school. Can you imagine a junior associate taking large amounts of time off every couple years for maternity and still being very successful? It's hard enough as it is to be successful without the issues of pregnancy, childbirth, and maternity leave in the mix. It's also medically not advisable (though still possible) to start having kids after 35. The older a woman is, the greater the likelihood for complications.

Below is a link for just one example, but there are many other kinds of birth complications that become increasingly more likely as a woman becomes older.

http://www.ds-health.com/risk.htm

As I said, this is a concern for the OP to weigh. She could still quite reasonably decide f-all and still go ahead with her plans of law school and becoming a mother, but it should not presented as if it is of little difference. Like I said, there's no reason her career plans should complicate plans for marriage - but I can easily see how her career plans would make her plans for raising a family more difficult.

Your math doesn't add up....if she's 25 now and has 2 years of undergrad left, wouldn't she start law school at 27?

Also female associates have children all the time......this isn't the 1980s.

It should be added that I have multiple friends who had children during law school as 2Ls and 3Ls, and even more who had children as young associates. They all seem to be doing just fine.

I didn't think I needed to me ton that law school is normally three years. I can't imagine the woman who would go through 1L carrying a baby - give her an award. That's two high levels of stress compounding each other.

And like I said, just as it really wouldn't be advisable to start having kids during law school, it would be as a junior associate. Sure, you COULD do it - but expect your career to suffer. Let's not pretend like carrying a baby is like carrying a laptop bag - it's going to affect you.

[Troianii]

Also, excuse double post, but:

That part is obviously up to you entirely, but he is correct that if you want to get married and have kids, law school would be a significant hindrance.

So again, I've said a lot, but I'd only weigh up your desire for a career and for a family - pursuing your current career goals would impede familial goals and vice versa, so that's something to consider. Doing both is possible, but you're BF is right that they aren't both very practical.

What???????????

The OP mentioned having kids. The OP is 25, and plans on two years of undergrad and three of law school, making the OP at least in her 30s when she starts law school. Can you imagine a junior associate taking large amounts of time off every couple years for maternity and still being very successful? It's hard enough as it is to be successful without the issues of pregnancy, childbirth, and maternity leave in the mix. It's also medically not advisable (though still possible) to start having kids after 35. The older a woman is, the greater the likelihood for complications.

Below is a link for just one example, but there are many other kinds of birth complications that become increasingly more likely as a woman becomes older.

http://www.ds-health.com/risk.htm

As I said, this is a concern for the OP to weigh. She could still quite reasonably decide f-all and still go ahead with her plans of law school and becoming a mother, but it should not presented as if it is of little difference. Like I said, there's no reason her career plans should complicate plans for marriage - but I can easily see how her career plans would make her plans for raising a family more difficult.

Your math doesn't add up....if she's 25 now and has 2 years of undergrad left, wouldn't she start law school at 27?

Also female associates have children all the time......this isn't the 1980s.

It should be added that I have multiple friends who had children during law school as 2Ls and 3Ls, and even more who had children as young associates. They all seem to be doing just fine.

Yeah, I think the post I quoted is exaggerating the risks here. Professional women like biglaw associates have kids all the time. There's a reason firms offer maternity leave. And people have kids while in law school (and even after age 35). To the extent that mommy-tracking and schedule conflicts with child care and so on is a concern, that's not limited to law - any woman who works has to deal with these things, but they're not good reasons not to have kids if you want kids. They're reasons to make sure your partner is on your side and fully invested in child care/parenting. There's no need to choose between going to law school and having children.

You're right, but there is a world of difference between having *A* career and having kids vs having a high demand career and raising kids. It's very doable to be a pregnant teacher - but being a pregnant lawyer is much more demanding. I just look at it like this - dudes find law school and being a junior associate very demanding, to the extent that many (at least for 1L) put relationships on the back burner. Being pregnant and raising kids is far more demanding. It can be done, but it certainly isn't for everyone.

[Troianii]

Also, excuse double post, but:

That part is obviously up to you entirely, but he is correct that if you want to get married and have kids, law school would be a significant hindrance.

So again, I've said a lot, but I'd only weigh up your desire for a career and for a family - pursuing your current career goals would impede familial goals and vice versa, so that's something to consider. Doing both is possible, but you're BF is right that they aren't both very practical.

What???????????

The OP mentioned having kids. The OP is 25, and plans on two years of undergrad and three of law school, making the OP at least in her 30s when she starts law school. Can you imagine a junior associate taking large amounts of time off every couple years for maternity and still being very successful? It's hard enough as it is to be successful without the issues of pregnancy, childbirth, and maternity leave in the mix. It's also medically not advisable (though still possible) to start having kids after 35. The older a woman is, the greater the likelihood for complications.

Below is a link for just one example, but there are many other kinds of birth complications that become increasingly more likely as a woman becomes older.

http://www.ds-health.com/risk.htm

As I said, this is a concern for the OP to weigh. She could still quite reasonably decide f-all and still go ahead with her plans of law school and becoming a mother, but it should not presented as if it is of little difference. Like I said, there's no reason her career plans should complicate plans for marriage - but I can easily see how her career plans would make her plans for raising a family more difficult.

Your math doesn't add up....if she's 25 now and has 2 years of undergrad left, wouldn't she start law school at 27?

Also female associates have children all the time......this isn't the 1980s.

It should be added that I have multiple friends who had children during law school as 2Ls and 3Ls, and even more who had children as young associates. They all seem to be doing just fine.

Yeah, I think the post I quoted is exaggerating the risks here. Professional women like biglaw associates have kids all the time. There's a reason firms offer maternity leave. And people have kids while in law school (and even after age 35). To the extent that mommy-tracking and schedule conflicts with child care and so on is a concern, that's not limited to law - any woman who works has to deal with these things, but they're not good reasons not to have kids if you want kids. They're reasons to make sure your partner is on your side and fully invested in child care/parenting. There's no need to choose between going to law school and having children.

Yeah. You really have to go person specific when you consider the difficulty of these situations. The average person, male or female, wouldn't be able to get into a good law school or be able to do well enough in law school to get a job as an associate so we're already speaking about an unrepresentative sample that by and large filters out people who are lazy, dysfunctional or stupid. In addition, you have to be really good at delaying the need for instant gratification to have gotten the degree and the job. Thus, a significant percentage of the people who would be terrible parents are already eliminated. There are definitely challenges mothers in big law face, but they're also likelier to be uniquely talented enough to succeed both professionally and personally than average people. Lastly, big law is a disproportionately intense sector of the legal market, and is unrepresentative of lawyers as a whole.

My understanding is that biglaw is far more demanding, but that the first couple years as a junior associate are (by comparison to workers in general) demanding even outside of biglaw. Most people working 50hrs a week (not big law) would consider it incredibly demanding to do that and carry a kid. I've known at least one woman who did that, but to be honest her job wasn't so high demanding. She was an office assistant and her work wasn't as high stress/demanding as I'd expect any junior associate to bear, and she struggled with it - and she was something special for doing both without cutting back on work.

Like I said, it's doable - and as you say, most women who go to big law are in some way more likely to handle heavy burdens - but I doubt that that is even the normal or "average" woman in her first couple years of big law who can handle the workload (without cutting back) and carrying a child. It's possible, I've said that all along, but I wouldn't encourage people to push themselves to anything that is possible. Like I said, most people find being a junior attorney enough of a stress that other things - like relationships - take a backseat. You can't really make a pregnancy take a back seat. In MOST cases, one of the two has got to give - the work or the pregnancy.

Again, it's doable, but no one here should be suggesting that it won't be rough. Rough as hell. It'll obviously be harder than being a first year attorney and balancing a relationship with a bf/gf, which a lot of people have a tough time with.

[aspire2esquire]

Crucial questions:

Can you get a legit job after college graduation?
How good are your summer internship prospects?
Is your boyfriend going to marry you?
How are you going to support yourself after college?

[A. Nony Mouse]

Troianii, when should a woman who goes to law school shooting for biglaw have kids, then? What about a man?

[cbbinnyc]

Obviously previous posters have laid out quite a few factors to consider. It seems like your first step should be to take the LSAT, after extensive studying, and see how you do. If you don't score well enough to get into HYS or a T14 (or strong regional) with money, it's probably not a good idea unless being a lawyer is the only dream you have in life (and maybe not even then). I know canadian was called out for being "harsh" about your English, but it is something to consider. Having an excellent command of English is crucial.

[emilycx]

Your third year of law school is the closest to not working you'll ever be outside of retirement so there's plenty of time to handle a wedding. I have a friend who planned her wedding while working f/t while studying for the bar, and while not everyone has their sh*t together to that extent, doing 2 of 3 is not outside the realm of possibility. However, if your English isn't that strong, it is probably important for you to realize that your success on the LSAT, law school exams, the bar and practice will be largely contingent on your mastery of the English language. While your bf sounds controlling based on his stated reasons for not wanting you to go to law school, it's possible he doesn't have the heart to tell you he's not comfortable with you taking out 210k in debt. Once you are married, your debt will become his debt. After all, marriage is a union, and part of this union is considering the repercussions that your actions have on your partner.

We talked about it before. He told me he won't pay for my school, because he needs to save money and buy house. When I asked about his opinion on how he manage money after getting marriage, he said he wants to put 80% of his money in joint account and 20% by himself for some reasons...he said it's good for both of us, but that doesn't mean.. he doesn't love me enough. I agree with you that marriage is a union. Maybe you are right, he's worry about the debt. However, if I take the loan under my name, is it on me or both of us after marriage?

[Desert Fox]

[emilycx]

Thank you for all the suggestions!

I will take LSAT first and then decide what the next step. I will definitely go if I get into T14.

[AReasonableMan]

Your third year of law school is the closest to not working you'll ever be outside of retirement so there's plenty of time to handle a wedding. I have a friend who planned her wedding while working f/t while studying for the bar, and while not everyone has their sh*t together to that extent, doing 2 of 3 is not outside the realm of possibility. However, if your English isn't that strong, it is probably important for you to realize that your success on the LSAT, law school exams, the bar and practice will be largely contingent on your mastery of the English language. While your bf sounds controlling based on his stated reasons for not wanting you to go to law school, it's possible he doesn't have the heart to tell you he's not comfortable with you taking out 210k in debt. Once you are married, your debt will become his debt. After all, marriage is a union, and part of this union is considering the repercussions that your actions have on your partner.

We talked about it before. He told me he won't pay for my school, because he needs to save money and buy house. When I asked about his opinion on how he manage money after getting marriage, he said he wants to put 80% of his money in joint account and 20% by himself for some reasons...he said it's good for both of us, but that doesn't mean.. he doesn't love me enough. I agree with you that marriage is a union. Maybe you are right, he's worry about the debt. However, if I take the loan under my name, is it on me or both of us after marriage?

If you're married, it's basically immaterial whose name the debt is in. Either way, you're going to have to pay back your student loans. Let's say you bring in 200k as a couple, and put 25k into repayment per year. If it comes out of your salary or his salary is immaterial: you lose 25k as a couple per year. IDK what the rules would be if you defaulted so would defer to someone else, but my assumption would be that the government could step into your shoes, which would have an impact on him. I do know that where both parties earn six figure incomes and aren't investing a significant portion of their income, it is generally more tax efficient to just be religiously and not legally married.

I don't think that keeping some finances in a separate account or being against your going to law school necessarily have any correlation with how much he loves you. Loving someone isn't necessarily synonymous with agreeing with every decision they make. However, it's abnormal he planned out the bank accounts already. He could just be a weird person though.

[Desert Fox]

[AReasonableMan]

Your third year of law school is the closest to not working you'll ever be outside of retirement so there's plenty of time to handle a wedding. I have a friend who planned her wedding while working f/t while studying for the bar, and while not everyone has their sh*t together to that extent, doing 2 of 3 is not outside the realm of possibility. However, if your English isn't that strong, it is probably important for you to realize that your success on the LSAT, law school exams, the bar and practice will be largely contingent on your mastery of the English language. While your bf sounds controlling based on his stated reasons for not wanting you to go to law school, it's possible he doesn't have the heart to tell you he's not comfortable with you taking out 210k in debt. Once you are married, your debt will become his debt. After all, marriage is a union, and part of this union is considering the repercussions that your actions have on your partner.

We talked about it before. He told me he won't pay for my school, because he needs to save money and buy house. When I asked about his opinion on how he manage money after getting marriage, he said he wants to put 80% of his money in joint account and 20% by himself for some reasons...he said it's good for both of us, but that doesn't mean.. he doesn't love me enough. I agree with you that marriage is a union. Maybe you are right, he's worry about the debt. However, if I take the loan under my name, is it on me or both of us after marriage?

If you're married, it's basically immaterial whose name the debt is in. Either way, you're going to have to pay back your student loans. Let's say you bring in 200k as a couple, and put 25k into repayment per year. If it comes out of your salary or his salary is immaterial: you lose 25k as a couple per year. IDK what the rules would be if you defaulted so would defer to someone else, but my assumption would be that the government could step into your shoes, which would have an impact on him.

I don't think that keeping some finances in a separate account or being against your going to law school necessarily have any correlation with how much he loves you. Loving someone isn't necessarily synonymous with agreeing with every decision they make. However, it's abnormal he planned out the bank accounts already. He could just be a weird person though.

I think he's just saying he wants some "walking around" money. Which is a bit weird, but might also be credited. A lot of couple fight over little spending. WHAT YOU BOUGHT AN XBOX??!?!@ WHAT YOU SPENT 300 dollars on MAKEUP. Or it could be prostitute money. Who knows.

The cynic in me would think he plans on pretending to make significantly less than he actually does, and keeping all that money in a separate account so as to shield himself in the event of divorce. Lucky for OP these forums are archived so she has some nice evidence to dangle during settlement negotiations should they arise.

[pleadthafif]

Post removed...

[emkay625]

I don't think the money thing is weird at first glance. However, it seems shitty to tell your gf they can't go to law school, and thus prevent them from taking a potential path to achieving a salary as high as yours, and then say you won't share money if you get married.

In other words, he can't actively work to hold her back and then simultaneously say we should have separate finances. He gets one or the other, not both.

I still think it's shitty to say if you go to law school I won't marry you for 8 years. OP your bf seems controlling. Get out now.

[totesTheGoat]

The happiest couple I know keep their money separate. They deposit their pay checks in separate accounts and they each pay half of mutual bills like mortgage, groceries, utilities, etc. I think it's brilliant.

Sometimes I wish my wife and I did that. Other times I wonder what the point of getting married is when you just treat yourselves like roommates with benefits.

Personal musings aside, I agree with the BF that OP needs to have some sort of idea of what law she wants to practice. Beyond that, the BF's actions seem to indicate that he's pessimistic about OP's chances in law school. If he were optimistic, he'd see law school as an investment and be willing to help pay off the loans at some point. Sounds like BF wants to settle down, and doesn't really want do deal with another 5 years of school only to be followed by the gf/wife working those jr. associate hours. Can't say I blame him.

I also agree that BF sounds controlling, but I can't tell how much of that is because of OP's narrative and how much is actually a controlling BF. My advice to the OP is to attempt to step out of her current situation and look through a 5-10 year lens. In 5-10 years, where does OP want her life to be? What are the important things that come to mind? Is work important? Is having a family important? Is recreation important? Is being married important?

Only once the OP decides where her priorities lie can she determine whether the BF fits into the picture and whether law school fits into the picture.

[Lawdork]

Crucial questions:

Can you get a legit job after college graduation?
How good are your summer internship prospects?
Is your boyfriend going to marry you?
How are you going to support yourself after college?

I have nothing to add here, but your username is 180.

[aspire2esquire]

Crucial questions:

Can you get a legit job after college graduation?
How good are your summer internship prospects?
Is your boyfriend going to marry you?
How are you going to support yourself after college?

I have nothing to add here, but your username is 180.

Thank you. Your post made my day.

[Phoenix97]

Post removed...

[PoopyPants]

Just my personal biased opinion, but I think a girl in her 20's should be brave enough to follow her dreams (assuming, of course, it is really your dream and not under other compulsions). It's not in your 40's when you should probably settle for family or children. If you SO loves you he will respect your aspirations and find ways to sustain and even cement your relationship, and you surely can get married in or right after law school. On the other hand, waiting until 33 is honestly not a great idea for a woman because, unless you are for celibacy, you have much to lose.

40s is way too late to have non retard kids

What an ignorant thing to say.

Just because it didn't seem to work out well for your mother does not mean every other woman is doomed to failure.

Well, while he could have put it more tactfully, he isn't too far off the mark. The risk of Down Syndrome goes from 1:1000 at age 30 to 1:100 at age 40, and then to 1:30 at age 45. So your risk is definitely greater. The fact that 80% of children born with Down Syndrome are born to mothers younger than 35 is mostly because most babies are born to mothers younger than 35.

To the topic of the thread, the BF sounds like a controlling ass. Personally, I don't think you should marry him at all. But that's just my opinion.

[AReasonableMan]

Just my personal biased opinion, but I think a girl in her 20's should be brave enough to follow her dreams (assuming, of course, it is really your dream and not under other compulsions). It's not in your 40's when you should probably settle for family or children. If you SO loves you he will respect your aspirations and find ways to sustain and even cement your relationship, and you surely can get married in or right after law school. On the other hand, waiting until 33 is honestly not a great idea for a woman because, unless you are for celibacy, you have much to lose.

40s is way too late to have non retard kids

What an ignorant thing to say.

Just because it didn't seem to work out well for your mother does not mean every other woman is doomed to failure.

Well, while he could have put it more tactfully, he isn't too far off the mark. The risk of Down Syndrome goes from 1:1000 at age 30 to 1:100 at age 40, and then to 1:30 at age 45. So your risk is definitely greater. The fact that 80% of children born with Down Syndrome are born to mothers younger than 35 is mostly because most babies are born to mothers younger than 35.

To the topic of the thread, the BF sounds like a controlling ass. Personally, I don't think you should marry him at all. But that's just my opinion.

Would freezing the sperm and the egg for when OP is 40 control for the heightened risk? Is it the elevated risk due to the DNA being older or the woman carrying the child being older?

[El Pollito]

haven't old sperm been found to be linked w the autism

[Gray]

.

[PoopyPants]

Just my personal biased opinion, but I think a girl in her 20's should be brave enough to follow her dreams (assuming, of course, it is really your dream and not under other compulsions). It's not in your 40's when you should probably settle for family or children. If you SO loves you he will respect your aspirations and find ways to sustain and even cement your relationship, and you surely can get married in or right after law school. On the other hand, waiting until 33 is honestly not a great idea for a woman because, unless you are for celibacy, you have much to lose.

40s is way too late to have non retard kids

What an ignorant thing to say.

Just because it didn't seem to work out well for your mother does not mean every other woman is doomed to failure.

Well, while he could have put it more tactfully, he isn't too far off the mark. The risk of Down Syndrome goes from 1:1000 at age 30 to 1:100 at age 40, and then to 1:30 at age 45. So your risk is definitely greater. The fact that 80% of children born with Down Syndrome are born to mothers younger than 35 is mostly because most babies are born to mothers younger than 35.

To the topic of the thread, the BF sounds like a controlling ass. Personally, I don't think you should marry him at all. But that's just my opinion.

Would freezing the sperm and the egg for when OP is 40 control for the heightened risk? Is it the elevated risk due to the DNA being older or the woman carrying the child being older?

95 percent of Down syndrome cases are caused by an improper division of chromosome 21. The risk of this increases with maternal age because older eggs are more likely to experience improper cell division. Incidentally, Down syndrome can occur when a sperm cell divides improperly as well.