T6 Law school - hard for lib art grads to regret? Forum

[Action Jackson]

I would argue that the typical LS applicant and attorney is more of a Renaissance Man than are med students and doctors. Its not that I think a JD is going to open a myriad of opportunities, but rather the type of person that is drawn to LS and the legal profession is perhaps more likely to seek out opportunities that they may not have even considered upon entering LS.

I believe that many of us on here are highly intelligent and able to adapt to the ebb and flow of our economy. I am going to LS to become an attorney; however, if I decide a decade from now that I no longer want to be an attorney, what difference does it make.

Yup, definitely a 0L.

[Doodsmack]

If you are like me, I don't see how a T6 school could hurt you, even if you dislike the work and the short-termcareer path of biglaw. (assuming you don't stick with big law...). It seems to be the inevitable pathway. I realize people say "don't go into law if you don't WANT to be a lawyer etc etc etc"...

You, my friend, are making a very questionable assumption. Biglaw is okay even if you dislike it because it's short term? Oh man, I wish you could witness a biglaw associate's life when he/she is extremely busy. You seem to be talking about it casually....just wait until you are in a team meeting and a partner remarks, after setting out a schedule for who's covering which nights, "now at least everyone will have blocks of sleep they can look forward to." You really just have no grasp of what the experience is like.

And to those saying that people who have been paralegals are no better off than people who haven't in terms of having a realistic idea of what being a laywer is like, you must not have been paralegals. No paralegal is going to base his/her idea of what lawyers do off his/her own paralegal tasks. There is abundant opportunity for observation and conversation, and the occasional chance to do actual associate work (even at big firms). And one thing that is abundantly clear to paralegals: associates work more than paralegals do.

[GATORTIM]

Again, the myth is that legal education gives a lawyer some kind of special, magic training that lets them do anything. That just doesn't happen. You see lawyers long term doing all kind of non-legal things because they didn't want to be lawyers anymore, not because they had skills that opened other doors.

AJ, we all agree that a legal education trains you to be an attorney, but some skills developed as an attorney do translate into other occupations. You seem to be a believer in predetermination; that all of us were born to do only one specific job and if someone spends 3 years (because thats what it really boils down to) in LS then they are fuk'd for life if they desire to do something else.

edit: yes, I am a 0L. You keep bringing this up, but how many classes have you taken that teach you anything about the motivations of others attending LS?

[Action Jackson]

Again, the myth is that legal education gives a lawyer some kind of special, magic training that lets them do anything. That just doesn't happen. You see lawyers long term doing all kind of non-legal things because they didn't want to be lawyers anymore, not because they had skills that opened other doors.

AJ, we all agree that a legal education trains you to be an attorney, but some skills developed as an attorney do translate into other occupations. You seem to be a believer in predetermination; that all of us were born to do only one specific job and if someone spends 3 years (because thats what it really boils down to) in LS then they are fuk'd for life if they desire to do something else.

edit: yes, I am a 0L. You keep bringing this up, but how many classes have you taken that teach you anything about the motivations of others attending LS?

I brought up your 0L-ness because 1) you make basic argumentation mistakes, like putting words in my mouth in the quote above ( ) and 2) you have a very naive view of legal education.

No, I don't believe in predetermination. It's ridiculous for you to suggest that's what I've been saying. What I have been saying is that a legal education doesn't give you any sort of broad, magic training that is super portable. Once you get to law school you'll see that first hand.

Does this mean lawyers can never change jobs? Of course not. I never said anything of the sort. If you think I wrote that somewhere then you've got major problems. What I have said is that a law degree does not give lawyers anywhere near the magical portability powers the mythos suggests they have. A law degree prepares you to be lawyer. That's it. Outside the law, you're on your own.

And that is why I made the comparison to dentistry. Dentists can argue that they learned problem solving, analytical skills, person-to-person interaction, management skills, etc. If a dentist wants to go off into another field they're starting from the same point a lawyer is -- usually the ground floor. The only reason you don't see mass exodus from dentistry, like you do with law, is because dental school admissions are much, much more stringent than law school admissions are.

Lots of people say "you can do anything with a law degree," and they're right in so far as a law degree is not an absolute bar to doing other things, but a law degree won't *enable* you to do many things outside the legal profession, and in most cases when a law degree does, it is solely because it is seen as a substitute for a poli-sci masters degree (albeit at a much higher cost). It's important that people understand that, because, as is the point of this thread, lots of people unfortunately don't take the time to really think about what they're going to get out of law school, and then end up f*ed up because of it. People do end up regretting their law degrees. Everyone should make sure they're not one of those people.

[GATORTIM]

Again, the myth is that legal education gives a lawyer some kind of special, magic training that lets them do anything. That just doesn't happen. You see lawyers long term doing all kind of non-legal things because they didn't want to be lawyers anymore, not because they had skills that opened other doors.

AJ, we all agree that a legal education trains you to be an attorney, but some skills developed as an attorney do translate into other occupations. You seem to be a believer in predetermination; that all of us were born to do only one specific job and if someone spends 3 years (because thats what it really boils down to) in LS then they are fuk'd for life if they desire to do something else.

edit: yes, I am a 0L. You keep bringing this up, but how many classes have you taken that teach you anything about the motivations of others attending LS?

I brought up your 0L-ness because 1) you make basic argumentation mistakes, like putting words in my mouth in the quote above ( ) and 2) you have a very naive view of legal education.

No, I don't believe in predetermination. It's ridiculous for you to suggest that's what I've been saying. What I have been saying is that a legal education doesn't give you any sort of broad, magic training that is super portable. Once you get to law school you'll see that first hand.

Does this mean lawyers can never change jobs? Of course not. I never said anything of the sort. If you think I wrote that somewhere then you've got major problems. What I have said is that a law degree does not give lawyers anywhere near the magical portability powers the mythos suggests they have. A law degree prepares you to be lawyer. That's it. Outside the law, you're on your own.

And that is why I made the comparison to dentistry. Dentists can argue that they learned problem solving, analytical skills, person-to-person interaction, management skills, etc. If a dentist wants to go off into another field they're starting from the same point a lawyer is -- usually the ground floor. The only reason you don't see mass exodus from dentistry, like you do with law, is because dental school admissions are much, much more stringent than law school admissions are.

Lots of people say "you can do anything with a law degree," and they're right in so far as a law degree is not an absolute bar to doing other things, but a law degree won't *enable* you to do many things outside the legal profession, and in most cases when a law degree does, it is solely because it is seen as a substitute for a poli-sci masters degree (albeit at a much higher cost). It's important that people understand that, because, as is the point of this thread, lots of people unfortunately don't take the time to really think about what they're going to get out of law school, and then end up f*ed up because of it. People do end up regretting their law degrees. Everyone should make sure they're not one of those people.

I may be a 0L, but I would be willing to bet that I have a shitton more experience than you do. You are dead wrong if you think a dentist that exits the dentistry field to pursue a non-dentistry field is tantamount to an attorney pursuing a non-legal job. When companies vet a candidate for employment they try to select the candidate who adds the most value to their organization. I seriously doubt, ceteris paribus, that a candidate w/ a JD is going to be held in the same light as one with a DDS. Hiring managers and HR personnel are not going to hire the JD b/c he can dissect case law, but rather b/c his interest most likely parallel the opportunities which the company can provide.

[Action Jackson]

I may be a 0L, but I would be willing to bet that I have a shitton more experience than you do. You are dead wrong if you think a dentist that exits the dentistry field to pursue a non-dentistry field is tantamount to an attorney pursuing a non-legal job. When companies vet a candidate for employment they try to select the candidate who adds the most value to their organization. I seriously doubt, ceteris paribus, that a candidate w/ a JD is going to be held in the same light as one with a DDS. Hiring managers and HR personnel are not going to hire the JD b/c he can dissect case law, but rather b/c his interest most likely parallel the opportunities which the company can provide.

I don't even understand what your point is now. What is it you're arguing? The bolded portion outright admits that a lawyer's legal training is irrelevant to their being hired. That's 100% in line with what I've been saying. If a dentist and a lawyer walk in the door to Company X and neither's training has anything to do with the job they are applying for then they're on the same level. Which you say is "dead wrong" but do not give any explanation or support of (another 0L tip off). You're going to have to EXPLAIN what it is you're actually saying, because, prima facie, you're agree with me. (Btw, throwing Latin in there doesn't suddenly make me think you're super smart and making an excellent argument. Now, if you had used "heretofore" and "whereas"... )

[GATORTIM]

haha, you seem to be hung on my 0L status; I thought maybe some Latin would make you feel like you were having a discussion with one of your 1L counterparts.

[T14_Scholly]

haha, you seem to be hung on my 0L status; I thought maybe some Latin would make you feel like you were having a discussion with one of your 1L counterparts.

It kind of just made you seem like Inter Alia Man.

[ToTransferOrNot]

haha, you seem to be hung on my 0L status; I thought maybe some Latin would make you feel like you were having a discussion with one of your 1L counterparts.

Dear God. You're so incredibly full of yourself. And so wrong. /Facepalm

[CordeliusX]

I'm enjoying this thread discussion but as OP I would like to add that I am specifically talking about a T6 school, give or take. I assume having Yale or Chicago or whatever adds a bit of lustre to your resume, in a way which "generic law school" does not. Don't know if that makes a difference, but I've heard some JDs go into consultancies and even ibanks. Probably rarer in the great recession though

[gochrisgo]

.

[Action Jackson]

I'm enjoying this thread discussion but as OP I would like to add that I am specifically talking about a T6 school, give or take. I assume having Yale or Chicago or whatever adds a bit of lustre to your resume, in a way which "generic law school" does not. Don't know if that makes a difference, but I've heard some JDs go into consultancies and even ibanks. Probably rarer in the great recession though

But why would an employer care that you went to Yale if your skills aren't relevant? More importantly, if the job isn't in the legal field, they probably don't know how good Yale actually is. Certainly, a degree from YLS is better than a degree from Bumfuck U, but only marginally, and the degree itself will not necessary get you over the "actually right for this job" hump.

Yes, JDs have previously gone into areas like ibanking, but they usually started with a connection to ibanking before they got their law degree, and as you noted times have changed.

Basically, the warning is: Do not assume over estimate the value of your degree. Especially don't make the mistake of thinking people outside the legal profession care about rankings the same way we all do. If there's a job out there that you want, go ask NOW whether or not a JD would bring value to that position. Tread carefully.

[yabbadabbado]

If you don't have real finance/math skills that you acquired before law school, the odds of you going into an ibank after school are basically nil, t6 school or not.

Consulting firms occasionally hire JDs but they would much rather take someone out of UG or an MBA. At my t14, I haven't met a single person going into consulting after law school.

[DOS]

I'm enjoying this thread discussion but as OP I would like to add that I am specifically talking about a T6 school, give or take. I assume having Yale or Chicago or whatever adds a bit of lustre to your resume, in a way which "generic law school" does not. Don't know if that makes a difference, but I've heard some JDs go into consultancies and even ibanks. Probably rarer in the great recession though

The problem here is that you have limited motivation to do well in law school compared to those with your talents (other T6ers) who are very motivated to be top lawyers. So it is going to be a struggle to be above median let alone get on LR.

ITE it is rare to make to another professional from a top law school, although consulting firms used to hire direct from T6s in the past.


Assuming you did not go to a top 10 UG, you will get a huge bump in employability and prestige. However, CCN knows this and charges you through the nose (pure economic rent if you have taken an econ course) for the privilege. This means you pay for prestige bump with an 80 hour workweek.

If you would rather work 80 hours a week at a detail and research oriented job rather than your present circumstances then I say go for it. Just realize b/c of the high tuition it is a trade off rather than an unalloyed personal win.