Going to Law School but don't plan on becoming a lawyer Forum

[Solidus]

I was just wondering what percent of law students actually don't plan on practicing law, because I have heard some law school deans use this as an excuse for employment data.

[nickb285]

.

[politics89]

Varies, but it's directly proportional to the percentage of idiots at a given law school.

Not entirely true, for a lot of govenment work a law degree can be very helpful and even necessary or if someone wants to go a more academic route. These people can fall into the "JD Prefered" category as opposed to the "JD required" thus lowering some employment rates, however, I think LST breaks down that category as well. I doubt its a high enough percent to make a huge difference though.

As for anyone who wants to go to law school to be a businessman or something like that, than sure thats dumb.

[nickb285]

.

[politics89]

I wouldn't consider wanting to work in government a "niche" job.

I agree that deans are using it as a bs excuse but mainly in lower tier schools. I bet at least most of the ~8% of graduates from Harvard in JD Advantage and Professional jobs are doing something they want to be doing, probably less true for the ~25% at Cooley.

[nickb285]

.

[PRgradBYU]

Varies, but it's directly proportional to the percentage of idiots at a given law school.

[dsn32]

I've heard this is very school specific too (i.e: Georgetown employment stats suffer because of this because a lot of people get JDA jobs based on being the best school in DC). Regardless, it is even more demonstrative of the "T14 or bust" attitude people like to harp on TLS for, and shows that TLS conventional wisdom is even more correct.

[Solidus]

I've heard this is very school specific too (i.e: Georgetown employment stats suffer because of this because a lot of people get JDA jobs based on being the best school in DC). Regardless, it is even more demonstrative of the "T14 or bust" attitude people like to harp on TLS for, and shows that TLS conventional wisdom is even more correct.

JDA?

[politics89]

I've heard this is very school specific too (i.e: Georgetown employment stats suffer because of this because a lot of people get JDA jobs based on being the best school in DC). Regardless, it is even more demonstrative of the "T14 or bust" attitude people like to harp on TLS for, and shows that TLS conventional wisdom is even more correct.

JDA?

JD Advantage

[twenty]

It is far, far easier/less time consuming/less expensive/actually beneficial to do a graduate program in what you want to actually do if you have no interest practicing law. If you just want to be able to say that you went to Harvard and work in policy, go do their MPA program. 30% acceptance rate, not even kidding.

[0831kf]

Varies, but it's directly proportional to the percentage of idiots at a given law school.

Minus Harvard and Yale (or few other top schools) grads who want to be politicians

[twenty]

Even then that's pretty stupid. At H/S, you're invariably paying sticker, so you're either going to be roped into biglaw (gasp! being an attorney!) or you have to spend the next ten years of your life on LRAP... oh wait, LRAPs for both those schools require something law-related.

The only school where it makes some sense to gun for politics is Yale. But even there, you're stupid to waste an opportunity to gun for SCOTUS clerkships on chasing around volunteer opportunities in DC to hopefully get noticed by a campaign.

[politics89]

Even then that's pretty stupid. At H/S, you're invariably paying sticker, so you're either going to be roped into biglaw (gasp! being an attorney!) or you have to spend the next ten years of your life on LRAP... oh wait, LRAPs for both those schools require something law-related.

The only school where it makes some sense to gun for politics is Yale. But even there, you're stupid to waste an opportunity to gun for SCOTUS clerkships on chasing around volunteer opportunities in DC to hopefully get noticed by a campaign.

Harvard's LRAP doesn't require anything law-related (http://www.law.harvard.edu/current/sfs/ ... pcomp.html)

[twenty]

Harvard's LRAP doesn't require anything law-related (http://www.law.harvard.edu/current/sfs/ ... pcomp.html)

It doesn't require anything law related for non-profits, government, or academia. It does require law-related for private sector spots. Sadly, most political positions do not fall into the first category.

Good catch all the same, though.

[vzapana]

Harvard's LRAP doesn't require anything law-related (http://www.law.harvard.edu/current/sfs/ ... pcomp.html)

It doesn't require anything law related for non-profits, government, or academia. It does require law-related for private sector spots. Sadly, most political positions do not fall into the first category.

How can that possibly be the case if government counts under LIPP?

[twenty]

How can that possibly be the case if government counts under LIPP?

Politics is vastly different than government. Think about it this way -- if you work for the state, the state pays your salary. If you work for the feds, the feds pay your salary. If you work for Bob Robertson for Congress, Bob Robertson pays your salary. He's not the government.

Unless you work for the FEC or congress itself or something, you're not working for the government when you're working "in politics."

[manofjustice]

Varies, but it's directly proportional to the percentage of idiots at a given law school.

TIC.

[politics89]

How can that possibly be the case if government counts under LIPP?

Politics is vastly different than government. Think about it this way -- if you work for the state, the state pays your salary. If you work for the feds, the feds pay your salary. If you work for Bob Robertson for Congress, Bob Robertson pays your salary. He's not the government.

Unless you work for the FEC or congress itself or something, you're not working for the government when you're working "in politics."

This is a bit misleading. If I go work for the campaign of Bob then yes he pays me, but if I work in Bob's cogressional office than Bob doesn't pay me, the government does. I'm a government employee even though I work for one person. They are all given an allowance to hire staff. They couldn't afford to independently employ people.

[vzapana]

How can that possibly be the case if government counts under LIPP?

Politics is vastly different than government. Think about it this way -- if you work for the state, the state pays your salary. If you work for the feds, the feds pay your salary. If you work for Bob Robertson for Congress, Bob Robertson pays your salary. He's not the government.

Unless you work for the FEC or congress itself or something, you're not working for the government when you're working "in politics."

This is a bit misleading. If I go work for the campaign of Bob then yes he pays me, but for example, I work for a Rep in a state leg and he doesn't pay me, the state does. I'm a state employee getting a paycheck from your tax monies.

Yeah I'm not sure there are more campaign workers than there are workers in federal, state and municipal government. And are there really many career campaign workers? I'd imagine many campaign workers quickly transition into government jobs, which would be eligible for LIPP

[twenty]

This is a bit misleading. If I go work for the campaign of Bob then yes he pays me, but if I work in Bob's cogressional office than Bob doesn't pay me, the government does. I'm a government employee even though I work for one person. They are all given an allowance to hire staff. They couldn't afford to independently employ people.

Yeah I'm not sure there are more campaign workers than there are workers in federal, state and municipal government. And are there really many career campaign workers? I'd imagine many campaign workers quickly transition into government jobs, which would be eligible for LIPP

I'm not sure why this is a huge point of contention. If you work for the Bob Robertson campaign, you're supposed to work "in politics" because the entirety of your job is political -- i.e, getting a candidate elected. That's not government. If you work for Congress, even if you report TO a Congressman, you better not be involved in politics during your day job, or you'll be in violation of the Hatch Act. That is government, but is definitely not "working in politics."

I'm pretty sure I was fairly explicit about this.

Unless you work for the FEC or congress itself or something, you're not working for the government when you're working "in politics."

[JJ123]

If you're talking about running for office, then Law makes a ton of sense. Judges, state legislators, senators and congressmen, many if not most are JDs. If you want to work in politics, that's different.

[Samara]

If you're talking about running for office, then Law makes a ton of sense. Judges, state legislators, senators and congressmen, many if not most are JDs. If you want to work in politics, that's different.

This is misleading. Most, if not all, of those people were practicing attorneys first. You should not go to law school if you don't want to be a practicing attorney.

[JJ123]

If you're talking about running for office, then Law makes a ton of sense. Judges, state legislators, senators and congressmen, many if not most are JDs. If you want to work in politics, that's different.

This is misleading. Most, if not all, of those people were practicing attorneys first. You should not go to law school if you don't want to be a practicing attorney.

No, it is not misleading. Look at the background of the Senate and House, see how many people were lawyers. Then see how many went to Yale and Harvard. Then tell me that law school isn't a good way into politics.

I would argue that law school is easily the BEST background to run for political office.

[Samara]

If you're talking about running for office, then Law makes a ton of sense. Judges, state legislators, senators and congressmen, many if not most are JDs. If you want to work in politics, that's different.

This is misleading. Most, if not all, of those people were practicing attorneys first. You should not go to law school if you don't want to be a practicing attorney.

No, it is not misleading. Look at the background of the Senate and House, see how many people were lawyers. Then see how many went to Yale and Harvard. Then tell me that law school isn't a good way into politics.

I would argue that law school is easily the BEST background to run for political office.

Being a lawyer is a good background, but just going to law school will confer little benefit. Good attorneys are well-respected in their communities, gain valuable ties donors through their work, often get in the news because of their work, and have a level of schedule flexibility that is rarely found. Concurrently, going to a top law school will help you get that high-profile work and connections. Those are all things that give you an advantage in politics, which come only from being an actual lawyer, not from law school. Can you find me some politicians who went to law school, but did not become a successful lawyer first? (No, Mitt Romney doesn't count. He got a JD/MBA and became one of the most successful businessmen in the world before running for office.)

I mean, unless you're the next Chuck Schumer, you're going to have to have an actual job for a while before you start getting elected to something.