Law School and Being a Parent Forum

[Clyde Frog]

.

[Clyde Frog]

Well alright

[A. Nony Mouse]

There's this: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... hilit=Kids

[Clyde Frog]

There's this: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... hilit=Kids

Well that works. Thank you

[secondshot]

I can tell you this. When I had my kids I decided to wait 10 years until I started the LS process. They come first, period. Now that they are over 10 years old each, I can start the process. Under 3? That to me is insane and unfair to the kids that depend on you. Not that 10 year old's don't depend on me, but my kids can handle a little independence the first year of LS and of course my wife will fill in the gaps for us. But under 3? Come on, it's not even a question.

There is no independence at 3 years old, they rely on you 24/7 and those years are so critical to development and being nurtured by a loving parent. The first year in LS is all YOU and you can not compromise the school work (and money spent) by focusing on your children, as harsh as that sounds. Wait until they are older and can handle a year of barely seeing their parent.

This is my humble opinion, I know many can do it successfully, I'm just telling you I think it's bad idea. But that's me, you know your kids and priorities better than I do.

[BigZuck]

I can tell you this. When I had my kids I decided to wait 10 years until I started the LS process. They come first, period. Now that they are over 10 years old each, I can start the process. Under 3? That to me is insane and unfair to the kids that depend on you. Not that 10 year old's don't depend on me, but my kids can handle a little independence the first year of LS and of course my wife will fill in the gaps for us. But under 3? Come on, it's not even a question.

There is no independence at 3 years old, they rely on you 24/7 and those years are so critical to development and being nurtured by a loving parent. The first year in LS is all YOU and you can not compromise the school work (and money spent) by focusing on your children, as harsh as that sounds. Wait until they are older and can handle a year of barely seeing their parent.

This is my humble opinion, I know many can do it successfully, I'm just telling you I think it's bad idea. But that's me, you know your kids and priorities better than I do.

I don't necessarily disagree with your main points but are you basing the selfish time suck of 1L year on personal experience? Cuz I played a hell of a lot of video games this year. Of course there are busy days/weeks and finals time you might have to be a little selfish but if 1L is this all-consuming time suck all the time then you're doing it wrong, IMO. It's much less time consuming than a full time job and people balance those and parenting all the time.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I can tell you this. When I had my kids I decided to wait 10 years until I started the LS process. They come first, period. Now that they are over 10 years old each, I can start the process. Under 3? That to me is insane and unfair to the kids that depend on you. Not that 10 year old's don't depend on me, but my kids can handle a little independence the first year of LS and of course my wife will fill in the gaps for us. But under 3? Come on, it's not even a question.

There is no independence at 3 years old, they rely on you 24/7 and those years are so critical to development and being nurtured by a loving parent. The first year in LS is all YOU and you can not compromise the school work (and money spent) by focusing on your children, as harsh as that sounds. Wait until they are older and can handle a year of barely seeing their parent.

This is my humble opinion, I know many can do it successfully, I'm just telling you I think it's bad idea. But that's me, you know your kids and priorities better than I do.

This comes across as incredibly judgmental. Obviously if you didn't want to do law school with your kids at that age, that's totally golden - your priorities, your choice. But I don't think it's remotely unfair to your kids to go (back) to school when they're under three. Law school isn't some kind of gulag - except for a few weeks around finals, it can easily be accomplished in the same amount of time (or less) as a full-time job, mostly during those hours. Are you saying that someone who works a full-time job with kids under three is being unfair to their kids? They're not going to barely see you during law school.

[Nova]

heres a short old thread on it http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=118766

[MT Cicero]

I can tell you this. When I had my kids I decided to wait 10 years until I started the LS process. They come first, period. Now that they are over 10 years old each, I can start the process. Under 3? That to me is insane and unfair to the kids that depend on you. Not that 10 year old's don't depend on me, but my kids can handle a little independence the first year of LS and of course my wife will fill in the gaps for us. But under 3? Come on, it's not even a question.

There is no independence at 3 years old, they rely on you 24/7 and those years are so critical to development and being nurtured by a loving parent. The first year in LS is all YOU and you can not compromise the school work (and money spent) by focusing on your children, as harsh as that sounds. Wait until they are older and can handle a year of barely seeing their parent.

This is my humble opinion, I know many can do it successfully, I'm just telling you I think it's bad idea. But that's me, you know your kids and priorities better than I do.

This comes across as incredibly judgmental. Obviously if you didn't want to do law school with your kids at that age, that's totally golden - your priorities, your choice. But I don't think it's remotely unfair to your kids to go (back) to school when they're under three. Law school isn't some kind of gulag - except for a few weeks around finals, it can easily be accomplished in the same amount of time (or less) as a full-time job, mostly during those hours. Are you saying that someone who works a full-time job with kids under three is being unfair to their kids? They're not going to barely see you during law school.

Absolutely right. I've been 10+ years in the military and work like crazy when I'm not out of the state or country. I spend quality time with my son whenever I can, but that time can often be limited by work. My son performs great in school and is respectful, sociable and pleasant...everything I could want in a boy. And he somehow managed this while I did tours in Afghanistan & other areas of the Middle East, not to mention working absurd hours while at home.

I made the choice to enter the military, then made the choice (along with my spouse) to have a child while in that life knowing I wouldn't be around terribly often. There is no way 1L could match this type of absenteeism (or even a regular 40-50 hour/week full-time gig with even a marginal commute).

[WhiteyCakes]

I can tell you this. When I had my kids I decided to wait 10 years until I started the LS process. They come first, period. Now that they are over 10 years old each, I can start the process. Under 3? That to me is insane and unfair to the kids that depend on you. Not that 10 year old's don't depend on me, but my kids can handle a little independence the first year of LS and of course my wife will fill in the gaps for us. But under 3? Come on, it's not even a question.

There is no independence at 3 years old, they rely on you 24/7 and those years are so critical to development and being nurtured by a loving parent. The first year in LS is all YOU and you can not compromise the school work (and money spent) by focusing on your children, as harsh as that sounds. Wait until they are older and can handle a year of barely seeing their parent.

This is my humble opinion, I know many can do it successfully, I'm just telling you I think it's bad idea. But that's me, you know your kids and priorities better than I do.

TIL I'm a shitty parent

[Clyde Frog]

I can tell you this. When I had my kids I decided to wait 10 years until I started the LS process. They come first, period. Now that they are over 10 years old each, I can start the process. Under 3? That to me is insane and unfair to the kids that depend on you. Not that 10 year old's don't depend on me, but my kids can handle a little independence the first year of LS and of course my wife will fill in the gaps for us. But under 3? Come on, it's not even a question.

There is no independence at 3 years old, they rely on you 24/7 and those years are so critical to development and being nurtured by a loving parent. The first year in LS is all YOU and you can not compromise the school work (and money spent) by focusing on your children, as harsh as that sounds. Wait until they are older and can handle a year of barely seeing their parent.

This is my humble opinion, I know many can do it successfully, I'm just telling you I think it's bad idea. But that's me, you know your kids and priorities better than I do.

This comes across as incredibly judgmental. Obviously if you didn't want to do law school with your kids at that age, that's totally golden - your priorities, your choice. But I don't think it's remotely unfair to your kids to go (back) to school when they're under three. Law school isn't some kind of gulag - except for a few weeks around finals, it can easily be accomplished in the same amount of time (or less) as a full-time job, mostly during those hours. Are you saying that someone who works a full-time job with kids under three is being unfair to their kids? They're not going to barely see you during law school.

Absolutely right. I've been 10+ years in the military and work like crazy when I'm not out of the state or country. I spend quality time with my son whenever I can, but that time can often be limited by work. My son performs great in school and is respectful, sociable and pleasant...everything I could want in a boy. And he somehow managed this while I did tours in Afghanistan & other areas of the Middle East, not to mention working absurd hours while at home.

I made the choice to enter the military, then made the choice (along with my spouse) to have a child while in that life knowing I wouldn't be around terribly often. There is no way 1L could match this type of absenteeism (or even a regular 40-50 hour/week full-time gig with even a marginal commute).

That's awesome. Thanks for your service. I agree there's no way law school could ever match up to the demands of the military.

[Clyde Frog]

I can tell you this. When I had my kids I decided to wait 10 years until I started the LS process. They come first, period. Now that they are over 10 years old each, I can start the process. Under 3? That to me is insane and unfair to the kids that depend on you. Not that 10 year old's don't depend on me, but my kids can handle a little independence the first year of LS and of course my wife will fill in the gaps for us. But under 3? Come on, it's not even a question.

There is no independence at 3 years old, they rely on you 24/7 and those years are so critical to development and being nurtured by a loving parent. The first year in LS is all YOU and you can not compromise the school work (and money spent) by focusing on your children, as harsh as that sounds. Wait until they are older and can handle a year of barely seeing their parent.

This is my humble opinion, I know many can do it successfully, I'm just telling you I think it's bad idea. But that's me, you know your kids and priorities better than I do.

Don't you think that around the time when your children are becoming teenagers is more critical to their development than when they're drinking bottles? My guys are all under two right now and it's not like I have to worry about them getting pressured to take drugs and alcohol. Basically it comes down to whether they want to watch Yo Gabba Gabba or The Wiggles.

[secondshot]

I digress and I based my assumptions on the input from friends who experienced around the clock work in 1L, but probably because they're anal and work too hard. Listen, I was running the show when my kids were 3 and it was an around the clock position. It's a subjective topic and personal from one person to the next. What I think is a good amount of time raising a child might be different for the next person. I really am sorry if I came across judgmental, it wasn't my intention. By all means, go to LS with three 3 year olds at home. I wish you all the best, sincerely.

[secondshot]

Don't you think that around the time when your children are becoming teenagers is more critical to their development than when they're drinking bottles?

I do not, but again, I'm not you. Whatever works for you is golden. Good luck.

[Charlestonsfb60]

I can tell you this. When I had my kids I decided to wait 10 years until I started the LS process. They come first, period. Now that they are over 10 years old each, I can start the process. Under 3? That to me is insane and unfair to the kids that depend on you. Not that 10 year old's don't depend on me, but my kids can handle a little independence the first year of LS and of course my wife will fill in the gaps for us. But under 3? Come on, it's not even a question.

There is no independence at 3 years old, they rely on you 24/7 and those years are so critical to development and being nurtured by a loving parent. The first year in LS is all YOU and you can not compromise the school work (and money spent) by focusing on your children, as harsh as that sounds. Wait until they are older and can handle a year of barely seeing their parent.

This is my humble opinion, I know many can do it successfully, I'm just telling you I think it's bad idea. But that's me, you know your kids and priorities better than I do.

Don't you think that around the time when your children are becoming teenagers is more critical to their development than when they're drinking bottles? My guys are all under two right now and it's not like I have to worry about them getting pressured to take drugs and alcohol. Basically it comes down to whether they want to watch Yo Gabba Gabba or The Wiggles.

Lol'd so damn hard at this. I know exactly what you mean. But its all about Dora the Explorer

[Clyde Frog]

I can tell you this. When I had my kids I decided to wait 10 years until I started the LS process. They come first, period. Now that they are over 10 years old each, I can start the process. Under 3? That to me is insane and unfair to the kids that depend on you. Not that 10 year old's don't depend on me, but my kids can handle a little independence the first year of LS and of course my wife will fill in the gaps for us. But under 3? Come on, it's not even a question.

There is no independence at 3 years old, they rely on you 24/7 and those years are so critical to development and being nurtured by a loving parent. The first year in LS is all YOU and you can not compromise the school work (and money spent) by focusing on your children, as harsh as that sounds. Wait until they are older and can handle a year of barely seeing their parent.

This is my humble opinion, I know many can do it successfully, I'm just telling you I think it's bad idea. But that's me, you know your kids and priorities better than I do.

Don't you think that around the time when your children are becoming teenagers is more critical to their development than when they're drinking bottles? My guys are all under two right now and it's not like I have to worry about them getting pressured to take drugs and alcohol. Basically it comes down to whether they want to watch Yo Gabba Gabba or The Wiggles.

Lol'd so damn hard at this. I know exactly what you mean. But its all about Dora the Explorer

Lol I have all boys, but nonetheless, Dora is in the mix.

[erythromycin]

Out of curiosity, how is going to law school with kids really any different from working full time with kids? It seems to me that it would be nuts to do it without childcare (you can't just, like, study when your kid is napping or whatever), but as long as your partner picks up the slack during finals/whatever, couldn't you just treat school like you would a job?

It seems in a lot of ways like it's easier than being a junior associate with kids.

[Clyde Frog]

Out of curiosity, how is going to law school with kids really any different from working full time with kids? It seems to me that it would be nuts to do it without childcare (you can't just, like, study when your kid is napping or whatever), but as long as your partner picks up the slack during finals/whatever, couldn't you just treat school like you would a job?

It seems in a lot of ways like it's easier than being a junior associate with kids.

I completely agree.

I take it you like antibiotics?

[klondike5]

I can tell you this. When I had my kids I decided to wait 10 years until I started the LS process. They come first, period. Now that they are over 10 years old each, I can start the process. Under 3? That to me is insane and unfair to the kids that depend on you. Not that 10 year old's don't depend on me, but my kids can handle a little independence the first year of LS and of course my wife will fill in the gaps for us. But under 3? Come on, it's not even a question.

There is no independence at 3 years old, they rely on you 24/7 and those years are so critical to development and being nurtured by a loving parent. The first year in LS is all YOU and you can not compromise the school work (and money spent) by focusing on your children, as harsh as that sounds. Wait until they are older and can handle a year of barely seeing their parent.

This is my humble opinion, I know many can do it successfully, I'm just telling you I think it's bad idea. But that's me, you know your kids and priorities better than I do.

Don't you think that around the time when your children are becoming teenagers is more critical to their development than when they're drinking bottles? My guys are all under two right now and it's not like I have to worry about them getting pressured to take drugs and alcohol. Basically it comes down to whether they want to watch Yo Gabba Gabba or The Wiggles.

TCR is always Yo Gabba Gabba. Always.

[NoDayButToday]

.

[84651846190]

I had a kid at 25 (in school) and one at 30 (as a first-year associate). I think I'm just as busy at work as I was in law school, because I had to gun really hard to get good grades. (Good grades definitely didn't come easily to me.) The major difference for me is age-related. Maybe I just aged earlier than most, but I just feel EXHAUSTED all the time because of my job/kid. I don't remember being so tired when I was 25.

[raperez129]

Tagging.

I think in today's highly work-oriented America, there's no perfect (or even good) time to have kids...it's really just a personal choice based on your circumstances.

Exactly. I did it. When I started 2010, our kids were 2, 4 and 12. Waiting until they are independent could be a benefit. But I felt like it was better to do while they were young, because they don't feel the impact as much. As my kids have gotten older, they seem to require MORE attention, because they have more activities and more homework where I need to be an active participant. My spouse was practically a single parent while I was in school, but when I did spend time with the kids, it was 100% quality. The best advice for doing school with kids is to do all of your school work OUTSIDE of the home. That means staying at the school, at Starbucks, at the public library - where ever, so that when you come home you can focus on the kiddos 100%.

[JJ123]

I would argue that it's going to be difficult to nearly impossible to have kids and be a good parent at a biglaw job. Maybe you can squeak by with 2000 billable hours, but you'll never make partner doing that, and you still probably won't have enough time to be the kind of parent you want to be.