Law School vs. MBA and Graduate School: The Advantages and Disadvantages Financially and Career Wise

geo123 said:   I think that the word that you meant you use was "implied," not "inferred."

Thanks Grammar Nazi, a slip of tongue I assure you.

geo123 said:   
The issue with your posts here is that you don't have any first hand knowledge of the issues, so your understanding of the matter is rather incomplete.
Not necessarily. You severely over estimate both 1st hand knowledge and the 'implied' IQ of a plethora of Law students & grads.

geo123 said:   OCI stands for on campus interviews.
Fantastic that I already mentioned as much isn't it?

geo123 said:   
There are OCI attendees who target 1L's, 2L's and 3L's. Interesting to some, obvious to me, but otherwise moot.

geo123 said:   
The vast majority of the OCI attendees are from large firms, because those are the ones who are generally looking for a relatively large number of SA's and first year associates, can justify OCI attendance and need to plan pretty far in advance. Depending on the schools, some government agencies (DOJ, SEC) and the military sometimes also recruit at OCI's.
Again...

geo123 said:   
The vast majority of legal employers do not recruit at OCI's and the vast majority of law students everywhere do not get jobs through OCI's simply because large firms tend to only target top students from the top schools.

Yet OCI attendance in 2007 at a 'third tier toilet' was far larger than OCI employer attendence in 2008 at a certain top 15. I don't see how you undermining my .2 on the importance of SA work in general is helpful to the dialogue here. You seem to portend that a person qualifies for this work on paper will get a job regardless and this is simply not true. Many more tier 1s are unemployed or underemployed now than in recent past. Your field lacks growth and long term viability, call it whatever you want, the proof is in the unemployment number and having to go to one of only 50 schools to get a job at your respective field's 'large companies'. That's a travesty and going back to OP, why I would not recommend the law profession.


geo123 said:   You have cause and effect here mixed up. You have to have exceptional credentials to get a SA position with a large firm. Large firms always always satisfy their 1st year associated needs through the SA pool, so if you weren't an SA with a large firm, you typically won't be considered for 1st year employment there.
You seem to be fond of both pigeon holing me as well as hasty generalizations.

Fact: It is very difficult in your chosen field now for Law students, far more than less than 5 years ago. Fact: SA positions increase the odds of gainful employment post Law school greatly and by and large, disenfranchised students won't get the job that imagined pre law school, no matter how hard they worked. As an aside, I know of a few who received SA positions at medium to large firms, and they weren't 'exceptional', so there's that, haha!

geo123 said:   
Smaller firms usually just don't have the resources to run SA programs and can't plan that far ahead. Hence, the reason that most law students getting jobs with small and medium sized firms have no prior experience with them.
Could just as easily say 'most aren't getting jobs period' for as much substance as you provide.
geo123 said:   
Now, it is true that if you were a SA with a large firm but didn't get a permanent offer there because the firm just decided that it didn't have an opening for you (but not because you were a poor candidate), you are more likely to get a job with another employer type. This is because if you have the qualifications to have gotten a SA position like that, you'll be an attractive candidate to other types of employers as well. I love your continuous either/or range of choices e.g. more likely to get a job with another employer type. Let's call that employer type McDs... or maybe.... Kohls.

Let's be frank, jobs in general making less than 40k a year, if some are even lucky enough to get that and when you decide to go to a different state, guess what.... take another 2-3 day arduous exam, and pay another heft BAR fee while you're at it, haha! Law is a joke of a field for the 'majority' of those currently studying it. The writing should be painted on the wall at the LSAT testing center.

But I do enjoy how in your bubble you break everything down so semantically and succintly yet I see plenty w/o jobs in your field, far more than I've seen in many other white collar fields, particularly w/ that level of student debt and recurring debt (e.g. BAR license). Best advise is 'JUST SAY NO' and focus on the sciences.

geo123 said:   
In other words, SA's at large firms do not miraculously acquire legal skills over the summer that distinguish them from the competition.
Never implied as much. However large firms seem geometrically opposed to hiring candidates that didn't SA with them and which are not 'top 50'. This pandemic goes beyond large firms however and that isn't nearly enough jobs for a bludgeoning field.


geo123 said:   Most large firms do not even consider Tier 3 law school attendees. To the extent that they do, the person usually has to be something like in the top 5 (not top 5% -- a top 5 student in his class) to be considered AND the law school itself has to be a local school.
...which only serves to re-accentuate the nature of your 'free mason's club' and my point, JUST SAY NO (by and large). People should see large writing on the wall but often they do not, thinking a JD is a JD, perhaps because other white collar professions are far less judgmental as to school), and why I made the point of top 20. You say top 50, whoopty doo in difference; we're still taking about awfully small percentage of the overall JD students and this was my point in my very first post here. Despite how hung up you are on the semantics of my 1st post and the term 'internship' when my only point was (and is) if you can't get a 'internship' in law school (whether big firm, small firm, clerkship, legal aide, or gov't job) and you go to a 'lesser school in name only', your path will be more difficult (unless you know someone).

geo123 said:   I've previously addressed the "growth in the field" issue upthread. The overall "growth" is of largerly academic interest to law students and does not tell them how likely they are to get certain types of jobs. That's because the growth in the number of law students has largely taken place at the lower end of the law school quality spectrum. In other words, if you are a top law student at a top school, the fact that the number of 3rd and 4th tier law schools has grown does not affect you in any way, as those graduates aren't your competition. In this economy, you still may not get a position with an elite firm, but this won't be because of the growth in the number of lower quality law schools.
I assure you it isn't of pure 'academic interest', it is of a 'I have bills to pay, a whopping and defaulting student loan debt, family, and need for food' type of interest. But I am amused at the palpable snobbery, lol.

Anyway, we've deduced 'lower end being anything lower than 50 schools'. Got it. So here's another 'in other words'. Unless one goes to the 'top 50' and does well academically (let's just say, a SA would NOT HURT!): do pick another career that is assuredly less selective merely on the name of school and more on talents of the individual. What's funny is I've talked to more than a few seasoned lawyers that agree as well as an exceptional Harvard alum professor at a '3rd tier'

I don't blame you, it's the nature of your occupation; it's EXTREMELY boring in context (certainly not remotely close to the movie screen); it's selective more to prestige and status quo, and rife w/ pretentious people. It's much harder for someone to separate themselves from the crowd. That said, your point on the 'does not affect you' is patently false from direct 2nd hand experience. Dismiss it if you wish, but a certain top 15 school summa cum laude alum who is not only exceptionally smart but very affable in a team setting is making 1/2 (practically slave wages for the field in these parts) and she's not alone as I know someone making HALF of what she's making, also here; can't find a decent job out of a Tier 1 [>50] that is local to the area! This is based of what schools post and dictate as the median out of the gate in private sector she ought to make of the gate. Why? I posit because the growth in your field is laughable and there simply aren't enough jobs to go around where there was in the not so distance past. That and those darned 'good ol boys' keepin' it in the status quo.

no, I would not and I've fixed the one tiny misquote that you are clinging to. Perhaps it would be best to get back to work. You seem to post here way too much anyway 7k, haha!

the irony is how much you've dissected peoples' post with your myopic diatribes, and then balk at mine (for no good reason I might add). further irony (and humor) ensues with your position as partner being better filled by a hardworking third tier than you who obviously spends too much time on fw while at work.

^^^Yup!

Or, maybe he's the 1% that is MAD at the 99%. See:

http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6633406/we-are-the-1

How dare us right? Frankly, I am surprised it was possible given that I'm not wearing the vest w/ the right insignia eh old timer?

Oh wait... you do know that SUCKISSTAPLES is active there as well (guess you would if you were equally as stalkish with his post history)?

He is also the app-o-rama purveyor and I would think that would sully you 1% who assuredly finds such things repulsively low brow.

You can take your AM 100 and shove it. Lawyers in the USA are mostly a plague with worthless talents outside of this social bubble. When the zombie apocalypse (or comparable malady) hits, disillusioned high brows like you will be clinging onto engineering people like me. Maybe you can use all those stacks of 'dry' paper as a flotation device.

Do tell pretentious nit wit/grammar Nazi #2 on a message board who take his role too seriously. We should get even more superficial and start posting pictures of ourselves, since your fishin' buddy can't really argue the merits of my previous post at face value.

hakujin said:   You can take your AM 100 and shove it. Lawyers in the USA are mostly a plague with worthless talents outside of this social bubble. When the zombie apocalypse (or comparable malady) hits, disillusioned high brows like you will be clinging onto engineering people like me. Maybe you can use all those stacks of 'dry' paper as a flotation device. Fair enough. What I don't understand, however, is what you are doing in this thread, particularly when it comes to dispensing law school advice.

This is an aside, but I've never had an issue with people disagreeing with me or challenging my conclusions, as I am always up for a healthy debate. All that I ask is that you know what you are talking about and back up your statements with experience, citations, etc...

geo123 said:   Fair enough. What I don't understand, however, is what you are doing in this thread, particularly when it comes to dispensing law school advice.

This is an aside, but I've never had an issue with people disagreeing with me or challenging my conclusions, as I am always up for a healthy debate. All that I ask is that you know what you are talking about and back up your statements with experience, citations, etc...

Well, until you chirped in (with record time I might add as your apparently boring real life dictates your hawkish attention to this thread) and psycho analyzed the semantics of a summer associate and internship while totally ignoring the underlying point, I relayed to the thread WHY Law school may not be the best bet (like many others). Your overall re-enforcement that anyone beyond top 50 doesn't have a fighting chance at Large Firm Law or even adequate work commensurate with training renders further debate moot quite frankly as does your cherry picked retorts that don't diminish the message. MBA and Grad school (heck, even worthwhile BS) any day of the week over Law school! Cheaper, not so picky and pretentious, better hours (when compared to an associate), and comparable, if not often times better pay. The latter also doesn't charge an egregious yearly fee, so there's that.

Meanwhile in Reality 'fact check' City, the number of Law students un/underemployed at graduation continues to rise at an alarming clip; national median salary has dropped to 63k (absurd for the amount of both training and debt incurred) nationally for grads; only two-thirds of spring 2010 graduates had jobs requiring law licenses nine months after graduation (11% of that being temp or part time), etc. etc.

Perhaps to some of the less fortunate/lucky (but equally talented), you can put in a good word . I know your ego will prevent that, but it's nice to pretend you are a good human.

Stick a fork = done. Enjoy your bubble.

Duhhh... do you think? But it's a tad ironic since he probably is the 1% and apparently not firmly grounded in the reality that Law Schools to the majority class have fast become a sham. The fact that the American Bar Association only recently required that schools report the types of jobs their graduates obtained, not just overall employment rates is shameful but hopefully will allow potential students to make a more informed decision when they see the unflattering statistics (as mentioned above). At 25-40 grand a year for a 63k/yr median, it MIIIIGHHHT be prudent because they sure as heck don't put that in the brochures, nor just how crappy career services is at MANY ABA accredited law schools.

Which part did you find offensive though? The part where I tried to give helpful advice so OP could maybe avoid the potential struggle of work after Law School and not repeat the mistake of so many JDs that I know and care about? Or the part where someone invalidated what I had to say because I'm not a lawyer (despite the sorry state of affairs in his occupation which he willfully ignores); patronized me, and then 'over generalized' and put down an entire forum of people?

You people are so hypocritically uptight over here, it's laughable. Maybe get out of this of this thread and join people who are struggling for a dose of reality (hint: they don't have the luxury to hang on fatwallet finance threads all day and effervesce their pseudo-importance), because it sure as h3ll isn't that 'partner' that everyone here is clinging to like stink on crap.

Do you think that changes anything? There are countless others struggling w/ which career path to choose. Though touche in a sense as I don't suspect they'll be checking here, poor unfortunate souls. Regarding OP, thank god he didn't go to Law School! You do realize he is arbitrary but in the 'what should one do' scheme of things yes? 'Course you don't.

I see your willful ignorance to a pandemic in your field still escapes YOU. Continue focusing on the tree, while the forest burns... douche bag.

Hakujin, thank you so much for your valuable contributions to this thread. I am disappointed to see that you have found your reception to be so inhospitable and will do our best to improve our attitude in the future.

Perhaps that are other threads, however, in which your presence is sorely missed and we wouldn't want to deprive those people of your rather invaluable insights that you have been so kind to have shared with us. We will be sure to send you a Christmas card.

Wow.

Not true dumbass. Very easy to grasp to people slightly less stubborn or w/o the hard head syndrome. You and your ilk are merely antagonists to a larger, growing problem.

If this were 'abovethelaw.com' instead of crotchety nitwits on fw finance 'boyz' anonymous, the responses would be the polar opposite as I (related to Law) basically relay what hundreds, nay - thousands are saying right about now elsewhere w/ their looming 100k student loan predicated on a false promise by Universities of gainful employment while they suck it up and get a job at Starbucks or Legal aid making white collar minimum wage while being continuously told, 'you don't have enough experience' or 'not the right fit'.

But alas, we are not there - evident by you and your brothers' response to a message that should be overtly clear to a person w/ a H.S. education no matter how much your retorts contort or ignore. It has nothing to do with Law per se, you sill rascals. It's simply economics and reality. I do realize this escapes those of you in LaLa land.

Therefore, it is with some humor I am bombarded by he and his crony friends in a myopic virtual vacuum, but of more value to me is that, I've already reached out to at least one person here (probably a lawyer, not like it matters) who finds you gents equally humorous.

You know what that say about changing one person's life right? Well, if one person comes here, then weighs the facts e.g. rampant tuition hikes (AVG 30k year and growing), the fast decline of those employed at graduation, more so at anything resembling a Legal job, the preferential treatment to the minority 'preferred schools' OF THE SAME DRY education, and the burgeoning loans, and maybe thinks twice, I've done my job. Becuase too many have not, and I hate seen good people out of work.

Pardon me now while I provide solace to yet another Lawyer friend caught in this egregious rat race who can't manage to get a break. I do look forward to the x-mas cards

douche and dumbass are ok
Lines in the private forum, let's keep fwf clean

Hakujin, are you the guy who runs timecube.com? The syntax and attitude on that website look very similar to your style.

Al3xK said:   I've read through maybe 8 pages...Just as an fyi, if you go under "customize" at the top of your screen, you'll have the option of displaying up to 100 threads/messages per screen, which can make the whole thing a lot easier to navigate. On my screen, the entire thread has 8 pages.

What about JD and MBA?You may want to take a look at this post and several posts thereunder that discuss this very topic.

Is going to a top tier school potentially worth it in terms of $$$?This is the $1MM question, which has been hotly debated everywhere for dozens of years now. There are no clear and universally applicable answers out there because so much of it depends on your individual variables.

Here's the summary: it depends on the exact schools that you are considering, the geographic area where you'd want to stay and how well you will end up doing in law school (the latter is the issue that's impossible to predict). For instance, as I've previously posted, I went to a public law school that, at the time, ranked somewhere in the top 25 or so (I haven't bothered to figure out where it ranks now), got lucky and was able to get full scholarships for my 2L and 3L years, so that my total tuition costs for the entire 3 years were something like $5K. In my summer associate class we had people from Harvard, etc... I have no doubt that it was much easier for them to get the job in the first place but once we were there, we all had the exact same salaries, same bonus qualifications, etc... They also had gigantic student loans to pay off while I didn't.

Now that you know the context for my thinking, I'll tell you that personally, I'd strongly advise against accumulating 6 figure student debt, especially in this economy. You are never in a situation in which you have to decide between Stanford and, let's say, Cooley. Instead, if you have the option of going to Stanford, there's a good likelihood that you'll also get admitted into another slightly lower ranked but still highly regarded law school that'll end up costing you much less (either because it's a public law school or because you get a full/partial scholarship or some combination thereof). While a better school will certainly open up more doors (at least nationally, which you may or may not care about), it still won't guarantee a job with an elite firm. Further, once in law school, you may decide that you do not even want to work for a large law firm and, instead, would rather do something else. Having gigantic student loans will, however, greatly limit your options. Having said that, it really is very fact specific and very much depends on your individual variables.

What does it mean in terms of pay to be underemployed in the law field?

I mentioned this earlier, but one advantage of a JD/MBA is that you get a year of "class credit" at most biglaw firms. This means that you will be paid an extra $12,500-$35,000+ each year that you are an associate in biglaw, relative to your peers. This extra pay softens the blow of the additional tuition and opportunity cost of an extra year of school (although some JD/MBA programs are only 3 years, such as NW).

The risk/reward ratio of law school is still very good if you are at a T6 school, despite worse job opportunities, lower total compensation and higher tuition. The hardest part is getting into one of these schools.

hakujin said:   I"m not going to read this thread any further, and I'm pretty much done w/ you, but I'd like to say that not only is it not 'an easy path', it's an illogical one unless certain criteria are met due to cost, time, and the absurdity of your profession's rating system, as well as the median income and the likelihood of gainful employment.

If you'll kindly re-read that which I've written (doubtful you did one even once) and omit the parts where I called a spade a spade (as this upsets your ego a little), you may see past your tunnel vision.

For the record, when you suggest, 'I quite clearly know very little about' you sound glib, condescending, and and like an egoist at best, because it's quite clear I do, or we wouldn't be having this conversation ergo your rebuttal to most of my valid criticisms of Law school as to its career viability are strangely missing (hmmmm). If you spent half of your wasted time here on something other than discrediting the opposition's character, or card stacking, you may be worth listening to at this point.

I don't have disagreements with any posts as I haven't read them. To the extent that you would actually like to rebut my principal points against Law school at present, rather than focus on the semantics of what abbreviations stand for and the life cycle of a summer associate, please PM this as you're too little, too late, and I can't get back the time I spent talking to you on here. I wish you felt the same; logic and your purported pedigree to me via PM should virtually guarantee this, but alas, you do have a LOT of time on your hands as a lawyer. This is something else associates should know as well, they certainly won't have your free time, haha! But hopefully they'll have a job, where more and more law grads do not. No wonder w/ the job growth (or lackthereof). Fat cats keyboard commandos like you really need to GTFO, haha!

Cheers and pardon for any potential typos, I know how important that is to the overall context here, since it is so about 'who' says it and not 'what they say', in the little megalomaniac bubble you call home.

This whole 99% versus 1% thing is getting a little old. I am part of the 53% and I am getting a little tired a few folks in the 47% claiming to represent me and my interests when they cannot even occupy a job. Maybe you shouldn't post here unless you are willing to try and occupy a grad program for a little while.