Why do people here prefer Law over tech for $$$?

[Anonymous]

Simple solution to this thread-become a lawyer in tech.

-signed a lawyer in tech

[Anonymous]

This is a DC-based forum. Many, many lawyers here.

It’s like you’re sitting at a basketball game wondering why most people in the crowd seem to prefer basketball to football.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He basically landed the tech equivalent of a big law job. The tech workers at the defense contractors and retail banks are making good money but not FAANG money. The alt comparison would be big law vs FAANG. Tech workers don’t have as much opportunity to break past $3XX,000 but seem to be able to stick around there longer. And the work seems closer to 40-50 hours (not sure what roles get hit hard with crunch). We also saw that FAANG isnt afraid to lay off SWEs en mass if things slow down.

In big law, you have the opportunity to make 7 figures but you have other downsides. You work more hours, have a smaller chance of getting to 7 figures (and inhouse seems to start between $160-200k if you bail), and you have to pay off your student loans so you associate big law salary isnt as big as it appears on paper. Lastly, law seems to have the biggest delta between what you think you will do based on how its presented to the public, what schooling teaches you, and what its actually like. Tech seems pretty straightforward in what to expect

+1 to the bolded. Most tech workers aren't making $300K+ even at the peak of their careers. FAANG is cut throat.

Signed,
IT Manager

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am lawyer - why did I prefer it over tech? It's my interest.

Same. I’d be miserable in tech but I love being a lawyer.

Same. And same with my kid. He’ll probably end up in law school, because he’s took after me, and not my engineer DH.

[Anonymous]

People should choose what they are interested in and good at.

What a weird thread.

[Anonymous]

Law is how white Americans get rich. Very poor in STEM. It’s the easy road to $$.

[Anonymous]

Tech became a more popular path after most of the boomers and gen x on here had the ability to get into the field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am lawyer - why did I prefer it over tech? It's my interest.

Same. I’d be miserable in tech but I love being a lawyer.

And, I have to call the help desk for tech support and I know they think I am an idiot but they're nice about it - it keeps them in a job

IT help desk people are not in the Tech roles that OP is referring to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am lawyer - why did I prefer it over tech? It's my interest.

Same. I’d be miserable in tech but I love being a lawyer.

And, I have to call the help desk for tech support and I know they think I am an idiot but they're nice about it - it keeps them in a job

IT help desk people are not in the Tech roles that OP is referring to.

+1. Shows you what idiots *some* lawyers are (at least one)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyers aren’t smart enough to do tech

Thr former tech lawyers I know are barely smart enough to do law in many cases. One former Stanford electrical engineer I went to a T10 law school with graduated in the bottom of our class, got a summer job anyway, got no offered, and now doesn’t practice.

This is something I have been hearing about STEM vs Poly Sci/History/English degrees. The STEM kids take a mid-level History class thinking they will walk into an A because their avg class requires lots of busy math work then there is a real chance of gettin a D or F (because of how the professor tests more than anything). Where the History class requires a couple papers that the STEM kid gets a C in because they dont know how to write (both on basic structure level and a support a thesis college level). But the history professor is much less willing to fail a paper that has an opinion aspect/(s)he has to subjectively judge than a STEM test where there is a right or wrong answer.

Law students with tech backgrounds often do poorly on law school exams because they miss that it’s not about getting to the “right” answer and instead examining both sides of the argument.

[Anonymous]

Law requires a lower IQ and hence is easier to do

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Law requires a lower IQ and hence is easier to do

Depends on the law you’re talking about. DWIs is like the IT help desk. But SCOTUS work takes more intellectual firepower than I have anyway.

[Anonymous]

I'm a lawyer for a tech startup. More career longevity and I get some of the pay structure that makes tech so appealing.

I didn't go into tech as a high school/college kid because I didn't know how to code and even by the time I was 17 the attitude was "if you don't know how to do this yet it's not for you." I think that's changed with a lot of coding camps/exposure for kids now, which is nice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Law requires different skills than does tech.

In general, STEM degrees are harder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Law requires a lower IQ and hence is easier to do

Idk. I’ve known a few engineers from very good engineering schools who went to law school and every single one failed out or barely passed. It’s just a different skill set.