Law school vs. grad school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Law school is a completely different animal than grad school. You learn the law almost exclusively through reading and dissecting court cases and judicial opinions.

I don’t recommend it if you have aspirations besides practicing law (though I know many people obtain a JD and end up with careers outside the law but I wouldn’t suggest it if that’s your ultimate goal).

+1. Non-practicing lawyer here with a JD from a T3 law school. Law school was an unpleasant, competitive grind and a much different atmosphere from grad school. I do not recommend law school, particularly top law schools, unless you really want to be a practicing lawyer for the next 20+ years and understand what that entails. Though I suspect OP is comparing their degree with someone else's and not actually deciding between law and grad school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not recommend law school, particularly top law schools, unless you really want to be a practicing lawyer for the next 20+ years and understand what that entails.

Not sure what you mean. The practice of law can be so different if you're BigLaw vs. in-house vs. government.

[Anonymous]

Someone who's done both says law is harder:

https://volokh.com/2009/12/17/why-studying-law-is-so-hard/

https://inpropriapersona.com/articles/law-school-is-harder-than-grad-school


https://volokh.com/2009/12/17/why-studying-law-is-so-hard/

[Anonymous]

At good law schools, it's very hard to get in and those who get in are guaranteed to graduate and end up lawyers.

I'm not sure about the lowest-tier schools like Florida Coastal and Thomas Cooley type places. You're admitted if you have a bachelor's degree, a pulse and a checkbook. Not sure what happens after that.

[Anonymous]

JD and PhD have nothing to do with one another. Different prerequisites, different expectations for learning, different ways of proving qualifications, different goals, different demographics, different professional prospects.

[Anonymous]

MA in lit. Reading load similar. No exams that I can recall except for at the end of the degree. Had to write a thesis and several substantial papers along the way. Also was a teaching assistant and taught some undergrad classes as part of the program.

JD- Hardly any papers except for legal writing class. Exams in every class. Bar exam at the end.

I would say they were comparable in several ways (you're essentially analyzing and comparing/synthesizing texts and concepts in both, considering how texts are reflective of a point in history, using textual evidence to write persuasively or educate the reader, etc), though the law school exams could be quite tricky. On the other hand, some law school classes like tax, secured transactions, commercial paper, for example, are very conceptually different. The really big difference is probably the Bar exam. I think if you like history, there are several law school classes that you would find interesting.

BUT, do you want to be a lawyer? There are many skills involved with "success" in law that do not necessarily involve being an intellectual or the most academic curious person in the room. Law firms are essentually businesses that have to attract potential clients and convince clients to hire and pay them.

[Anonymous]

Law school is more conceptually difficult than a graduate degree in the humanities. The concepts are not always conceptually interesting, nor do they always make sense -- especially not at age 22 and right after graduating from college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Depends on the program and, to some extent, the Ph.D. concentration. You will read and write significantly more in a history PhD program or political theory PhD than a quantitative-focused Poli Sci program. All will likely be more reading than a JD. Plus, the goal of a PhD is to generate new knowledge with your dissertation (either as 3 peer-reviewed journal articles or a draft book manuscript) compared to mastering/applying existing knowledge for a JD. There are obvious differences in the career trajectories and prospects after graduation as well. It’s good to get clarification on the differences in degrees, but you should base your decision on the path you ultimately want to pursue after graduation. And talk to as many current students and recent grads as possible IRL, so that you don’t apply with a romanticized picture of either path.

Yes! This is a big difference that I didn't think to talk about above. You're supposed to bring new knowledge or perspective, whereas law is all about applying precedent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They aren't really the same thing.

I have a JD and an MFA in creative writing which is a terminal degree. So my grad degree was in English with an emphasis on writing fiction -- it was 3 years of coursework, and included a thesis. I would say my reading load was about the same in both programs -- in grad school I read about 3 novels a week plus a few essays and stories. It was a lot. Obviously in law school you are reading cases instead, but I'd say the amount of reading was about the same -- just verging on too much to do, lol. In law school I was able to read less my second and third year and rely on study aids instead, but there was no way to do that with grad school -- I had to read it all (but my degree was English, of course, so that might vary with history or poli sci). Law school was far more social, I had a lot of extracurricular activities like Moot Court Board that took up at least as much time as my regular studies.

Conceptually, I found law school easier -- I naturally think like a lawyer and I'm a good test taker. As far as my MFA goes I hadn't majored in English in undergrad so there was a bit of a learning curve for me there. But that is definitely not going to be the case for everyone -- lots of folks who don't naturally "think like a lawyer" struggle a lot with law school.

As far as the bar exam and PhD qualifying exams ... I didn't do a Phd, so I don't know how that compares, but it seems like you are probably comparing apples to oranges. FWIW, I took the CA bar and found it pretty easy. But agin, the thinking like a lawyer thing comes naturally to me, I just have an analytical brain, so YMMV.

You didn’t make law review, I gather. So how “easy” was law school for you really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BUT, do you want to be a lawyer? There are many skills involved with "success" in law that do not necessarily involve being an intellectual or the most academic curious person in the room. Law firms are essentually businesses that have to attract potential clients and convince clients to hire and pay them.

Half of law school graduates go work at law firms. You're leaving out the other half that end up with the government, in-house, clerkships, academia, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Law school is a completely different animal than grad school. You learn the law almost exclusively through reading and dissecting court cases and judicial opinions.

I don’t recommend it if you have aspirations besides practicing law (though I know many people obtain a JD and end up with careers outside the law but I wouldn’t suggest it if that’s your ultimate goal).

+1. Non-practicing lawyer here with a JD from a T3 law school. Law school was an unpleasant, competitive grind and a much different atmosphere from grad school. I do not recommend law school, particularly top law schools, unless you really want to be a practicing lawyer for the next 20+ years and understand what that entails. Though I suspect OP is comparing their degree with someone else's and not actually deciding between law and grad school.

You went to a T3 law school and you’re counseling others not to go to law school? I wouldn’t have either if I were you. You wasted your money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BUT, do you want to be a lawyer? There are many skills involved with "success" in law that do not necessarily involve being an intellectual or the most academic curious person in the room. Law firms are essentually businesses that have to attract potential clients and convince clients to hire and pay them.

Half of law school graduates go work at law firms. You're leaving out the other half that end up with the government, in-house, clerkships, academia, etc.

Grads don't typically go in-house right away. No one goes to academia right away. Clerkships are temporary. Government, yes, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on the program and, to some extent, the Ph.D. concentration. You will read and write significantly more in a history PhD program or political theory PhD than a quantitative-focused Poli Sci program. All will likely be more reading than a JD. Plus, the goal of a PhD is to generate new knowledge with your dissertation (either as 3 peer-reviewed journal articles or a draft book manuscript) compared to mastering/applying existing knowledge for a JD. There are obvious differences in the career trajectories and prospects after graduation as well. It’s good to get clarification on the differences in degrees, but you should base your decision on the path you ultimately want to pursue after graduation. And talk to as many current students and recent grads as possible IRL, so that you don’t apply with a romanticized picture of either path.

Yes! This is a big difference that I didn't think to talk about above. You're supposed to bring new knowledge or perspective, whereas law is all about applying precedent.

Legal writing is easier than the type of writing you're expected to do in grad school for this reason, IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on the program and, to some extent, the Ph.D. concentration. You will read and write significantly more in a history PhD program or political theory PhD than a quantitative-focused Poli Sci program. All will likely be more reading than a JD. Plus, the goal of a PhD is to generate new knowledge with your dissertation (either as 3 peer-reviewed journal articles or a draft book manuscript) compared to mastering/applying existing knowledge for a JD. There are obvious differences in the career trajectories and prospects after graduation as well. It’s good to get clarification on the differences in degrees, but you should base your decision on the path you ultimately want to pursue after graduation. And talk to as many current students and recent grads as possible IRL, so that you don’t apply with a romanticized picture of either path.

Yes! This is a big difference that I didn't think to talk about above. You're supposed to bring new knowledge or perspective, whereas law is all about applying precedent.

Not really. I use precedents to argue for new perspectives all the time. To convince people to go along with a radical new idea, you have to be able to show how the idea isn’t really as crazy as it first seems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on the program and, to some extent, the Ph.D. concentration. You will read and write significantly more in a history PhD program or political theory PhD than a quantitative-focused Poli Sci program. All will likely be more reading than a JD. Plus, the goal of a PhD is to generate new knowledge with your dissertation (either as 3 peer-reviewed journal articles or a draft book manuscript) compared to mastering/applying existing knowledge for a JD. There are obvious differences in the career trajectories and prospects after graduation as well. It’s good to get clarification on the differences in degrees, but you should base your decision on the path you ultimately want to pursue after graduation. And talk to as many current students and recent grads as possible IRL, so that you don’t apply with a romanticized picture of either path.

Yes! This is a big difference that I didn't think to talk about above. You're supposed to bring new knowledge or perspective, whereas law is all about applying precedent.

Not really. I use precedents to argue for new perspectives all the time. To convince people to go along with a radical new idea, you have to be able to show how the idea isn’t really as crazy as it first seems.

If it's that "radical" or new, shouldn't it be changed by the legislature rather than a judge? Also, you're still applying precedent. There is such a push to come up with new and novel theories in some humanities fields that it can seem ridiculous at times -- newness for the sake of newness. Thinking primarily of the field of literary criticism.