is being a lawyer losing its appeal compared to tech or finance for high achieving students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did well in biglaw. Son is attending now. Entering Law, is, still the best upward mobility vehicle I know of aside from med school, which takes much longer. After clerking, he'll enter DC or New York firms making $246K or better. Yes, he knows how mindboggling boring it can be. He's heard it from me and all of my friends. Itis what it is. But it will get him set financially for life and after being an associate, he can find a better path should he want it. There are many other things that law graduates can do. Many

Only true if you get into T14. Otherwise you won’t even get an interview at most biglaw firms.

True yet T14 is pretty easy to get from yop undergrad.
T14 is the most common destination for law from kids' ivy even averageish 3.8/Lsat 169 kids get into lower T14. Big5 is what the 3.9/171+ chase (Y, H, S, Penn, Chicago). Majority use ED to one of the T14, ivy advises it for most

This is just not true. A 169 on the LSAT makes you a long shot for a T14 regardless of where you go to college. Law schools don’t practice “holistic” admissions the way undergraduate schools do and place a great deal of emphasis on the LSAT — more than anything else. Going to a top undergrad doesn’t get you a pass, especially with a 3.8 GPA. Just google the numbers for the schools. They’re plain to see.

My kid's T10 non ivy has numbers and matriculation lists by GPA and LSAT. T14 definitely happens pretty regularly for the 168-170 group. That is an average LSAT at the school and the average kids get in to T14 there.

Except it isn't. The most recently available data shows that the average LSAT score isn't that high in any college in America, including Harvard and Yale. Prove me wrong. I'll wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Big law wife here. DH busted his ass and we sacrificed early on, but it has paid huge dividends. There was no shortcut and I’m extremely proud of how hard he has worked to provide for our family.

You mean HE sacrificed. What did you do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did well in biglaw. Son is attending now. Entering Law, is, still the best upward mobility vehicle I know of aside from med school, which takes much longer. After clerking, he'll enter DC or New York firms making $246K or better. Yes, he knows how mindboggling boring it can be. He's heard it from me and all of my friends. Itis what it is. But it will get him set financially for life and after being an associate, he can find a better path should he want it. There are many other things that law graduates can do. Many

A law degree closes doors outside of law. Any business front office role you get with a JD could’ve been much more easily obtained before committing three years to rote study.

Early Retired Biglaw partner here and I agree 100 percent. In my experience, the young lawyers starting out making the big money in Biglaw earn every penny of it and by and large are miserable, and the large majority of them who don’t end up on partner track stress out to the nth degree over what to do next and how to even come close to matching their Biglaw
salaries. And they do find many doors have closed firmly behind them. Most eventually do land on their feet and end up happy but it’s rarely easy and without scars financially and to their egos. They’re not used to failing and, yes, most Biglaw associates do fail.

I'm curious about other career paths. I have a pre-law kid who is eyeing Big Law only due to the money but I think it's a bad fit for her. I'm wondering about, instead, taking a job in a company or maybe Wall Street rather than a law fim. Is the lifestyle there appreciably different?

So she wouldn’t be taking those other jobs or the money? Ok . . .

A banker or PE principal in their 40s works less than a big law partner and they make more given comparable talent. They also didn’t waste three years of their 20s in school. There are plenty of FAANG employees in their 30s sitting on eight figures due to RSUs, mega backdoor Roth, and other benefits they gain with 50 hour work weeks and specialized skills.

Sorry; I wasn't at all clear with my question. She wants to go to law school and would probably do corporate or financial type law. I'm wondering about being a LAWYER in a corporation (Google or John Deere or whatever) or a LAWYER on wall street (for a bank). I assume the latter has crazy long hours to match the culture of the bankers, but I'm wondering if money and culture are different from Big Law? And in a non bank corporation (e.g., John Deere just because that's the first that came to mind), I assume hours are long but more normalish? Pay is lower but still good? I'm just guessing here. Anyone with actual knowledge?

Those are called "in house counsel" roles. Generally you will need 2-6 years of Big Law associate experience to be competitive for an in house role, and they are tough to snag because the work/life balance is better (on average). Big law firms are the training ground for corporate lawyers, you have no skills directly out of law school. A prestigious company like Google will hire in house counsel from prestigious law firms. You will be competing with every other Big Law associate that is desperate to get out, so networking and luck plays a big part.

Thank you! I had no idea Big Law was the path into in house counsel. Another question-- is this path feasible for an introvert? I'm guessing that making the way to the top is not very consistent with introversion. But I'm wondering if such a person could go into Big Law and learn the ropes and contribute a lot through work ethic, and then try to pivot to in house counsel (where I assume there is less of a 'sales' or networking focus).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did well in biglaw. Son is attending now. Entering Law, is, still the best upward mobility vehicle I know of aside from med school, which takes much longer. After clerking, he'll enter DC or New York firms making $246K or better. Yes, he knows how mindboggling boring it can be. He's heard it from me and all of my friends. Itis what it is. But it will get him set financially for life and after being an associate, he can find a better path should he want it. There are many other things that law graduates can do. Many

A law degree closes doors outside of law. Any business front office role you get with a JD could’ve been much more easily obtained before committing three years to rote study.

Early Retired Biglaw partner here and I agree 100 percent. In my experience, the young lawyers starting out making the big money in Biglaw earn every penny of it and by and large are miserable, and the large majority of them who don’t end up on partner track stress out to the nth degree over what to do next and how to even come close to matching their Biglaw
salaries. And they do find many doors have closed firmly behind them. Most eventually do land on their feet and end up happy but it’s rarely easy and without scars financially and to their egos. They’re not used to failing and, yes, most Biglaw associates do fail.

I'm curious about other career paths. I have a pre-law kid who is eyeing Big Law only due to the money but I think it's a bad fit for her. I'm wondering about, instead, taking a job in a company or maybe Wall Street rather than a law fim. Is the lifestyle there appreciably different?

So she wouldn’t be taking those other jobs or the money? Ok . . .

A banker or PE principal in their 40s works less than a big law partner and they make more given comparable talent. They also didn’t waste three years of their 20s in school. There are plenty of FAANG employees in their 30s sitting on eight figures due to RSUs, mega backdoor Roth, and other benefits they gain with 50 hour work weeks and specialized skills.

Sorry; I wasn't at all clear with my question. She wants to go to law school and would probably do corporate or financial type law. I'm wondering about being a LAWYER in a corporation (Google or John Deere or whatever) or a LAWYER on wall street (for a bank). I assume the latter has crazy long hours to match the culture of the bankers, but I'm wondering if money and culture are different from Big Law? And in a non bank corporation (e.g., John Deere just because that's the first that came to mind), I assume hours are long but more normalish? Pay is lower but still good? I'm just guessing here. Anyone with actual knowledge?

Those are called "in house counsel" roles. Generally you will need 2-6 years of Big Law associate experience to be competitive for an in house role, and they are tough to snag because the work/life balance is better (on average). Big law firms are the training ground for corporate lawyers, you have no skills directly out of law school. A prestigious company like Google will hire in house counsel from prestigious law firms. You will be competing with every other Big Law associate that is desperate to get out, so networking and luck plays a big part.

Thank you! I had no idea Big Law was the path into in house counsel. Another question-- is this path feasible for an introvert? I'm guessing that making the way to the top is not very consistent with introversion. But I'm wondering if such a person could go into Big Law and learn the ropes and contribute a lot through work ethic, and then try to pivot to in house counsel (where I assume there is less of a 'sales' or networking focus).

I'm sorry, but you are getting way too involved here. Why can't you let your kid figure it out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did well in biglaw. Son is attending now. Entering Law, is, still the best upward mobility vehicle I know of aside from med school, which takes much longer. After clerking, he'll enter DC or New York firms making $246K or better. Yes, he knows how mindboggling boring it can be. He's heard it from me and all of my friends. Itis what it is. But it will get him set financially for life and after being an associate, he can find a better path should he want it. There are many other things that law graduates can do. Many

Only true if you get into T14. Otherwise you won’t even get an interview at most biglaw firms.

I can’t necessarily refute but I can anecdote and it seems that decent law schools in good legal markets are also strong feeders to BigLaw.

Know a girl at Fordham with offers from Latham and another big firm and she isn’t top of the class or law review or whatever. She says many in her class are also getting good offers.

Now, I doubt she would have many options if she wanted to go to SV, but it seems recruiting is strong in NYC.

The data is out there in spades. Don’t go to Fordham to enter big law unless you think sub 50% odds are okay. If it doesn’t pan out you’ve wasted your youth and a ton of tuition dollars. Bad luck, roll again!

Well, OK…but the point is it isn’t a terrible strategy if you can’t get admission to a T14, right? It’s definitely not a zero chance like PP indicated.

Maybe a better example is an in state person going to UGA and accepting they will just work for BigLaw in Atlanta. You pay in state rates and it’s top 25.

BigLaw exists in every major city…it’s just you have BiggestLaw vs just BigLaw.

It's a bad strategy because failure means a three year resume gap, a lack of substantive skil development (legal education is a farce), and non-dischargeable student debt (or mommy and daddy wasting big bucks).

Half of entry level big law jobs are in NYC. The next cluster is in DC. Atlanta does not pay market. Boston, Chicago, LA, SF etc. have small big law markets, even if they do exist at market. Going to UGA or Emory to gun for Atlanta big law is not a good strategy given the downside risk is awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did well in biglaw. Son is attending now. Entering Law, is, still the best upward mobility vehicle I know of aside from med school, which takes much longer. After clerking, he'll enter DC or New York firms making $246K or better. Yes, he knows how mindboggling boring it can be. He's heard it from me and all of my friends. Itis what it is. But it will get him set financially for life and after being an associate, he can find a better path should he want it. There are many other things that law graduates can do. Many

A law degree closes doors outside of law. Any business front office role you get with a JD could’ve been much more easily obtained before committing three years to rote study.

Early Retired Biglaw partner here and I agree 100 percent. In my experience, the young lawyers starting out making the big money in Biglaw earn every penny of it and by and large are miserable, and the large majority of them who don’t end up on partner track stress out to the nth degree over what to do next and how to even come close to matching their Biglaw
salaries. And they do find many doors have closed firmly behind them. Most eventually do land on their feet and end up happy but it’s rarely easy and without scars financially and to their egos. They’re not used to failing and, yes, most Biglaw associates do fail.

I'm curious about other career paths. I have a pre-law kid who is eyeing Big Law only due to the money but I think it's a bad fit for her. I'm wondering about, instead, taking a job in a company or maybe Wall Street rather than a law fim. Is the lifestyle there appreciably different?

So she wouldn’t be taking those other jobs or the money? Ok . . .

A banker or PE principal in their 40s works less than a big law partner and they make more given comparable talent. They also didn’t waste three years of their 20s in school. There are plenty of FAANG employees in their 30s sitting on eight figures due to RSUs, mega backdoor Roth, and other benefits they gain with 50 hour work weeks and specialized skills.

Uh huh. Still doesn't answer the question.

I can assure you, HYPS students are overly aware of what was stated and are refusing to enter big law accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Compared to 30 years ago, I think it's very true that there are comparatively few bright students interested in becoming lawyers today. Now, smart and ambitious students are much more likely to choose engineering, finance, pre-med, tech, and consulting.

People are much more informed today about the realities of being a lawyer. And neither the life nor the money seems that appealing to most. I think you really need to feel it as a vocation for it to make sense.

Agree! Very few of my daughter's Princeton class went to law school compared to consulting, IB and FinTech.

That’s because T14s, unlike the M7, discriminates against good schools. They want a 4.0 from southwest flyover state U instead of a 3.5 in math at Princeton. Any front office role in consulting, IB, and fintech straight out of undergrad is better than a V5 offer.

This is 1000% false. The T14 law schools are like 70% all kids from top 20 undergrads with their own undergrads massively over represented.

You then have 1 kid from like 150 different schools.

Untrue. People at Ivies with the grades for law (now, about 3.8 or 3.9 and above) go into IB and asset management. Law is very much frowned upon. You do get some stray Oberlin/UVM/Holy Cross/Loyola Los Angeles tier people. Law school admissions do not give weight towards going to a highly ranked undergrad. Go look at the scatterplot of GPAs and LSATs, it is almost entirely predictive (affirmative action making up the remaining variable)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did well in biglaw. Son is attending now. Entering Law, is, still the best upward mobility vehicle I know of aside from med school, which takes much longer. After clerking, he'll enter DC or New York firms making $246K or better. Yes, he knows how mindboggling boring it can be. He's heard it from me and all of my friends. Itis what it is. But it will get him set financially for life and after being an associate, he can find a better path should he want it. There are many other things that law graduates can do. Many

A law degree closes doors outside of law. Any business front office role you get with a JD could’ve been much more easily obtained before committing three years to rote study.

Early Retired Biglaw partner here and I agree 100 percent. In my experience, the young lawyers starting out making the big money in Biglaw earn every penny of it and by and large are miserable, and the large majority of them who don’t end up on partner track stress out to the nth degree over what to do next and how to even come close to matching their Biglaw
salaries. And they do find many doors have closed firmly behind them. Most eventually do land on their feet and end up happy but it’s rarely easy and without scars financially and to their egos. They’re not used to failing and, yes, most Biglaw associates do fail.

I'm curious about other career paths. I have a pre-law kid who is eyeing Big Law only due to the money but I think it's a bad fit for her. I'm wondering about, instead, taking a job in a company or maybe Wall Street rather than a law fim. Is the lifestyle there appreciably different?

So she wouldn’t be taking those other jobs or the money? Ok . . .

A banker or PE principal in their 40s works less than a big law partner and they make more given comparable talent. They also didn’t waste three years of their 20s in school. There are plenty of FAANG employees in their 30s sitting on eight figures due to RSUs, mega backdoor Roth, and other benefits they gain with 50 hour work weeks and specialized skills.

Sorry; I wasn't at all clear with my question. She wants to go to law school and would probably do corporate or financial type law. I'm wondering about being a LAWYER in a corporation (Google or John Deere or whatever) or a LAWYER on wall street (for a bank). I assume the latter has crazy long hours to match the culture of the bankers, but I'm wondering if money and culture are different from Big Law? And in a non bank corporation (e.g., John Deere just because that's the first that came to mind), I assume hours are long but more normalish? Pay is lower but still good? I'm just guessing here. Anyone with actual knowledge?

Irrelevant question. Both are boring, repetitive back-office functions with low to mid six figure payouts generally (there are a handful of exceptions you can't rely on). They will live in the NY equivalent of Silver Spring as the front-office folk live in Chevy Chase and McLean. The bankers and sub-C suite will email "please turn over this 1000 page document by Monday, have a great weekend!" as they plan their tee time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Law school applications have soared since 2023. It is getting more popular every year, just as it did the last time we had a large economic turndown. It is a solid money making path when the job market stinks for new grads.

This seems odd when STEM has been so hyped. As noted above, many lawyer parents don't encourage law school, exceptions include family-owned firms where the kids want to keep the business going and need the license to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have always been smart people who gravitated to tech or finance or consulting or law or medicine or something else, just like today.

It was not true before, nor is it now, that "most of the smart kids" all chose the same career path.

While true, some paths have lost their shine, e.g. medical school especially.

med school had a 35% overall acceptance rate to US MD programs(the only programs worth doing) when I applied later 90s. Now it is 37-38%. in between those years it was temporarily 45%. There is no truth to med school as a desired career losing its shine.

Med school acceptance rates are more like around 5%, aren't they, even for the lower ranked MD programs? Not sure where you're getting your stats.

DP, doctor.. Look at AMCAS which has data for all US med schools. For US applicants to US MD programs, 37-40% of all applicants have gotten accepted to at least one school the past 3 cycles. The even have data broken down by GPA and MCAT, for all applicants. DCUM makes you think it is impossible. It is not. And it appears to be around the same as when I applied in 98.

Assuming you can afford to apply to 25+ MD programs, paying initial and secondary application fees, and pay for out-of-state med school tuition, despite caps on student loan amounts....sure, 37%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Compared to 30 years ago, I think it's very true that there are comparatively few bright students interested in becoming lawyers today. Now, smart and ambitious students are much more likely to choose engineering, finance, pre-med, tech, and consulting.

People are much more informed today about the realities of being a lawyer. And neither the life nor the money seems that appealing to most. I think you really need to feel it as a vocation for it to make sense.

Agree! Very few of my daughter's Princeton class went to law school compared to consulting, IB and FinTech.

That’s because T14s, unlike the M7, discriminates against good schools. They want a 4.0 from southwest flyover state U instead of a 3.5 in math at Princeton. Any front office role in consulting, IB, and fintech straight out of undergrad is better than a V5 offer.

This is 1000% false. The T14 law schools are like 70% all kids from top 20 undergrads with their own undergrads massively over represented.

You then have 1 kid from like 150 different schools.

Untrue. People at Ivies with the grades for law (now, about 3.8 or 3.9 and above) go into IB and asset management. Law is very much frowned upon. You do get some stray Oberlin/UVM/Holy Cross/Loyola Los Angeles tier people. Law school admissions do not give weight towards going to a highly ranked undergrad. Go look at the scatterplot of GPAs and LSATs, it is almost entirely predictive (affirmative action making up the remaining variable)

Wealthy UC students aren't going to be toiling away at BigLaw and letting some psycho partners own their lives and control their time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Compared to 30 years ago, I think it's very true that there are comparatively few bright students interested in becoming lawyers today. Now, smart and ambitious students are much more likely to choose engineering, finance, pre-med, tech, and consulting.

People are much more informed today about the realities of being a lawyer. And neither the life nor the money seems that appealing to most. I think you really need to feel it as a vocation for it to make sense.

Agree! Very few of my daughter's Princeton class went to law school compared to consulting, IB and FinTech.

That’s because T14s, unlike the M7, discriminates against good schools. They want a 4.0 from southwest flyover state U instead of a 3.5 in math at Princeton. Any front office role in consulting, IB, and fintech straight out of undergrad is better than a V5 offer.

This is 1000% false. The T14 law schools are like 70% all kids from top 20 undergrads with their own undergrads massively over represented.

You then have 1 kid from like 150 different schools.

Untrue. People at Ivies with the grades for law (now, about 3.8 or 3.9 and above) go into IB and asset management. Law is very much frowned upon. You do get some stray Oberlin/UVM/Holy Cross/Loyola Los Angeles tier people. Law school admissions do not give weight towards going to a highly ranked undergrad. Go look at the scatterplot of GPAs and LSATs, it is almost entirely predictive (affirmative action making up the remaining variable)

Wealthy UC students aren't going to be toiling away at BigLaw and letting some psycho partners own their lives and control their time.

Correct. High finance becomes more humane than law by the time you are in your 30s and it pays more. And it is not just law partners. Clients will make you work the weekend of your daughter's wedding, I hope you love redlining Word documents!