Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The sad truth is that a lot of people don't think as well at 50 as they did at 20 OP. And forget about trying to find a job in the law. This market is saturated.
Bullsh!t! Are you 20? People become much smarter and more intellectually sophisticated as they get older. God, we sure do live in a sad, ageist hateful country where people actually believe this crap.
What? I’m a much more critical thinker and definitely more intelligent now at 52 than I was in my 20s. I’m also not nearly as reactionary and anxious. I would hire a 50 year old over a 25 year old every single time. Who wants to babysit the kind of 25 year olds we have today? You’ll end up fielding calls from mommy.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If you are independently wealthy and literally have a pile of money to burn and are bored all day long, sure.
If not, you would absolutely be crazy to do so.
This. And I will add that if it’s always been your passion to do pro bono work or work in social services, etc. then sure. Follow your dream. If this a career move, then absolutely no. If you think age discrimination is alive and well, I’m not sure why you think any other profession would be different
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If you are independently wealthy and literally have a pile of money to burn and are bored all day long, sure.
If not, you would absolutely be crazy to do so.
This. And I will add that if it’s always been your passion to do pro bono work or work in social services, etc. then sure. Follow your dream. If this a career move, then absolutely no. If you think age discrimination is alive and well, I’m not sure why you think any other profession would be different
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: BTW, no one wants to hire me in my old field. I'm too old, skills too rusty. Age discrimination is alive and very well.
Skills discrimination, too, it sounds like.
Experience discrimination as well. If you had the choice between a 50-something prospect who continuously worked (even if PT at times) and a person of the same age who had been completely out of the field for 30 years, which would you choose?
This is the OP. I have very good skills in my field, but I don't know the latest technology, so that's been a problem for me. However, I know for a fact that a place I applied to hired a 20 something kid who could not do the job. I know this because a friend recommended me for the job, but the woman doing the hiring (in her 40s) wanted someone younger. I could have done the job in my sleep. My skills are a zillion times better than those of the 20ish kid, but I wasn't hired. I don't see any other way to describe than aside from age discrimination. I would do a better job, but they chose someone younger who could not do the job. This is from a friend who has to work with the kid, who can't do the job. How is this a good decision for the company? The 20ish kid isn't going to stay there for 20 years. I'd probably stay longer, so I'm a much better investment.
Matlock complex?Anonymous wrote:I've always wanted to go to law school. Got derailed after college into another career, then had kids and SAH for a lot of years. Kids in high school now, soon college. I can afford in-state tuition at local, not very prestigious law school, but would it be worth it to start now? I'd be almost 60 when finished -- what then? I took the practice LSAT and did very well on it, FWIW. I've always been interested in law and politics. I am healthy and hope to work into my 70s. Is this just a crazy idea? Will it be a waste of time/money? BTW, no one wants to hire me in my old field. I'm too old, skills too rusty. Age discrimination is alive and very well.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The sad truth is that a lot of people don't think as well at 50 as they did at 20 OP. And forget about trying to find a job in the law. This market is saturated.
Bullsh!t! Are you 20? People become much smarter and more intellectually sophisticated as they get older. God, we sure do live in a sad, ageist hateful country where people actually believe this crap.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Thanks, PPs. I do not have a pile of money to burn. I don't need to make a lot of money, but I do need to have something to do for the next 15 years or so. I don't want to get a degree, then do nothing but volunteer work either.
Feeling stuck right now. Mid-50s SAHM is not a good place to be when trying to go back to work. I've always been interested in law. When I was young, people told me to "follow your bliss." I didn't listen then.
Bucket list? Not really. Just thought it would be interesting and maybe I could work for a few years at a low-paying but somewhat interesting job. Pipe dream?
Yup. The low-paying but interesting jobs are still very competitive, and no one is going to hire a nearly 60-year-old baby lawyer.
I assume they will hire a 20-something "baby lawyer" though. Why? Why is the 20-something lawyer with no experience more valuable than the 60ish lawyer with no experience?
The acceptance of age discrimination as a given is pretty astonishing on this 50+ forum! Why is a person so much less desirable simply because he or she is older? All other things being equal (grades, recommendations, etc.), why is an older law school grad dismissed when a younger one is embraced?
There are a lot of high-functioning people in their 70s and 80s. Is the expectation that people in their 50s no longer have the mental fortitude to handle a difficult job? How is that different from the expectation that because someone has black skin they are lazy, uneducated and stupid? Or the expectation that because someone is Latin they are living in this country illegally?
I know age discrimination is a reality, but does it have to be accepted so easily just because "that's the way it is"?
Practically it's a ROI issue. Not many firms willing to take a risk on someone that close to retirement age. 20something lawyers might have less to offer in many respects, but represent a more viable long term investment.