Anonymous wrote:Your kid obviously didn’t land a big law job. He’d be making more money than the other kid if he did. First years starting at age 25 or 26 make well over $200k and by the time they’re 30 they’re making close to $350k.

So basically the other kid is a star in his field and your kid isn’t.

My brother and SIL are young and at big law firms making serious money. $200-$250k right out of law school. Huge earning potential.

Both are great career tracks, but they draw very different personalities and skill sets.

The established professions - Law, Accounting, Medicine (and maybe a few others) - build a firewall around them and keep tight control on their numbers through certification, immigration controls, etc. Practitioners benefit. Nothing new.

Assuming you have the aptitude, go tech, work through 30-35, switch to Law or Finance (law school or decent MBA). Another 10-15 years and then switch to federal govt or non-profit and coast.

Tech has a shorter career span and is easily outsourced to other countries. It quickly evolves.

Law in this country - you need to pass a bar exam and many states don't allow lawyers with foreign degrees. It can be harder to land a high paying job but if you are among the top you make so much more over the span of your career.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Your kid obviously didn’t land a big law job. He’d be making more money than the other kid if he did. First years starting at age 25 or 26 make well over $200k and by the time they’re 30 they’re making close to $350k.

So basically the other kid is a star in his field and your kid isn’t.

+1. It’s not the choice of field. Your kid is just a dummy.

Anonymous wrote:Law requires different skills than does tech.

This. You have to be good at what you do to get paid big bucks. Software engineering is not for everyone.

Anonymous wrote:Your kid obviously didn’t land a big law job. He’d be making more money than the other kid if he did. First years starting at age 25 or 26 make well over $200k and by the time they’re 30 they’re making close to $350k.

So basically the other kid is a star in his field and your kid isn’t.

+1; made over 200k at 25 in biglaw and 435k at 30.

How do people come up with dumb questions like this at least once a day? More importantly, why do more idiots join in to respond?!!!

For most people, what they end up doing is at highest paying intersection of aptitude, desire and luck. No point dissecting this..

Because most people here are lawyers.
Also American kids suck at science and math. It's hard to want to do something you aren't good at or intimidated by.

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.

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

Lol. You've never met anyone in the tax or banking law worlds.

Lawyers aren’t smart enough to do tech

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

Also most posters here are older and tech has exploded in the last decade plus.

But even when I was in college 20 yrs ago, ppl knew the real $ wasn't in law, it was in finance. That's not the only reason someone chooses a career though!

Well that has flipped. We are better off than IB now.

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/biglaw-partner-pay-has-grown-unbelievably-putting-top-lawyers-ahead-of-investment-bankers

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

+1

Also most posters here are older and tech has exploded in the last decade plus.

But even when I was in college 20 yrs ago, ppl knew the real $ wasn't in law, it was in finance. That's not the only reason someone chooses a career though!

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

Not just interest, but aptitude. There are some people, like those mentioned in this thread, that have the aptitude for both, but many (like me) would be hopelessly adrift in a career in tech. I am a biglaw lawyer, and make very good money (though I don't love it nearly as much as I did when I started out). If I'd tried for a career in tech, I have to believe that my career would have topped out at a much lower level than I'm at now.