Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While I agree with a lot of what you say. I think the first bolded part is kind of unrealistic. There are a lot of smart college graduates working retail and asking people 'would you like fries with that.' Many of them would likely kill to work for World Bank, UN, or other NGO if they could. The problem is those jobs are filled, or don't exist even for many smart college graduates much less smart high school grads. You are correct there is indeed a weak real economy so any suggestion that people should just go work for a desirable NGO out of highschool strikes me as unrealistic.
It doesn't have to be an NGO, but just get more real world experience. I think smart kids should be able to graduate at 16, 16 1/2, 17.
Teach english in Japan or South Korea for 2 years.
Do some sort of work in Indonesia.
Work on some sort of college project in France.
The international exposure our smartest kids get is terrible. I saw a video on finland the other day. They speak 3 or 4 languages there, highschool students. Our smartest students are getting artifically handicapped and held back.
And then 1/3 of them want to go into law. A lot of smart intellect is going to waste. The model of schooling hasn't changed to reflects costs, opportunities, or changes in the economy.
-35 years ago. Smart motivated, 25 year old could go to law school. Get a reasonable tuition bill. Work part time, or summers. And you're not really crippled by the debt. The money clock wasn't ticking so fast then (paying back student loans).
-Now, smart 25 year olds almost have to do everything right, just to get the bare bones opportunities students had 35 years ago! Unexpected medical bills? Family problems? Top 10, top 20 law schools not accepting any more students? Application didn't go through, etc. Not enough money? A horrible series of hoops you have to jump through.
Now you fall back to tier 3, or tier 6, and you're really up a creek. I think in many cases, there's too much debt $$$ too early to change direction. These law school debts should be taken out of your paycheck above a certain amount, say $30 k or $50 k. If these schools are as great as they say they are, they should be happy to take the risk. There is no risk, right (sarcasm)?
I brought up the NGO example since it's a professional setting, dealing with different types of people and problems, there's paperwork, a similar setting to law.
Another thing that makes me critical of schooling is that you're not taught about the lifecycle or growth of different industries.
It's just this abstraction. Apply yourself, do well, study hard......and end up in the middle of the pack in law school wondering how you're going to pay your debts off. That's not very good advice.
Coming out of highschool, things are so generalized, you don't know if you're in manufacturing in this country in 1923. Or 1980 Detroit. This abstraction in k-12 blinds you to the reality of the outside world. A lot of these future lawyers are basically smart motivated manufacturing workers in 1979 in Detroit. No amount of motivation can change some of these forces changing law (or other industries).
The article quotes that corporate law has long been the employer of choice for many graduates, but now they are cutting back. Why were they the employer of choice for so long? What creates these large fees? Is it sustainable? Maybe everyone thinks they're the exception to the rule.
I think law is basically like baseball. To work in NYC or DC at a big firm, that's like making the major leagues. To make partner in NYC in corporate law is like making the all star team for 8 years in a row. Some people will do it, but not everyone, maybe 5%.
The rest of law (tier 3) is like the albuquerque dodgers. It's not nearly as exciting or lucrative. And these law schools have charged major league tuition...like everyone is going to the major leagues.
While I agree to an extent. Using the T14, or bust argument is just silly. You shouldn't go to law school just because you got into a T14 school nor should you not go if you didn't. There are all sorts of other factors that go into play, including region. Additionally not all T14s equal and in some cases depending on scholarships and which region you are interested in a lower T14 might not be better/more worth while then a top 20 or 30.
you can always make it in whatever type of law by going to a non-t14 school, but generally speaking, t14 offers the greatest chance of succeeding, but by no means guaranteed.
you can always make it in whatever type of law by going to a non-t14 school, but generally speaking, t14 offers the greatest chance of succeeding, but by no means guaranteed.
Not necessarily in terms of success. First your goal in law school should not be to joint the upper middle class, but to want to practice law. T-14 can't help you if you end up hating your life throughout Civil Procedure, and LRW class. Then there is the matter of debt. T-14s are expensive, and if you can get in there you can probably get in somewhere in the 15-30 range with more money (not talking t3 here). If this is combined with a regional preference you very well may be better off going to the lower ranked school. Lower debt + Strong regional connection is always a good combo as it frees you up to pursue what you want.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
