Law School Bubble (PhDs, high school, graduates, careers)

[th3vault]

In America there are essentially four really high paying, traditionally prestigious jobs. They are law, medicine, i-banking and highly specialized tech jobs, usually engineering.

Of the 4 medicine and high tech require an extreme inclination to math and science, extremely high intelligence and workload rigor and an ultra competitive environment. I banking is even more of a meritocracy than law and very competitive, and even riskier than law is.

Thus, law school has become the default choice for students getting a liberal arts undergrad degree that want a high paying job. The other three require highly specialized degrees and heavy math and science. Students are encouraged partly by the bogus statistics law schools publish about starting salaries for graduates...and they think that since they got good grades in undergrad that they'll rise to the top in law school and get the top jobs. They are naive and grossly underestimate the competition in law school.

I once considered law school when I saw those sky high salaries. But I dug deeper and found the myriad of problems in the legal profession and what happens to those that don't get top grades at top schools. At first I was naive and thought "hey I'm smart, of course I'll be at the top". But then I faced reality..... I may have good grades but I'm in an easy program at an easy school undergrad, I'll never get to the top in law school. I also was only interested in the possible pay, not the 60 hour workweeks and the profession in general. I then made the best decision of my entire life....instead of naively pursuing the big bucks like so many of my friends in undergrad did, I would instead pursue my passion in another field and the job security and moderate pay that comes with it. It was the best decision I ever made.

All other undergrads should seriously think about how to make their UG degree work in the real world and apply it to what they want to do for a career. Don't default to law school becuase of the "chance" of a sky high salary and putting off the real world for 3 more years. Even if you do hit the jackpot, that salary isn't going to be what you expect. You'll be in a high COL area, working 60 hour weeks, miserable and having to pay off gigantic debt.

Unless you really, really want to be a lawyer don't go to law school. If you do reallly, really want to be a lawyer pick a decent public school in the area you want to work in and avoid the debt that comes with the private schools. You should be able to get some sort of a job in the area, and without the high debt you don't have to go to biglaw.

[Sandpointian]

Originally Posted by th3vault

In America there are essentially four really high paying, traditionally prestigious jobs. They are law, medicine, i-banking and highly specialized tech jobs, usually engineering.

Of the 4 medicine and high tech require an extreme inclination to math and science, extremely high intelligence and workload rigor and an ultra competitive environment. I banking is even more of a meritocracy than law and very competitive, and even riskier than law is.

Thus, law school has become the default choice for students getting a liberal arts undergrad degree that want a high paying job. The other three require highly specialized degrees and heavy math and science. Students are encouraged partly by the bogus statistics law schools publish about starting salaries for graduates...and they think that since they got good grades in undergrad that they'll rise to the top in law school and get the top jobs. They are naive and grossly underestimate the competition in law school.

I once considered law school when I saw those sky high salaries. But I dug deeper and found the myriad of problems in the legal profession and what happens to those that don't get top grades at top schools. At first I was naive and thought "hey I'm smart, of course I'll be at the top". But then I faced reality..... I may have good grades but I'm in an easy program at an easy school undergrad, I'll never get to the top in law school. I also was only interested in the possible pay, not the 60 hour workweeks and the profession in general. I then made the best decision of my entire life....instead of naively pursuing the big bucks like so many of my friends in undergrad did, I would instead pursue my passion in another field and the job security and moderate pay that comes with it. It was the best decision I ever made.

All other undergrads should seriously think about how to make their UG degree work in the real world and apply it to what they want to do for a career. Don't default to law school becuase of the "chance" of a sky high salary and putting off the real world for 3 more years. Even if you do hit the jackpot, that salary isn't going to be what you expect. You'll be in a high COL area, working 60 hour weeks, miserable and having to pay off gigantic debt.

Unless you really, really want to be a lawyer don't go to law school. If you do reallly, really want to be a lawyer pick a decent public school in the area you want to work in and avoid the debt that comes with the private schools. You should be able to get some sort of a job in the area, and without the high debt you don't have to go to biglaw.

One of the better posts I have seen on this board.

I would add only one thing. I-banking is not terribly heavy math & science, but is about a naked rush for $$. In medicine and science, natural laws define the frontier. In i-banking, it is the pursuit of money and power. There are few investment bankers I know that impress me intellectually, but many that have balls of steel and a focus and determination that can be pretty scary...like letting lose battle weary Green Berets onto a elementary school playground! So natural law is replaced by the law of the jungle. Beasts!

Then Law itself is the law established by society in terms of code and spirit. It is applied philosophy with its mathematical and economic basis implicit. Easier access than the other three, but difficult to really soar to the upper echelon.

In the US, law is a professional degree, something that seals its fate. Instead, law should be taught at the high school level and in selected undergrad classes. At the same time, the number of law schools should be dramatically cut and the standards for the bar increased. The combination would reduce the glut, restore its reputation, and increase the general public's understand of law's importance in this society.

S.

[esmith143]

Originally Posted by hsw

No one smart has pursued law for some 25+ yrs, since emergence of modern finance and tech industries

Finance yes (maybe), tech no. Too low a ceiling in tech. In this environment, a 25 year old first-year associate in a decent law firm makes as much money right away as a software engineer with 10 years of experience, or a tenured professor. I heard a saying that people who get science/tech Ph.D.s are from the second highest decile by intellect. Why second? Because people from the top decile are smart enough not to go into science/tech.

And I'm not sure if all those super-smart quants formerly employed by Bear and Lehman are happy now. I suspect that the finance field will shrink a lot after this recession.

Like it or not, if you lack managerial skills and you don't care for medicine, the best way to earn $200,000 by the age of 40 is to become a lawyer. Of course, a T14 is an important step in that direction (I might say even a prerequisite).

[Alexus]

There is great intrinsic value in a legal education, which can provide one with a higher vantage point in which to view and take advantage of what opportunities are available. Legal training expands your horizons. It can boost the credentials of that history major for instance who otherwise might only be able to teach. There are thousands of positions where the benefits of legal training (narrowing of key issues from a confusing problem set, identifying the relevant legal concepts that apply, applying them to derive a solution to your client's satisfaction, the ability to see both sides, the ability to be an effective advocate both verbally and in writing, and so forth) can be utilized. Not everyone who attends law school intends on becoming a licensed attorney who practices law. The degree doesn't qualify you to do only that.

Certain areas of the law are in need of trained lawyers. One such area is Patent law. There is no glut of Patent attorneys, lawyers who not only have technical degrees but professional experience in one of the science, math, computer, or engineering fields. Also, minority representation in this profession is still very low.

Like any career move, if going to law school is going to make you "one of many", then you're going to suffer the consequences: higher competition for jobs, lower pay, billable hour hell, lower job security, possibly less interesting, more mundane work. This is a sure recipe for burnout and the myriad of health problems among legal practitioners: Depression, suicidal tendencies, stress-induced ailments, mental and emotional disturbances, and substance and alcohol abuse. I have always felt that those who are happiest practicing law are those who didn't do it for the wrong reasons and made sure that when they entered the field, they would be in a category as "one of few." I find that patent attys are in this group because most began in the technical field that was their passion, made great money (hopefully invested it wisely), then matured into the patent arena.

[rubber_factory]

A lot of this depends on what part of the country you are from.

where I live, "investment bankers" do not exist. High finance in general does not exist. High tech and engineering exists, but it doesn't take advantage of the intrapersonal connections that most people thrive off of.

Law is a catch-all for these smart, well-connected kids who don't know what they want to be.

[gobearsgo]

If law is a profession, why isn't membership regulated to more closely match supply with demand? In medicine, every medical school graduate is matched with a residency program. Medical schools do not admit more students than they expect can be matched to residencies. There's no worries about thousands of medical school graduates not finding any kind of match -- it's just a matter of competing for the residency programs in highest demand.

Law schools, on the other hand, have no qualms about admitting far more students than the legal job market can ever absorb. More colleges are opening law schools becuase the overhead is low (just cram a bunch of students into a lecture hall, no expensive high-tech equipment or labs required) and charge high tuition.

There are only two solutions to get the market back into balance: (1) shut down the worst law schools and slash enrollment at the rest or (2) let the flood of law programs continue but turn law into an undergraduate program and cut the tuition. If most people aren't going to make a living at law, it is criminal to cripple them with such a heavy financial burden.

[mindymann]

I was thinking about applying to law school but decided it was too much of a longshot. According to my research, about 45,000 people graduate from law school each year. If you assume that 10,000 of those people don't pass the bar or ever attempt to look for legal work, that still leaves about 35,000 people a year looking for legal jobs.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are currently about 760,000 lawyers working in in the U.S., and the growth rate in lawyer employment is estimated to be about 1 percent. That's approximately 8,000 new lawyer jobs a year. (Of course this data may not really reflect the massive layoffs that have been occuring in the recession).

So, here's the math. There are about at least 35,000 people competing for just 8,000 new legal jobs and for positions that open up once older attorneys retire. Not exactly a field brimming with opportunity.

[Frank the Tank]

Originally Posted by rubber_factory

A lot of this depends on what part of the country you are from.

where I live, "investment bankers" do not exist. High finance in general does not exist. High tech and engineering exists, but it doesn't take advantage of the intrapersonal connections that most people thrive off of.

Law is a catch-all for these smart, well-connected kids who don't know what they want to be.

That's a good point. Outside of New York and a smattering of positions in Chicago and San Francisco, there aren't very many investment bankers at all. In the vast majority of metro areas in the US, lawyers are at or near the top in terms of earnings.

[Frank the Tank]

Originally Posted by gobearsgo

If law is a profession, why isn't membership regulated to more closely match supply with demand? In medicine, every medical school graduate is matched with a residency program. Medical schools do not admit more students than they expect can be matched to residencies. There's no worries about thousands of medical school graduates not finding any kind of match -- it's just a matter of competing for the residency programs in highest demand.

Law schools, on the other hand, have no qualms about admitting far more students than the legal job market can ever absorb. More colleges are opening law schools becuase the overhead is low (just cram a bunch of students into a lecture hall, no expensive high-tech equipment or labs required) and charge high tuition.

There are only two solutions to get the market back into balance: (1) shut down the worst law schools and slash enrollment at the rest or (2) let the flood of law programs continue but turn law into an undergraduate program and cut the tuition. If most people aren't going to make a living at law, it is criminal to cripple them with such a heavy financial burden.

You perceptively answered your own question. There's a very high cost to admitting each additional medical student (lab space, medical equipment, research tools, etc.), so there's no real economic incentive for universities to admit more medical students than necessary. I'd be interested to see if medical schools even make any money off of medical student tuition - med students are more like "loss leaders" where the big dollars come in from research funding and operating hospitals.

In contrast, there's virtually no cost to admitting an additional law student other than ensuring that there's enough classroom space. Law students are the most profitable students for a university (with MBA students close behind) - they get charged tuition commensurate with med students WITHOUT any of the associated costs. If I were running a university, the last place that I'd want to cut is the law school since it's an academic mint.

Other countries have law as an undergrad degree (although you then need to perform an apprenticeship in order to be admitted as an attorney). I wouldn't mind this model for the US, but the economic incentives that you pointed out are a massive driver in preventing this at the academic level. Also consider that a disproportionate number of politicians are attorneys and they are usually particularly keen to protect the interests of current attorneys (i.e. not watering down admissions standards by tying it to an undergrad degree), so this wouldn't work at the political level, either.

That being said, couldn't we say the same about any graduate degree in the liberal arts? In fact, isn't it even more true that, from an economic perspective, universities are robbing students getting MAs and PhDs in philosophy or classics with high tuition degrees that provide very few job opportunities (as at least a JD carries some tangible weight in the marketplace)?

[esmith143]

Originally Posted by mindymann

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are currently about 760,000 lawyers working in in the U.S., and the growth rate in lawyer employment is estimated to be about 1 percent. That's approximately 8,000 new lawyer jobs a year. (Of course this data may not really reflect the massive layoffs that have been occuring in the recession).

So, here's the math. There are about at least 35,000 people competing for just 8,000 new legal jobs and for positions that open up once older attorneys retire. Not exactly a field brimming with opportunity.

You're forgetting that, in addition to 8,000 new jobs, around 20,000 of existing lawyers will retire every year.

That being said, couldn't we say the same about any graduate degree in the liberal arts? In fact, isn't it even more true that, from an economic perspective, universities are robbing students getting MAs and PhDs in philosophy or classics with high tuition degrees that provide very few job opportunities (as at least a JD carries some tangible weight in the marketplace)?

Does anyone actually pay for PhD in philosophy or classics out of their own pocket? Science PhD's are typically fully financed by the university, receive free tuition, subsidized housing, and a modest stipend (~$15,000/year).