<p>I can just add to this conversation that pharmacists have NO shorage of job opportunities, and can pretty much have their choice of jobs in any city at any time. Furthermore, I recently read the following statistics on pharmacy:
Salaries are increasing 22.3% faster than the average for other professions.
At the current rate of licensure, there will be a shortage of 157,000 pharmacists in the US by 2020.</p>
<p>Sure, you can rack up a lot of debt in six years, but I don’t think pharmacists with student debt will have to worry too much about being able to pay it back. An additional benefit to pharmacy it the flexibility. Quite a few pharmacists I know have their regular FT jobs and then pick up a few extra hours at a second job to pay off loans, buy a house, save for kids, etc. The good thing about this is that pharmacists get paid hourly, even if they are salaried, so if you work 60 hours per week, you get paid for 60 hours per week (overtime often yields time-and-a-half if it is at the same place.) The reward is more immediate and more tangible than it is in law.</p>
<p>The most important difference between undergrad and law debt is, what you said, you take out law loans, whereas your parents take out your undergrad loans. But so what? At the end of the day, somebody has taken out the loans. I guess in some sense, if you stick your parents with the loans, you don’t personally owe any money. But that’s just a game of accounting. I don’t know about anybody else, but I don’t think it’s entirely kosher to think of yourself as debt-free when your parents took out loans for you. That’s basically throwing your parents under the bus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, I never said that they necessarily have more debt. I am simply saying that the evidence does not indicate that they don’t have more debt. More importantly, it gets to the the larger point which is that it is entirely unclear that lawyers really have the most debt of all of the professions save physicians. That is a baseless claim. {If you disagree, then fine, show us some evidence that lawyers really do have more debt than anybody else except lawyers. You have presented no evidence that would back such a claim, yet you ask of evidence from me.}</p>
<p>The salient point is that you asked in post #62 for several professions (besides physicians) thar carry as much debt as lawyers do. I identified several possibilities. Until somebody can show that they do not apply, then you must concede that it is entirely possible that some other professionals carry as much or more debt as lawyers do. In fact, I think you did that in a previous post. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These are not the questions that were on the table. We were simply talking about debt. That is, after all, what you were talking about. You didn’t bring up any of these other points. You simply talked about debt, nothing else. </p>
<p>Now, if you want to bring up other points, that’s fine. But that leads to a different discussion. If you want to talk about lawyers who are doing poorly relative to, say, pharmacists who are doing poorly, then we should also talk about those lawyers who are doing very very well. The very top lawyers, i.e. the partners at the top law firms, make millions. How many pharmacists make millions? A highly savvy tort lawyer like John Edwards can amass an 8-figure net worth before age 45. How many pharmacists can do that? </p>
<p>The point is, if you want to bring up the downside of being a lawyer relative to that of other professions, then it’s also fair to bring up the upside of bring a lawyer. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, it doesn’t matter how many ‘lots’ is. What matters is that the OPTION to attend night law school exists. Many law schools offer it. In contrast, night pharmacy school is extremely rare, if not non-existent. </p>
<p>As far as ‘evidence’ goes, I provided the same sort of evidence that you provided in your assertion that lawyers have the most student debt of any profession (except physicians). Why do you ask others for evidence, when you don’t provide any yourself? If you are willing to invest the time to demonstrate what exactly is the student debt of the average lawyer, then I will be happy to invest the time to investigate the student debt of other professions. But don’t ask me for standards of proof that you aren’t willing to adhere to yourself. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am well aware of the subject of the article. That is why I am offering perspective to the article. Namely, lawyers, on average, are still doing better than most other people, and in particular, other professionals. Nobody disputes that some lawyers don’t do well. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the fact that the average lawyer does better than many other professionals. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would think that somebody attending a low-ranked law school ought to know that he probably isn’t going to get a very good law job, and hence should be planning accordingly. Like I said, if such a person doesn’t know that, then I suppose it’s good that articles like this will alert him to this fact. </p>
<p>But like I said, these are things that people should know. Like I’ve been saying throughout this thread, just because you have a law degree does not automatically entitle you to immunity to financial problems, and I’m surprised that some people seemed to think that it would.</p>
<p>Again, the most important difference is that colleges almost always either guarantee that they’ll meet your demonstrated financial need or waive tuition altogether if your family’s income falls below a certain level. Law schools never do this, and rarely give any need-based aid at all. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I’m saying that this is a really poor argument. You claimed that people in “many” professions had debt comparable to that of law school grads. You then listed several occupations with no data at all about their average debt load. The fact that it hasn’t been disproved doesn’t mean it’s been proven. This is in addition to the point that the article was never about pure debt load anyway. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course these are the questions on the table. This is the very point of the entire article. The debt is only relevant to the extent that it is difficult to pay off. It was you who decided to caricature the article as saying simply “lawyers have debt and financial troubles,” and then failed to even knock down your own strawman with any proof that their financial situation was comparable to other professions. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And many don’t (including nearly all of the top schools) and the ones that do have relatively few spots in their PT programs. I really don’t see why you brought this up at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, and I did, to demonstrate that there was a much greater stratification in law than other similar professions. Which is, of course, a central point of the article that you continue to ignore. The high levels of risk and competition and the huge gap between the top and the bottom all make law different from these fields. Law school by design leaves large numbers of people saddled with tremendous debt they can’t repay. That’s not true of any other professional school I’ve heard of.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, no, I don’t see how that’s really relevant to a discussion of what happens to the people at the bottom. Though I guess it does demonstrate the uniquely large gap that exists in the profession. But it really doesn’t do the Hofstra grad any good that Harvard grads have great jobs, does it? Although of course the existence of those jobs, the perception that lawyers are, on average, doing really well and the high visibility of successful lawyers might have motivated them to attend law school in the first place. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The perspective you’re offering is precisely the one the article addresses. Specifically, focusing on averages or the people at the top and ignoring the huge gap between the top and the bottom, the high level of competition and the high rates of un- and under-employment. It’s sort of like refuting the claim that the United States has a higher poverty rate than Sweden by pointing to the US’ higher per capita GDP and far larger number of millionaires. It completely misses the point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know why you’d be surprised; you yourself seem to have incredibly inaccurate ideas about the legal profession. Again, nobody has ever said that lawyers are entitled to some kind of financial immunity, and the point of the article is not merely that some lawyers are not well-off. I realize it’s much easier to refute these claims than what is actually being discussed.</p>
<p>“colleges almost always either guarantee that they’ll meet your demonstrated financial need or waive tuition altogether if your family’s income falls below a certain level.”</p>
<p>If by “colleges” you mean “the Ivy League and its peers,” then this is true.</p>
<p>The vast majority of colleges and universities in this country, public and private, do not guarantee to meet demonstrated need.</p>
<p>Uh, I don’t know about you, but most people who are attending top law schools didn’t exactly come from poor families. Hence, any such undergrad tuition waivers are irrelevant for those people. I can take a walk over to Harvard Law School right now and look at the students. How many do you think I will find who actually grew up poor? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, YOU were the one made the assertion FIRST. You specifically asked, in post #62, for some professions were the average debt level was as high as law. The presumption in that question is that you KNOW the average debt level of law students. But do you know? If you do know, then please present the data. Otherwise, if you didn’t have the data, why did you ask the question? </p>
<p>Otherwise, my tactics are no different from yours. I admit that I don’t have the data. But neither do you. Hence, we don’t know who is right, so you shouldn’t presume that you are automatically right. I admit that I don’t know, but you don’t know either, and you should admit that fact. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And again, you haven’t shown that it ISN’T comparable. We therefore have to arrive at the conclusion that, at least from prima facie evidence, that the preliminary data seems to indicate comparability (in other words, we can’t rule out the any of the hypotheses yet). </p>
<p>The point is simple. If you want to continue to assert that lawyers have more debt than anybody else, then I have the right to assert the opposite. After all, the bulk of the evidence that supports my case, albeit scanty, is still better than yours. I fully admit that I haven’t built a complete case. But neither have you. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I bring it up to emphasize the point that these people entered into such high debt by choice. They could have become lawyers in cheaper ways. They chose not to. It’s their choice to go into debt, and they should take responsibility for their choices, especially when they had other options. Going into high debt is not the ONLY way to become a lawyer. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is entirely relevant because we can always find people in ANY field who are doing poorly. It further brings back one of my questions, which is that why should lawyers automatically expect to never do poorly just because they’re lawyers. Are people automatically entitled to not do poorly just because they have law degrees? You seem to think so. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See above. It PRECISELY captures my point. Why do people with law degrees ever automatically think they deserve to never do poorly? What gives them the right to be shielded from the same problems that everybody else is forced to face, or at least, that they THINK they will be shielded from such problems? </p>
<p>THAT is the perspective that I am offering. Why exactly do these people think they ever deserved special treatment? What, just because you run up a lot of debt, you automatically deserve a good job? How’s that? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, no, YOU are the one who seem to have incredibly inaccurate ideas about what this thread is about. I am simply asking why people are surprised to discover that some lawyers are doing poorly. Frankly, it would be highly surprising if that fact weren’t true. For example, if it really was the case that every single lawyer was doing very well, THAT would be surprising. The fact that this article has engendered so much discussion simply leads me to ask why is it that this topic, which should have been obvious to everybody, nevertheless seems to have generated so much interest.</p>
<p>im new to this board and just saw this post. This is a great article. If you really want to know if you’d like the law, i suggest working in a big firm as a paralegal for a year or two. I did and i learned so much and decided not to go to law school. It was so hard to put my ego aside and come to the realization that ls was not all it was cracked up to be. All the young attorneys i talked to at best, didn’t really like practicing law and at worst, thought it was the single worst mistake of their lives. Many had 150k+ of debt and told me that they were going ot leave the firm after they paid off their loans. Some were predicting leaving the profession all together. Keep in mind these are associates making 135k+ their first year. </p>
<p>The legal profession certainly isnt the ticket to upper middle/upper class life at all anymore. There are easier and more fulfilling ways to make a living. Here is a good article for those who really want to know what the state of the legal profession is.</p>
<p>that’s a really great article JammY - should be required reading for every prospective law student. only problem with it that i see is that its length and detail may deter readers from getting everything he has to say.</p>
<p>It was a law review article in the Vanderbilt Law Review, so that explains its length and complexity. It is sad, but you’re prob right. But thats how these law schools make money. They prey on the uninformed, idealistic minds of the 22/23 year old grad who have no idea what to do next. Meanwhile the profs get nice cushy 6 figure jobs while they teach less than 10 hrs a week on material theyve prob memorized. Its almost criminal.</p>
<p>In my world, most of the attorneys I know work at Government agencies, banks, insurance companies and solo practitioners. After 25 + years in the work force, their salaries are probably below the starting salaries of those graduating top law schools today ($160,000); though most have a comfortable salary in the $100,000 to $150,000 and the real smart ones have a working spouse too.<br>
Of course the main difference is that these attorneys did not have the same level of debt that you guys will be facing.</p>
<p>IMO- there seems to be too much emphasis on the small percentage of law graduates who will command “BigLaw” salaries. and not enough attention to those law graduates who are lucky enough to find decent jobs in the public sector or large corporations where the salary is often in the $50,000-60,000 range.</p>
<p>To be fair, I think it should be emphasized that lawyers have great career flexibility, relative to most other Americans. </p>
<p>For example, as mentioned in passing by others, lawyers can start their own firms; in other words they have a skill that is highly amenable to entrepreneurship and small business. Now, to be sure, starting your own law practice is extremely difficult and risky - but probably no more risky than any other new business venture, as over 90% of all new business ventures fail in the first few years anyway. What that means is that if you can’t get the law job that you want, or you feel that your law firm employer isn’t paying you properly, you can decide to just sell your services to the market directly. The vast majority of Americans - including most college graduates - can’t do that, because they don’t have a skill that can be packaged and sold directly to the market. They have little choice but to work for an organization, and if that organization screws them over, then they either have to find another organization to work for, or simply have to suck it up. </p>
<p>The other aspect is that legal services are required practically everywhere in the country, something that just isn’t true of many other skills. For example, you just can’t work as, say, a chemical engineer, in wide swaths of the country because there just aren’t chemical or manufacturing facilities everywhere, which means that if you end up moving to one of those places, you basically have to find another career. While obviously legal work tends to be concentrated in certain places (i.e. NY, Washington DC), the geographic availability of law jobs is far more widespread.</p>
<p>i think reading the “Being a Happy, Healthy…” article made me think more seriously wether or not law would be the right path to take. I don’t want to turn into a workaholic, and i actually do want to live a balanced life with time to tend to my family and kids if i have one. i’m starting to think that this is impossible for a lawyer based off what i’ve read.</p>
<p>Legal services are required to one degree or another all over the country. But the requirement that you sit for a bar exam limits your mobility after you’ve been practicing a few years. As your practice becomes more specialized over time, you also have fewer options (although the ones you have may become more lucrative).</p>
<p>I’ve been working in software licensing for the last eleven years. I couldn’t switch to another area of practice at this point without taking a major pay cut. Realistically, that limits my options to a significant degree not all othat different from what faces a chemical engineer.</p>
<p>athenegoddess- I know many attorneys who have very successfully been able to balance a family and a career. But as I stated earlier most of the attorneys I know work for Government- Insurance Companies-Banks etc.<br>
Their work day closely follows the 9-5 work schedule. And accrual of vacation/personal days that most large organizations have as a benefit, enables a working mom or dad to take time off for that school play or soccer game.
It is a major life style decision that you may have to make.</p>
<p>You may not get the real big bucks or ego fulfilling prestige, but you can get a relatively balanced life style if you follow the career path of working for government, insurance company or similar organization.<br>
Of course the downside is that you may be burdened with a heavy debt load for a longer period of time.</p>
<p>There are other options out there besides “BigLaw and the Big Bucks”.</p>
<p>Actually, I have to disagree - it is quite different. Sure, you might have to take a pay cut, and sure you might have to take another Bar exam. But hey, at least you can still get a job, or in the worst case scenario, start your own practice. The chemical engineer can’t even get a job in his profession simply because none are available wherever there isn’t manufacturing or chemical processing (that is to say, the vast majority of the country). </p>
<p>Now, don’t get me wrong. Certainly there are areas in the country where ChemE is an absolutely killer deal. For example, in the Texas Gulf Coast, where oil refineries stretch as far as the eye can see, where there is no state income tax, and where you can buy a house that literally costs less than your first year starting salary as a chemical process engineer*, you can do very very well for yourself. It’s a fantastic deal.</p>
<p>But the question is, what if you don’t want to live on the Gulf Coast, or other places with heavy chemical processing facilities? What are you going to do now? </p>
<p>*No joke. There are plenty of houses in Houston that cost only about $50k. And of course if you’re willing to live outside the city, you can pay even less.</p>
<p>I agree. I went to law school later in life, but my goals were unconventional: I wanted to leave the Postal Service and go to work for another federal agency. My law degree played a large part in enabling me to do just that. I never went with the intention of becoming rich or being a solo practitioner.</p>
<p>Thus, schools do indeed have the responsibility to inform prospective students as far as the success their alumni are having in finding jobs and what kind of money they are making, particularly when most students are going to be faced with a large loan debt upon completing school. Fortunately, I was able to avoid the large loans, but not everyone is so situated.</p>