<p>
</p>
<p>I would go further than that. I have read reports that having a JD on your resume is the “kiss of death,” for example here:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most attorneys didn’t either. It’s only attorneys graduating in the last 10 or 20 years who have had the problem of major debt.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps we have different interpretations of what Fly the Helo meant, but I took it to mean that the average law school graduate had disproportionately higher undergraduate grades than does the average person with just a bachelor’s degree. {True, there are some low-end law schools who take some students with low undergrad grades, but we all know there are plenty of high-end law schools that will take only those with high grades.} </p>
<p>Hence, if nothing else, that law school graduate, simply by virtue of his better undergraduate grades alone, should be better off than any newly minted undergrad. </p>
<p>Now, is that person better off than he would have been if he had entered the workforce right out of college? Probably not. But that’s not the question that (I thought) Fly the Helo was posing. The question simply is, are you better off than the newly minted college graduates coming out right now? Let’s face it - many of them are not doing so well. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But that’s not the question that I was asking. I was simply asking whether the average attorney does indeed earn more than does the average cop - and the answer is clearly yes. True, the average attorney almost surely has more debt and fewer benefits, but that’s not part of the question. {So perhaps the answer then is to go to a law school that gives you a full ride, and then take a job with an employer that provides extensive benefits.}</p>
<p>Besides, as we all know, cops run the significant occupational hazard of being physically harmed on the job. Most attorneys (hopefully) encounter no such hazards as part of the job. The “average times being shot at on the job” figure for cops is surely higher than it is for attorneys.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I would say that that depends heavily on which school you obtain your law degree from. I can agree that law degrees from most schools carry little weight outside of law. </p>
<p>But then there are those law degrees from certain schools that have proven time and time again to be highly effective gateways towards obtaining jobs outside the law. As expected, yes, I am talking about the Yales, Harvards, and Stanfords of the world. I can think of numerous HLS graduates who never practiced the law at all or did so only briefly, before embarking upon highly lucrative careers in consulting and banking. For many years, and may still be true today, the single most prolific recruiter at HLS was not any law firm, NGO, or government agency, but rather was McKinsey. Heck, McKinsey has a dedicated webpage devoted just to recruiting HLS grads, and dedicated webpages for some of the other top law schools as well. </p>
<p>[Harvard</a> Law Recruiting | APD Recruiting Recruitment](<a href=“http://www.mckinsey.com/careers/apd/campus_calendar/harvard_law_recruiting.aspx]Harvard”>http://www.mckinsey.com/careers/apd/campus_calendar/harvard_law_recruiting.aspx)</p>
<p>[Yale</a> Law Recruiting | APD Recruiting Recruitment](<a href=“http://www.mckinsey.com/careers/apd/campus_calendar/yale_law_recruiting.aspx]Yale”>http://www.mckinsey.com/careers/apd/campus_calendar/yale_law_recruiting.aspx)</p>
<p>In fact, I’ve heard it said that HLS (and presmably peer law schools) are viewed by some people as an ‘alternative’ (albeit a higher risk one) to a Harvard MBA in that HLS allows access to many of the same top-level recruiters as Harvard Business School does. Granted, you need to spend another year in school, but you also don’t really need work experience. Somebody with top grades but no work experience is far more likely to be admitted to HLS than to HBS. </p>
<p>To be clear, I am not personally advocating that people who want finance or consulting careers should pursue law degrees. I recommend that only those people who actually want to be lawyers should obtain law degrees. </p>
<p>Having said that, I cannot deny that many graduates of top law schools have indeed successfully parleyed their degrees to jobs at elite non-law employers. Put another way, if somebody says “I will attend HLS, and if it turns out that I don’t really want to practice law, I can at least use the degree to garner a nice job in consulting or banking”, I can’t honestly tell him that he’s completely off-base.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When people consider “earnings” most people consider the total compensation picture. Gross salary is only one aspect of that picture. </p>
<p>If someone makes $100k a year in salary but has to pay $4k per year for their health plan they’re “earning” less than someone making $97k per year but who has all health plan costs covered by their employer… although by your logic the person with the $100k salary is earning more. </p>
<p>Similarly we must consider the value of the police officer’s pension. We can safely assume that, unless the lawyer works for the government, the lawyer is going to have to self fund most of their retirement nest egg while the cop will have a government pension. For the attorney to retire at 45-50 with the same size annual benefit as the cop in perpetuity they would have to set aside about $30-35k per year into a retirement portfolio. </p>
<p>In real terms you’d have to set aside quite a bit more since the tax sheltered limit between 401k and IRA is $21,500 and so you’d have to use taxable accounts too.</p>
<p>So… when you subtract that from your cited ‘salary’ figures suddenly the difference between the attorney and the cop is much smaller or, in some cases, potentially less. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course someone who did really well in undergrad and then went to law school is likely better off than someone who didn’t do so well in undergrad and didn’t go to law school… but not everyone that does well in undergrad goes to law school. </p>
<p>With a few specific exceptions a freshly minted law school graduate seeking a non-law career is not going to have much if any of an advantage over a top fresh undergraduate candidate. The law graduate will almost certainly have a lot more debt and even if there is any advantage, it’s unlikely to be net positive in light of the law school debt. </p>
<p>As you also pointed out, in real terms we have to compare apples to apples. It’s not so much about how a fresh law graduate compares to a fresh undergrad graduate as much as it is how a fresh law graduate compares with their own peers (e.g. people 3-6 years out of undergrad). By that point outside a legal career there’s really no advantage for law school graduate. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes they do, but again you must compare apples to apples here. While someone certainly could go work for a consultancy out of law school, it’s a less traditional path but it does happen, you could end up getting someone at a consultancy at the same level with far different paths:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Undergrad from the law grad’s same class but that joined the consultancy out of undergrad. Some people leave after a year or two but others, particularly top performers, can get promoted right up the ladder. </p></li>
<li><p>A PhD student from science or engineering (who are also recruited by consultancies) who would typically get hired at the same level as someone out of law school. These PhD programs are usually ‘free’ to students (i.e. the tab is picked up by the government for such programs) and with TAing and other grants students usually have a, albeit very small, income during their schooling years. I note that PhDs take longer than 3 years, but most PhD students enter right out of undergrad while many law school students take a year or two doing something else first… therefore a law school grad and PhD grad could be the same age +/- a year or two.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>In both the above scenarios someone could end up in exactly the same job at a consultancy at exactly the same age but have not have any grad school debt. Yes the law graduate has their legal background too, but honestly these days resumes with a legal background are a dime a dozen. Something like the above scientist or engineer with subsequent business experience is far more unique.</p>
<p>There are certainly prospects for a JD outside the legal profession, but from a net net analysis it’s hard to see how it gives one advantages over other options.</p>
<p>…let me just supplement my above comments by again saying that I really don’t want to sound gloom and doom. However, I do hear a lot people making comments that suggest they have views and expectations that are vastly off base where where things in the legal profession are at now let alone where they are going in the future.</p>
<p>
Sakky and rocketman both bring up very good points. I don’t think either of them disagree that BLS stats may be misleading.
Now I’m going to go with an anecdote and I recognize that a sample size n = “a few” doesn’t mean too much in the grand scheme of things, but perhaps others can put this into consideration:
I know quite a few Reservists in the US Army Reserves and National Guard that are also police officers. They are mostly retired. I don’t think the BLS statistics factor in “total compensation” in that they just report income based on one employer (your primary career). If you know how to work the system, play the politics, make the necessary commitment etc. a large department police officer who is also a commissioned officer in the reserves can do quite well.</p>
<ul>
<li>dual pension and benefits</li>
<li>ability to double dip on deployments, etc.</li>
<li>retire with full benefits before age 50</li>
<li>pursue a third career by age 50</li>
<li>far better scholarship for prestigious universities (Post 9/11 GI Bill, Yellow Ribbon, State Tuition Waivers, etc.)</li>
</ul>
<p>I’ve done a little sketchy math and if you were to promote to and retire at the rank of Inspector in the NYPD and O-6 Colonel in the USAR/NG and go on to a third career, you would have to be making $350,000/year with stability in the private sector in the long run to match. Obviously, I’m not pricing in “hazards” of the career field. I don’t think it’s something you can really price in accurately. People who choose this line of work and excel in it probably love it and wouldn’t trade it for anything in the world. I’m probably speaking from that point of view - I’m sure it’ll change by the time that I’m 30. It won’t change in the sense that, “Wow. I don’t want to risk that” but more in the sense that all the “cool-tactical-high-speed” stuff you found exciting when you were 22 is boring and “ugh…we’ve got to do this again?” sense. You’ll probably want to move on to bigger and more challenging things such as having an impact on public policy, etc.</p>
<p>I think that Sakky is may right though. Over the long term I think the “average” lawyer will earn more than the “average” police officer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, no, I suspect that what Fly the Helo meant is that the law graduate is still more competitive for a non-legal job than the new undergrads graduating right now. The law degree might not help, but it won’t hurt either, for like I said, in the worst scenario, you can simply omit the degree.</p>
<p>Granted, the debt will hurt, which is why I agree with the notion that you should probably take a full ride at a low-level law school if you don’t get into a top law school. The debt is therefore a separate issue. </p>
<p>The point is that while earning a law degree - apart from the issue of debt - might not make you better off than you were coming out of college, it’s hard to fathom how it would actually truly make you worse off. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha! Nice try. If you want to discuss PhD programs, then you have to factor in the risk that you won’t actually complete the program. About half of all incoming PhD students will never actually finish the PhD. True, many of them will earn consolation master’s, but that is generally not good enough to garner a consulting or banking associate’s position.</p>
<p>By contrast, practically every student at the elite law schools in question will actually finish the degree. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very top performers can be promoted right up the ladder: generally no more than 10% of the entering cohort. You’re taking quite the risk that you will be one of them.</p>
<p>But as I said, practically everybody at the elite law schools will actually graduate. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nobody is saying that anybody should use the JD with the specific intention of becoming a consultant or banker. I specifically recommended against that strategy.</p>
<p>On the other hand, it’s not a bad backup plan. If you attend one of the top law schools, and you find out that you don’t really want to practice law, you have another option. Sure, it’s not as efficient as other pathways you could have taken, but the outcome is still quite respectable.</p>
<p>As a more basic issue, I don’t understand why posters on this thread (and many others) are so concerned about efficiency and certainty anyway. For example, any discussion of “Am I better off now than if I had been doing something for the same amount of time” is inherently predicated on an unreasonable calculation of efficiency and certainty. Life is inherently inefficient and uncertain. As the old saying goes, man makes plans, and God laughs. </p>
<p>To wit, I think back to all of the people with whom I had graduated from college, and the future career plans they had…and how few of them actually came to pass in the manner envisioned. Some of them headed to graduate school…of which many did not then complete their graduate programs. One guy who was adamant that he would never attend grad school had to eat his words because he actually did. Some guys became engineers, many of whom are not engineers anymore. {Heck, one engineer actually switched careers to becoming a real estate agent during the housing boom.} Some guys who were gung-ho about consulting and banking no longer are, and others who had never seriously considered consulting and banking are in those fields now (after obtaining MBA’s). </p>
<p>One of the biggest sources of uncertainty in life is …love. You never really know when you’re going to meet the love of your life, and after that, you never really know when you’re going to have children. I can think of plenty of people who put their former career plans aside after marrying, and especially, after having children, after which all of the things you thought were important turn out to be not so important after all. </p>
<p>I just think about a guy I read about who went to HLS, incurring significant debts that, because he never took a high-paying BIGLAW job but rather bounced around in relatively low-paying jobs in government, academia, and at small law firms, he carried those debts until his 40’s before paying them off completely. Imagine the burden of carrying educational debt until your 40’s? Surely that gravely circumscribes one’s future career prospects. </p>
<p>Oh wait…that guy became President of the United States.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, must we? Given inevitable reforms in public employee benefit packages - as most states and municipalities are awash in debt - it’s not clear what sort of pension police officer will continue to have, or even whether they’ll have pensions at all.</p>
<p>Furthermore, like I said, I keep coming back to the physical danger associated with being the job of being a police officer. I don’t care what sort of pension you may have, it’s worth nothing if you’re shot to death.</p>
<p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>In fairness, you could ‘double-dip’ as a lawyer as well. You could join the military through JAG. You could also become a reserve officer through the 16-month National Guard OCS, possibly during your 3L.</p>
<p>In short,</p>
<p>T 14, below median ---- very very hard to get a job?</p>
<p>I have undergrad degrees in Biology and English, after law school, if I wanted to pursue either one of those paths at an entry level instead of working in the basement of some law firm I would be less qualified than someone who just graduated undergrad? Thats what it sounds like people are saying, and that is what doesn’t make sense to me.</p>
<p>In addition to that I know dozens of people who went to law school and ended up in unrelated fields (finance primarily…think Nasdaq, NYSE and foreign organizations) who won’t shut up about how their law training landed them the first big job. If the law is all you get out of law school I could see how you might think that it’s subject specific training, but if you are able to adapt the skills you learn there, the possibilities are limitless. I suppose the people that are able to pull that off would have done well anyway.</p>
<p>
To many, the opportunity to lead troops in war is one of the greatest callings. How many other careers will you have that much responsibility when you are only 22? Because at 22, you better be a competent, sharp, and fast cat or else someone age 18 to 50 may pay for your mistake with his life. We’re not talking about some classroom academic debate, we’re talking about real life with very immediate and long term consequences. To most who are brave enough to take that challenge, the experience and the challenge are worth more than the pension.
You could as a lawyer. But could you do that while working the hours that biglaw firms require?<br>
You might also have misunderstood what I meant by “double-dip”. It refers to a scenario where the state/municipality pays you your income while you are deployed and you’re also collecting from the Federal government. That’s “double-dipping”.
I just haven’t heard of many lawyers double-dipping as much as law enforcement officers.</p>
<p>Before this thread goes even more off-topic, I think that unemployment is not over-exaggerated. It is what it is. But the prospect of having a 6 figure debt over your head without the income to have made that worthwhile is scary.</p>
<p>In regards to the issue of prospects for JDs outside of legal is just boils down to one thing… either you have “it” or you don’t. If you have “it” then you’ll succeed in alternative careers with or without a JD and if you don’t have “it” then the JD isn’t going to help outside of legal. </p>
<p>As for the prospect for new JDs within legal… the growing oversupply of lawyers in this country is no joke. However, even there I think the “it” factor comes into play again. If you have “it” you’ll succeed, but if you don’t then good luck. Waving around that JD and calling yourself Esquire isn’t going to get you far amongst the sea of others trying to do the same. </p>
<p>Yes the above applies to just about any profession, but it’s especially important in an area like legal where there’s far more supply than demand. </p>
<p>Just my two cents. (in shorter form)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where in the world did you get this idea from? That’s not even close to true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Though it’s probably a bad idea to have a backup plan that is harder to accomplish than your initial plan.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most companies don’t get very creative in their entry-level hiring. If you’re an outlier, which someone with either a JD or three-year resume gap will be, they’re more likely to be turned off than intrigued. An interview (if you get one) that consists mostly of you trying to explain why you went to law school if you didn’t want to be a lawyer, or why you didn’t get a legal job, is probably not going to result in an offer. Unless you don’t expect them to ask any questions about what you did with the last three years of your life. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s a big difference between being “qualified” and being likely to get the job. The two are not always as closely related as you seem to assume.</p>
<p>Understood, a good JD program will make you qualified for writing work among other things, but the sense I’m getting from people around here is that 3 years spent learning how to learn, be flexible and write would make me less likely to get a job that I would have been both qualified (though less qualified) for and likely to get 3 years prior?</p>
<p>I have interests in law, but I had just as much of an interest in going to law school for the intellectual challenge and rigorous academic training of the whole experience. So far anyway its been more about learning how to think than about learning any substantiative law.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. As Calico Cat pointed out, most employers are looking for cookie cutter resumes. This is especially true in a weak economy. If an employer is getting hundreds of resumes for 1 position, the hiring people will have a tendency to weed out any resume which does not closely match the background they are looking for. Why not? It saves them time and still leaves them with plenty of choices. </p>
<p>Having a JD on your resume for a non-legal job will suggest that you are a person who could not find a job or that you are wishy-washy. Employers will shy away from people who they think might be losers or flaky.</p>
<p>There may be a narrow exception if it’s a hot economy AND you go to a very prestigious law school AND the non-legal employer is recruiting on your campus. In that case, you do not have to worry about the stigma of being seen as flaky or a loser.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It isn’t?</p>
<p>From an older (and archived) version of Wikipedia:</p>
<p>*They are also the largest recruiter at Harvard Law School *</p>
<p>[Chemistry</a> - McKinsey & Company](<a href=“http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/McKinsey#Recruiting]Chemistry”>chemistrydaily.com - chemistrydaily Resources and Information.)</p>
<p>Such a pathway has been discussed rather heavily on other forums:</p>
<p>It seems McKinsey hires quite heavily from Harvard Law School…In fact, I’ve heard that hiring this year at HLS is not finished, and they’ve already made 11 offers to HLS students. This is probably higher than quite a few of the top 20 B schools. These are students who are choosing not to pick up a 145K base salary job in NYC which is guaranteed for virtually all HLS graduates. You don’t need any work experience to get into Harvard Law, and so you can become a McK Associate 3 years after UG.</p>
<p>[Getting</a> to McKinsey-Getting into B-School-BW Business Schools- BusinessWeek](<a href=“http://forums.businessweek.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=bw-bschools&tid=70674]Getting”>http://forums.businessweek.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=bw-bschools&tid=70674)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How so? I am convinced that, except during trying economic times, a Harvard Law grad can obtain some job in consulting or finance. It might not be at a McKinsey - indeed - it may be at a 2nd-tier firm. But they can get some job. After all, those firms hire Harvard graduates with PhD’s or even MA’s in subjects that have nothing to do with business. At least the law has something to do with business. If nothing else, at least you know something about contracts, torts, and corporate law. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But we’re not talking about ‘most companies’. We’re talking specifically about the consulting and finance firms that swarm around the campuses of Harvard and other elite schools. These firms have proven time and time again that they’re perfectly willing to hire students from irrelevant topics. </p>
<p>For example, I could just as easily ask why would somebody be so foolish as to complete the arduous task of a PhD in physics from MIT if he didn’t actually wanted to be a physicist, but rather wanted to be a consultant. </p>
<p>And yet…</p>
<p>[Associate</a> Principal Consultant’s Profile | Bachelor’s Degree Rice University | Stamford | McKinsey Careers](<a href=“http://www.mckinsey.com/sitecore/content/Global/Consultant/stephen_m.aspx]Associate”>http://www.mckinsey.com/sitecore/content/Global/Consultant/stephen_m.aspx)</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.mckinsey.com/careers/who_is_mckinsey/who_we_are/our_people/consultant/Seungheon%20S.aspx[/url]”>http://www.mckinsey.com/careers/who_is_mckinsey/who_we_are/our_people/consultant/Seungheon%20S.aspx</a></p>
<p>Or, perhaps more egregiously, why the heck would somebody want to first complete a law degree at Columbia and then later decide to complete a medical degree at Columbia - hence not a combined MD/JD program, but two degrees completely separately…and then after all that, decide neither to work as a lawyer or a doctor, but rather as a consultant? What a flake, right?</p>
<p>And yet…</p>
<p>…I wondered if people would think, “Who is this guy? He doesn’t stick with anything very long…</p>
<p>[Associate</a> Principal Consultant’s Profile | Other Advanced Degrees Columbia University | New York | McKinsey Careers](<a href=“http://www.mckinsey.com/careers/who_is_mckinsey/who_we_are/our_people/consultant/Eric%20D.aspx]Associate”>http://www.mckinsey.com/careers/who_is_mckinsey/who_we_are/our_people/consultant/Eric%20D.aspx)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But that is exactly what I’m talking about. I’m talking specifically about the most prestigious universities - i.e. the Harvards, Yales, Stanfords of the world - where the most elite recruiters, including non-law recruiters, are present. I’ve always said that a law degree from a lower-tier school is not particularly valuable outside of the law.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree, but that only highlights the fact that you can’t judge careers via a simple, cold-blooded discounted cash flow and retirement fund calculation. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But now you’re changing the terms of the debate. If you’re working in biglaw, then I think there is little dispute that you will be making vastly more money than the average policeman. </p>
<p>Now, if you then leave biglaw for a lower-paying and presumably lower-pressure job, then that’s when you could win a National Guard officer commission through OCS now that you have more free time. Granted, you can’t be too old, but if you’ve been working in biglaw for long enough to be too old to join the military, I have to believe that you’ve accumulated substantial savings from your high biglaw pay such that you won’t really need a military pension. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is that possible? I thought that (some) employers would top up your military pay so that while deployed, such that you would be making the same amount that you would be making if you had stayed at your regular job. But you won’t be receiving both your regular salary and a military salary. </p>
<p>But even if you can indeed double-dip, with state and municipality budgets in the sundered conditions that they are, it’s not clear that police officers who are serving military deployments will continue to be allowed to do so. After all, many private companies do not continue to pay any of the salaries of employees on military deployments. I suspect that one of the first reforms that any state/municipality would enact is to stop double-dipping (if that is indeed possible now) but instead only provide only top-ups.</p>
<p>
I’m not really changing the debate. Attorneys in big law are hardly the “average lawyers” (in terms of entry requirements).<br>
Welcome to government and its excesses. I’ll spare you the details of how we burn through money like it’s monopoly money.
The overall deployment cycle has been slowing down on the ARNG and USAR side. You may get some onesies and twosies from GKO volunteers or IMA type of deployments in the USAR though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But then that means that if you’re not working in biglaw, then you should have spare time to join the National Guard. </p>
<p>Furthermore, by the time you’re a 3L if not before, you should be able to reasonably predict whether you’re going to have a biglaw job. Many biglaw associates have a job offer in hand after their summer internships. If you’re not one of them, or if you don’t go to a top law school, or even if you do but you’re earning mediocre grades, you’re probably not going to get a biglaw offer. In that case, you really could reasonably join the National Guard via OCS during 3L. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then perhaps we could discuss exactly which states and municipalities you’re talking about, and then have a local reporter talk about it in the context of government spending. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which then would make the point moot until we get into another major war.</p>