<p>kfc42,</p>
<p>Most would recommend that you study as many hours as you can reasonably stomach. 50 hours a week isn't unusual; 70 or more is not unheard-of by any means.</p>
<p>I agree with Greybeard. What would be "foolish" is to allow anyone to disuade you from following your dream, no matter how difficult the path may be.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My boss went to night law school; the CFO of the company I work for also went to night law school. I can assure you, "foolish" is not a word anyone would apply to either of these people. Both of them have enjoyed far more success than the average graduate of a daytime law school program.
[/quote]
The Chief Financial Officer of a company does not need a law degree to do his job. It is rare for the success of a CFO to depend on having a law degree. It is more likely that a CFO's success depends on having an accounting, finance, or business degree. </p>
<p>My point is that it is foolish to choose a night school over a day program for law training. Going to night school while working means you short change your job, your family and yourself. I have given one example where you can change a foolish decision into a brilliant one. That example is to go to night law school but not work during the day. </p>
<p>If being a lawyer is your passion, you can find a way to make it happen and attend day law school. If you have a spouse and small children, I believe your passion should be for them first and your career second. You simply cannot replace the time you could have spent with your growing children.</p>
<p>Again, what is up with this talk of night school being 'foolish'? Night schools exist for people who for whatever reason want or need to keep working.</p>
<p>You talk about short-changing your job, your family, and yourself by going to night school. Yet I would argue that, depending your personal circumstances, going to a day school might REALLY get you short-changed. By going to day school, you basically have to quit your job. By doing to day school, you forgo your job's income. What if your marriage breaks up over financial problems because you quit your job to go to a day law school? What if you have to move your kids out of a good school district and into a bad one because you can no longer afford to live in a good neigborhood because you quit your job to go to day law school and hence you can't afford the mortgage anymore? </p>
<p>The bottom line is that not everybody can simply quit their jobs "just like that" in order to go to law school. Some people need to keep working. Some people need to continue to bring home the bacon. Life is full of compromises. </p>
<p>I think what truly is foolish is to make the sweeping and categorical generalization that choosing night school over day school is never appropriate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What if your marriage breaks up over financial problems because you quit your job to go to a day law school? What if you have to move your kids out of a good school district and into a bad one because you can no longer afford to live in a good neigborhood because you quit your job to go to day law school and hence you can't afford the mortgage anymore?
[/quote]
Then don't go to law school. The country will get along fine without another lawyer. As you said, life is about compromise. I can raise as many "what ifs" as you do. What if your young son could have gone to Harvard had you not ignored him for four years once he began elementary school, and instead he ends up working as a low skilled laborer with an insecurity complex?<br>
[quote]
I think what truly is foolish is to make the sweeping and categorical generalization that choosing night school over day school is never appropriate.
[/quote]
I gave an example of when going to night school would be appropriate. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that there are too many people on this board who think the only important things in life are elite colleges and high-profile careers. If you have to chose between a very successful career with below average quality children and having wonderful children but a so so career, you are obligation to chose the later once you decide to have children. Why? Because the children had no choice in deciding whether to be born, but you did. There is no such thing as a person who can work a full time job, go to night law school, and devote the time and attention necessary to raise young children. If you end up with decent kids, it is because your spouse pulled your share of the load.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Then don't go to law school. The country will get along fine without another lawyer. As you said, life is about compromise. I can raise as many "what ifs" as you do. What if your young son could have gone to Harvard had you not ignored him for four years once he began elementary school, and instead he ends up working as a low skilled laborer with an insecurity complex?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I can return the favor. If somebody can in fact keep down a job, go to night school and get a law degree, while still bringing in enough money to keep the family relationships alive, then what's wrong with that? Seems to me that if that's the situation, then this person has managed to accomplish all the things that he wanted to accomplish, both personally and professionally. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The bottom line is that there are too many people on this board who think the only important things in life are elite colleges and high-profile careers. If you have to chose between a very successful career with below average quality children and having wonderful children but a so so career, you are obligation to chose the later once you decide to have children. Why? Because the children had no choice in deciding whether to be born, but you did. There is no such thing as a person who can work a full time job, go to night law school, and devote the time and attention necessary to raise young children. If you end up with decent kids, it is because your spouse pulled your share of the load.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Who said the situation necessarily had anything to do with your kids? I gave that example of kids as one possible reason why somebody might want to keep a steady income. But that's just one example. There are plenty of other reasons why people want to maintain their job while still wanting to go to law school. Night law school is then a perfectly viable option for those people. I know one person who works as an officer of a major charity during the day. She feels like she is accomplishing really important things at her job, and so she is loathe to quit it. At the same time, she wants to obtain legal credentials, which she feels will help her do her job even more effectively. Are you saying that she's being stupid? Many other people also want to hold their jobs yet still get legal credentials. Are they all being stupid?</p>
<p>And what you have said is inconsistent. You criticize people for thinking that the only things that are important in life are elite colleges and high-profile careers. Yet, with the exception of a few, most elite law schools do not offer night programs. And most people in night programs are not doing it because they think they are going to have a high-profile law career. If they really thought that, they would probably be going to a day program. Yet you're sitting here telling people that night school is dumb, and that people are serious about a strong law career , they should devote themselves to a day program. </p>
<p>I would argue that it is precisely those people who would consider night programs that are the ones who don't think that elite schools and high-profile careers are all that important. The people who you should be criticizing are those people who did quit their jobs to go to, for example, Harvard, Yale, or Stanford Law. </p>
<p>Let me put it to you this way. Obviously any parent who neglects his children is bad. But consider this. One guy works and goes to night law school and neglects his children, but at least is still bringing in money for the family. Another guy quits his job to go to Harvard Law, and neglects his children. Which is worse? At least the first guy is supporting his family financially, if perhaps not emotionally. The second guy is doing neither. And we all know that elite day law schools have a way of absorbing all your time if you let them. Just because you go to a day law school doesn't mean that you are doing your family right.</p>
<p><< If you end up with decent kids, it is because your spouse pulled your share of the load.>></p>
<p>And that, dear sir, is called marriage. </p>
<p>Anyway, if the husband isn't going to law school at night, he's probably working late, at the bar, at the gym or my personal favorite - watching 5 hours of tv . </p>
<p>I say send him to law school where at least he is using his time in a productive manner.</p>
<p>Yep, I think that ctnjpamom hit the nail on the head.</p>
<p>The fact is, when we're talking about child-rearing and good parenting, it really all comes down to personal motivation. Some people decide that they simply want to do right by their children. They just want to do it. For these people, it doesn't matter if they have a job and go to night school and anything else that they want to do. They will still do whatever they have to do to ensure that they are rearing their children well. Other people simply don't want to do it. So even if they have no job and don't go to any school and so have all the time in the world, they're still not going to do it. Take a gander at all the deadbeat parents in the world.</p>
<p>Just to note: KFC4u appears to be without spouse or children, unless I am mistaken. (I don't believe he/she is done with college yet.)</p>
<p>"You need to either be single or be married to a very understanding spouse if you want to work full time and go to law school at night. If there are children, you need to be married to a saint. The only people I met in law school who were married to saints were men."</p>
<p>I'm not sure if this is a question of sainthood, or simple division of labor. If, say, the husband is working full-time, and the wife is working part-time (one not-uncommon arrangement with small children), it doesn't seem surprising that the wife might be willing to take care of the kids after school. Both parents would be working hard for the family, and presumably, raising children is at least as satisfying as studying contracts. (Most husbands, as noted, don't usally do that much around the house at night anyway.) </p>
<p>If the woman was working full-time, paying most of the bills, one could theoretically see a husband willing to stay home and raise the kids as well. Of course, most men aren't as comfortable doing this, for various reasons, but it's also probably true that most women are less likely to make enough to support this arrangement. </p>
<p>I could also point out that men generally seem less competent at / suited for being primary caregivers, but I'm sure that would only invite attack. :^)</p>
<p>What I can say is that, no matter what your motivation is, you're going to be a fairly crappy "care-giving" parent if you're working full-time and going to night-school. You simply wont' have much time left for your kids. Of course, it was traditionally the male parent's role to bring home bacon, not nurture, so one could argue about the overall need for such attention vs. the material-provision aspect of parenting, which is also obviously important. Either way, whatever your gender, you should probably be sure that at least one of you is a nurturing parent, willing and happy to care for the kids after school, if the other parent is going this route.</p>
<p>An aside about the CFO I mentioned: he practiced law full time for many years before becoming CFO; he was general counsel for many years of the corporation where he is now CFO. That's not the most typical career path for CFO's, but it's hardly unheard-of. </p>
<p>He had planned to enroll in a consensus top-10 law school to which he had been admitted, but opted instead to stay in the city where he was living and working because of a promissing romance, which has resulted in a long and apparently happy marriage.</p>
<p>Yay! :^)</p>
<p>Happy marriage > top 10 school.</p>