<p>I'm a chemical engineering MS student (about 1 year into my program). I'm sure there are a good amount of STEM undergrads on this board. For those who do not know, when pursuing a PhD or MS in a STEM field, it is fairly easy to get a fellowship or assistantship. This results in tuition being waived plus a monthly stipend. In other words, we get our degrees for free plus a small stipend. </p>
<p>For med/law school you almost always need to fork out a massive amount of money. For an elite law school, this is well worth the investment. Same for med school.</p>
<p>But as I progress through my program, I have been dumbfounded by the number of old friends who are now enrolled in extremely expensive and very lowly (ranking in the 60s and 70s) law programs. I'm too polite to ask them why they are doing such a self-destructive thing. Many of them are sorority girls with big trust funds, but I STILL do not understand it. To me, it seems both reckless and selfish to pursue this degree when the net cost is around 300K and there's an oversupply of lawyers. And this is after they went to some expensive non-elite private school for undergrad to major in .... sports management. </p>
<p>The reason I posted this rant here was perhaps to see if there is actually a method to their madness. Surely you all know individuals doing this. Why are they doing this? Are you one of them? Is there any logic? Clearly there are a large amount of ppl going to these programs given that the non-elite law schools meet enrollment every year and even reject many applicants. </p>
<p>Given my circumstances, I see Law/Med school from an entirely different perspective. I do not know any PhD student (in engineering) who is paying for their degree. Furthermore, the job prospects are better for engineering students than law students in general. Obviously a Yale Lawyer would crush any engineer, but I'm talking about these non-elite law schools.</p>
<p>EDIT:
I'm not trying to dismiss law. I think it's an incredibly respectable profession, and sometimes I wish I had obtained a JD. In fact, I may do so in the future. But I would only do it at a strong program with explicitly defined career goals. </p>
<p>With one exception, I would not recommend anyone go to law school these days. There is simply too much competition for too little work. You are unlikely to be able to make up the cost of 3 years’ tuition and living expenses and lost wages and seniority within a normal working lifetime.</p>
<p>The exception is if you have a science background, especially electrical or computer engineering, and will practice patent prosecution. In that case only, you have a reasonable expectation of there being plenty of lucrative work after graduation.</p>
<p>I agree with fccdad, but with one more exception:</p>
<p>attend at a T14/15 at a huge discount. Good-to-great prestige and no/low debt (so little uses of making up “the costs of 3 years’ tuition and living expenses…”)</p>
<p>That way exit options, including Starbucks, are numerous.</p>
<p>Maybe there are people who attend a given non-elite law school because that school is strong in one area of legal practice that they wish to practice themselves (e.g. Tulane in maritime or environmental law or UMD in healthcare law)…</p>
<p>I’d think that the person’s career prospects would have to be better from a non-elite school than without a law degree at all. That could surely be the case in many instances.</p>
<p>People without law degrees are often far better situated than those with law degrees. A law degree from a low-ranked school is a burden in searching for employment, not a benefit. Legal employers aren’t interested and non-legal employers think you’ll cut and run as soon as a legal job opens up.</p>
<p>Demosthenes49 - what you say about lower tier law schools is certainly true when it comes to “big law” jobs, but it is not true with regard to other legal fields - especially criminal litigation. Someone who wants to work as a prosecutor or public defender will not be hampered by a degree from even a bottom tier law school, providing he did not rack up $100k in debt to obtain his JD. The same can be said for legal work with many state and county level employers. The bench at my county’s superior court is a perfect example of this. We do not have a single judge from an “elite” law school, but we have plenty from local law schools, including one judge who graduated from a non-ABA law school. </p>
<p>Why do people always make this argument? Those judges you’re talking about graduated in the job market of 20 years ago. People in law school today are graduating in the market of today. Unless you happen to have a time machine handy, why on earth do you think it matters how many judges went where before half of today’s students were even born? </p>
<p>The only thing that matters today is today. Today, only half of law grads are finding legal jobs of any description, including criminal work and more importantly including doc review. Those finding decent jobs are disproportionately concentrated at the top. No surprise, it’s a buyers market, so they buy they best kids they can get. That includes criminal law, both prosecution and defense. </p>
<p>Demosthenes49 - I could just as easily ask why posters like you always seem to assume people who attend law school will be applying for work at “big law” firms in major urban centers like NYC, LA or SF. Many of your posts here at CC relate to “big law,” so I’m assuming you work at a large law firm. Do you have any experience whatsoever with criminal litigation? More to point, do you have any experience with the legal job market outside of major urban areas? </p>
<p>I can’t speak for the job markets outside of my state, but here in California there is a huge difference between the job markets in LA, San Diego, SF and Sacramento versus cities in the central valley like Stockton, Fresno and Bakersfield. Sacramento and the coastal markets are very label conscious, whereas the central valley is not. I practice in a central valley city, and every year, our local DA and PD hire between 3-5 new attorneys. Every one of these attorneys went to third or fourth tier law schools. You will find very few T-14 law school graduates practicing in California’s central valley. </p>
<p>You talk about people graduating in the job “market” of today, and I think this is where you and I disagree. I think it’s a mistake to look at the legal field as having a singular job market. The job market at “big law” firms is different from the job market at state agencies, and the job market in job markets in places like SF and Seattle are different from the job markets in places like Fresno, Spokane and Boise. I’m not disagreeing with you about it being a buyer’s market these days. I’m simply pointing out that it is much more of a buyer’s market in some parts of the country than in others. </p>
<p>Finally, I referred to the makeup of my county’s bench because I believe it’s a perfect example of the difference between practicing law in the central valley as opposed to practicing law in a major city like SF or LA. The SF and LA county superior courts have many judges who graduated from T-14 law schools. With the exception of Sacramento, that simply isn’t true at any of the central valley courts. The OP asked why someone would attend a non-elite law school, and I was responding to that question. </p>
<p>Most people interested in law that come to forums like this are looking for Big Law. No surprise really, since Big Law is often a prerequisite job for the jobs people often want to really do. If people come in interested in other things, we advise them about those other things. Big Law is also one of the few places a person can pay off a full debt load. The other, working for 120 payments in government/nonprofit, is pretty hard to get, comparatively. </p>
<p>As it happens, I do have experience with criminal litigation outside a major urban area since I worked in a small-town criminal defense firm for a while. I saw exactly how saturated that little market was and was personally in charge of rejecting many applicants far more qualified than those who were already in the market. Kind of like your judges, really. I also know that my experience doesn’t really matter. Anecdotes are nice, but hiring statistics need to be much broader if you want to draw valid conclusions. That’s why I rely on jobs data and not on my own experiences.</p>
<p>The jobs data shows that there are very, very few jobs available in places like state agencies. Maybe they do hire more from local schools (I doubt it and the data doesn’t support this theory, but for sake of argument…), but so what? There are still way too many local school graduates and the competition is consequently far too fierce. If there are 10 agency jobs available at a school with 100 graduates, you have a 10% chance of gainful employment. That risk is utterly insane, which is why we tell people not to take it. It might work out for some people, but it won’t work out for most.</p>
<p>The OP asked why someone would attend a low-ranked school, and you told him why people used to. That’s great from a historical perspective, but the OP was asking about today. Today isn’t like pre-2007 and it probably won’t be again for quite some time.</p>
<p>“Today isn’t like pre-2007 and it probably won’t be again for quite some time.”</p>
<p>I agree that the much of the downsizing at big law firms is the result of structural changes in the legal field rather than just a bad economy. I left “big law” for the government ten years ago, but I still keep in touch with the attorneys at my old firm, and it’s amazing to see how the composition of the firm has changed, especially over the past 5 years. When I was at the firm, it was fairly well leveraged with 3-4 associates for every equity partner. Now those figures are almost reversed.</p>
<p>Having said that, I think the million dollar question for someone considering law school is “what will the job market look like 3-4 years down the road when I’m looking for work?” I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but is it fair to say you believe the market will still be pretty grim? I’m a little more optimistic. I suspect many young attorneys who can’t find work in today’s legal market will leave the profession, and I suspect the lower enrollment figures we see at lower tier law schools will be permanent. This would help reduce the number of attorneys in the market to more balanced levels. I also believe that when the market starts to recover, litigation firms will be more likely to hire new associates straight out of law school as opposed to attorneys who have been out of work (or working somewhere other than big law) for several years. That’s just a gut feeling though. I don’t have access to data on legal employment, and I was never privy to partnership discussions at my old firm. Perhaps my outlook would be different if I were looking for work. </p>
<p>In any event, it will be interesting to see how things shake out over the next few years. </p>
<p>The legal market will track the economy minus a couple years, the same way it always has. For example, the crash was in 2007 but the law grads to feel it worst graduated in 2009 (meaning they did OCI in 2007). If the economy steadily improves you can expect the legal market to generally improve, but probably not anywhere near the 2007 days due to offshoring/insourcing/automation. </p>
<p>Even with the reduction in people attending school, we will still have more graduates than expected legal jobs of any flavor. If memory serves it looks like roughly a 25% reduction in the number of applications. However, we had twice as many grads as jobs. That just means now there are 2 jobs for every 3 grads, instead of 1 for 2. Better, but still not good. </p>