<p>if the student is good at math/science, engineering or premed is the best major by far. if he is interested in a career in engineering (will learn this in undergrad) he can become an engineer. if he wants to get into business/sales, an engineering degree is respected and appreciated. finally, even for law school, engineering is considered a great major for both the analytical skills and the opportunity to practice patent law (an in-demand field).</p>
<p>$125,000 is an obscene salary. No one should get that much.</p>
<p>The state should regulate all salaries.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh? Considering how much debt law students accrue, $125,000 is not that much money. Stop being judgmental and start considering the circumstances students are in. And considering the fact that you want to go to Harvard Law School, I kindly ask that you call me in a few years when you’re a 3L and you’ve turned down the $160,000 salary. Hint: It ain’t gonna happen (neither will HLS, but that’s a humorous story for another thread), so stop being a hypocrite.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It probably seems like a lot if you are single and living the grad student lifestyle, but it is actually suprisingly little if you are married with children, living in the suburbs, and paying federal, state, local, and property taxes along with a mortgage, other loan payments, utilities, etc… And trying to save a little for retirement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the US, this is already done through progressive taxation. Thus, someone who earns $125k pays a much higher percentage of his income than someone who earns $25k.</p>
<p>So what exactly are you proposing? Raising the marginal tax rate to 99% if you earn more than 125k?</p>
<p>Just for the record, I have never expressed a desire to go to HLS. I briefly flirted with the idea of law school par se, but I am not a lawyer. I am too soft, too human. A writer, a artist-that’s me.</p>
<p>You gotta admit $125k is a lot for one human to make annually.</p>
<p>I don’t really think so…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“A lot” compared to what? And for whom?</p>
<p>As noted above, 125k is surprisingly little if you are married with children, living in the suburbs of a place like New York, and paying federal, state, local, and property taxes along with a mortgage, other loan payments, utilities, etc… And trying to save a little for retirement.</p>
<p>It’s human nature to look at the folks above you in terms of income and think they are making an obscene amount of money.</p>
<p>most middle-class professionals will make 125k at some point in their lives (perhaps 40+ though). i am talking about software engineers, accountants, corporate finance people, etc. so it is not THAT crazy.</p>
<p>what is a tad bit absurd is 21 yr old -> law school -> making 160k when they are 24 years old. a single un-encumbered 24 year old is pretty wealthy making 160k. </p>
<p>but none of this is absurd relative to wall street :).</p>
<p>Depends on how one defines unencumbered.</p>
<p>haha true…lets assume he/she took a fullride at a lower-ranked school and thus has minimal student loan debt</p>
<p>It really all depends on how you look at it. 160k is far above the national average, and the national average is far above the the world average. But just like CEO and doctor salaries, they have to be higher because there has to be incentives to attract talented people into a profession that requires more talent. This is especially true when you consider the cost incurred by people who go to law/medical school. For the most part job salaries are put on a scale considering cost to get the needed training to do that job and the ease of the job. There are outliers I think like highschool teachers. </p>
<p>But all this argument about whether 160k is a lot of money or not is moot. Yes, it is a lot of money, whether you have 15 kids or your single it still puts you in the top 6% of the country. It seems like people lose sight of this fact when they get to that point. It was your choice to put yourself in more hardship by having more kids or living in a high cost area (although a lot of jobs have adjusted salaries for this reason). People have this idea that unless your living the big life and your house is on cribs then you aren’t actually rich. So yes 160k is a lot of money, no matter who you are, but higher salaries are needed to attract people to these jobs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or took a big withdrawal from the Bank of Mom and Dad. It’s a lot of money but you also work a ****load of hours for it and you get taxed to death on it. Someone fresh out of law school, even with no debt, isn’t going to be able to take advantage of the tax deductions that the really rich are able to take advantage of.</p>
<p>Attorneys at biglaw firms are paid $160,000/year starting salary not only to attract talent or to account for the vast amount of student loans incurred by many in order to go to law school. (Please keep in mind that fewer and fewer biglaw firms are actually paying starting attorneys $160,000/year, as salaries are reduced across the board at many firms.) </p>
<p>Starting attorneys are paid what seems a blazingly high amount of money because they are exchanging their lives and their freedom for that money. After paying the excruciatingly high taxes that one pays on such a high salary, the higher contributions to health insurance, etc. that attorneys at law firms pay relative to many others, then assuming that an attorney works (not bills) 2200 hours per year (which probably results in billings of 1800 or so hours per year if one is very efficient), that attorney is making about $47/hour.</p>
<p>My plumber makes more.</p>
<p>Young attorneys are sacrificing any right they once had to make plans and to keep them. They are working on holidays and weekends, evenings and early mornings, often all without advance notice or any reasonable option to say no. They are missing family get-togethers, dates, ball games with their kids/nephews/neices/grandparents, etc., and they are pushed to the point of utter exhaustion (and then some more). </p>
<p>Young attorneys are foolish to think that there is no trade off for making $160,000/year. That trade off is more often than not a deal with the devil.</p>
<p>SO says I’ll derive sick pleasure from the work…</p>
<p>Sally – isn’t 2200 hours a year a VERY conservative estimate? I would have thought they’d be up in the 3000 range.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, I agree with this. 3000 seems to be the range (with 2400+being billable) if you want to stay at the firm.</p>
<p>I wonder if she meant 3200/2800?</p>
<p>there is also a trade-off in the other direction though. in law, you are selling yourself as an individual rather than your work product. </p>
<p>take engineering for example. the engineer goes to work, designs a new invention. the company takes that invention, patents it, and proceeds to make billions of profit. yet the engineer walks away with 100k salary. sounds like a fishy trade to me… in general, if you are working 40 hours/week, you are either getting paid less than you are worth (see: engineers) or your work just isn’t all that important. </p>
<p>in professional services, you “get what you are worth”. if you are an outstanding lawyer, you will be compensated accordingly. the litigators that consistently win cases get huge bonuses, are rewarded with partnership, etc. same thing goes for rockstar wall st traders or investment bankers. </p>
<p>that type of trade-off probably doesn’t make sense for a very family-oriented individual, or someone that is in their late 30’s or 40’s. but for an ambitious young professional, the service industry can be a good selection. the work experienced gained and contacts made in things like banking/consulting/law can also result in nice transitions down the line where you can switch into the 40 hr/wk mode when your priorities change.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not sure. Litigators at big lockstep firms don’t get a special bonus for their particular performance on a matter (even the partners at some firms, like Davis Polk). And partnership is guaranteed for no one, no matter how much work they do–the decision can, potentially, be based on the most arbitrary reasons. I recall reading that a top associate at Sullivan & Cromwell, who everyone basically assumed would make partner, was passed over. The story goes that he was denied partnership because he drove a Harley to work. Go figure.</p>
<p>Some firms do reward individual hard work. I believe places like Irell and Kramer Levin do profit sharing with their associates. Boies seems to have a similar initiative (I think) for their associates. Kirkland & Ellis, while doing lockstep for base salaries, uses merit to determine bonuses; some associates end up making substantially more than market. </p>
<p>It’s worth noting that firms that award such work with more money tend to have an “eat what you kill” culture. It isn’t bad if you don’t mind competitiveness. But lockstep was supposedly invented to make people more collegial. And apparently, that’s why places like Davis Polk tend to be “collegial” all the way up to the most senior of partners.</p>
<p>IMO, the place is really just passive aggressive ;)</p>
<p>yes, it varies from firm to firm but the structure of law is such that if you are REALLY good you can make more because legal work is not considered a commodity. i was also talking more at the partner level than the associate level, although i do know that the chance of making partner is small. </p>
<p>this can also be seen on a firm vs firm basis. the reason companies hire firms like S&C is because they are the best; they could save plenty of money by hiring joe schmoe down the street but still choose to pay the outrageous fees of the top firms.</p>
<p>you can be a rockstar engineer or accountant but you will struggle to make more the median for engineers/accountants in your area and industry. companies for the most part view those type of white-collar professional jobs as widgets that can easily be replaced, yet when it comes to legal work they are not too keen on anything except the very best and largest law firms.</p>