<p>Mr. Payne, you seem to take such pleasure in ripping apart anything that anyone on this board has to say that I hesitate to respond (and I usually do not). </p>
<p>However, just to be clear, I used $35/hour for my example after taking a very conservative estimate for the bite taken by federal, state, local, FICA and Medicare taxes. You must also take into account the higher costs of living in the very few cities where a starting salary of $160,000 is generally available (not to imply that it is widely available, because it is not, but meaning that there are at least several firms offering such a starting salary).</p>
<p>Comparing a plumber located just anywhere to a plumber working in the regions where the $160,000/year attorneys work is just silly. In fact, I chose plumbers because when I did have a plumber into our home just a few weeks back to fix a relatively minor problem we were having, he charged us $85/hour labor plus parts. No, we did not get taken for a ride, and no, it was not a weekend or holiday when he came by. I had indeed shopped around and gotten recommendations, and, believe it or not, he was one of the most reasonable plumbers around. </p>
<p>So, yes, plumbers where I live are making more on an hourly basis (assuming that they put in the hours that a first year associate is working) than first year associates. It is a fact.</p>
<p>Sally you are failing to realize a few things. Your comparing what a plumbing business charged you with someones salary. This plumber himself is not making 85 dollars an hour as he likely works for a larger firm that takes money and has some overhead. Even if he works out of his house he has some overhead for advertising and an extra business phone and the like. He will also likely not be getting enough hours to make a more then 160,000 because most plumbers in big cities who don’t belong to larger companies have a harder time getting business. </p>
<p>Now I grant you this, plumbing is one blue collar job where you can make six figures fairly early on because of the lack of people who want to do it. I know a guy who owns a plumbing business in chicago, its him and six employees and he told me that after overhead and everything he takes a salary of about 140,000 (pre-tax). So if he is taking that amount of money do you really think his employees are making that much?</p>
<p>I understand the concepts of overhead, etc. I’m simply comparing the amount of money a first year associate is making on an hourly basis with the amount of money my local plumber is making on an hourly basis. My local plumber works for himself, drives an old van (which I presume is paid off), has no employees and his office likely consists of a desk in a room at home (for which he likely gets a home office tax deduction). Most plumbers aren’t exactly buying TV ads during the Today Show, so let’s assume that he takes out the standard ads in the yellow pages, in the local newspaper and maybe even maintains a website. We’re not exactly talking about big bucks here. I’m sure that he maintains business insurance and incurs state licensing fees for his business. Again, you can do the math as well as I can. </p>
<p>So, yes, first year associates are making a lot of money in the aggregate (certainly, it’s a lot more than when I was a first year associate). That said, when you make comparisons on an hourly basis, there are more lucrative jobs that one may have, which would probably offer one a bit more in terms of work/life balance (particularly when you add in the amount of debt that many law students are servicing while they slave away at work).</p>
<p>On the basis of dollars per hours worked, my plumber is most certainly taking home more money than most first year associates around here. I would argue that’s the way that it should be.</p>
<p>I cannot find any statistics on this, but my experience has been that only about 30% of PhD degrees are fully-funded. I’m sure that number is higher at private universities with cascading endowments, but those positions are few and far between. I spoke with a couple of my professors about this and none of them (inlcuding a Harvard and Brown graduate) recieved 100% funding. </p>
<p>But that’s all anecdotal. I would certianly like to see the hard numbers for this…</p>
<p>It seems like unfunded PhD acceptances are infinitely more common for humanities programs than science programs, and that some of these acceptances might just be polite rejections:</p>
<p>Huh. Reading those threads, apparently it’s the school trying to politely reject you and then some students actually take them up on it?</p>
<p>I grew up in Berkeley, CA, so I know an awful lot of UC PhD candidates. I’ve never met one that was actually paying tuition. (I suppose I don’t go around asking them.) And of course my schoolmates at private schools have never been paying tuition for their PhDs.</p>
<p>A few questions for the more knowledgeable contributors to this board: I am having difficulty finding clear answers online to what I think are critical questions about big law practices… </p>
<p>At top NY firms, assuming the associate has the appropriate resume and top school degree, how difficult is it to attain partnership?* What percentage of associates reach partner and what percentage seek it but are denied? </p>
<p>How intense is the work? I saw estimates of annual work hours of 2,200-3,000+ (for new associates) on this thread (a very large range, I might add); and so I gather that young lawyers spend the bulk of their time in the office. But how demanding are their work days; need they work dilligently every minute they are in the office? </p>
<p>the 2200 hr thing is time spent billing, so that is more like 3,000 hrs in the office or around 60 hours a week. you are usually expected to spend about 2/3 of your day working for the clients on matters (of course more is better, but that is near the ratio you will actually be able to do). the other 1/3 is meetings, business development, chit chat, etc. </p>
<p>a very small percentage make partner in a large firm; i believe its less than 10%. i am not sure how you would ever be able to breakdown the other 90% into those that were subtly forced out and those that went in planning to leave in a few years.</p>
<p>basically, “biglaw” has hell-ish hours and a small chance at partner, but most people leave for something else within a few years that is more sane but less lucrative.</p>
<p>I can tell you anecdotally that of the entering class of Biglaw associates of which I was a part, less than 5% made partner. It is impossible to say how many of the remaining 95% left voluntarily and how many were pushed out. Most left within the first four to five years of practice. </p>
<p>The important thing to note about the hours an associate works at Biglaw is that the hours are not consistent – in other words, associates don’t work 70 hours every week, split evenly across all of the days of the week. Instead, associates may work from Monday morning until late Tuesday night, or sometimes longer (the proverbial “all nighter”). That associate will bill fewer hours on Wednesday because they may not have to be into the office until 11 and may need to be there only until 6, while a client makes a big decision. Thursday and Friday, that associate may work from 10 a.m. until 11 p.m. (which is more of a typical workday in Biglaw land). Yes, the associate will be working on the weekend as well. </p>
<p>One week, an associate may work 90 hours and bill 75, while then next week, the associate may work 70 hours and bill 45. In my opinion, the single biggest difficulty in working as a Biglaw associate is that the associate will rarely know which kind of day or week he or she will have when he or she steps into the office in the morning. Nothing is sacred. Weekends, holidays, anniversaries, weddings and “planned” events may be cancelled on short notice. </p>
<p>Associates are typically working on multiple matters, so that if one matter is slow, there is always work waiting to be done. Some days are more hectic than others (for example, days when clients make unreasonable demands or days with filing or other deadlines). If an associate has absolutely no work to do or is “slow” (especially these days), he or she should probably be out looking for more work. Busy often means safe, in terms of job security (unless the associate is not very good at what he or she is doing).</p>
<p>I’m under the impression that if you actually make it to the 8th year, you have a pretty decent shot at making partner. Of course, the operative part of that statement is actually “making it.” But I hear that if you’re willing to put in the work, you have a solid shot of making it. So in that respect, making partner isn’t that mysterious or as daunting as it seems. I mean, it’s hard… no doubt. But it’s not like rolling a 20-sided dice, hoping for a single number combination. Some lawyers make it sound like the lottery.</p>
<p>Working hard and putting in x billable hours consistently for 8 years do not automatically qualify you on a partner track. You have to bring in clients too. That’s why it is so hard. They expect you to put in the hours and network your way to generate more revenues. It is not like admissions to law school where if the numbers are good enough, you’re in.</p>
<p>Thank you for distorting my point. I never stated that hours are sufficient for partnership.</p>
<p>From what I know, half of those who made it to their 8th year at my firm made partner. Expressed as a percentage of the 1st year class, the odds seem low. Expressed as a percentage of the 8th year class, the odds are more reasonable.</p>
<p>I think you need a lesson to write more concisely.
What is the % of 8th year that made partner in your firm, Wildflower.
Likability is also a hook in making partnership.</p>
<p>“Nothing is sacred. Weekends, holidays, anniversaries, weddings and ‘planned’ events may be cancelled on short notice.”</p>
<p>This reminded me of something that happened on my wedding day. My office wasn’t that far from where I was getting married, and I stopped in to change into my tuxedo. The phone rang, and I answered it; it was a lawyer who had referred a case to me, who was pinging me about something he wanted me to do on the case. I dropped the requested document in the mail on my way out, and proceeded to my wedding, attended by the same lawyer who had pinged me a couple of hours before. He sheepishly apologized to me at the reception - right after he had called me, his wife asked him if he remembered where they were going that day. It had slipped his mind, he assured me. I’ve wondered a couple of times since then if it really would have made a difference.</p>
<p>Purely from a mathematical perspective, sure, you have a better percentage chance of making partner as an eighth year associate than you did as a first year associate. That said, if you are one of the many associates who was up for partner and who was passed over, the chances were not nearly good enough. Oh, and, of course, the partnership track at many Biglaw firms is a lot longer than 8 years, particularly when you take into account the whole non-equity partner thing that many firms have. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, you certainly have to put in the work and undoubtedly make some pretty big personal sacrifices, yes. Unfortunately, that alone is not nearly enough.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some aspects of making partner are like the lottery. If the year when you are “up” happens to be a bad year either for the economy, your firm or your area of practice at the firm, you could be passed over even though in any other year you would have been made partner. In addition, throughout your associate years, the assignments you happen to get staffed on (or which you get yourself staffed on) and the people with whom you happen to work, among other things, can be of huge importance in determining whether you eventually make partner. I would classify the actual partnership selection process as something akin to the fraternity/sorority rush meeting where bids are determined. It can get ugly.</p>