<p>This is the reason I’m not having kids. They cost too much.</p>
<p>13 years private school (k-12)+undergrad=we’re looking at $600k already. And the kid still has to eat, buy clothes, go out with friends, driving lessons, first car, etc. we’re looking at $1mil per kid. Too much money.</p>
<p>Futurenyu, you just have to look at kids as a very expensive hobby.</p>
<p>Our neighbor is a partner at at top law firm that pays around $150K for starting associates. They DO NOT reserve their spots to those exclusively from top law schools. </p>
<p>There are a disproportionate number of kids from top schools, because more tend to apply to this venue, he says. Also his firm not only asks about law school grades and LSAT scores, but undergrad info as well. The top law firms do tend to have more of the top kids because of the screening process to get into them let them take the cream of the crop. But without connections (which many kids coming from name schools just tend to have) the grades can make all of the difference. There are kids without connections or other overriding reasons to be hired that come from top law schools with unremarkable grades who have trouble getting lucrative jobs. A Harvard grad with mediocre grades looking for work in law firms that are made up of local law school grads may get a boot just for coming from there.</p>
<p>bluedevil, It is a tough decision to make. Some would regret paying especially if they truly could not afford it, and others feel that real loves does not come around too often, and would not let her get away.</p>
<p>futurenyustudent, this is exactly what by older son says! I still have hope that he might change his mind once he has a few nickels in the bank and a career.</p>
<p>"But without connections (which many kids coming from name schools just tend to have) the grades can make all of the difference. There are kids without connections or other overriding reasons to be hired that come from top law schools with unremarkable grades who have trouble getting lucrative jobs. "</p>
<p>That’s exactly what I’m saying. Although I used “interesting” rather than “overriding reasons” but I believe we mean the same thing. The “Ta Da” Factor.</p>
<p>Very expensive and high-maintenance. And I’d make a really bad parent anyway. I’d stick any kids, if I ever have any, because you know, stuff happens, in boarding school as soon as they’re able. One of those absentee parents, you know. No thanks, I have other expensive hobbies to feed.</p>
<p>The kid’s gonna end up scarred for life because daddy “doesn’t love him” and I’m gonna end up destitute. Of course, I COULD put the kid in public school,…wait, did I just say public school? No way. And private school comes with carpooling, PTA, and another set of expensive hobbies that come with being a private school parent.</p>
<p>Yes, there are large firms in some secondary markets that will hire Ivy law grads “just because.” I think they often get burned in the long run for doing that when they overlook a strong local candidate that presents better in every other way. Some of these attorneys are trying to back door their way to NYC or DC for example. I have warned clients in cities like Baltimore to be careful hiring a Harvard grad with no connections to the city. They often are trying to get some experience with a well respected local firm with an eye to applying to a big DC firm within a short period of time.</p>
<p>“Yes, there are large firms in some secondary markets that will hire Ivy law grads “just because.” I think they often get burned in the long run for doing that when they overlook a strong local candidate that presents better in every other way.”</p>
<p>I think that’s exactly true and those rootless candidates are often very high maintenance. First years are often the most difficult associates in any firm.</p>
<p>Thank you cartera45 and zoosermom, those were very helpful replies, and I mean it.</p>
<p>“Thank you cartera45 and zoosermom, those were very helpful replies, and I mean it.”</p>
<p>Glad to help. If I could advise a potential candidate, I’d tell him/her, we already know you’re smart and accomplished, but what makes you interesting? How do you stand out from the other smart, accomplished people? Why would a partnership choose you to join them, rather than the next guy? After college, get a job, get another degree, do something, and then learn that as special as you are, there’s always someone just that much more special than you and develop some humility, gratitude and humor.</p>
<p>Well said ZG. </p>
<p>I don’t see them when they come out of law school - I see them a couple of years later when they are ready to leave a job. Again, to have choices then, the best candidates have something more than grades and recognizeable names on a resume.</p>
<p>My experience as an attorney leads me to agree completely with everything cartera and zoosermom have said about the hiring process and prospects for lawyers down the road. Grades count . . . pretty much forever, if you want to continue to practice law in a law firm setting or in house. </p>
<p>For whatever reason, as a general matter, the practice of law is very conscious of educational pedigree, including schools attended, law firms worked for (having worked for a very prestigious and well known firm opens a tremendous number of doors) and grades, including graduation accolades like summa cum laude, Order of the Coif, etc. Anecdotally, I was sitting in on a meeting this past Tuesday with the general counsel of a Fortune 100 company, several other lawyers from that same company and a handful of attorneys from a very prestigious and well known NYC law firm vying for that company’s business. Not only did the general counsel inquire as to the credentials of the attorneys from the prestigious law firm, including their experience as well as their law schools attended, graduation accolades and undergraduate schools, but the general counsel also inquired as to the qualifications of the attorneys who would be working on this Fortune 100 company’s matters. I have frequently seen these questions arise, both formally and informally. Again, educational pedigree often counts.</p>
<p>Now, of course there are many exceptions to the generalizations stated in this thread (you should apply only to top law schools, you need to have top grades, etc.) and there are many extremely bright and successful lawyers who don’t have the kind of credentials that make a recruiter’s face light up in a wide grin, but consider this when deciding where to apply to and attend law school – do you want to incur the amount of debt necessary to go to other than a top law school hoping that you will be the next great story about the exception to the generalization? I have never had the stomach for that kind of risk in my personal life, but each person considering law school should ask themselves that question before deciding where and whether to go.</p>
<p>Well if you are not going to a top law school it might be very wise not accumulate 300k in debt, LOL. That would be foolish, IMO. You can still be an attorney who graduated from an average law school and begin at a small firm starting out at around $60,000. My DH worked in small firms until he was able to open up his own firm.</p>
<p>The point I keep trying to make is that it is not very easy to get those $60K jobs coming out of law school today! It is simply NOT the same as it was when many of us graduated. The small firms are hiring lawyers from the top of the classes at regional and local law schools. Corporations are hiring 5-7 year lawyers for the most junior positions. The largest corporations will hire new graduates, but more and more Fortune 200 companies only hire experienced lawyers.<br>
And, yes, as a General Counsel I did check educational backgrounds of the outside counsel I hired. I did not rule out anyone based on that- I have hired many a Texas Tech, OU etc grad. In fact, one of the top litigators in the country and winner of many awards (commercial litigation) went to Lamar in Beaumont and UTexas law school. Also as a General Counsel I tried to stay away from “big law” whenever I could because they rip you off. One of the law firms that was such a huge disappointment to my current company (we fired them) has partners now charging almost $1000 an hour. They weren’t worth a fraction of that. On the other hand, I have a $230 an hour guy in Detroit that I would put up against anyone in the country. He didn’t go to a top 20 school, either. If he were coming out of law school today he probably wouldn’t get a job, though.</p>
<p>MOWC, that is interesting. I was just discussing this thread with my DH, and I asked him how new lawyers start today. His opinion was that for a person going to an average law school 300k is just foolish. I asked what happens to the law student who goes instate and accumualtes less debt. He thought a small firm beginning at 60k was reasonable. I guess he doesn’t realize that those jobs are hard to find. My H did not have trouble finding these jobs when he started practicing. In fact, I helped him find a job when we were engaged. He wanted to make more money. I thought he was crazy because he insisted on cherry picking and only sent out 7 resumes. I thought to have a real chance he’d need to send out hundreds. He was called on one interview from those 7 resumes, and he was hired! He stayed there for ten years before opening up his own firm. </p>
<p>He also sees the bad experiences clients have with large firms. He says that one pays more money and often less experienced associates usually do the research and work. He apparently has taken over cases where large firms were intitally hired. DH would agree with you that hourly quotes does not mean much.</p>
<p>DH? Designated hitter? (I keep going back to “deceased husband”, but that just doesn’t make any sense.)</p>
<p>LOL, I hope not deceased! This means dear husband or darling husband on cc!</p>
<p>as someone who worked at a small firm for several years, i thought i’d jump in with some thoughts on this type of venue which keeps being raised as a realistic employment option. it is not simply a lower paying, less stressful, alternative – it carries its own issues which one has to consider. (just for background – this was a small specialty firm that i went to work for after having worked at a large non-NYC firm – it was very well respected in that field of specialty and unfortunately, seemed to have a mindset that it could be just like the big firms – so i also had some of the downsides of the “big firm” mentality as well as the small firm issues noted below!)</p>
<p>first, by definition, small firms usually don’t hire many new attorneys – that’s why they stay small!! and if there is a small firm that regularly hires new associates each year, it could well be a sign of high turnover at that firm. (i worked at such a firm – they always tried to hire 1-3 new associates a year – but, most associates didn’t last more than a couple of years).</p>
<p>second – at a small firm, there can be more pressure on each attorney to bring in clients to earn his/her keep. there is also less likely to be a clear path to partnership – if the firm was built by a few partners, they may be very hesitant to share the pie (and power) with new comers.</p>
<p>third – small firms are very vulnerable to fluctuations in client base. a new big case and life becomes crazy. a big client leaves, and partners worry about how they’ll trim costs. and costs are very real to partners in small firm – i sometimes felt as if anytime i used some office supply, some partners were mentally dividing the cost by the number of partners to see what i was costing them.</p>
<p>fourth – its much harder to hide from extreme personalities at a small firm. you had better get along well with all the other attorneys because each of them can have a great impact on how pleasant or unpleasant your life at the firm is.</p>
<p>also fyi – at least when i was practicing – it was hard to get a consensus as to what constituted a “small” firm – are you talking about a 50 person firm (they’re much smaller than biglaw firms) or are you talking about a 5 person office? my “small” had about 15-20 lawyers during the time i was there.</p>
<p>My H experienced just about everything that you listed unbelievablem while working in small firms, although he did not experience the supply problems! I will comment that lawyers who made partner brought in substantial work (and one was made partner because he was the son of one of one of the senior partners). If you had substantial work and clients that you brought in with you, you could be made partner nearly right away. There was tremendous pressure to bring in clients, and clients who would pay timely was yet another issue! Last small firm that H worked in had probably 10 attorneys.</p>
<p>I started out in a small firm and it was the happiest firm I ever worked in, but everyone’s livelihood was so dependent upon cash flow that it was very stressful and I find that way too precarious. The business of law is different from the practice of law and lawyers have to be very honest with themselves to determine if they can do both. Some can’t, and there is no shame in that.</p>