Why Law Degrees are worth nothing (unless you're from a top school like Harvard)?

Graduate School Law School
61

<p>Demosthenes:</p>

<p>Information regarding exact attrition numbers:</p>

<p><a href=“http://betterlegalprofession.org/Attrition/NewYork”>http://betterlegalprofession.org/Attrition/NewYork&lt;/a&gt; (Compare these to layoff numbers as reported at Above the Law or elsewhere)</p>

<p>Information regarding general attrition:</p>

<p>“What Drives Turnover and Layoffs at Large Law Firms?”, Oyer and Schaefer, 2010.</p>

<p>As per the second source, (1) senior lawyers have been much less likely to get laid off than junior ones, and (2) graduates of top-10 schools have more opportunities available than ones at other ones and have higher voluntary attrition that others. Both (1) and (2) support my view that it’s easy to survive 10+ years in Biglaw, particularly if you went to a well-ranked school.</p>

<p>Demosthenes, no, again, you’re totally wrong about schools. Again, I’ve pointed out that I went to HLS simply because it’s relevant to the discussion; I went to a school that tracks people into Biglaw, and it’s totally normal and expected to have a career in large law firms with a degree from there, and so my personal experience and knowledge from my classmates show that I know what I’m talking about in this thread. </p>

<p>In addition, did you not read the title of the thread?</p>

<p>“Why Law Degrees are worth nothing (unless you’re from a top school like Harvard)?”</p>

<p>Thus…as someone who went to Harvard, where I went to school is relevant for this thread if any!</p>

<p>Conversely, you must not have gone to a well-ranked school and you must not have had career options in large law firms. Until you can state where you went to school and where you worked, I will assert that you have no relevant personal experience or knowledge that is relevant to the discussion, and that anyone who reads your posts should take them as coming from someone who’s never worked in a large law firm or went to a school that tracked people into them.</p>

62

<p>Thank you for giving evidence that turned out to be links I’d already sent you. The first one I sent you shows attrition. That is not the same as layoffs. Plenty of people are counseled out (“you’re great, but I don’t see you making partner…”) or burn out (I’m betting you’ll argue this is their “choice”) without there needing to be mass layoffs. See also Oyer and Schaefer, p. 12 (“attrition that is not due to layoff is not necessarily voluntary”).</p>

<p>The Oyer and Schaefer article I linked you to earlier is interesting, but not in the way you hope. You’re right that it says senior lawyers are less likely to be laid off. Notice when the study is? It covered data from the crash. My whole thesis has been “the market is different from people who got in before the crash and people getting in after it.” Senior lawyers are by definition people who got in before the crash. That is, precisely the people I said would do better than those just getting in now. The corollary of the authors’ point, which they explicitly acknowledge, is junior lawyers are far more likely to be laid off. Since people tend to graduate from law schools and become juniors, not seniors, your point that seniors stick around longer will probably not be very comforting. </p>

<p>You’re also right that better law schools provide better institutions. That’s why I ubiquitously post links to LST’s employment data and advise 0Ls to retake LSAT scores. Better institutions really do open more doors to major firms. The authors explicitly acknowledge this (p. 11 n.7), and no one has denied it. As for the “more opportunities” bit, it’s a fairly trivial difference. 19.2% vs. 20.8%. p. 12. Are you suggesting that 1% had the option of just sticking around for another 7 years? The authors acknowledge that the difference may be because “among lawyers with limited experience, graduating from a top school provides more exposure and opportunities,” but this is conjecture, not a data-driven conclusion. p. 15. I think they’re probably right, but the alternative is not that they can just stay in BigLaw. It may instead be that the next year they’d be counseled out.</p>

<p>Oh, you should also take note that “[o]nce controls for firm and city are introduced, there is no relationship between the quality of law school and layoff probabilities.” p.18. Kinda knocks a hole in your “all you need to do is go to HLS!” theory. </p>

63

<p>Demosthenes, you’re wrong, yet again.</p>

<p>First, you’ve claimed repeatedly that you can’t give out any information about yourself due to confidentiality reasons and the like. However, in other threads, you give out plenty of information about yourself, such as that you are in litigation. </p>

<p>It’s clear that you won’t give out any information in this thread about where you went to school or where you work because it would show that you have no experience relevant to this thread. </p>

<p>Second, I clearly stated that the first link that I gave was for attrition, which, as I clearly stated, should be compared to layoff numbers. (It’s clear that there is a gap between the two, and that the link thus includes voluntary attrition). It’s unfortunate that you couldn’t figure that out.</p>

<p>Third, the article that I posted is from 2010. The crash was in 2008, although layoffs started in late 2007. A practicing lawyer in 2010 could be a 2nd-year associate, and thus not a senior lawyer. “Kind of knocks a hole in your” rambling about senior lawyers and junior lawyers.</p>

<p>Fourth, your quote about “[o]nce controls for firm and city are introduced…layoff probabilities” does not contradict my theory whatsoever; you clearly didn’t bother reading the article. The article shows that layoffs were disproportionately high in certain cities such as NYC and in certain practice areas such as securities, and the authors of the article controlled the data to adjust for that. </p>

<p>Right below your quote, the article specifically states that junior lawyers from top-10 schools are more likely to be laid off than others, perhaps because firms know that they are more likely to leave anyway (as firms know that they have more options than others). That’s exactly what I’ve been saying all along-that people from highly-ranked schools (i.e., not you) can bounce from one large law firm to another.</p>

<p>So the article confirms exactly what I’ve been saying. Please read more carefully from now on. Thank you.</p>