Listen, I understand. We as law students are taking out tens, sometimes hundreds, of thousands of dollars in loans. We want a payout and we want it now. But wanting something and thinking you’re entitled to it are two wholly different things. Take, for example, this Ask Metafilter question on getting a “good” job:
So some quick stats about myself:
- Lower 1st tier law school on the East Coast.
- Top 1/3 of class.
- Moot court, but no journal.
- Lived abroad extensively, however I don’t speak any foreign languages.
- Lots of government work experience, both federal and state.
- Very extensive practical experience, i.e. I’m actually vaguely equipped to be a lawyer, which is more than many law students can say. I can take depositions, I feel comfortable in court, I can write a wide variety of motions, etc..
Basically I spent the summer working at a government job and I am likely to get an offer. However, the pay is bad and the experience/exit opportunities are not at all what I originally thought when I took the job. I now want to find a job in the private sector. I have many dream jobs, but my base requirements are:
- over 80k (I have about 100k in loans that are gonna come due real soon) - one disclaimer though I may be willing to take a low paying job if the experience/exit opportunities are great.
- Located in a major city on the East coast or anywhere in California or abroad.
- I would love to work in international law, but at this point am not picky, but I’m more geared towards litigation.
The question’s author, who (in the comments) seems to be much less stuck-up than this question would have you believe, goes on to say that she is getting passed over at interviews for “good” jobs.
What is it with law students? Why do so many of them think they’re entitled to be making at or near six-figures the moment they graduate? I guess some folks come in with the preconceived notion that the average starting salary for attorneys is near there, but hopefully this is a notion that they’ve been disabused of by the time they hit their third year.
Or have they been disabused of the notion, and just think that the average doesn’t really apply to them?
The thing that really struck me, though is the idea that anything below $80,000 qualifies as “low paying”. Now, granted, this girl wants to work in a large, big city litigation firm (how many cliches can we cram into one person?) so $80k is not really unreasonable… but she’s got some fairly unremarkable stats (not that mine are anything stellar, either) and she’s expecting to get a salary which is probably a full standard deviation from the mean? Riiiight.
The only good job-seeking advice I can come up with for incoming law students is this: adjust your expectations to an appropriate level and be prepared to pay your dues.
July 17th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Yeah, recent advertising grads normally have the same sort of thoughts. Not quite as much as what I’ve heard about law students, but it’s still there nonetheless. They expect to walk out of school and into a job that pays around $75k.
Not only is it an incredibly difficult industry to even break into, but most of the time, you end up happy just to take what you can get when you’re just starting out. If you walk into an ad agency and demand $45k for an entry level job, you’ll get laughed out of the building. You might be able to get a starting salary like that in markets like New York or L.A., but then, the cost of living is so high that it really doesn’t go that far.
Of course, I don’t have nearly the amount of student loans that law students usually have.
July 17th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
The topic was a big one on the WSJ law blog last week. The big debate was over whether law schools themselves were actually the cause of these inflated expectations with the numbers they throw at you when you arrive. Some (highly radical) posters went so far as to say that some law schools — especially lower-tiered ones — were essentially committing malpractice by charging T1 fees to people with no expectation of acheiving top salaries.
And while in most industries, $80k would certainly be a fantastic starting salary, there are many people leaving law school over $150k in debt (myself very much included). That amounts to minimum monthly payments in the $1200 - $1500 range, more if you want to discharge your debt by 2025. And that’s assuming you don’t owe anything for undergrad. If you let Uncle Sam flip the bill for seven straight years, with the interest meter running, you are looking at some serious numbers.
Between those costs — ~$18k a year — plus requisite income taxes, you’re not exactly leaving yourself a ton of breathing room in an “east coast city,” or most any huge city. That’s not to say one can’t get by — I wasn’t exactly earning six-figures as a sportswriter before I came to school and I was content — but it’s not exactly the greatest situation for what was once considered the most learned profession one could aspire to.
July 17th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Well, there are a few problems. The first is that the salary that people expect is not matched by reality.
Second, even when it is, the standard of living the people expect to get as “lawyers” is not one that shows up the day you graduate, or even soon after, for most graduates.
That said, there’s a LOT that can be done about loan repayment. Having $150,000 in debt doesn’t mean you can’t live without making $80k+. There are a lot of variables. Repayment options, many of which allow for much lower payments for the first several years. Second… don’t work in a big city.
I guess the bottom line is that too many people didn’t do their due diligence going in, aren’t willing to make any sacrifices now, and want to do nothing but bitch and moan that someone sold them a bill of goods.
That’s not how the real world works.
July 17th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
I’m not certain it’s about due diligence coming in. The thing is, the top people is just about any law school, and certainly any T1 law school will have the option of taking the six-figure pay day. Certainly you don’t have to, but if you’re in the top 10% of a top tier law school (and you’re not entirely socially inept, other generic disclaimers here, etc.) you should have that option.
The problem I think lies in the fact that most people entering good law schools are Type A personalities who probably did extremely well in undergrad (Dean’s lists, top 10%, whatever). They get to law school and think, “well, I know some people are going to have to take jobs paying $45k when they leave, but that’s not going to be me. I’ll be in the top 10% easily.” And you can’t tell me you didn’t hear those sentiments from more than a few people in the early days.
Then first grades roll around and they’re in for a shock, but it’s only 12 credits, so they figure they can fix it the next semester in time for OCI. Then they again do well (again, the original person you posted was top 1/3, which is not shabby), but they’re not top 10%, and they’re staring down the barrell of $50k of debt already and suddenly shrinking prospects of a “top job” — whatever that means.
Where their original expectations realistic if they thought about them? Perhaps not, but when you’ve spent your entire life achieving, law school can be a bitter pill.
I guess my point is, ‘entitlement’ seems a bit harsh, at least for this poster. Her expectations really aren’t THAT unrealistic and outlandish, at least for someone with a JD from a top school and semi-decent grades, and she is just asking for advice on how to market herself more effectively to firms that fit her criteria, not DEMANDING a job or handout from anyone.
July 17th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
And sorry for the typos… 14 hour bar study days are limiting my ablity to read what I write.
July 17th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
I think her expectations are extremely unrealistic. She really EXPECTS a job that gets her $80k a year, right out of law school.
If she had expected that going in, I might not have thought too much of it. But she’s not “going in” any more, she’s “coming out” and should know that the odds of her getting an $80k job, with a less than outstanding resume, from a less than outstanding law school, and in the shadow of a ton of really exceptional schools and candidates, are not good.
I guess, though, that you sort of made my point. It’s the “that can’t happen to me” mentality (wrt the $45k a year job). It’s a mentality that is, by its very definition, unrealistic, because it CAN happen to you, and PROBABLY WILL.
I’m not saying it’s uncommon or unusual — in fact, the problem is that this is NOT uncommon — but it is most certainly not realistic to expect that you will get a job near six-figures. And that’s before you’ve failed to make top 10% grades.
And I would also disagree with the statement that she doesn’t “expect” a job making $80k. She lists that as a job requirement, adding that she might take a “low paying” job if it has good “exit” and “advancement” opportunities.
Sure… I think we’d all like to have those things. But it seems a bit naive to expect or require it.
July 17th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Employment statistics for the class of 2002 law graduates, based on responses from 35,295 (91.5% of all graduates) reveal the following:
The average starting salary was $72,308; the median salary was $60,000.
About 22% of salaries reported were at or below $40,000.
Salaries of more than $75,000 accounted for about 38% of salaries reported.
Approximately 58% of the class chose private practice in law firms.
http://www.career.cornell.edu/.....iding.html
Now, that’s based on all graduates from all law schools, five years ago. Since then, we’ve had two huge pay shifts among firms (top firms in DC, Chicago, Dallas, LA, Boston, etc. have gone from ~$120k to $160k in that time), so while your head may say that $80k is an inordinate request, the numbers tend to speak otherwise.
Look, I recognize that your lawyers are vastly, vastly overpaid, especially compared to their skill sets. I also recognize that in many parts of this country, much less the world, $80k is an absolute fortune. I can’t help that. But the numbers are out there suggesting that that’s what we get paid.
July 17th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
*your=young
July 17th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Stats from “all graduates” don’t really tell us much about a person from a specific tier, location, or school. Those numbers work well for someone ENTERING law school, not someone EXITING.
Given the numbers, it seems probable that most schools have medians/averages below the national median/average, and that the proportion would be worse the farther down the rankings you went.
But even if we make the ridiculous assumption that those stats ARE helpful to us, we still find that over half of the people in this girl’s situation will get a job below her required minimum.
I just think it’s silly to expect something that has a worse than 50% chance of coming to pass. Hell, even 50/50 seems pretty weak to start having “expectations”.
I’m going to flip this coin and expect it to come up heads? Same scenario. No less silly.
(PS: shouldn’t you be studying?)
July 17th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
“There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
I understand what you’re saying, I really do. There’s a difference between a “requirement” and “preference.” Hopefully someone else drops in here for an opinion, because I’d love to see what others think.
And as I said, the numbers are simply incredible based on what we know (really, how can anyone justify making more than a FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE makes coming out of law school?!?!? They can’t.)
Anyway, my two cents are in for now and it’s time to get back to cramming Oil & Gas law into my oversaturated brain. Sigh. The bar sucks. Thanks for the brief mental detour.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
I completely agree with both Pete and Charles. Particularly with the observation that there is a huge difference between “want” and “need” or “deserve.”
I also agree that law students need to carefully consider their loan obligations and its potential impact on their lifestyle when they decide whether they want to practice in a large city. This decision has important short- and long-term implications for one’s career as well.
I’ve spoken to a lot of lawyers (mostly recent grads) this summer about these issues. All started in big cities, some stayed and some left. Regardless of their experience, they all told me the same five things:
1) Cities offer unique career experiences that cannot be replicated in suburbs or rural areas. Different areas of law, enhanced networking opportunities, different types of transactions and clients. (This is, obviously, incredibly oversimplified, but generally true.)
2) Outside the big cities, you will be competing for jobs with people who have that unique big-city experience and decided to leave. Especially on the East Coast.
3) If you do not start your career in a big city, it will be incredibly difficult to break into that market later.
4) It’s possible to pay off your loans working in a big city, but it requires a lot of sacrifice.
5) For those who are happiest living in a city, it is worth the sacrifice.
July 18th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Definitely only private sector represented here, and Pete’s point still stands about schools performing differently based on what tier they are in — but this does break down median salaries (which i think is a much better metric than average) in law firms based on associate tenure and number of people in the law firm.
http://www.nalp.org/press/details.php?id=62 (scroll to bottom)
July 18th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Expecting to make 80k a year on the east coast when you’re top third at a t1 school hardly makes one arrogant or even unrealistic. Large east coast firms now pay 160k or more a year. 80k is a pretty reasonable expectation for a new associate at a mid-sized firm, at which a person with the stats above would have a good shot at landing. Given the insane cost of living (particularly housing) in New York, Boston, DC, etc., 80k a year isn’t anything spectacular, especially when you have 100k + in debt.
July 18th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Well sure. If you assume-away all of the tough parts, it’s easy!
Sure, getting a mid-size firm job in a big city will probably get you $80k in a lot of cases.
You say that someone in the 30th percentile of a lower-mid-tier school with no law journal has a “pretty good shot” of getting into a mid-sized firm. I don’t really agree, but we’ll assume it, for the sake of argument.
If I read her comments right, she hasn’t even gotten a call-back yet.
If you’re not getting call-backs, I assert that you don’t have a “pretty good shot” of getting that kind of job. Maybe it’s her demeanor (sense of entitlement?) or maybe it’s something else on her resume, but she has a lot of evidence in support of the fact that she’s not going to get the kind of starting position she’d like.
You’d think someone who was 6′4, 210lbs, who can run a 4.2 40-yard dash, has a 50″ and vertical, and has been playing football for 15 years would stand a “pretty good shot” of being drafted into the NFL as a wide-out or defensive back.
But if the guy loses his hands in a car accident, don’t you think it’d be unrealistic for him to EXPECT to be drafted?
Even still, I think it’s a little arrogant for anyone to EXPECT or REQUIRE a certain salary when they are currently unemployed, with very few prospects, and have been shot down several times.
July 18th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
But Pete, you’re ignoring the realities of recruiting. Most small and mid-size firms, unlike the big firms, do not offer jobs a year in advance. They wait until much closer to when they need you, or after the bar, to make offers to people. Most won’t even interview people.
Just because this girl hasn’t had a callback from a big firm — the types interviewing 2Ls — doesn’t mean she won’t land a job at a medium firm. It’s hardly surprising that a Skadden or a Weil wouldn’t give a callback to someone with her resume, but there are hundreds of mid-size firms in DC, NYC, and Boston who might. Her career isn’t over… she has an entire year of law school left to figure out a place to be. And, if one of those three places is her intended destination, I just don’t think it’s that hard to see her getting a job.
Unless she’s a total tool, of course.
July 18th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
You’re right about that, but…
So, while it might be dangerous to assume she knows anything, if we assume that she knows this, it looks like she knows that she’s both below the cut for BigLaw and yet not likely to get a job from a medium/small firm.
…which means that she expects some “alternative” legal job to pay her $80k a year to start. That’s my point. An objective person might look at her and say “She could get a medium-sized firm job.” But that’s not what she’s asking for.
It’s like me saying “I want to be a prosecutor, and I expect to start at $65k a year.”
Sure, someone with my stats could get a job making that much, but the job and salary combo that I’m asking for is not realistic. Add to that the fact that she doesn’t even know what her options are, but that she considers anything under $80k to be below her… well… it just seems snotty to me.
Take your damn $60k job and STFU, please.
July 18th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Ok, now I see the argument. You’re right, she’s an idiot.
July 18th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Ok, I agree that this girl doesn’t seem to have the first clue about just DOING THE JOB. I sure wouldn’t want to hire her, or work with her. She seems to think of a job as an accessory to her lifestyle or something like that.
But I do think law schools lure people in by raising and appealing to precisely those high expectations. It is pretty much expected that the law is a way to make a good living. Everything in the literature and everywhere else is geared toward raising that exact expectation, in order to justify what they charge to go to law school. If you’re right and her salary expectations are way out of line, what does that say about law school tuition? Because studying for the bar has been EYE OPENING in terms of what law school does and does not teach you. (Yay for my torts prof, btw, he was great, and I liked him, but I didn’t really get it at the time that he was one of the only ones teaching me what I would need to know. It was one of my best grades too. Figures. Anyway…)
July 18th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
I both agree and disagree, Dizzy. (Surprise)
The law, for most, is a good way to make a good living. Just not immediately.
Most people are not going to graduate and 6 months later have more money than they know what to do with (unless they have a miserable imagination).
As a career, being an attorney can be a very lucrative one. As an entry-level position, however, I think it’s pretty clear that something has to give — there are much better investments you can make for first-year salaries.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:09 am
Quick stats note: if the increase in mean salaries is due to the top firms in big cities moving from 120k to 160k, that really doesn’t do a whole lot to improve the odds of obtaining an 80k+ job. Median salaries and other percentile ranks are much better indices in this case because the question at hand seeks to describe an “typical” person rather than describe the whole of a skewed distribution (as would an arithmetic mean, usually called average outside of statistics). In this case, 60k seems a much better average salary that 72,308 (yes, they’re both technically “averages”) because a salary bump for a job out of her range doesn’t affect the salaries in her range of possibilities.
Of course, if the big firms are part of an industry wide salary increase, then adjust the median salary up accordingly. Carry on; it’s fun to see this kind of stuff from other grad programs.