Long-time readers of OTLSS know that I am not a fan of the "JD-Advantage" claim that is often spouted by the increasingly-desperate Law School Cartel. In fact, I find many of the so-called advantages of a JD, outside of straight-up legal practice, to be riddled with half-truths, conveniently ignored caveats, and full of information asymmetry. And, of course, this blog and others regularly warn about the fact that a JD is not so great for actual legal practice these days, either.
Neither am I a fan of what I call the "not-JD" varietals that seem to be popping up. This is "anything for a buck," as far as I'm concerned.
However, to be fair, I'm grounded in the scamblog movement and so my bias is, um, fairly high, these nine years out of law school at 40-something-something years old, with miles to go before I pay off my student loans. I did come across this comment by onehell over at JDUnderground, though, and I think it bears repeating:
My experience has been that the JD actually IS an advantage in a lot of jobs, and is pretty quickly recognized as such. BUT, what it does NOT do is open the door to those jobs. The JD is neither necessary nor sufficient; you need to demonstrate experience and interest independent of it.
But once you're actually working, I have found that having the JD often results in moving up pretty quickly. People respect you more, they like the way you can write and clearly explain things, they really do respect the credential if you carry yourself like you know what you're doing. But again, it absolutely does not get your foot in the door. But once your foot is already in the door, it opens up a lot of opportunities to move up and around. For that reason, I say that for people with an existing connection, the JD can really be an advantage and give the employer an excuse they already were looking for to move you up or whatever. But yeah, don't go to law school thinking that it alone is a qualification that will open the door to a JD advantage job.
Applying to a JD advantage job with no connections and no experience, the JD can actually work against you for all the usual reasons (being seen as a flight risk or "just a failed lawyer", etc.) But once you're IN, then it really is an asset I have to admit.
But once you're actually working, I have found that having the JD often results in moving up pretty quickly. People respect you more, they like the way you can write and clearly explain things, they really do respect the credential if you carry yourself like you know what you're doing. But again, it absolutely does not get your foot in the door. But once your foot is already in the door, it opens up a lot of opportunities to move up and around. For that reason, I say that for people with an existing connection, the JD can really be an advantage and give the employer an excuse they already were looking for to move you up or whatever. But yeah, don't go to law school thinking that it alone is a qualification that will open the door to a JD advantage job.
Applying to a JD advantage job with no connections and no experience, the JD can actually work against you for all the usual reasons (being seen as a flight risk or "just a failed lawyer", etc.) But once you're IN, then it really is an asset I have to admit.
Well said. Friends, there are a lot of ways to demonstrate good analytical skills, good communication skills, and all-around smarts that don't require a graduate-school investment of $200k. Do not buy the Cartel line of "a JD opens doors," as the Cartel is counting on you to mentally add "right after graduation" to that statement. It, in fact, does not, and you will get many, many quizzical looks and doors slammed in your face, trust me.
When I finally did land a job, through connections, my JD was viewed as a valuable* asset. To be honest, it was only a justification to hire that was one of many, including my prior STEM degrees and job experience. The heavens did not part and the JD did not lift me to higher realms all on its own, to the "surprise" of many a ScamDean and their glossy brochures, I'm sure.
By the way, Simkovic & McIntyre, from my personal perspective your paper is bunk, once you factor in the severe costs of law school. Trust me, I know, because (1) I'm a grown-up, with a family, a mortgage, and other real life responsibilities, and (2) I had a real STEM career prior to law school, thanks. Shame on you guys for helping scam kids straight out of college, let alone people like me who should have known better than to trust the Ivory Tower.
(Yeah, yeah, anecdotes are not data, I've said that myself while looking at Monte Carlo simulations. But it is also mathematically impossible for all of us to go to Harvard and land cushy LawProf gigs, for that matter.)
So, 0Ls, non-trads, heed these warnings. A JD can "help" you land a non-lawyer job - if many, many things are already in place first. DO NOT go to law school thinking a JD will do something for you on Day One in its own right, just about the time when Sallie Mae comes knocking. I made this mistake, and this fact is one of the places where the Cartel lies the most to prospective lemmings. This is tragic, because the current asking price for a JD is just to much to bear for the mere mortals of the 99%.
But those who live in the Ivory Tower "bubble" repeatedly ignore this fact, as that cuts into (non) profits, you see.
* Sort of. Not to the tune of $100k+ back in the early 2000s, and costs have only gotten worse since then.
Much truth here but what is really being discussed is a consolation prize. Very few people's career advantages from a JD will add up in dollars and cents to the cost of obtaining a law degree in terms of tuition, living costs, opportunity costs and student loan interest. How many people wouldn't be better off if they put the $150,000.00 toward a house?
ReplyDeleteNot to mention the massive loss of spending three youthful years earning a nearly worthless "credential." Once your twenties are gone, you can't get those years back.
Deletedepends what kind of a house and in what year - putting 150k into a mcmansions they build today that need erious work 5 years later in 2007 prices and 2007 interest rates - you could be worse off.
DeleteTell you what, @8:43. I bought my first house at the peak of the New England real estate bubble in 1988 and sold it 11 years later for 72.5% of what I paid for it. But I did get almost enough to pay off the mortgage and for eleven years, figuring the tax deductions, I paid less for housing than I would have renting an apartment. Some poor slob coming out of law school with $140,000.00 in debt has got nothing to sell to pay off that debt and is going to be paying rent with no interest and property tax deductions. Buying any house any time is a far safer bet.
DeleteWhat do you mean by "the $150,000.00"? Many of us do not have that money and could not have obtained it for the purpose of buying a house. Those that paid cash for a law degree, and thus had a large sum of money that they could have put towards a house, tend to be those whose career was assured from birth anyway.
DeleteI really disagree with the "massive loss of spending three youthful years". We all only live a limited time and we have our whole lives to work in our careers. I personally enjoyed Law School, not only for the intellectual challenge but because I was still "in school". Where else can you find a number of pretty, smart and AVAILABLE coeds for fun and games and relationships? In the working world, it is much more difficult to meet high quality, pretty women who are available and/or not married. In Law school it is far easier to do so. Throw in the law school parties, common goals, etc., and I think there is nothing like it. Granted I went to law school decades ago, but I still see my law school friends and we are much closer than people I have worked with much longer in my career. I still think back fondly to those times. So the way I see it, if you can spend three additional years in School, learning stuff, interacting with your young peers, and can do so without taking out massive loans . . it is well worth the endeavor. Most of us will end up changing careers several times anyway, so this is a time of our life to really try to enjoy it . . . as I see it. Now if your law school years were very unpleasant, sorry for you there and I see why you think it is such a worthless endeavor. And of course it is not worth the massive debt, which is why I recommend going at Night in a public part-time program so you get out, still have your day job if you want it, had manageable tuition, and still had the experience.
Delete@9:33, you get the $150,000.00 from a bank in the form of a mortgage. But if you are carrying $140,000.00 in student loans debt you aren't going to get any mortgage, even if you got raises/promotions as a result of having a J.D. I bought that first house three years out of school, at which point my trivial 1980's student loans had already been paid off.
Delete@9:36, In the early 1980's I, too, had a bacchanalian experience in law school. While I am generally prone to conservative views my sexual experiences in law school made me a firm believer in Affirmative Action. But the difference between what you and I experienced and these kids today is the difference between a 49'er staking a claim to a gold mine in the California in 1849 and someone trying to buy a house in Beverly Hills in 2014.
This reply is kind of insipid. "Take out $100,000 in student loans and use to fund a lifestyle of partying and sex!" It's especially ridiculous given that you can do the exact same thing with a job as a restaurant server or bartender. The only difference is that ignorant people might be impressed by the future "rich lawyer." God knows that's what taxes are paid for--to make it slightly easier for 22 year olds to get laid.
DeleteYou miss the point 11:37 AM. To me I loved the intellectual challenge of law school and the give and take with professors and students in Study Group. I enjoyed my clinical and moot court experiences as well. Working in Bar, to me, would be very boring, especially a non-student bar where you would likely meet a bunch of deadheads. Law school had everything for me. Intellectual challenge, the opportunity to meet high quality people, etc. I'm not so sure what was so difficult to understand in my post. I was not talking about partying and sex. I was talking about deep relationships and deep friendships with people you had a lot in common with. I was talking about intellectual challenge for those of us smarter than a turtle. You don't find that stuff in your typical bar.
Delete"Where else can you find a number of pretty, smart and AVAILABLE coeds for fun and games and relationships?"
Delete9:36AM, I imagine you can find them at almost any graduate school. If that's the reason for attending (or even high on the list), then surely there's countless less expensive programs that would deliver for a fraction of the price/effort?
But your point is taken. I too didn't dislike law school. Just what came afterwards, which was a billion miles away from anything shown in the law school recruitment materials...
10:20, not just anyone who can get $150k in loans for law school could get $150k on a mortgage for a house.
Delete"While I am generally prone to conservative views my sexual experiences in law school made me a firm believer in Affirmative Action."
Delete10:20 AM, yeah, cause that's what minorities are good for. You're a disgusting human being.
Lighten up, @6:53. Any idea what a joke is?
DeleteThe scamblogs have started using the term "student loan conduits" lately to refer to students. I think the politically correct term, just like the NCAA talks about student/athletes, is student/loan conduits.
ReplyDeletewhat if u r a cpa working in tax and worked during law school?
ReplyDeleteEver heard of TurboTax? If technology such as predictive coding is killing off legal jobs, the same result is probably likely for tax jobs.
DeleteThe JD is an advantage, BUT only if:
ReplyDelete(1) the JD is from Harvard, Yale or one of the 10 elite schools in the country,
(2) the person obtained the JD after 10 or so years of working in a particular industry, or
(3) the person has at least one other post-graduate degree (MBA, PHD, MD, MA, etc.), or some sort of certification.
Also, the economy actually has to be good, and there needs to be robust hiring in these other industries (Note: there will NEVER be robust hiring in the legal industry for a long, long time, even if the economy does improve for other industries).
"A JD can "help" you land a non-lawyer job - if many, many things are already in place first."
ReplyDeleteThis is such a key concept, one which law schools deliberately blur. For the vast majority of JD-advantage jobs, the candidate would have been hired without the JD. The fact that the successful candidate had a JD is about as useful as Honda saying that the job was "Honda driver preferred" - the fact that the person drives a Honda has nothing to do with the eventual success, and is nothing more than a coincidence.
And where is this JD-advantage data coming from? Self-reporting by students?
Nonsense, any education shows ambition and effort. A JD should be a real plus to anybody who already has a job. Just like a graduate degree or an MBA, even if not used directly on the job. Not saying it will help you get a job, but like anything else, the better and more intelligent you show yourself to be, the more opportunity you will have within an organization
DeleteAnd the elite school syndrome probably is not applicable to the majority of people . . who are not prestige hounds. It is lawyers who are the elitists, not the general public.
DeleteThe data comes direct from the imagination of law school professors.
Delete10:32, we're talking about the same thing. The JD might be an advantage to someone if they already have a job (as you correctly state). The entire point of the post is to show that the JD will not get you that job in the first place.
DeleteMy JD didn't help me get my current job, but they're certainly interesting in putting me to good use on the legal side of things after the fact. But during hiring, it was in no way a consideration. I wouldn't call my job a JD-advantage job because the JD didn't help me get it. I would be in exactly the same place as I am now (minus the debt, of course) had I not gone to law school.
Law schools are peddling JD-advantage jobs as if the JD is the reason why the person got the job, and not (correctly) that the JD is merely useful once the job is obtained.
Any education shows ambition and effort? You obviously didn't attend my law school, where rich slackers coasted through.
DeleteThat's an interesting comment, which I guess shows your contempt for "rich" no matter how you define it. I come from an upper middle class background where kids' parents were professionals, small business owners . . . made good incomes but were not "rich". What I found is that those whose parents did well tended to be more ambitious so they too would do well. The people who were the "slackers" were the ones who were merely middle class backgrounds. Their parents were working class for the most part. That I think is why rich begets rich and poor begets poor. Regardless, if somebody goes to law school, they have to be somewhat ambitious or else they will flunk out, or at least they did in my day.
DeleteRich begets rich and poor begets poor in large measure because of advantages or disadvantages, respectively, that accrue from birth (conception, really).
DeleteToday virtually no one flunks out of the élite law schools. I once asked around at my school and was told that there had not been a single case in ten years or more.
Great points in this posting and the comments. The JD could be an advantage in many instances. However, the JD alone will not get your foot in the door.
ReplyDeleteAnother question to ask is: what is the financial impact of that advantage? A JD may be an advantage in your existing position and future positions, but does it pay itself back? There are explicit costs and opportunity costs of going to law school.
In b4 Leiter cites this as "proof" even the scamblogs acknowledge that the JD provides an advantage.
ReplyDeleteTo law $chool$ and their per$onnel, yes, it provides an immen$e advantage.
DeleteI think they should add a category called "JD Disadvantage".
ReplyDeleteThe word "advantage" has to be construed as to who receives the advantage of the JD. The JD holder or a prospective employer. If it's not the latter, then it's definitely not the former.
ReplyDeleteIt looks better on your resume than saying you've spent three years unemployed. It possibly looks better than saying you've spent three years working at a minimum wage service job (although I wouldn't count on it). There's your "JD Advantage".
ReplyDeleteI knew someone who worked such tedious jobs in LS, she hid the fact they were all law-related jobs. E.g., phrased her resume to reflect general tasks she did that might be useful for a non-law job, omitted that she was working on briefs/complaints,etc. Did not have the law degree on the resume. They found out like at the way ass end of the interview process, at which point they surprisingly sorta shrugged because they knew they were taking her (HR rank-and-file at a F50 co).
DeletePretty ballsy but it worked that time. I am not sure most employers would be as kind after discovering that.