I've a bad habit of being snarky, but doesn't your last line point to the real answer: "Don't get a humanities degree in the first place."?
Well, if I were talking to undergraduates in the beginning of their college careers, I'd have them double-major, each drawing one major from the humanities disciplines that (s)he loves, and one major from something that (s)he thinks will provide a reasonably good career. Then, if the art, or the publishing, or the academic career, or whatever doesn't work out, one has the programming, or the management consulting, or the med school, or whatever to fall back on.
What, pray tell, is wrong with a humanities degree?
Nothing.
Then again, I'm biased, being a hardcore Humanities major + Humanities Honors Program graduate.
That said, I do echo Paul's suggestion to double major. I did, and yes ended up with a nifty set of social science tools, decided to go to law school for somewhat appropriate reasons, and had two different grad program options.
And if I had to do it all over again, I'd have doubled in something wayyy more useful than poli sci--at least economics, and if I could have hacked it, some "real" science.
I say this as one of the pfouffiest defenders of humanities liberal arts education out there, and one prone to reciting poetry in broad daylight, la la la la.
Paul:
Just a few comments from someone who is much older than you (presumably), doing the law school thing after spending time in academia and other professional fields:
1) Yes, the levels of substance abuse, divorce, etc., are astronomical among lawyers, but I wonder if there is not a direct correlation between these experiences and the number of hours lawyers put in, coupled with financial pressures. I have known small practice lawyers that are happy, well-adjusted individuals; they work humane hours for decent pay and seem to enjoy their lives. Granted, none of them had 200,000 dollar debt. I will agree that the most miserable lawyers in my experience are the biglaw types.
2) My experience of law, both in school and with those in practice, is that there is not really a higher percentage of arrogant, picky, petty jerks in the law than in other professions with highly educated individuals. I see you are training to enter academia...wait until you see the amount of sheer pettiness, backstabbing, and arrogance that goes on in the ivory tower. My acquaintances in the medical field have similar experiences.
3) Any client driven position is going to involve dealing with a public that at times can be bitter, petty, and unpleasant to work with. I actually have some experience working with public interest lawyers, apart from my other work experience. Was the pay low? Yes... Were the offices a dump? Yes.... Were the clients at times petty and frustrating? Yes...but no more than people see with any customer service job. The lawyers I worked with went home pretty happy at night, regardless of the fact that some of their clients were angry jerks.
4) Your advice is still sound for the most part; college students should not use law school as the default "don't know what else to do; guess I'll go to law school" option...it is way too expensive for that. However, tough work conditions and demanding clients (let me tell you, students can be pretty demanding at times!) exist in most professions, as do ambiguous moral situations (just ask investigative journalists who find their stories and investigation driven by bottom-line management requirements). People should realize that no career is a bed of roses when it comes to moral conflict and ambiguity, stress, arrogant colleagues, and problematic payscales.
Former biglaw-litigator-turned-public- interest-lawyer-turned-director-of-law-school-
clinic here. You pretty much get it right, only in my case the public interest job was probably the best job I ever had. The only downsides were that 1) we had to live in D.C., a town I most detest (but I traveled a lot) and 2) I had just missed the cut-off--i.e., stayed in private practice a little too long--to be able to take advantage of my law school's loan forgiveness program. Still, money was never as important to me as time, and I survived happy. One of the real problems with public interest lawyer jobs is that they are not easy to find.
Finally, among the ugly traits I picked up while at a big firm was a form of impatience: the invisible clock over my head that ticked away in 6 minute increments whenever people stopped to talk to me, especially if I wasn't interested in what they had to say. I'd smile and look like I was listening, but really I was just thinking, "That's another 4 minutes of my time you've wasted..."
The grass isn't always greener. I've been in the IT field for a long time and want out for many of the same reasons.
Are people really that much happier in accounting or consulting or whatever?
The professions are based on specialized, technical bodies of knowledge, which leads to the sort of conditions being discussed here. Everybody's billing time in a service business, and "knowledge workers" compete for attention and advancement.
Scientists and economists are just as petty and duplicitous as lawyers ("I'm smarter than you").
Regarding the essay you referenced, sometimes people are lucky once and think they suddenly have all the answers, when in fact their success may have less to do with their actions and more to do with external factors. There is nothing wrong with their good fortune, but it doesn't make them any more qualified to make pronouncements than the rest of us.
I agree that you shouldn't go to law school if you can't think of anything better to do. At the same time, I dispute the data in this piece - many solo and small firm practitioners are very satisfied with their jobs and are earning a good living at what they do. My upcoming book, Solo by Choice: How to Be the Lawyer You Always Wanted to Be makes the case that starting a law firm is a viable option for lawyers looking for more satisfaction in the law.
By the way, I went to law school largely because I wanted to improve my writing and analytical skills. But as a politics major in college, the "tangible" nature of the law, and it's ability to let me solve problems was highly appealing. So I went into the practice of law. But in the end, I've come full circle - because of law, I have also realized my dream of writing as well.
Huh. Why "real" science, B?
Billings one time also may apply to government lawyers. I use a crude system in which I have to account for my time, but not in 6 minute increments by matter (not yet anyway).
Thanks to all the commenters. I've elaborated on a few things in an addendum to the main body of the post. With respect to other jobs being rough too, I agree of course. However, I think there are some things that are special about practice of law and make it even worse. Those include:
- The adversarial and aggressive nature of the work.
- The time pressures, especially in litigation.
- The time-based billing model and the six-minute increments.
- The huge educational and financial investment required for entry.
- The glut of lawyers on the market.
- The personal ethical problems that come from legal ethical rules, especially the rules about zealous representation.
And I do think the petty nastiness is worse than in other professions, partly because of some of those things.
I just found this blog, and wanted to say that this is a fantastic post! I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of post-law school life. This should be mandatory reading for all students considering law school.
I graduated from a top five law school and became an associate in the corporate department of a big NYC law firm. I was beyond miserable--I was bored to tears by the work, I was working 15 hour days, and I hated not having control over my schedule. Furthermore, I knew from the beginning that I wanted to get my PhD in history (other forces had prevailed).
Unlike my fellow first-years, all of whom hated their jobs, I didn't stay very long. At some point (probably when I was still at work at 3am), I told myself that life was too short to be miserable, and forced myself to gather up the courage to give notice. Now, I'm doing what I always wanted--getting a doctorate in history, and I'm much happier, even though I'm also much poorer.
To students who say, "Well, it can't be that bad--I'll just do it for two years, make some money, and then leave to do something else" I would say, "It's not that easy." First of all, despite the fact that I knew I wanted to do something else with my life, I still felt completely trapped by decision to go to law school. Whenever I mentioned that I was unhappy as a lawyer, people would say, "Suck it up--everyone needs to pay their dues" or "But you're making so much money" or "You should be thankful--people would kill to be in your position." Basically, the implication was that if I left the law firm, I was just being lazy or short-sighted or irresponsible. When I did leave, some people thought I was throwing my life away (not to mention the $160,000 salary), and it was difficult to deal with all of the negativity, especially when it came from loved ones.
Second, it's easy to become trapped by the golden handcuffs--the longer you stay, the more difficult it is to leave because you've been suckered into the lawyer lifestyle, whether it be fancy dinners, expensive clothing, exotic vacations (though chances are, the law firm will make you cancel your vacation if it needs you), nice apartments, etc. Once you start earning a huge salary, it's easy to justify spending more money. You start thinking, "I worked so hard, I deserve to treat myself." And from there, the vicious cycle starts--you hate your job, but you don't want to give up the luxuries that you've grown to enjoy. Of course, you should have been throwing more money at your student loans, but you used the money to make yourself feel better, which is entirely understandable. But now you're stuck.
Finally, it actually is *that* bad. So many students don't realize how intense law firm life can be. The work itself may not be challenging, but the fact is, law firms use and abuse their associates. The mentality is that "We're paying you $160,000, so we own you--you should be on call 24/7." I've seen some of my friends, even those who were stellar students and absolutely loved the law, become dejected and depressed because they were treated so poorly at their law firms (and we're talking top-ranked law firms too). When you're a lawyer, most of the time, you don't get to think about the interesting, big-picture issues that you learned in law school. Instead, you spend your days marking up agreements, sitting in on meetings and conference calls that can last 3 hours, proofreading, and dealing with a lot of administrative BS on behalf of the client.
One thing I'd slightly disagree with is the comment that you'll be surrounded by jerks--I loved my co-workers and had a fantastic partner for a mentor, but I will admit that I may have just been lucky. I've heard horror stories about other lawyers who were absolute nightmares to work for. This isn't to say that you won't find petty, obnoxious people in academia or other fields, but dealing with these people is made so much worse when they can literally control every minute of your waking life (and even when you sleep), and you have to see them 15 hours per day. You can't turn work on and off--it follows you home and dictates pretty much every aspect of your life.
Again, I realize that what I've written doesn't apply to all lawyers--my experience is limited to that of life as a corporate lawyer working at a large law firm. But I strongly urge undergraduate students who are applying to law school to really sit down and think if being a lawyer is what they want to do. If you don't know what a lawyer REALLY does, then don't apply. Or at least, talk with people in the field before making your decision.
Because you can get a decent paying job right out of college with a chemical engineering/computer science/EECS degree, D. If you major in political science, economics--not so much. Social science degrees are about as marketable as humanities ones; they lock you into going to grad school of some sort, which is presumably why so many end up going to law school which has no prerequisite major/course requirements.
People work with the talents/inclinations they have. It's one thing to tell math majors to choose banking over a PhD if they want to make money immediately. It's another to tell French majors (ahem) that they should have done computer science. What sort of a GPA drop might that sort of a move have entailed...
That is true, Phoebe. This is why I was a humanities/social science double major, and this is why I'm in grad school. I should have clarified, I would have done a hard science major if I _could_ have.
But I think I could definitely have done at least an economics or statistics major, and they're a little more useful than political science or English. I did one major I loved, and which taught me useful critical analysis and writing skills. But I did political science as a "practical" back-up major, which it isn't. I think they're are ways of staying within your natural talents, but being a little more savvy about priming your career prospects.
Of course, the question is whether you want to be so calculating and savvy in your choice of subject during college. Whatever happened to learning for the sake of learning? That's the next post.
>>Are people really that much happier in accounting or consulting or whatever?
I work for a Big Four accounting firm doing IT systems consulting and auditing, and I can say that I am pretty happy. I work with mostly happy, smart people and of the problems mentioned in this article the only ones I encounter are:
1) The invisible ticking clock thing.
2) Occasional long hours during busy season (roughly Sept. - Jan.)
Other problems:
1) Having to do fluffy extra-curricular stuff to "get your name in front of the partners".
2) Wondering at times if the work you're doing is even economically productive (esp. some SOX related stuff).
Note that what I'm saying here applies specifically to my group. I feel like the main bulk of financial auditors and tax people at the firm are less happy.
B,
If you major in political science, economics--not so much. Social science degrees are about as marketable as humanities ones
I agree with you to a point, but the underlying assumptions of this widely-held view incense me (this is not a criticism of the fact that you hold this, but rather the social and cultural beliefs that make this an empirically valid and sensible proposition to maintain). The idea that the humanities are less valuable because they do not prepare one to enter the job market immediately is at once absolutely correct and absolutely pernicious, IMO.
The medieval and Renaissance humanists who developed the studia humanitatis were absolutely focused on that most important of all questions, the one that literally started the whole damn thing: how should I live? A humanities education -- traditionally one in the seven liberal arts -- can and should be used to cultivate the practice of virtue from moment to moment.
A true humanities education can and should help one answer this question in one's practices. To me, this is significantly more important than whether that education immediately equips one to enter the work force. The disdain for an (undergraduate) educational experience that does not equip one with a vocation is, IMO, one of the most unfortunate aspects of American post-secondary education.
It's also why I get so incensed when I hear people recommending that we calibrate financial aid according to the vocational status of the course of study one undertakes (engineering students should get more $$ than philosophy students). If we want to continue producing health professionals who lack empathy, communication skills -- who do not practice their craft virtuously -- by all means, let us enact this plan.
/end rant
Paul and Belle, these are fascinating issues, but let me suggest that I perceive an undercurrent in your (Paul's) posts that has not been mentioned specifically yet: perfectionism.
Not that other professionals don't suffer from this, but I wonder if high-powered lawyers who went to top schools and got stellar grades from high school on up don't suffer from it in higher percentages (and maybe even lawyers who didn't go to top schools, and get top grades, as they too can still suffer from the effects of perfectionism).
For example, you mention being overwhelmed by the burden of being a PI lawyer, not being trained well enough, and having to defend people who could literally be out on the street. The fact of the matter is, in life, you do the best you can with the limited resources that you have, and you have to let go of the rest. At the very least, your clients had the advantage of a caring, smart lawyer (granted, one who could have benefited from more training, but still)...and you did the best you could.
You want a steep learning curve, with clients' lives on the line? You should look at counseling, another former field of mine. All the coursework and "practicum" in the world does not substitute for plain old experience in preparing you to deal with and help those who come to you...and many are in extremely desperate psychological shape. But you have to struggle to overcome perfectionistic tendencies, and realize that within the confines of what you have to work with, you are doing the best you can...and you leave the rest up to whatever higher power you believe in.
I do agree with you Daniel. Of course I believe the humanities and social sciences to be as intellectually valuable as any other discipline. Heck, I believe them more valuable in many ways.
But whether they are as economically valuable and prized in society is a separate question, and I don't think my one-woman crusade to spread the St. John's great books gospel will do much. We've long been complaining about the increased professionalization of law school (which is at least professional school, so complaints are rather cough cough hack hack), graduate schools, and now undergraduate education.
What happened to the days when you just got a great intellectual, civic, and social education and that was the point of college? I don't know. I'll pick it up in the next post, I promise.
And yes, calibrating financial aid to major (or another proposed plan, to charge higher fees for more vocational majors)--terrible ideas.
I'm approaching this discussion from the perspective of a career switcher. In my case I've hit a salary ceiling in my field and feel disappointed that I haven't pursued graduate education. I'm also bored and realize that I'm in a field only partially suited to my personality type.
I expect to be working for another 30-40 years and therefore need to find something intellectually stimulating and connected to the world around me.
I've seen life from the inside of firms both large and small and realized early on that private firm life wasn't for me. However, if (a big "if") I can attend a local, public law school and keep expenses down, then public interest law may be an option for me. BTW, not all lawyers are litigators--I know several and none are trial (or even transactional) attorneys. They also work standard business hours.
"Do what you love" sounds nice, but the message is usually coming from someone with the financial means to do so. A better message might be "Do what you love within one of the few professional fields that pays well."
But hey, I participate in discussions to learn something, so if others here know of intellectually stimulating careers with professional-level salaries, that aren't in the nearly unattainable academic field, then please share your thoughts. 
I'm really quite dubious about Belle's generalization--that humanities and social sciences "lock you into a grad school of some sort." Many, many jobs in our economy require neither specialized undergraduate study nor graduate school. For many careers, your undergrad transcript exists merely as a signalling device: you're smart? Great, here's an entry level position.
The United States economy is one of the most diverse and flexible anywhere; there are more pathways to a fulfilling, remunerative existence than your school's career office is aware of.
Obviously there are huge class issues here, but IF you are going to a "top" school, have good grades, &c., you can major in whatever interests you and still live a middle-class life. And if you really do need the security of a 2nd major that has a secure career path, accounting rather than science (and not econ) is probably the way to go.
Hi, Paul
Hope life has been more interesting after you left our shop.
I spent 5 years with legal aid, went out into private practice representing clients mostly in cases against the police for 20 years and now back in legal aid and have been back for more than 5 years. I have had a great and rewarding career representing the downtrodden but then, that's just me.
The science/engineering vs humanities debate *should* be irrelevant. I think it's irresponsible for universities to turn out people who are clueless about either.
Paul Graham (mentioned earlier) wrote about staying "upstream" with your course of study. You can go to grad school in economics with a math BA, or grad school in Poly Sci with an Econ BA. But going the other way (ie., swimming "upstream") is very difficult.
It's a good metaphor - however, it does assume that the Math major has taken enough humanities work to survive in a heavily text-based environment with lots of writing, and that the English major hasn't done the equivalent with Math.
Unfortunately, this assumption is largely correct. This is where Universities really fail their humanities students. I understand that math is hard, but if you don't take it (and I mean a lot of it), you're cut off from so much of human knowlege.
I double majored in English and Math, and I minored in History, so I've taken a lot of both. But looking at my college breadth requirements, the imbalance for a single major is very clear:
If I had majored only in math, I would have been required to take: 2 years of world history and culture (lower division survey course), 1-2 years of a foreign language (1 year OK if it happens at the upper division level), 3 upper division courses in a humanities department, and 2 courses in Arts.
If I had majored only in English, I would have been required to take:
2 math classes, which can be fulfilled with simple statistics and logic classes (ie, no calculus)
2 science classes which can be fulfilled with "physics for poets" type courses.
Plenty of Engineering students blow off the humanities requirement, but it seems to me that the "well rounded students" are generally from a science or engineering department.
The term "broad liberal arts education" gets on my nerves. If you haven't studied science seriously, how can you call yourself broadly educated? The notion that English, History, Poly Sci are different fields reminds me of the old quote "We got both kinds of music here: country *and* western".
I disagree. Law school isn't bad. It's actually a lot of fun. It presents a lot of opportunities to learn and try out all kinds of different things if you take advantage of them. And the big bad NY state Bar Exam wasn't even that bad. I passed, as did 76% of the people who took it this year. I didn't even go to a top tier school.
Practicing law can be similarly rewarding. The US Government is the single largest employer in the country, and they, along with tons of smaller governments (state, local, etc.) employ a ton of lawyers. I work for the government. It's a great job. 35 hours a week without fail, great benefits, nice people.
I don't make a ton of money, but I don't need to. Everyone is so scared of debt, I suspect because a lot of law students come straight from undergrad before they've had a chance to pay any debt off. But it's just debt. You'll pay it off eventually. Consolidate. Pay $5 a month, and you can't be forced into bankruptcy. Adults know this. (I took 6 years off between undergrad and law school). Actually, I believe everyone should take some time off before law school to work and see what's it's like to not live with your parents or in a dorm room.
The point is you make your own future. Educate yourself about what you're getting into, and make sure you want to do it. Too many people go to law school or take a job without ever bothering to ask themselves what they want out of life. Then they find themselves stuck on a track (I spent all this money, I need to be a lawyer now to pay it back) and that's why they're unhappy. Follow your bliss. You can find it in the law.
Geoff,
Unfortunately, this assumption is largely correct.
Do you have evidence for this claim (that english majors often have not taken enough math and hard science courses)? I thought that was the entire point of broad education or distribution requirements.
Plenty of Engineering students blow off the humanities requirement, but it seems to me that the "well rounded students" are generally from a science or engineering department.
Again, do you have evidence for this claim, or is it just your impression? Why do you maintain that the well-rounded students are generally from a science or engineering department? I teach and work with many medical and science grad students, and, through my own biased lenses, I have most assuredly formed an impression quite the opposite of yours: they seem decidedly less well-rounded to me than many of the humanities students I know.
What's more, the number of medical and science grad students who have extensive humanities backgrounds has hardly overwhelmed me. I have found that it is more likely that their focus and learning is extremely narrow. This makes sense because lab science, at least, often requires a kind of intense focus that is less present in many kinds of broad-based social and cultural studies. If so, you would expect some self-selecting.
Now, these, are of course, simply my impressions. But this is why I am interested to hear if you have any evidence other than anecdote for the proposition that it is the science or engineering students who are well-rounded.
The term "broad liberal arts education" gets on my nerves. If you haven't studied science seriously, how can you call yourself broadly educated?
For one thing, what we now consider the natural sciences were most assuredly not part of a liberal arts education. As I mentioned above, the seven liberal arts, as understood in the medieval and Renaissance educational tradition, consisted of logic, grammar, and rhetoric (the trivium), and astronomy, music, arithmetic, and geometry (the quadrivium). Moral philosophy was also quite popular, though it hardly resembled the contemporary study of ethics, and was more properly understood at the time as a branch of rhetoric (that concerned with virtue).
That said, I agree that it is difficult to think of someone broadly educated who is entirely ignorant of science. OTOH, I think it's important to beware of scientism, which often manifests in the unwarranted assumption that the best methodologies for thinking about science are those employed in the natural sciences.
Daniel -
To some extent, these are just my own impressions, but there is some evidence in the breadth requirements. If you look at the breadth requirements for a typical undergraduate program at an academically serious university, you will usually see a strong humanities and social sciences component. The hard science, mathematics, and engineering components are usually very watered down. I really doubt that humanities/soc sci students are taking science track calculus courses (or even the easier track sometimes offered) that not required by their university or their major. I'll admit that this is a weak point in my argument - but c'mon, are you taking the position that humanities majors are voluntarily taking real physics classes in numbers large enough to balance out the humanities requrements put on engineers and scientists?
I've heard that humanities majors do pretty well in med school. Many universities do offer an easier physics and calculus track for some majors (economics and some branches of biology, as well as pre-med work, for instance). I would agree that a humanities student who also takes these courses is very well rounded, but again, I suspect this is small fraction of humanities students. Yes, you can challenge me for evidence that I'm not going to be able to provide - but would you also tell me what you personally suspect is true (again, do you think that humanities students are studying this kind of science in large numbers, equivalent to the humanities requirements for engineering students)?
I've definitely gotten a bit defensive over the years. I majored in English, sure, but humanities majors seem to be very quick to claim a well rounded education (and to dismiss practical things like engineering as "vocational"). I think that engineering and science students should put in a claim to the "well rounded" label - and embrace these majors as preparation for careers well beyond the lab.
It wouldn't be so bad if we had a politician or two in there who actually understands how levees work, rather than how to litigate when the levees break.
Hey Geoff,
I'll admit that this is a weak point in my argument - but c'mon, are you taking the position that humanities majors are voluntarily taking real physics classes in numbers large enough to balance out the humanities requrements put on engineers and scientists?
Of course not. But I doubt very seriously physics majors are reading Finnegan's Wake, either.
Accordingly, I think "satisfying the humanities requirements" is an extremely weak proxy for being a "well-rounded" student, though may be a slightly better proxy for having a "broad education."
I don't really think that science or math students who duly fulfill their required humanities courses are likely to be more well-rounded than humanities students who do not take many serious math or science classes. The major difference, I suggest, comes in the cultural and social disdain for a humanities education.
As you said yourself -- plenty of engineering and science students blow off their humanities requirements. So what if there are more of them? Does that translate into being more well-rounded? That's a stretch, IMO.
I would agree that a humanities student who also takes these courses is very well rounded, but again, I suspect this is small fraction of humanities students.
This is a good question, and there is, I suspect, empirical evidence that would help. I'm pretty sure the AAMC may collect some of this information, though I'm not sure if it's public. And actually, I know for a fact that many medical schools prefer students with a liberal arts or a non-science background, because they think that kind of broad education tends to make better students and better physicians. Being a budding medical humanist, I tend to agree with them on the latter.
In any case, I think we need a much better sense of what qualifies as a "well-rounded student," and even if you are absolutely correct that the humanities curriculum requirements for science students are more onerous than the inverse, that does not tell you much about whom is truly well-rounded.
This is at least in part because one can know an awful lot about science without actually practicing science. Some medical anthropologists I know know ten times more about how medicine is practiced than many doctors or medical students, though of course they do not know clinical practice like the physicians. Whom is more well-rounded? The physician, because he took a few more humanities courses, or the anthropologist, who has immersed him or herself in the culture of biomedicine, listening to the stories, conceptualizing the encounters?
I have my own answer to this question, but I submit that the whatever answer you have, it is not as obvious as you claim. In any case, I don't think the factual premise (curriculum requirements) supports your conclusion (science students are more well-rounded than humanities students) very much.
Again, none of this is to say that humanities students should not venture outside of their comfort zones and gain some type of exposure to the methods of the natural sciences. But I don't agree with some of the generalizations about whom is more well-rounded than whom. And regardless of who claims what, it is exceedingly difficult to contest that we live in a(n educational) culture that deeply disvalues the humanities in favor of the natural sciences.
Of course not. But I doubt very seriously physics majors are reading Finnegan's Wake, either.
I think that misses the point. I'm not asking humanities majors to master the outer orbits of topology here. We're talking about basic calculus and physics.
As for the distain for humanities... well, maybe there is. But I think there's actually quite a bit of distain for sciences as well. I was a grad student in engineering at Berkeley, and the percentage of students who came up through the American educational system is exceptionally low. Head on over to the law school, or one of the humanities departments, and you'll find lots and lots of people with "standard american accents".
In the presidential elections I've been old enough to vote in, I've cast my vote for Bill Clinton (a lawyer), Bill Clinton, Al Gore (a lawyer), and John Kerry (a lawyer). This time around, it's looking like either Hillary Clinton (a lawyer), Barak Obama (a lawyer), or an outside change for Edwards (a lawyer).
Society may value engineering, but they definitely try to put us in a box. One of the ways they devalue our contributions is to say "they're educated to deal with the narrow issues of math or lab worh - I have a *broad liberal arts education* - so I'm equiped to handle the big decisions". This is one of the reasons I want to hammer it home that scientists are often the most broadly educated people out there, and it might be good for public service to include more people who think like scientists.
The issue is that a physics major can and will read Finnegan's wake and discuss it at an equal level with the humanities student. The opposite is not true, because the hard sciences are not nearly as granular. It doesn't matter how intelligent you are, if you haven't done the prerequisites, you have no hope. I took some humanities classes with prereqs that I didn't have: all this required was sitting down and talking with some folks and convincing them I was generally interested. Taking math classes with prereqs I didn't have required me to sit down and do some proofs. I explicitly refute the idea that this medical anthropologist knows a lot about medicine. He may know a lot about doctors, and the culture thereof, but he knows nothing about medicine. Conceptualizing the encounters? That is not medicine. No more than knowing about Galileo's persecution and life story gives you knowledge about astronomy. He still knows nothing of medicine, he's still soundly within his own realm. It all goes back to the upstream argument.
Or to put it yet another way, even to this day my humanities/social science courses I took make good conversational fodder. The average person can relate to my Cultural Anthropology in Modern Europe or my Myths, Fables, and Folklore, or The History of the Cold War from 1945 to Present. Not so much for Unit Operations II: Separation Processes or Optimization: Theory and Practice.
Geoff,
But I think there's actually quite a bit of distain for sciences as well.
In at least one very very important sense -- dollars allocated -- you couldn't be more wrong. Shall we discuss the allocations for the NEH as compared to the NIH or the NSF?
And it's no accident that doctors are virtually always the most respected professionals, in virtually every empirical resource one examines. Science is one of the most powerful American cultural and social legitimators. It exceeds by such a great margin the social capital and legitimacy conveyed by a humanities background, that I wouldn't even know where to begin.
You personally may feel marginalized, but, as someone who makes a living thinking and studying the practices of science and medicine, I seriously dispute the notion that American culture values the humanities more than the sciences. Hell, most humanities professionals -- professors -- don't even know what the bleep the humanities are.
This is one of the reasons I want to hammer it home that scientists are often the most broadly educated people out there, and it might be good for public service to include more people who think like scientists.
I disagree on "often." And I provided a very legitimate reason why scientists are often viewed as thinking "narrowly" - an intense focus is a boon, even a requirement, to be a successful scientists in many different occupations, especially lab science. Of course, such a modality is != being narrow-minded, because I don't believe scientists are any more or less open-minded than the rest of us.
Nick,
I'm not sure if you are the same Nick who posts on Amber's blog, but your arguments here remind me of some of what I've read over there. I quite seriously disagree with almost everything you've written.
The issue is that a physics major can and will read Finnegan's wake and discuss it at an equal level with the humanities student. The opposite is not true, because the hard sciences are not nearly as granular.
Of course. Because only the natural sciences have methods, right? I'm sure actually being trained in narrative studies, composition, structure, theory, you know -- actual literary analysis -- isn't really required to interpret Finnegan's Wake. You just need to be a smart thinker, like a physicist.
This, BTW, is the very epitome of scientistic thought, and could not be more wrong, IMO.
I took some humanities classes with prereqs that I didn't have: all this required was sitting down and talking with some folks and convincing them I was generally interested.
Good for you, but that is poor evidence for the proposition that doing meaningful work in the humanities is easier than doing meaningful work in the natural sciences. Scientistic modalities often presume that other kinds of methodologies are less rigorous than scientific epistemologies. Why is it more reasonable to believe that simply being intelligent and interested is enough to accomplish meaningful work product in the humanities than in the natural sciences?
I explicitly refute the idea that this medical anthropologist knows a lot about medicine. He may know a lot about doctors, and the culture thereof, but he knows nothing about medicine.
Fine. I explicitly repudiate your refutation. I couldn't disagree with you more. The medical anthropologist knows a very great deal more about medicine than the doctor who has taken a few humanities courses with or without the prereqs. The anthropologist is a trained cultural observer. This is what they do. And yes, they even have methods for it.
Why do you insist that a doctor is more tuned in to the nuances and subtleties of biomedical culture than is a trained cultural observer? Do you honestly believe this?
Of course, the anthropologist does not know better how to treat disease better than the physician -- this is trivially true -- but I'll bet a damn sight the anthropologist knows a great deal more about how diseases are ineluctably social concepts than does the doctor.
Or to put it yet another way, even to this day my humanities/social science courses I took make good conversational fodder.
I would suggest that the humanities courses you've taken with or without prereqs may make for good conversational fodder, but that hardly demonstrates meaningful work in the humanities is possible without training anymore than does my excessive health literacy and ability to meaningfully discuss clinical medicine with physicians qualifies me to do meaningful work in actually treating sick people.
In short, I basically disagree with almost every word in your post, and find it to be a nice example of the very scientism I was warning of.
I think that part of the problem is that when you're beginning a law career, you are working hard but not producing anything of value. You aren't setting any sorts of precedents, you may never argue an important case. It is entirely possible that your economic contirbution to society is 0, or worse negative. It makes a minimum wage consturction job in the blazing sun look like a fulfilling, soul affirming dream job.
There are different kinds of literacy. Two big ones are written word and mathematics. If you leave college without the ability to understand calculus, you do not have access to most of the literature that describes human knowledge.
This is why I put so much emphasis on completing the science/engineering track calculus sequence that exists at most universities. There will always be gaps in your knowledge - but this is more about knowing *what* than knowing *how*.
For example, the other day I needed (for work related reasons) to research a few different types of curve fitting. I had never really looked into some of these methods before, so I read some articles, including things as accessible as wikipedia entries, played around with R, read up in old textbooks. Because I have a math background, I was only 2 weeks away from having a decent understanding of these techniques. Unless your medical anthropologist friend, she's probably four to five years away from understanding how this works on anything more than a purely surface level.
I also care a lot about copyright law, and I followed Eldred vs Ashcroft closely. When the ruling came out, I was able to download the full opinion and read it. I don't have a law degree, and I'm sure there are things I didn't consider. But I was able to approach the ruling as a literate person - ie,. I am able to access the literature, read it, and have a reasonably informed opinion about it.
Your comment about finnegan's wake suggests to me that you have confused the issues here. This is more equivalent to a civil engineer knowing things about the structural integrity of levees that a chemist wouldn't know about. Of course - there's always specialization. But the chemist isn't illiterate - he or she can access the literature and learn about it on a deep level with a moderate amount of effort.
A pure humanities student can't access science literature, but a science student can read a political science journal. This is at the core of what makes the science student better rounded.
The comment about comparing law school to grad school seems to indicate not knowing that much about grad school! It's long- 4 years is very unsual for a PhD now, 6-8 or even 10 isn't that uncommon, so the opportunity cost is much higher. It is paid in part, but often not for the whole time and very, very poorly- you will be poor the whole time you go. Some schools pay stipends of as low as $10K/year for a maximum of 4 years. Even the "best" schools rarely pay more than about $18-20K/year and that's for life in a city. The atmosphere is often infantalizing and demeaning. There is no end to the day or the week since there are always more book/aritcles to read and more writing you should be doing. The job markets are, generally, terrible, much, much worse than in the law, w/ most jobs being poorly paid, in undesirable locations, and with little chance to move up. Many people never get as lucky at this, especially at lower ranked programs, and end up adjuncting (working long hours for maybe $20-25K/year and no benefits) or leaving. But, if you leave you are often unemployable to many since you are now "over-qualified". It's certainly not something someone should do unless she is certain she wants to do it and can. It's in general a much worse prospect than law school (especially since most people who could get into decent grad programs could get in to top law schools w/o serious truoble.)
Geoff,
A pure humanities student can't access science literature, but a science student can read a political science journal.
This seems erroneous to me. Why can a humanities student, trained in the art of reading and interpretation, not access science literature?
Much of science literature requires a knowledge of Calculus. Without this, I suspect you're cut off from the literature in most of economics, engineering, or natural science.
Though I have a BA in Math and an MS in Industrial Engineering, I actually have trouble understanding many journal articles even in my own field. They do get pretty esoteric. So I certainly wouldn't expect someone who has done the undergraduate humanities sequence to develop a meaninful opinion on Finnegan's Wake, either (I majored in English as well as Math, and someone had to explain Ulysses to me).
But when you talk about being well rounded, you're talking fundamentals. I'd estimate that in terms of literature, not understanding calculus is like reading at the 8th grade level. You can read articles in Time magazine, but you'll never be able to access the literature on a deep enough level to form your own opinions.
As for funding... yep, Science does get a lot of money relative to the humanities. It probably should, in my opinion. But don't rule out participation as a good metric for how much respect a field gets. There is a funny onion article titled "Report: 98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others"
(http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38644)
I think it's a similar situation for science. Politicians and CEOs, none of whom are research scientists, all seem to be very keen on encouraging others to pursue these degrees. But cnn's career guide listed academic research scientist as one of the "Big jobs that pay badly." Really, if you examine the life and career path of your typical academic scientist (who never makes it anywhere near the tenured faculty at MIT), it's hard to conclude that America particularly values these people.
Re: A pure humanities student can't access science literature, but a science student can read a political science journal.
The kernel of truth to this is that you need to have some understanding of statistical inference to understand social science articles that present statistical results, you need to have some understanding of rational choice theory to evaluate rational choice models, and knowing calculus is essentially a prerequisite to being comfortable with this stuff.
But that's all it is: a kernel of truth. The claim seems to be that while the hard sciences are cumulative, the social sciences aren't; this is not just wrong but dangerously wrong. Reading an article is not the same as understanding it. And understanding the difference between good studies and bad studies requires a good deal of field-specific and even context-specific information; good survey articles can often substitute for this, but even here, the difference between a good one and a bad one isn't obvious to the outsider. One of the reasons that political science articles are much longer than physics articles is that the question of what the results mean--what even counts as a "result"--is much trickier.
And that's without even getting into the difficulties of evaluating qualitative work.
If the position is simply that everyone should have taken calculus and be familiar with statistical inference, I agree. But I also think dedicated study of the varieties of social scientific explanation more generally ought to be a requirement, as it really is not something that students of any one discipline are necessarily going to pick up on their own.
(And if the position is that our society seems to fetishize quantitative ability, and hence that one ought to recognize this and adjust for it, this is also true--but we can still point out the problems with this state of affairs.)
Agreed with XT all the way around. The notion that science students are more well-rounded because they can "read" humanities or social science journals whereas humanities students cannot "read" science journals strikes me as mostly (dangerous) nonsense. Even assuming that the innumerate may have more difficulty accessing a science article, it does not follow that the understanding a science student has from reading a political science article is any deeper than the humanities student's comprehension of a scientific article.
Belief to the contrary is largely predicated on the scientistic belief that methods in the natural sciences are more rigorous and produce "better" evidence than those of the humanities or social sciences. This is dangerously misleading, as a great number of phenomena worth studying (like Ulysses) cannot be or can only poorly be assayed through scientific methods.
In addition, in my own fields -- health policy, health care ethics, and the medical humanities -- the fetishization of quantification XT writes of has produced a number of deleterious effects. Most notably, perhaps, is the notion that qualitative evidence -- which could provide wonderful information on how people actually feel and relate to illness experiences -- are denigrated. The obsession with the RCT is another unfortunate side effect.
In any case, this entire line of discussion -- while interesting and revealing -- has been a total threadjack, and for my part in that I apologize to Belle.
It's funny. I've worked in three fields: journalism, technology, and the law. And, according to disgruntled co-workers, all three have the highest rate of alcoholism and divorce. Maybe it's a three-way tie?
It's funny. I've worked in three fields: journalism, technology, and the law. And, according to disgruntled co-workers, all three have the highest rate of alcoholism and divorce. Maybe it's a three-way tie?
Well, the journalists would tell you it depends on who you ask; the technology folk would tell you it depends on how you run the numbers; and the lawyers would tell you that it depends on how you define "alcoholism," "divorce," "rate," and "highest."
For certain divisions of DOJ - I would add Civil Rights Division. This does not have to do with Bush's changes to division - rather it has to do with the fact that much of what the division does is settled law (unlike freewheeling earlier years where there were many more cases of first impression), and many divisions do significantly more compliance work than litigation.
Well, your various studies seem to have overlooked the fact that professions like engineering have become something that only immigrants will do.
This is due to the "Indian-American" lobby which has granted immigration preference to those who a.) come here to get a master's degree in engineering then b.) work in engineering.
Given the likelihood they would spend their career in a room full of Indians, most Americans pick another career.
How did this discussion about the worth of law school decay into a humanities versus science pissing contest?
A couple quick points....
1. I have a BS/MS/PhD in engineering, and a JD. I spent over 7 years in grad school, worked as an engineer in industry for 15+ years and went back to law school at the age of 48.
2. Most unhappiness is self-generated and self-perpetuated.
3. Maybe these same folks who are unhappy as lawyers would have been unhappy in almost anything they made a big investment of time & $ and then found they didn't care for it.
4. Certain personality types tend to be attracted to law school; no doubt about it. These same personality traits lead to the high rates of alcoholism / divorce/ etc.. It isn't the law, its the person.
5. Same as 4 regarding the perfectionism issue. Law is a service usually paid for by the hour, so perfection is for SCOTUS appellate briefs. The 80/20 rule applies for all else, unless your client has infinite resources and patience. In which case, they don't need a lawyer.
6. Every one is paid for thier time, one way or another, regardless if you have to track it or not. You have finite and unknown number of hours to spend working in your life. How you choose to use them is up to you; blaming the rest of the world for the pressures you feel / create / respond to is a cop-out.
7. Every choice you make has an opportunity cost. Even failing to make a choice. That's life; get used to it.
You all are making me think more and more highly of the "forget this and the Department of Education, I'm moving to the forest and eating off the land" method of dealing with post-undergrad life. Way to make a Poli Sci/International Studies major feel secure in her future, guys.
Is there anything excessively optimistic about a plan to go to Cooley Law (I have a high LSAT! It's free!), graduate with a decent GPA, work at someplace like the Lexis-Nexis call center, and get a PhD in something I like? Besides how surprisingly hard it is to get a good GPA at Cooley? I'm calling it the "yes I have to sit through Torts and Contracts but in the end I can teach history" strategy.
Speaking as a current (older) law student, I find this topic fascinating.
Fascinating because ever since I made the decision to go to law school, most lawyers I happened to mention it to had a similar reaction: "Is it too late to talk you out of it?"
There are, indeed, a lot of unhappy lawyers out there. Even well-paid ones.
I do think expectations are a big part of it. In some ways, the pressures of big firm life might be unique; but in other ways, perhaps not. I tend to echo the comments of others up above that most highly educated professions tend to have a lot of the same issues going on. Which might point to something disfunctional with modern society as exists, at least in the U.S. and a good deal of the western world besides. Progress has come at a high price.
But I think expectations play a role. Many law students simply expect something different from what law often turns out to be, no matter how many times, intellectually, you tell yourself it's not like Law & Order. Investment banking and accounting don't create the same kinds of expectations.
And as for grad school: If you think public interest law jobs are hard to come by, the academic job market is much worse. And in the humanities. if your epistemology is in any way traditional (i.e. conservative), you're close to out of luck.
I am probably not the usual case. I always knew what my "back-up plan" was if I couldn't play shortstop for the Yankees. The type of law I wanted to do before I became a lawyer (crusading DA to litigator to tax jock), and the nature of my practice (now a general business and estate planning practice with a smattering of administrative and 1st Amendment stuff) changed over time.
My take on the debate (and my own advice) is don't go to law school if you don't know what you want to do. Go to law school if you want to be a lawyer.
The discussion has generally omitted small and medium-size firms. I think you will find greater satisfaction there than at mega-firms, government or "public interest" firms. There is greater control over your own destiny and practice development. There is greater client contact and decision-making authority. The downside is that if the boss is a so-and-so, your option is to find another firm, not transfer to another practice group.
The trick is that many smaller firms may not hire new grads. Let the big firms train, and then offer a real life and good work to folks seeking to bail out of the big firm rat race. When we hire, we hire folks for whom “lawyer” is what they are, not just what they do.
You deal with real people (sometimes that’s good; sometimes bad - but that is not unique to law). The advice and work you do can make a real difference to them, even if it is only in little ways. The will for that elderly couple might be your 3000th will, and maybe not that complicated - but to them it is peace of mind and lets them go to sleep at night knowing that the survivor is taken care of.
I have mixed feelings about litigation. There have been cases where I felt the need to take a shower after dealing with opposing parties or counsel, and where I had to decompress before walking in the door at home. But there have also been cases where my work made a real difference to clients’ lives, to the good. There have been boring cases, and very exciting intellectually challenging cases. That is the way any profession or job will be, and expecting every case to be over issues worthy of the Supreme Court is a sure-fire recipe for disillusionment.
You can be a happy, well-adjusted lawyer. It’s much harder to be a happy person who “has to” work in a law firm.
I majored in math and history, and I think all Geoff's remarks in this comment thread are exactly correct.
I may not have anything original to add (I haven't had time to read all the comments), but this post strikes close to home, and I thought I would chime in.
I'm someone who graduated from a 'top tier' law school and went right into biglaw. I lasted two years. I'm now doing graduate work in a related field, and I'm happy as can be (though a bit worried about the precipitous decline in my bank account).
In particular, the golden handcuffs point was something that caught me by surprise. I had a lovely professor in law school who warned us repeatedly about the golden handcuffs, but I didn't really get it until I had decided to leave the firm and I began talking with other associates at my firm about it. Almost universally, people were jealous that I was leaving, but responded "I just need x more years here and then I can do what I really want to do..." It was the same statement, from second through sixth year associates. The golden handcuffs are very real, and very powerful, so beware!
I also wanted to say that my impression of small firm practice is not really in line with this post. I worked at a small firm over the summer one year in law school, and I have to say that those were some of the happiest, and most ethical, lawyers I've met. It is true that you have to have some interest in those areas of law (this firm was mostly family/trusts). Perhaps this is hindsight bias after two years in biglaw, but I really would recommend to law students that they look hard at smaller practices.
I don't know whether this post would have made me think twice about law school or not, but I wish I had had someone in my life back then to tell me this stuff.
Belle
From your 2:18 post I'll tell you what it means. Taken to the end it means the reguildization of significant parts of the population. As the professions get more and more specialized and workers get more and more "locked in" to that path, their vision becomes narrower and narrower until they only see their guild. Think about what it means to the country. How can you be a functioning member of society making informed decisions if your vision is no wider than your guild? Will you have the time? Will you even care?
I became a lawyer in 1977 with such high ideals and expectations. And it was the greatest job in the world for a few years.
But something seemed to change. Judges became political, other lawyers became unscrupulous and nasty. Just me? No, too many others agree with me and had the same experience.
Now when I occasionally visit my law school and look at those young students' expectant faces I wish I could ask them if they have the slightest idea what is in store for them. It would be a futile question. They clearly have no idea. But they will have, someday soon.
Gentle Readers,
There are fools, damned fools, and goddamned fools.
Anyone who takes career advice from a blog is a fool in the second category.
Anyone who takes career advice from a blog written by someone with Gowder's CV is a fool in the last category.
Hey Gowder, can you spell Y-O-U-R L-I-F-E L-A-C-K-S F-O-C-U-S?
Nothing like being a professional student to hide from the real world, eh? {chortle!}
MB
Great article, Paul.
In our last year at HLS I turned down my job at Wachtell Lipton to start a video game business instead.
In the first year I barely made $20K and almost went broke from the student loan payments but it was nevertheless the best decision of my life.
People have often asked me why I didn't "use my Harvard Law degree". Your article is going to be my answer from here on out.
I completely agree that it is dishonest to sell law school as a way to keep your options open; it is, in fact, a very effective method of closing a lot of doors. Going as much as a hundred grand into debt means that you have two choices: you can either take a job at a high-paying sweatshop or you can fight the other ten thousand graduates trying to get jobs with the limited public interest law jobs that will qualify you for tuition forgiveness.
With regard to smaller firms and in-house positions with better hours and atmospheres, they do indeed exist, but they aren't generally interested in people fresh out of law school. Training new lawyers is a massive investment, and while big firms can afford to throw money down the toilet training the 95% of associates who will eventually leave because they either can't stand the practice or can't stand the firm, smaller firms and in-house legal departments can't. You have to have experience before they'll take you. And where are you going to get that experience? See supra.
Random point: I don't feel that the second and third tier schools are being honest with prospective students about their post-graduate prospects. Many of those law schools cost as much or almost as much as the first tier schools, but if you aren't at the very top of your class, you'll find it very, very difficult to find either that high-paying job or the loan-forgiveness position; you'll end up in what Belle called the Suckers category. I honestly believe that if you can't get into a Top Ten law school, you shouldn't go to law school -- that's not elitism, but a piece of advice meant to help preserve your sanity and credit rating.
I have had two careers, the first was an Army artillery officer, from which I retired in 1995, and the second, which I am still doing, as a United Methodist minister. It occurs to me that neither of these fields are "quantitative" fields, but qualitative. That is, neither one's income nor value to the employer is very closely related to the amount of time one spends on the job. I don't mean no relation, I mean not a direct relation.
Lawyering as Paul describes seems to be a highly quantitative profession. I can see how it could drive some of its practitioners nuts.
But I could also give parallel types of arguments to anyone considering a military or clergy career, too. The facts would be different, but the thrust would be the same.
So my advice to the young people I have counseled is always this: For what to do with your life, find the place where the world's greatest need and your deepest hunger intersect.
A sense of true vocation is crucial to mental, physical and spiritual wel being.
One complaint about practicing law that I hear a lot is the other lawyers are arrogant jerks. I've practiced in San Diego for about four years now and have met almost no local lawyers I consider jerks. Maybe San Diego is just incredibly blessed and all the jerks in SoCal wind up in LA, but I doubt that is the case.
San Diego is a brutal legal market. This is a desirable place to live and competition for jobs and clients is fierce. As I started my practice, I sought out the established lawyers in town in my practice area to seek their advice. Even though I began the conversation by telling them that I was opening a firm that would directly compete with them, not a single one refused to meet with me or be generous with their time and advice.
So, I agree with many of your reasons for not entering the legal profession, but I disagree strongly that "you'll be surrounded by jerks". Maybe San Diego really is special. If so, perhaps the unhappy lawyers should move here. You'll need a brilliant marketing plan to get clients, but at least we're friendly!
Donald,
I think there's a lot -- a lot -- to your distinction between quantitative and qualitative professions. For many people, the notion that one's work is one's time (especially in six-minute increments) is just absurd. One's work is what one's doing! The products of one's mind! One's creativity! And one can achieve that in a qualitative profession...
I wrote a reply to this a few days back. PG has responded in the comments section.
http://readingroomnotes.wordpres...1/i-take-issue/
Cheers -
I find so much of the exchange of info fascinating here, but I would also like to add, as an old fogey who has worked in a number of fields and institutions (education, etc.) with lofty moral ideals before entering law, I find that the original poster, Mr. Gowder, seems to be on a quixotic quest for a job where "intellectual dishonesty and moral ambiguity" are not so great a factor...he certainly takes great pains to point out how it mars the legal profession, and how it is a major flaw in the field.
Pray tell, where do moral ambiguity and intellectual dishonesty NOT exist in major ways in the professional world? Has the poster ever experienced the cattiness, sniping, rumors, and backroom dealing that occur on a regular basis in academia (perhaps in a institution that may very well espouse ideals of "mutual respect", "freedom of inquiry, and unfettered search for the truth?").
Perhaps he would like to work in a religiously affiliated institution that has to answer to petty, vindictive, close-minded religious hierarchical figures who profess to be caring and loving leaders? It makes being a liberal and working for a Bush administration governmental energy seem like a moral trip to Valhalla! Talk about intellectual dishonesty and moral ambiguity!
Does Mr. Gowder not know of any health care professional who works for a health care provider that puts the "bottom line" consistently ahead of providing the best health care possible, even though the public mission of the institution is just the opposite? Talk some more about intellectual dishonesty and moral ambiguity!!
I hope I don't seem too harsh, and I don't want to dishonor what clearly was an unpleasant experience for the original poster in public interest law. But I hope it really is just youthful naivety about how other professions work that seems to drive his insistence that the law somehow is more morally ambiguous or intellectually dishonest than other institutions that have a public service bent.
And quite frankly, at least the ultra-liberal EPA lawyer has to wait out at most two four year terms of a president who philosophy doesn't match his or her own; try dealing with a religious leader/university president/hospital CEO who has no fixed term of office!!!
Note to people just starting out: Newsflash...human beings EVERYWHERE are imperfect(maybe even a few are dishonest at times), and don't always live up to their promises, ideals, professed morals, and potential!...that doesn't mean that much good can't come from religiously affiliated work, health care, academia, or public interest law. Of course it can! Intellectual dishonesty and moral ambiguity are part of the human condition; just work though it, and rise above it to accomplish the good that you can, and leave perfectionism aside.
Paul
I happen to have a JD/MBA from a top ten school and I can tell you that an MBA, although "quicker", isnt worth the paper its printed on. The MBA experience is composed of mediocre people talking about "how they feel about a business school case." The MBA imputes no value upon graduates, other than writing "MBA" on one's resume.
You mention opportunity cost, as a reason not to go to law school. That same line of reasoning can be applied to college. There goes the very foundation of your argument. Not to mention the fact that you are pursuing your PHD, which is 5 YEARS LONG. I can only imagine what the opportunity cost on that degree is. Oh wait, its over $1,000,000 for a biglaw attorney.
You should really refrain from posting such erroneous Blog's. Its a good thing no one takes you or this website seriously.
your comments regarding the "sucker" are ill-informed and dismissive. first, the vast majority of law students graduate neither from a top ten school nor a third tier one. second, many small practice private attorneys make good livings doing very "real" legal work (often unburdened by billable hour requirements). third, corporate litigation of the type you discuss is only a very small part of private practice.
it's very true that liberal arts students should not enter law school because they "don't know what else to do". the practice of law can be extremely stressful and taxing, regardless of your practice focus. but do not condemn the entire profession simply because you were greedy/shortsighted enough to enter into the least rewarding area of practice available.
Spot on. Flipped my bippy...
The reason you are now a "former miserable lawyer" is because you couldn’t cut it in the big leagues. I am very satisfied with my job at a big NYC firm and it’s because I don’t b*tch about long days, like you do. I just go to work, make the best of the day, and go home.
Your friend's health is deteriorating probably because is an out of shape slob who doesn’t take care of himself. You citing one person with ailing health is far from representative of Biglaw attorneys.
I am sick of everyone bitching about being a biglaw attorney. The truth of the matter is, biglaw weeds on people like you and all other posters on this website, so that people (like me) end up working with smart and hard working individuals, who don’t complain about the long hours.
The only reason people complain about BigLaw is to justify the fact that they do not (or no longer) work at a prestigious firm doing meaningful work (i.e. the opposite of small law firms).
To "to formerly miserable lawyer" --
What on earth can you find "meaningful" (your word) about what you do? Obviously you must enjoy it on some level, but I think this essay is aimed at the 99.99999% percent of humanity for whom "just go[ing] to work, mak[ing] the best of the day, and go[ing] home" does not constitute a full life. It's not hard to cut it at a big firm -- nobody asked any of us to leave. Simply plug, plug, plug away. But for what?
I'm a third-year law student (school is ranked ~ #50 … yes, is too late for me).
I agree about there being two worlds: big firm lawyers and other lawyers. And it’s true that a lot of lawyers have crappy jobs and crappy lives and don’t make much money and are depressed. All true.
But it doesn’t have to be like that. It doesn’t take a JD from Stanford to earn good money and like your job as a lawyer, either.
I work right now for a two-lawyer firm in an old working-class neighborhood. Which seems like the sorriest of jobs. It's not.
It should tell you something that one of the lawyers I work for is nearly 80 yrs-old and still works 6 days a week. He likes his job. He likes helping his clients. It gives him a purpose.
Our work isn’t sexy. We do about anything (but no personal injury). It’s always changing. Just this month, I’ve helped with a will contest, a land-use trial, a bankruptcy, a workers-comp case, and on a case where we helped a client resolve a deadlock situation in a small business in the neighborhood.
I like our clients, too. All are individuals or small businesses. Some have been clients for decades (we even have a few whose parents and grandparents were clients). A couple are a bit wacky. One client this summer dropped in with a bunch of antiques that he had in his basement b/c he couldn’t pay his bill that month. Among those antiques: a king-size metal bed frame with a rusted pair of handcuffs attached.
For all of this, these lawyers make pretty decent money (not ever under 150 after paying expenses). Sure, running a firm can be a lot of work. And collections can be tough in a firm like this. But they’re honest lawyers and people know that, and so they never hurt for business.
Besides these lawyers I work for, I know a couple others who have great jobs.
The first is a land-use, real-estate lawyer. He works (with his one associate) out of an office that he built onto his house (pretty nice commute). Most of his work is for other lawyers. I met him b/c he was an expert witness for a land-use trial I’ve been helping with. Anyhow, this guy seems to like his job. He makes good money. I think he does a lot better than the lawyers I work for b/c he has a higher collections rate, low expenses, and he bills a bit more per hour. In any case, I think he has a great job.
The other lawyer I know who’s in a good situation is a solo practitioner who does tax and business planning stuff. He started out after law school in a big accounting firm in a job he could’ve gotten with his accounting degree from undergrad. But then after a while he used his experience at the accounting firm to get a job with a law firm that did tax planning. And then eventually he went off on his own and some came with him. Anyhow, this guy seems to really like his job too. He helps in setting up businesses and (as I understand it) doing things like recapitalizations and restructurings of small businesses for various reasons (estate planning? – not sure…). Anyhow – this guy also works partly out of an office in his house – though he does keep an office downtown. Not a bad gig, in my opinion.
My point is that being a lawyer doesn’t have to suck. It’s true that you might have to start out humbly. 3 of the 4 lawyers I just mentioned started their own firms after law school. The 4th worked in an accounting job that he could’ve gotten after undergrad. But they all were eventually able to get where they wanted. And all of them like their jobs. Now – that’s not to say that all lawyers like their jobs; most don’t. But the point is that if you know how to do it, it’s not that hard to get to a place where you’re making decent money, where you like your job, and where you’re not a slimeball.
Interesting post. I have been an environmental scientist for a few years and I'm now applying to law school. It's been something I've considered for a while now, and now that I am 29, I figure it is now or never. I don't have to worry about Biglaw because my mediocre GPA and decent but not great LSAT will not allow me to get into a top-14 or even top-40 school. The only reason to do Biglaw is the money, and for me, the only reason to care about making that much money is to get laid by hotter women. But it seems like Biglaw people have no time to enjoy themselves. So screw that. I'll try to get into Rutgers or Temple and work for the gov't or a small environmental firm. I have no desire to be rich if I'm going to be miserable all the time. Life's too short.
Very interesting posts here. In the interest of disclosure, I am a litigator at a "big" firm in a small city. I was a litigator at a big firm in a big city - there is a world of difference between the two. I left the big city because if the work/life issues so many here have discussed. I like what I do - I'm well suited to it - and I don't plan to change it.
I don't think that the impact of law school debt is being emphasized enough here. Many of us went the big firm route simply because it was the only way to support a family and pay off crushing school loans. It wasn't a matter of a new BMW or luxury condo, but rather a moderate house and white picket fence in the burbs.
The idea that most law school grads can afford small firm or public interest careers is laughable. For many those jobs would be a one way ticket to bankruptcy.
I disagree that it's laughable to be able to afford to work at a small firm if you have high debt. I'll have about $120,000 in debt when I finish law school in May.
I see no reason why I can't pay it if I start at $50,000 or so. At least with my loans, I can pay them off over 25 years. Interest rates haven't been bad lately, so I don't have a problem there.
I mean - I live on less than $20,000 now and I really don't want for much. I have an old car and a little apartment and I'm fine. So, as long as I can keep my spending under control, I don't see any reason I'll starve in the first few years at a small firm.
John - Wait until you see how much $50,000 per year means in your pocket on a weekly basis - then take out what is basically a mortgage payment for school loans - it won't leave a whole lot for the rest of "life." Want to buy a house? Well I don't know too many people who can carry two mortgages on $50k per year.
Married with kids? (As I was upon graduation.) $50k won't get you very far.
You may well be living on "less than $20k" now, but I seem to remember going to law school to increase my standard of living not to continue to live like a student.
You forget that I know now what less than $20,000 means in my pocket. As long as I don't eat out or buy brick-a-brack that I don't need, it's really not a big problem.
It's true that it would be far harder if I was married or had kids. Then, perhaps it wouldn't be possible.
I'd love to buy a house someday, but I also think home ownership is overrated. Property taxes and mowing the lawn and installing a new water heater -- sounds just great ...
As to your comment that you went to law school to live at a higher standard - that's funny because so did I.
But I also understand that as a new lawyer, I don't have much value. I know a good lawyer in a small firm who told me that working for a small firm is a bit like it used to be as a stockbroker: you start off not making much, but your salary will climb quickly once you reach a certain threshold of clients. That's what I'm counting on. But it's not just hope. I work now for a small firm where the attorneys do quite well. I'm pretty confident that if I can make myself into a well-respected attorney and demonstrate my value to a small firm, I'll make what I'm worth. Otherwise, I'll take my clients and go out on my own. I'm not too worried.
I am an undergrad in poli-sci... have been thinking about law school for a wile now and I'm not sure I want to go...but...what the hell am i going to do with a political science degree?
Kirat, the real question is: what do you want to do? Goal first, then plan...
this article changed my life
As a law school graduate having difficulty passing the bar exam. I agree 125% with this article....
I'm finishing up my first year of law school. I've never liked it that much.
I wasn't sure before I showed up for the first day of classes why I was enrolled at all. It's not that I didn't have an idea of what life as an atty. would be like: unlike a lot of my colleagues, I spent five years (during summer/winter breaks) working for a prosecuting attorney. I found it to be stressful and somewhat depressing. However, because everyone told me I would make a great atty and because I'd always excelled academically, I took the LSAT, perf. well, got a great scholarship and went to law school. Top quarter of the class...but don't feel accomplished at all because I wanted to roll my eyes at how well I'd just played the game of law school. It really is just that, a mind game that all too many people don't recognize and get completely sucked into (including myself temporarily).
To anyone considering law school: don't go because you're smart and feel obligated to continue your education as a result. don't go because you think it will be a fun academic endeavor that will fit your skill set. don't go because you can't quite decide if you should or shouldn't go. There are many things in life to do on a leap of faith. Law school is certainly not one of them.
I would like to note, however, that some of my friends really enjoy school. Studying from when I wake until when I fall asleep isn't my idea of fun, however. Neither is discussing the law 24/7. Nor is listening to professors spout off about how stupid our questions are to them. Regardless of how lovely practice could be (but likely will not be), I want out. I don't want long work hours that don't end even when they officially do. I miss family, faith, and friends.
Majored in comm:journalism and miss it so much that legal writing makes me want to throw up sometimes. I'll only be $12k in debt after this year, and I am getting out.
Now if only I could convince myself and everyone around me.
oh, and another fun fact, many people I know are quite frustrated because most employers are looking for someone in the top 25%, 15%, 10%, etc. That's rough because at least 75% of people in law school will be disqualified. Law school, by nature, is a huge competition. From what I hear and read (like in this blog), practice is as well.
good luck to all.
You mention public interest as if its some noble sacred cow limited only to 'fighting the good fight against the man,' etc. But someone has to do the other side so the truly deserving go to jail.
Therefore, why shouldn't being a prosecutor, JAG lawyer or even an FBI agent also be as noble as working for some lame group of white liberals who've never met a defendant they didn't claim was totally innocent? It is very much in the 'public interest' to put away rapists, child molesters and other scumbags too, though law school profs tend to forget this.
Many public defenders burn out once they realize 80% of their client base consists of guilty scumbags and they aren't getting the conlaw case of the century they thought they would as a 2L. The public would be interested in loger sentences for deserving felons, not more lemming lawyers to set them free on probation.
Hugo, I never said criminal prosecution wasn't in the public interest, though note that there are major moral conflicts there too (just as in all legal work), e.g., participating in locking up nonviolent drug offenders.
It seems that no one realizes, "you only get out what you put in". If you're being paid 160,000 a year you should be prepared to work long grueling hours. If you do not know what being a lawyer is like before going to law school, then you should have never done it to begin with. You need to research and be prepared for what you're getting yourself into. Who cares if you are in extreme debt and a lawyer. If you love being a lawyer, and love the legal field, it shouldn't matter. Education is priceless even if it is expensive. I hate to be so cynical, but if you did not make an effort to find out what you were getting yourself into -- then you can not blame anyone but yourself. Stop complaining about how hard your work is, you chose it.
the blog was written by someone who failed as a lawyer in the real world - inasmuch as they couldn't handle it. some people actually *are* cut out to be lawyers. if you're cut out for the infantilizing insulation of academia (which has its own negatives: poor compensation, poor job security, high stress, etc..) by all means pursue it but don't generalize and discourage people who might otherwise pursue and love law just because you weren't cut out for it.
Disliking something =/= failing at it, Art. And information about the downside is useful for everyone in every field. I just happen to know the downside of the law. Feel free to elaborate on the downsides of the alternatives.
This was a very useful blog page, thank you.
I'm not so certain public interest lawyers are any more happier than the rest, but its understandable you want to throw a bone to the group that best fits your own socio-political world view.
The trouble is, all of the valuable advice you gave about not going to law school will fall on deaf ears when the unsuspecting kids read the favorable bits about public interest lawyers - they still think they can be one of them. Chances are, they can't, and law school is too expensive a rip-off to risk it.
Stop giving the unsuspecting twits any false glimmers of hope. Spell it out: "Kids, if you don't score high on the LSAT and have good grades, you won't get into a top law school. If you then can't get into a cheap state school, you should not go to law school, period."
I've done well as an entrepreneur right out of college. I'm about 5 years out and running my own IT firm. I have always considered law as a sort of second career, after perhaps selling my current company.
For me, the only real option I'd consider is starting my own law firm. Most of my peers who have done the same are now very well off. I'd consider myself doing well currently, but I'm not settling million dollar cases and pulling down a 7 figure salary.
I make just around six figures now and will probably make a few hundred thousand in selling my company. If I can accomplish a better living by practicing law, then it may be the road i'd take.
I don't want to give the impression that I'm ONLY interested in money. I enjoy analytical work and creating logical solutions or arguments to problems or, in this instance, cases.
It is my goal to become wealthy. This might sound shallow, but I am excited by the idea of capitalism, business growth, acquisitions, and financial success. I am driven every day in that I'd like my financial capital to reach critical mass ( where my interest bearing capital generates a revenue that is higher than my cost of living plus say 10-20% so that it in essence begins to fund it's own growth. I estimate this to begin at very lease around 6-7 million dollars in investments at about 6%).
Anyway, I noticed a lot of the talk in here was centered around getting a 'job' with a firm and i wanted to perhaps get more insight on starting a firm and its profitability.
Thanks.
This is exactly why conservatives hate academia. Your colleges and grad schools are summer camps, once you wake up and realize work is hard (thats why they pay you) you bitch and complain.
"I never said criminal prosecution wasn't in the public interest, though note that there are major moral conflicts there too (just as in all legal work), e.g., participating in locking up nonviolent drug offenders."
You have an interesting moral compass: investment banking & biglaw = moral conflict; working for gay rights with the ACLU = moral superiority and the path to happiness.
Should one decide to join the dark side and be a prosecutor, that may mean actually working to punish people who **deserve it**, even for the non-violent crimes. Drug crimes are not, contrary to what your hippie professors have indoctrinated you to believe, victimless crimes.
If locking people up for breaking the law amounts to a major moral conflict, it's no wonder we wind up with prosecutors who never push for the death penalty even in the most horrific and deserving cases.
Punishment=prevention.
This is the sort of writing that has the opposite effect of what it should. The people who will consider it are the level-headed ones who would go into lawschool without too much ambition at all. It isn't to save the world or get rich, but to pay the high price for an interesting job that serves people, some good and some bad.
The people who either never read this or won't care are the very people who create the image of the profession that this article decries. Their dominance in the profession will only increase as people with right motives are scared off by sissies who can't handle $130k in debt with a state job that pays $45k per year. Suck it up.
So congratulations, your self-righteous rant is a fine contribution to the decline of a very important profession.
Despite law review membership, first-time pasage of the California Bar and a master's degree in another field,
I have been unable to make a living as an attorney. It turns out that my "third tier" law school -- replete with exorbitant tuition -- is so poorly regarded that only the extremely "well-connected" (along with a few comely broads) can get hired for more than a low salary.
As for me, I was only able to get a shitty 40k associate position (after sending out thousands of resumes), and that was after several years of looking. After a year of commuting 60 miles each way to work, I was laid off, and subsequently have achieved nothing but minimal subsistence as a part-time sole practitioner (and freelance writer.) I defaulted on my student loans, declared bankruptcy and have had a miserable existence.
If it weren't for my parents and my wife, I'd be homeless.
Law is a fucking joke. No one ever gave me a chance, and at 51, it's too late for me. I look at the "prominent" attorneys in places like Rancho Santa Fe and realize that my "career" as an attorney has been an utter goddamned failure. I've been out of law school (California Western School of Law in San Diego) for 18 years now and I am bitter.
I spend much of my time drinking and ruminating. If you're thinking of law school, don't go; if you're already there, quit now. The whole thing is a fucking farce, a weird heirarchical construct in which a few, wealthy attorneys use all the others as profit centers. If you insist on entering the low-paying field of white-collar crime, your odds of turning a profit are surely better in some other arena. I wish I'd spent my time at the track.
FUCK THE LAW IN THE ASS!
"I spend much of my time drinking and ruminating."
Clue.
Thank you for the interesting article. Having practiced law for 9 years now, I believe you have made several good points. My experience is probably unusual in that I have made my own path in the law. I graduated from a decent state school, in the top 20% of my class, with relatively little debt.
I was young and pretty inexperienced. I interviewed with numerous large firms and got the strong impression that I would 1) hate working for them; 2) not be able to function in that environment; and 3) many of the people were nasty. They probably didn't like me much either, because I didn't get any offers, at least from the big firms. I worked a summer at a tiny firm in another state, and had a full-time offer there, but didn't want to leave the state for personal reasons. Out of desperation and lack of other options, I basically set up my own shop. I officed with other established lawyers who fed me work.
The first two or three years I made very little money. I got by because my wife was working. Things slowly got better and better. We bought a house. I got into a more lucrative practice area and my practice expanded. It took time and was very difficult. At times I wanted to quit. I've struggled with depression. The last several years have been very good- I've probably finally caught up financially with my peers who entered big firms.
My student loans are paid off. I own a nice house in a good neighborhood. Financially, things are good now. I have a reasonable work schedule and have time to enjoy family and vacations. I am in a middle-sized city with access to numerous cultural and recreational opportunities.
While the law can make people petty, greedy, angry, and depressed - there are also lawyers who become fair-minded, reasonable, and wise. Some of the older professionals I know have these positive qualities. Of course there are scumbags, assholes, and jerks. There are difficult clients who can ruin your life, if you let them.
Even though I have obtained a measure of success, there are still days I would like to quit and do something else. The conflict can wear you down. One bad client or case can pull you down. Case and client selection are key. No amount of money is worth the stress and heartache caused by clients. Changing careers at this point would be a very difficult transition. There are just not any jobs I could jump into at the same income level I have fought hard to achieve after all these years.
Law, like anything else in life, is a mixed bag: good, bad, and in between. I honestly think I am a better person for the struggles I have been through in the practice. Would I do things differently if I could go back in time? Probably, but you make your decisions and do the best you can. Would I advise a young student to enter the law? I would tell them to become extremely informed about it, work with lawyers, find out if they are suited for the work, explore many other career options first, then, if they are still interested, go for it. Some people just have to learn the hard way.
Great post, Paul. I am a new college grad who was seriously thinking about law school, but I've always had my doubts. You always think...hmm...Obama went to law school, look how he turned out. But the low-probability argument and the behind-the-curtain details you expressed put those kinds of delusions into perspective for me, lol.
I don't know if anyone has said this yet, but thank you. Thank you for writing this piece. As a graduating senior, this in the kind of information that is very difficult to come by for someone considering law school. While I don't accept every criticism you make of the profession immediately, it's very important for graduates to have information like this available before making a decision as important this one.
I agree 100% with this article. I was accepted at Cornell, Penn and Georgetown's law schools and have rescinded their offers. I have opted to go to medical school instead. The law is full of low life jerks! Don't waste your money on law school!
I want to add a bit of caution about those elite public interest positions. I went to a top five law school, did well, and landed a job at a well known international human rights organization right out of law school. I had extremely high hopes and goals, and was very committed to the ideals of the organization. Those hopes and ideals were probably too high, but in my experience it's not uncommon for new public interest lawyers.
At the organization, I was paid a very low salary (on a fellowship with no benefits), was shocked by several untruths about the organization that only became apparent after several months, and received so little training that I've had a hard time finding another job. International human rights is a pretty small field, and competition is fierce. If you don't get adequate training in your first job, you'll have a really hard time for the second. And it's also such a specialized field that I've found it difficult to find work in other types of legal organizations. It's hard to explain why I want to transition to legal aid or how I have the skills when I've never worked with a client before.
Though I know much of the job struggle may also have to do with the current economic climate and the glut of furloughed associates now providing free work to struggling nonprofits, those who plan to pursue the elite nonprofits should know that it's not at all easy. I'm now working at a very small foreign NGO that can only afford to pay me a part time salary, but I'm working full time so that loan repayment will kick in; otherwise I'll have to defer 1.5K/month.
I thousandth the idea that you should not go to law school unless you know what you want to do. And if you do know what you want to do, be smart about planning. Realistically, the only way you're getting an elite public interest job is to graduate from a top school, which, unless you're wealthy or one of the very few to get a full scholarship, equals 6 figure debt and a chain to your school's loan forgiveness program. Read those rules before you head down this path, because there are often more restrictions than you realize.
I like your information for the most part. I am thinking about law school. I actually worked in discovery for 3.5 years related to tobacco litigation. I disagree with your "wicked" assessment of the defense of the industry. Its simply providing defense for law suits. The firms defend their clients and litigate...period. I can not discuss the work I did. I can however say that what you see in the media and what happens in the discovery process are very different. Your description of corporate surf's was RIGHT ON! I talked to many new associates from LA to New York. The consensus was that the money was good, the work sucked, I'm not following my moral compass or never had one and I have to make partner to pay my six figure school debt and justify my misery. Its given me pause to "count the cost" for law school. Hope that helps someone.
Recently finished my undergrad with a double major in Intl Business and Foreign Languages. Took the LSAT and have since decided law school is not for me...so now what? Is grad school really my only option? The job market sucks and I don't have the time or energy to sit around doing nothing all day long. Any advice or constructive criticism would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Recently finished my undergrad with a double major in Intl Business and Foreign Languages. Took the LSAT and have since decided law school is not for me...so now what? Is grad school really my only option? The job market sucks and I don't have the time or energy to sit around doing nothing all day long. Any advice or constructive criticism would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
I agree with the posts here because I went to law school, had trouble finding job, started my solo practice, filed bankruptcy, etc. etc. So yes, think carefully before you go into law. Now there are options that I wish I considered or other people considered: learn skilled trades like hairstyling whatever, try nursing or pharmacy, get an MPA and look for a public sector job, teach school if you don't mind violent and disrespectful kids ..
Commenting by HaloScan
