I think what Ascenray is talking about is grading on a curve combined with a limited choice of grades and a very restricted student population - small differences in GPA don’t necessarily reflect a real difference in ability or work. I mean, you could have a 3.75 and I could have a 3.8 due to chance - you were under the weather one exam day and I wasn’t.
There’s a saying about everyone at Harvard being valedictorian* of their high school class- but they can’t all graduate from Harvard at the top of their class.
My law school experience is 30 years old, but I still hear of plenty of folk who decide to go to law school because they don’t know what else to do with their relatively unmarketable liberal arts undergraduate degree. Moreover, some of the people who are “certain” may be mistaken. You can take steps to reduce the chances of being one of them.
Have things changed such that law school curves are not grossly skewed? The story used to be that at many top tier schools, it was tough to get in, but once in, As and Bs were generously awarded, and it was nigh impossible to get a D - let alone flunk out. Whereas some smaller local schools let more folk in, but actually flunk people out.
In my law school, after being a near straight A student in undergrad, I couldn’t figure out what it took to get an A on the typical law school final. (If you don’t know, the standard is that for most law school classes, 100% of the grade is based on a single in-class final.) But I realized I could get a C based on little more than general knowledge. So the choice for me was easy. Hell, all I was getting was a ticket into the game - a license to be employed as a lawyer. Given my excellence at standardized tests, I figured I could pass the bar. (In 2d and 3d years, I was able to load up on classes that graded based on research papers rather than in-class finals, in which I could reliably get As.)
But I always thought the bottom quartile was numerically just as exclusive as the top. And I thought the top students didn’t give us dummies enough credit, because without us, they wouldn’t be there!
The folk I’ve known who went to top schools like Harvard and Northwestern, truly did have doors opened to them that I did not perceive at a state school. The alumni influence is something you are buying with your tuition.
Manda Jo, I dunno about current tuition costs. You could google it as easily as I. My understanding is that some of the Ivies have sufficient endowments, that tuition reflects family income/resources. Essentially, the poorer you are, the less you pay. I think I’ve heard of some big firms repaying debt, but I’m not sure if that is still a thing - and, of course, you’d have to get hired by a big firm (and want to do that work) to receive that benefit.
I went to a state school (Illinois) which was (at the time - IIRC) ranked in the mid-20s. I don’t believe law school tuition was greatly higher than undergrad - both of which were MUCH lower 30 yrs ago. Both my wife and I had teaching and research assistantships. Not only did we get tuition waivers, but we received stipends. So we made money while going to law school. They changed those rules since then as well.
IME, the folk who really fuck themselves are those who take out loans to pay huge tuition to go to low-ranked private schools. They graduate with huge debt and limited job opportunities.
IMO, if you know where you want to practice, good local schools are a good option. Like Kent in Chicago. There are enough local lawyers who went there, that they aren’t biased against hiring you. And my understanding is they do a better job of actually teaching you how to be a lawyer in the local courts/fora, than the “national” schools who keep things theoretical rather than deigning to tell you how to actually DO the nuts and bolts work in any particular jurisdiction.
But it’s not far off. Rent in a city like Toronto could easily be C$15,000 a year if 2 people split an apartment. With food, bills and entertainment you could easily spend C$45,000 a year all in. Is law school 3 or 4 years?
I took the LSAT during my undergrad years, was accepted to the University of Texas law school. Deferred enrollment for two years while I worked to earn money to pay for law school. I was originally wanting to become a tax attorney or some other form of corporate law. After working for a couple of years, decided against going to law school. Probably one of the best decisions of my career.
In my current position, I work regularly with our in house counsel as well as external counsel. Good corporate counsel is hard to find, and I do not envy the tediousness of their jobs.
Most people I know that want to become lawyers, do it for two reasons:
they think that lawyers have glamorous jobs like you see in legal thrillers in books or TV or,
that attorneys make lots of money, and many hope for both!
Generally, neither is true. Yes, if you are a partner with one of the mega firms you can make a really good living, but generally your average attorney in the US, isn’t meeting either of the expectations laid out above.
I’m probably the ideal person to answer this question. I’m a lawyer who went to a fourth-tier school at a time when legal hiring was even more depressed than it is today, and I have a very balanced view of this issue.
Lots of people are suggesting that you shouldn’t go unless you get into a top school “and can graduate in the top 10% of your class.” Nobody has any idea where they’ll be ranked until they’ve actually attended law school, so the latter is a useless metric. Here’s the real scoop: you shouldn’t go to law school unless you’re going to get a job that justifies your investment. There are basically three ways to do that:
Go to a T14 school and graduate near the top of your class, then get a job at a white shoe firm that pays $160K a year. That way, you can pay off your student loans in three years if you’re prepared to live frugally and don’t need to buy a BMW on day 1. Again, you aren’t going to know if graduating near the top of your class is an option until you’re already there, so this isn’t an ideal choice.
Get lots of scholarships. That debt load will be a lot lighter if you’re not paying your own tuition. But be careful - lots of law school internal scholarships require you to maintain a high GPA, which can be virtually impossible if you’re graded on a curve.
Go to a cheap school and have a job lined up when you get out. That’s what I did; I worked at a law firm before I went to law school, which was also a good way to make sure I wanted to go to law school. I worked full-time and went to school at night. The schedule isn’t exactly ideal, and “work 9-5 then school 6-9 year-round” weeded out more than half our class in the first six months. But I got out of law school with only $50K in debt, and my employer knew my work product and didn’t care where I went to school. I wasn’t making an AmLaw 100 salary starting out - or even half of one* - but just over four years later I’m a partner in the largest law firm in the state, and I paid off my loans after about two years.
It’s important to note that just going to a cheap school isn’t enough. At least half of my classmates never found law jobs and went back to their roles as teachers and bankers and so on. They didn’t have anyone willing to hire them as lawyers because they didn’t know any.
I can’t speak for the Ivies, but most schools grade on a C-curve for the first year (5% will get an A, 5% will get an F, 40% will get a C) and a B-curve after that.
*I’m still not making an AmLaw 100 salary, but I also come and go as I please and work ~50 hours a week unless I feel like working more.
Employers vary greatly as to paying for education. Doesn’t sound like what you are describing, but if you work for a firm that will pay for you to go to law school, I’d strongly consider it.
Whether it’s a C-curve or a B-curve, hiring people know that if you’re averaging a B or a C, you are a mediocre student in law school terms. You’re not in the top 10 percent. And that’s if they don’t don’t straight-up ask you for your class ranking.
The point is that with the curve, you are not being judged on your performance as an absolute matter. You could have an entire class submit exam booklets that are equally excellent, but they are not all going to get As.
Canadian Lawyer Magazine has a couple of interesting articles (heh) that people thinking about law school in Canada or practicing in Canada might find interesting.
Will the conversation catalyzed by the Law Society of Ontario mean the end of articling? | Canadian Lawyer gets into how difficult it is to get that all important first job – articling. The way it works in Ontario is (1) complete a law degree, (2) complete articles/apprenticeship, (3) complete further law courses through the Law Society (our self-governing body), (4) pass the bar exam, and (5) start working as a lawyer. With more law schools having opened up and flooded the market with new grads, it can be a bitch for a bouncing baby LL.B./J.D grad to find an articling position.
Western Law to launch academic mindfulness course this fall | Canadian Lawyer notices a credit course on mindfulness being offered in the University of Western Ontario’s law program. That’s something anyone considering entering law school should look into, for from what I observed, people are often self-defeating because they are not very good at knowing who they are and what they are or are not capable of, and because they do not know how to somewhat mitigate problems (stress, anxiety, depression etc.). Have a look at the movie “The Paper Chase” (1973). Law school is not rocket science, so to a significant degree success in law school will depend on finding one or more competitive advantages. Keeping your head screwed on straight is a good place to start when developing a competitive advantage, for by placing higher than others makes it less likely that one will not find a good articling position. Have a boo at the 1973 move “The Paper Chase” and you’ll see what I mean.
Another way to improve your chances of getting good articles is to learn the first year curriculum before you go to law school. If you know your stuff inside out before you go into class, you will be better able to catch the nuances and recognize how various laws and decisions intertwine, so use what free time you may have between terms to gain a competitive advantage.
At my school, I find it hard to believe that even 5% of students got Ds or Fs in most classes. IIRC, I was right at the cutoff between the 3d-4th quarter, and I don’t think I ever got a D. And it was VERY rare for anyone to flunk out. I’d have to look (and I don’t care to), but I’m pretty sure my 3-yr GPA was somewhere in the B- range. Lots of Bs, somewhat more Cs than As.
In any event, each person should go to law school or not as they wish. Some people LOVE the jobs they get after. Others, not so much. Probably similar to most careers. Just - as with all education - BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT INCURRING DEBT.
For me, law has always supported a very comfortable lifestyle. But other than the first couple of times I presented oral argument in Circuit Courts, and maybe the first hundred cases I personally heard, I’ve gotten ZERO satisfaction or enjoyment out of any aspect of my job. At this point, the idea that a job might be “fun”, “interesting”, of “rewarding” is pretty hard to imagine. I’d be no less fulfilled digging ditches - but I get paid far more for much less work.
Oh well, the paychecks cash, pay the bills, and have allowed me to support a comfortable and fulfilling family life and personal interests. And along the way I managed to avoid working overtime and weekends. (I strongly urge folk to consider corporate or government practice, as opposed to private firms for quality of life.)
And lest I bitch too much, I’m not sure what else I might have done that would have paid me so much for such relatively little effort. So I’m likely just a crank who would’ve disliked ANY career he pursued!
Couple of things to consider:
-The ABA and others used to do quite a few surveys on job satisfaction and such. Anyone considering law school should at least look at those.
-When I was in a private firm, I was stricken by how many partners had messed up families, substance addiction, affairs, etc. But mine was a limited sample set. But I know my state’s continuing legal ed requires courses on substance abuse, so it must be SOMEWHAT of an issue.
-Try to talk to as many lawyers as you can, and try to figure out if they seem “happier” than folk in any other profession.
-Finally, a lot of people think being a lawyer brings prestige. And it CAN impress SOME people. But think for a bit - is it just coincidental that there seem to be more jokes about lawyers than any other profession?
IMO, for most lawyers, being a lawyer is pretty much just a job, like any other job. Good luck in determining whether it is the right job for you.
I did google it; that’s where I got the $150k number. My understanding is that, generally speaking, there is no need-based aid for professional school–that’s an undergraduate thing.
In Ontario, Canada, often major firms hire summer students, with the hope that these students will work out well and continue on with their career at that firm. First term grades are a very big consideration (with the proviso that second term grades must not slip) when hiring summer students. That’s where preparation the summer prior to entry into law school can give a student a big step up when competing for the summer job that may lead to further summer jobs that may lead to articling that usually leads to an associate lawyer job.
Something like this came up in either the movie or the TV version of The Paper Chase. On the first day of class, Professor Kingsfield asks James Hart (the protagonist) a question about a case, but Hart has not done the reading that the professor expected.
But that’s not specific to the law degree. Anyone who goes to university for three years is going to have to eat and find a place to live. And, that varies depending on where in the country you’re living.
A better answer to “is law school a good investment” is to ask what the cost of the law school itself is.
The point I’m making is that the tuition costs for Canada seem much lower. The U of S example I gave tops out at $20,000 per year, for a total of $CAN 60,000.
The example of Chicago-Kent given by MandaJo is tuition of $US 144,000.
That seems to indicate a considerable difference between the two countries. Add in that Canada doesn’t appear to have the over-supply of lawyers mentioned by US posters, and th overall calculus of whether a law degree is a good investment is likely quite different between the two countries.
And my experience is completely different. I really enjoy going to court. Doing the research, figuring out the best options to present to the client to help them, crafting the brief, arguing the case, jousting verbally with smart judges and opposing counsel - it’s a blast! Plus, I’ve always been fortunate to have good colleagues at work.
Other than this, the only thing I might have done differently is academe - and I’m not at all sure I would have liked that option as a full-time career. As it is, in my spare time, I write articles on legal issues that interest me, and at work I get to mentor bright young aricling students. I also teach now and then, to scratch that itch.
Sure there’s stress, but what job doesn’t have stress? Money is good, well above the average wage rate in my province.
I’ve got several major court cases coming up over the next twelve-month, and I’ve already argued some interesting ones this year. Even when I’m not at the office, I’m thinking about my cases and I’m planning steps in different litigation, not because I have to put in long hours, but because it’s fun - both the pure law, and the challenge of trying to “outplay, outwit, outlast” my opponents.
Just checked the tuition at U of T, which I think is the priciest law school in Canada. Their tuition and fees are higher than U Sask, but nothing like the Chicago-Kent example: about CAN 35,000 per year, which tops out at CAN 105,00 for three years.
It became apparent, in my law school class, that our class was two sides of the same career.
On one side, were the “paper lawyers.” These were my classmates who wanted to do such things as wills, estates, real estate transactions, corporate law, contracts, tax law, and similar. Lots of paperwork in the office; little to no time in the courtroom.
On the other side were the “talking lawyers.” These were my classmates who wanted to go to trial courts, argue in appellate courts, and appear before administrative tribunals. Of course, legal research was necessary, and writing and note-taking skills were important, and paperwork was always there, but it was the speaking and arguing part of lawyering that interested us. I was one of these, and still am, and it’s a rush to have the floor in a courtroom.
I think that this is something that should also be considered, when one is deciding whether to go to law school: “Do I want to be a paper lawyer or do I want to be a talking lawyer?” Either is a fine choice, but if you end up somewhere where they want you to practice in areas where your interests do not lie, you may regret your decision to study law.
