I coulda told you this, Harry
- Posted by Paul Gowder on July 28th, 2009 filed in why you shouldn't go to law school parts 2-infinity
- 18 Comments »
Students have no freaking idea why they’re planning to go to law school.
I have written a lot of letters of recommendation for students to go to Law School. Getting a letter of recommendation from me requires submitting a package of materials and meeting with me to discuss one’s goals and the process. Before reading Our Underachieving Colleges, despite my serious reservations about the profession (I’ve known a fair number of lawyers, and I’ve known only one who really enjoyed the job), I never tried to dissuade anyone. I still don’t (just for the CT reader whom I did dissuade, you know, don’t you, that I was not trying). But I do ask them, straight out, “why do you want to go to Law School?”. I am amazed how many students sit there dumbstruck, having never seemed to have given it any thought. I also ask whether they have talked to some lawyers about their jobs, and am similarly amazed how few have done so.
July 29th, 2009 at 8:02 am
Duh.
July 29th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Why do people feel the need to capitalize the words “law school”? This is not the only example.
July 29th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
The linked article highlights a problem for people who steadfastly maintain that students should not go to law school. What else are these students supposed to do? Harry suggests that they become teachers instead. What kinds of teachers? Certainly not university professors: those jobs have to be just as hard to get as the civil liberties/environmental protection lawyering jobs that Harry talks about. And teaching high school or middle school is frustrating, too: externally imposed regulations, unmotivated students, and so forth. There’s a reason why those jobs can be hard to fill. Plus, the kind of humanities-interested person who is drawn to law school is probably not in the best position to fill the math and science positions that are most in need of competent teachers. Maybe people should try to expect less from work. Or colleges should strive to direct students into math, science, and engineering majors that actually have jobs. But it’s not like students don’t know that it’s easier to get a good job with a computer science degree than with an English degree. A lot of people really love the humanities, and there are not a lot of good jobs available for us. This is a fact about the job market. All things considered, though, I’m still not convinced that going to law school is such a bad outcome for people who like to write and argue. I knew lots of happy lawyers when I was a paralegal (at a small firm). And lots of happy paralegals, too! Maybe associates should be considered hourly employees, like paralegals but with a higher wage, if their conditions are so terrible. That might address a lot of issues.
July 29th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
In other words, Tobey, work sucks! Marx 1, Fichte 0.
July 29th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
It would be easier to expect less from work in the US if it were a civilized country—you know, like one in which access to health care isn’t tied to one’s employment status, everyone has a decent (more than four weeks) amount of paid vacation, exploitative treatment of workers by bosses is slightly harder than falling off a log, etc.
July 29th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Ben’s point should really be taken seriously (leaving aside my frivolous reply) — in the U.S., one’s work is really the center of one’s life — one spends a huge amount of time working, most of the good things in life are directly connected to one’s work, one’s social identity and sense of worth are strongly related to one’s work — it seems natural that Americans should require their work be minimally horrible, given its importance in how your life goes.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Actually, Paul, if Fichte’s recommendations for labor conditions and labor-management relations were realized, work would NOT suck (ex hypothesi). Just because we fail to live up to Fichte does not mean that (at least in this case) Fichte is wrong. One way of bringing this closer to reality, in the context of the present discussion, might be to realize that associates (esp. in the first few years when they tend to suffer the most) are NOT managers and should be protected by FLSA.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
The Fichtean Labor Standards Act?
July 29th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Well, the FLSA is an incredibly weak standard — especially for law firm associates — the problem with law firm work is not the ratio of hours to dollars…
July 29th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Interesting comments all the way around, although I will suggest to tobeyola that it does not follow from the fact that there are more math and science jobs than humanities jobs that the need for competent teachers is greater in the former than the latter.
Ben’s point is 100% correct. Do y’all know how many sick days workers in France are typically allocated? Zero. This is because when workers in France are sick, they are expected to stay home. The pathological attitudes and practices in the U.S. regarding work, let alone occupational health, are something to behold.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
haha — good one, Ben. So what IS the problem, Paul? My understanding is that associates earning $150K need to bill about 2,500 hours a year. So let’s say they work 5,000 hours per year. That’s $30/hour, which doesn’t sound too bad for someone with a J.D. Maybe it sounds kind of bad, but most of these young associates are doing pretty low-level work, as I understand it. But that work needs to be done. If associates were considered hourly, employees, though, $160K for 4,000 hours would translate to an hourly wage of $20 (assuming 1.5x pay for up to 60 hours and 2x thereafter), which is definitely not enough for someone with a J.D. To keep that $30/hour wage, they would need to earn $225K. Talking about a lot of money here. Would give firms an incentive to cut down on hours.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
The problem with law work in general is absolute number of hours and extreme unsatisfyingnes of work — the diminishing marginal utility of wealth suggests that increasing pay won’t be enough to compensate for it (which is also why many lawyers choose less renumerative jobs that are slightly less painful).
I suppose insufficient pay for hours is the problem to the extent that firms would reduce hours if they had to pay more (as your last sentence suggests), but the thing that makes people’s lives directly worse is crappy work in long hours, not insufficient compensation for it, even if their lives would get indirectly better if imposing long hours on employees would be more costly for firms.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Daniel: I def agree that there is a need for competent English, social studies, and history teachers. But the fact that there is greater competition for such jobs than teaching high school biology or algebra (since people skilled in math and science have more and perhaps more enticing job opportunities than high school or middle school teacher) suggests that this need is more likely to be satisfied. This translates into more job openings teaching math and science, for which our hapless humanities fans are once again poorly suited.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
So let’s say they work 5,000 hours per year.
That’s 13.7 hours a day, assuming you work every day.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
19.2 hours a day if you work only five-sevenths of the days.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
I was thinking 100 hours/week with two weeks vacation. My understanding is that these people work a lot of hours. You can change it to 4,000 hours/year at $37.50/hour non-FLSA and $27.25 FLSA, if you think that 80 hours/week is more realistic.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Tobeyola,
I don’t disagree that the need for science and math teachers is more likely to be satisfied than the need for humanities teachers, but that does not establish that the need is qualitatively greater for the former. I am biased given my background, but I think there is a desperate need for humanities in general and quality humanities teachers in general, and that this need is more pressing than the need for math and science teachers.
I am, of course, in a small minority on this point.
July 30th, 2009 at 5:38 am
I had an idea why I was planning to go to law school; it was just the wrong idea.