Darned good question. Answer is: it depends. Training in the law is excellent for understanding the give and play between the branches of government, what is legal boilerplate and what is meaningful, what exactly the tension is between different viewpoints when deciding constitutional issues, and what the function of the appellate courts is compared to the function of the trial courts. On the other hand, you can learn all these things without going to law school.

If you decide to go to law school without the goal of practicing law (which could change as you are in law school, by the way), it is critical to go to a national law school instead of a local law school. For example, go to UVA instead of Richmond.

The law is an excellent background for a number of endeavors, but it is rather expensive training. When figuring the costs, don't forget to add in the lost wages from not working for three years, although there are some national law schools with part-time programs. (Part-time is a misnomer; what you do is finish in 4 years instead of 3 by taking four courses a semester instead of five. It's pretty brutal, but you can keep earning money while going to school.)

If you need professional credibility, a PhD will give you that instant respect that a JD won't. Although many PhD programs are tailored to produce professors, that doesn't mean that you can't complete the program without wanting to be a professor. Which reminds me--law schools do the same thing. The national law schools are set up to train professors; the rest of us kind of make do. As the saying goes, if you get A's in law school, you'll become a law prof; if you get B's you'll become a judge; and if you get C's, you'll become a successful practicing attorney and make lots of money.

Speaking of money, even though you don't want to practice law, you should know that attorneys do not have a high average salary in this country. The range is very broad, however, so for everyone who is making $1M at a top law firm, there are a number of sole practitioners or non-profit lawyers who are making $30-40K. On average, engineers make more money than attorneys.

You should also consider a dual degree, i.e., law degree coupled with an MBA or PhD in econ or history or poly sci. You should be able to get dual credit for some courses and complete the program (possibly minus the thesis for the PhD program) in four years, especially if you concentrate on international law in law school. The combo of JD and PhD provides instant credibility.

Thanks, Chris, excellent thoughts!

Mr. Pastel is right on the dual degree -- the MBA/law thing. If you're going to do it, that's the way to go. He's also correct about the salary/income disparity between the high flyers at the big firms and most of the rest of us. There are always exceptions and special cases, but he's setting out the correct way to bet. Most of our local big firms like their lawyers straight out of law school and college, although there are exceptions.

Heed the advice also, about the kind of school you choose. That matters for your employment prospects later, although it matters less as you gain experience.

If you do this...make sure you REALLY want it. The time and emotional investment is considerable. The study is a LOT of reading, a good deal of which is pretty dry, and may be a bit of a comedown from some of the stuff you've already done.

The law is useful training to have for business or any other field you might want to break into, but I'd have some idea what I expected to be doing with it before I invested that kind of time.

Thanks El Jefe, I was hoping you'd comment.

A frequent commenter, a Marine who led an infantry company in Vietnam, and is also a retired attorney, just sent me this:

"Based on your latest blog query, I would highly recommend a quality MBA program. I think you can achieve most of your objectives with this background and it gives you the potential for great reward. I think I saw a statistic that Harvard MBA's have a net worth of $1 million within five to ten years after graduation. It has certainly been rewarding for President Bush."

So, the ole MBA is something to consider too. I think he meant that from my blog he deduced that I'm interested in making decisions and therefore an MBA would be appropriate.

One way to do it is to keep your day job and try a year of night school law courses. This is a lot of work!

You will see what a grind it can be if you want to do the law review thing, as opposed to just getting the degree.

One comment I have heard is that there are more egotistical and opinionated jerks per square foot at law school that anywhere else in the world. (After they get out they tone it down a little.) So don't let that turn you off if you find the subjects interesting.

My dad was and my sister is a lawyer and I would recommend you go for these reasons:

I would want you to be my lawyer.

Lawyers suck and you would make them pay.

Talking about money and career moves is smart and I do think an MBA would work out too, but you didnt join the corps for the style and when youre old and looking back I think you might be happier with what you'd done in the courtroom than in your portfolio. My dad sure did. Good Luck either way,sir.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, P2.

Becoming a Lawyer is a death blow for honesty. I became extremely honest when I quit. I know many other former lawyers who will tell you the same thing.

rich,

a good point about egos . . .

Thanks, Charles.

But I want to be on the decision-making side of things, not the research side.

From this statement I recommend either a MBA or a Masters in polysci, leaning towards the polysci.

An MBA would set you up nice for the corperate world, or better yet, your own business to set free your entrepreneurial spirit.

As you love debating issues, arguing, and making decisions, look long at polysci. Polysci opens lots of doors also. Government positions, consulting firms, lobbyists, party policy wonk, think tank types(probably your strongest card).

Maybe a combination polysci/MBA dual and start your own consulting business. Follow the Dr Barnett path.

In any event, you must follow your heart. Whatever works for you. . . works for you.

I think your other self won the debate.
I recommend the Ph.D. route over the J.D. - we need better professors more than we need better lawyers.

What I said about Lawyers was tongue-in-cheek. I actually know 2 Honest lawers. On the other hand, neither one practices law now.

I wnet 50 large into the hole to go to B-school.

That monthly vig to Sallie Mae is eating me up. Its the one thing that is having to keep us a two income household or else the Mrs. could stay home with my two kids.....

That being said, I was able to earn much more $$ and my confidence and skill levels went up. I am able to adapt to alot of thing in the workplace now b/c of it.

Hell, I am going to join the National Guard and use the bonus and motnhly pay to pay off the debt as well as serve my Country.

In Summary, I say "F*** it!" and go to law school! No regrets and you will do very well no matter what! OOOH RAH!

Bonus to being a scumbag lawyer:

Having a crazy sss blog ad like Edward Maxwell Von Houten and his "Join my class action lawsuit" (over on your right hand side bar)!!! LOL

http://www.pamcf.com/images/vonhouten.jpg

..stupid, played out viral marketing campaigns...yawn

after reading your internal debate above I sensed a lot more honesty in your other self comments, which I think is telling. I think sometimes people gravitate towards structure because we find it comforting. You strike me as the type that has a great chance of being far more succesful by simply following your interests. I could go on, but do not want to bore. Consider this a verbal slap that will hopefully render you conscious again. My vote = Hell NO!

Chester,

I went through the same thought processes before deciding on law school. And to be honest, two years out of law school still leave me wondering about the same issues.

The training, the degree and the status of a good school have opened up a lot of opportunities. But carrying a six-figure student debt, and being limited to a single state for employment, closes many as well.

If I could go back, I'd approach the decision a little differently. A good decision tree might look like:

1. What do you ultimately want to be doing?
2. Look at the people who are doing this - what education/experience do they have?
3. Can a law degree (or MBA) get you to where you want to go?
4. If the degree can get you to your goal, but not immediately - what kind of work will you have to do initially? For how long?
5. What limitations in flexibility will a student debt bring? A state license to practice law (assuming that's what you want)?
6. What goal/destination do you have that can be obtained ONLY by a law degree?
7. What alternatives are available if your initial post-graduate plans don't pan out.

If you can, try to contact people who are doing what you want to do. See if they would be willing to advise someone interested in starting a career in the same field.

Just a few random thoughts - I hope they're useful.

Google great thinkers. I did and got this list;

Great Thinkers
- Albert Einstein
- Walt Disney
- Amelia Earhart
- Abraham Lincoln
- Dr. C. Walton Lillehei
- Deng Xiao Ping
- The Beatles
- Mahatma Gandhi
- Martha Stewart

Where are the lawyers?
I think your professor is full of beans. At least as far as law teaching thinking.
Mathamatics would be better.
The Law is a polite agreement between citizens on how to conduct their daily life. At least in the west. In other parts of the world, it's a set of regulations used by those in power to control those NOT in power. In the west it is almost the same thing, only most westerners have a small say in who writes the Law.
On the other hand Physics is Physics, no matter what country you are in. A 1 gram lead weight dropped from one meter in Australia will hit the deck after the same amount of elasped time as a 1 gram weight dropped from 1 meter in China, France or San Salvador. If you want to study Law, study Real Law. Math, then Chemistry or Physics.
Think what a pisser it would be to pass your BAR and then have the ragheads nuke New York and the sitting Democratic President surrender to the Mad Mullahs of Tehran. Then the Constitution goes in the circular file and we all live by the Shira. That is Law also.
The Speed of Light is 186,282.397 miles per second, no matter what country it is passing thru, or who rules that country.

Wow, this is all outstanding advice. Chesterfan, I had forgotten about the ad for the class-action thing in the sidebar til after I had hit the publish button. Then I laughed out loud.

Polybius, Grumbler, Shannon, Glenmore, Wiz, thanks very much! All good perspectives.

A few thoughts from a very old man (at least my body is).

You only get one life, but many chances to take different paths throughout life. The trick is to take the paths that bring you just enough challenge to keep you growing, but enough happiness to make you want to continue.

Thats the rub. Because challenge and happiness don't always go hand in hand.

Life isn't fair, but it's what you make out of it, but that don't mean it can't be fun while your doing it.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

P.S. While money can't buy happiness, it can make it more attainable in some ways. But true happiness knows no salary range.

Follow your passion. Do what you have enthusiasm for. The fact that you are on the fence suggests that deep down you don't want to be a lawyer.

Chester,

Your internal self-dialog reminds me of my own self-dialog over the last 10 or so years about going to grad school. After a LOT of thinking, i.e. arguments with my Other Self, I finally decided against for many reasons:

1. There's nothing I could learn in grad school that I couldn't learn on my own.

2. Getting a Masters wouldn't have a major impact on my current salary or career options.

3. At this point in my professional career, a prospective employer is going to be a lot more interested in my skills and experience than my educational background.

4. It's too expensive, and I already have enough debt.

5. I love to learn, but I hate going to school (really, I do).

6. I don't have the time. My career is but one part of my life. God and family are more important to me, so that's where I choose to spend my time away from work (except for a little Web surfing, of course).

I don't think I can really add to what all the previous commenters have said, but let me just sum it up this way. You first have to decide what it is that you really, really want to do. Then, you have to figure out the best way to make it happen. In that context, you have to ask yourself this question: is law school really going to get you where you want to go? If not, what will?

I've been a regular reader of this blog since almost the very beginning (Oct '04), and my gut feeling is that law school isn't the best path for you. It's a good option, one that you would do well with, but I think there are better options for you. And you do have many other options before you which to consider, perhaps more than you realize.

And maybe you ought to try tuning out the internal dialog for a little while, and just listen to your instincts. When the brain is conflicted, the heart often knows the way.

Good luck!

I don't have much to add to these excellent points, but I do want to mention two things (I am a lawyer who has spent the last 20 years in a private corporate practice - and it is tax lawyers who would do taxes for 100 hours a week):

1. If you don't feel a "calling" don't do Law School. Private practice, at least, is about serving the clients. I loved law school. The law is about how society orders itself, but outside of law school no one wants to pay you to solve the world's problems, the clients bring you THEIR problems. It is a very vicarious career, at lest in private practice. You are generally NOT the decision maker, the client is. That is a big part of why it is a "profession" - it is about serving others not yourself.

2. The economics of the private practice is aweful. Billable hours are king, and it is getting worse.

I recommend the PolySci or IR Masters if you want to do strategy stuff.

I have a son who went through the same debate about a year ago. He had a lot of the same interests as you and had a B.S. in Military History that wasn't really bringing in a lot of employment offers. Someone along the line pointed him towards the Masters Program in International Affairs at the Bush School of Government and Public Service (http://bush.tamu.edu/). It is part of the Texas A&M University at College Station. He did, applied, was accepted to the MPIA program with an emphasis on National Security, and is extremely happy with his choice! As it turns out this particular school has a close relationship with many Federal and State agencies (State, DoD, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security), and many of their grads go into these agencies doing the sort of things you want to do! Check it out!

I have a son who went through the same debate about a year ago. He had a lot of the same interests as you and had a B.S. in Military History that wasn't really bringing in a lot of employment offers. Someone along the line pointed him towards the Masters Program in International Affairs at the Bush School of Government and Public Service (http://bush.tamu.edu/). It is part of the Texas A&M University at College Station. He did, applied, was accepted to the MPIA program with an emphasis on National Security, and is extremely happy with his choice! As it turns out this particular school has a close relationship with many Federal and State agencies (State, DoD, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security), and many of their grads go into these agencies doing the sort of things you want to do! Check it out!

I don't know that I can add much to the above commentary, but here goes anyway:

I think if you get the itch to go back to school, you better do it, whether its law or phys ed. I know of classmates of mine who went through law school, hated the practice, and then went back again, to med school!

Have you considered going back into the Marines, and letting them pay for this? with a blog like this, I have to think you would like to be back in the middle of it all again.

I don't know that I can add much to the above commentary, but here goes anyway:

I think if you get the itch to go back to school, you better do it, whether its law or phys ed. I know of classmates of mine who went through law school, hated the practice, and then went back again, to med school!

Have you considered going back into the Marines, and letting them pay for this? with a blog like this, I have to think you would like to be back in the middle of it all again.

If you just want to make a ton of money, go into politics. You need no education, just the ability to get votes. IIRC, Murtha worked at a carwash before getting elected to Congress. Now he is a multi-millionaire. It didn't come from his carwashing skills, unless, of course, they transferred over into the money laundry business.

Two words: Condoleeza Rice. Political science, not law school.

If you are most interested in policy and decision making, that seems like a better way to go.

Grumbler,

I spotted two lawyers on your list of great thinkers: Lincoln and Gandhi.

Their greatest achievements were not practicing law, but that is where they started.

This is all outstanding. A much more varied response than I had hoped for.

Willard's Pal,
The similarity between America's growing reliance on merit benchmarks (top ten schools, top of the class, standardized tests for elementary schools etc) and that of Confucian-influenced societies like Japan occurred to me the other day, as I was reading One-L. Is it because America is so diverse that we have to create some standard yardstick of measurement to know who stands out? Or is it because decades of PC indoctrination have made us all incapable of accurately judging the characters of others? I don't know, but it's certainly something to keep in mind. There's much more to life than being Phi Beta Kappa (which, in full disclosure, I was most certainly not).

NewsToTom,

Those law blog posts you recommended are excellent.

The mechanism regarding merit benchmarks has a name: signaling. There have been quite a few discussions of it over at Asymmetrical Information (www.janegalt.net). The reasons are many and varied.

But I wanted to talk about one other aspect of going to law school--cost. Cost was an issue for me, but not to the extent that it was for other people. That's because I was a Virginia resident, having changed my residency when I was stationed at Quantico before being assigned to Camp Lejeune. We had decided that Virginia was where we wanted to eventually live after we settled down. So I was a resident of Virginia for three years before applying to law school. There are some great state law schools in Virginia. At the time, William & Mary and University of Virginia were the best two (state schools); since then, George Mason started up a law school which I understand is quite good in certain areas of the law.

For state students, these law schools, while still somewhat expensive, are basically half-price. I used GI Bill plus student loans to pay for law school at UVA, and as it turned out, had a total loan of slightly less than one year's salary (at my first lawyer job) when I finished. Paying that off over 10 years was a hassle, but there are now other market mechanisms available if you want to stretch the payments out more.

And as an added bonus, married student housing at UVA was very similar to base housing--everyone is somewhat poor, there are kids and couples all over the place, and every family has one thing in common, i.e., that one of the adults is a student. I thoroughly enjoyed law school, and I finished in the top third of my class without putting in the crazy hours required for law review.

In the job market, the top firms are looking for top 10 graduates plus law review graduates from the other schools. But your age at graduation can be a real disadvantage, because the top firms are looking for graduates in their mid-twenties and not their early thirties.

And if you are not under pressure to make real money during the summers, interning is a great way to learn about different aspects of government. Although the trend is slowly changing, you can intern anywhere you want in any type of job you want between 1L and 2L; it's between 2L and 3L that you will want to intern at a firm that you hope will hire you. My guess is that you would enjoy being a staffer for a Congresscritter or working with one of the government agencies. State government and state agencies also need lawyers, but you won't have the opportunity to blend your legal training with your penchant for international affairs as you would with the Feds.

Of course, if you don't need instant credibility (enhanced credibility in your case) from a degree, you can continue the course you are taking now and indulge in a poly sci or international affairs degree while writing some books. Authors earn credibility the hard way, but anyone who has written and published a book has the sort of credibility that non-authors never reach.

Damn the bangalores; full speed ahead!

On credentialism:

At the beginning of your career, that is the essence of the law. Unless you are 100%, beyond any shadow of a doubt convinced you want to practice law, sufficient that you wouldn't mind spending the rest of your life chasing ambulances or making 30 grand a year representing indigient criminal defendants, almost all of whom are guilty, you should go to a national law school, or the best* law school in the place where you want to practice. "The best law school" is a sort of fudge... if you want to practice in San Diego, you can go to the University of San Diego, which has a surprisingly decent law school. You can go to Fordham if you want to work in New York, rather than NYU or Columbia, though I'd still recommend being in the top quarter of the class. A state's university system's flagship law school is also OK if you want to work in that state. Once you're in private practice for a few years, where you went to law school reduces somehwat in importance, so long as you have the client base or expertise to support your ambitions. This reduction may not be true, however, for something like government services or anywhere else where you need an easy quality metric.

Something else you should keep in mind is that the system of professional licensing (viz. the bar) acts as a barrier on physical movement from place to place. The rules vary by state, and it isn't (always) necessary to be a bar member if you're going to work for the government, but it's something to keep in mind, particularly when taking into account a spouse's career.

I also didn't mention you shouldn't take One-L that seriously; most law schools, including mine alma mater the University of Chicago, have backed away from the Socratic method to a greater or lesser degree, and speaking at least for myself, it's no so much cut-throat competition as a bunch of people who have been really successful at school try to continue their high levels of success.

Skip law school. If you don't want to practice, the net increase in analytical skills is no greater than what you would attain in a Ph.D. program.

Writing a book on a topic of your choosing would be a far better experience and do you more good.

Knowing a bit about the law can be personally reassuring when it comes to knowing what you can do in business and what others can get away with. One good lawyer buddy or a half hour of a lawyer's time can also aid you in this way, at a fraction of the cost of three years of law school.

If you don't already passionately desire to be a lawyer and explore the law for the rest of your life, why bother? Otherwise, you're choosing law because "law's a good fallback, general purpose skill." Not something that gets the blood to coursing through your veins, now does it?

Don't do law to prepare for something else. Do something else 'cause it fascinates you. If law fascinates you, then do law, but only then.

Two additional comments:

1. The price of a law school education had generally run about the price of a new S-class Mercedes for the past several decades. That is a lot of money, but people pay that all the time, and a diploma is a better way to drop that money then a car.

2. Don't be tempted with a Public Policy degree - with few exceptions (Kennedy School, maybe) it will qualify you to be an assistant to a County Supervisor - which is sad because I am enough of a geek/wonk that I like the stuff they teach, but the market does not reward it well (IMHO, your mileage may differ).

Josh - Talk to me about going to law school. I'm a semi-retired lawyer and I never regretted going to law school. I enjoyed the process itself, but the rewards of success were beyond my imagination. It's the most versatile graduate degree you can get.
Call me if you want to discuss in detail. Kelly has my number.

Don't know if anyone here is familiar with Tucker Max -- very funny guy -- but he quickly busted through the University of Chicago with a degree in Econ and then busted through Duke Law.

Now he's telling people that unless they know exactly why they want to go to law school, and have realistic expectations, that they should NOT go to law school.
Here's what he said at UCLA, with some slight editing so that language filters people might be using don't interfere:
-=-=-=-=-=-
Should I go to law school? The Speech Text

Lots of people asked to see the text of the speech I gave. This is what I wrote out and took in with me to the speech. During the actual speech I expanded on some areas and went on a few tangents, but this is very much the drift of my speech.

"Should I go to law school?

Whenever I am asked this question, my initial response is always the same:

F**K NO!

-All jokes aside, I can say that for 90% of you, law school is--without a doubt--the wrong choice.

-How do I know this without even knowing any of you? Well, not too long ago, I sat where you are sitting, thought all the things that you are thinking now, went to law school and worked as a lawyer. I have already been down the path that is in front of you and I know what it's like. I know the decision making process that is going on in your mind, and chances are, you are going to law school for the wrong reasons.

-When deciding if law school actually is for you, the first thing you need to do is ask yourself, "Why do I want to go to law school?" There are many more wrong answers to this question than right answers, but almost all the wrong answers fit under six main reasons:

1. "I don't know what else to do": If you are lost in your life, that is ok, you shouldn't feel bad about it. You are barely old enough to drink, you don't need to know what you're going to do with your life at this point. Relax. I am 30, and I only figured it out a few years ago.

If you feel like you need more time to find your calling in life and figure out what you want to do, that is fine, but if this is true, the WORST thing you can do is commit to a three year school and over $150,000 in debt. How much sense does it that make? At that point, when you finish law school, even if you have decided that you don't want to be a lawyer, you are handcuffed to the profession. You have to take that six figure corporate job just to pay off the massive debt you racked up.

2. "It's the only way I can think of to use my humanities degree": Majoring in English so you had more time to drink wasn't such a good idea now, was it? But to be honest, having a soft major is nowhere near the death sentence that so many make it out to be. The world is changing, and the US economy with it. Most manufacturing and production jobs are moving off shore, and the hard science jobs required to staff them are being taken by Indians and Chinese and other cultures who actually require that their students learn something in science class. But the good news is that our economy is shifting to a service and information based economy, and soft majors are going to become more and more valuable.

I run an internet company right now, and I can tell you that it is VERY hard to find literate, intelligent, well read people who can write and communicate ideas effectively. The demand for these people is not going to flutter out. In plain English: A humanities major now has many many options that they didn't have in the pre-internet era. Do not make the mistake of thinking law school is your only option. That is not true.

3. "Everyone says I am good at arguing, so I should go to law school": I cannot recall a single person that has said this to me that I did not make want to punch in their mouth. Being a lawyer has almost nothing to do with arguing in the conventional sense, and very few lawyers ever engage in anything resembling "arguments" in their generally understood form. Beyond that, to be genuinely good at legal "arguing," you must be smart. I have never met a smart person who made this statement. This really is the stupidest reason you could possibly have to go to law school.

4. "I want to be like Ally McBeal or Jack McCoy from "Law & Order", or [insert your favorite Hollywood bullsh*t legal character from your favorite bullsh*t Hollywood legal drama]": Maybe I spoke too soon about the stupidest reason to go to law school. Let me just be very clear about this: Being a lawyer is NOTHING AT ALL like what you see on TV. If you don't understand this fact, it means you are an unrecoverable moron, and you should immediately drown yourself in the nearest toilet to save the world the frustration of having to deal with you and your stupidity.

5. "I want to change the world/help homeless people/rescue stray kittens/whatever": If you are one of those people...I feel sorry for you. Look, wanting to help others is fine and dandy, but if you are one of those rosey-eyed dipsh*ts who sign anti-sweatshop petitions while wearing Nikes, you know what's going to happen when you try to change the world equipped with just a law degree and a healthy dose of optimism? Life is going to kick you in teeth. Repeatedly.

There are some people who have a very clear idea of what sort of public service they want to do and how a law degree will help them, and even those people usually find their dreams crushed against the rocks of reality. If you go at law school with just some vague notion of public service, I can promise you that you'll regret your decision. The first day at Duke, the entire 200+ person class was gathered in a class room and they asked everyone who wanted to be in public service to raise their hand. At least 80 people did. Do you know how many ended up in a public service job three years later? About 3 of them. 2 of them were the very dedicated type I referred to, the other was a trust fund baby who couldn't get a real job. Most people don't think about what $150,000 in debt actually MEANS until they are faced with the option of helping poor people for $30,000 a year, or helping Skadden Arps for $140,000 a year, while having to make 500+ a month loan payment.

and the very worst reason,

6. "I want to make a lot of money": You can unquestionably make a lot of money being a lawyer. Right out of law school even, you can get a job with a big corporate firm that pays $120,000+ to start. Sounds like a lot doesn't it? But have you not stopped and thought about why they pay so much? Do you think it's because the job is rewarding and fulfilling? Didn't your parents ever tell you what it means when something looks too good to be true? There is a reason that there are so many lawyer jokes. There is a reason that the legal profession has one of the lowest job satisfaction rankings of any profession in America. There is a reason that so many lawyers leave the legal field: Being a lawyer--especially a lawyer at the type of big corporate firm that pays so well-- SUCKS.

The American Bar Association has published several studies about the incredibly low job satisfaction of lawyers and in every survey they publish, most lawyers say that they would NOT be a lawyer if they had it all to do over again. Just look at my specific example: Of my ten closest friends from law school, the ones I always write about like PWJ and SlingBlade, only 4 are still practicing law. Five years out of law school, and only 40% are still doing what they racked up a six figure debt to learn how to do. I don't really follow anyone else in my graduating class because most of them were worthless pricks, but from what I understand, the others are just like us: Most are now doing something else.

But beyond that, there are NOT an unlimited number of jobs that start at $120,000 a year. In fact, there aren't many at all, and pretty much ALL of them go to kids who come from the Top 15 law schools. If you go to a law school that is even in the bottom of the first tier, unless you are top 10% of your class or on law review, you are probably f***ed. Really. I cannot be any clearer about this: YOU ARE NOT GUARANTEED A JOB OUT OF ANY LAW SCHOOL, MUCH LESS A JOB THAT PAYS SIX FIGURES. They aren't going to tell you that at law school receptions, but it is the truth.

-If any of these reasons are factors into why you are going to law school, stop now. Seriously. No qualifiers on this statement, just stop. Plain and simple, don't go.

-OK, but let's say that none of the ridiculous reasons I listed above apply to you, that you want to go to law school for a what you consider a valid reason. I know when I was in undergrad, I had what I thought was a great reason to be a lawyer: I wanted to be the next great American trial lawyer. I intended to model myself after Vince Bugliosi (in case you don't know, Vince Bugliosi wrote Helter Skelter, prosecuted Charles Manson and the Palmrya murders and is generally regarded as the best prosecutor in American legal history) and fight the same battles that he fought.

Well, I was wrong. I quickly realized that being a prosecutor sucks and it takes years to try murder cases if you ever get that opportunity, all while working just as hard as your corporate brethen, for a pittance of what they make. Beyond that, the system is totally f***ed up in many many ways. Granted, someone needs to fight that battle, but by the end of first year I determined that it wasn't going to be me.

So, being in law school, I decided to do what everyone else was doing and be a corporate lawyer. Hated it. Got fired after three weeks. It was just awful. Law school is full of small, pedantic, little dorks and corporate firms are no different, except here they are in charge. It SUCKS.

-If you think you have a good reason to go to law school, the best advice I can give you is this: Work first. Preferably in a law firm, either as a paralegal or a secretary or even a gopher. Do it as a summer intern or full time for a year or so after undergrad. Explore what it is actually like being a lawyer, not by asking lawyers or reading books, but by immersing yourself in the actually day to day life of a lawyer.

Think about it: When you go clothes shopping, you don't just walk around and grab whatever looks good on the rack and buy it, do you? No, you try things on, you deliberate over your options, and you consider all possibilities. Why do you think life is any different? Stop trying to pick out your life off the rack; go out and experience all sorts of different things, try on different jobs and see what fits. If, after trying it on, you still want to be a lawyer, then by all means, go for it. You're probably making the right decision at that point. But I can promise you that if spending some time working in a firm were a requirement for admission to law school, the application rate would probably drop by at least 80%. What does that tell you about whether or not you should go to law school?

-All this being said though, I had a great time in law school itself. Law school is a f***ing joke; if anyone tells you different they are either lying or they are stupid. It's REALLY easy. By second semester of my first year I'd stopped going to class, and by second year I'd stopped buying my books altogether. I had many classes where if my exam were to pick my professor out of a line-up, I'd have failed. How do you think I got all these great stories? Not by going to class. My friends I went out 4 nights a week it was so easy. Of course, I went to a Top 10 school, which most people don't go to, and I got lucky in that I had a crew of ten friends who were all awesome. I have had several friends go to other law schools, very good ones and very bad ones, and not many shared my experience. And even the ones who did very much enjoy law school, hated their lives after law school. Why? Because they went on to be lawyers.

-Here is the funny thing about this speech: Someone--in fact, a lot of people--told me all of this before I applied to school. I did not discover any of the points I am making to you. Every bit of it was conferred to me BEFORE I got to law school.

You know what I did? I f***ing ignored it. I mean, sure all of those other douche bags may be miserable and may hate the legal profession, but what do they know, they're only lawyers? I AM TUCKER F***ING MAX, I'm going to revolutionize this b**ch!

Yeah...how'd that work out for me? You can believe me now or you can experience first hand, but you'll eventually see that I am right.

-I'll leave you with this last quote. I have a pretty big message board attached to my site, it gets like 30,000 people a day or so that view it, and many of them are disaffected lawyers. In response to a thread about this topic, one of them posted this paragraph:

"As I write this, it is 85 degrees, sunny, with a slight, cooling breeze coming from the West. The only reason I know this is that I took twenty minutes to run to get a sandwich to eat at my desk. I am sitting in a basement office which houses three of us, putting off research on state law fair debt collection vs. the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the definition of a creditor to write this post. If that paragraph alone doesn't deter someone from law school, then I don't know what will.""
-=-=-=-=-=-
Now, I'm not in any position to give you advice, being an undergrad PoliSci/Econ myself, and I know lawyers who definitely never regretted their choice. But I think this advice is sound: if you're going to saddle yourself with that kind of debt, at least know roughly what it can realistically accomplish for you. That kind of debt will close down your options as surely as many law degrees will open them up.

Take the law degree and specialise in arbitration. You can see both sides of the arguments and arbitration is the answer to most issues. Its the coming thing affordable citizen justice!!!

Oh, that said: being, like you, as big a fan of Shield of Achilles as I am, I also briefly considered what it would be like to do constitutional law. The thought occurs to me, now and then. But I probably won't do it.

Argh, third comment. Being as big a fan of Bobbitt as I am, I also got Constitutional Fate for Christmas and read it every bit of free time I got until I finished it.

Still not bitten by the law school bug.

Chester,

With all respect to the many well-wishers and intelligent commenters who have already advised you, may I say something as a psychiatrist with a generally good intuition?

Just reading your "argument with yourself," I immediately sense that the "stronger you" wants you to pursue a law degree. In spite of the many reasonable reservations about doing so, in spite of the objections about how lawyers may (or may not) be corrupted as a class, there is still something honorable and admirable about having a degree in this field. In my view, you will not be diminished, but the law itself will be enhanced, by your becoming a lawyer.

Best,

Jamie Irons

Chester,

With all respect to the many well-wishers and intelligent commenters who have already advised you, may I say something as a psychiatrist with a generally good intuition?

Just reading your "argument with yourself," I immediately sense that the "stronger you" wants you to pursue a law degree. In spite of the many reasonable reservations about doing so, in spite of the objections about how lawyers may (or may not) be corrupted as a class, there is still something honorable and admirable about having a degree in this field. In my view, you will not be diminished, but the law itself will be enhanced, by your becoming a lawyer.

Best,

Jamie Irons

Chester,

With all respect to the many well-wishers and intelligent commenters who have already advised you, may I say something as a psychiatrist with a generally good intuition?

Just reading your "argument with yourself," I immediately sense that the "stronger you" wants you to pursue a law degree. In spite of the many reasonable reservations about doing so, in spite of the objections about how lawyers may (or may not) be corrupted as a class, there is still something honorable and admirable about having a degree in this field. In my view, you will not be diminished, but the law will be enhanced, by your becoming a lawyer.

Best,

Jamie Irons

Chester,

I apologize for the triple post!

My browser kept giving me an error message, and I thought I wasn't "getting through."

;-(

Jamie Irons

Josh,

Tucker Max's speech was spot on (as the Brits would say), except for the law school being really easy part. Yes, it wasn't as hard as I thought it would be, but to this day I have no idea why I got the grades I got in the courses that I took. Some courses an A, other courses a C, most of the time B or B+ (UVA adhered to the B-mean then; I don't know if they still do.) All of your grade based on a single final exam.

But pay attention to the rest of it, even though it's mostly not relevant to your case sinceyou don't want to be a practicing lawyer. The more I think about it, the more I think you should go for a joint JD/PhD degree.

I had actually gotten away from the practice of law until I became a patent attorney, a career path that I had originally shied away from because I didn't want to live in or near a big city. Being a patent attorney is a lot of fun and very challenging, completely unlike the ordinary practice of law, but you need a science or engineering degree for it.

Chester: It's pretty simple: if you find a career in the field that you love, you'll never have to go to "work" another day in your life. Good luck.

Chester: It's pretty simple: if you find a career in the field that you love, you'll never have to go to "work" another day in your life. Good luck.

Hey, you made WSJ's Law Blog.

On the MBA-JD degree: my classmates who received one ended up working at the same places, albeit perhaps for slightly more money, as the basic JD's. At least at first, it's another year of schooling for not much reward. Other dual degrees are likely of greater value, but only so long as the other degree is what you want to do.

Finally, I might remind Louis Antignano of the Bard's words of wisdom: "If all the year were playing holidays, to sport would be as tedious as to work."

Though I'm still an undergraduate, the debate running through my head is quite similar to yours. Professors and other major influences in my life (especially my peers, who I really shouldnt listen to because they are just as naive as I am about what they want to do) have been telling me the same things your professor told you-- a law degree will keep your options open, help with entrepreneurial activities, and so forth... most of which I have been willing to believe because I don't really have a plan yet for what I want to do with my life. But you seem to know your passions and have lots of experience, where as I don't... and that gives you a major advantage in decision making. Here's a story to illustrate why--

I know a brilliant man who is a lawyer (don't we all, but keep reading). He worked in contract law for years and years until his company was bought by another major company and boom, he lost his job. He then launched into several entrepreneurial projects-- professional photography (his passion), and chemical products (from his previous job). I watched him go throught the process of legally establishing both businesses... which seemed quite simple, just click a button online and pick a name and hope it's not taken... I was young though, so its probably more complicated than that, but it also seemed really cool to be able to establish a business that fast at that point in my life. But now i know that the other parts of starting a business are a lot more interesting, and i'm sure as i keep making my way through my undergraduate business school, i will keep finding more reasons why.

So yes, his law degree was benificial-- but only in helping him pursue his passions later on, and making some connections and growing his bank account. Now he is having a great time with his art and such. The point is... after he lost his job in law, he didn't search for another one in law. He did what he always liked to do. And I'm sure if he could go back to that decision point, to law or not to law, he might choose not to because he's happier now doing his photograpbhy than he has ever been.

It's a big decision. And if you really want learn how to think... you can do that with a library card. Read philosophy, and find some friends who like to debate it too. Those are the good questions (ethics, more so than epistimology, though if you like science and want to debate that, go ahead)-- how should we live our lives, what really matters-- not like law's 'this is how the government suggests you live' guidelines on how to think. Does that make sense? It wouldnt make you any money, but it would satisfy that hunger to think and write and debate. Philosophy has this impractical steriotype... but no, its quite practical. To me, that sounds like a happier, more fulfilling life than one in debt and wasting time. You already know who you are, what you care about... Law school is more for suckers like me, who don't yet.

Think of it as a minimum commitment of 5-6 years, not 3 years. You will likely take some legal apprenticeship position after law school, whether at a law firm, in the government, or elsewhere. Correctly understanding the likely number of years associated with law school as a next step is important to deciding whether you want to take that step.

Yes, you should go. I went to law school knowing that I did not want to be a lawyer -- at least in the sense that we usually think of working in a law firm or courtroom. As a non-traditional (read older) student, I found it enjoyable and invigorating to listen to varying points of view and also learning to approach issues in slightly different ways -- including some ways that I do not agree with. At least I learned some of the "games" that some lawyers play and was better prepared to address these games.

If you do go, do NOT go to night school or part-time. I believe you miss the real benefits of informal interaction among students (and professors) who have divergent views. I believe knowing what the opposition is thinking and why they think the way they do is a good way to prepare yourself for making the difficult decisions of the future. Going part-time or at night, in my opinion, short-changes you on this aspect of the law school experience.

The most difficult component was to be careful with those professors who really do not know "how" to think -- only "what" they want others to think. As with almost all systems of education, some professors are better than others, with the best professors those who realize that their job is to help you learn the basics and then how to apply these fundamentals on all sides of an issue. Unfortunately, I had a few professors who were passionate about issues and God-help-you if you disagreed with their opinion -- even when based in fact and law. I was prepared to take my lumps and do what I believed was the proper thing rather than have to worry about the grade I would get as a consequence.

Mark.

First of all, thank you for your service. My nephew will be cycling over to Iraq shortly with a Marine unit, so my thoguths are with you.

Second ---do NOT get a dual degree (MBA/JD). All the evidence shows you can never get paid for having both degrees. You will be able to get the job you want with one or the other. You don;t need both and it's not like any employer says, "hey, I'll throw in an extra 100K because you have another degree."

Third, I have a Ph.D from the University of Chicago and am now in the private sector after having done the academia thing. Do not get a Ph.D. unless you know you absolutely want to go into public service with it (ie State Department, FBI etc). Academia is a form of slow death not worthy of most people.

So pick between the MBA or law degree (the advice about national schools is good especially if you don't want to practice law).

Again, thanks for being over there and I hope you get home soon.

Sorry to do three posts on this, but I want to jump in and echo the several people who talk about credentialism and the need for the absolutely best "name" school you can get into. Lawyers are hindus. For the rest of your life you will be asked "what law school did you go do" (sometimes even by non-lawyers). Top name brands or nothing. Too bad, really, but that's the way it is.

I also want to re-iterate the commenter who said you should decide what you want to do, talk to the people who do it, and see how they got there.

If the strategy stuff is important, then maybe the IR degrees (at the masters level) are a good bet.

And I see John Roberts just posted before me (2 up). I would listen to him if he really is The Chief Justice of the United States.

Hmmmm...

"What about the four reasons my professor gave me for going to law school, which he titled, 'If you don't know what you want to do, go to law school:' 1) You might actually like it, 2) You'll never receive such rigorous training in how to think, 3) It'll open up many more options in many other fields, and 4)if you choose one of those other fields, you'll intimidate everyone else because you'll have a law degree."

Astounding and deluded. I recommend immediate discounting of anything this esteemed sage taught you.

1. You "might like" many avenues of study and work. Spending three yrs and well above $150k when you compute the opportunity cost correctly based even peripherally on a hunch that "you might actually like it" is insane.

2. You'll never receive such rigorous training in how to think... unless you study mathematics, physics, quant economics, philosophy, etc... Having spent a decade working with Wall St. securites attorneys on financial deals I can attest that most can parse prose with the best of us. As for thinking? Please. Understanding a complex paper on financial economics (let alone climate change or any scientifically-based public policy issue) seems well beyond all but a handful. Most, however, remain unburdened by any sort of self-awareness of this deficiency.

Brandishing the occasional "post hoc ergo propter hoc" during banter over the issues of the day sounds erudite until one relaizes that the attorney spouting such gibberish didn't understand the "hoc" in the first place, nor the line of deduction concerned.

3. Options have value because of the time remaining until they expire and the volatility of the underlying asset with which they are associated. In your case chucking three years on law school will clip the "t" by three years (much greater than three when you include the subsequent debt service) while the volatility ("upside" in prosaic and positive terms) will have increased only incrementally compared with other avenues you might have pursued toward similar ends.

4)"If you choose one of those other fields, you'll intimidate everyone else because you'll have a law degree." See (2) above. And give me a minute to clear off my screen having spewed the beverage I was drinking out both nostrils as I read that one. You'll intimidate only those foolish and feckless enough to defer to someone simply because of his title. If you enjoy being surrounded by such people by all means, deposit your resources and spin the wheel. Or save yourself the expense and form a cult.

Forgive me for flippancy. I don't regularly read your blog but you seem to be quite articulate, intelligent and grounded. Take others' advice and talk to as many people as possible who have done the JD and proceeded to do work outside of the legal profession. Best wishes. And be very careful.

I highly recommend you pick up a book called "Getting What You Came For" by Robert L. Peters. It's almost like the Bible of the McNair program I'm in. With that said, here are a few more things to consider;

What you go for CAN unltimately EXCLUDE you from certain professions. If you realy like reading a lot, then maybe research is what will make you happiest- so go for a PhD. Better yet, skip the Master's, the cost of the Master's and the pain of the Master's. But if that is NOT what you want to do, then for anything else you'll be over qualified. MA is for the real world, PhDs are for the academic world.

Also, you're cost is going to depend a lot on what you go for. If you go for the MBA or law degree, while the returns are usually good, you'll be paying through your nose for a very long time. But if you go for something like history or poly sci, you can (if you're smart) apply for gov't research grants BEFORE you apply to any schools. Not only will this help defer the cost, but admissions committees like students with their own fundings, and GIVE OUT MORE MONEY in a lot of cases because they know you're serious. That's another reason to skip Master's- as a MA student you probably won't qualify for RA/TA positions in your first, maybe second years but PhD students (even before candidacy) usually can get at least some kind of low-level RA jobs their first year.

TA jobs can prevent you from getting a research position in the future, and RA jobs can prevent you from doing anything but research. Choose wisely.

Take another year off. Think about it. Don't take the LSAT until you are ready for it. Nowadays ALL of your scores are sent to the schools you apply for. That means if you totally bomb the test, you're ugly score is going to end up at the top of the report, ABOVE the improved score from a later test date. Some schools view this positively (that you are determined), others very much not so. Don't take your chances, and don't waste your money on a test you're not prepared for.

Go ahead a write a book if you'd like. See if it is a project you can see through to the end. While you do that, do a lot of consultation with people whose knowledge and opinions you respect and WHO ARE PROFESSORS. By the time you get around to applying to schools, you may just have a friend and potential advisor rooting for you on the admissions committee along with something to impress them with on your resume.

Good luck. :)

i went to a prestigious law school after getting an ma in int'l affairs from a prestigious int'l affairs grad shcool and working at a think tank for a few years. I now work as a lawyer for the government. here are my thoughts:

--don't go to law school thinking you will do something other than being a lawyer. The vast majority of people who get law degrees are lawyers doing corporate transactions and corporate litigation, even from the elite schools. and they are all unhappy.
--having said that, there are lawyers who have intersting and even enjoyable jobs--mainly in the government.
--policy-makers do often have law degrees, even in int'l affairs, but that's b/c they developed a base of political contacts and political support while they were in private practice.
----masters degrees in history, policy sci, or int'l affairs by themselves are worthless both professionally and intellectually. they are a dime a dozen and are really no more valuable than reading a few books and the Economist on a regular basis. on the other hand, an MBA or master's in economics means that you can do quantitative work and that puts you ahead of lots of people, esp. lawyers.
--your military experience is probably much more valuable than a master's degree in anything other than econ, esp if you will be going to an Eastern Elite law school and working among the Eastern Elites, very few of whom have military experience or even know anyone in the military.
--a joint degree can be helpful, but only if it gives you unique qualifications that your military experience or other work or personal history do not give you.
--it is also valuable, probably more than getting a masters, to speak a foreign language well and to have lived abroad.
--it is highly unlikely that you will finish a ph.d. and if you do, it will take eight to ten years. unless you want to be an academic, don't do it. even if you want to be an academic, don't do it b/c at the end of those eight to ten years, you will probably not find a job as an academic.
--in sum, it's probably best to go to a elite law school, work hard to develop contacts while in law school, find a firm in DC that has strong links to government service, and go from there, while using your military background to establish your credibility on policy matters.

The response to this post is astounding. Thanks to all readers who are here from the WSJ's Lawblog. Feel free to poke around in the archives and find something else you might like . . .

John Roberts,

Just to be clear, I'm not in Iraq right now. Just want everyone to know that. I merely had a short vacation there in 2003. (and thanks for taking time from your busy schedule to comment. ;) )

I have been a lawyer for 31 years, although I no longer practice actively. Law school 3 years of your life and requires a lot of hard work to do well.

It is also quite expensive these days. My tuition was $1,000/yr in-state at OSU. They now want $17,500/yr, in-state and $32,000 out of state.

Combine 3 years of forgone earnings and tuition, and it its not a pretty economic picture. You are almost forced in the big firm salt mines to labor for $125,000/yr.

What I tell people who ask my advice on law school is that law school is trade school, it is not undergraduate liberal arts education. If you want to work as a lawyer, e.g. as a prosecutor or defender in the criminal justice system, great. Go to law school.

If you are not sure that you want to practice law, don't go to law school, it's expensive and not that interesting.

If you want information about whether you want to practice law, firms will pay you to hang around as a paralegal. It's not great pay and it's not a career, but you will see them in action from up close.

P.S. the only time lawyers are in the room when the big boys are strategizing is when the subject is litigation. Otherwise they are sent back to the windowless conference rooms to work on documents.

I'm pulling for the "other self". Lawyers are a dime a dozen. A focused MBA in your area will probably make you happier. I don't see law degrees as your cup of tea - a means to an end. History and policy is far more colorful.

I don't respond much on your blog because you write so well. It makes for good thinking, something law doesn't attract - except for thinking about ways out of something.

Lawyers have to use rules. Those who develop policy have to use lawyers.

If (yes, he said, wistfully) I had the time to go back, it would be history and foreign policy.

Chester,

I chose to go to law school because I thirsted after righteousness (meaning the philosophy of law, or jurisprudence). There is little direct instruction of this in law school; most of your time is spent in reading and analyzing appellate opinions (at least that was the case in the late 70's when I went). There is little instruction in actual trial lawyer work. In some fields, such as tax, the J.D. (which is also known as an LL.B, or Bachelor of Laws), is merely a stepping stone to the LL.M degree. _The Paper Chase_ (the original film) is a good model of how the first year of law school is (or was).

At the time you take your first exams, remember that Professor Kingsfield has to read about 300 exam papers with roughly five questions each. Cram your entire findings about the question into the very first sentence of what you write! The difference between an A and a C minus depends on nothing else.

I have never practiced law, so I have used my legal expertise only in taking care of occasional family matters and understanding posts on PowerLine. Having the legal training is valuable, but as has been said in many of the other posts, a cost-benefit analysis must be made.

I'm a J.D. (Mich. Law) who spent eight years in investment banking before returning to school to get a Ph.D. in military history. Call me crazy (many do), but I think that I can help with your career conundrum.

Step One: forget everything that you think you know about law school, because it's all crap. For example, you noted that you like to read and argue. If so, then you're in for a nasty shock when you go to law school. Legal logic has little to do with common sense or self-evident reason; it is often torturous and counter-intuitive. Moreover, reading case law is only slightly more exciting than reading instruction manuals for kitchen appliances.

Step Two: cut the bullsh*t and answer the real question: What do you really want to do with your life? More to the point: Is there some profession that would really make you happy? If you do what you truly love, you'll be a success.

Step Three: if you're not sure if there is something you'll love, then decide whether you want to make money or go into policy. If you want to make money, get an M.B.A. If you want to go into policy then get a Ph.D. (a Master's degree in any non-professional academic field is short-hand for "wimp").

Step Four (optional): If you want to get a Ph.D. with an eye towards policy, you have several choices. These include public policy (better if you're a socialist), political science (an oxymoron, but one that enjoys some prestige in the US), economics, history or some form of regional studies (i.e. Middle Eastern Studies).

I hope that this helps.

I forgot one more thing (if you do go to grad school instead of law school)- if you start out as a PhD student but later decide you don't want to go that far, many schools will give you a MA as a "consolation prize" (and no one has to know you quit PhD!). It's just another option to consider.

One part of the law that you may like is the history embedded in the cases.

Each case is a summary of how a court has resolved a dispute between live people that occurred years ago.

Often the resolution of the case is based on laws that are the result of old political compromises. (this is especially true in government law.) Looking for the compromise often helps in reading a statute.

Teasing the story out of the case summary and/or the statute is often a lot of work but getting the story is rewarding and often leads to a successful outcome (or quick settlement before the other side realizes what they have!)

The great issues of the 21st Century will not be decided by lawyers (see Lebanon). Given the perversion and subversion of US law to egregious manipulation by partisans of every stripe, it seems a dreary choice.

Chester-sama:

Anonymous seems to be the only commenter who's actively employed in a field close to your "field of dreams."

Not too unsurprisingly, the counsel proffered by Anonymous diverges significantly from the successful career path/trajectory that he or she describes as the one he/she actually followed.

Don't know if you've had the opportunity to observe this, but one of the bitterst pills for we Homo Sapien to swallow is the little green one labelled "Full disclosure re career path."

Career discussions are subject to the heavily censorious hand of taboo, hence the continual for vigilance in accurately processing and dealing with the counter-intuitive -- counter the "common-sense" notions that people spout & blather about day in and day out.

A corollary to Ockham’s razor, namely Hanlon's Razor, adds this perspective:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”

Hence I wouldn't attribute to spite or malice the patently absurd bromides offered by your profs or the hypocritical advice proffered by Anonymous.

The blinding force of taboo makes babbling fools of all of us.

However, now is neither the time nor place to delve into the fascinating subject of (self-) mythologizing, (self-) deception, and the related phenomenon of taboos.

You wrote:

The similarity between America's growing reliance on merit benchmarks (top ten schools, top of the class, standardized tests for elementary schools etc) and that of Confucian-influenced societies like Japan occurred to me the other day, as I was reading One-L. Is it because America is so diverse that we have to create some standard yardstick of measurement to know who stands out? Or is it because decades of PC indoctrination have made us all incapable of accurately judging the characters of others? I don't know, but it's certainly something to keep in mind. There's much more to life than being Phi Beta Kappa (which, in full disclosure, I was most certainly not).

As it was, ever shall it be.

There's no growing reliance of "merit."

The folks with a finger or two on the national steering wheel, in every country, are generally from their own national iteration of OxBridge. This is nothing new... unless you consider a 300 year old American tradition something of recent vintage.

Our quasi-religious mythos of the "self-made man" makes taboo discussion of this common-to-humanity phenomenon.

Moreover, the fact that affiliation with a domestic OxBridge has not traditionally been a pre-req to acquiring great wealth has worked to blur and mystify the perception, but only the perception, of the actual sharp line that excludes all but a few from the (often far from wealthy) American Mandarinate.

The following is rhetorical -- I will be most seriously displeased if you dishonor yourself and your sig-other by divulging that which you should NOT.

I do ask that you focus also on how your thinking about your career choice has evolved in relation to your wife's recent career advancement, and the apparent need for her to remain in her current position for 5 years or so. In that context, taking the fork in the road marked "Law" makes eminent sense.

Eminent reflexive sense.

Possible strategic sense... though as of yet not a coherent word has yet been written by you with respect to any reality-based strategic consideration favoring the fork in the road marked Law.

As Jamie Irons, who posted a comment on July 27, 2006 01:03 AMN, might agree, the ability to articulate explicitly your possibly highly astute implicit Law Career strategy might have the actual value and practical utility as equivalent worth John Nance Garner once attributed to the exalted position of VPOTUS.

http://www.spot-on.com/archives/000114.html

With that...

Best wishes,

Willard's Pal

Chester,

Don't do it.

I've been practicing for 12 years and if it wasn't for the money, I'd be gone. Most of the big firm lawyers I know are substance abusers, have miserable home lives, and are very, very old before their time. The small firm lawyers have similar problems, and often wonder where their next paycheck will come from. Working in-house is marginally better, but the bureaucracy is mind-numbing. I think I would have enjoyed working in D.C., but I can't afford to live in the D.C. area on a federal lawyer's salary.

You have to take a crushing job to pay back the loans. Even attending public law school will kill you, money-wise.

One point I didn't see made above. As a lawyer, you don't actually get to make decisions - you give your clients advice, and THEY make the decisions (usually the wrong ones). Your role is that of an advocate, not a decision-maker; the client always reserves the right to hang himself. To me, that is comforting; I get paid either way, and I often get to say "I told you so" (although generally only to myself...) It fits with the smugness I've acquired after having my soul ripped out by the profession.

Don't do it! Don't do it!

I agree with the other posts that suggested that we need better professors rather than more lawyers. Your brain belongs at a University, not at an insurance defense firm.

I considered law school and did not go. Many attorneys never practice law. The knowledge gained is useful. What decided me was: What do lawyers do mostly? Mostly it is boring as hell. The hours are miserable, and for most, the pay middling. The stress can be horrendous.

I will add to Coyote's comment - Law is very much a vicarious career - you do not make the decisions, the client does.

But in that regard it is little different than many other careers. When I did a summer internship in college at the Dept. of State back in the paleolithic age, I had the same reaction to working in the bureacracy. At the time I told myself I would not want a position without Senate confirmation. After 20 years in private legal practice I am now used to advising decision makers, and implementing their decisions.

1) The fact that you don't want to be a lawyer alone should indicate you shouldn't go to law school. Law school is designed, first and foremost, to "manufacture" lawyers.

2) Law school doesn't do a good job of training lawyers to be lawyers. There is a very large disjunction between academic law and practicing law. You acquire most real skills on-the-job.

3) I haven't read it in its entirety, but screwball as it is, "Brush with the Law" appears a more accurate depiction of law school today than "One L."

4) Tucker Max is odd in many ways, but his arguments against law school are accurate in many ways. (Read also not just the excerpt someone pasted above, but also his account of being a summer associate at Fenwick & West.) Many disciplines teach you to argue; different disciplines teach you to argue in different ways. Law school actually places a low emphasis on writing. You are examined, in your 1L classes, via limited time (3 hour) issue spotters. Crafting a well-written essay is not the point here.

5) Different people view a law degree differently. That's apparent from the post above. I suppose on average people are more inclined to view a law degree with respect than not. But you're not going to law school - or you shouldn't be - in order to impress some random, hypothetical person.

6) You should go to law school for a very specific reason with a very specific endstate in mind, and a very clear idea of how law school will help you achieve that endstate.

7) The length of your inner monologue suggests you've got substantial doubts. If you're agonizing this much, it might be a burden to enter law school with those doubts (to say nothing of the fact that the anti-law school part of your brain might be "right."). There is little harm to waiting. You'll be more attractive the longer you wait; better to have a mature applicant with real world experience than a 22-year old (although law school admissions is extremely formulaic, probably more so than any other form of post-graduate education, and your LSAT and GPA are highly outcome determinative). Also, there's a relatively low opportunity cost to waiting - you're at a minimum not expending money for tuition, and if you're working, then you're bringing in a salary.

8) I'd advise against an MA or PhD in political science or international relations. MA programs are often cash cows for the university; students are shunted aside by professors, for whom working with graduate students is the primary raison d'etre. As for PhD programs, they're designed to manufacture academics, and the time commitment is long, and the renumeration is low.

9) I would make several exceptions to the above. I'd consider an MPA or Master's in IR at a few institutions - JHU-SAIS, Harvard-KSG, Princeton-WWS, Columbia-SIPA. I'd stay away from a PhD in public policy or IR from these schools, because it would be hard to get a job with those; you can get a PhD in political science and teach at a public policy school, but the reverse is hard to accomplish. You might want to check out Eliot Cohen's "Cohen's Corner" on the SAIS website, or even try talking to the guy, or similar people. Additionally, always feel free to pump admissions offices for information; you are, or could possibly be, the customer.

10) Acquire information. The paralegal idea is not a bad one. Sit in on law school classes. Make sure you sit in on a wide variety of classes - 1L and upper-class, tax and criminal procedure, etc. If you can find lawyers who will either let you shadow them or give you a sense of what their day-to-day constitutes, by all means try that.

12) If you're really interested in money, it probably makes sense to pursue an MBA over a JD. In terms of really, really, really high-end finance (ie, hedge fund managers), my sense is they really care only about how quantitatively adept you are in the broadest sense (not whether you did well at Accounting XXX) - if you're an engineer, statistician, etc., that's fine.

13) Net-net: I propose you wait; I don't see a need to hurry. If you do want to move on into the foreign policy bureaucracy via an advanced degree, I'd obtain an MA from the schools in paragraph 9 (the other thing to remember is, you can always obtain an MA from one of those institutions and then apply to PhD programs). To repeat: make sure you have an end in mind and that your means will help you achieve that end. If you want to be a lawyer, then yes, law school will help toward that end. If you want to be a professor, then yes, a PhD will toward that end. If you want to enter the foreign policy bureaucracy, it is far less clear to me that either lead naturally to that end.

PS - Don't discount the value of punditry. I think one advantage that professors do have, versus being in the bureaucracy, is that they have the ability to say what they want (particularly after gaining tenure), and they have the ability to disseminate their ideas broadly. You don't necessarily have to be a professor to possess that ability. If you want to be a writer or commentator on topics that interest, you could do that, and it's not inconceivable someone would like your work enough that you could float in and out of government, more or less at your leisure, or be a consultant of sorts.

Hi Chester,

I was in your shoes 15 years ago. I was just out of US Army Intelligence and spoke several strategic languages. I took a government job paying a whopping $30,000 per year and was miserable, recognizing that the only jobs worth having in those bureaucracies needed Senate confirmation and a friendship with the White House occupant.

So I went for an MBA at a European school that was paid for entirely by the GI Bill.

My decision NOT to go to law school was simple: most law jobs are specific to an individual US state or to only the United States but not Finland or Switzerland where I felt I might want the option to live.

You should decide what geographical OPTIONS you want to have in the next 30 years.

In your case, since you have an American wife and probably wouldn't have been lured into ever dating Iraqi women...I don't imagine that you're dreaming of going back to the Middle East. But remember: tons of Vietnam War veterans fell in love with Asia and can barely live without visiting there often, and tons of guys like me fell in love with the people and cultures of Europe and our former enemy the Soviet Union.

Now I am a businessman in Europe making a comfortable $60,000 per year, visiting Swiss resorts on weekends, and I have a great private life with a wonderful girlfriend, when I am not making the mistake of getting sucked into the Blogosphere to combat the leftist choke-hold on the US society that I don't miss very much.

I'd probably make more money if I forgot about reading great blogs like yours as well as trying to influence American politicians not to take all our rights away even when we live overseas (see http://www.veteransabroad.com).

Then again...being "Blog-Aware" will probably be a key to power in the US government and think-tanks of the near and distant future.

By finding the right special interest group, I could easily become a lobbyist in DC now if I actually wanted to move back to the USA.

Money is just one means to happiness, but what gets me money? Was it the MBA that did the trick?

No. The MBA just helps in raising a project's monthly fee or salary an extra $1,000 per month. An MBA gives you negotiating credibility only AFTER someone decides to hire you.

What causes them to hire you?

1) Being a US military veteran, preferably having served in the thick of history with a fascinating assignment. This carries more credibility (even outside the USA) than Harvard, especially since 9-11.

2) Knowing other languages. In international business, you'll be like a fish out of water if you don't have 3 or 4 under your belt.

3) Professional presentation including great writing ability and at least an $800 suit. Keep your military haircut.

4) Getting specific about exactly what you will do for the company that is not already being done (for instance: "I have great contacts at Lockheed and and Boeing" who are willing to meet with me now regarding your products" or "I will defeat such and such a law by targeting this Senator's reelection bid."

5) Having a great track record if it is not your first project. Note that it doesn't matter if one or two projects in your history produce no results. Power hitters strike out sometimes.

6) Persistence in approaching the owners of companies, not the HR department.

Now getting back to lawyers: I agree with the people who said that being a lawyer often means checking your honesty and character in the cloakroom before you start.

This is because 50% of clients will be wrong and many will want you to lie.

But we NEED GUYS LIKE YOU to be the one who fights them as the opposing lawyer! So please go to law school if you know where you want to live.

I owned a tech startup a few years ago but my web designer suddenly submitted a bill for $200,000 and then threatened a shareholder revolt. He did this via a very sleazy lawyer from a major law firm whose partners were vultures and wanted to pick up a quick $50,000 from creating an "incident". I had to sell the company quickly and ended up with only $130,000 after taxes. The lawyer who helped me for $4,000 was worth her weight in gold.

My experiece with these big law firm vultures upset me so much that I took two years off to sail around the world on the QE2 and other cruise ships. And this was after exposure to this kind of person for only 2 weeks.

Not many people are lucky enough to take such a consolation prize after rubbing so close with big law firm lawyers. Most just end up having to take a shower when they get home.

Another example of sleazy lawyers: there is a DC lawyer from a prominent firm roaming the Internet (Wikipedia, visa applicant forums) making sure that American citizens don't launch more than the two current lawsuits against the new IMBRA law which says that men don't have the right but only a privilege to date and marry foreign women. You can recognize the difference between this lawyer and a your average leftist Moonbat by the level of intelligence (lawyers are extremely smart). Their obfuscation and bully tactics are classic lawyer attributes. Fighting such people makes rational, honest people want to immediately get into a shower.

And the sad thing: these lawyers are mercenaries who are getting paid by clients to do all this.

Many terrorists in Iraq and Lebanon are also mercenaries in the sense that they are clients of Iran's oil money.

Wow! The great thoughts continue! This is truly fabulous advice.

Chester,

This is an absoultely fascinating discussion. I wish I could send it to all my past, present, and future students. Allow me to suggest yet another alternative. Combine the useful and the intellectually agreeable by getting not just an M.B.A., but rather aiming for a Ph.D. in Business Economics/ Doctorate in Business Administration (D.B.A.). If you like strategy, business strategy is one of the most fascinating applications thereof, especially in all its international dimensions. And you will be quickly involved in politics, whether or not you think you are 'merely' in business. Think of focusing on industries such as oil, aerospace, defense, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, etc. where the business-government interface is particularly salient. You love history? Everybody writes about generals and politicians, but some of the most fascinating and un-or-lesser told tales are about the business histories underpinning the politics. Study technological histories and how they intersect with military success or failure. After all, most techology is developed in business firms, not in government bureaucracies. How these techologies get financed is yet another part of the picture that the lawyers and political science types rarely understand, but which needs all the attention you could give it.

Do this at Harvard, M.I.T., Wharton, London Business School, Insead or the like and you might even get paid to get a doctorate. HBS, my alma mater (DBA, 1970), has, I think, special financial aid for aspring Ph.D.'s/ D.B.A.'s just because there is a looming shortage of business school academics due to the fact that M.B.A.s can leave quickly and get immediate quick bucks.

The extra effort and delayed gratification is worth it over a lifetime. I can attest to this since I followed that path. It opens up lots of options, especially if you focus on international business and learn some languages. I've been able to write lots of books and articles (check me out at www.scholar.google.com), and work in many different countries; in government, academia, consulting, and investment management.

Even if you end up not wanting to finish up a business doctorate, or going the business academic route, the education will not be wasted. You will have the skills necessary to earn a good living, maybe even to the extent of have some acutal money to spend or donate on 'saving the world' . And you will probably get lots of tempting job offers on the way. CBO (where I worked once upon a time), OMB, and the international banks all want such skills. Raytheon recently gave a presentation at the University of Massachusetts Boston business school where I teach indicating that they are going to be in major hiring mode for the forseeable future.

Good luck!

Lawrence G. Franko, Professor of Finance, College of Management, University of Massachusetts Boston (ret.), transitioning to Senior Investment Advisor, Delaware Investments International Value Equity Group.

Chester -
While extremely interesting, I think two things are lacking from this post: a sense of perspective of your current position and a positive view of the academic situation at a great law school.

First, these comments seem to merely compare graduating from law school versus other potential academic or professional goals that you could achieve in three years. As is my understanding, that is not yet your position. I thought you had yet to take the LSATs. If that is true, then my advice is to see what happens. There is no need to spend lots of money on classes, buy a couple books and study for a month or so and take the test. That was my strategy. If you do well enough to give yourself options, then this discussion changes entirely. A great number of students at the highest echelon law schools have the opportunity to do a great number of things besides practice law. If you are not so fortunate, then it seems to me, these posts become much more relevant.

Second, I enjoyed law school immensely both socially and as an academic enterprise. I found it challenging and interesting. As a disclaimer, that I am sure others will use to quickly discount my point of view (because I have yet to join the horrific world of a corporate practice - coming soon), I have just taken the bar having graduated from a top ten law school (UVa). I had a similar crisis of conscience three years ago (as a hill staffer) and was convinced that while I didnt know what to do, law school was the best bet. Of course if you have particular views of your future in which a JD is not beneficial, then make your decision accordingly. If, however, you are not sure, then going to a top law school is not a limit on your future. There are former students represented in a myriad of professions. Off the top of my head, there are 7 US senators; more than 10 congressmen, CEOs or general counsels; several authors (david baldacci was my graduation speaker); and an inumerable group of others that are outside of the practice of law influencing decision makers through their roles within the executive branch or commitee staffs on the hill (and I am sure the alumni from the others are equivalent or even more impressive). Moreover, while law school might not be the most rigorous of exercises, it is exceedingly rewarding to engage some extraordinarily talented people and professors if you so choose. Law school, like life, is what you make of it. As someone who was policy minded before I entered, I sincerely believe it is beneficial to argue with others who share sincere beliefs that are diametrically opposed to my own and who have the mental capital to back up their positions. For me, law school provided those discussions and a lot more.
Finally, I think it is nonsense that the opportunity cost of law school is both an inordinate burden as compared with other post-graduate school and that it necesitates going into the practice of law. I did the latter because I genuinely find the work that I will be doing interesting and I hope to find it fulfilling. And at the end of the day, that is all anyone can hope for when looking at this debate ex ante, from your position. Also, if you do well, do yourself a favor and go to school in charlottesville.

No decisions, just data points.

I was in a somewhat similar situation but couldn't drop the day job (active duty). Three of my submariner contemporaries finished their initial tour and went MBA (Stanford, Harvard, Wharton). They liked the experience from what I understand.

I instead went to the Fletcher School's Global Master of Arts program under a "dumb guy" waiver (it's a diversity thing; you need so many loudmouth dumb guys in every class). Kept the day job, gained a small network, some good thoughts and a lot of reading. I think I made the right decision there, and it might be worth looking at.

Americans have a circulatory flow of people between academia, government, think tank and business that is different from, say, the French way of doing things. You may find that being part of that is interesting. Me, I've got a few years active duty still before I worry about it...

Chester,
I am one of those who went to law because I didn't know what else to do. I graduated college with a business degree and after a couple of boring years pushing a pencil around on financial statements, I felt I needed a career change. BIG MISTAKE!

While law school itself was very interesting, legal work is a drudge and seldom rewarding.
I found myself working 16 hour days and most weekends. Unless you have a lot of help, you quickly learn that the only way you can keep up with the paperwork is to get to work early before the phone starts ringing and clients arriving and then stay late for the same reason.

What I regret most is that I missed out on several years of my children's lives due to my work schedule. Fortunately, I made a career change that afforded me the time to become a part of their lives but I still have much guilt over the lost time I should have had with them.(My wife had photographs of her with the children doing the normal childhood activities. When I look at these photos, it pains me deeply that I missed so many of these.) It is almost like I was imprisoned somewhere during this period.

Sorry to be so long winded, but no one had touched on the family life issue and, as you can see, it is one that I feel should be afforded major consideration.

Thank you Michael, for the family perspective.

Chap, I like that, "loudmouthed dumb guy diversity waiver." I may use that.

john doe, I appreciate your perspective as well.

Hi Chester,

I recently graduated an ivy league law school and I also recently took the bar exam. I was at best an "average" law student at the school I attended. If I could humbly suggest some advice to you from my experience, because unlike some of the posters, I've recently endured the process. The experience also might vary at other law schools that are less highly ranked. (Warning: This will probably be very long-winded).




The short of it is: going to law school can be very valuable so long as you know why you're going.




First, the bad part. Law study, unlike many other forms of grad schooling, is terribly front loaded and extremely grade dependent. The "curve" as a pedagogical concept is ridiculous and wickedly subjective. Law professors will often times defend it to the death (mostly because law professors were successful at it). The students can be incredibly intense and superhuman about studying (though none of my fellow law students were "cut throat" I always found them helpful). This doesn't mean the average person can't be successful at law school (in fact I know a lot of law students who do well with mediocre intelligences). It does mean that even if you're extremely intelligent but go in with a "keeping your options" open attitude you're likely to get whupped by the people who know exactly why they're there. By the time you figure the game out, a lot of the most prestigious opportunities will be gone.




Second, the bs from other posters. At the top law schools, if you're lucky enough to get into them there are a ton of options. For example, do you want to be a veternarian and a lawyer? Well, at Cornell you can be. Do you want to do a masters in public policy and get a law degree? Go do a joint degree with NYU's law school and Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Government. There are many opportunities to mix and match. JD/PhD, JD/MBA, JD/MPA, JD/MD, JD/DVM programs all exist nowadays, you just need to look. Do you want a dual degree with a foreign law school so you can practice in France or Germany as well as the U.S.? Those exist too (there was a previous poster who said you might not be able to work in Europe with a U.S. law degree, not true at all). But know what you want to do before you apply. It makes your options for when you come out a lot easier.




Debt, corporate law, and starting salaries - I've got some debt to pay back and I took a job at a corporate law firm. Corporate law is no pancea. They make you work extremely long hours at thankless jobs. It's not for everyone and it may not even be for me in the long run (I have some other plans and dreams I want to accomplish). But it's no indentured servitude either. The starting salaries at a top NYC firm pay $145,000 a year now. Even if you incur $100k + worth of debt, if you're willing to live simply and take care of your money it's not out of the realm of possibility to lower your debt load to the point where you have tremendous freedom of action within a short period of time.




And really that's no different than many of the grad students who I hear complaining about living on those low assistant professor salaries. Or doctors who have to endure years of internships and residencies.




Where I see the most disappointment among practicing lawyers I've met is when they have incurred a certain lifestyle that can only be maintained by making a high corporate law salary (and that includes family obligations).




Also, many law schools now have public interest programs that allow you to reduce your debt load if you're going into the public sector after graduation.




But the thing is, despite a lot of the crap, at the end of the day I'm excited as hell about going out and being a lawyer and I still think it's possible to go out and change the world. But you have to want to do that. You have to have a plan and you need to work hard at accomplishing it. You also have to accept that there will be failures, rejections, long nights, and disappointments along the way. But no route is easy. I ultimately can't tell you what's the best route for you to take. But I can tell you it's possible.




Best wishes.

Perhaps i'm in the majority, but I very much enjoyed law school. I just graduated from the University of Minnesota, and just took the bar exam last week.

There are plenty of dumb things about law school, and the bar exam seemed rather ridiculous to me at points. But I don't regret going for a second.

The points about only going to a top-five or -ten law school and being on law review may be more prevalent on the WSJ blog than here, but I wanted to address them. I went to a top-20 law school, and didn't even bother trying to get on to a journal. I almost certainly could have made law review, but decided that it wasn't for me. Instead, I competed in National Moot Court and had an absolutely fantastic time. I was active in a criminal defense clinic at my school, and loved doing that as well.

I found most of my classmates to be nice people. I experienced none of the hiding of books and other resources that some complain about. I made some good friends, and had an enjoyable three years, though the workload was quite substantial. Now I'm clerking for a judge, and after that intend to enter the criminal law field, which has been my passion for years. Based on what I've seen in my previous jobs during law school, I have every reason to belive I'll enjoy it and excel at it.

I realize that you may not want to practice law, so my comments may not be that helpful. But I wanted to be another to relate a positive, even enjoyable, experience during law school. I don't want to downplay the workload, which is very heavy. But given your impressive background, I don't think you'd have much problem. Think long and hard, but I don't know that I'd go in assuming that you'll probably hate it. As others have said, law school is what you make of it. If you want to have fun, it's very possible.

A rather silly error. In my first sentence, I of course mean "minority" rather than "majority."

However, HTML skills law school does not teach you. I apologize about the breaks, the preview didn't show the post with them.

I'm a partner at a large international law firm. Here's my take:

There are lots of good reasons for going to law school, but I don't see any of them listed in your post.

Furthermore, it's clear from your post that you really don't know enough about what lawyers actually do to know if you want to be one. But the fact that you are debating going to law school and yet haven't bothered to do sufficient research to learn what lawyers actually do, is an indication you wouldn't make a good one.

Finally, anyone who says "I'm thinking about going to law school because I like to arguereally is clueless.

Don't go. And if you do go, I don't think law review is going to be something you have to worry about.

Anonymously Yours,

Would you mind shooting me an email? It's terrier_manchester at yahoo.com

Wow, thanks Conrad. It's true. I'm an idiot. I'm way too stupid to actually talk to someone in the profession. Just as I can be sure that I wouldn't make Law Review, you can be sure that if I want to talk to an international lawyer, it won't be you. Cheers!

Conrad, did you have to check your sense of common decency at the door of your large international law firm before you embarked on your quest for partnership?

Well, I start law school in three weeks, so you're not the only insane person out there.

I made the choice for many of the same reasons you listed - but also realizing that law school will be three years of incredibly hard work on some incredibly esoteric subjects.

What also makes a HUGE difference is the choice of school. The program I'm entering (University of St. Thomas) is a relatively new program, the facilities are excellent, and they have a reputation for having an excellent quality of life for students. That makes a big difference, and I got a sense that many of the law schools I visited didn't have the same quality of life.

Obviously, I'm very pro-law school at the moment. Ask me the same question after my first semester (Contracts, Torts, and Civil Procedure oh my!) and I'll probably give you a better idea of what to expect.

First things first, an MA in Poli Sci is worthless. I spent 3 1/2 years in a Poli Sci PhD program and the MA was only a steppingstone. The only people who got admitted for the MA only were those that the department didn't think could really hack it.

Second, if you are thinking about an academic degree rather than a professional degree, it should be PhD or nothing. Anything less will be looked down upon.

Third, if international policy and affairs are the direction you want to go, look at MPA or similar programs from schools that are strong in international affairs and foreign policy - Hopkins, Georgetown, Fletcher School (Tufts), etc. Another option here would be an MBA from a school with a strong international program like Thunderbird or (gasp) South Carolina.

Finally, academic programs will pay you to go to school unlike professional programs. Most PhD programs will provide you with an assistantship and possibly a tuition waiver. If you decide to just try one or another for a year, the academic route may be the better way because you won't be going into serious debt.

There are many things this world needs.

Another f*cking lawyer is not one of them...

It just so happens that my fiance and I, both law school class of 2002, have just decided to quit the law and move to Turkey to work in a hotel. Seriously. Why? She's a transactional lawyer: long hours, sometimes-domineering bosses, less-than-interesting work, and did I mention long hours? I'm a litigator: hostile clients and opponents, idiotic plaintiff's lawyers, toxic depositions, and a complete and total lack of justice in the system. I've come to believe that the system produces more injustice than justice. So we're taking down our sheepskins and giving something else a try.

I know a lot of young lawyers here in Portland, and VERY FEW of them are happy. Just something to keep in mind. Good luck with whatever you choose.

Chester:

I may be late to the party, here, but here's my story for what it worth...

I was an Army officer for four years before I started law school at a top-25 law school in '01, graduating in '04. I've been working at a tiny law firm in D.C. since then, but may have the opportunity to swith to a large firm soon.

I hate my current practice. I took the job because it was in D.C. and I thought it would be a gateway to finding a job here that was more lucrative and more interesting. That might actually pan out for me. In the meantime, though, despite the fact that I like to "read, write and argue," the things I'm reading, writing and arguing about these days realy bore me (which is why I waste time reading and commenting on blogs discussing things that do interest me--like politics, international affairs and war).

Also, because I am still a lowly associate, I don't get to make many decisions with respect to how we argue things. I just do the research, turn it in; review documents; prep the partner for the deposition; cite check the brief (10 times); etc., etc. ad nausem. I rarely get to research, formulate, and cultivate an argument from scratch on a topic that interests me, which would be the real reward to practicing law.

The practice of law is about money, which mostly means billable hours, but could mean shot-in-dark (and sometimes somewhat seedy) contingency work. If you want to make money, and are willing to take whatever assignment is available to get your hours, then the practice of law can be quite lucrative.

If you want to deal primarily, though, in abstract ideas, theories, current political issues and the like, another degree and profession would be better. Journalism (see, e.g., Austin Bay, Bill Rogio), would be a good pick as would academia (see, e.g., Victor Davis Hanson). (And don't kid yourself that upper reaches of a law firm's heirarchy is not an ivory tower.) Compensation in either of those fields would probably be less at least initially, especially if one were a superstar law student and landed a BIG law gig right away. The benefit, however, is that you can more readily select a topical area that really drives you. Also, some people in these fields are apparently financially comfortable, as the examples cited above show. (VDH owns a fairly large parcel in California, I recall him mentioning in a column once.)

If you are interested in policy- or decision-making, then a J.D. is a potential avenue, but not the only one, and may not be the best one. I do have at least one classmate working on White House staff in an area that she really likes. Her husband, however, is headed towards a big firm job, in order to provide the lifestyle they want for their children. I have another classmate who moved on to get a Ph.D. in International Politics, but probably could have entered that track directly without the detour through law school. (Yet another just left a “small-firm, small-pay, but big-firm-hours” job to become an investment advisor. He’s earning about the same, but actually participating in his child’s life. On the other side, though, many of my classmates seem happily plugging away on the partnership track of large law firms.)

Alternatively, an M.B.A. is an option for policy-makers and decision-makers. The President earned one. Indeed, M.B.A.’s sometimes quip that business executives are trained to see opportunities, while lawyers are only trained to see obstacles.

Law school does instill rigorous intellectual analysis skills, which are valuable. Most of those skills are imparted in the first year, though, and the second two years are about proving that you can work hard in a journal or a moot court. Law school is not, however, the only way to develop such skills. A Ph.D. program would probably impart the same level of intellectually rigorous training.

As for cost, look into Veteran’s Grants, and don’t ignore state level programs. Illinois, for example, has a very generous grant for Illinois residents who served that can be taken to Illinois state schools. Other states have similar programs.

-Tanker J.D.

Chester:

One more thing:

Conrad's comments are typical of someone who went into law school with some idealism, but then surrendered to the drudgery of billable hours in a field he does not like in return for a large paycheck. Because he has that paycheck, and "international law firm" credentials, he feels that he is better than others and therefore entitled to assauge his frustration by insulting his "lessers". The obvious truth, though, is that he is a boring prig, who has no friends and whose relatives are glad that he "works too much" to be able to show up for Christmas dinner. He embodies the problems with the modern practice of law, to which Insty alluded in his post linking this thread. While I am still a recent graduate, I still remain convinced that success in law does not require such pompousness.

I never really post to these things, but I have to chime in because I'm sort of in this situation. But I have already tried the standard academic degree route - I entered a PhD program in political science and couldn't stand it long enough to even finish the MA. Now, I should admit that part of what I hated was that undergrad I did "government" rather than political science, and I never realized there was a difference and found I simply despised social science.

But what I can tell you is this: your other self and some of the posters so far have argued that you'll get just as much experience and training in how to think if you get an academic degree. I think this is total nonsense. If you go into anything social-sciencey, you will not learn how to think, you will learn how to let computer statistics programs think for you. Even history seems to have gotten this way at a lot of places. And frankly it will be a long time (if ever) before your actual ideas matter to anyone. Even concentrating in political philosophy, academics is such a process of interminably discussing what other people have said rather than saying anything yourself.

I guess I can't tell you yet if you'll get what you want at law school, but I'm throwing in my opinion that you won't get it with an academic degree either. I'm probably going to go to law school now, not necessarily because I have run out of other options, but because I love school but hated grad school. I just cannot sit around another seminar table listening to everyone saying "I thought it was interesting that so-and-so claimed whatever..." I don't need to hear a list of why people liked or disliked a certain book.

Maybe law school won't give me what I want either, but people who've done it seem to give such divergent opinions that I think I just have to find out for myself. As for the risk of getting involved in something so costly on sort of a whim, I have to stress what someone posted above about living simply for a while to deal with your debt. I went to an expensive college, so I've already got more debt than is healthy. But what I've already noticed in my brief life experience is that most people have money problems because they insist on immediately living at the very highest level they can afford. I worked for a couple years as a proofreader at an advertising company where almost all the employees were young, entry-level, $10/hr graphic designers. These were people struggling their way along, but most of them were so enthralled with having a steady job that they would immediately go out and buy brand new cars. But they'd keep making the minimum payment on whatever school and credit card debt they had.

When I get out of law school, I will have no problem spending a few years contintuing to drive my beat up old Honda and eat frozen pizzas. If I can get by now making like $25,000 a year, and then I get a reasonably good lawyering job, I can still improve my lifestyle some and have plenty left to more quickly reduce my debt.

That said, to those who still think it's a bad decision, I do have some specific idea of what I want to do with a law degree, but I think that's more of a nice help in making the decision than it is a necessary component, and I've gone on too long already to get into it.

Thanks to all for the continued comments. I'll be making my decision in the next few days. I guess I'll have to post it now, won't I?

Just thought of another thing re: the MA in International Affairs.

One person in this small d.c. law firm has such a degree. She's my secretary...

As a recent Ph.D. graduate and new hire in a public university, I can state, without reservation, that getting my Ph.D. was the single greatest decision I have ever made. While some institutions are miserable to work for, there are many universities that are not pressure cookers. I love the freedom with my time. If I don't want to go in to work on a Tuesday, then I don't. If I want to take a vacation with my wife, then I do it. As long as my classes are taught and I publish on a regular basis, I can do whatever I want with my time. Instead of 2 weeks vacation, it is more like 4 months vacation each year. How can you go wrong with that?

Chester, I just wandered in here from Instapundit, so I can't claim to know you personally. From what I can tell from your post, however, you should most definitely NOT go to law school. You kind of brushed off the "Conrad" a few steps up, but you really should have ignored his snark and really focused on what he says. Law school shouldn't be an "I have doubts about a Ph.D program and raelly don't want to go to business school" option because you will end up miserable. In fact, it seems like you're using the opportunity of a law degree as a way of wasting time until you can get into something you really want to do (policy and/or entrepreneurship). This is not the best path to get there! You'll end up spending lots of time and money, and it will take you years to pay off the debt you'll incur. Since you appear to be a little older and already married, there's a high probability you could get "stuck" in a working situation you hate out of financial necessity. Don't let it happen to you.
Going to law school to learn how to "think, read and write" is for those born wealthy and 22-year-olds.
From your interests, you'd be much happier in a research program. Sorry for the extended post, but that's my four cents.

Came here via WSJ -- you have a great site. Very impressive work product.
Here's my $0.02.
I went through a similar decision process to the one you are currently exploring. I choose law school because, frankly, I know I would have always wondered "What if?" had I not gone.
I entered law school after nearly eight years of trying my hand at retail sales, retail management, congressional staffer, and many legal and quasi-legal gigs.
I busted my tail at a regional law school, got on law review, and had similar opportunities for employment to those which I would have coming out of a name school. To be clear, I went to my law school because they gave me the most money. Doing it all over again, if I were interested in sticking around the law long-term, I would definitely have tried to get into/transfer after first year to a national law school -- people get hung up about credentials. If you're even toying with academia, name brand is crucial.
I am a mid-level biglaw associate. I do corporate transactional work. I'm fortunate in that I work at a firm that has a rotation program for new associates, and, as a result, I've been exposed to three different departments. I am well-compensated, and I have the type of job that people consider presitgious.
I own a house in a nice suburb.
Nonetheless, my compensation is shaved nearly $800 right off the top each month.
I am terribly unhappy with my hours and my work. I bill over 2500 hours each year (and, as you are aware, that means I'm in the office hundreds of additional hours over the course of the year for which I'm not billing). I would say that I am bored out of my mind for at least 2300 of those hours (lawyerly lack of quantitative skills aside, I'm pretty sure that's a bad ratio).
Unfortunately, I can't really afford a pay cut due to loans and ridiculous cost of living in the northeast. I know I could make a few sacrifices and enjoy a better life, but, truthfully, I don't see any legal positions that are tantilizing enough to make me want to suck up a lousy salary in addition to a lousy lifestyle.
My colleagues at my firm are uniformly unhappy. And this is at one of the country's better-know, better-paying firms. In addition, I just went to a law school reunion, and, to a man/woman, everyone regretted going to law school. That's not hyperbole -- every single peron was miserable or pretty darn close. DAs, AUSAs, big-firm, mid-size, solo practitioners, government and private sector, all miserable.
My current game plan is to find an in-house job where I at least get my weekends to myself. I realize that seems like a humble hurdle to clear, but it's not so easy to leave the law in general, and, in particular, it's really difficult to leave a big firm and find a new job that doesn't involve a significant pay cut. Again, I realize this is a personal choice, but my goal in taking on the debt of law school was not to make the same salary I was making before I took the LSAT.
For what it's worth, this is my experience, along with some anecdotal evidence. I don't intend to influence your decision -- If you feel that law school is for you, do it. I know for me, despite my overwhelmingly negative experiences as a lawyer, the regret in not pursuing a degree would have been hard to swallow. Although my career malaise is not going down so easily, either.
Best of luck to you, and thank you for your service to our great nation.

Chester -- you say you like strategy and to make decisions. What about:

1) An MBA with a concentration in strategy and operations? I and many of my MBA classmates (many of whom were ex-military) now work at jobs with titles like "Director of Strategic Planning".

or

2) A public policy degree -- often called an MPA, MPPM, or some such. Curriculum is very similar to B-school, but with a focus on Policy decisions rather than business ones. I know may people who went this route and wound up in policy planning at various federal and state agencies.

And, as one of the other commenters suggetsed, you have a great interview advantage being ex-military. I (a civilian) used to interview MBA applicants at my school, and it was almost unfair. The ex-military folks always shook my hand, sat-up straight, looked me in the eye, and answered my questions directly. You'd be amazed how few of your competitors actually do this.

Chester,

Take many of these responses to heart. I am entering my third year of law school, and although in some ways I feel grateful for my current situation, I also have many regrets.

I think it wouldn't hurt to take the LSAT and see what options you have. That isn't such a big investment in time and money thatyou shouldn't take that initial step.

The debt is deadly serious, moreso than you probably can comprehend yet. I ended up going to a lesser school because of a 20k a year scholarship, and I still feel uncomfortable when I think about the debt I've racked up. You aren't just borrowing money for tuition, but for rent, food, etc. And although I am in the top third of my class, highly paid summer associate positions haven't been especially forthcoming. Hopefully an actual job will be more forthcoming.

The problem with law school is that it is a big gamble, at least at my school. A lot of it is bullshit, not all of it is merit based, and much of it is boring. And unless you really excel- by ending up in the top 10% to 25% of your class, you will find your opportunities even more limited. That isn't exactly promising. You wouldn't gamble on those odds.

I came out of undergrad with a stellar GPA and thinking I was hot shit- in law school I am mediocre, because everyone was hot shit with stellar GPAs. It is humbling. Grades seem scattershot- I will second the comment who said you will often not understand why you received some grades you did... I've gotten A's in classes where I never cracked the textbook and C's in classes where I studied my ass off.

If I had to give some advice to myself three years ago, I would implore myself to go to an economical state school or an Ivy League, and to really reconsider anything else.

I will throw my chips in with those that say law school isn't especially hard, it just requires a great deal of dedication, and some long nights for a few weeks leading up to exams. Doing it isn't hard. Paying for it and living with it seems like it is much harder. I see a lot of regrettable decisions looming on the horizon and I'm hoping I can navigate the right path for myself.

Good luck!