Monday, May 03, 2004
This article makes it sound like law firm associate jobs in transactional work are the most cyclical and uncertain positions in a cyclical and uncertain field (albeit with big potential rewards). It is an interesting study of a field most people might have thought was relatively secure. Seems like people would rather work for banks or similar institutions rather than law firms, and when the economy gets tight those jobs dry up, which means people stay at their firms longer, which means the entry-level law firm jobs dry up. Of course, there are few entry-level legal jobs on the in-house side, so new transactional lawyers seem to get whip-sawed around as the economy moves.
Friday, April 30, 2004
Here's an interesting article about schools considering work experience as a plus for applicants.
Unfortunately, there is no real conclusion in the article. It's interesting to note a mainstream publication suggesting that law school may be a 'professional degree of least resistance' for many exceptionally bright students. I found it even more surprising that the article would implicitly suggest that three years and $150k of education would be the path of 'least resistance'.
Unfortunately, there is no real conclusion in the article. It's interesting to note a mainstream publication suggesting that law school may be a 'professional degree of least resistance' for many exceptionally bright students. I found it even more surprising that the article would implicitly suggest that three years and $150k of education would be the path of 'least resistance'.
The great career advice column at law.com has a slightly disturbing article about being a 'blacklisted' by major law firms. The gist of it is that if you work at a law firm for the summer after your 2L year but don't get a job then every other potential employer is going to see a huge black mark on your resume. I just can't believe that it is such a big deal, and I think this particular column only reinforces the anxiety most law students already have about getting jobs. I see a couple things wrong with the columnist's advice.
1) Great summer law firm jobs are not super easy to come by, and not all of the summer candidates get a full-time offer. So, there are tons of strong candidates who neither get a summer associate position or a follow-up offer. Viewing the failure to get either as a huge negative seems like an over-reaction.
2) The candidate referenced in the column is going to do two years of clerkships before going back to the law firm market. If they do a good job in their clerkships and get good references there is no way that the failure to get a job 2 1/2 years before that is going to impact their job search. Maybe a few firms would go back to the summer associate job, but most would be convinced by the clerkships and references from judges.
3) Frankly, the candidate does not need to explain why they 'didn't get an offer'. All they need to say in subsequent interviews is that the firm wasn't a good fit. Now, I'm sure they'll have to explain that position, but it shouldn't be tough - unless they're trying to work at a firm that aspires to be just like the firm where they got dinged.
Overall, the column tends to reinforce people's fears that they must be perfect to get a good job. I find that hard to believe. I am sure there are a few firms where only the most perfect candidates get hired, but there are plenty of other options for people with a few gray marks on their resumes. I fear that this kind of attitude that assumes perfection is the only way to have a good career is the type of attitude that leaves many lawyers feeling unhappy and depressed about their lives.
1) Great summer law firm jobs are not super easy to come by, and not all of the summer candidates get a full-time offer. So, there are tons of strong candidates who neither get a summer associate position or a follow-up offer. Viewing the failure to get either as a huge negative seems like an over-reaction.
2) The candidate referenced in the column is going to do two years of clerkships before going back to the law firm market. If they do a good job in their clerkships and get good references there is no way that the failure to get a job 2 1/2 years before that is going to impact their job search. Maybe a few firms would go back to the summer associate job, but most would be convinced by the clerkships and references from judges.
3) Frankly, the candidate does not need to explain why they 'didn't get an offer'. All they need to say in subsequent interviews is that the firm wasn't a good fit. Now, I'm sure they'll have to explain that position, but it shouldn't be tough - unless they're trying to work at a firm that aspires to be just like the firm where they got dinged.
Overall, the column tends to reinforce people's fears that they must be perfect to get a good job. I find that hard to believe. I am sure there are a few firms where only the most perfect candidates get hired, but there are plenty of other options for people with a few gray marks on their resumes. I fear that this kind of attitude that assumes perfection is the only way to have a good career is the type of attitude that leaves many lawyers feeling unhappy and depressed about their lives.
Monday, April 12, 2004
This article is a great reason why I do not listen to Suze Orman. If you don't know Suze, she is a relatively famous talking-head personal finance commentator. I was watching pbs the other day and they were showing a speech Suze was making to a packed theater about personal finance. I bet the people paid to attend the speech, which would have been good for Suze's personal finances.
Now, back to the article. One of the major premises is that it is important to make an extra payment on your mortgage each year to pay it off faster. Now, that sounds like pretty good advice, but Suze glosses over the fact that paying down low-interest debt might not be the best use of your money. The truth is that if you've got a big loan then it might be better to put that extra yearly payment into savings rather than pay down the loan. Paying down the loan might make you feel good, but do lawyers really have feelings?
Here's a quick example of why Suze isn't the final authority here, and I'll use student loans rather than a mortgage. Now, let's say that a student graduates with $120k in loans, and the interest rate is 5.5%. That is about $1300/month in payments. If our hypothetical student makes an extra payment every year the loan will be paid off in a little over 9 years. However, if the student takes the extra payment and puts it someplace with an 8% return (index fund?), then after the same time period they will have enough to pay off the loan balance, plus they will have $1,700 in pocket money left over. Hello Bahamas!. If the student gets an 11% return then they could pay off the loan two months earlier than our extra-payment-sender and still have over 800 bucks left for a year of Starbucks. Taxes might close the gap, but not if the loan interest is also deductible. Investing the money would also entail more risk, but could have more reward if the return is higher.
There are not many times in life when you get extraordinarily cheap money. Law school is one of those times, especially if you can consolidate the loans at a low rate after graduation. Now, if you have enough money to save an extra thousand or two every year, would you rather invest it in a guaranteed return at your low student loan rate or try to build your wealth by taking advantage of the cheap government loans?
Now, back to the article. One of the major premises is that it is important to make an extra payment on your mortgage each year to pay it off faster. Now, that sounds like pretty good advice, but Suze glosses over the fact that paying down low-interest debt might not be the best use of your money. The truth is that if you've got a big loan then it might be better to put that extra yearly payment into savings rather than pay down the loan. Paying down the loan might make you feel good, but do lawyers really have feelings?
Here's a quick example of why Suze isn't the final authority here, and I'll use student loans rather than a mortgage. Now, let's say that a student graduates with $120k in loans, and the interest rate is 5.5%. That is about $1300/month in payments. If our hypothetical student makes an extra payment every year the loan will be paid off in a little over 9 years. However, if the student takes the extra payment and puts it someplace with an 8% return (index fund?), then after the same time period they will have enough to pay off the loan balance, plus they will have $1,700 in pocket money left over. Hello Bahamas!. If the student gets an 11% return then they could pay off the loan two months earlier than our extra-payment-sender and still have over 800 bucks left for a year of Starbucks. Taxes might close the gap, but not if the loan interest is also deductible. Investing the money would also entail more risk, but could have more reward if the return is higher.
There are not many times in life when you get extraordinarily cheap money. Law school is one of those times, especially if you can consolidate the loans at a low rate after graduation. Now, if you have enough money to save an extra thousand or two every year, would you rather invest it in a guaranteed return at your low student loan rate or try to build your wealth by taking advantage of the cheap government loans?
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
The New York Times has a great article about using computers to create mathematical proofs, which is sort of related to law because the computers really only provide evidence that a mathematical proof is true, but can't show that it MUST be true. However, the researchers still pretty much accept the computer analysis as proof even though it is too hard to check every last calculation.
The article makes me wonder whether some fields of evidence might be so complicated and/or difficult to verify that they don't get enough scrutiny. The NYT article mentions other computer-assisted proofs were found to have significant errors, but it took a long time and lots of experts to find them. I wonder how much scientific legal evidence that is accepted as near-fact would stand up to the kind of long-term and intensive peer review used by the mathematicians.
The article makes me wonder whether some fields of evidence might be so complicated and/or difficult to verify that they don't get enough scrutiny. The NYT article mentions other computer-assisted proofs were found to have significant errors, but it took a long time and lots of experts to find them. I wonder how much scientific legal evidence that is accepted as near-fact would stand up to the kind of long-term and intensive peer review used by the mathematicians.
