In a brief post, Paul Caron at TaxProf Blog writes:
A Kaplan survey of 1,949 students taking the LSAT lists the reasons they want to go to law school:
- 73%: Enable them to have a high income
- 42% (52% of men, 34% of women): Prepare them for a political career
That’s it.
Much time has been spent addressing the dissatisfaction of law students and young lawyers. I’ve tried. Others have too.
When a stat like 73% of students say they want to go to law school for the money, two things become abundantly clear. There will be massive dissatisfaction when they learn that not everyone will be a candidate to read Above the Law every day to see how high their bonus will go. Not a Tier 1 grad? Not a law review editor? Then you are going to have a problem.
But even if you climb the big money mountain of Biglaw, get that massive $200k+ paycheck with concierge service, and earn that beloved money that will safely place you in the middle of the pack of the well-to-do, you will learn a truth that eludes most children. Wealth is not the end of the road. You still won’t like the work of being a lawyer.
The old adage is “rich or poor, it’s good to have money.” Absolutely. But it’s not enough. Once you have it, and are able to climb another rung on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, you are going to find yourself miserable again. And since you are likely to have a long life ahead of you, that misery will extend for a very long time.
Even the students who don’t achieve the “high income” that they mistakenly believe comes with putting “Esq.” after your name, and who earn enough to be comfortable and relatively happy, have to deal with the fact that they will be expected to do the work of being a lawyer.
If that’s not for you, and it’s not for everyone, what’s your plan B? There is a lot of griping about changing the way law is practiced, and much of it has merit. But it’s not going to change what lawyers actually do. It may make the balance work better, if it ever happened, but that’s not really the problem. You must first like doing the work of being a lawyer.
Now Law Schools, it’s your turn to step up. You send out tons of law porn to seduce students to apply. Do any of the glossy photos show young lawyers sitting in libraries alone in the middle of the night looking miserable? Do any show lawyers unable to make the lease payment on that Mercedes convertible?
A very high value is placed on intelligence. How do you value desire? How do you value an appreciation of the tasks that lawyers perform in the course of being a lawyer? Do they come into law school thinking that their days will be spent being Perry Mason, or trying to get a rise out of Justice Thomas? Do you vet these inchoate lawyers to make sure they have a clue what they’re getting into?
Why care about this? Because lawyers play an important and necessary role in the continuing viability of society. And if they are miserable doing so, or are disappointed with their lives, they aren’t going to fulfill that role very well. They will be bad lawyers. They will engage in impropriety to get that extra buck. They will put self-interest, personal happiness, above their responsibility to clients and the law.
Sure, the law is hardly what it’s cracked up to be anymore. Lawyers are accused of being greedy and incompetent. There’s a reason why people feel this way about lawyers. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to prevent this from continuing. “An ounce of prevention” sort of thing? If there was ever any doubt about the reason for young people seeking a career in law, this statistic should be a pretty smack across the kisser. Did anybody else feel it?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think the statistic is slightly misleading. The Kaplan rep says that 73% of students listed a high income as “one of the reasons” they’re going to law school. If that’s all it takes, I’m surprised the number isn’t higher.
I work with a lot of pre-law students and the way the market is right now, most of them are going so that they have a better shot of getting a job and because law school is one of the more reliable and accessible forms of grad school. With grad school becoming more of a necessity lately, they’re trying to guarantee a more stable income.
However, I do think there is a real problem with the misleading information that’s given to law and pre-law students. (I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: top tier guarantees nothing.) But Career Services types are so driven by keeping their stats up that they wouldn’t dare feed their students a dose of reality.
The link from Paul’s post goes to the general Kaplan website, and I haven’t found the survey itself as yet, so I don’t know if the stat reflects one of many reasons, the only reason or the primary reason. But regardless of which one it is, they clearly believe that they are going to do far better than “have a better shot of getting a job.” I don’t think that’s the measure of their interest in the law.
What if they were told that there is a 92% likelihood that they will never earn more than the national medium income, and a 27% likelihood that they will earn less. Would they still want to be lawyers?
Scott, this is an excellent post. I agree with ‘one of the reasons’ and agree with Maggie about the need for graduate school and perceived stability. But it is just that, a perception, and you are correct. It attracts people who lack the knoweldge of what practicing law is really about and I think this contributes to the high rate of depression, the concept of the golden handcuff and another phenomenon…once you are a lawyer you are professionally branded, meaning if you try to change your careers, somehow you have fallen off this ‘mountain’ and are a failure…couldn’t cut it. It is not helped by all the law school propaganda, the $160,000 associate’s salaries highly publicized. I would like to seen an honest 360 degree portrait of the profession and it would take honesty from the schools. But as we teach in marketing, identify your ideal client. If they would start identifying their ideal client as not anyone who has a check for tuition and is smart but someone who has demonstrated commitment to law and society, maybe then honesty wouldn’t be so hard and they would still profit. But I’m dreaming, I know.
Hey, did you see the job posting for a visiting crim law professor at DePaul? C’mon, you know you want it! 🙂 The link is in my sidebar.
Grest point about being professionally branded. Thanks Susan.
And you’re keeping tabs on openings for crim law profs why? Eh?
Some blog whose feed I subscribe to posted about it, so I ‘shared’ it so that you could see it 😉 You know you want to do it. This is practically a prawfsblawg itself.
“This is practically a prawfsblawg itself.”
I’m hurt. I’m deeply hurt. Jim Chen, come defend me. Tell that nasty Gideon that I’m not lawprof material!
I agree 100% with Susan’s post, especially the part about honestly from the law schools. My alma mater advirtisings that their have an average starting salary of 65K. If you’re one of those people going to law school because you think its your ticket to instant riches, that sounds great.
Of course, its only after the law school has taken your money, do they get around to telling you that average starting salary is inflated by starting 6 figure salaries reserved for a select few people.
Prof. Greenfield. Man, you could be a legend. They’d make movies about you that 1Ls would watch.
Now that’s a thought. He would do for Criminal Law what Kingsfield did for Contracts. Scare the lights out of them.
Who in Hollywood could imitate Greenfield in the lead?
I’m thinking Robert Redford. We look so much alike.
I’d love to see Jean Claude Van Damme do it.
Too wholesome. Both of them. But Scott Ridley should direct.
Who am I, Darth Vader?
That’s Professor Darth Vader.
Be careful now. This survey may not be all that it seems.
Here’s how Kaplan conducted the survey: In the hours after a test administration (in this case, the December administration), Kaplan solicits, by e-mail, the responses of LSAT test-takers WHO HAVE TAKEN A KAPLAN LSAT PREP COURSE.
I have a few friends who took such courses, and they all received the e-mail solicitation to take the questionnaire, which included (among other thigns) questions on post-law school political aspirations and any financial motivations behind the decision to attend law school.
Indeed, USC’s “Daily Trojan” article (http://media.www.dailytrojan.com/media/storage/paper679/news/2008/02/20/News/Study.Gender.Gap.In.Law.Students.Goals-3221748.shtml) mentions, “The results are based on the responses of 1,949 students STUDYING FOR THE LSAT WITH KAPLAN,” (my emphasis).
What does this methodology mean for study validity? Well, it means the survey results are skewed due to sample bias.
First, collecting responses by e-mail means that the survey sample is self-selecting: a ripe opportunity for sample bias.
Second (and perhaps more importantly), the sample includes ONLY Kaplan prep-course takers – people who can afford a prep-course’s 4-digit pricetag (not a typo: one, two, three, FOUR-digit pricetag), i.e. the spoiled brat children of fabulously wealthy parents.
So here’s my point: if the survey respondents are all rich kids, is it any surprise they’re in it for the money or power? That parental pressure has encouraged them to be a doctor or lawyer rather than a sociology professor or musician? I don’t doubt that too many kids go to law school for the wrong reasons, but this study hardly shines any credible light on the matter.
On an unrelated note, will you please sign me in to CrimLaw w/Professor Darth Vader?
Slow down there, buckaroo. Two points to add into your equation. First is that almost all students who have taken the LSATs want to answer a survey, if for no other reason than to let Kaplan know how much the love/hate them afterward. Yes, self selection always causes some sample bias, but that can be statistically covered.
As for only rich kids taking LSAT prep course, forget it. Everybody takes these courses today. They take course for SATs to go along with their private tutors. That’s the world today, and that’s the universe of potential law students. Anybody who doesn’t take a course for the LSATs is seriously out of touch. I mean totally bonkers. Wacko. INSANE! So this is about as normal a sample as you’re going to get for potential law students.
Uh, you do plan on taking a course, right OS?
It’s too bad Richard Boone is dead. He’d’ve been perfect for the role.
Perfect!
“What are the facts of Mirand v. Arizona, kid?”
I don’t know. Not that my universe is all that representative, but the wealthier of my friends took courses, and the student-loans crew bought practice books at the Dollar Store. Perhaps this is a Long Island phenomenon? I can’t imagine that a prep course fits the typical prospective law student’s budget.
But I could be wrong. It happens from time to time.
As for me taking the course, my offer to take it if you teach it stands.
just curious – what do you consider to be the true work of a lawyer? What are those essential tasks?
anonymous commenter from a listerv – with permission:
Old or young – I think money plays a big role in people’s decision to go to law school. Some people don’t even realize it. They are working as middle management in some soul draining corporation and realizing they’ll never move up from the cherry wood desk to oak. That’s when they start feeling they want a job with more prestige. They think being a lawyer will come with that prestige but in actuality that only comes with money. Most people don’t want to be an attorney. They want to be a high powered attorney who swills scotch and smokes $40 cigars like they see on Boston Legal.
Most of that never materializes – though I suppose to some extent it does. I definitely get a different response at chamber of commerce events now than I did when I worked at the Hallmark Channel. In reality I had far more power and responsibility at Hallmark. The rest of the world watches Boston Legal too.
I think the profession as a whole would be better off without it. I wish I could have filmed my day last Saturday to show to prospective law students. Because I don’t truly believe that when they think about being a lawyer they think about spending 14 hours on a Saturday piecing together a trial memo that details the intricacies of factoring defined benefit plans for a judge who doesn’t care and digging through a dozen boxes of discovery to pull exhibits at 2 a.m. Either you like the feeling of knowing your hard work is what discovered the asset list the adverse party created in 1986 showing his complete net worth (down to the items in his refrigerator – I wish every adverse had OCD)
Which is why I think a lot of lawyers do become greedy and predatory. If you don’t like the work and you are facing a lifetime of doing it then the impulse is to cash in. Go for broke. Sue a corporation for anything remotely feasible. Chase an ambulance all the way to the hospital. If you can’t enjoy your life then you may as well enjoy your lifestyle.
Law schools should have an obligation to make that clearer to applicants. It’s not like any of them are lacking applications. Why not weed out people who just don’t know what they are getting themselves into and will be bad for the profession before they ever begin? As it is now lawyers are becoming a dime a dozen. Soon word will be out that it isn’t as glamorous as it is on TV and the imprimatur that comes with those little letters .esq will be gone. Then applications will dwindle and the schools themselves will be in trouble. Law school is dangerously close to being a trade school for people who are too stupid to realize that if they just want to make money they’re in the wrong profession. Investment bankers aren’t working for justice or because it is a calling. They do it because they make a ton of money.
The sad part is that those being drawn to law for the money are the ones who are tarnishing the profession and, as a result, taking the money out of it.
I have an idea! Those of us that still have our LS applications, dig them out, read the essays, and blawg about them!! What did we write, (and what didn’t we write), and what did we expect. And after passing the bar, what happened?? How were our expectations dashed? Or fulfilled?
Dunno if I still have mine. I did run across my bar application when I moved a couple years ago.
What 2d Lt. Wales Now Knows
It’s easy to be fascinated by Royalty when they represent figureheads one ocean away.
Just graduated law school in 2006. I’d estimate about half my class took an LSAT prep course. I did the practice test available for free from LSAC, then took the LSAT a few days later. I figured that if I needed extra (expensive) help to do well, then law school wasn’t for me. Many of my classmates felt the same way.