Law School Discussion

jd vs. mba

->Soon

  • *****
  • 18818
    • View Profile
Re: jd vs. mba
« Reply #20 on: May 10, 2007, 02:01:49 PM »
http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/10/markets/nyc_london/index.htm?postversion=2007051011


i wonder how this will affect the IB's and those living near the city...

Re: jd vs. mba
« Reply #21 on: May 10, 2007, 02:11:03 PM »
Regarding IB, there are some people with JDs.  But if you want to work in IB as an associate on up (industry groups, M&A, etc.) then for the most part you need a JD or MBA, cause a bachelor's degree won't cut it.  There are some 3rd year analysts who do get promoted straight up, but doesn't happen very often, especially because banks can choose from the top MBA programs.  Same for private equity on the buyside.

Having worked in IB, I would think an MBA is more useful than a JD because of the networking and connections made during the 2 year MBA program.  Especially if one wants to move around from firm to firm, its nice to know that you could drop your resume with a fellow alummus rather than going through HR.

Re: jd vs. mba
« Reply #22 on: May 10, 2007, 03:01:03 PM »
The answer depends on whether you actually prefer the law. If you go to law school, do it because you love the law, not because you want to get rich. If you're coming out of college, and your primary goal is to get rich, go to work at an investment bank, brokerage house, real-estate development firm, or computer-technology company and learn how that businesses works. While you're there, think about starting your own business or going to business school. 

Having been out of law school for a few years, I can't help but smile when I see so many people obsessed with the law-school admissions process. Unfortunately, the primary impetus for this competition appears to be money. The ironic truth, however, is that even the people who go to the most prestigious schools and work for the most prestigious firms very rarely get rich, and the few who do get rich will nevertheless wind up making salaries that are dwarfed by those of successful businessmen. Look at Forbes's list of the 400 richest Americans. How many practicing lawyers made the list? One. How many people from the finance, real estate, and computer-technology fields made the list? Hundreds.

Generally, law-school applicants fall into one of two categories: (1) those who have a genuine passion for the law; and (2) middle- and upper-middle-class kids who mistakenly think that practicing law is a good way to become rich. Of course, those who actually are rich know better. Indeed, very few children of the super rich go to law school, and even fewer go with the intention of practicing law. Why? Because they have no illusions regarding money.
 


I agree with what you said about being super rich.  If you want to be super rich law is not the way to go.  However, if you just want to be in the upper echelons of upper-middle class law is a more sure bet (imho) than being a doctor or investment banker, etc for most of the population because it requires a more broad and more easily acquired skill set. 

I think more people can hack law school than can hack med school and I think there are a lot of people that are numbers shy that think they could never go into banking but could see doing law an alternative.  In many ways law is the "safe" option for job security and money.

bamf

  • ****
  • 3361
  • legal eagle
    • View Profile
Re: jd vs. mba
« Reply #23 on: May 10, 2007, 03:14:54 PM »
The MBA is more of an all-purpose feather in your hat once you've been out in the business world for 2-10 years, or a mid-stream career changer into IB, IT, etc...

TITCR.  An MBA with no fulltime experience is no different than a b-school grad with no experience.  If you want to work in business get some work experience, and then if you feel you want to move upwards in management head to the MBA program.

In terms of comparing the two degrees, the JD is a degree that enables you to do a job that no one without that degree can do.  An MBA is just a resume builder, there to make you stand out from a bunch of other moderately-experienced applicants.
And while people on this board joke about TTT law schools not being worth it (I am not evaluating the value of that statement), the general opinion seems to be that TTT MBA programs are truly pretty worthless, unless you think you need to extra classes so that you can perform better once you do get into the working world.

Re: jd vs. mba
« Reply #24 on: May 10, 2007, 04:25:59 PM »
Somebody asked the question about why not a JD and a MBA and I actually was going to do this until very recently.  I decided not to for a couple of reasons.  One is if you are interested in working for a BigLaw firm I contacted a couple of firms that I would like to work for and they don't like hiring people with MBA and JD's because they don't feel like they are going to stick with the law firm for very long.  One firm that I talked to did say they don't actually look at it as a negative but they also don't really care much about it because they still are only going to look at your grades.  Maybe if you are going to be in house counsel at a company it could come in handy but I don't know.  Anyways that is just what I've found in my research but good luck to you whatever you end up deciding.

Hank Rearden

  • *****
  • 8241
  • Zurich is stained
    • View Profile
Re: jd vs. mba
« Reply #25 on: May 11, 2007, 01:08:16 AM »


I agree with what you said about being super rich.  If you want to be super rich law is not the way to go.  However, if you just want to be in the upper echelons of upper-middle class law is a more sure bet (imho) than being a doctor or investment banker, etc for most of the population because it requires a more broad and more easily acquired skill set. 



Define super rich?

Re: jd vs. mba
« Reply #26 on: May 11, 2007, 07:20:23 AM »


I agree with what you said about being super rich.  If you want to be super rich law is not the way to go.  However, if you just want to be in the upper echelons of upper-middle class law is a more sure bet (imho) than being a doctor or investment banker, etc for most of the population because it requires a more broad and more easily acquired skill set. 



Define super rich?

From the context of the original comment I took it to mean around $15 million or more.

Hank Rearden

  • *****
  • 8241
  • Zurich is stained
    • View Profile
Re: jd vs. mba
« Reply #27 on: May 11, 2007, 08:50:57 AM »


I agree with what you said about being super rich.  If you want to be super rich law is not the way to go.  However, if you just want to be in the upper echelons of upper-middle class law is a more sure bet (imho) than being a doctor or investment banker, etc for most of the population because it requires a more broad and more easily acquired skill set. 



Define super rich?

From the context of the original comment I took it to mean around $15 million or more.

You could go to law school and eventually earn that much, but I suppose you'd have to quit becoming a lawyer.   :D  Doesn't mean your legal training wasn't valuable in getting you that position though. 

Captain

  • ****
  • 3316
    • View Profile
    • http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/5526/thumbid5.jpg
Re: jd vs. mba
« Reply #28 on: May 11, 2007, 09:20:19 AM »


I agree with what you said about being super rich.  If you want to be super rich law is not the way to go.  However, if you just want to be in the upper echelons of upper-middle class law is a more sure bet (imho) than being a doctor or investment banker, etc for most of the population because it requires a more broad and more easily acquired skill set. 



Define super rich?

From the context of the original comment I took it to mean around $15 million or more.

You could go to law school and eventually earn that much, but I suppose you'd have to quit becoming a lawyer.   :D  Doesn't mean your legal training wasn't valuable in getting you that position though. 

Actually, a good plaintiff lawyer can make A LOT more than that. Class action suits take a long time, but you can make a lot of money. In bigger cases, the lawyer takes home more than a parner at Wachtell makes per-year. Of course, you ONLY get paid when you win a case...

Also, lets not forget the king-of-torts, Joe Jamail, who was worth $1.2 Billion dollars.

The owner of the Baltimore Orioles is also a trial lawyer from Maryland.

Hank Rearden

  • *****
  • 8241
  • Zurich is stained
    • View Profile
Re: jd vs. mba
« Reply #29 on: May 11, 2007, 09:23:07 AM »
Eh, I guess, but I was talking more about the Wachtell partners.  I think they top off around 10 mil per year.