Law school as an investment

November 16, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Should the decision of whether or not to go to law school be made just as one would when deciding what stocks to buy for their 401k or invest in an IRA? Professor Herwig Schlunk at Vanderbilt University Law School thinks so.

In his 12-page working paper, he sets up three scenarios of law students and whether or not it’s worth it for them to spend the money on a law degree. He’s got the Also Ran who got above average grades in a relatively nonmarketable major from a middle-of-the-pack school for his undergraduate degree. This person would get into a second or third rate law school and has little chance of landing a “big law” job. The Solid Performer got relatively good grades in a relatively marketable major from a better school and will make it into a low first- or high second-rate law school. The Solid Performer also has a better chance of landing a job at a big law firm.

Finally, Schlunk introduces us to Hot Prospect, who as the name suggests, got stellar grades in a very marketable major from a highly ranked school and will attend a first-rate law school and should land the big law job.

After going on about opportunity costs, investments, lost non-legal salaries, and throwing around other hypothetical numbers, Schlunk concludes the Also Rans shouldn’t bother to go to law school because it’s not a good investment. Solid Performers should think hard before choosing to become a lawyer and, Hot Prospects should have little qualms about investing in a J.D.

Of course, everyone’s experiences will be different, and if you are an Also Ran who happened to score grants or scholarships, then by all means go to law school.

Schlunk’s paper highlights a downside of law school: the costs and the time it takes to recoup the money you spent to get your degree. Law school has always been thought of as a fallback in case you don’t make it as a writer or you find out teaching just isn’t for you. But with the number of people in law school now, the shrinking number of jobs, and the bleak outlook on the immediate horizon, perhaps looking at going to law school as an investment will help some decide whether it’s right for them.

Of course, those who have a passion for the law would become attorneys regardless, but those on the fence may be better served by thinking of it in these terms.

You can read the paper through a link on the Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog, if you don’t want to download the paper. The link provided in the paper to view it online actually goes to a securities paper, which wouldn’t be very helpful for today’s post.
  • In other words, the legal profession is 100% about money. That, of course, is what its critics have long believed and said.
  • Trust a professor from Vanderbuilt to assume that a job in Big Law is the ultimate goal for every person entering law school. No doubt there are a number of folks who long for a position in a Big Firm. But, there will always be those who look for other things: public service, careers with family lives, helping those who can\'t pay Big Law fees, alternative legal careers, etc., etc., etc.

    Law School IS an investment. But, what you invest and how that investment pays mean something different to everyone. To suggest otherwise is the research equivalent to basing a brief on a statute without ever having checked the pocket part: looks the part but too shallow to be meaningful.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?