Big dreams, small salaries

February 13, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Update: The jobs in politics seminar has moved from March 11 to April 8.

From IL reporter Rebecca Berfanger, who attended a session of the Alternative Legal Career series at Indiana University Maurer School of Law - Bloomington this week.

During a discussion about careers in marketing, communications, publishing, development, and consulting Feb. 11, six panelists explained how their career paths twisted and turned to get them where they are.

The panelists made many valid points, including:

- Find a job that makes you smile everyday.

- Consider your values, including how much time you want to spend with your family.

- Network with a diverse group of people from your life and in multiple cities.

- Talk to someone in a job you’d like to have.

- Volunteer for something you like; it may lead to contacts or new interests.

- Be open to any and all new opportunities.

- Take heart the job you have right out of school may not be your “forever” job.

So when I asked the panel for advice for students who have large loan payments who want to go into a career that pays only a fraction of the starting salaries at the large law firms, I wondered if the students were also curious about this.

Panelist Robyn M.H. Schuster, the law school’s assistant dean for communications and marketing gave a good answer – that students should consider a repayment option based on income.

My hope for anyone with an interest in this field is they have a realistic understanding of how little these jobs tend to pay – no one does this for the money. And take it from someone with her master’s in journalism – an advanced degree doesn’t necessarily mean a bigger paycheck; it just means you might need to explain how your school work applies to the job and that it wasn’t just “time off.” Not to mention these jobs are highly competitive, considering the large number of jobless journalists out there.

But if you’re persistent and follow the guidelines above, and don’t mind a small apartment (or roommate) and pot pie dinners every once in a while, it’s not so bad.

The alternative legal careers series has included a panel about jobs in banking and finance. Future panel topics include jobs in higher education, Feb. 25; and jobs in politics, March 11. All are free and open to the public at the law school’s Bloomington court room at 211 S. Indiana Ave., noon to 1 p.m.

A story about the subject will be in a future Indiana Lawyer. If you’d like to weigh in, e-mail me at rberfanger@ibj.com.

The audio of this panel discussion is now available online and worth a listen: http://www.law.indiana.edu/media/digital/20090211_ocpd_alternatives_24m.mp3
ADVERTISEMENT
  • I thought that the panelists gave good advice, but sometimes I would like to hear from someone with average credentials like myself - it seems like often the speakers have top notch academic credentials which led to a stellar first legal job which led to other career options. I want to hear from the guy like me - middle of the class, some experience, involved in extracurriculars, but lacking the top 10% credentials that set up others for success...
  • some of my post got cut -

    I want to hear how the average guy/girl has faired in the legal market and in particular, the floundering economy.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT