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.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • 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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT