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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT