Is law school still attractive?

November 1, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Let’s face it – it’s not the best time to be coming out of law school. The students who just graduated got in just as the economy was beginning to take a nose dive, and those who are in school now have seen the prospect of getting a job after school decrease. Last year was the worst job market for law school graduates since the mid-1990s, according to the National Association for Law Placement.

This is reflected in a recent survey by law school admissions consulting firm Veritas Prep which found 68 percent of prospective law students said they’d still apply even though a lot of recent graduates haven’t been able to find jobs in their desired field. Just last year, 81 percent of those surveyed said they’d still go to law school.

The survey revealed that most were concerned with finding a job to help pay off the large amount of debt they’ll accumulate while in school. Student loans are a growing concern among prospective and current students because if you don’t have a job, you can’t pay it back. Who wants $70,000 or more of student debt (and that’s not even counting undergraduate loans) hanging over your head while unemployed?

In the Oct. 26 issue of Indiana Lawyer, reporter Jenny Montgomery talked to students around the state about how they feel regarding jobs and loans. Several of them are optimistic that they’ll be among the lucky ones to find a job after graduation.  Many are worried about how they’ll pay their massive amounts of debt.

“People are freaking out,” said Ellen Winterheimer, a 3L at Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis. “I think people are more concerned about paying off their loans, because at this point, we’re overqualified for certain jobs, but underqualified for a lot of legal jobs that are requiring three years of experience.”

Something else that jumped out to me in Montgomery’s story is one student said many lawyers tried to discourage her from attending law school. It reminded me of when I was deciding whether to major in journalism and several people in the profession semi-jokingly told me to look for another major. But I think they were serious.

Law students – if you could do it all over again, would you have still gone to law school? Would you have waited a few years to see if the economy rebounds? Practicing attorneys – what would you say to students who ask you if they should go to law school?
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Re law school
    Compared to my other profession - classical symphonic music - the law profession seems vigorous! I can't think of better, more flexible or adaptable training than we derive from a law degree. Perhaps one needs to examine the essential reason to go to law school (or medical school); making big money might not be the best initiator now! However, service still is important perhaps even more so in troubled times as these.
  • Not a Good Investment...
    And that's not just true for outgoing grads. I actually have right around 3 years of full-time experience, and it's been a long time since I was able to have full-time work. Based on job statistics, it's clear that a large number of law school grads will not be able to find work. Yet no one ever thinks they will be in that number. I know I never thought I would be. I went to a top national law school followed by a top national firm where I worked my tail off. I did everything I knew to do to earn job security. And yet here I am.
  • No way
    If you want to work hard, mess up your physical and emotional health, pile up on the debt, and find no decent job prospects upon graduation, and be treated like a leech, law school is for you. There already too many lawyers for fewer job openings. Financially, law school makes no sense. If you are going for the sakes of knowledge, by all means have a go at it, but just know that it's going to cost you a lot.

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. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT