4 ms·

A big difference between the software development and the legal world, alluded to in the article, is that the legal world is the most snobby, credential bound f

A big difference between the software development and the legal world, alluded to in the article, is that the legal world is the most snobby, credential bound field I've ever observed. While I've occasional seen developers express frustration that this or that employer strongly prefers graduates of a particular school -- by and large if you have a string of accomplishments all doors are open to you. The legal field is the exact opposite. There are entire career paths that are simply only available to those that attended one of a handful of law schools (the legal academy being perhaps the worst).

samfisher83 11y ago
I don't know about that. Going to standford, MIT, Harvard, etc. really helps you get ahead. Look at the Google executive list and their schools.
- scrollaway 11y ago
  Selection bias? The credentials of the type of people hired to be in such positions help those people get in those positions. Even without "discrimination" so to say, when you get hired right off uni instead of spending a few years freelancing or being a code monkey at some random shop, it makes a tremendous amount of difference to your career...
- Spooky23 11y ago
  That's just a legal means of hiring people like you. You can't screen for people who look like you or originated from the same place, but you can narrowly focus recruitment.
ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
You can't deny a Stanford CS degree will go further at pedigree obsessed firms (like Google) than a Humboldt State CS degree.
- morgante 11y ago
  Sure, a top-tier degree will absolutely help you get a leg up. But there are law firms who pretty much only hire top 5 graduates. This is different from even Google, where a Stanford degree might help but there are still plenty of self-taught or non-Ivy developers.
  - Scoundreller 11y ago
    Because when choosing a search engine, nobody would care if it said "Brought to you by top 5 grads", while in law, that gets customers to pay top dollar. Maybe people care more about outcomes when they're spending their own time instead of someone else's money?
    - cossatot 11y ago
      I think it has more to do with quality (and bullshit) detection. If a search engine sucks, it's pretty easy to try a different one and see if the results are better. If you get hosed in a law suit, it's not as clear that the outcome would have been better with a different firm. Pedigrees matter a lot more when it's hard to directly evaluate the quality of the output so decision makers default to signalling.
- e40 11y ago
  Did you miss the by and large if you have a string of accomplishments all doors are open to you part?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Bluestrike2 11y ago
If you ask someone from a top firm, the advice you'll get is that law school is a great option if you're able to get into a tier one law school and can reasonably expect to be in the top ten percent of your class. There's a bit more wiggle room if you're at one of the top ten schools, but not much. Absent that, you're not getting hired by one of the big law firms that pay enough to make any progress towards paying off your student loans. You'll be lucky if you're able to keep up with the payments. If you're stuck in a shit contract review job, like a lot of new graduates are, you're screwed ten ways to Sunday. Some regional firms recruit from lower-ranked schools that are located nearby, but in some ways, the competition for those few spots is even worse. Needless to say, I'm glad that I changed my mind about going to law school.
- bradleyjg 11y ago
  Even if you win you lose, because those top firm jobs tend to be brutal quality of life wise. There are legal jobs that have good work-life balance, involve interesting work, pay decently (if not great), don't require you to hustle for clients, and are fairly well thought of by society at large: federal court judge and tenured law professor. For both it would behoove you to go to Yale or failing that Harvard. (Keep in mind when looking at these links, Yale's class size is about 1/3 Harvard's.) http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2004/04/where_federal_j.html http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2004/04/where_federal_... http://lsolum.blogspot.com/archives/2004_07_01_lsolum_archive.html#108912594144211701 http://lsolum.blogspot.com/archives/2004_07_01_lsolum_archiv...
- rhino369 11y ago
  You cannot reasonably expect to be in the top ten percent of your class. It's different from science, cs, and engineering classes. First, because the LSAT is pretty good at matching you with classmates who are similar ability. There are definitely exceptions but you have no idea if you are one. Second, the law school environment makes everyone compete at a high level. It's not a cs class where half the class is more interested in their side projects or finding a date for the house party Friday. Third, the classes are graded on a bell curve and the tests are subjective. Even if you know 100% of the rules, you won't get 100%. The exams are pure application of rules. You argue for and against liability/guilt/etc. Plus the whole field sucks.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

samfisher83 11y ago

I don't know about that. Going to standford, MIT, Harvard, etc. really helps you get ahead. Look at the Google executive list and their schools.

scrollaway 11y ago
Selection bias? The credentials of the type of people hired to be in such positions help those people get in those positions. Even without "discrimination" so to say, when you get hired right off uni instead of spending a few years freelancing or being a code monkey at some random shop, it makes a tremendous amount of difference to your career...
Spooky23 11y ago
That's just a legal means of hiring people like you. You can't screen for people who look like you or originated from the same place, but you can narrowly focus recruitment.

ZanyProgrammer 11y ago

You can't deny a Stanford CS degree will go further at pedigree obsessed firms (like Google) than a Humboldt State CS degree.

morgante 11y ago
Sure, a top-tier degree will absolutely help you get a leg up. But there are law firms who pretty much only hire top 5 graduates. This is different from even Google, where a Stanford degree might help but there are still plenty of self-taught or non-Ivy developers.
- Scoundreller 11y ago
  Because when choosing a search engine, nobody would care if it said "Brought to you by top 5 grads", while in law, that gets customers to pay top dollar. Maybe people care more about outcomes when they're spending their own time instead of someone else's money?
  - cossatot 11y ago
    I think it has more to do with quality (and bullshit) detection. If a search engine sucks, it's pretty easy to try a different one and see if the results are better. If you get hosed in a law suit, it's not as clear that the outcome would have been better with a different firm. Pedigrees matter a lot more when it's hard to directly evaluate the quality of the output so decision makers default to signalling.
e40 11y ago
Did you miss the by and large if you have a string of accomplishments all doors are open to you part?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Bluestrike2 11y ago

If you ask someone from a top firm, the advice you'll get is that law school is a great option if you're able to get into a tier one law school and can reasonably expect to be in the top ten percent of your class. There's a bit more wiggle room if you're at one of the top ten schools, but not much. Absent that, you're not getting hired by one of the big law firms that pay enough to make any progress towards paying off your student loans. You'll be lucky if you're able to keep up with the payments. If you're stuck in a shit contract review job, like a lot of new graduates are, you're screwed ten ways to Sunday. Some regional firms recruit from lower-ranked schools that are located nearby, but in some ways, the competition for those few spots is even worse. Needless to say, I'm glad that I changed my mind about going to law school.

bradleyjg 11y ago
Even if you win you lose, because those top firm jobs tend to be brutal quality of life wise. There are legal jobs that have good work-life balance, involve interesting work, pay decently (if not great), don't require you to hustle for clients, and are fairly well thought of by society at large: federal court judge and tenured law professor. For both it would behoove you to go to Yale or failing that Harvard. (Keep in mind when looking at these links, Yale's class size is about 1/3 Harvard's.) http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2004/04/where_federal_j.html http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2004/04/where_federal_... http://lsolum.blogspot.com/archives/2004_07_01_lsolum_archive.html#108912594144211701 http://lsolum.blogspot.com/archives/2004_07_01_lsolum_archiv...
rhino369 11y ago
You cannot reasonably expect to be in the top ten percent of your class. It's different from science, cs, and engineering classes. First, because the LSAT is pretty good at matching you with classmates who are similar ability. There are definitely exceptions but you have no idea if you are one. Second, the law school environment makes everyone compete at a high level. It's not a cs class where half the class is more interested in their side projects or finding a date for the house party Friday. Third, the classes are graded on a bell curve and the tests are subjective. Even if you know 100% of the rules, you won't get 100%. The exams are pure application of rules. You argue for and against liability/guilt/etc. Plus the whole field sucks.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]