5 ms·

who again here said engineering work pays well?

by b20000 6y ago

bpodgursky 6y ago
You're comparing the top .01% of law grads to a mental ballpark of the "average" engineer salary.
- Fezzik 6y ago
  This is absolutely correct. Most people who graduate from law school and pass the bar go in to middling salaried jobs. If they even practice law at all. Most entry level legal jobs pay very little compared to the top tier gigs. Said from the perspective of a lawyer ten-years into practicing.
- ls612 6y ago
  Exactly. IIRC there are about 90k law school graduates a year and just under 40 SCOTUS clerks a year. Do the math and you get that these clerks are the top .04% of the new lawyers each year. I’ll bet the top 0.04% of engineers with a couple years experience can definitely make similar money.
  - unnouinceput 6y ago
    The top 0.04% engineers are probably multi-millionaires. But that doesn't detract from the fact that Lawyer together with Banker is quite a good profession financially speaking.
    - bialpio 6y ago
      No-one is saying they are not good, but I've read the top-level comment as implying they are better than software engineering, and after reading responses in the thread I'm not convinced that this is the case.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      In general, I would not say that Lawyer is a good profession due to the high degree of variance. The top 10% land big law positions starting ~180k, the bottom 10% of grad are unemployed, and most of the rest make about 50-60K/yr and have 200k of debt https://data.lawschooltransparency.com/jobs/salaries/ https://data.lawschooltransparency.com/jobs/salaries/
    - b20000 6y ago
      As an engineer, to become a multi-millionaire, you need to get "lucky" by your small share of equity suddenly being worth a lot because of an acquisition or IPO. If that doesn't happen, you're not going to be a multi-millionaire. As a lawyer, you can easily become a multi-millionaire simply by doing your job at a respected law firm, and that doesn't require an acquisition or IPO event.
      - ls612 6y ago
        The top few fractions of a percent of engineers can become at least a principal engineer at a FAANG and be getting well over 500k a year in comp, similar to the numbers being thrown around for these clerks. That was mainly my point, not talking about startup exits.
- timwilder 6y ago
  The selection funnel for these folks is utterly insane. Arguably some of the smartest individuals at what they do that have existed in human history. Not a fair comparison to average engineers for sure.
  - coathrowaway 6y ago
    Hi, former Federal Court of Appeals clerk here. Posting partially because I didn't quite make it to SCOTUS clerk (and am a little bitter), but also partially because I am a subject matter expert in this area. I will say that the full funnel from high school -> SCOTUS clerk requires nothing resembling being one of the "smartest individuals at what they do that have existed in human history." This is perhaps one of the biggest overstatements I have ever seen on Hacker News. While it does certainly require some relatively high-ish bar of aptitude and intelligence, it is in large part more related to one's ability to grind hard at work and have a huge amount of luck and connections gained from that luck/hard grinding.
    - wombatmobile 6y ago
      Thank you for sharing that insight, coathrowaway. From your experience of nearly making it to SCOTUS clerk, can you, in retrospect, say what was required to make it? More harder grinding? Different connections? Luck? Are there any shortcuts?
      - coathrowaway 6y ago
        Hi, thanks for asking. On average it's required to go to a top law school, get top grades, get on the law review, and to get a senior position on the law review in one's third year. These things aren't really a function of rote intelligence, but a lot of grinding and luck, especially with respect to grades where things at most schools are on a curve where one person's A means another person has to get a B, even if they had similar, A-quality work. With those things as a given, in the end the filter is who is willing to go to bat for you (and a lot of luck). The usual process is to get to know and impress a well known law professor. Make sure they know who you are. They will go to bat for you to get into a clerkship with a well known Federal District Court judge. Impress that judge and after a year, they will go to bat for you to get a clerkship for a well known COA justice/Circuit, who will then hopefully feed into a SCOTUS clerkship. To give a concrete example: One might do well at Stanford Law School and impress some professors who get to know you and write recommendation letters for you to apply to clerkships through the OSCAR system. One is sufficiently impressed with you that they're willing to give their friend and former clerkship boss Judge Alsup at the Northern District of California a call and recommend you more personally. Judge Alsup accepts you as a federal court clerk and you do well, working very hard. You decide to apply to COA clerkships the following year. Judge Alsup is sufficiently impressed with you that they're willing to give their friend Merrick Garland (to use someone whose name you've heard, but who is also a well known SCOTUS feeder justice) a call. You then impress Justice Garland after a year and they, along with Judge Alsup and your professor who just happened to clerk for Justice Breyer, are all willing to support your application to be a SCOTUS clerk for Justice Breyer. They all put in personal recommendations with Justice Breyer, who takes them seriously because they're serious, well known people with great reputations. With a lot of luck, even with these connections, you can get accepted to be a SCOTUS clerk. So I would argue once you have the given grades, law school, and law review membership, it really is about connections. But not in the "my father used to golf with that justice" sort of connections, more trusted connections because you've built a relationship with the connection through hard work and a willingness to work nearly nonstop. But even more importantly, someone who has connections to people who have connections, who have connections to SCOTUS justices. However, even the absolutely best situated candidates don't have a more than average shot at success at their SCOTUS clerkship application. But this isn't a one way street. People typically only recommend you if you have impressed them and they think you'll do well, because then the next node will take their recommendation again in the future, and it's a sought after position to be able to say Judge Alsup often hires people you recommend, and it's sought after for Judge Alsup to be able to say Merrick Garland takes his recommendations on who to hire, and so on.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
notsuoh 6y ago
Law salaries are very bimodal. Effectively you either make $40k or $160k. The average career of the lower salary person is pretty long and can be soul crushing, making $60-75k after a decade or two of public defender or prosecutorial work. The average career of the $160k person is to work for 3-6 years ratcheting up pay to $220k and then getting pushed out into non legal work. Long tail for the former is to jump to private practice as an of counsel or partner and make $200-400k in a smaller to mid sized firm, and similar in the case of the latter, moving over to of counsel and keep relatively the higher level of pay or move up to partner and make significantly more. It's not like engineer salaries where there's some normal distribution. And of it were, you're comparing people who have the fancy titles at large companies (Principal Eng at Google I think?) to the long tail of law grads. For reference, the low end of salaries tends to be public defender, local/state prosecutors, insurance defense / document review, the higher end is almost all large law firms, and the middle that makes up only a small percentage of grads are well-for-the-region paying small to medium firms and federal government. Arguably for longevity for law for salary and potential the best option is federal government law where someone makes $75k to start and ratchets up to $165k over 20 years.
- torstenvl 6y ago
  This is accurate. I started at $160k at a large law firm, then left to work for the government. Ten years later I don't make as much as when I left the firm, but I'm much happier.
- pgwhalen 6y ago
  As of a few years ago, the starting big law salary has moved up to $190k from $160k. Otherwise this comment is correct.
  - b20000 6y ago
    No-one in engineering fresh out of school starts at $190K as far as I know, not even in the bay area. So there you go.
- b20000 6y ago
  Engineering is soul crushing too, not everyone makes decent salaries in the bay area or elsewhere, engineers have zero social status, unlike lawyers. There is no "normal distribution". And don't forget that as a lawyer, you don't face the type of age discrimination that engineers deal with, and you don't have to "relearn" your tools every few years because something else is now in fashion. Law stays mostly what it is, and the tools don't change. Obviously you have to keep "up to date" with the law, but that's it.
samatman 6y ago
I say so. Go work for Jane Street if you don't believe me. That's the nearest equivalent to being a former Supreme Court clerk I could think of. In either profession, it's nice up at the top.
fractionalhare 6y ago
It does pay well, objectively speaking. I share this every opportunity I can: https://levels.fyi https://levels.fyi. Even if you leave the sphere of big public tech companies and unicorns on the coasts, software engineering typically pays well above the median job in each area of the country.

who again here said engineering work pays well?

by b20000 6y ago

who again here said engineering work pays well?

bpodgursky 6y ago

You're comparing the top .01% of law grads to a mental ballpark of the "average" engineer salary.

Fezzik 6y ago
This is absolutely correct. Most people who graduate from law school and pass the bar go in to middling salaried jobs. If they even practice law at all. Most entry level legal jobs pay very little compared to the top tier gigs. Said from the perspective of a lawyer ten-years into practicing.
ls612 6y ago
Exactly. IIRC there are about 90k law school graduates a year and just under 40 SCOTUS clerks a year. Do the math and you get that these clerks are the top .04% of the new lawyers each year. I’ll bet the top 0.04% of engineers with a couple years experience can definitely make similar money.
- unnouinceput 6y ago
  The top 0.04% engineers are probably multi-millionaires. But that doesn't detract from the fact that Lawyer together with Banker is quite a good profession financially speaking.
  - bialpio 6y ago
    No-one is saying they are not good, but I've read the top-level comment as implying they are better than software engineering, and after reading responses in the thread I'm not convinced that this is the case.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    In general, I would not say that Lawyer is a good profession due to the high degree of variance. The top 10% land big law positions starting ~180k, the bottom 10% of grad are unemployed, and most of the rest make about 50-60K/yr and have 200k of debt https://data.lawschooltransparency.com/jobs/salaries/ https://data.lawschooltransparency.com/jobs/salaries/
  - b20000 6y ago
    As an engineer, to become a multi-millionaire, you need to get "lucky" by your small share of equity suddenly being worth a lot because of an acquisition or IPO. If that doesn't happen, you're not going to be a multi-millionaire. As a lawyer, you can easily become a multi-millionaire simply by doing your job at a respected law firm, and that doesn't require an acquisition or IPO event.
    - ls612 6y ago
      The top few fractions of a percent of engineers can become at least a principal engineer at a FAANG and be getting well over 500k a year in comp, similar to the numbers being thrown around for these clerks. That was mainly my point, not talking about startup exits.
timwilder 6y ago
The selection funnel for these folks is utterly insane. Arguably some of the smartest individuals at what they do that have existed in human history. Not a fair comparison to average engineers for sure.
- coathrowaway 6y ago
  Hi, former Federal Court of Appeals clerk here. Posting partially because I didn't quite make it to SCOTUS clerk (and am a little bitter), but also partially because I am a subject matter expert in this area. I will say that the full funnel from high school -> SCOTUS clerk requires nothing resembling being one of the "smartest individuals at what they do that have existed in human history." This is perhaps one of the biggest overstatements I have ever seen on Hacker News. While it does certainly require some relatively high-ish bar of aptitude and intelligence, it is in large part more related to one's ability to grind hard at work and have a huge amount of luck and connections gained from that luck/hard grinding.
  - wombatmobile 6y ago
    Thank you for sharing that insight, coathrowaway. From your experience of nearly making it to SCOTUS clerk, can you, in retrospect, say what was required to make it? More harder grinding? Different connections? Luck? Are there any shortcuts?
    - coathrowaway 6y ago
      Hi, thanks for asking. On average it's required to go to a top law school, get top grades, get on the law review, and to get a senior position on the law review in one's third year. These things aren't really a function of rote intelligence, but a lot of grinding and luck, especially with respect to grades where things at most schools are on a curve where one person's A means another person has to get a B, even if they had similar, A-quality work. With those things as a given, in the end the filter is who is willing to go to bat for you (and a lot of luck). The usual process is to get to know and impress a well known law professor. Make sure they know who you are. They will go to bat for you to get into a clerkship with a well known Federal District Court judge. Impress that judge and after a year, they will go to bat for you to get a clerkship for a well known COA justice/Circuit, who will then hopefully feed into a SCOTUS clerkship. To give a concrete example: One might do well at Stanford Law School and impress some professors who get to know you and write recommendation letters for you to apply to clerkships through the OSCAR system. One is sufficiently impressed with you that they're willing to give their friend and former clerkship boss Judge Alsup at the Northern District of California a call and recommend you more personally. Judge Alsup accepts you as a federal court clerk and you do well, working very hard. You decide to apply to COA clerkships the following year. Judge Alsup is sufficiently impressed with you that they're willing to give their friend Merrick Garland (to use someone whose name you've heard, but who is also a well known SCOTUS feeder justice) a call. You then impress Justice Garland after a year and they, along with Judge Alsup and your professor who just happened to clerk for Justice Breyer, are all willing to support your application to be a SCOTUS clerk for Justice Breyer. They all put in personal recommendations with Justice Breyer, who takes them seriously because they're serious, well known people with great reputations. With a lot of luck, even with these connections, you can get accepted to be a SCOTUS clerk. So I would argue once you have the given grades, law school, and law review membership, it really is about connections. But not in the "my father used to golf with that justice" sort of connections, more trusted connections because you've built a relationship with the connection through hard work and a willingness to work nearly nonstop. But even more importantly, someone who has connections to people who have connections, who have connections to SCOTUS justices. However, even the absolutely best situated candidates don't have a more than average shot at success at their SCOTUS clerkship application. But this isn't a one way street. People typically only recommend you if you have impressed them and they think you'll do well, because then the next node will take their recommendation again in the future, and it's a sought after position to be able to say Judge Alsup often hires people you recommend, and it's sought after for Judge Alsup to be able to say Merrick Garland takes his recommendations on who to hire, and so on.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

notsuoh 6y ago

Law salaries are very bimodal. Effectively you either make $40k or $160k. The average career of the lower salary person is pretty long and can be soul crushing, making $60-75k after a decade or two of public defender or prosecutorial work. The average career of the $160k person is to work for 3-6 years ratcheting up pay to $220k and then getting pushed out into non legal work. Long tail for the former is to jump to private practice as an of counsel or partner and make $200-400k in a smaller to mid sized firm, and similar in the case of the latter, moving over to of counsel and keep relatively the higher level of pay or move up to partner and make significantly more. It's not like engineer salaries where there's some normal distribution. And of it were, you're comparing people who have the fancy titles at large companies (Principal Eng at Google I think?) to the long tail of law grads. For reference, the low end of salaries tends to be public defender, local/state prosecutors, insurance defense / document review, the higher end is almost all large law firms, and the middle that makes up only a small percentage of grads are well-for-the-region paying small to medium firms and federal government. Arguably for longevity for law for salary and potential the best option is federal government law where someone makes $75k to start and ratchets up to $165k over 20 years.

torstenvl 6y ago
This is accurate. I started at $160k at a large law firm, then left to work for the government. Ten years later I don't make as much as when I left the firm, but I'm much happier.
pgwhalen 6y ago
As of a few years ago, the starting big law salary has moved up to $190k from $160k. Otherwise this comment is correct.
- b20000 6y ago
  No-one in engineering fresh out of school starts at $190K as far as I know, not even in the bay area. So there you go.
b20000 6y ago
Engineering is soul crushing too, not everyone makes decent salaries in the bay area or elsewhere, engineers have zero social status, unlike lawyers. There is no "normal distribution". And don't forget that as a lawyer, you don't face the type of age discrimination that engineers deal with, and you don't have to "relearn" your tools every few years because something else is now in fashion. Law stays mostly what it is, and the tools don't change. Obviously you have to keep "up to date" with the law, but that's it.

samatman 6y ago

I say so. Go work for Jane Street if you don't believe me. That's the nearest equivalent to being a former Supreme Court clerk I could think of. In either profession, it's nice up at the top.

fractionalhare 6y ago

It does pay well, objectively speaking. I share this every opportunity I can: https://levels.fyi https://levels.fyi. Even if you leave the sphere of big public tech companies and unicorns on the coasts, software engineering typically pays well above the median job in each area of the country.