4 ms·

Passing the bar does not "prove you deserve a career" in law to more or less the same degree that getting a PhD does not "prove you deserve a career" in academi

Passing the bar does not "prove you deserve a career" in law to more or less the same degree that getting a PhD does not "prove you deserve a career" in academics. Plenty of lawyers who pass the bar (these days) ultimately are not successful as lawyers, and the low levels of attorneys at big law firms are a grind designed to weed people out in much the same way that tenure tracks are. Ditto finance. That's not to say that either law or finance take AS long as academics do to get to the point where you're secure in your position, but neither get it right out of their degrees.

declan 12y ago
I think I largely agree with you; one major difference is the opportunity cost of science postdocs vs. other careers. Philip Greenspun's linked article elsewhere in the discussion is probably the best treatment I've ever read. But I would disagree with your concept of being "secure in your position." I'm not sure that happens nowadays outside of tenured academia, government bureaucracies, and union jobs. Perhaps you're "secure in your position" at a law firm if you're at the top of your game in terms of expertise, if the firm overall is well-managed, if you're responsible for a multi-million dollar book of business that's some multiple of your take as a partner, and if you're assured that your clients won't go elsewhere (or hire your associates to work as staff attorneys at a fraction of what you're charging). Meeting all those boolean AND requirements strikes me as a rather rare situation relative to the overall population of attorneys out there.
- aetherson 12y ago
  Sure. I was hand-waving "secure in your career." In a big law firm, my understanding is that partners are much MORE secure in their careers than associates, in as much as the system seems designed to winnow out associates, whereas it's much less designed to winnow out partners. But of course it's not like old-style for-life-employment job security. It's not even close.

declan 12y ago

I think I largely agree with you; one major difference is the opportunity cost of science postdocs vs. other careers. Philip Greenspun's linked article elsewhere in the discussion is probably the best treatment I've ever read. But I would disagree with your concept of being "secure in your position." I'm not sure that happens nowadays outside of tenured academia, government bureaucracies, and union jobs. Perhaps you're "secure in your position" at a law firm if you're at the top of your game in terms of expertise, if the firm overall is well-managed, if you're responsible for a multi-million dollar book of business that's some multiple of your take as a partner, and if you're assured that your clients won't go elsewhere (or hire your associates to work as staff attorneys at a fraction of what you're charging). Meeting all those boolean AND requirements strikes me as a rather rare situation relative to the overall population of attorneys out there.

aetherson 12y ago
Sure. I was hand-waving "secure in your career." In a big law firm, my understanding is that partners are much MORE secure in their careers than associates, in as much as the system seems designed to winnow out associates, whereas it's much less designed to winnow out partners. But of course it's not like old-style for-life-employment job security. It's not even close.