On Tuesday, the Department of Justice released an internal memo that instructed the department to look into whether universities are discriminating against white candidates.

While the memo does not specifically mention white students, it pointed to programs that lead to “intentional race-based discrimination,” a clear reference to the policy of affirmative action, which President John F. Kennedy introduced in the 1960s to promote equality in education.

The move is popular among Trump’s conservative base. Roger Clegg, president of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity, hailed the project as something that has been long overdue:

The civil rights laws were deliberately written to protect everyone from discrimination, and it is frequently the case that not only are whites discriminated against now, but frequently Asian-Americans are as well.

In a way Trump and his team are right: there is a serious discriminatory problem in college admissions. However, the problem has less to do with race and more to do with socioeconomic status. Children whose parents rank toward the top of the income bracket are overly represented at top colleges in the U.S., compared to students whose parents come from the bottom tier.

A study by The Upshot earlier this year shows that since 2002, the share of students from the top one percent (in terms of household income) attending elite universities has steadily increased. But the share of students from the bottom 40th percentile and below has slightly decreased. At 38 colleges in America, including five Ivy League schools, the top one percent had more representation than students from the bottom 60 percent.

Why is this the case when some of the best schools in the country provide full tuition to students who are in the lowest socioeconomic class? The answer is simple: legacy, connections, and resources. Some students are given priority admission to top schools because of family ties, while largely ignoring the merit of their applications.

Take for instance the story of Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law. Kushner attended Frisch’s, a well known New Jersey prep school. One college prep counselor said that Jared was “certainly not anywhere near the top of his class.”

However, Daniel Golden, author of “The Price of Admission,” claims Kushner’s father donated $2.5 million right around the time his son applied to Harvard. Unsurprisingly, Kushner was accepted. But according to Golden, Kushner would not have been accepted on his own merits

If the Justice Department truly wants to fight against discrimination, it should focus on preventing those with the financial means from buying their way into a top school.

This is where race plays a factor, as minority groups tend to be the ones who are historically financially disadvantaged in the U.S. The median household income for whites is approximately $30,000 dollars more than black and Hispanic families, according to a 2016 Pew Research Center study.

Universities should accept more students whose household income is in the bottom percentile, and prevent those who are in the from the top percentile from using their financial resources to usurp those who do not have the same financial means.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Irony of the Justice Department’s Affirmative Action Probe appeared first on Law Street.

Older generations love to disparage Millennials, calling them lazy and self-absorbed, while Millennials shoot back saying that older generations don’t realize how good they had it when the economy worked for them (and we do so with memes because we’re more tech-savvy). These feuding stereotypes and generalizations will continue, but a recent analysis puts the generation gap in more concrete terms. According to a new report from the Guardian, Millennials have been the victims of a “30-year economic betrayal.”

Using exclusive data from the Luxembourg Income Study, the Guardian found that across many developed countries, the Millennial generation has been at a distinct disadvantage relative to past generations. In its analysis sponsored by the Joseph Roundtree Reform Trust, the Guardian looked at income data for eight of the largest developed countries in the world–the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and Australia.

The report’s striking conclusions illustrate the extent to which a range of factors have deeply hurt Millennials’ economic prospects, the report finds:

A combination of debt, joblessness, globalization, demographics and rising house prices is depressing the incomes and prospects of millions of young people across the developed world, resulting in unprecedented inequality between generations.

Using a massive dataset, the Guardian puts the economic disadvantages of the Millennial generation in context. The consequences of decades-long economic trends, Millennials are at a unique disadvantage relative to previous generations.

So how are all of these trends manifesting themselves? Well, if you’re a Millennial you probably already know. We’re more likely to rent than own our own home, and a much higher percentage of Millennials live at home relative to past generations. Among the countries that the Guardian looked at, just over 25 percent of Millennials currently live at home, including 10 percent of men aged 30 to 34. In 1999, less than 20 percent of those aged 20 to 34 in Generation X lived at home. And important life milestones like homeownership, marriage, and childbearing are put off by Millennials for economic reasons.

Findings from a New York Fed report further explain the way economic circumstances have shaped the lives of Millennials. The researchers note how the relationship between housing prices, student debt, and local economic growth helps explain why more Millennials are living together. And they found a strong connection between the cost of education and its related debt to the likelihood that young adults will live with their parents.

Looking at relative incomes paints an even starker picture. For example, the Guardian finds that adults aged 20 to 24 in the United States have 31 percent less disposable income when adjusted for inflation relative to the same age group back in 1979. At the same time, the disposable incomes of adults aged 50 to 54 have actually increased by more than 32 percent. Put another way, the 20 to 24 age group has seen its disposable income fall by $3,389 in real terms while the 50 to 54 age group has seen theirs increase by $5,176 relative to 1979. The disadvantages of Millennials hold true relative to other age groups and to the national average. For more details check out the Guardian’s visualization.

So what exactly is to blame for the new burden placed on the younger generation? Based on the available evidence, there seem to be several different factors that contributed to the current situation. As globalization increases, so too does competition for jobs. Real estate prices have also made it particularly difficult for Millennials to buy homes or even move out of their parents’ house. The growing importance of a college degree has landed many Millennials in a significant amount of debt before they even begin their careers. While getting a degree may pay off in the form of higher income later in life, debt burdens early on can delay economic independence. While Baby Boomers like to lament the fact that their kids still live at home, the underlying cause is likely economic and not a lack of motivation.

Past generations may not have intentionally made life difficult for Millennials, but it’s also becoming clear that they could have done more to help, particularly as their wellbeing increased. As Jim Tankersly at the Washington Post points out, Baby Boomers were born into a period of sustained economic growth and have benefitted tremendously from it. But at the same time they did little to reduce the burden for future generations. As the ratio of national debt to GDP reaches unprecedented levels, inaction on climate change continues, and the cost of the social safety net rises, Millennials will need to foot the bill.

This is particularly stark in certain countries–as the Guardian finds, “for the first time in France, recent pensioners generated more disposable income than families headed by a person under 50. In Italy the average under-35 became poorer than average pensioners under 80.”

Taken together, decades-long economic trends have made life difficult for many people in the developed world, but the burden has also disproportionately hit Millennials as other generations benefit. While it may be difficult to look to past generations and lay blame, it’s also fair to question whether they could have done more to prevent their children from paying such a high price.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The “Economic Betrayal” Hurting Millennials appeared first on Law Street.

The ideal portrait of a middle class household in the United States usually consists of a steady income, a sizable house, a few cars, yearly family vacations, and weekend outings. This image is rooted in the stereotypical family of the 1950s–a nuclear family residing in the suburbs. Until recently, being middle class in the United States was still reminiscent of that post-war generation of American families. But things have changed, and dramatically so. The middle class is shrinking rapidly, with more people moving down the income ladder. Read on to learn more about the status of the middle class in America and the reasons for its decline.

How to Define the Middle Class

There is no universal definition of middle class, but households that make enough money to live comfortably, take vacations, indulge in entertainment, and save for retirement and college funds can be broadly considered to fit the bill. However, the description of “middle class” can include a broad range of figures, depending on the chosen measurement.

The most common measure used to define middle class is income. The New York Times  has chosen 50 percent above the poverty level ($35,000) for a family of four as the lowest threshold and $100,000 as the highest income for a middle class family. Pew Research Center presented middle class as households ranging from those who make two-thirds ($40,667) to twice ($122,000) the median income. The U.S. Department of Commerce gives a more narrow range, from $50,800 to $122,000. Meanwhile, the U.S. Census Bureau considers middle class families to be those who fall between $20,600 and $102,000.

Other possible measurements could include occupation, education, social values, or some combination of the above. In addition, regional cost of living is often taken into account when categorizing American households. Interestingly, those who make less than $20,000 or more than $150,000 a year still sometimes consider themselves a part of the American middle class depending on where they live and the expenses they have. Essentially, the cohort is almost impossible to define, as each household has different needs. While some can manage to save for retirement on $20,000 a year, other families that may have an income over $100,000 have to pay larger medical or college bills, resulting in zero savings.

How is the American middle class changing?

The U.S. Census Bureau started to track household incomes in 1967. With some ups and downs, the overall income levels tended to increase over the earlier decades. However, starting in 2010 the American middle class has begun to shrink. As of now, 61 percent of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, 36 percent don’t contribute anything to retirement, and more than 40 percent work in low-paying jobs in the retail and service sectors.

People ages 30 to 44 are less likely to be middle class, while those who are 65 years and older are more likely to be middle or upper-middle class. As many baby boomers are working past their retirement age, and most of them receive Medicaid and Social Security benefits, households containing those who are 65 years and older are the fastest growing share of the contemporary middle class. The number of adults in middle class households decreased from 61 percent in 1970 to 51 percent in 2013. At the same time, the number of adults who now live in upper-income households has gone up from 14 percent in 1970 to 20 percent in 2013. The share of younger adults, ages 18 to 29, who live in middle class households has fallen dramatically, with more of them moving to the lower class due to staggering unemployment rates.

In addition, family status is an important factor in association with income distribution among the American population. Two-adult households are more likely to be upper-middle class due to the fact that both adults are working, thus increasing the overall family wealth. One-adult households are disproportionately lower income for precisely the same reason. The traditional vision of American middle class families–two adults and children–is now on the decline, constituting only a quarter of middle class households. Some of them surely increased their income, moving to the upper-middle class, probably due to the increased number of women in the workforce.

White Americans are more likely than black Americans and Hispanics to live in middle- to upper-income families. In 2013, half of Black households and 43 percent of Hispanic households were lower income.

Location wise, the number of middle class households has decreased in the Northeast, especially in such states as Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey.

Overall, the dynamics of the middle class in America are changing. In 1967, 53 percent of households were middle class families; in 2010 that share decreased to 43 percent, with some people moving up or down the income ladder.

Why is the American middle class changing?

The middle class in the United States is shrinking for a broad range of reasons that collectively influence the changing dynamics of middle class membership.

The Great Recession 

First and foremost, the Great Recession of 2008 resulted in lower incomes, high unemployment rates, and increased numbers of home foreclosures. It’s estimated that the median net worth (the amount by which assets exceed liabilities) was at $120,600 in 2007; after the recession this number dropped to $77,300. Due to long-term stagnation in wages, median household income has decreased from $56,080 in 1999 to $51,017 in 2012. Simply put, after 2008, many middle class families became lower-income families.

Creation of Low-Income and Part-Time Jobs 

In the aftermath of the 2008 housing market collapse, many middle-income jobs were lost. In response, low-income jobs were created, adding little wealth to American households. Employment in low-skill jobs increased 110 percent between 1980 and 2009, while available middle-skill jobs have risen only 46 percent. At the same time, more and more Americans are working part time as they cannot obtain full-time employment. In 2012, more than 2.5 million Americans were working part time, the highest number since 1993. Clearly, proliferation of low-income and part-time jobs resulted in the overall drop of middle class incomes. Watch the video below to learn more about low-paying jobs in the United States.

The Growing Income Gap

But not all middle class families moved down the income ladder. On the contrary, some households’ incomes skyrocketed instead. The gap between high-income Americans and everybody else reached its apex during the years following the Great Recession. Simply put, the wealth of upper-middle-class households has increased, while middle- and lower-class families’ incomes have declined or didn’t change at all. The upper class is earning roughly 50 percent of the overall national income and is holding 83 percent of all U.S. stocks. At the same time, lower- and middle class families hold only seven percent of the liquid financial assets, and own less than one percent of the country’s wealth.

While the number of millionaires in the United States has increased 16 percent since 2009, the number of children who live in poverty accounted for 21 percent of all children in 2010, the highest percentage in the last 20 years. The growing income gap is especially evident as the wealth of middle class families has diminished, while upper class families experienced significant boosts in their earnings. Watch the video below to learn more about income gap in the United States.

Shift of Jobs Overseas

As multinational corporations are looking to minimize expenses while maximizing  profits, they are shifting their operations overseas. This prompts significant reductions in employment opportunities inside the country as corporations are hiring less in the United States and more in the less-developed parts of the globe. The reason for this is very simple: there are fewer regulations and labor is cheaper. In addition, American companies don’t have to adhere to minimum-wage requirements or pay benefits to the overseas workers, significantly reducing their expenses. It’s estimated that from 1999 to 2008, American companies hired 2.2 million people in other countries, while scrapping 2.1 million positions inside the United States. Not only is it more expensive and difficult to conduct business in the U.S., it’s also much cheaper and more convenient to run a large company abroad.

Increasing Use of Technology in the Workplace

Not only do middle class Americans have to compete with overseas workers, but now they have to compete with computers and machinery. As the use of technology in the workplace rapidly grows, more and more middle class jobs disappear. Now, computers are doing the same jobs that humans used to do decades ago, depleting middle class employment opportunities. Essentially, technology is replacing human labor as computers can complete tasks faster, cheaper, and with more accuracy than human employees. Starting in 2010, the number of people employed as telephone operators, word processors, and typists has declined 63 percent. The share of travel agents has decreased 46 percent, while the number of bookkeepers has plunged 26 percent. In addition, such jobs as check-out cashiers, bank tellers, ticket agents, and secretaries are on the decline, as many businesses use computers instead of employing workers.

One of the recent examples of job technology taking over is “bookBots,” an innovative project at North Carolina State University. Instead of human librarians who retrieve books as students request them, robots are programmed to find requested books, now located within 18,000 metal bins, instead of traditional library shelves. Thus, many middle class jobs are already unavailable to humans due to the reduced costs associated with computerized services and ease of use for consumers. Many professions could become completely extinct due to technological advances and innovative approaches in the workplace.

Decline of Labor Unions

Besides the fact that the American economy is shifting overseas and some professions are going extinct due to the increased use of technology, fewer workers inside the United States are earning union salaries. Historically, labor unions were the most influential advocates for workers’ rights, and unionized workers were the backbone of the American middle class. Now, fewer jobs are unionized, prompting a large-scale decline in the influence and power of American labor unions. In 1983, one in five workers was part of a union; today this is true of only one in ten workers. Unionized workers’ median monthly salary is $10,000 more than that of their non-unionized counterparts. With the decline in labor unions, fewer American workers are earning middle class salaries. Watch the video below to learn more about labor unions and their importance for the middle class.

Increases in ‘Out-of-Pocket’ Expenses and Rising Debt

Middle class households are those families that, besides living comfortably, are able to save money. Many middle class Americans have to pay their college tuition without financial assistance, which is available to lower-income families only. Health insurance is another “out-of-pocket” expense that can be rather costly, as only those who have very low or no income are eligible for government assistance. In 2001, two thirds of American middle class families were able to accumulate savings; in 2010, less than 55 percent were saving money for retirement or their kids’ education.

A large portion of middle class income is going toward paying off student loans and maintaining medical coverage rendering it difficult to save for retirement or to buy a house. Some middle class households are deep in debt. In 1992, the median level of debt for middle class families was $32,200; by 2010 it increased 161 percent, reaching $84,000. The economic pressures that middle class households face today result in downward mobility and accumulation of debt.

Restored Payroll Tax Rate

In 2009, President Obama introduced a temporary measure to stimulate the economy by cutting the payroll tax, which finances Social Security and Medicaid by taking a percentage of income from both employees and employers. Before 2009, the payroll tax constituted 6.2 percent of income; after the changes, middle class Americans received a two-percentage-point break, resulting in a payroll tax of 4.2 percent instead. In 2013, the payroll tax cut expired and middle class households began to receive $84 less in their monthly paychecks, which is around $1,000 in yearly tax withholdings. As lower- and middle class families were the ones who enjoyed the two-percentage-point break the most, they are now the ones who are suffering the most.

Higher Food Prices

Food prices have increased globally and in the United States. On average, there’s been a 6.4 percent hike on most food products, while the price of some essentials such as meat, milk, and eggs is 16-22 percent higher than in previous years. Nevertheless, the income of middle class families is staying the same, constraining food shopping for many middle class households. The median income is increasing only one percent a year, making it difficult to keep up with rising food prices without moving down the income ladder.

Conclusion

The dynamics of the middle class in the United States are changing. Some of the above reasons for the middle class downturn are more serious than others, but all are collectively responsible for the decline in its traditional form. At the same time, technological advances in the workplace are inevitable and most likely  will continue to erase traditional service jobs and create new occupations, shifting the middle class around.

 Resources

Primary

Pew Research Center: America’s ‘Middle’ Holds Its Ground After the Great Recession

Additional

Sen. Bernie Sanders: The Middle Class in America is Radically Shrinking. Here Are the Stats to Prove it

The New York Times: The Shrinking American Middle Class

CBS Evening News: Food Prices Soar as Income Stands Still

CNN Money: America’s Middle Class: Poorer Than You Think

CNN Money: America’s Disappearing Middle Class

DailyNews: Can Smart Machines Take Your Job?

Forbes: The U.S. Middle Class is Turning Proletarian

Huffington Post: Four Reasons It’s So Hard For the Middle Class to Buy a House

The New York Times: Middle Class Shrinks Further as More Fall Out Instead of Climbing Up

CNN Money: What Happens if the Payroll Tax Cut Expires

Pew Research Center: Are Americans Ready For Obama’s ‘Middle Class’ Populism?

PBS Frontline: The State of America’s Middle Class in Eight Charts

TIME: A Brief History of the Middle Class

USA Today: Middle Class a Matter of Income, Attitude

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Changing Dynamics of the American Middle Class appeared first on Law Street.

For a long time, a dominant narrative in the United States has been that we can pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and that it just takes a little hard work to make it work. I’ve heard the argument more times than I can count that people on welfare are lazy, or that the minimum wage is fine the way it is. Based on just my personal experiences alone, I truly think that there are many Americans who believe that it’s easy to succeed here if you simply try hard enough.

That idea needs to be put to bed. Because for many people, that picture-perfect American life of prosperity really isn’t possible, even if you work incredibly hard.

Take the recently released story of Maria Fernandes, for example. The 32 year old from Newark, New Jersey, was recently found dead in her car. The woman was working four part-time jobs. She would go straight from job to job, so she would often nap in between shifts. She had pulled over for a nap on the side of the road early Monday, and left her car on. The fumes from her exhaust, combined with those from a gas tank that had spilled in the back of her car unfortunately led to her death.

Fernandes’s story is beyond tragic, and it’s certainly a dramatic example, but to me, it was unsurprising. Nearly half of Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck. According to a study published in April 2014, more than 25 million American families that are considered middle class fall under the paycheck-to-paycheck distinction. The middle class families included in this category have a median income of $41,000, yet still struggle to make ends meet. Many of them have very small rainy day funds, if at all. They’re not working four part-time jobs, sure, but the work they are doing is barely enough. There’s also the fact that the American dream also emphasizes the need for a college education, which now costs the average student more than it ever has.

And that’s just the middle class. Those who aren’t so fortunate have it even worse.  According to the Brookings Institution, roughly 12 million Americans live on $2 a day or less.

Then there’s the minimum wage debacle. It would be close to impossible to live on a minimum wage job in pretty much every state. Check out this amazing infographic from USA Today. It’s based on the question, “How many hours must minimum wage earners work to afford rent?” The answer ranges from state to state, but they’re all equally unreasonable. In Texas, you’d need 93 hours. California clocks in at 130 hours. New York is slightly lower at 124 hours. In order to survive on minimum wage in Hawaii, you’d need to work 174 hours a week, which is a bit difficult, given that there are only 168 hours total. But never fear, guys, in Arkansas and Montana you can get by on working a measly 69 hours of minimum wage work a week!

Of course, the argument can be made that minimum wage work isn’t intended to be a career, rather a stepping stone. But that’s pretty much a crock of bullshit at this point. When education is so expensive, families are living hand to mouth, and the unemployment level is only slowly getting better, it can be hard for people without educational opportunities to raise above minimum wage. In that environment, four jobs isn’t ridiculous, it’s pretty much understandable. It’s pretty hard to pull yourself up by your boot straps when the boots are so old that the straps are falling off.

Finally, let’s juxtapose all this uplifting news with how Americans feel about minimum wage jobs. More than three quarters of conservative Americans believe that the poor “have it easy.” Overall, when surveying all Americans, 44 percent think that the poor “have it easy.” When asked the question, “Why are people poor?” a majority of conservatives responded that people are poor because of a lack of effort on their part. And in case I haven’t made you too depressed yet on this beautiful Friday, check out these tweets that sum up how some truly spectacular idiots feel about minimum wage jobs:

Thanks PublicShaming

Thanks, PublicShaming

Ms. Fernandes, I’m so very sorry that your life had to end the way it did. You were just trying to provide for yourself, and we all know how truly hard that can be. You were not alone, but I do hope that someday we get to the point where stories like yours are a thing of the past.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Bootstraps are Broken appeared first on Law Street.

Anyone who’s nerdy enough about legal issues to read this blog has probably heard of a paper published last summer entitled “The Economic Value of a Law Degree.” It revealed the conclusions of a study by Seton Hall University law professor Michael Simkovic and Rutgers Business School economics professor Frank McIntyre. It’s the paper that caused quite a stir by purporting to burst the bubble of the haters who’ve been heaping scorn on law as a worthwhile course of study for today’s college graduates. In a nutshell, the authors examined official statistics about the earnings of law graduates and found that, hey, maybe law school is a good deal after all. Apparently—among other findings—the average JD can expect to earn about one million dollars more than he or she would have earned without having gone to law school.

Of course, the talking heads who’ve been making the biggest stink about the pitfalls of legal education for the past several years wasted no time putting the Simkovic and McIntyre study in their crosshairs. Above the Law’s Elie Mystal was particularly harsh, dismissing the report as an “advertising piece for law schools still hoping that they can trick prospective law students into making bad choices.”

Frankly, I share at least some of the misgivings about the validity of the study. Like Mystal, for instance, I think it makes no sense to compare law school grads’ earnings to those of college graduates who never pursued any postgraduate study. I think your average college student today is painfully aware that a bachelor’s degree by itself won’t give him or her enough coinage in the job market. I imagine that most of them probably contemplate law school as one of at least several other postgraduate study options, among them being journalism, business, accounting, economics, and any number of scientific and humanistic disciplines. So it doesn’t strike me as very meaningful to point out that today’s average college grad can expect to make a lot more money by going to law school than by simply diving headlong into the workforce and never leaving. It would be much more helpful to compare law school graduates’ earnings with those of people who’ve gone to business school, medical school and what have you.

Even so, I’ve always been a lot more sanguine about the study’s findings. While I habitually caution young people I know against charging headlong into law school, I’ve never done so for mercenary reasons. It would think that it would go without saying by now that earnings potential isn’t the only factor worth considering when choosing a career path. It’s critical to take other issues into account, such as job satisfaction, work-life balance and overall sanity. By those metrics, it seems, legal practice scores rather poorly. A 2007 survey by the American Bar Association found that almost half of the respondent lawyers were dissatisfied with their careers. They complained about long hours and dwindling civility among lawyers, as well as increasingly cutthroat competition and the poor work-life balance that comes with it. In the end, only 4 out of every 10 of them were willing to recommend a legal career to young people. (Remember what I wrote last month about none of the lawyers I’ve known ever encouraging me to study law?)

Keep one thing in mind: these results were gleaned in the late 2000s, before the so-called “Great Recession” and the squeezing of the legal industry (along with so many other professions, Lord knows) that it’s engendered.

So anyone tempted to dismiss warnings about lawyering based on the McIntyre and Simkovic study should take heed. As its title makes clear, the professors were only considering the monetary value of a law degree; the question of whether legal practice is worth its non-financial costs was beyond their ken. A college graduate who takes my advice, gets to observe lawyers’ daily toil and doesn’t develop any kind of passion (or at least a high tolerance) for it would be ill-advised to study law anyway simply because of the pay.

What’s more—as I learned the hard way—it’s damned hard to do well in law school if you have a hard time focusing on the turgid, deadening prose that you’ll find in most casebooks. Actually, I should have included this insight in my first article about advice for prospective law school applicants. When I was in high school, people who encouraged me to go into law—again, always non-lawyers—typically cited two facts: that I was a pathological bookworm and that law school involves a lot of reading. Dear God, if only it were that simple! You should never, ever listen that advice from a non-lawyer…at least not without asking, “But what kind of reading would I be doing?” When your advisor stares at you blankly (or has the decency to admit that he or she doesn’t know), that should tell you all you need to know about how valuable his or her advice really is. As for the actual substantive answer to the question, let me put it this way: Rare is the judge who knows how—or is inclined—to write an opinion in a way that won’t make you feel like your brain is melting and spilling out of your ears.

Even if Simkovic and McIntyre are right, and any college student not sure what to do after graduating would be several kinds of stupid not at least to consider going to law school, the inquiry doesn’t end there. It would be even stupider to dive into law school, chasing the almighty dollar, only to belly-flop into frigid, unforgiving waters. You’ve got to learn more about the profession than just the pay before deciding to pursue it. I think renowned actor Tom Hanks put it best during an appearance on Inside the Actor’s Studio, when asked what profession he wouldn’t like to try. His answer: “A lawyer. That’s doing homework for a living.” Heed well his wise words!

—

Featured image courtesy of [Andy via Flickr]

Alexandra Saville

Alexandra Saville is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

The post So What if Law School is a Good Financial Deal After All? appeared first on Law Street.