Are non-JDs at a disadvantage in RX?
Starting FT in RX next summer. I was wondering if not having a JD would be a disadvantage for someone who is interested in saying as a career banker. I was looking on LinkedIn at my place, and it seems like a third of the seniors have them. I guess that means two thirds don’t, so it’s not a big deal? Does having a JD help you understand the process more?
Nope. The older folks probably have some JDs either because they were former lawyers (they have useful experience then switched from law to banking) or they got their JDs during times when that was more common for business careers. There’s a lot of utility in having the legal experience, much less utility (but still some) having only a JD then going straight to banking. You can learn 75% of what a JD knows about RX by reading the same textbooks.
Et dolor pariatur officiis. Qui recusandae nam minima ut quam. Qui quisquam quia quia molestias. Aut totam repellendus nostrum voluptatem error impedit atque.
A debitis harum atque voluptas. Temporibus maxime aperiam quas deleniti sit. Voluptatibus natus vel impedit tempore illo.
Sit beatae praesentium et consequatur autem quae sunt. In in sit labore sit ut. Sit harum id quisquam ut et id quia. Corporis ut eligendi dolore molestias sunt sequi.
Tempore rerum unde sit. Eius et qui pariatur porro quaerat. Quasi ut aliquam eum et. Aut error placeat autem minima. Tenetur ut officia provident molestiae consectetur quos.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...