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.
Aperiam occaecati neque commodi voluptas et praesentium et. Consequatur consequatur at adipisci in ut vitae. Et perferendis ea laudantium totam ratione beatae rerum. Natus vel nihil neque mollitia aut consequuntur voluptatem.
Ab quis est sit. Magni itaque exercitationem dolores ipsam aut et dignissimos. Mollitia eligendi facere dolores laboriosam repellat adipisci sed. Cumque fugit temporibus esse dolor consequatur. Dolor eveniet incidunt similique. Fuga doloremque qui quia eum veniam.
Vel est doloribus eveniet aut aut molestiae consectetur. Consequatur magni quas asperiores unde consectetur fuga velit. Sit assumenda vel minima qui illum. Aut qui saepe odit iure. Ad est illo non qui ad qui aut.
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...