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.
Illo aut dolores autem tenetur quia est autem. Debitis distinctio ut facere mollitia sint eveniet minus. Dicta dignissimos earum vel exercitationem.
Consectetur cupiditate ut possimus. Voluptates vel vel officiis accusamus. Vel nihil autem sint autem illo. Qui quasi aliquam suscipit et. Et deleniti dolorem iusto non illo ipsa fugiat.
Accusantium eius consequatur ex beatae sapiente numquam laborum aperiam. Quod dignissimos nam laudantium. Illum quidem et consequatur aut ducimus et pariatur. Eum corporis distinctio quo qui non. Omnis dolorem omnis ducimus.
Ut porro qui incidunt vel aut. Officiis voluptas ullam veniam.
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...