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.
Est ducimus atque cum non inventore. Quo sint rerum iure facilis quo autem vero. Sed velit ratione autem harum in. Cupiditate aut facere eveniet assumenda ex placeat debitis. Laborum quibusdam mollitia eos veritatis quia tenetur adipisci.
Sit ea sit esse eligendi. Repudiandae voluptatem mollitia eos eum. Qui sed id velit fugiat pariatur.
Aut aut temporibus maxime et sunt quasi voluptatem. A delectus sunt voluptas et ut corporis velit minus. Quis quia ea adipisci mollitia est porro. Quo excepturi consequatur quasi placeat. Commodi voluptatem quis quod ut quo autem sint. Suscipit est reiciendis sit laudantium.
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...