adfkjas;fkl

xistguru:

Work for 2 years in finance-related field, get MBA, go from there.

I'm wondering what the advantage is here. law school is about the same per year as business school, so, while law school is more expensive, i could be out in 3 years, hopefully do some good internship(s) while in school, and then apply for associate level positions.

I am, however, looking for jobs in finance and if I find one I may actually go this route, if I do not, I will go the law school route.

Any comments as the feasibility of this are helpful.

maverickPE:

Have you even looked at your graduate school options? If you hvaen't already applied to graduate school you are NOT going next year and you will have to find something to do.

yes, most of my undergrad time i was considering a handful of top phd programs, and have many supporters (ie professors) for going this route, but at the last minute decided against it. unfortunately i did so a couple months too late and did not have a plan b in motion. therefore, i sent out resumes to companies a bit too late in the cycle.

honestly i've been pulling all-nighters 2-3 times per week trying to finish my honors thesis, and regrettably have put that as a priority.

that's changing though, and i'm prepared to take whatever desperate measures it takes to get me a decent job for the next year, if possible. i'm just in need of a bit more guidance in this field.

what would you recommend?

thanks.

pitchmonkey:

would be a gigantic mistake. Even though some bankers started as lawyers, it is a severe minority, and those who do make the jump 100% of the time have prior finance experience. If you went to a lib arts college and then law school, could you do a DCF? Could you spread comps? Could you understand the nuances of a 10-k? It's very doubtful, and these are basically the bedrock tasks of junior bankers. Plus, no high-quality bank is going to hire someone who doesn't have prior work experience. At BEST you'd go to law school and end up a second-year analyst or something like that.

fair enough. what would you recommend?

Bananalyst:

I went to a non-target undergrad (Accounting Major), then went straight into a Top Tier Law School and decided to do a joint MBA (Very weak MBA program). I will complete both in three years and I was offered a position as a third year analyst (9-mo term in which I SHOULD enter the 2008 associates class). It would have been impossible to get a job without my JD. And with my education, coupled with my independent study (I am currently studing for my Level 3 CFA) I am confident that I will kick some ass (the only thing I lack is modeling skills - which is why I am glad that I am a 3rd year, w/o the pressures of being a full-blown associate. I am in no hurry to make money, I want to be REALLY good at what I do and dont mind taking the slow route. If you want to get into M&A practice then a JD will be extremely beneficial (even though it wont get you into the business on a stand-alone basis).

Furthermore, you cant compare a M.D. to a J.D. An M.D. is extremely specialized in a field (medical) that is completely unrelated to banking (thus it is useless in banking). A J.D. however, crosses over in MANY ways to banking. Plus, in my humble opinion, it is hands down the best education you can get (if you care about that sort of thing). WIth that said, Law School really is hard as HELL and it is a TON of work (for undergrads, think of taking 24 hours in a semester, no joke).

The reason a JD has the POTENTIAL to cross over into banking so much is that J.D. is such a flexible degree. It is flexible in that you are required to take only a select few number of courses (just your first years: Contracts/Torts/Property/Legal Research/Procedure/Constitutional Law/Criminal Law). Your remaining 60 hours (2 years) can be spent on talking ANYTHING you want.
Most people take "Bar" courses (courses that prepare you to be an attorney.

I always knew that I was not going to practice law (and not take the bar) so I have specialized my legal education into the field of banking. I have taken every tax course, securities course, and M&A course that my university offers.

Therefore, when it comes to deal structuring, I have a FAAAAAARRRR superior understanding than any analyst/associate (even though deal structuring is not a requirement of an anlayst or for the most part an associate, it will be huge when it comes to VP consideration).

In sum, You should consider Law School if: 1) you could not otherwise get into banking and you need something to really separate yourself, OR 2) you have a genuine interest to have a kick-ass education that will no doubt help you in ANY career.

Both 1, and 2 applied to me so law school was a no-branier.

DISCLAIMER: Now that I am done, I will say that it absolutely sucked and I would never wish it upon my worst enemy, but I am so much better for it (So I guess you can liken it to a 2 year analyst stint).

That's an encouraging story. I graduated in the top 5% of my class, have great letters of recommendation, and a 174 LSAT. If I apply I would be applying to NYU and Columbia. Where did you go?

I guess most will read this and say "why go to law school? you could just be an analyst and make 60k/yr and going to law school you PAY ~$50k/yr" well, if that were an option, we wouldnt be having this dialogue.

to what extent do you believe the cfa helped you in getting your position? also, what kind of, if any, internships were you offered/did you take in your 3 years as a law student?

Thanks, this is very informative.