| Topic Name: |
JD vs. MBA |
| Message Name: |
Actually |
| Date Posted: |
03/29/2001 |
| In Reply To: |
I'm not saying that banking isn't more lucrative than law (it clearly is). I never argued that fact. Why did you defend it?
I AM SAYING, however, that every MBA does not become a banker and make that kind of money. You should recognize this fact before inflating every future MBA's ego and send them off thinking that this dream is attainable by everyone with a b-school stamp. That's a bunch of bullshit!
In case you haven't noticed, JD's are not well
represented on this topic (the only guy claiming to be - the guy I'm responding to -
is probably a college student who bombed his LSATs or an MBA student whose a bit upset that he hasn't a job yet
despite his school's salary hype amid the bull market
just a few short years ago). That's because most of us lawyers feel no need to defend our profession on silly message boards. I only feel the need to speak out because there's a guy who's about to make a career decision here who, if he takes your advice, will assume an extremely high risk of failure to achieve the financial returns you imply!
The truth is that the ONLY "MBA profession" that
offers more money than law is Investment Banking. Period. Strategy Consultants, Management Consultants and Industry MBA's are not making more than lawyers! (Give me a fucking break). And that's where most MBAs end up once the big banks have collected the top talent at the top 7-10 MBA programs.
Here's the straight dope - from a JD/MBA from a top tier program who is now practicing law at a AmLaw100 firm:
Business is an extremely opportunistic environment, within which extremely entrepreneurial and opportunistic people succeed - people who can talk, sell, network, bs, etc. If you have these "skills" and your fairly intelligent then you should go get that MBA stamp of approval and make your million bucks (which you probably would have made anyway - though it may have taken longer). If you don't have these skills, you won't get them with the MBA stamp - the degree offers very little educational value and serves only to establish a network and affix a brand-image to an individual. Even if you go to Harvard, if you don't talk shit and make yourself into more than you really are (i.e. an individual bubble economy :) than you won't be making deals on the street unless you are otherwise connected.
Law, on the other hand, like medicine and engineering, molds you into a thinker whose value is recognized as intrinsic in our society. The MBA has to create value to be recognized as valuable. THIS IS NOT EASY AND CERTAINLY NOT A GUARENTEED, ONE-WAY TICKET TO WEALTH, FAME AND HAPPINESS!
But neither is law for that matter. However, the simple fact of the matter is that the top 1/3 of the top tier will make a VERY good salary ($125k + 40k bonus in NY, SF, DC) at 25 years old. The top 10% of the top 10 MBA schools (i.e. the ones that become successful ibankers at BB and boutique firms) will make and EXTREMELY good salary at 30. The rest of the top tier will probably make a decent salary, but certainly nothing to brag about while your mediocre legal peers are rolling the dice in civil court hoping for a windfall settlement - that kind of opportunity will never be available to you (unless you're the client).
And finally, I feel no need to go make an ibanker's bank by putting in ibanker hours! I'm making >$250k/year and working <50 hrs per week (with 4 wks off/year I might add). What banker can say that? |
| Message: |
Management consultants do make more than corporate attorneys...At Mckinsey for instance an associate pricipal (roughly 4 to 5 years out of MBA or equivalent) can expect to earn $400-450K (I believe BCG and Bain offer slightly lower packages at this level). Certainly at the partner level, McK partners make more than law firm partners. But this is to be expected as Mck is far more leveraged than the typical law firm. Also, the value of being a strategy consultant at a top consultancy I think outweighs the value of being an associate at a top tier law firm. Life after McK may be more lucrative, offer a better lifestyle and offer more interesting work. Life after a law firm...associates speak as if going in-house as the holy grail (shorter hours, no more billable requirements, etc.) But more often than not you have to actually take a pay cut for the better life style. Also, attorneys in corporations are COST CENTERS, not revenue generators...this makes a huge difference when it comes to decision making and COST CUTTING upon a merger or an economic downturn.
|
|
