Skip to main content

Maybe you should just have studied plumbing

From Salon:
Approximately half of the 45,000 people who will graduate this year from ABA-accredited law schools will never find jobs as lawyers. (The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that over the next decade 21,000 new jobs for lawyers will become available each year, via growth and outflow from the profession.)

Most of those who do find jobs will be making between $30,000 and $60,000 per year.
People currently in law school are going to graduate with an average of $150,000 of educational debt. This debt will have an average interest rate of 7.5 percent, meaning the typical graduate will be accruing nearly $1,000 per month in interest upon graduation. Unlike almost every other form of debt, these loans cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.
In short, one out of every two law graduates will not have a legal career, and most of the rest will never make enough money to pay back their educational loans.
And, of course, every story needs a poster child:

Last summer a young lawyer wrote to me about her struggles to find employment. Her story was all too familiar: After graduating with honors from a middling law school, she was unable to find a real legal job, and was reduced to taking a series of temporary, low-paying positions that did not allow her to even begin to pay off educational debts that, three years after graduation, had ballooned to nearly a quarter of a million dollars.
Rather than merely lamenting her situation, however, she explained to me she was more fortunate than many of her fellow recent graduates: “I know that I am better off than a lot of these younger lawyers. I get job interviews. I can afford the apartment I share with my friend. I have a great resume. I am an excellent researcher and writer. I rarely go to bed hungry anymore.” 
I don't want to sound insensitive here (which is usually a prelude to somebody sounding insensitive), but I have two conflicting responses.

First, as a college professor I am daily aware of the fact that my own industry has been allowed, primarily via massive government subsidies in the form of guaranteed loans and research grants, to price itself out of any market reality.  And I'm not even sure where the money is going, because it certainly doesn't appear in my paycheck or in the resources I have available for my students.

That said, however, the students do bear some responsibility to do basic checking to see if this degree or that will them employable.  And they need to do that checking with somebody besides their admissions counselor or university advisor,  (I've always wondered why people in clothing stores ask the sales staff--which is working on commission--"If this looks good on me" as if they are going to get an objective answer.)

No matter what your dreams are, you have to be independently wealthy for it to make sense to be majoring in a degree where only half the graduates will get jobs.

Part of the problem is that we have deluded our children into thinking that college is a place where they can "find themselves" or "major in what interests you."  Maybe once, when the bills could be paid in a reasonable amount of time.

But every fall, when I see the expectant happy faces of freshmen lining up outside our Financial Aid office to sign promissory notes, I can't help but think . . . .

. . . in four years a whole bunch of you are going to wish you'd gone to plumbing school.

Plumbers don't go to be hungry.

Comments

plumbing said…
There are three low cost basic plumbing products new DIY plumbers should have in a toolkit. Always keep a tube of plumber’s putty, which is used for sealing up small cracks or holes. Do you have a cracked toilet bowl? If it is a small crack, putty can cure the problem until you can buy a replacement. Another plumbing product you should have is a snake for clearing out blocked drains.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...