<p>
</p>
<p>When people consider “earnings” most people consider the total compensation picture. Gross salary is only one aspect of that picture. </p>
<p>If someone makes $100k a year in salary but has to pay $4k per year for their health plan they’re “earning” less than someone making $97k per year but who has all health plan costs covered by their employer… although by your logic the person with the $100k salary is earning more. </p>
<p>Similarly we must consider the value of the police officer’s pension. We can safely assume that, unless the lawyer works for the government, the lawyer is going to have to self fund most of their retirement nest egg while the cop will have a government pension. For the attorney to retire at 45-50 with the same size annual benefit as the cop in perpetuity they would have to set aside about $30-35k per year into a retirement portfolio. </p>
<p>In real terms you’d have to set aside quite a bit more since the tax sheltered limit between 401k and IRA is $21,500 and so you’d have to use taxable accounts too.</p>
<p>So… when you subtract that from your cited ‘salary’ figures suddenly the difference between the attorney and the cop is much smaller or, in some cases, potentially less. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course someone who did really well in undergrad and then went to law school is likely better off than someone who didn’t do so well in undergrad and didn’t go to law school… but not everyone that does well in undergrad goes to law school. </p>
<p>With a few specific exceptions a freshly minted law school graduate seeking a non-law career is not going to have much if any of an advantage over a top fresh undergraduate candidate. The law graduate will almost certainly have a lot more debt and even if there is any advantage, it’s unlikely to be net positive in light of the law school debt. </p>
<p>As you also pointed out, in real terms we have to compare apples to apples. It’s not so much about how a fresh law graduate compares to a fresh undergrad graduate as much as it is how a fresh law graduate compares with their own peers (e.g. people 3-6 years out of undergrad). By that point outside a legal career there’s really no advantage for law school graduate. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes they do, but again you must compare apples to apples here. While someone certainly could go work for a consultancy out of law school, it’s a less traditional path but it does happen, you could end up getting someone at a consultancy at the same level with far different paths:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Undergrad from the law grad’s same class but that joined the consultancy out of undergrad. Some people leave after a year or two but others, particularly top performers, can get promoted right up the ladder. </p></li>
<li><p>A PhD student from science or engineering (who are also recruited by consultancies) who would typically get hired at the same level as someone out of law school. These PhD programs are usually ‘free’ to students (i.e. the tab is picked up by the government for such programs) and with TAing and other grants students usually have a, albeit very small, income during their schooling years. I note that PhDs take longer than 3 years, but most PhD students enter right out of undergrad while many law school students take a year or two doing something else first… therefore a law school grad and PhD grad could be the same age +/- a year or two.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>In both the above scenarios someone could end up in exactly the same job at a consultancy at exactly the same age but have not have any grad school debt. Yes the law graduate has their legal background too, but honestly these days resumes with a legal background are a dime a dozen. Something like the above scientist or engineer with subsequent business experience is far more unique.</p>
<p>There are certainly prospects for a JD outside the legal profession, but from a net net analysis it’s hard to see how it gives one advantages over other options.</p>