<p>DonnaL, as you say, law isn’t a dying profession, but whether students can afford the $150,000 loans some of them take out for law school (to say nothing of any loans they may have taken as undergrads) to make a living when starting salaries for some law jobs are $40,000-50,000 (as they are in HI), is problematic at best. Several attorneys I know have a second job to help pay loans & expenses. One waits tables on weekends & another works at a bookstore. If you graduate without BIG DEBT, it’s one thing but for those with huge loans, perhaps they need a reality check.</p>
<p>
There are less ~25 schools in the US where the median student can expect to pay back the average amount of debt at that school.</p>
<p>You’re absolutely right. It doesn’t make a lot of sense these days to incur that kind of debt in going to law school. Not unless you know in advance that you’re going to be, say, on the Harvard Law Review and end up clerking on the Supreme Court before you get your job at Cravath!</p>
<p>We laid off a lot of people a year ago - mechanical and electrical engineers. The semiconductor business went off a cliff a year ago.</p>
<p>DocT, is the semiconductor business recovering now? Any new hires?</p>
<p>As a recent law grad, my view is that law school is becoming a lot like undergrad. There are some schools that are worth 150k in debt (top 10, maybe top 5 depending on who you ask) but for most other schools, you really have to think twice before taking on that type of debt; for most students, it may be the best idea to go to the state flagship of the state they want to reside in. </p>
<p>Law tends to draw a lot of students who ‘don’t know what else to do’ – i.e. good students who can get into law school and do well, so they figure they’ll go bc they’re not sure what else to do with their liberal arts degree. While that’s ok, they don’t realize going in that a law degree isn’t going to ‘open doors’ if you have to take on 150k debt; there may be jobs that you’re qualifed for but you will likely be forced to scramble for a 160k firm job, whether it interests you or not, if you have to start servicing 150k in debt upon graduation. Those jobs at the large NYC (DC/LA/Chicago) firms are hard to come by right now even for the top 10 grads, so you can’t really plan on it graduating from law school #30.</p>
<p>Yes the industry is recovering but not a lot of hiring of new employees. We’ve rehired some manufacturing people who were let go. The semiconductor industry is very cyclical and this was the worst downturn ever for them. However because of the nature of the business, the company has a 30% flexible work force so that in rough times, those are the first to go. Many of those are coming back.</p>
<p>So I guess my plan to do legal studies in undergrad and going to Western New England College law school might keep me out of, say, a big New York law firm.</p>
<p>Dstark, there are a lot of complicated things happening in big pharma right now, and I predict that in general, fewer drugs will be developed by these guys in the future. That doesn’t take a genius to predict, by the way - the trend is already underway. (And that’s not to say that the drugs aren’t out there. It just looks like big pharma is adjusting its revenue models and may not be the big players of the future.) The “big drug blockbuster” model that fueled Pfizer and Merck for years is all but dead, and it looks as if Pfizer and Merck haven’t quite yet figured out how to replace all that future revenue… which is one reason why lay-offs/site closings/RIFs are so prominent right now.</p>
<p>I’m not saying that laying off so many scientists will destroy US drug research, but I do think it doesn’t help. Things like healthcare reform and changes in patent/IP laws are probably more pressing in the current climate. Philosophically, much of the low-hanging fruit has already been picked; complicated, difficult diseases like Alzheimer’s still need cures, but those cures are far, far away.</p>
<p>Scout59, thanks.</p>
<p>And DocT…thanks.</p>
<p>Here’s a link to a very interesting article from the N.Y. Times about difficulties for young lawyers right now: “No Longer Their Golden Ticket.” It’s currently the “most emailed” article on the NYT website.</p>
<p>[No</a> Longer Their Golden Ticket - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/fashion/17lawyer.html?em]No”>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/fashion/17lawyer.html?em)</p>
<p>The legal profession has really gotten itself into trouble in part because they no longer have a blank check from their clients–clients (mostly businesses for the largest firms) are really starting to question, and with good reason, the true value that a team of expensive lawyers are adding to the business. </p>
<p>The holly grail so to speak of money in law firms is the billable hour… but many clients have simply had it with this billing model. In short, people have finally come to their senses and realized that paying lawyers by the hour simply encourages them to be slow an inefficient. The lawyer that drags an issue on for months and months brings in big bucks, but the one that’s smart and puts it to rest in a few days dosen’t make money for the firm. There is an increasing trend towards basic statements of work (i.e. I will pay you X to acomplish this list of objectives by a certain date). </p>
<p>Also, whereas many clients had just a handful of firms that always recieved all work, clients are now running proper bidding processes just like you would for any other sourcing initiative. Whereas in the past the client’s preferred firm could bill them $600 an hour for some basic legal work, that work today is getting bid out and may get done for $150 an hour… or $40 an hour if it’s really basic stuff and sent to India. </p>
<p>Some hot shot lawyers try to say that you need the best if you want the best results, but the fact is that for all but the most complicated cases you really don’t–and that’s at the core of why these big firms are really struggling. I simply don’t need, nor am I willing to pay for, an Ivy League law grad to help my company fill out some papers.</p>
<p>I think there’s still a demand for high end programmers. My son has been offered two software engineering jobs both paying over $100,000. However, he does have a lot of experience .</p>
<p>They are probably software engineering jobs. Software engineering encompasses a lot more than just programming.</p>
<p>There will always be some room “at the top” of most professions. Unfortunately, not everyone can be at the top, by definition. Congrats to your son, momofchris! I’m just happy there ARE some jobs out there and some offers. Its pretty discouraging when there aren’t!</p>
<p>What is the difference of software engineering and programmer?
I was at Best Buy couple of times looking for a computer (a desktop. I am still looking at the details). I feel that the economy is probably recovering. Best Buy was packed.</p>
<p>I am in medical field. The doctors income has decreased since late 2008 due to the combination of recession and decreased reimbursement by Medicare and other factors. Plastic surgeons probably suffer a little bit more due to recession.</p>
<p>As soon as I read that NYT title, I anticipated someone would put it here. Thanks.</p>
<p>My DH likes to remind me that jobs involving math, in some form, can be the “ticket”. That might be accounting, or actuary. I also thought there are some ‘growing areas’, like engineering or pharmacology. While we’ll always need doctors (look at clips of Haiti), but with hefty debt, numerous years towards a paid position, and medicare pinch, I suspect many kids are reconsidering that area now.</p>
<p>Maybe it’s a good thing? Maybe if we can’t predict the future, kids can now focus on what they are really excited about or already good at…pursuing their natural inclinations and talents, rather than trying to game the system to make the most money in what they think is the most lucrative career tomorrow. Or some talent might go into less ‘lucrative’ careers which benefit society more broadly. So for example, it would be wonderful of some of the most motivated/brilliant kids chosen teaching over wall street; or those that became doctors were ones that knew they’d only take home (after loans and such), $175k a year :).</p>
<p>lol @ “only” 175k…</p>
<p>oh cc, how i love thee…</p>
<p>^ This wasn’t meant to reflect my attitude or those on cc…to me, $175k is a huge gigantic income but not so to physicians. </p>
<p>I was trying to capture doctors’ attitudes so I should have put quotes around “only”. To most physicians it seems, the idea of “only” making $175 is pathetic, somehow meaning you are falling out of the upper middle class and thus it’s not worth going to med school.</p>