Doubts and Alternatives

[LeraK]

Like many of you, I have been super stressed lately about getting decisions. I haven't gotten any word back, but lately I have been thinking a lot about whether this is something that I really actually want to do. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that I was only anxious because I was curious about whether or not I would get accepted. I don't get that same excitement that I used to when I think about completing a PhD in Russian history. I have invested a lot of time and energy into learning Russian and Ukrainian, but at this point I really don't know if this is the path that  I want to take. I don't like the idea of not having control over where I will end up living my life, and I honestly don't know if I have enough motivation to write as much as will be required of me in the future if I go down this path. I have been considering law school, but I also don't know if that is the right choice for me. I like the idea of having a job with the hours of a professor because I love the idea of having a job with flexible enough scheduling so that I can spend time with my future kids and I know being a lawyer won't afford me those same options. I have also thought about waiting until next cycle to apply for a joint law/phd not at a top tier school (this round I applied to Harvard and Chicago). My thought was that I should be able to find a job in government or something with a law degree and proficiency in Russian, Ukrainian and a PhD in Russian history. If anyone has any suggestion into career paths I might want to look into, I would be really grateful!! Also, thanks for reading this long post

[fortsibut]

Yeah, I feel you with some of this.  (Particularly while doing all of the tedious final edits on my thesis over the past week or so)  If I don't get in this year I'm honestly thinking about taking the LSAT and just applying to everything I have any interest in next year: history PhD programs, law school, the Peace Corps, and Teach for America.  A history PhD is what I want to do above all else, but I'm not going to go through a third cycle if I reapply in fall '18 and don't get in anywhere.  I'm in my mid 30s and I've wasted enough time before starting a career.  And realistically, there's not much I can do after this fall to improve my applicant profile for PhD programs, so while I know there's luck involved and it's possible that a year later the same stats might get me into a different program, I just can't afford to wait around forever in the hopes that the stars align for me.

It's interesting that you mention joint law/phd programs.  I looked at those as well but most of them seemed to be higher tier.  Which lower tier ones would you consider?

[LeraK]

I haven't looked closely at it yet, but I was thinking indiana bloomington, Michigan,UVA or Boston U (UVA and Boston are MA/JD).   

[ExponentialDecay]

I'd be cautious about the logical leap from flexible scheduling to spending time with your kids. Professors work a lot. You'll have flexible scheduling, but you'll be spending that time in the vicinity of your kids (if you can stand the distraction) doing your work. You're not going to be a stay at home parent with a 2 hour/week teaching commitment. If you're looking to actively spend time with your kids, your best option is to get an unglamorous 9-5 where you're not important enough to have to answer emails in off hours.

A JD/PhD is overkill for 99% of government or policy jobs. One of the two is good enough, the JD only if you want to do law, and a master's+work experience is even better. Do it if you want it, but if money is a concern, it's not the optimal path.

[Ragu]

Working as an attorney is actually fairly flexible. For the most part, firms do not care where, when, or how you bring in billing as long as you do. I know a lot of people with families who work from home, work non-traditional hours, or part time in various capacities. A lot of big law firms also offer in-firm daycare. This is not to say that working as a lawyer is not stressful or that it doesn't require a huge amount of work...but the way you get the huge amount of work done is flexible.

Edit:  Building off of @ExponentialDecay's point: working as a lawyer doesn't sound too different from working as a professor in terms of flexibility. I think the thing to think about more is the type of work you want to be doing. Also, to be thinking about not just the literal time that you have in your day away from work but also the emotional energy you have left over for your family after spending a large portion of your day working. 

Edited February 7, 2018 by Ragu

[grubyczarnykot]

4 hours ago, ExponentialDecay said:

I'd be cautious about the logical leap from flexible scheduling to spending time with your kids. Professors work a lot. You'll have flexible scheduling, but you'll be spending that time in the vicinity of your kids (if you can stand the distraction) doing your work. You're not going to be a stay at home parent with a 2 hour/week teaching commitment. If you're looking to actively spend time with your kids, your best option is to get an unglamorous 9-5 where you're not important enough to have to answer emails in off hours.

A JD/PhD is overkill for 99% of government or policy jobs. One of the two is good enough, the JD only if you want to do law, and a master's+work experience is even better. Do it if you want it, but if money is a concern, it's not the optimal path.

I’m not sure if you’ve ever had to do this, but working “an unglamorous 9-5 where you're not important enough to have to answer emails in off hours”, you’re often underpaid and honestly there are tons of different types of labor that are just as mentally consuming and more physically consuming than academic work. I agree that thinking academic work is flexible is unreasonable and naive, but I also think it’s incorrect to assume that other less “important” jobs don’t also come with a good amount of stress and exhaustion that makes it hard to spend time with hypothetical children. 

[LeraK]

okay to respond to everyone thinking i'm stupid for saying that academic work is flexible... i am aware that academics have to do a lot of work, but i am also aware that if i can get a schedule where i teach classes during the day time, i will be able to be there for my children in the morning before school, and be around in the evenings to spend time with them. let's not get all worked up about this please. attacking that sentence in my post does nothing to help me figure out an answer to my question

[grubyczarnykot]

16 minutes ago, LeraK said:

okay to respond to everyone thinking i'm stupid for saying that academic work is flexible... i am aware that academics have to do a lot of work, but i am also aware that if i can get a schedule where i teach classes during the day time, i will be able to be there for my children in the morning before school, and be around in the evenings to spend time with them. let's not get all worked up about this please. attacking that sentence in my post does nothing to help me figure out an answer to my question

Sorry I didn’t mean to attack you I was actually more saying that it’s unreasonable to think any other kind of work is more flexible in some grand way. 

[fortsibut]

21 minutes ago, LeraK said:

okay to respond to everyone thinking i'm stupid for saying that academic work is flexible... i am aware that academics have to do a lot of work, but i am also aware that if i can get a schedule where i teach classes during the day time, i will be able to be there for my children in the morning before school, and be around in the evenings to spend time with them. let's not get all worked up about this please. attacking that sentence in my post does nothing to help me figure out an answer to my question

I think you're vastly overreacting if you took anything anyone said as a statement that you're stupid or that anyone's really "getting worked up" about your question.  I think ExponentialDecay was just pointing out that even if you manage to land a tenure track teaching job, there's no guarantee that (especially early on) you'll have a schedule that is conducive to you spending a lot of time with your kids.  You might get stuck teaching night classes, late afternoon classes, 7AM classes (at some schools), have classes 5 days a week at odd times, these things happen.  And in your pre-tenure years (and also as an adjunct) you're really not going to be in a position to rock the boat about the timing of your courses.  It's just something to think about; I'm not sure there's always going to be an optimal solution.  You may have to resign yourself to making sacrifices when it comes to time with your kids if you're really serious about a PhD and the tenure track.

In terms of law, the kind of flexibility that Ragu describes is certainly possible, but that has certainly not been the experience (admittedly rather anecdotal) of my sister and a few of my friends who work at BigLaw firms in NYC.  That isn't to say that it's not possible to be a lawyer and have a good home life, but at times when cases are "all hands on deck" you're spending a lot of time at the office.  I'd imagine that you're going to have more time with your kids as an academic, but of course that's assuming the stars align and you end up with a tenure track gig right out of the gate rather than trying to work 3+ different adjuncting jobs on different campuses.  One thing that's kind of nice about law is that for the most part you end up staying/working in the state where you go to school/pass the bar.  That might be a better option for family stability/kids' lives.  With academic jobs you move wherever you can find full time work, even if it's somewhere you'd really rather not settle down.  (Looking at you, deep South [from my perspective]) 

If you don't mind me asking (because you didn't mention it), are you in a relationship already where the possibility of kids is on the table, or is this more of a theoretical "When I move to a new place for grad school I'd like to meet someone, have a relationship, and have kids" question?  I'm only asking because if there's no relationship or kids in the picture right now, you have a lot more flexibility to move and figure things out.

I really don't think that anyone's comments here were intended to be condescending, don't overthink it.  =)

Edited February 7, 2018 by fortsibut
typos! typos everywhere!

[astroid88]

7 hours ago, LeraK said:

I don't like the idea of not having control over where I will end up living my life, and I honestly don't know if I have enough motivation to write as much as will be required of me in the future if I go down this path.

Though I think there is more flexibility in choosing where you live as a lawyer, I don't think it involves any less writing. In fact, there might a be a higher "production" rate when being a lawyer. Academics tend to write a lot but over a lot of time. When it comes to legal work, it seems like a lot of writing but in short bursts. 

Just giving you another way to look at your options. 

Edited February 7, 2018 by astroid88

[Ragu]

39 minutes ago, fortsibut said:

In terms of law, the kind of flexibility that Ragu describes is certainly possible, but that has certainly not been the experience (admittedly rather anecdotal) of my sister and a few of my friends who work at BigLaw firms in NYC. 

@fortsibut I do not disagree that most law jobs are grueling but I think a lot of academic jobs are equally grueling. You also have to to make sacrifices in terms of ambition to gain the type of flexibility i'm describing in law jobs. It's definitely easy to get caught up in the ambition rat race as a lawyer and I think a lot of the personality types who are drawn to law tend towards the extra-ambitious. But I've seen lawyers at BigLaw firms who prioritize their families within reason do just as well as the lawyers who are at their desk 24/7. There are definitely options for making a decent living with a flexible work schedule in law, even BigLaw, but more so if you are willing to leave that arena (especially when you are an established lawyer). Also, a lot of the BigLaw firms I know of with daycares provide perks like that because they do not expect you to ever leave the office. 

Edited February 7, 2018 by Ragu

[ExponentialDecay]

@LeraK In what possible way could you take my comment as an attack? 

@grubyczarnykot Yes, I've worked an unglamorous 9-5. For a number of years. I'm likewise not sure what bit you in the behind: I'm not disparaging people who work 9-5 jobs. Yes, they're still generally stressful and not fun. No, few jobs will pay you for spending time with your children or eating bonbons all day. But most 9-5 jobs don't expect you to work 80 hours on a 40 hour salary and, in general, when you punch out, you're genuinely off the clock. You're also not constantly stressing about the next promotion as  much, because not getting it doesn't mean you're out on your ass and have to start over in a new career. You don't have to sacrifice 5+ years of your life at poverty-level wages (and therefore delay buying a house, starting a family, and retirement) in order to just get the opportunity to apply for a job. You have some control over where you work and where you live. And, I assume OP has the wherewithal to find a job that fits their mental and physical capabilities, especially since, unlike academic positions, the availability and variety of 9-5 jobs is large.

I'm going to take a break from this thread because both of you are taking my words bizarrely out of context. I don't know what deep emotional wounds of yours I stuck a finger in, but I rather think that, if you get triggered by something as innocuous as my comment, it's your responsibility to take yourselves off the internet rather than chastise me for existing.

Edited February 7, 2018 by ExponentialDecay

[grubyczarnykot]

15 minutes ago, ExponentialDecay said:

@LeraK In what possible way could you take my comment as an attack? 

@grubyczarnykot Yes, I've worked an unglamorous 9-5. For a number of years. I'm likewise not sure what bit you in the behind: I'm not disparaging people who work 9-5 jobs. Yes, they're still generally stressful and not fun. No, few jobs will pay you for spending time with your children or eating bonbons all day. But most 9-5 jobs don't expect you to work 80 hours on a 40 hour salary and, in general, when you punch out, you're genuinely off the clock. You're also not constantly stressing about the next promotion as  much, because not getting it doesn't mean you're out on your ass and have to start over in a new career. You don't have to sacrifice 5+ years of your life at poverty-level wages (and therefore delay buying a house, starting a family, and retirement) in order to just get the opportunity to apply for a job. You have some control over where you work and where you live. And, I assume OP has the wherewithal to find a job that fits their mental and physical capabilities, especially since, unlike academic positions, the availability and variety of 9-5 jobs is large.

I'm going to take a break from this thread because both of you are taking my words bizarrely out of context. I don't know what deep emotional wounds of yours I stuck a finger in, but I rather think that, if you get triggered by something as innocuous as my comment, it's your responsibility to take yourselves off the internet rather than chastise me for existing.

Nothing “bit me in the behind”, I was just adding something to the conversation. Sorry to upset you.

[fortsibut]

53 minutes ago, Ragu said:

@fortsibut I do not disagree that most law jobs are grueling but I think a lot of academic jobs are equally grueling. You also have to to make sacrifices in terms of ambition to gain the type of flexibility i'm describing in law jobs. It's definitely easy to get caught up in the ambition rat race as a lawyer and I think a lot of the personality types who are drawn to law tend towards the extra-ambitious. But I've seen lawyers at BigLaw firms who prioritize their families within reason do just as well as the lawyers who are at their desk 24/7. There are definitely options for making a decent living with a flexible work schedule in law, even BigLaw, but more so if you are willing to leave that arena (especially when you are an established lawyer). Also, a lot of the BigLaw firms I know of with daycares provide perks like that because they do not expect you to ever leave the office. 

You're not wrong, I just wonder how well established you have to be in a big firm before you have the luxury of taking more days at home working and taking off to go see your kid's soccer game or piano recital.  I currently live in a very rural county with a number of smalltown lawyers who have nice schedules and do well enough for themselves but had to spend years establishing themselves and earning business, too.  I guess the tradeoff in the big city is guaranteed work and salary for your efforts.  I'm sure you're right that lawyers in big firms who aren't deadset on making partner can afford more time away from the office, and that'd certainly be appealing to me if I were a parent.

One of the really frustrating things about law is the potential debt.  I knew a few lawyers from my sister's graduating class who really wanted to do public interest (both because they made it through 3 years of law school and still remained determined to help the little guy and because they wanted more time with family) but had way too much debt by the time they got out of school.  There are a few programs with debt forgiveness but they're not always available across the board.  One of the draws for me with academia is that while there's certainly opportunity cost and some lost wages in those years you sink into the degree, you at least make a relatively liveable income (even if it doesn't allow for a lavish lifestyle) and walk away without another $100k+ in debt.  Granted you're going to make a fraction of what the guy who scored the BigLaw job right out of Harvard makes, but eh.

EDIT:  this thread certainly escalated quickly.

Edited February 7, 2018 by fortsibut

[Ragu]

28 minutes ago, fortsibut said:

One of the really frustrating things about law is the potential debt.  I knew a few lawyers from my sister's graduating class who really wanted to do public interest (both because they made it through 3 years of law school and still remained determined to help the little guy and because they wanted more time with family) but had way too much debt by the time they got out of school.  There are a few programs with debt forgiveness but they're not always available across the board.  One of the draws for me with academia is that while there's certainly opportunity cost and some lost wages in those years you sink into the degree, you at least make a relatively liveable income (even if it doesn't allow for a lavish lifestyle) and walk away without another $100k+ in debt.  Granted you're going to make a fraction of what the guy who scored the BigLaw job right out of Harvard makes, but eh.

EDIT:  this thread certainly escalated quickly.

That's a fair point. I would not recommend going into debt for law school unless you're 110% sure that is what you want to do.  There are more full / partial scholarships to law school than many people realize (no stipend though). Law can be a versatile career after establishing yourself for a few years, but debt does vastly limit your options. 

"One of the draws for me with academia is that while there's certainly opportunity cost and some lost wages in those years you sink into the degree, you at least make a relatively liveable income (even if it doesn't allow for a lavish lifestyle) and walk away without another $100k+ in debt." I 100% agree with this.

 

 

[Ragu]

7 hours ago, LeraK said:

I haven't looked closely at it yet, but I was thinking indiana bloomington, Michigan,UVA or Boston U (UVA and Boston are MA/JD).   

Duke has a great JD/MA in History as well. 

[ltr317]

Whether it be law or academia, almost any profession has tradeoffs.  I was in law school for a year, but after three days I knew I didn't want that lifestyle.  I went back to school and earned an MPA and worked for local government and non-profit after that, but it was stressful in a different way. 

[rising_star]

12 hours ago, grubyczarnykot said:

I’m not sure if you’ve ever had to do this, but working “an unglamorous 9-5 where you're not important enough to have to answer emails in off hours”, you’re often underpaid and honestly there are tons of different types of labor that are just as mentally consuming and more physically consuming than academic work.

I'm only commenting on this to point out that most professors, particularly in the humanities and humanistic social sciences, are underpaid. 10 years after college (with MA and PhD in hand) my salary finally matched what my BFF made in her first year after college working on Wall Street (note: that's salary; BFF also got a hefty bonus). If you look at the average wages for assistant professors, you'll get a better sense of what I made. There are few other careers where people think it's reasonable to pay someone $45-50K/year after earning a bachelor's and graduate degree. 

@LeraK, given the skill set you've been developing, have you thought about working for an international NGO or taking the foreign service exam? 

[grubyczarnykot]

3 minutes ago, rising_star said:

I'm only commenting on this to point out that most professors, particularly in the humanities and humanistic social sciences, are underpaid. 10 years after college (with MA and PhD in hand) my salary finally matched what my BFF made in her first year after college working on Wall Street (note: that's salary; BFF also got a hefty bonus). If you look at the average wages for assistant professors, you'll get a better sense of what I made. There are few other careers where people think it's reasonable to pay someone $45-50K/year after earning a bachelor's and graduate degree. 

I'm not in disagreement with anything you're saying. I agree that academics, especially in the humanities, are underpaid. I'm just pointing out that life outside of academia isn't a guarantee of an easier, more flexible life (at least in terms of labor). I'm not quite sure why what I said was taken as if I were being defensive or combative -- I really wasn't. I'm not sure what to do here. Just going to distance myself from this thread because it's stressing me out. 

[Tigla]

To expand on rising star's comment, I think the foreign service would be a viable option. In the current climate, Russian and Ukranian language skills are even more necessary and this demand will only increase. Also, you can sell your skills as a "historian" fairly easily during an interview for the foreign service. A lot of embassies and consulates, as well as Washington D.C. bureaucrats, are always looking for historians and other specialists in certain regions (Eastern Europe and Central Asia are in ATM) to help provide background information and ground policy reports. With your language skills, a field assignment is always a possibility, too. The real downside is the lack of certainty, in terms of spending time with your family. If you put your time in early enough, this will become a moot point, but your early career will be marked by waves of the unknown.

[ExponentialDecay]

15 hours ago, grubyczarnykot said:

I'm not in disagreement with anything you're saying. I agree that academics, especially in the humanities, are underpaid. I'm just pointing out that life outside of academia isn't a guarantee of an easier, more flexible life (at least in terms of labor). I'm not quite sure why what I said was taken as if I were being defensive or combative -- I really wasn't. I'm not sure what to do here. Just going to distance myself from this thread because it's stressing me out. 

Because your tone was defensive and combative. You bust into this conversation all, lemme educate you about real jobs because you've obviously never had one, and your confusion looks rather put on. Either you think we don't know that people outside academia have to earn money (because we're ivory tower trust fund babies), or you don't understand academia to such an extent that you are unaware of the basic differences in salary and time commitment between an academic and someone who works in a generic office. 

[grubyczarnykot]

4 minutes ago, ExponentialDecay said:

Because your tone was defensive and combative. You bust into this conversation all, lemme educate you about real jobs because you've obviously never had one, and your confusion looks rather put on. Either you think we don't know that people outside academia have to earn money (because we're ivory tower trust fund babies), or you don't understand academia to such an extent that you are unaware of the basic differences in salary and time commitment between an academic and someone who works in a generic office. 

I’m truly sorry, I didn’t mean to sound offensive. I can see why i would have. I’m really sorry and I don’t really know what else to say. I was both agreeing with you and adding to what you were saying. I am not putting on confusion, I swear. I’m really sorry. :/

[khigh]

I'm in the same boat as you- history PhD or Law School. Honestly, law school is it. 3 years, a little more debt, and a much better job placement rating? Sounds good to me. Start a pro-con list. Write down what you would miss by going the LS route. Take the June LSAT (apply for a fee waiver if you can, it also waives a lot of applications). Law Schools will reply within days or weeks instead of months. You don't have to go biglaw (I don't want to) and there are a lot more opportunities if you speak a foreign language (international, international business, UN, NGOs, immigration). I'm a sports fanatic and speak/read several European based languages, so I've been looking at labor and contract law and hope to get on with a baseball team or a sports firm to recruit foreign players for MLB. 

There are, however, cons to the law school route. It's more expensive unless your numbers are good (pretty much all law schools look at is GPA and LSAT). Biglaw is almost impossible to break into unless you are HYS (Harvard, Yale, Stanford). Law is a regional field. If you don't go HYS, you will likely stay in the place where you go to LS. Networking is key- if you are an introvert, it's not going to work too well. It's competitive. Your grades aren't based on what you do on your own, but are curved with your class. If you are out of the top 10%, you won't get into a big firm. Outside the top 25% and you likely won't get a good summer internship (some I have seen will pay $40-$60k for the summer!). Non-profits and government work means you likely won't be able to pay off your loans.

[Ragu]

2 hours ago, khigh said:

- Law Schools will reply within days or weeks instead of months.

- Biglaw is almost impossible to break into unless you are HYS (Harvard, Yale, Stanford).

- Law is a regional field. If you don't go HYS, you will likely stay in the place where you go to LS

Good luck to you if you decide to pursue a law career. I just want to note some disagreements I have with the selected parts of your post. Some law schools may reply quickly with admission results but not most. Any Tier 1 law school is fine for breaking into big law. Your point about law schools being regional is fairly accurate. This means that people from low ranked law schools get big law jobs in their region. However, many many people leave their law school’s region to pursue great job opportunities who do not go to Harvard, Yale, or Stanford.

Edited February 8, 2018 by Ragu

[fortsibut]

1 hour ago, khigh said:

Biglaw is almost impossible to break into unless you are HYS (Harvard, Yale, Stanford).

This is completely inaccurate.  My sister went to Brooklyn Law and she and a number of her classmates from up and down the school's GPA rankings ended up with BigLaw jobs.  One of the summer students she did her summer program with her second year was from NYLS which is very, very lowly ranked and that student also scored a firm job.  These were not isolated incidences.  I'm also not sure why you're arbitrarily leaving out the other Ivy law programs; you think Columbia and Cornell don't place most of their students (who want to work there) in Big Law jobs?   The further you go down the T14, the lower your chances may be at being able to easily move to a different location and score a BigLaw job there, but those schools still do just fine.

Additionally for anyone looking at law who might not know this:  LSAC (the body that administers the LSAT and handles collecting transcripts and other elements of the application process for many schools) averages every grade you've ever made at every collegiate institution.  That might not matter for many of you who went straight through college your first try with a 4.0, but my first college experience ~17 years ago was three awful semester with a lot of F's.  That 1.7 will probably bring my 3.86 from the school I actually graduated from down to the low 2's.  And if you took a class and failed it twice then got an A, your school may cancel out those Fs with the A, but LSAC will not be as forgiving and averages it all in.  Something to keep in mind, although I'm sure most schools will look at your most recent history more closely than the overall gpa given how it's calculated.

Also for the first time, some schools (including Harvard) are letting students submit their GRE scores rather than taking the LSAT.  I'd imagine that you'd want to really kill all 3 parts of the GRE (I'm pretty hopeless at math) to actually opt to go with that over the LSAT though, and who knows how Harvard would actually weigh a candidate who had a perfect GRE score vs. a perfect LSAT score.  That LSAT bias might be built in pretty deep.