MPP/MPA vs. J.D.

[Sachin]

What's your take on the MPP/MPA vs. JD debate? If you want to go into the public sector -- and have no appetite for private sector corporate law -- and would preferably like to work in shaping public policy through government work (local, state, or federal) which would you do?

One of the things that keeps me up at night is that I think my inability to finance law school (I'll have to take about 150K to 200K in loans) would force me away from a public policy career. It seems like you have a couple options: Do corporate law for 3 or 4 years and pay off that debt. That's not too appealing because spending 4 (intense 24/7) years of your life (your good years) doing something you care nothing about doesn't seem appealing. Do nonprofit legal work and just accept the low 40 to 60k salary. They have loan repayment programs that will help you stay afloat. Problem is, I'd like to do a little more than just get by. Loan repayment options don't seem as great once you read the real fine print. This differs depending on the school. Or, you could be an Assistant District Attorney and make good money and do good work. You'd do that for like 5 to 10 years to pay off your debt. That's a fine choice but I'm less interested in that because honestly at the end of the day that's just about implementing the law and not (as directly) creating it.

I have a really great job right now and I'm afraid that if I go to law school I'll never get back to it. I'm a policy analyst for a local elected official and it's great. I write weekly memos advising my boss on how to vote, write a lot of speeches, work on political strategy, and get to attend community/board/commission meetings on her behalf. It's a sweet gig and it's exactly what I want to do. I'm afraid that if I go to law school I won't ever get to come back. Will I?

It seems like there are some MPP/MPA schools that offer a lot of grant aid so not only will you get a degree that pushes you more towards a policy job but you'll be able to take it because you won't be as slammed into debt. I know that Princeton and USC offer very generous grant packages. I'm sure others do as well, I just haven't done all my homework.

Anyways, I don't want to guide the discussion too much. But what's your take on all this? I keep switching back and forth (lately i've been leaning against law school, again) and I'd like some of your guys' great advice.

Thanks!

[flyers29]

I'm honestly not sure why the JD gets so much play as a viable option in public policy. I mean yes, you're going to find a lot of elected officials and presidential appointee policy-makers with JDs, but what percentage of the total population of people working in public policy does that represent? The fact that you already work for an elected official means you have a better chance of going that route compared to most others, but in all likelihood you'll just end up working your way up the government pay scale or working in a think tank. Unless you have some sort of guarantee that you'll be able to get back in with your current work when you're finished, as well as having an ACTUAL desire to study law, I'd say you're better off with an MPP/MPA.

[hollinsprincess]

What's your take on the MPP/MPA vs. JD debate? If you want to go into the public sector -- and have no appetite for private sector corporate law -- and would preferably like to work in shaping public policy through government work (local, state, or federal) which would you do?

As someone who has a JD from a firm top 30 and rising law school, I'm on this thread because I find myself applying to MPP/MPA programs due to my desire to work with policy and the fact that I feel as if my JD does not prepare me for that in the least. I find that many employers see my JD as detrimental, not a bonus. I did not find my love of policy/politics/public interest until law school; had I known I would have simply gotten an MPP/MPA. Law school is expensive, and my debt load just causes me to laugh manically (and do keep in mind I went to a public school, with in-state tuition, no grants/scholarships - used only Federal Loans (I honestly do not know anyone who had grants/scholarships from the law school -- most of us used loans exclusively), and the cost was quite reasonable in comparison to the $50k+ per year prices of private law schools). If you do NOT want to sit for a bar exam and practice law, I'd highly suggest the MPP/MPA route. Further, if you want to practice law in the public sector then you do need to keep the pay disparities in mind. I have little desire to write contracts all day at a firm -- but a recent NYT article about the dark side of law schoool mentioned that most graduates must make at least $65,000 a year to be able to pay their debts back. Just to give perspective -- the small city I live in starts their Commonwealth Attorney's (same thing as a DA) at $55,000. Still $10,000 shy of that NYT amount. Most law graduates with debt will not pay off their loans in 5-10 years, in all honesty.

[JBrodsky]

As someone who has a JD from a firm top 30 and rising law school, I'm on this thread because I find myself applying to MPP/MPA programs due to my desire to work with policy and the fact that I feel as if my JD does not prepare me for that in the least. I find that many employers see my JD as detrimental, not a bonus. I did not find my love of policy/politics/public interest until law school; had I known I would have simply gotten an MPP/MPA. Law school is expensive, and my debt load just causes me to laugh manically (and do keep in mind I went to a public school, with in-state tuition, no grants/scholarships - used only Federal Loans (I honestly do not know anyone who had grants/scholarships from the law school -- most of us used loans exclusively), and the cost was quite reasonable in comparison to the $50k+ per year prices of private law schools). If you do NOT want to sit for a bar exam and practice law, I'd highly suggest the MPP/MPA route. Further, if you want to practice law in the public sector then you do need to keep the pay disparities in mind. I have little desire to write contracts all day at a firm -- but a recent NYT article about the dark side of law schoool mentioned that most graduates must make at least $65,000 a year to be able to pay their debts back. Just to give perspective -- the small city I live in starts their Commonwealth Attorney's (same thing as a DA) at $55,000. Still $10,000 shy of that NYT amount. Most law graduates with debt will not pay off their loans in 5-10 years, in all honesty.

I can't match this poster's tremendous experience, but I'd say she and fliers are on the money. I was very focused on law school after undergrad. I did the right kind of internships, got the right kind of scores. etc. Luckiliy, however, I had a pretty clear idea of the kinds of things that I wanted to do, and spent a lot of time thinking about what I didn't want to do, and along the way I interviewed about 50 lawyers who were doing what in my mind was "interesting" sorts of law. International public and private, interesting litigation, etc.

For me, in the end, the debt, relative lack of geographic mobility (particularly internationally), and in the end, the realization that I had no desire to actually practice law dissuaded me. I met a few lawyers who said that law is a great degree no matter what you want to do, teaches you how to analyze, etc. They were a very small minority. Law's great, I think, if you want to practice it. Otherwise, it's a long slog through torts and everything else, and a lot of debt, to "get your foot in the door."

Just my two cents. Statistics do indicate that it's a bad time to graduate from law school, though.