PhD vs. Law School with Scholarship

[leveluptbc]

Hey all, this is my first post so I hope I don't break any implicit norms. I created an account to see if any of you folks might have some advice about how to make an upcoming admissions decision I'm going to have to make.

 

Coming into the application season, I really wanted to do a PhD, but knew the application process would be wickedly competitive, so as a backup (and hoping for the possibility of doing a joint-degree), I applied to law school. Exceeding my wildest dreams, I've received full-ride offers from top law schools and I've been planning to go to one of these, expecting to get shut out of the PhD process. But now, after several disappointing silences, I've finally had a bit of success on the PhD side, and I'm somewhat at a loss as to how I should go about making my decision. While I truly love philosophy and think I could succeed in a PhD program, I think I could enjoy being a lawyer as well, and I'm scared that turning down a much much surer job and the scholarship money that goes with the opportunity would be super silly.

 

Does anyone have any advice?

[Infinite Zest]

It's difficult to weigh all the variables here, but I think it's fair to say your job prospects are probably pretty good going to a top law school. I don't know if I can say the same about the majority of philosophy grad programs.

Seriously though, this depends on your priorities.

[ianfaircloud]

I haven't published this (yet), but maybe this is a good time to run it by a few people on this forum.

 

Law school after philosophy: Ten things I would say to a student of philosophy who is considering law school.

By Ian Faircloud

Philosophy is the perfect pre-law discipline. Simply put, the good student of law applies abstract rules and principles – i.e. the law – to facts.  Because facts are messy, the good student of law is able to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant information.  These two skills – the ability to draw out the relevant information and the ability to apply the law to facts – are indispensable to students of law. These skills are uncommonly crucial to the student of philosophy, as well. This is a simplification of the larger point that students of philosophy are particularly well-suited to the study of law. I think the broader point is that students of philosophy think abstractly, critically, and deeply, habits that are deeply rewarding in the study of law.

Succeeding in law admissions is not particularly difficult for philosophy students. You’ll probably crush the LSAT, because students of philosophy – as with other standards tests – do particularly well on it. Half of the LSAT is composed of sections in which the test-taker analyzes the logic of arguments. Frankly, this portion of the test may come so naturally that you needn’t bother studying for it. After the LSAT, the remainder of the application is less important. Law schools admit people almost strictly according to LSAT and GPA. Your letters of recommendation can be generalized for all schools to which you apply. Your personal statement hardly matters. And the LSAC’s application service allows you to submit applications very quickly through standardized, auto-filled forms – forms that do not require you to send transcripts to the law schools. Finally, by philosophy standards, law admission is quite easy. Top philosophy programs admit probably four percent of applicants, while top law schools admit roughly fifteen percent.

Graduates from strong law schools typically do well financially. Though the legal job market is not strong, graduates from the best law schools are still doing quite well. And in general, lawyers do well financially. Of course, people who want to teach philosophy often end up jobless. Sadly, academic philosophy has an uncertain future, because -- frankly -- ignorant people do not understand its value. Ignorant parents, for instance, steer their children away from philosophy. I fear also that, more and more, people value the sciences (particularly the hard sciences) over the arts. This is all to say that, provided you graduate from a strong law school, your law future is more certain.

It’s an easier path to legal academia than to philosophy academia. If your hope is to teach and research philosophy, you have a very, very challenging course ahead of you. You will likely spend five to seven years pursuing the PhD and, for many of you, only after earning a master’s degree. You will then be challenged to find a tenure-track position. Getting tenure is no walk in the park, either. Legal academia is comparatively much easier. Shockingly, most legal academics have only the JD, a three-year degree. Legal academics make far more money than philosophers, and it’s easier to get tenure.

Law school is not as brainy. All other things being equal, your peers will not be as strong intellectually as those alongside whom you studied philosophy. The fact of the matter is that philosophy attracts a special level of intellectual talent (or so published data and personal experience suggest). Though many great minds are to be found among law schools, they do not take up the same share of the student or faculty population as they do in philosophy.

Practical skills and personality are far more valuable in law school. You probably could guess this, but law school peers and professors will value your practical skills and your personality far more than anyone in your philosophy department. Many typical duties of lawyers – negotiations, oral argument, etc. – require practical skills. Also, many lawyers work with people in business, government, or non-profit organizations. Philosophers primarily think and write, though their teaching is occasionally valued (some sarcasm intended).

Some law school classes are utterly boring, while others are thrilling. I never took a philosophy course that I didn’t like. Law courses, unfortunately, can be boring. Civil procedure, for instance, is a required course for all first-year law students, and essentially it’s a class on everything boring related to the court system. Good students of philosophy will struggle to keep their eyes open when covering such a dull subject. On the other hand, students of philosophy typically love most of the first-year law student curriculum, particularly contract law, criminal law, and tort law, and are much better prepared than people who did not study philosophy (or at least do not think about the world the way that philosophy-types typically do).

You may feel out of place in law school. If you’re a student of philosophy, you are used to having your head in the books. Your peers and professors are, too. Frankly, philosophy students aren’t generally as sociable or extroverted as students of law. Philosophy students are more serious about what they’re studying than what they’re going to do with it. Law students are exactly the opposite. Law students, in my experience, are goal-oriented, outcomes-sensitive, and utilitarian. Law school is not about the journey; it’s about the destination.

You have a quick answer to the annoying question of what you plan to do with that degree. For what it’s worth, people will understand your pursuit of a job in law far better than your pursuit of something in philosophy. When you take up the study of law, you will rarely hear that tired and miserable question, “What are you going to do with that?”. But if you’re like me, this is one of the things you most enjoyed about your study of philosophy: it is special in that way.

You may feel like a sell-out, but you don’t have to feel like one. Leaving philosophy for law may feel akin to leaving the fine arts for business school. Particularly if you plan to work at a big law firm, leaving philosophy is like dumping your $55k non-profit job for a $160k job in the private sector. A philosopher whose brothers are practicing attorneys recently told me that his brothers live good lives, where the good life is defined roughly as one of material prosperity. Even if you plan to practice law in the public’s interest, you may feel confined; after all, when you die, so will much of your work (though not in every case).

My own idea of the good life has a lot to do with searching for answers and contributing to something timeless, beyond the limits of me and my life. If you choose to take up law, you may need to figure out what in the legal profession will allow you to maintain pursuit of the good life as you define it. If you’re a philosophy student (and feel at home in philosophy), then I would guess that your picture of the good life is markedly different from that of most law students.

Still, one thing to keep in mind about law is that, unlike investigations of the a priori, law can’t be done from the couch. Law is worldly, in the sense that what you do as a legal professional will have a real impact on others in the world. What’s great about law is that it is inescapably grounded in practical concerns.

The legal profession needs people who think as philosophers do. It requires people who think not only descriptively but also normatively about the world. Our society depends on the work of lawyers who fit this description, because lawyers are powerful, influential people. They shape policy and its interpretation. They assign priorities to values and goals, and by the authority of law and the power of government, these priorities are actualized.

Edited February 17, 2015 by ianfaircloud

[Infinite Zest]

Also, my friend recently was given an "opportunity" to work for a very famous psychologist and get to do some very promising research. In a sense, he was given an amazing opportunity. Still, based on his interests, the work did not fascinate him and had very little value to him in particular. My point here is that you shouldn't get too distracted by how good of an opportunity law school is for someone; how good of an opportunity is law school for you?

[Hcarp]

That was an excellent, insightful piece of info, @ianfaircloud. Thanks a lot for it.