A recent study conducted by Rachel E. Dwyer, an assistant professor at Ohio State, suggests that educational debt may actually benefit college graduates by bolstering their self esteem:

After sampling more than 3,000 young people between the ages of 18 and 34, she found that many people under the age of 27 were positively impacted by debt; her data showed that both higher levels of credit card and college loan debt equated to higher rates of self-worth. Additionally, these respondents reported feeling not only in control of their lives, but uniquely primed to achieve their goals.

Seriously? When is debt really a good thing? If this study is at all accurate, it sounds like there are a lot of people out there in total denial of reality.

The New York Times recently posted a piece on the growing popularity of “career associate” positions at large law firms. What I find most interesting are the comments. Here are some snippets:

Real Money from Orange Co says:

lawyers charge way too much for what they do. Rates still need to come down 30-40%. I’m tired of getting ripped off for legal bills for mediocre work.

AA from Cambridge, MA says:

A few years ago I hired a lawyer for the first time and was amazed that a very expensive billable hour often involved him doing nothing more than reading and sending a few e-mails. It’s about time they found ways to reduce their fees like this and by using software to do routine investigative work.

It’s too bad for these people who are stuck with mountains of debt, but frankly the country does not need so many lawyers. Hopefully this will reduce the number of people attending law school when it’s not seen as a guaranteed ticket to a high salary.

Joseph from San Francisco says:

Nobody has told the law schools that the $160,000 jobs are dying out. Tuition has skyrocketed and wages are collapsing. Take it from a 2007 graduate, get thee to plumbing school. A J.D. isn’t what it used to be. Prestige won’t pay your mortgage.

Dave E. from St. Paul, MN says:

Having spent several years in a large law firm where non-partnership track positions were nonexistent, I can confidently say there are many, many attorneys who would jump at the chance to get paid less for lower billable hours and a regular schedule.

You quite simply cannot dedicate yourself to your family as a full time partner or partnership-track associate in private practice, unless you can literally survive on less than five hours of sleep at night. There simply are not enough hours in the day to do both effectively.

I know countless attorneys who left firms not because they disliked the work, but because they disliked the lifestyle. It’s not as if these attorneys are stamping in an manufacturing plant.

Trudy from RI says:

Many well-educated, highly competent people would be happy to have a $60,000 job that also let them have a life. Like one individual quoted in the article, not all of us are driven to acquire large piles of cash.

AnnieNYNY from New York, NY says:

I wish that my firm would offer a second-tier track. I would gladly accept less pay for more flexibility. As it is, I wonder how I can possibly maintain a decent work-life balance when my husband and I are both at big firms working 12 hour + days and don’t want to farm our children out to nannies. Instead, we’re all stuck on the treadmill with few options for getting off of it that don’t involve a massive pay cut (we’re not talking 60-70K less, we’re talking 100-140K less) and/or much less sophisticated work. Law firms need MORE flexibility, not less.

I used to think my family was bad at communication. Until I started working at a law firm. There, no one says what they mean and outward appearances are all rosy and full of self-congratulatory propaganda. “So-and-so secured a big victory for Client X. Just another example that we are awesome and committed to exceeding our clients’ expectations.” Right.

So when I read this recent People’s Therapist article, I found myself nodding in agreement, as I usually do with his musings. In a nutshell, he argues that speaking one’s mind in a law firm is completely taboo and instead firms resort to “code talk” to deal with unpleasant situations. For example:

For the most part, “I think we should talk about” is reserved for the single most crucial conversation in the entire law firm conversational repertoire, the ne plus ultra of conversations – to wit: “I think we should talk about your billable hours.”

This exchange, undertaken under secrecy at the highest levels of power, plays out something like this:

“I think we should talk about your billable hours.”

“Well, it has been slow. Work doesn’t seem to be coming in.”

“I’m sorry to hear that.”

This conversation, which fuses the twin forces of “I think we should talk about” and “I’m sorry to hear that” into one redoubtable melange, roughly parallels the situation of being called into Don Corleone’s office – well, let’s say tied up, packed into the truck of a Chrysler, and delivered to his office for a little chat.

I remember back to a few years ago, when business was particularly slow and I rarely had enough work to fill my days. I repeatedly offered my services to partners, to the point where I was probably an annoyance. “You need any help with anything?” As though I was actually eager to pick up a few billable hours here and there doing such exciting tasks as cite-checking a brief or triple-checking a big document review.

My hours fell behind and by the end of the year it was impossible to make up for the time when the work simply wasn’t there. What did they expect me to do? Work around the clock for that last month to compensate for the months when they, the people who are supposed to bring in the work, could not fill my plate despite my demonstrated willingness to work? I could not say this, of course, because that would make me a “bad” associate. And of course, one would expect a “good” associate to do just that - suck it up and dutifully swallow the abuse. The fact that no work was actually pressing enough to warrant lost hours of sleep was irrelevant. Just make up those hours.

So it came as no surprise to me when I got the “I think we should talk about your hours” lecture in my annual review. Despite my best efforts to defend myself with all the reasonable explanations, that just doesn’t cut it in law firm vernacular. In my case, all it amounted to was a $0 bonus that year, but I secretly hoped it would provide an escape route. Instead of “sleeping with the fishes,” I had to take it upon myself, a few years later, to politely excuse myself from the “family.” And thankfully, that’s where the Godfather parallels end.

Andrea Kay reflects that, quite often, people hold on to jobs that make them miserable because the job is familiar and safe:

[P]eople fall into what I call the These-Days Trap, as in “These days, you should be glad for what you’ve got and hold on to it.” Have you said that yourself?

If all of this sounds way too familiar, maybe you should examine what you hold on to and whether you have the stomach to change.

But instead of asking what you would give up if you left, maybe you should be considering what you would gain if you did:

1. What are you holding on to? Is it the familiarity of something? If so, what? Is it a feeling of something, fitting in?

2. What do you gain from it? Is it social status? Money? Comfort in knowing what to expect each day? Acceptance from others?

3. What is it keeping you from getting or doing other aspirations? As long as you keep doing this work, what else don’t you get to do or have?

4. What will you lose if you give it up? Respect? Money? An identity? A particular group of friends?

5. Is what you lose worth more than the new career satisfaction you want?

So student loan debt in the United States is now approaching a trillion dollars, five times what it was five years ago. Seth Godin asks whether degrees from elite institutions are actually worth their drastically higher price tags.

What would happen if people spent it building up a work history instead? On becoming smarter, more flexible, more self-sufficient and yes, able to take more risk because they owe less money…

There’s no doubt that we need smarter and more motivated people in our organizations. I’m not sure we need them to be better labeled or more accredited.

I’m really enjoying reading this blog chronicling a former BigLaw associate’s new life as a stay-at-home mom. Insightful and provides lots of food for thought.

Brilliant insight by Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal, on the scam that is higher education in this country.

“A true bubble is when something is overvalued and intensely believed,” he says. “Education may be the only thing people still believe in in the United States. To question education is really dangerous. It is the absolute taboo. It’s like telling the world there’s no Santa Claus.”

Americans are conditioned to believe that higher education is the promise of a better future. “Do this and you will be safe,” is the mantra many cling to, but:

Like any good bubble, this belief– while rooted in truth– gets pushed to unhealthy levels. Thiel talks about consumption masquerading as investment during the housing bubble, as people would take out speculative interest-only loans to get a bigger house with a pool and tell themselves they were being frugal and saving for retirement. Similarly, the idea that attending Harvard is all about learning? Yeah. No one pays a quarter of a million dollars just to read Chaucer. The implicit promise is that you work hard to get there, and then you are set for life. It can lead to an unhealthy sense of entitlement. “It’s what you’ve been told all your life, and it’s how schools rationalize a quarter of a million dollars in debt,” Thiel says.

This great article by Scott Dinsmore illuminates the red flags of job purgatory and provides inspiration for breaking free.

An interesting article from Inc. Magazine on a tech firm’s business model that rewards “horizontal ambition” rather than the traditional model of “vertical ambition,” the usual career trajectory of ascending a company’s hierarchy. Do what you love from the start and then progressively develop your skills and take on additional responsibility rather than just aspire to become a “manager.”

Another great post from the People’s Therapist. (via Above the Law)

Isn’t it sad when the best you can say about your job is that it’s “not horrible”? I can certainly relate to these unfortunately too-common sentiments among young lawyers:

You’ve realized law school was a mistake – and the thought of your loans makes you queasy. If you get through the day without being criticized or given some god-awful assignment, you can go home and try to sleep. That’s a good day.

Yep, that was as good as it got.

The week before Thanksgiving, my client reminded this partner he’d be away for the actual day of the holiday – Thanksgiving Day – to visit his wife’s family.

The partner looked shocked at this effrontery. “Will you be available remotely?” He asked.

Now that’s horrible. Do some people have no souls?

At a big law firm, it’s hard to imagine a life containing meaning or pleasure. This is a legal career: You exchange human misery for money, which pays loans.

Sigh.

Not horrible is limbo. Purgatory. The doldrums.

And it is also not living.

This post on Above the Law reproduces a particularly heart-warming exit memo of a BigLaw associate.

I’m winging it so I can live every day boldly. I’m winging it because I believe romanticizing life can be a viable survival mechanism, at least while we are young. I’m winging it because I won’t always have the energy to do something batshit crazy like this.

And to that, ATL wisely observes:

[A]ny day spent in furtherance of your dream is better than everyday you spend wasting your time in a profession you know you do not like.

Amen.

The ABA Journal advises law firms to cater to young lawyers’ desires for lifestyle benefits in recruitment materials as a means to attract talent.

The question is, though, will law firms back up their rosy claims with any real substance? I doubt it. Law firms have a knack for paying lip service to young lawyers seeking a balanced life by purporting to offer a greater degree of work-life balance than other firms, but I have yet to hear of a firm that can really stand behind its marketing propaganda. It’s a sad fact that the practice of law is simply all-encompassing and incompatible with a truly flexible working arrangement. The notion of a “lifestyle firm” is really only an illusion.

Bill Chamberlain, Assistant Dean at Northwestern School of Law, admits that law schools have a long way to go in providing the transparency needed for prospective students to intelligently evaluate career prospects with a law degree, but he also notes that those students also bear responsibility for ensuring they are motivated to go to law school by a genuine desire to practice law, not by the false promise of six figures:

Much of the responsibility also rests on the shoulders of prospective law school applicants themselves – many of whom have entered our walls for all the wrong reasons. For example, practicing law is not just about the money and never has been – the motivation must go beyond that. If your only motivation for attending law school is to make six-figures or some vague notion to pursue what sounds like a practical degree, you are bound to be sorely disappointed whether you land one of those coveted jobs or not. When junior associates compute their salaries on a per hour worked basis, they are often shocked. No one should go to law school unless she or he wants to become a lawyer and practice law and, better yet, has already developed an interest in particular aspects within the law. The prospective student who fails to do the due diligence to find out what “becoming a lawyer and “practicing law” really means on a day-to-day basis really has no business applying.

The overabundance of people with college degrees, even advanced degrees, who hold jobs for which no college education is required raises questions whether the Obama administration’s insistence that having more college graduates is necessary for continued economic leadership. Does massive investment in higher education really yield a comparable rate of return?

Now it is true that college has a consumption as well as investment function. People often enjoy going to classes, just as they enjoy watching movies or taking trips. They love the socialization dimensions of schooling—particularly in this age of the country-clubization of American universities. They may improve their self-esteem by earning a college degree. Yet, at a time when resources are scarce, when American governments are running $1.3-trillion deficits, when we face huge unfunded liabilities associated with commitments made to our growing elderly population, should we be subsidizing increasingly problematic educational programs for students whose prior academic record would suggest little likelihood of academic, much less vocational, success?

According to the ABA Journal, a recently-released report on the future of the legal profession by the New York State Bar Association observes that increased global competition encouraged by economic hardship and technological advances has put considerable pressure on law firms to deliver the highest quality legal services in the cheapest and fastest way possible. At the same time, the report calls for limiting hours worked by attorneys in order to, in the words of the State Bar President, “figure out where our boundary is as lawyers and as human beings.”

Let’s see how that recommendation goes over. The reality is that law firms value billable hours, not human beings. Unfortunately, I suspect that increased competition will only place more emphasis on the bottom line, thus making it harder for lawyers to attain that elusive work-life balance.

Fantastic tips from Penelope Trunk on how to take control of your time and not let your job consume you.

More evidence that the college tuition bubble burst is looming on the horizon.

One observation that I find particularly aggravating:

6) Schools are spending on luxurious amenities to lure in more students

Flush with student loan money and wanting to attract even more, colleges are increasingly spending on luxury dorms, gyms, swimming pools and other amenities.

What’s the deal with the fancy student centers and other over-the-top expenditures? Schools seem to engage in never-ending building initiatives that consume millions of your tuition dollars. But I really doubt the quality of the education they provide is enhanced one bit by an on-campus Starbucks.

But, let’s face it, competing for students isn’t always about offering the best education possible.

There’s nothing like a bit of doom to get you going on a Monday. In this article, Vox Day blasts the student loan system for playing upon the ambitions of millions of young people and turning them into slaves.

The dark secret of the college-loan system is that it is not designed to help students pay for college and generate a reasonable interest-profit for the loan provider that will be paid off within a short period of time after the student begins working and receives a degree-enhanced salary. It is specifically designed to keep the graduate on a treadmill of debt that will ideally never be repaid.

High-school students must learn that no degree, not even one from a top Ivy League university, is worth the gamble of being caught up in this infernal system. And parents must learn that they must deny their children the dubious honor of being sacrificed to the illegitimate gods of educational debt, no matter how desperately their children might plead for the privilege, like innocent Aztec maidens bedazzled by the sun.

Be sure to check out The Student Loans Scheme referenced within.

You have to really fight for a balanced life. This article provides some great tips for obtaining small victories in that battle.

Steven J. Harper, a professor at Northwestern University Law School and retired partner at Kirkland & Ellis, follows up on the recent New York Times article criticizing law school transparency with assurances that the Times’ accusations are well-founded. Calling for greater candor on the part of law schools as to the realities of substantial debt and a lackluster legal job market, Harper provides an insight that will sound familiar to many jaded professionals, but one that is far too seldom offered to the masses of idealistic, aspiring lawyers:

Some students enter law school expecting to become Atticus Finch or the lead attorneys on Law & Order. Others pursue large firm equity partnerships as a way to riches. Few realize that career dissatisfaction plagues most of the so-called winners who land what they once thought were the big firm jobs of their dreams.

A legal degree can lead to many different careers. The urgency of loan repayment schedules creates a practical reality that pushes most students in big law’s direction. If past is prologue, the vast majority of them will not be happy there. They should know the truth—the whole truth—before they make their first law school tuition payments.