Is law the most overrated university subject and career path?

I doubt that as laws are not merely rules or legislation. AI does not possess emotions. This the biggest weakness for AI. Emotions are crucial in law. Humans have the unique ability to create empathy with jurors, but not AI. I believe AI can help with the strategy and quality of information but not replacing lawyers. Furthermore, using AI will speed up the process of due diligence. This is crucial for the commercial firms as they charged by hours. I think this will undermine their income, as fewer hours are needed to complete a task.

Trolling probably. Their posts were ill-informed and they seem to have multiple accounts.

3 years of law have elucidated everything for me, and I am not even bitter since I had a decent honours from a decent RG university:

First of all, laws aren't even made by lawyers. Those who make laws need not, and usually do not, have a law degree or profound knowledge in law.
So you are basically studying something that is not even made by lawyers/people who have studied law. And you view it as a seemingly "exclusive" profession.

Secondly, laws change all the time, what you have learnt in this year may have to be erased/modified to make way for new laws next year. Don't even get me started on case law. It's simply chaos and uncertainty shrouded in a veneer of "tradition".

Thirdly, laws differ even within a single country, let alone overseas common law jurisdictions, and let alone non-common law jurisdictions. Meanwhile most sciences are universal, and even business studies do generally work universally.

Fourthly, the UK justice system is a joke. Most judges probably had a sentence in mind BEFORE the trial even began. And laws have to make way for the social status / perceived worth of the defendant.

Fifthly, the legal profession probably does not depend on academic ability as much as the other aspects of a prospective candidate, such as connections and social status/background. 80-something% of lawyers say their work is boring and not challenging in the slightest. Surely judging a candidate mostly on their academic merit would be pointless?

What else?

My view is that law is something that takes a lot of work after the degree to succeed in. You have to be intelligent and confident...

I studied engineering and I could give you a list of things why engineering is overrated. The pays is terrible for the effort...

This is essentially the point I was making in #87. Alas, it is the problem with all graduate employment these days: 'the pay is terrible for the effort'. To succeed in any career, you have to be 'intelligent and confident' and 'put in a lot of work after the degree' but competition in the legal professions is especially intense and success is often - though not always - skewed by socioeconomic status to a greater extent than in other careers; or to put it another way, 'it pays to be posh'.

'Degree degradation' and 'a revolution of falling expectations' is something all students have to contend with, whatever their chosen subject:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/degree-degradation-with-too-many-university-graduates-and-not-enough-jobs-many-are-finding-10461190.html

The situation has worsened since the above article was written and is now further exacerbated by the Covid-19 debacle. But the brightest and the best - along with the privileged - will still find success.

How is doing Law risky?

3 years of law have elucidated everything for me, and I am not even bitter since I had a decent honours from a decent RG university:

First of all, laws aren't even made by lawyers. Those who make laws need not, and usually do not, have a law degree or profound knowledge in law.
So you are basically studying something that is not even made by lawyers/people who have studied law. And you view it as a seemingly "exclusive" profession.

Secondly, laws change all the time, what you have learnt in this year may have to be erased/modified to make way for new laws next year. Don't even get me started on case law. It's simply chaos and uncertainty shrouded in a veneer of "tradition".

Thirdly, laws differ even within a single country, let alone overseas common law jurisdictions, and let alone non-common law jurisdictions. Meanwhile most sciences are universal, and even business studies do generally work universally.

Fourthly, the UK justice system is a joke. Most judges probably had a sentence in mind BEFORE the trial even began. And laws have to make way for the social status / perceived worth of the defendant.

Fifthly, the legal profession probably does not depend on academic ability as much as the other aspects of a prospective candidate, such as connections and social status/background. 80-something% of lawyers say their work is boring and not challenging in the slightest. Surely judging a candidate mostly on their academic merit would be pointless?

What else?

Who do you think drafts the law? Who do you think advises the legislator? Do you have such little understanding of the system that you are unaware of this?



Would it be better, in your mind, if the law never changed? Would this increase the utility of a law degree?



Why is this relevant? The majority of lawyers will only wish to practice law in the country where they reside.



Evidence for the former accusation please?



So connections and social status/background don't play a role in recruitment in any other sector, i suppose? Why do the top law firms have strict academic criteria for applicants then?

Yes, you don't sound bitter at all.

See, lawyers do not make law on their own volition. Their work is always passive, dependent, and is always overwhelmingly about formalities. it's not to say it is definitely a good thing for all laws to be created by lawyers, but lawyers have little to no say in what the law is and cannot really think outside of the box.
Computer programmers make new computer programs without depending on anyone else, advancements on literature on anatomy are always created by surgeons themselves, biologists and chemists make new discoveries and formulations which were not known to exist by anyone else before. Yet laws are not made by lawyers themselves but legislators who draws a skeleton and the most a law draftsman could do is add flesh to the bone.

The majority of lawyers only want to practice law in their own country? How do you know? You are the embodiment of the "majority of lawyers"? Why are training contracts with international seats so popular with prospective trainees then? Perhaps most lawyers practice in their own countries because they are not qualified to practice in another country and therefore have no choice? What about people who want to escape political uncertainties in their own country?
Aren't you the one waffling about?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/25/oxford-student-judge-suggested-bright-prison-spared-jail-stabbing/
"Too bright for jail" coming from a judge. Why call it a "court of law" instead of a "court of prejudice, family background, and perceived personal worth"?

What difference does it make? Their expertise is required in the process. Why on earth are you fixated on this point? It has nothing to do with employability or the usefulness of the degree.



The majority of people wish to work in the country in which they reside in. This shouldn't come as a huge shock to you. If they wish to move countries and are qualified in their own jurisdiction, many countries have procedures in place that do not require repeating a 3-4 year degree and are really not particularly onerous if you are skilled at legal study. So, yes there is often a choice. The barrier caused by a required fluency in a country's language (and perhaps immigration issues) is often far more difficult to overcome.

Have you actually practiced? I am guessing that you haven't.



How does this prove that the judge had his mind made up about a sentence before the trial had even begun? That's right, it doesn't.

You are talking absolute nonsense. The number of solicitors i know with no relatives in the legal profession far outweighs those that do. There is no conspiracy to exclude 'outsiders'. Rather than reading a blog, i would advise actually qualifying and working as a solicitor for a few years. Perhaps then you will know what you are talking about.

You are focusing on employability and usefulness of the degree but what this thread is about is not only "usefulness" but also all that "academic rigour" and "intellectually stimulating" **** found in every law personal statement. How can it be stimulating when you have to take laws for granted? How is legal formalities stimulating in any way? It isn't. There are too many people in this thread and elsewhere who talked about wanting to study law and saying that law is sacred / meaningful / upholding justice. I was somebody along those lines and I can't cope with how utterly stupid I was.

Obviously law students are employable that's why it's usually rated highly but what people fail to realize BEFORE studying law is that it is overrated, and "overrated" is a relative concept, overrated in relation to science and STEM subjects which are underrated.

There are a lot of law programs with a year of studying abroad and they are almost always more competitive to enter than ordinary 3-year LLBs. If people only wish to work within their own country / jurisdiction with absolutely no interest in working elsewhere then these programs (e.g. Oxford BA law with European law) would certainly be LESS competitive to enter?
And even if you could waffle all this away, it is STILL the case that law practitioners have to make a greater effort than people of other professions to work elsewhere within their own field, should political or other circumstances require so. For medics and science people they would only need to overcome the language barrier while lawyers have to do that AND spend a year or two taking exams if not starting from scratch in very different jurisdictions.

How do I know the judge had his mind made up in a prejudicial manner before trial? Because he made his decision entirely on non-legal grounds. A court trial is there to ultimately determine a legal outcome. And a legal outcome is determined at trial. Since he manifestly disregarded the laws which dictate the sentence which she deserved in law, it must be that he used personal metrics which would have been present before the trial ever began. A racist judge would still be racist before, during, and after the trial. And he would have determined guilt of, e.g. a black man, before the trial ever needed to start. SIMPLE ENOUGH?

I am the one talking nonsense? How about you at least refer to articles? As far as I know undergraduate law does expect you to at least refer to sources?

What law student starts their course not understanding the basic role that lawyers play in legislative process? Who proposes changes in law is very basic general knowledge. What law student starts their course not understanding that the law is different in different countries? So, in what sense it is overrated? If you failed to research the realities of legal practice before you started the degree, the fault is on you. Not the degree.

Why do you think you are an expert on a profession that you have no practitioner experience in? It's utterly astonishing.

I don't have the time to respond to the rest of your drivel. Refer to articles regarding what? That judge's don't decide sentencing before hearing a case? That there isn't a conspiracy among solicitors to exclude outsiders? Please enlighten us as to what you need.

Yes that is their fault. That is also why ~85% of lawyers get bored and frustrated at their work. That's also why every one of them had "intellectually stimulating" on their personal statement. The obvious fact is that they WERE MISTAKEN and they ARE DISAPPOINTED.
Hence law is overrated because people hold unrealistic and incorrect perceptions as regards to this legal field. People hold law highly because they are mistaken! That is pretty much why OP said law is "overrated" no?

It is utterly astonishing that you thought you had the intellectual capability to continue arguing, but now I see that you are realizing all you have said is entirely unsupported, self-contradictory drivel.

Honestly, 100% yes.

I have a law degree and life is nothing like it was sold to me as. Nobody I am still in contact with from my degree class would recommend doing it and many have already left the profession 10 years on. Those who have already left have either done it by transferring department within a company i.e. to HR within a legal type firm, or have contacts who have helped them to get a new job in an area they are interested in but have no qualifications/experience in.

I've been thinking of leaving the profession for at least the last 3 years, but have found that my options are limited with a law degree. I've looked at quite a lot of alternative jobs, but essentially I may as well not have a degree at all because it's not STEM and much else requires experience I don't have because I have a full time job in law at the moment.

And that is how I've found myself back on this website, looking into how I can finance a second degree to become an allied health professional instead.

Alright I know your style, you guarantee everything without any form of proof.
I have to be a law professor + legal practitioner + law doctorate in order to talk to you while your arguments demonstrate the contrary to what you have claimed.

People are mistaken as to law -> study law, work as lawyers -> 85% of them say they are bored and hate their job -> law is overrated.

That's simply it, but you obviously don't have the intellect to even contemplate that. But instead you raise questions which are more supportive to my argument than otherwise.

I have obviously talked to real solicitors, they said international law firms prefer people with a posh background, that is why I am speaking here.

YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS UNSUPPORTED, AND YOU HAVE THE CHEEK TO PICK 1 POINT OUT OF 10 POINTS THAT I HAVE MADE AND SAY IT'S UNSUPPORTED DRIVEL SO AS TO UNDERMINE MY CREDIBILITY?
YOU THINK EVERYONE HERE IS PLAIN STUPID?

You have to be Einstein to have the intellect to talk to me. I have 172 IQ.

Since you have long graduated from your law degree, how do you plan to obtain academic references which are necessary for your prospective second degree? This is a matter which troubles me even though I am relatively fresh as a law graduate. Any thoughts on that?