scalia is correct as usual

TURD

Now gimme a job! Being a No Job 3L sucks ass man. My IQ was 154 when I took the Stanford-Binet years ago.

What's, you know, with all his, you know, "you know"'s? He's a SCOTUS judge so I thought he'd speak like, you know, someone more intelligent than a teenie bopper chick.

A brilliant public defender "from Podunk" may not "produce" anything, but she safeguards the liberty of her clients (and the country) by keeping the government on its toes so that it doesn't overreach. I would say that has value in a democracy.

Why isn't Scalia concerned about the brilliant minds from NYC or DC, working at large law firms? Surely, they could be doing something else.

But where's the self-entitlement?!

Why you gotta hate on us lowly federal district court clerks Elie?

"Lawyers don't produce anything", might be generous. It is quite possible we suck value out of the economy.

So any profession that doesn't produce a tangible product is a waste of great minds?

I suggest Scalia inform the doctors that they are wasting their potential. Sure, "they enable other people to produce and go on with their lives efficiently" but service industries are a waste.

elie i thank god every day that you got out of law to serve the urgent public need of blogging

While dining at Nobu with my wife this weekend, I'll be sure to mention that Scalia believes my job does not put food on the table. Nino's brilliance is, once again, proven to be unmatched.

Scalia make an interesting point, as usual, but the example he uses to illustrate it makes him appear like a callous, soulless, selfish, evil, small-minded fat, sloppy, hairy fucking loser.

ANTI-SCALIA FRAT STUD

Lord above Elie - you suck, but this one takes the cake. This site is for lawyers or people on their way to becoming lawyers. We can all get "I should have done something other than become a lawyer" and "despite what I thought [blank] years ago no one should go to law school" from the go no where mid-level associate in our life. If you want to vent about decisions you regret -- an you only have yourself to thank for -- go write for Tom the Temp.

Oh, and Scalia's a worthless gas-bag when it comes to statements like this. There's a reason he became a lawyer and I wish he would stick to it, rather than social commentary. Leave that to some overqualified PD from Podunk.

Right, Scalia. Perhaps we could siphon those minds into disciplines deemed best for the population and make everyone participate in putting "food on the table". Maybe we can start smelting pig iron in our backyards or start People's Gardens.

Communist China is 60 today! Let's topple the bourgeois while there's time!!!!!

WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!!!!!

I have an IQ of 156. I didn't even get an interview offer from a federal District Court. And I'm sitting here writing an effing corporate profile.

Nobu? Eeeew.

Haven't you heard of Masa, attorney?

the ship be, you know, sinkin'

180
scaliapwn3d!!!

Best minds? He's never read the comments left by mouth-breathing ATL readers?

Scalia wasn't talking to/about you Elie.

it doesn't put food on the table. it lets you pay somebody else to . . . you are not a farmer.

Finally, I agree with the man. I mean, in some sense he is exposing the cynicism of the entire legal industry and dealing a blow to the law school propaganda machine!!

It’s time we all go get SJDs now and blow another 100k on legal education (SJD = worthless)

Lawyers are not as smart as they think they are. The assumption that the best legal minds will be the best minds in any other field is questionable, if you ask me.

I go to a top 10 law school and have yet to be wowed by anyone's intellectual prowess here. Don't get me wrong, the people here are smart; they're just not brilliant. And the same goes for me -- if I were an intellectual superstar rather than just smart, I would have gone to a top-notch grad program and learned something interesting instead of entering a career where the ability to remember lots of pointless rules and make arguments that would barely get you a D on an undergraduate logic exam passes for success.

In other words, I think a lot of the best law students are right where they should be.

Scalia is right on this one. Most law is a zero-sum game. If biglaw cases were decided by teams of people with 110 IQs instead of teams of people with 130+ IQs (numbers invented) nothing would be lost, and the smarter people would be doing something else.

Problem is most "somthing else" pays crap, though the $$ value of law looks shaky these days. Finance people are mostly useless too. At least doctors have some clear value. Is a shame that scientists get crap money.

Lawyers make many useless and complex rules which require the services of lawyers (thus creating their own demand). This is most definately not productive.

Scalia FTW.

Elie, motion DENIED.

Pretty sure this isn't new -- I've read this or an identical quote of Scalia's before.
Either that or I'm a prophet. Ooooh, I hope it's the latter.

wow... this post was moronic even by MysTTTal standards.

Fat Tony is just jealous because he never did the kind of legal work that keeps the machinery running in the face of overzealous liberals.

He's right about public defenders though.... poor meth addicts don't deserve our help.

I second.

A good start would be to ban all lawyers from Congress and state assemblies.

I suspect he is overestimating the brilliance of lawyers and their ability to use whatever brilliance they may have to produce something useful.

WRONG!!! Lawyers are dumb as hell when it comes to math and science. Law students and lawyers, despite having a lot of thinking power, would fail at the sciences; hence the vast number of Americans who are OK with being "bad at math." It is telling that so many of our engineers and scientists are foreign immigrants. We stupid Americans can't handle math and science and end up defaulting into worthless careers like law.

Go look at the engineering department any major Fortune 500 company that actually makes stuff. A whole lot of under paid and under appreciated people that are also really smart. Can't blame us for leaving that.

31, what about tax lawyers and patent lawyers? They're ok, right?

actually when I was a public defender i was shocked by how dumb the judges were and how much smarter the clients were.

14 - Agreed. For all you conservative complainers whining about socialism you better take notice, it appears that Justice Scalia (darling of the right wing) is saying "From each according to his ability . . . "

You know, the automobile has already, you know, been invented. You know.

Aren't most smart people white?

It may be true that too many of our best and brightest go into law. That says more about our economy than our legal system. Talk to engineers. 10-15% of them move up to management. The rest of them sit at the same level for their whole career until they are eventually downsized and replaced with a new grad who has more up to date training. A middle-aged laid off engineer -- almost impossible for that poor sap to find a job. Michael Douglas did a movie about the consequences of this.
Even so, many lawyers may be "brilliant," but Scalia assumes the brilliance is universally applicable across disciplines. This just isn't true. Society doesn't lose out on much scientific or engineering output when law-types become lawyers. Do any of you have rock-star quantitative reasoning skills? If you do, I don't trust your judgment.

Elie, at least get your part of the post correct.
Sloughed = to shed (like a snake)
Slogged = to dig through, to tediate (yes, that's a made-up word)

The Supreme Court is weak. Try tax law if you want to be challenged.

GIVE ME BACK MY F'IN TUITION AND THE INTEREST I HAVE PAID ON IT, AND I WILL HAPPILY LEAVE LAW.

Agreed. Since my undergrad is a B.S. in the sciences and it is better for the nation for me to be out there inventing, etc, I'll leave the law. But only if the government or someone pays off my student loans (yeah, I was an idiot).

The problem with who enters law is not who's at the top of the field. The problem is who's at the bottom. Pretty much anyone who wants to do so can go to law school, and as a result, the vast majority of practicing attorneys are idiots. Many graduates of even the best law schools are completely incompetent. Probably the biggest reason that our laws are so messy is that they are made, applied and interpreted by morons. We need smarter lawyers, not dumber ones.

Elisabeth Smart is looking particularly sexy today

What can I say, Nino? When you're right, you're right. Now go lead by example, get out of law, step down from the Court, and invent something! The world will be better off for it.

Law was different in the 19-fuckin'-80s, I can tell you that.

So, let's play the "if I were a genius" game - three years of playing beer pong, travelling the world, great debates, etc. at HYS, 160K to start. Or, five years teaching 19 year-old punks the Solow Growth Model and "producing something."

I agree, Elie. Back when I was fratting it up in Ithaca, I used to force many a young DG, Kappa (and the occasional Pi Phi) with stellar academic credentials into sexual servitude all the time. It was no big deal, and most of them found it very rewarding.

CORNELL FRAT STUD

Nobody goes into science for the money. Imagine what our country would be like if science actually paid.

Nothing wrong with Scalia that a good Polanski can't fix.

@35 -

Seriously? Since when did the conservative view of: "From each according to his ability . . . " get confused with the socialistic view of: "To each regardless of his ability . . . "

Scalia has no problem with you attempting to become or continuing to be a lawyer...

Here is a substantive legal story. Apparently the governor who denied the stay of execution doesnt want people finding out his state executed an innocent man.

http://us.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/01/texas.execution.probe/index.html

lawyers not create anything!? What a fool, we create billables!

I don't produce much, but I've made sure not to waste the insatiability of my hungry ass. Scalia, don't be so coy.

If you want it
I'll give you power
Just be gentle
I'm delicate like a flower

Let's do it in the butt. O-kaaaay.

51 - FAIL

"Conservative view"??? Didn't know Marx was a conservative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need

Ok, so far today we've had:
1) a lawyer changing her picture
2) a non-lawyer exposes himself in a TTT law library
3) a faker attempting to write about Deal Goggles (better known as Gayholm Syndrome from LTD)
4) Career link post
5) Scalia's inane musings.

It's been like this all week, ATL. I understand what a slow news day is, but exercise those creative muscles.

Dear 31,

My graduate degree in engineering respectfully requests that you choose a narrower brush next time you want to paint.

"Imagine what our country would be like if science actually paid."

Science (specifically engineering) does pay: http://politicalmath.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/the-best-paying-undergrad-college-degrees/

After ten years of practice I'd say about 5% of the lawyers I've encountered are bright, and I can probably count on two hands the number of lawyers I met who were so bright that it's a shame they were practicing law - rather than a more productive profession.

The larger problem is that most lawyers are goddamned cretins.

Also, only an imbecile enters a field where he will have to compete on equal footing with 2 billion rapacious Chinese and Indians, aka science and engineering. With our borders as wide-open as they are, any viable career must be heavily insulated against foreign/immigrant labor. So bright people will continue to dive into law and finance.

SECOND!

56:

Inane? The nation's top jurist just said that bright young people (i.e., most of us) are wasting our talent on his profession. I think that raises a rather interesting and important issue.

What what?

in the butt

Justice Scalia’s comment is neither sensational nor out of line. Economists have known for years that America’s labor allocation was out of alignment. We have far fewer scientists, engineers, and other science professionals than we need to support our current economy, let alone expand. That’s why we import so many of those professionals from other countries, but that is getting harder to do as other countries catch up with us economically. Take a look at the University programs in countries with rapidly expanding economies (China, India, etc.) You will find that a huge proportion of students there are studying some variety of math, science or productive skills that make use of math and science. I am a lawyer and proud of my profession, but I can’t dispute that there are far more lawyers in this country than can be justified by any reasonable measure. If we loose the ability to come up with new things to drive our economy then no amount of pushing paper or arguing with each other is going to feed our children. Rather than being blindly defensive about it we should ask ourselves what we can do to encourage our children to consider science/engineering studies and facilitate that choice through targeted student aid, research grants, etc.

36 FTW

-Not 36

No 37. Most smart are not white. Most smart people are Jewish.

Scalia isn't saying that lawyers are useless or that the profession is a waste, but that *too many* of the smartest people are lawyers.

I can't tell which of the retarded comments are satire and which are sincere. It's almost as if people want to dispute his point by saying "I, for one, am a lawyer, but I am a moron and thus not part of the problem Scalia complains about."

64 - pay them more.

Aren't we a service based economy?

Much of the criticism of Scalia's statement seems to be based on the assumption that the only two career options are lawyer and scientist/engineer and that few lawyers have the brains for scientific work. The flaw in that argument is that there are also entrepreneurs, writers, reporters, etc., etc., etc. I doubt anyone would seriously suggest that people who are presently lawyers could not possibly have done anything else. It should be blindingly obvious to anyone in the legal profession that there are far too many lawyers in our society. That being the case it should also be obvious that society would be better off if at least some of those people were contributing to a field that is under-saturated, rather than a field that is hugely over-saturated.

I am moar better than yoo.

9 - nice!

Lawyers make up 82% of my client base. And they stimulate more than the economy.

P.S. 64 - how do you "loose" an ability? Does it involve a butt plug and Crisco?

Scalia was probably reading the In re Bilski factual background while watching the scene in Wall Street where Bud Fox's father tells him to "produce something with your life and stop livng off the buying and selling of others."

Why does this fat man base his example on a PD? A PD is actually one of the few types of attorneys wo actually is doing something productive for society. Why not base it on the thousands of very intelligent people wasting their minds away in non-descript big law firms? Perhaps the answer is that he is a narrow-minded fool who got his own start in Big Law, and whose attorney children also are in Big Law.

The lawyer who wrote this report to ACORN clearly isn't one of the "very best minds" out there. If her goal was to further obfuscate ACORN's corruption by her apparent inability to put together 2 sentences, then perhaps she could be cut some slack. I'd bet Elie could write better than this:

http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/01/exclusive-acorn-legal-memo-confirms-depths-of-troubles/

Perhaps Scalia should consider wasting of intellectual resources when considering how much time he spends writing dissents and dicta in opinions.
If I'm seeking protection of a legal interest (either in my property or personal freedom) I don't think I should be limited to anyone under a certain IQ.
Many professions don't generate tangible results, but still benefit society. According to Scalia's position I should be locked in a lab somewhere instead of practicing law. A large part of the practice is to make legal/scientific/technical concepts presentable in a fashion that juries/judges can understand. They are frequently extremely unfamiliar with the material at issue, and need accurate, coherent information to adequately address an issue.
Lawyers have to understand both the subject matter and the applicable law in order to protect all the industries that put food on the table. Many professions don't generate tangible results, but still benefit society. How does he consider that a squandering of intellectual capacity?
If he feels so strongly perhaps he should stop using intelligent clerks, so that they can go and make something to bring home that puts food on the table

We lawyers are just ass-kissing facilitators.

Oh Samwell!

But if not for lawyers, what would we do with all this sand?

Scalia is descended from apes.

Elie, why are you so gay?

Scalia needs to get out more. He clearly doesn't realize that the vast majority of lawyers are complete imbeciles.

Pity that the good justice didn't come to this conclusion BEFORE he accepted his appointment. If only he had chosen a different career...oh, and btw @61: "...The nation's top jurist"...WTF?? In what universe is Nino "top" anything other than a nasty prick? I mean he's better than Thomas, but that's setting the bar pretty damn low.

Methinks the lady dost protest too much. Insecurity abounds among these commentators. Our profession isn't the be all and end all of human pursuits. Deal with it. Many (by which I mean all) other societies make do with far fewer lawyers and not all of them seem to suffer for it.

23 - Most of the time people cannot really see brilliance until someone smarter points it out to them. That is why people think they are smarter than they really are. And, generally, an IQ gap of 20 or more points makes communication between 2 people very difficult so that both htink the other is a moron. Only one of them is right.

oh my goodness...

12 - "Anti-Scalia Frat Stud" is an oxymoron. Anyone who was ever in a social fraternity (or a stud for that matter) would not regard themselves as anti-Scalia.

Why would society be better served by a great mind "inventing" something that was invented 100 years ago?

Who would say discover a cure for AIDS but he doesn't want it cured because it's a lifestyle disease.

>

Okay, but does someone cover their law school loans in the meantime?

Pretty easy to spout such rhetoric when you're going to be pulling in north of 200K for the rest of your days on earth.

What if it's 138?

Most importantly:

Where is Rogue Associate?

84, Thomas is a lot brighter than Sotomayor. It is sad really how racist the Left is. Justice Thomas is actually really smart and deep if you listen to him. It is tough enough being black in America - then add conservative and you are really in trouble. Unlike Barack and Michelle he really did overcome racism and poverty.

What are you basing your opinion on, 95? Thomas rarely speaks or writes.

"Imagine what our country would be like if science actually paid."

Science (specifically engineering) does pay: http://politicalmath.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/the-best-paying-undergrad-college-degrees/

Funny, but my Chem.E degree doesn't pay 1/3 what I make as a patent lawyer. Maybe we should increase pay for engineers, you know, people who produce something, then they would not pursue legal jobs and drain their enormous brain power from our collective thoughts.

96-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K1Ywa3eYTE

watch this. if you think he's not very deep and thoughtful after watching this you are a fucking moron.

@55 - BIGGER FAIL!

If Marx had said, "From each according to his ability and that is all," then you would be right. But too bad for you, Marx added a second clause: "to each according to his need," and thus changed the overall meaning of the entire sentence.

Wikipedia can't save your ass from looking like an ass. Words mean what they say. It's called strict construction. But wait! I know what you're going to argue -- I don't care if both conservatives and liberals trumpet their "strict construction" and the other side's "judicial activism" as buzzwords; in the ATL comment section, words really do mean what they say (on occasion, unless Elie is writing).

Let me give you an example. If you and your liberal friends came here and said: "Yes we can," well, I would call you out as a closet conservative and link to a website using "Yes we cannot" to promote its "conservative" message.

See how easy it is when you start adding letters and words? Try it in court sometime: "well, your honor, if we add a couple words here and take out a couple there, well, then it *is* ambiguous..."

When Scalia implied that those pursuing careers in the legal profession are bright and intelligent, he must have forgot to fact-check in the comment sections of ATL.

You are all douche-bags. I too am a douche-bag, but not for the same reason you are. I am a douche-bag because I spent this much time responding to stupidity. Damn you ATL...

In 8th grade my shop teacher was berating me for the horrible quality of my work and asked me how I was going to become a productive member of society.

I replied that I wasn't going to become a productive member of society, I'd become a parasite on society instead as a lawyer. The rest is history.

@77 -

Scalia is right. You do need to be locked away somewhere... But it sure as hell isn't a lab...

Do you actually believe those things that you purportedly espouse? If so, talk to me after you've been licensed for more than a week and a half...

-77

No need to be so defensive of the profession. For the most part, we are a bunch of leeches . We complicate, obfuscate, create loopholes, abuse loopholes, etc. We sit around and bill thousands of dollars for 5 lawyers on each side to review a deal that probably could have been handled by one guy on either side. We spend thousands of dollars of client money to try cases that are worth about the same amount as the legal fees. There are so many more examples.

Sure, there's a need for lawyers in our economy and in society in general. I don't think anyone doubts that, but there are way too many of us. And as one poster above pointed out, we generally suck money out of the economy to pad our own wallets rather than producing something that adds to the tangible GDP of our country.

Our Courts and legislatures -- run by lawyers -- help lawyers by requiring, for example, that only lawyers may represent a corporation in court, that lawyers must sign certain filings, etc. They want to ensure their brethren still benefit from the legally imposed monopoly.

You see, the market economics in our country has lead to complacency among the upper class, while stangling the talent that may have emerged from the lower classes.

While I believe that lawyers work hard, they also get paid far too much.

Our country feels entitled to great paying jobs in cushy offices, as lawyers, businessmen, CEO's, administrators...etc. These are service-based sectors which feed off of other areas. These are valuable, but when too much of the labor force is driven to these positions, it is going to take a toll on the economy, and on personal lives.

Scalia's argument presumes that society is moving toward some ultimate direction and that there are not enough people taking us there.

How about the fact that modern society exists just because there are a lot more damn people on this planet than we need . It probably takes a few hundred million to farm and run the planet and that the vast vast majority of first world jobs exist only to satisfy the wants of other people.

Lawyers are probably on the wrong end of the spectrum of producing things that actually make people happy, but as long as people pay for lawyers there will be lawyers and there is no reason to think that some other career would help "advance" society.

Dear Elie,

I have a 140 IQ. I also started my career in science. It did not take me long to figure out that the field is (already) saturated with not only this country's best and brightest, but the best and brightest from around the world. As such, I made a pragmatic decision: I dropped the pippetter and my 32K / year technician's salary for a JD from a T20 law school. I now make 200K(+) as a patent litigation associate at a large DC law firm. If you weren't the affirmative action all star that you clearly are, you might have a better appreciation for how competitive it really is out there.

Best regards,

The-real-world-that-you-have-yet-to-encounter-in-any-meaningful-context

Totally agree. I am wasted in this profession.
~145+* IQ Attorney

*apparently they are unable to accurately evaluate above this level

Yeah Elie, why would you agree with Scalia? If Scalia is right then that would denigrate your status as a lawyer. You aren't bright enough for science and so you AAed to HLS. Why would you want the smarter people around you to leave the profession and then you in the dust? Stop pretending you're some bright light because you write some shitty blog real lawyers read.

I know I'm late but 105 FTW anyway.

Supply and demand at its best.

42 ==> you still are.

11, I don't think that's what he meant, fu**tard.

--Trust Fund Baby Who Quit Eating at Nobu When People Like You Started Eating There

@9 if you believe what you wrote, you must not have done very well with the sat or the lsat.

doctor:lawyer::medicine:law

the problem with your analogy is that medicine, aka science, still has things to discover, and thus Brilliant people are still needed .

If I wanted to make things, I would go to China and work in (or better yet, own) a sweatshop. I want my motherfucking money.

Elie, ask and you shall receive! Check out this story about Harvard law school grad and former New York lawyer turned superstar IT cryptographer.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/sep2009/tc20090930_463595.htm

Oh God, how many comments did it take before you losers were helpfully pointing out your IQs for our edification?

If this country wants me to make stuff, have Ford pay me $160,000. Until then, I'll spend my time in this "enterprise."

I'm bright with a BS and a minor in hard sciences. I'd probably make a damn neuroscientist - which is what I was drawn to. BUT, I'm also a realist, so in college, when I was deciding to go to grad school, getting a PhD seemed like a supremely unwise decision - several more years of school, uncertain to miserable job prospects, and an impossibly limited number of tenured positions. One too many articles about PhD's working at Starbucks and teaching college courses as TA's for $5000 a semester were enough to seal my decision. And B-school required job experience. So, yeah, until the labor force and incentives change, this is how it works.

And all of the C students at my university went to be i-bankers. Who knows how many made it, but hell, they didn't even get a graduate degree.

The problem isn't the lawyers...the problem is the lawmakers.

116- my fiancee does neuroscience....she knows stuff....I don't know anything....but she doesn't get paid sheeeeeeatttttt

Scalia can be such a stupid asshole sometimes. Talk about ruining a good point. True that there's too many lawyers.....but the SMALL TOWN PUBLIC DEFENDER is the one wasting his/her gift??? When I think of the oversupply of lawyers doing meaningless things with the one life they've been given, its not exactly Atticus Finch that comes to mind.

It really is rather sad such comments are coming from a Supreme Court judge, someone who is in a position to inspire law students. Scalia undervalues the hard work that many lawyers do. Just as an example, even though patent lawyers do not produce the inventions, there will be little innovation without patent lawyers.

Some many posts about how bad law. The truth is the profession is pretty good. I know total assholes from my high school that went to TTT and now are in big law. It is more common than you think....maybe just not in NYC. TTT in other parts of the country is a great deal. 3 years of law school, which I am sorry, isn;t rocket science. Put it this way, of all my law school friends none of them is hurting too bad. Other professions are much worse. I think people need to realize that law isn't hard. LIFE is hard.

Scalia is just like every other lawyer. Putting down the rest of the profession to elevate himself. T14 students look down on "TTT" students, biglaw associates look down on non-biglaw associates, academics and judges look down on real practicing lawyers, and fat, ugly supreme court justices look down on the entire profession. No lawyer thinks lawyers are cool, but make an exception for themselves. Self-loath much?

Nino, you've had a hell of a legal career but in the larger world of movers & shakers, you're not nearly the baller you think you are. There are no-names who get more people at a book signing than you. You could walk into any restaurant outside DC and more often than not, nobody would recognize you. So if you want to keep that massive ego inflated, you better not alienate the legal crowd.

Scalia is right. Given our salaries, the work we do is a joke compared to the work engineers do.

120 - there'd be plenty of innovation without patent lawyers, just fewer patents and not so many patent trolls.

Whatever about the merit of what Scalia is saying, the way he says it is quite shocking for a Supreme Court judge- "you know-, like, you know?". He is incredibly simplistic- "lawyers don't put food on the table"! I think we all understand what he is trying to say but seriously, like, you know...

If there are too many lawyers in our society, why do some lawyers get to charge $500-1000 an hour?

The supply of lawyers needs to increase dramatically so that no lawyer could charge that high without another lawyer just as good competing to do the work for less.

Scalia is right.

However, I have no other useful talent.

I have a lowly little 134, and this board of 150ish types making slurs on affirmative action is sooooo intimidating to me.

Of course, 130+ puts you in the top 2%, there are 300 million people in the US, so the pool is narrowed to about 6 million, right?

That's still an awful lot of people. I think that contradicts Scalia's implication, that we have a severely limited group of people able to make a significant contribution to the country and we should make sure these little stars get into the most important position possible. Give me a break.

My god you are a bunch of insecure assholes.

129 = winner

I'm a 50-something lawyer, and 23 is a law student, but I think 23 has it essentially right. My undergraduate degree is in math. If I'd been anywhere near as bright as my peers in the math department, I would have gone to grad school in math. Only because I was totally outclassed in math did I go to law school. I got into Harvard, made law review, got an appellate clerkship, got good jobs, and now have been a partner for a very long time. I am considered exceptionally bright in law but was a mediocrity in math.

Like BLOGGING about lawyers. All these smart people should do something productive and positive for society like BLOGGING about lawyers.

Justice Tony: May I call you that? No, O.K. Justice Scalia it is then: I TRIED to get a PhD in science, but I ended up leaving based on department politics regarding allocation of the extremely scarce funds of my department. I ended up going to law school instead, so I do interesting work with the added bonus that I can count on actually getting paid (and no, I'm not a six-figure BigLaw stud, but I have some modicum opf job security). Perhaps society would have been better served if I had become a scientist, but it's not my fault that my department lacked funds. Perhaps it's that free market you love so much.

Justice Tony: May I call you that? No, O.K. Justice Scalia it is then: I TRIED to get a PhD in science, but I ended up leaving based on department politics regarding allocation of the extremely scarce funds of my department. I ended up going to law school instead, so I do interesting work with the added bonus that I can count on actually getting paid (and no, I'm not a six-figure BigLaw stud, but I have some modicum opf job security). Perhaps society would have been better served if I had become a scientist, but it's not my fault that my department lacked funds. Perhaps it's that free market you love so much.

Is the good Justice not aware that the automobile has already been invented?

Maybe Justice Scalia should go work a couple years in a laboratory for 1/5th the pay of what you can make as an associate. Then maybe he'd have a clue as to why some "brilliant minds" leave other professions and enter law.

- Patent Attorney Peanut Gallery

Scalia misses the mark. I'm going into law because I'm risk averse. I'd make a shitty ass businessman for the same reason and I think a lot of lawyers are about the same.

"Now to what higher object, to what greater character, can any mortal aspire than to be possessed of all this knowledge, well digested and ready at command, to assist the feeble and friendless, to discountenance the haughty and lawless, to procure redress of wrongs, the advancement of rights, to assert and maintain liberty and virtue, to discourage and abolish tyranny and vice?"
John Adams, on being a lawyer.

It would be so much more productive for our economy if the brightest people went to work for financial firms and "innovated" in our capital markets. Think of the value add . . . oh, wait.
Seriously. Wall Street consumed a lot of our best math and computer talent during the last decade. (Think of flash trading programs.) That was a lot more than just a waste. It was #$%^ing disaster.

Republican argument on this issue (Scalia seems to need a refresher in this core component of conservative belief):
1) The price signals established by the free market encourage the best possible outcome--always;
2) [Unstated: Our labor market is a free market;]
3) People always respond rationally to market price signals.

Therefore, the people who are lawyers today did the best thing for both themselves and for our economy.
Duh.

As another poster noted, the choice is not just law or science. We could have gone into business. In our work as lawyers we have to deal with a lot of business people, many of whom are MBAs. Some of these people a re smart and competent. Most are just blow hard d-bags who know more about protecting their turf than they do about their companies' businesses. If "brilliant" lawyers displaced a lot of these idiots society would be better off.

140, you are exactly right. I don't think engineers are any happier. The pay is more than a lib arts graduate, and even more than a graduate from a Tier 2 and below law school, and a good deal for a 4 year degree, but still.

http://cyberbuzz.gatech.edu/nar/winter98/alum.html

BACKGROUND

My Father graduated with a degree in Industrial Design from the Cleveland Institute of Art. He was a highly skilled artist but realized that in order to feed his family, he had to find a Real job. He said that most artists only make money on their works after they are dead. Few rarely become Andy Wharhols or Pablo Picassos.

I emulated my Dad. I thought of him as a creative genius and an inventor. He is very talented and is always coming up with unique design solutions to complex problems.

He took a job in the industrial design department at a leading manufacturer who supplied large retailers with bicycles and lawnmowers. The company had been founded by a mechanical engineer who married into a wealthy family in Ohio. He used his wife's endowment to fund the startup. My father and a small handful of other designers developed inventions that generated considerable income for his employer. After twenty years with the company, he got "his place in the sun," as he calls it, by being promoted to the corporate Director of Design. My family benefited financially from this position but strangely enough, we were in no way affluent. What struck me odd was that for his position, he was not considered an executive nor did he receive stock options until much later in his employment. Yet, he and his staff had sole responsibility for designing the entire product line upon which this corporation was able to survive and prosper.

The "rich guys" in the company were in sales, marketing and the executive VP ranks. They got the perks, the bonuses, and lived affluently. The design group found itself much lower in the food chain. The engineering group- the group responsible for placing every nut and bolt in as financially efficient a way possible for large scale manufacturing- was at a level lower than the design group.

Since he was my dad, though I though the world of what he did and was greatly influenced by his creative abilities. I grew up in a home that had a full woodshop at my disposal in which I spent a great deal of time. At the age of thirteen, I demonstrated my early engineering design skills by building the runner up entry in the All-American SoapBox Derby in the State of Tennessee.

At that age, though, I just did not make the connection that creativity in American industry does not always equate to personal wealth. I was just a kid having fun on a summer project.

My dad lasted three years in his new Director position. He was defeated by nepotism within the company. The benevolent CEO passed on, and a son who lacked the leadership skills and foresight to run the company assumed the top post. The son refused to listen to the design suggestions of the retailers and began to dictate design from the top office. My father was fired when he was the first to challenge the unprofitable direction in which this steered the company. He also found himself in the position of scapegoat for all the failures the new CEO brought about.

The company showed poor earnings for the subsequent decade after my father left. It was later sold to a holding company in Sweden. Though, he was not entirely responsible for the company's profitability while he was there, his design skills did have a profound influence.

Losing his job meant economic disaster for my family and was the reason I ended up paying most of my way through college. It was several years before my dad would get a comparable position at another company.

I graduated in the top third of my class from a private college prep school in Tennessee. My SAT scores were in the top 90 percentile. Since I excelled in math and sciences, the guidance counselor and others- even the printed SAT Result Form- suggested I look to pursue an engineering career. The only career advice I ever received from Dad was to NOT to go into engineering. He recommended that I study economics and business. I should have listened to him.

I attended the Georgia Institute of Technology where I settled into the Mechanical Engineering program. I was quickly disillusioned by teacher to student ratios of 200:1 and instructors who did not have a command of the English language. Despite numerous setbacks and detours over five-and-a-half years, I persisted through the program and graduated with a whopping C average.

On several occasions at Tech we were fed the line of propaganda: "More corporate CEO's came from Tech engineering than any other school". I realize now that this was just another selling point to justify their existence and generate pride within the Tech organization. What they did not say was that these CEO's were no longer engineers and had gone to other schools for their advance degrees in either finance or marketing. No one ever made mention that they did not make the CEO level up through the engineering ranks. It took years of observation for me to realize that they had left this important point out.

After graduation, I entered the aerospace industry where I designed flight hardware for the space shuttle, was part of the Tomahawk cruise missile design team, and was heavily involved in stealth technology. I used to take pride in telling people what I did. Now, I could not buy a cup of coffee with a dime plus my background. I really thought I was making a contribution and that someday I would get a big payoff for my efforts.

I also quickly learned that I was to use little of what I had studied. From this did I feel like I had wasted my time in school? Yes. I learned more practical real-life engineering at the auto racetrack where I worked as a part-time racing mechanic while going to school. That was a real world laboratory. While my class mates were working on nebulous senior design projects like: "The Design of a Box that will Prevent an Egg from Breaking when Thrown from the Roof of a Tall Building", I was working on high performance racing engines.

I am astounded at what I was paid as an aerospace engineer in the mid eighties compared to what I see what new grads are getting in the semiconductor equipment industry today. Other professions start out low too, but there are significant opportunities to make more depending on how aggressive a person is. Yet still in engineering, salaries are inherently flat no matter how talented one is.

At General Dynamics, engineering management promoted mediocrity. There were no such things as "hot young engineers" who rapidly promoted up the ranks in the company. Unfortunately, I see the same mentality in the semiconductor equipment industry.

LEADERSHIP POSITIONS AREN'T IN ENGINEERING ANY MORE - OR MONEY TALKS, BS WALKS

Six years ago, I was working to get a job through a headhunter that only placed junior military officers recently freed from military service. I and a handful of other former junior officers were exposed to two days of intensive resume writing and interviewing seminars before they would let us interview with their corporate clients. In one of the discussions, we were presented with some very enlightening career direction information that had a profound impact on me. They told us that all corporations are structured the same way. In most cases, corporations are broken up into three groups as follows:

Sales/Marketing
Engineering/Manufacturing
Staff (Human Resources, Finance, Public Relations, Legal, etc.

As former military officers, most of us had engineering degrees. Strangely enough, the headhunter's goal was to convince us to go into sales/marketing and not engineering/manufacturing. In fact, we were being looked at for our ability to promote into senior management through sales and marketing. Those whom they thought did not have promotion potential via this route were asked to interview elsewhere.

We were told that 90% of senior executives come from sales/marketing, that this is THE fast track. We should not fear sales since it is just the entry level to this fast track and that we should expect to promote into sales management WITHIN TWO YEARS. It was also suggested that during our careers we get MBA's from name universities to improve our chances for the highest level of promotion.

We were strongly encouraged to avoid engineering positions, since fewer than 10% promote out of engineering/manufacturing into the executive level. An entry level engineer should expect it to take at least ten years before his next promotion. ( My aerospace experience held this to be all too true ).

Lastly, we were told that a small minority of senior executives come from staff positions and that this area should also be avoided also.

I was dumbfounded at hearing this. They had hit the nail on the head. After fumbling through 8 years in the aerospace industry, which resulted in dejection and non-opportunities, a light had finally come on. I just wish someone had told me this when I graduated from college. I should have immediately tried for sales after graduation, but since I was the typical introverted and impressionable engineer, I was convinced I would go off and be the next Werner Von Braun at NASA. It took a long while for me to realize that you don't pay the mortgage designing parts of spacecraft.

I can understand the headhunter's tact from a financial standpoint also. Who would you rather have in your back pocket as a conduit for corporate placement fees: engineering managers who place low-paid engineers, or executive vice presidents who hire highly-paid general managers?

Ask yourself why the rest of the 75 people taking your class are going for the Masters in Engineering Management instead of off getting advanced engineering degrees. I think their main motivation is for the opportunity for a better income and the opportunity to move up out of the dregs of lower level engineering without having to get an advanced engineering degree. Those who hold tight to their engineering ideals are doomed to a life of low-paying jobs.

I think that they, like me, have figured out the "system". One can't advance into management without an advanced degree, to make more money, to improve the family's financial situation, to afford a mortgage, etc. Why would a person go through the struggle of working on a Masters in Mechanical Engineering when one can get their "check in the block" with a much simpler master's program in finance or management that will eventually produce more free time to enjoy the family and home? This is basic needs kind of stuff.

I know the president of a small supplier of filtration components for the semiconductor industry with annual revenues in excess of several hundred million dollars. He used to be a bodyguard for the CEO of a large aerospace company. When the aerospace company sold out, the CEO made him an executive in this spin-off. He eventually was promoted to President Funny thing. From body guard to president. He doesn't have an engineering degree which, would technically qualify him for the position, but the boss liked him. He does have two master's degrees. One is in Industrial Psychology and the other is in an educational discipline.

Does he use the information he learned from these advanced degrees? No, but when the company puts out the prospectus, they certainly mention these two degrees to give him and the company more credibility. Without these masters' degrees, I think the board would have to explain too many times why they have some fellow with only a Bachelor of Arts Degree sitting at the head of the company.

He has his "check in the block". He is also a multi - millionaire from stock options. He is not an engineer.

Too many lawyers.