1) Civil engineers and architects can design any bridge they want (though not build it). True, SEs can actually "build" any software they want, but without users it can be hard to tell how good it is.
2) What's the medical / engineering / legal equivalent of a hackathon that those professions aren't doing? Doctors and lawyers can always choose an interesting or deserving client (possibly pro bono), or do a research project.
3) If it's hard to explain, is it possible software isn't changing the world all that much?
4) Imagine Google sharing its Search code. It won't, but as lawyers get to learn from the best lawyers in any area of the law by reading their briefs and watching their trials (all public).
If you're saying some jobs that today require "Excel" will require "Excel with VBA", sure. But I'm skeptical that programming will become some sort of new literacy. It seems to me that programming has narrower applicability than, say, high school math. Still, most non-programmers seem to forget their high school math, and they get by just fine in careers where numeracy would be useful from time to time, but is just not essential. No one considers them illiterate.
The world is increasingly dependent on lawyers, the demand for which increases with the size and complexity of the economy. More economic activity means more agreements to be negotiated, disputes to be resolved, and regulations to be enforced. Moreover, this is high-end legal work, and many new lawyers will enjoy long, lucrative careers. It's not clear to me that I should advise my children to embark on a short, low-pay, low-status career in legacy software maintenance.
It depends on where you live and what factors you include. Where I live, I'd you just look at money, you'd probably be best of going into construction. You may make less than me, but due to how our taxes work, it'd take me decades to make in salary what the construction guy saves by (a) entering the labor force years earlier and (b) using his skills, network and resources to build his house for a fraction of what it'd cost me.
Who knows what the future will hold, but in the US, there are more new lawyers graduating each year than there are law jobs. Software has taken over many of the jobs the entry level lawyers used to perform.
Law (in the US) reacquires an extra, very expensive, 3 year degree, and many law school graduates are never able to find jobs as lawyers.
The market will probably eventually correct itself, but the days of law school as a sure-fire way to a high paying job are probably over.
The "more new lawyers graduating each year than there are law jobs" factoid is both stale and irrelevant. Most of those new lawyers had admissions scores well below the 50th percentile and are graduating from third and fourth tier law schools. Who cares about them? I doubt many would have had bright futures in programming, either.
Relatively modest undergraduate performance can get you into a law school like Northwestern's, where 87% of the class of 2013 "found work and reported a salary", and at least 43% of the class had a starting salary of over $160k, a very respectable ending salary for a programmer, especially outside of SFBA (http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/northwestern/sals/201...).
Almost 50% of new law school graduates can't find jobs. Of course it's likely that the unemployed 50% is the bottom 50% of applicants.
Look at the distribution of lawyer income. There is a large group bunched near the bottom making 40k-60k a year, and a smaller group at the top making above 160k. You need to do really well to be in the 160k group.
>Relatively modest undergraduate performance can get you into a law school like Northwestern's
The median LSAT score for Northwestern is 168 about that's right at the 96th percentile, so about 4% of people taking the LSAT will score a 168. Even Northwestern's bottom quartile score is just below the 90th percentile. Their median undergrad GPA is 3.75. How are those numbers relatively modest?
So yes, someone who scored in the 96th percentile on the LSAT and had a 3.75 GPA in undergrad has a decent chance of spending 3 years at a top tier law school where they have a 43% chance of making over $160k a year upon graduating.
Northwestern also costs about $300k to attend.
>87% of the class of 2013 "found work and reported a salary"
I don't thinks that's really saying all that much. It doesn't say they're working in jobs requiring a law degree. Of course 87% are working at some kind of job--they owe $300k in student loans. Another way of looking at it is--13% of graduates from a top tier law school are unemployed with $300k in debt.
No one is arguing that lawyers from top tier law schools can't make a decent salary, but there are only a few thousand slots open in the top law schools each year. If you're in the top few percent of law school applicants and you think you'd enjoy practicing law, then by all means go to law school.
But looking at the averages, the median salary for a software developer is about $93k, and the median salary for a lawyer is $113k (from the bureau of labor statistics). Total cost for law school is over $150k on average, and the opportunity cost for not working as a software developer for 3 years is much more than that. Add in interest for student loans (and forgone interest on potential savings) and it will take over 2 decades before the average lawyer pulls ahead of the average software developer.
Add to that the fact that software developer jobs are expected to grow at a significantly higher rate than lawyers, and that lawyers constantly place near the bottom on job satisfaction surveys.
By the way I, initially planned to go to law school, but every lawyer I talked to was so discouraging that they eventually talked me out of it. A few of them were very successful family friends, but they absolutely hated their jobs, and they warned me that there are much easier ways of making money.
If you're a programmer who can pass algorithm interviews, you have a great chance of scoring near the 90th percentile the first time you attempt the LSAT, and the 96th percentile with practice. Scoring much below the 80th percentile on the LSAT is very poor. In Canada, few students are admitted to any law school with scores that low.
Say you spend $300k on law school. Over a 30 year career, you only have to make an average of $10k extra per year to break even.
The "Jobs Data" tab offers more details: "79.2% of graduates were known to be employed in long-term, full-time legal jobs", "93% graduates were employed in long-term jobs", etc.
The number of software jobs are expected to grow, but is the growth going to be in jobs you really want, or will they all be for 23-year-old coding bootcamp grads?
Again, who cares about the nationwide averages? The 50th percentile Northwestern law grad makes $160k right out of school, and is on track make several times that as a law firm partner, or somewhat less as in-house counsel. My impression is that most programmers struggle to hit $160k any time in their careers, at least outside of SFBA.
When someone describes the downsides of their job, I take it with a grain of salt. Often, it's a case of "the grass is always greener". Sometimes, members of high-status professions want to downplay their success. In any case, most of the lawyers I've talked to say they enjoy their work (though they do work much longer and less predictable hours than programmers).
>If you're a programmer who can pass algorithm interviews, you have a great chance of scoring near the 90th percentile the first time you attempt the LSAT, and the 96th percentile with practice.
That's probably true. But again, there are only a few thousand slots available each year at top law schools, so for the vast majority of programmers this can't work. Just a few hundred each year taking your advice would change the equation.
>Say you spend $300k on law school. Over a 30 year career, you only have to make an average of $10k extra per year to break even.
That's true, but the average is more than $300k. The average programmers makes $93k a year, since he can work 3 fewer years because of the 3 years in law school, that's $279K in lost wages + $150k for law school.
Sure the lawyer will likely eventually pull ahead, but extra money near retirement is worth less than money early on. If the programmer invests the extra money early on, the lawyer may never actually pull ahead.
>"The "Jobs Data" tab offers more details: "79.2% of graduates were known to be employed in long-term, full-time legal jobs"
Legal jobs doesn't mean working as an attorney, or jobs requiring a law degree. It could mean $15 an hour paralegal work, so that statistic isn't useful.
>The number of software jobs are expected to grow, but is the growth going to be in jobs you really want, or will they all be for 23-year-old coding bootcamp grads?
That's possible, but the new jobs for lawyers could be just as bad. From the Bureau of Labor Statistics "Some recent law school graduates who have been unable to find permanent positions are turning to the growing number of temporary staffing firms that place attorneys in short-term jobs."
Software has been eating into jobs that were traditionally done by lawyers, and it will continue to do so.
On top of this, lawyers are limited to practicing in states where they have passed the bar exam, meaning their ability to move to find jobs is much more limited.
>Again, who cares about the nationwide averages? The 50th percentile Northwestern law grad makes $160k right out of school, and is on track make several times that as a law firm partner, or somewhat less as in-house counsel.
And they admit about 200 new students per year. So yes, if you can get into Northwestern and you like law, then it's a good decision.
>(though they do work much longer and less predictable hours than programmers).
That's a huge caveat. The average programmer could have been the average lawyer instead, worked more hours each week at a higher stress job so that by that he can break even in 20 years, and spend the last 10-20 years of his career making a bit more money.
If you like law and can get into a good school, then practice law. But I hardly think the extra, debt, stress, and hours worked makes it worth it for purely economic reasons.
>When someone describes the downsides of their job, I take it with a grain of salt. Often, it's a case of "the grass is always greener".
This would be the case for both programmers and lawyers, but job satisfaction surveys show that lawyers consistently rank near the bottom below programmers.
You're not in academia, are you? There're hundreds of obscure journals and conferences with very low standards. As long as you choose venues that are within your league, you can publish anything that remotely resembles research, and it will show up on Google Scholar. A new academic paper is published every 15 seconds, and most of them are "negative results, meh results, and flawed research".
Most of them are negative results, though usually not overtly presented as such. In my experience, it's extremely rare for a researcher to throw away months of hard work because the result is null. They almost always find a way to augment it or spin it, write up the paper with the phrase "more research is needed" in the conclusion, and submit to a mediocre venue.
There are reasons to be skeptical of any claim based on correlations between such widely separated variables as lead exposure (the cause) and crime (the effect). Consuming lead does not instantly turn someone into a criminal in the way that consuming vitamin C cures scurvy. It affects the child’s developing brain, which makes the child duller and more impulsive, which, in some children, and under the right circumstances, leads them to grow up to make short-sighted and risky choices, which, in some children and under the right circumstances, leads them to commit crimes, which, if enough young people act in the same way and at the same time, affects the crime rate. The lead hypothesis correlates the first and last link in this chain, but it would be more convincing if there were evidence about the intervening links. Such correlations should be far stronger than the one they report: presumably most kids with lead are more impulsive, whereas only a minority of impulsive young adults commit crimes. If they are right we should see very strong changes in IQ, school achievement, impulsiveness, childhood
aggressiveness, lack of conscientiousness (one of the “Big Five” personality traits) that mirror the trends in lead exposure, with a suitable time delay. Those trends should be much stronger than the time-lagged correlation of lead with crime itself, which is only indirectly related to impulsiveness, an effect that is necessarily diluted by other causes such as policing and incarceration.
This caution makes sense in general, and it is good to be skeptical of long chains of causation. However, we know so little about the brain that it's possible we're missing a much shorter chain of causation. It's possible that impulsiveness, IQ, aggression, etc. is only tenuously related to whatever aspect of the brain actually affects criminality. A very strong circumstantial case shouldn't be dismissed just because we can't think of a mechanism.
> A very strong circumstantial case shouldn't be dismissed just because we can't think of a mechanism.
On the other hand, if a convincing causal chain can't be identified, it shouldn't be assumed true either. It should go into the (very large) pool of interesting possibilities that may or may not be substantiated if someone wants to invest in the time and energy to research.
