Why do law school students continually go to big firms when they know they're likely to be unhappy? For many of the same reasons that people go to Las Vegas to gamble when they know they're likely to lose money.

Introduction

Law students continually pine for big firm jobs despite evidence that such jobs are characterized by unhappiness and attrition. Nearly forty million people per year travel to Las Vegas despite evidence they're likely to lose money. Each scenario is an identity-building activity, with the student and gambler volunteering to play the mark and subject himself to a con. On the first day, Eben estimated 15-20% of big firm lawyers he knows are happy. My response was to shrug it off and assume I’d be one of the happy ones. But the odds suggest I’m wrong, and it’s becoming apparent that taking those odds at such high stakes is an enormous gamble. Understanding the casino scheme can shed insight on why some students gamble their careers at big law firms.

The Con: Wealth Creation

Wealth creation for casinos is simple mathematics; they only offer games where the house wins. The hard part of the con is to convince people to gamble anyway. Casinos do so by sending various messages. The relevant message for this paper is: “You are lucky. While the group of gamblers must lose, you can be the individual that wins.” One way firms create wealth is by projecting a heightened air of importance. They can afford fancy offices, lavish parties, and six-figure starting salaries because their attorneys are so much better than other available lawyers. As Tharaud demonstrates, this is just a front. Still, the firm’s message is convincing: “We have the best lawyers from the best law schools, and joining us makes you part of that group”. The Lucky Individual

Since gambling is an identity-forming play, casinos need to make the actor feel special. Once the actor feels special, he may begin acting as though he can win (even if he doesn’t actually believe it). Casino games are designed to bleed money from an individual rather than wipe him out quickly. Blackjack, when played properly, gives the House less than a 51-49 advantage. Slot machines, generally giving the worst odds, allow players to keep about 9/10ths of his wager. At these odds, individuals can walk away winners and every player will at least experience the thrill of winning. These short-term wins are necessary to the Casino’s long-term con: the casino must show its marks there’s something in it for him. A winning hand is Sean Mekas sending a claim document to Spiros Tzourous. This con is particularly effective because gamblers rarely track their wins and losses accurately. Reinforcing a mark’s belief that he can win at a game of skill cloaks the math which invariably holds true: anyone gambling in a casino long enough inevitably loses. The mark, experiencing wins and seeing others win, starts feeling he is special and starts believing in his luck. He overvalues his contribution. These are purely chance games, but casinos convince him that he affects the outcome (through lucky superstitions or strategies). Wins are attributed to skill, and the mark forms his identity around his ability to produce such wins. Some people think they’re good at blackjack; at best, gamblers can play by the book and lose as slowly as possible. Losses are attributed to bad luck; and since luck is outside of the mark’s control, he is blameless when he loses. The ability to deflect your shortcomings is a phenomenal feeling. Casinos are a safe place to form an identity.

Casinos and firms make sure their marks feel special along the way. Casinos provide high-class services, luxurious settings, complimentary drinks, and scantily-clad waitresses. Students are treated similarly: firm receptions, fancy offices, high salaries, and inflated prestige. The mark, gambler or law student, receives such service and buys into the identity being fed to him. He is special. Therefore, he can stand out from the group. The group will lose, its money or its license, but he will not. The analogy extends further. High-stakes gamblers play at exclusive tables separated from the general floor. They receive higher luxury and personal service. These gamblers are like partners. On the surface they are above the masses of marks, but they are losing to the exact same con.

Why the Split?

A typical gambler begins with dreams of conquering a game, despite the odds. When he finds himself losing money, the goal changes to just breaking even. This proves difficult because the casino has the opposite goal, and the casino controls the game. As gamblers find themselves further behind they need to make larger leaps forward, leading some to the flawed strategy of increasing their bets. Occasionally luck intervenes and the gambler can break even, but usually numbers dominate and larger bets simply lose more money. (Casinos set maximum bets, otherwise this strategy could work).

Students enter firms with various goals, including making money, enjoying prestige, and paying off loans. Firms can provide these small victories, proving there’s something in it for us like casinos giving their gamblers periodic wins. But if your goals conflict with the firms’ goals, they control the game, and they can put up obstacles in your path. As an associate becomes less content with his job and his life (the gambler falling behind), the reasons he entered law school subside. The associate begins looking to just get back to even. To make law school worth the investment. Often, this means trying to make partner. The thinking is that while associate life is miserable, partner life offers something different. Of course an associate seeking a promotion at a job he dislikes, because he thinks he’ll find happiness at the next tier, is stupid. Just as betting more money on a blackjack hand won’t change the odds of success, investing more time at a job you hate won’t change the odds of career fulfillment.

The Layout

Why do tacky hotels depict Ancient Egypt, Greece, and pirates? These superfluous caricatures create a sense of waste. Everything is unnecessarily over-the-top. Since nothing in Vegas can be taken seriously, visitors stop taking themselves seriously and buy into the wasteful environment. Then, investing money into games you will eventually lose becomes natural. While outlandish exteriors encourage waste, the underlying structure in casinos is meticulously designed to extract money most efficiently. Their interiors are remarkably similar. Guests must walk through the casino to get anywhere. Time is obscured, with no clocks or windows. Exits are not easily accessible. Slot machines, casinos’ most efficient moneymaker, are placed near the entrances and account for more floor space than any other game. Casinos are designed to trap the casual passerby; if they can just get him in the casino, they can get him to spend money. Firms similarly hope to trap students. They insist that becoming a top lawyer requires first joining their office. This strategy is effective; when firms get students to become associates, they can often alter the associates’ career plans. Many students plan on working at firms only until they pay off their loans. Many gamblers plan on playing for just a little while, incurring just a little loss. Both may be conned into staying, and therefore losing, for a long time. Just as casinos obscure time, firms obscure time by requiring ridiculous work hours.

Conclusion

Putting money into a slot machine is no less tangible than handing your license to a firm. In both instances you wager a valuable commodity which was earned through prior work and which has the potential to bring future rewards. But one can always make more money; one cannot always salvage a lost career. When lawyers wager something they cannot afford to lose on a game of chance they are mathematically likely to lose, the wager is a poor one.

-- JaredBaumgart - 31 Mar 2008

WOW that's an awesome pair of sentences. I don't agree with the argument, but the analogy is beautiful.

-- AndrewGradman - 31 Mar 2008