Soon to be Graduate, no idea what to do? Career Advice

[StuBob]

As per thread title, I will complete my LLB Law (Hons) degree next semester with an expected 2:1 minimum and I have currently little idea of what to do going forward so thought I would ask in here for advice and guidance or even just those with similar experience.

Bit of background

I am a mature student so will complete degree as a 31 year old former Project Manager, who mainly operated in the construction industry, where we undertook light steel fabrication projects although we mainly specialised in access and working at height safety systems. This included overseeing delivery of projects across the UK and even on occasion abroad.

I done this for about 6 years and really enjoyed it but I think I became a little bored and decided to go to university. I have no idea why I decided to do this other than I became bored in my role both in terms of the challenge and opportunities. I really should have gone to uni on leaving school but again, that never panned out perhaps for the same reasons and I left school at 16 so going and getting my degree was probably a challenge I personally wanted to undertake. For all intents and purposes it has been-ish as I have continued to work full time throughout my degree as a contractor with a major bank (simple desk role).

Now

However I am at the stage where I need to look and seek out graduate role opportunities that interest me and tbh I am struggling here. I know I do not want to continue down the route of legal practice but I would like to secure a career which offers good opportunities to develop new skills, progress opportunities or even travel all with a good work/life balance is the goal. On this point I am looking to engage a CV Writing Service as I am pushed for time and have always struggled with cv writing.


Opportunities Identified so far

There are two programs that I am looking to apply to and these include the Civil Service (Fast Stream) Graduate programme (although which area I'm not too sure) and I have always been interested in Air Traffic Control so will send off an application to NATS.


Any help, advice or anything that may be relevant or offer a different view is appreciated.

Cheers

Stuart

 

[dowie]

I guess one obvious question is. - why not law? I mean if you've quit your job to take 3 years out and complete a law degree (unless you're a part time student?) then did you not at one point want to become a solicitor or barrister? If so then why did that change?

Obviously the civil service grad program requires a degree so that makes sense, air traffic control though - if you were interested in that then you could have applied already and saved yourself three years of no income + additional debt - seems like a bit of a waste of your degree.

I mean without knowing the answers to the questions above I'd have otherwise assumed that someone who studied law and who previously worked in construction would be interested in both and would perhaps look at something where you could combine your interests. Did you have any dealings with law firms when you were a PM? Surely things like planning etc.. were issues you'd dealt with before? There must be plenty of legal work related to things like cross rail, HS2 etc.. and indeed various housing development projects etc..

I mean that would seem like the logical thing when going for a career change - combine your interests/experience and offer something a bit more unique. For example one of my friends/former colleagues is a qualified accountant, he's also a business analyst/consultant - most accountants don't have the tech experience he has and most business analysts don't have the amount of domain knowledge he has - ergo his contractor rates are close to double the typical BA/developer rates.

You've got direct experience managing projects in a particular sector, fresh law graduates going into law don't have that experience and never will, I'd try and use that to your advantage.

 

[Sudden]

What is it about going into law that put you off? That + answer to dowie's question would help anyone advise I imagine what kind of things you should be looking at.

I did consider a few different alternatives when my training contract applications weren't panning out and interviewed for a few roles, but a lot of them required quite similar skills. Happy to suggest some, but not much point if they all would have the same issues you have with the legal industry generally.

 

[Buffman]

Surely if you're getting a degree in law, involving a fair amount of writing youll be able to write yourself a CV?

considered a contracts manager type role in construction?

 

[Delvis]

Tbh, if money isn't an issue do whatever job you dream of doing and start from the gutter

 

[Flaevius]

Re: NATS - and I daresay you've done this already - just make sure you have checked carefully over the eligibility requirements. There are a number of medical requirements in particular, chief of which is quality of vision and/or tolerance level of corrective surgery.

ATC is also classed as a mobile grade and you'd be expected to work around the UK, where needed. Hours are standard, but will require shift work re: your work/life balance comment.

 

[StuBob]

Thanks for the direction guys.

@dowie & @Sudden Tbh I find it difficult to give an acceptable answer to most as to why I don't really want to take my degree further. I suppose the best I can come up with is that I really enjoy the subject and all that it involves but I'm not sure I would like to practice it everyday as a job. Best I can come up with is that I love working on cars, something I have learned DIY style but I don't think I would ever have liked to work in a garage everyday on other peoples cars. Moreover the limitations dictate I would basically be stuck in Scotland for rest of my career is off-putting in itself, as I would like to move into something that will give me more opportunities and ability to transfer to other places if the notion or work took me.

Regarding going back to Project or Contract management I would consider that a fall back if nothing else. Having done it I enjoyed the challenge but again I eventually got bored with it and there is little interest to go back to that, unless in perhaps a different industry or with other prospects for progress, or diversity and challenges. I don't fancy going back to the construction game really, the volatility and again I suppose the dead end restrictions of moving from one company doing the same thing to another is not for me. Everyone in that game, in those roles generally just bounce around from company to company for similar reasons, falling out, under-appreciated, poor recognition etc. a merry-go-round I would rather avoid.

That is why NATS and the Civil Service (Foreign Office etc. and with Brexit opportunities should be wide and varied) appeal, the chance to try something new, learn new skills and open up new paths with progression not just within the industries but over the world. I done a bit of work abroad, in the Middle East in my previous role, and really enjoyed it, so travel is not a problem in that sense. Even more so it is just me and the Mrs, who works for the NHS and would have little problem picking up somewhere else.

@Flaevius Thanks for that, I had never worried about my eyesight before. Never been tested since I was young but I haven't noticed any issues with my eyesight albeit looks like I may now have to get this checked. No issues with the other eligibility criteria that I could see.


Again thanks for the advice.

 

[Sudden]

Have you had any experience in it? Either some vacation schemes if you're going for the big city firm route or just some informal work experience anywhere? It seems to be a pretty big decision to not follow into a career you've just got a degree in because you're not sure you'd like it without experiencing it?

I am a bit biased since I am in law, but there is a range out there depending on what kind of law you want to do. I'm in-house at a tech multi-national, and the experience is far different from a city law firm. I don't think you should discount it without getting a better idea - if you do and don't like it, then of course you shouldn't go into it though.

 

[TJM]

If you go down the Fast Stream route, make use of the practice tests and other prep material that are sold by third parties. The competition is fierce and mistakes in the screening tests will see your application filtered out before a human looks at it.

Informal work experience is harder to come by in the Civil Service these days but I'd recommend you get some if you are interested. A typical Fast Streamer will spend most of their time writing up policy proposals, having meetings to discuss those proposals, reworking the proposals to suit the whims of a deputy director, printing out hundreds of pages, etc.

Process and paperwork are the guts of the job and it doesn't tool you up for anything other than more senior roles in the Civil Service, so I wouldn't expect it to open doors to international roles. The FCO is an obvious exception but the competition for the Diplomatic Service is much worse and your first postings will be to places that your partner may really not want to go. (And you'll still end up with a skill set that is useless outside the Civil Service or larger charities and NGOs.)

And, as someone who became a lawyer at your age, I wouldn't do the LPC or BTPC unless you are sure that you want to take the risk that there will be no job at the end of it.

 

[Scuzi]

I can’t help with all of your concerns but I work for NATS and can help answer any questions you may have. My background is controller, instructor, examiner, supervisor and currently a manager but still operational. A few years ago I was involved in interviewing applicants for the trainee controller role so could help you out with anything you have questions about there.

The only thing I can say in general is that when it comes to controlling you will either have the ability or you won’t. Some of our best controllers range from multiple Ph.D holders to those with barely two O Levels to rub together. Your brain has to be wired in the right way and academic performance doesn’t always correlate.

If you have any specific questions let me know and I’ll be happy to answer.

Good luck

 

[edscdk]

Probably better to get a time machine, go back 3 years... Decide on a career you want then do the appropriate training .. Saves a lot of wasted time and money

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Saves a lot of wasted time and money

I don't think getting a degree is ever a waste.

As for money, unless you self fund, it's not real money is it? I mean, you can't take the tuition fees and buy a car instead can you?

 

[Sudden]

It's ordinarily not as lucrative as people think... and it can be quite difficult to get a training contract, with many firms just exploiting grads as paralegals with the prospect of a TC dangled ahead of them. Then there's the huge expense of an LPC if you can't get it funded... at which point you could end up like the new grads I just mentioned working as a paralegal.

More importantly, many people study law without it being a route they want to pursue professionally... like how people who read history and geography don't necessarily want to become historians or geographers! You develop all the transferrable skills you'd expect from any good degree, but then can choose modules which are far removed from run of the mill practice in the UK.

Yeah, I agree it can be tough - I struggled a lot and only managed because the company I was interning and then paralegalling at had a few people in the team who quite liked me and were senior enough to convince our GC to approve getting our company approved by the SRA to offer TCs just so I could become a trainee. I did train in-house as well though, and did a secondment at a firm, so the reverse. I had already self-funded the LPC and that was a lost cost. It is a risk as you mention but at least when I was looking for intern/paralegal opportunities, a lot of the places wanted you to have the LPC. Bit circular, but also means you limit your options if you haven't already done the LPC. The fact that OP has/will have a 2:1 should help.

However, those don't seem to be the concerns the OP has - he's said that it's because he doesn't know if he'd like it. I think deciding that without experience (using oportunities that don't need the LPC - vac schemes/work experience) is a bit pre-mature.

Whilst I agree that some people do study law without wanting to go into it, my impression (I could be wrong - I did history at uni and then the GDL) is that most studying law want to go into it; whereas history and geography that isn't the case. It is the transferable skills that are most important (which is likely why so many history grads end up in law), but if those skills are the ones OP doesn't like utilising, then other career options might be limited.

 

[Nitefly]

Hello - solicitor here, in a busy regional office at good rep firm. There are a lot of pros to the job (i.e. engaging, well paid, satisfying when you get the job done and a thank you) but if I'm being frank most lawyers seem to tolerate their jobs and I honestly know no-one that would say, hand on heart, that they thoroughly enjoy it. It's often gruelling and extraordinary stressful, even the days you are twiddling your thumbs you sit there worrying about what's going to land (you can't work on something that is sat with the 'other side'). I think it's fair to say that most people find it more perpetually stressful than final university exams. I know some very intelligent, very capable people that have burned out or become ill from it. You have to be an abnormally stress free / work and career driven person to truly enjoy it - most people are not so inclined and therefore have a love / hate relationship with it. For example, I love the idea of drafting something unusual and challenging (which is naturally engaging), but I do not love the idea of overbearing pressure to do so within an impossible time frame whilst I have several other equally challenging things to do for other clients with equally impossible deadlines.

But, hey, I don't worry about money, so there's that, I guess?

 

[Sudden]

Hello - solicitor here, in a busy regional office at good rep firm. There are a lot of pros to the job (i.e. engaging, well paid, satisfying when you get the job done and a thank you) but if I'm being frank most lawyers seem to tolerate their jobs and I honestly know no-one that would say, hand on heart, that they thoroughly enjoy it. It's often gruelling and extraordinary stressful, even the days you are twiddling your thumbs you sit there worrying about what's going to land (you can't work on something that is sat with the 'other side'). I think it's fair to say that most people find it more perpetually stressful than final university exams. I know some very intelligent, very capable people that have burned out or become ill from it. You have to be an abnormally stress free / work and career driven person to truly enjoy it - most people are not so inclined and therefore have a love / hate relationship with it. For example, I love the idea of drafting something unusual and challenging (which is naturally engaging), but I do not love the idea of overbearing pressure to do so within an impossible time frame whilst I have several other equally challenging things to do for other clients with equally impossible deadlines.

But, hey, I don't worry about money, so there's that, I guess?

Yeah, that's fair - I do enjoy it rather than not most of the time, but being in-house is a big part of it. I spent 6 months in a city firm and hated it. I quickly realised whilst I like parts of the law itself, I dislike the business of law. My hours aren't hugely better than some of the city firms (better than American firms though), but the work here is far more engaging.

OP - not that you wouldn't anyway, but do consider Nitefly's post seriously. I'm happy to give an in-house perspective if you want more of an idea of what it's like, but most people start off at least in law-firms and it definitley can be quite gruelling.

 

[Nitefly]

Yeah, that's fair - I do enjoy it rather than not most of the time, but being in-house is a big part of it. I spent 6 months in a city firm and hated it. I quickly realised whilst I like parts of the law itself, I dislike the business of law. My hours aren't hugely better than some of the city firms (better than American firms though), but the work here is far more engaging.

OP - not that you wouldn't anyway, but do consider Nitefly's post seriously. I'm happy to give an in-house perspective if you want more of an idea of what it's like, but most people start off at least in law-firms and it definitley can be quite gruelling.

Thanks for the response. I have considered going in-house but most in house positions seem to be 'corporate support / general commercial' and in my experience 'commercial law' is dreadful as a junior lawyer, which I was back then (and that's actually what I thought would be most interesting). Nobody seems to give two hoots what the contracts say in 'business as usual' matters as long as the heads of terms are documented in principle, ideally by yesterday, because nobody actually looks at the contracts ever again - so in-house there's more reporting on documents than there is drafting (this is particularly 'lol' when dealing with big firms that just want deals done and often at least one side is completely "computer says no" about accepting the most reasonable of amendments). The standard of drafting was generally dreadful. Perhaps I had a bad experience but I did not find it particularly intellectually stimulating.

Corporate law (financing / share and asset purchases) was far more interesting in principle in private practice but the hours were frequently stupid, clients absurdly demanding (although in fairness they are paying a lot of money for the service) and the due diligence side of things (i.e. reporting / arse covering) was monumentally boring. Concisely reporting on existing arrangements, a typical 'junior' exercise, is actually a really hard and time consuming thing to do.

You know, I don't think it's the hours that are that bad (for me). I am usually home by 7pm and by London standards that is probably a doddle, although I have earned my right to turn up and leave when I want without any eyebrows being raised. It's what you have to turn around within those hours that sucks. Documents in, deal with them immediately, take instructions, wait for a response... get instructions and send documents back immediately - all to avoid the scorn of being accused of being sat on something. Or it's the lingering epic projects where your just waiting for something coming in that means your evening plans are cancelled. One particular project I've been involved with (which was on the BBC recently - oooo look at me) has been going on for years and it makes me feel a bit ill every time it comes up because it takes hours and hours of intellectual effort (considering every single possible outcome) just to give 2 or 3 bullet points sensible advice on what to do next. About 40 non-chargeable hours I've spent on that in the past 3 weeks (and if you have billing targets you'll know how miserable that is).

I don't know where I'm going with this rant really To make it (slightly) less about me, if I was to offer sensible advice to an aspiring lawyer I'd suggest that there are really only two types of law: contentious and non-contentious. I wouldn't turn up your nose at any particular area of law because, beyond the aforementioned 'two types', it's much of a muchness (and your experience will probably depend on your clients... also my only caveat to that is that non-contentious 'commercial law' was disappointing). Being an all rounded socially friendly person who can get on / find common ground with most has probably been my best attribute. Also, recognise when people really need your help and go out of your way to help. They will sing your praises for life. Also, don't be a jerk. Take the time to be very friendly to your opposites and you will end up having a much easier time.

Sorry for the aimless waffle!

 

[TNGL]

My girlfriend's Dad is an intellectual property laywer at a large American firm. Made partner in his early 30s and earns over £1m per year after tax, he arrives at 8:30 and leaves by 7. But then again, he has probably earned his right to turn up and leave when he wants anyway, as Nitefly puts it. Before this, he worked at a high street solicitors, had a stint at corporate law (and hated it) and then moved to this firm.

I am not sure what the objective of this post is but, in short, it seems that once you reach a certain level, the hours won't be a problem and you will be very well remunerated. But then again, aren't most professions like this?

 

[dowie]

I know one friend from school who works in-house at a large firm and gets to work from home rather a lot, he seems to have a decent work/life balance though he seemingly hates his job regardless. My cousin works at a "magic circle" firm and seems to keep the hours manageable, she also seems to be enjoying it still.

I did see this on Facebook today, it does seem to reflect what Nitefly has highlighted:



Also I used to work for a company that shared an office building with an international law firm, I remember getting into the lift when one of their male partners and a female lawyer got in, they were discussing people from some recruitment event, female lawyer said something like "what about [female name]" and the partner replied "Oh the fat one, no way"... and that was it.

It does seem that when there are more than enough well qualified candidates for these roles they can be quite brutal, incidentally plenty of the female employees of this firm were rather attractive.

 

[Nitefly]

I know one friend from school who works in-house at a large firm and gets to work from home rather a lot, he seems to have a decent work/life balance though he seemingly hates his job regardless. My cousin works at a "magic circle" firm and seems to keep the hours manageable, she also seems to be enjoying it still.

I did see this on Facebook today, it does seem to reflect what Nitefly has highlighted:



Also I used to work for a company that shared an office building with an international law firm, I remember getting into the lift when one of their male partners and a female lawyer got in, they were discussing people from some recruitment event, female lawyer said something like "what about [female name]" and the partner replied "Oh the fat one, no way"... and that was it.

It does seem that when there are more than enough well qualified candidates for these roles they can be quite brutal, incidentally plenty of the female employees of this firm were rather attractive.

Hah I remember you sharing this lift story before. Yes the bias towards that is a little embarrassing at some London firms...

 

[Nitefly]

My girlfriend's Dad is an intellectual property laywer at a large American firm. Made partner in his early 30s and earns over £1m per year after tax, he arrives at 8:30 and leaves by 7. But then again, he has probably earned his right to turn up and leave when he wants anyway, as Nitefly puts it. Before this, he worked at a high street solicitors, had a stint at corporate law (and hated it) and then moved to this firm.

I am not sure what the objective of this post is but, in short, it seems that once you reach a certain level, the hours won't be a problem and you will be very well remunerated. But then again, aren't most professions like this?

I think it’s fair to say earning those sorts of wages is very abnormal. I will never make that sort of money and I’m a single figure percentage of that now.

To be a partner you have to be a (kind and patient) minder, a (big client) finder or a (psycho) grinder. Sadly I think I don’t fit into any of these!