Cliffs notes: Given the choice between: a) a job offering tons of money but no vacation and ridiculous hours; and b) a job that offers ok money, excellent flexibility (work at home 99% of the time) and good vacation, which would you chose? Would it matter to you if you could take the high paying job but on a 80/80 plan (bill 80% of the hours for 80% of the pay?)
LONG VERSION: I'm facing a conundrum. As some of you may know, I am about ready to graduate from law school this May. I currently work for a Large Patent Law Firm/boutique during the day and I go to school at night. My firm likes me and has offered me a full associate position at $155k/year + bar costs (~$3500 including the review course) and moving costs for relocating to Boston (up to $15k, including airfare and hotel for house hunting trips etc.). The problem, as I've mentioned before, it that they want 2000 billable hours per year, +200 non-billable firm hours. To get 2000 billables doing what I do (patent prosecution) I would need to work ~2400 hours. That means I would be doing firm related stuff for 2600 hours per year, with no vacation. Note that the average raise per year at my firm is something like 20-30k a year +bonueses. So in 3 years I would be making somewhere between 220-280k/year.
On the other hand, I have an offer from the US Patent and Trademark Office to be reinstated as an Examiner there. Although I have gained tons of valuable experience and education in the 2.5 years I've been away from the Office, this apparently means nothing to the PTO, as the HR department has informed me that I could only be reinstated at exaclty my old level, which is a GS 12, step 2 making ~75k a year. The upside of working for the PTO is I would be able to wrok from home 99% of the time, the job is relatively easy for me, and I would have 20 days of vacation and 11 paid holidays per year. In ~5 months I would be eligible for promotion to a GS-13, where I would make ~85k a year. In ~3 years I would make ~$110-115k.
So my conundrum is, which one do I chose? On the one hand I have a job that gives me the means to support my family in a manner that I never thought possible (wife wouldn't have to work, future kids would be well set etc.), but gives me little to no time on my own. On the other hand, if I take the PTO job I get to spend more time with my family, but my wife would continue to have to work and we would be more limited financially (although I am definitely not saying we would not be doing well, I am well aware of just how lucky I am to have what I have).
As an alternative consideration, my firm does offer an 80/80 plan (bill 80% of the time for 80% of the pay). however, this plan is usually only used by women who are mothers at the firm, and isn entirely revocable at the firms discretion. 80% of $155k is still a lot of money, and might give me the time I want, but I still would not have a lot of flexibility.
I know its a personal choice, but I'd like to hear what you guys think. I really feel like I am standing at the proverbial fork in the road, and if I chose the wrong way I will regret it for the rest of my life.
p.s. Could someone pm me with instructions on how to make a poll?
LONG VERSION: I'm facing a conundrum. As some of you may know, I am about ready to graduate from law school this May. I currently work for a Large Patent Law Firm/boutique during the day and I go to school at night. My firm likes me and has offered me a full associate position at $155k/year + bar costs (~$3500 including the review course) and moving costs for relocating to Boston (up to $15k, including airfare and hotel for house hunting trips etc.). The problem, as I've mentioned before, it that they want 2000 billable hours per year, +200 non-billable firm hours. To get 2000 billables doing what I do (patent prosecution) I would need to work ~2400 hours. That means I would be doing firm related stuff for 2600 hours per year, with no vacation. Note that the average raise per year at my firm is something like 20-30k a year +bonueses. So in 3 years I would be making somewhere between 220-280k/year.
On the other hand, I have an offer from the US Patent and Trademark Office to be reinstated as an Examiner there. Although I have gained tons of valuable experience and education in the 2.5 years I've been away from the Office, this apparently means nothing to the PTO, as the HR department has informed me that I could only be reinstated at exaclty my old level, which is a GS 12, step 2 making ~75k a year. The upside of working for the PTO is I would be able to wrok from home 99% of the time, the job is relatively easy for me, and I would have 20 days of vacation and 11 paid holidays per year. In ~5 months I would be eligible for promotion to a GS-13, where I would make ~85k a year. In ~3 years I would make ~$110-115k.
So my conundrum is, which one do I chose? On the one hand I have a job that gives me the means to support my family in a manner that I never thought possible (wife wouldn't have to work, future kids would be well set etc.), but gives me little to no time on my own. On the other hand, if I take the PTO job I get to spend more time with my family, but my wife would continue to have to work and we would be more limited financially (although I am definitely not saying we would not be doing well, I am well aware of just how lucky I am to have what I have).
As an alternative consideration, my firm does offer an 80/80 plan (bill 80% of the time for 80% of the pay). however, this plan is usually only used by women who are mothers at the firm, and isn entirely revocable at the firms discretion. 80% of $155k is still a lot of money, and might give me the time I want, but I still would not have a lot of flexibility.
I know its a personal choice, but I'd like to hear what you guys think. I really feel like I am standing at the proverbial fork in the road, and if I chose the wrong way I will regret it for the rest of my life.
p.s. Could someone pm me with instructions on how to make a poll?
.
Facebook
Twitter