actuarial field is alrdy oversaturated. u get the degree (proof ur smarter than the avg comm student) and go for finance jobs
can u elaborate on this part. from what ive seen theres a lot of mind numbing bundle-collating/discovery/dd/contractual review at junior lvls. even a lot of correspondence etc is really just management/admin-esque and not exactly intellectual. seems like giving advice/strategy is where that intellectual demand comes in but how much of a job is that really pre-SA lvl. also out of curiosity how does one justify a legal career on the transactional side over eg IB
making it big anywhere comes down to how much money you bring to the table. u can alrdy have clients via family/connections etc or get them yourself
actl/cs should place similarly into those positions
engineering lacks demand from hs students
e.g. if you're collating a tender bundle for trial, you need to know the background of the case, what facts are in dispute, and what legal issues are going to be contentious. the evidence you are putting in is the evidence that is most favourable to your clients case and most damaging to the others. you need to be applying the rules of evidence, noting the document may be hearsay or inadmissible opinion etc. and picking a choosing from the lens of what is relevant to the matter and what things will actually need to be proved. for discovery, you are applying similar forensic filters, working out what are the implications of the disclosure, what points you can grab onto and make a case out of, what information is relevant and what can be ignored. contractual review you are thinking about what the proper construction of each clause is, are there any possible loopholes that need to be closed where circumstances would arise and a particular clause isn't worded properly and would screw your client over, or based on your knowledge/experience working out what grounds aren't adequately covered and how to word them to close out any loose ends. i would say if you're doing your job properly it is generally quite intellectually demanding, however, this is obviously contingent upon what area of law you work in, and at what firm you work in. i've heard that at some of the bigger firms as juniors, you don't get trusted with anything outside of e.g. plugging details into pexa for a conveyance, which clearly isn't very intellectually engaging. but i've found at least if you have a good grip on the law, attention to detail and a keen eye, at some point people will begin to ask for your input, and if you keep having valuable things to say, it doesn't take long before you're trusted with more engaging things (subject to supervision ofc). in any job you have to deal with boring and mind numbing shit for a while when you're getting a hang of things and learning the ropes.
