Rough out there...

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
Lord Randolph McDuff
Posts: 1587
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: Rough out there...

Postby Lord Randolph McDuff » Mon May 13, 2013 1:24 am

rinkrat19 wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:(And moonman, "a lot" is way more than "not everybody.")
lol. LSAT logic fail right there. "A lot" is entirely subjective and could be anything greater than zero, depending on the context. "not everyone" could be everyone except one person. It's perfectly possible for "not everyone" to be way, way more than "a lot."


Oh my, do you actually believe your own bullshit?

User avatar
stuckinthemiddle
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 2:24 am

Re: Rough out there...

Postby stuckinthemiddle » Mon May 13, 2013 1:26 am

I don't know why OP's post is news to anyone. This is how it's been for the past five years.

That being said, the debate that has sparked in this thread is something I've actually always wondered about. I wanted to make a thread about it on multiple occasions but was afraid of getting flamed.

Is it really the name of the school that gets you through the doors of legal hiring, or is it the quality of students/people that are generally accepted to these schools.

Phrased differently, do top schools have the best employment statistics purely because they attracted the best/most attractive students or is it because of the name of the school?

Phrased differently again, would someone who could get a job at Harvard similarly be attractive enough to get a job coming out of a T20 or T50 school?

Lord Randolph McDuff
Posts: 1587
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: Rough out there...

Postby Lord Randolph McDuff » Mon May 13, 2013 1:49 am

stuckinthemiddle wrote:I don't know why OP's post is news to anyone. This is how it's been for the past five years.

That being said, the debate that has sparked in this thread is something I've actually always wondered about. I wanted to make a thread about it on multiple occasions but was afraid of getting flamed.

Is it really the name of the school that gets you through the doors of legal hiring, or is it the quality of students/people that are generally accepted to these schools.

Phrased differently, do top schools have the best employment statistics purely because they attracted the best/most attractive students or is it because of the name of the school?

Phrased differently again, would someone who could get a job at Harvard similarly be attractive enough to get a job coming out of a T20 or T50 school?


Probably a little of both, but top schools are far more likely to produce the ambitious, smart, hardworking students that corporations are looking for. It takes great sacrifices to get into Harvard Law, and high brow firms want associates who are willing to make great sacrifices. Of course, students from lessor schools get great jobs all the time too, in and out of Biglaw. 50% of Biglaw jobs went to non T - 14 schools last year. The easier a school is to get into, the harder they will have to work to get the attention of a Biglaw firm. They will then have to go above and beyond to show them their willingness to make sacrifices, though they have perhaps taken a easier road in the past. (a story about going to a TTT because your husband was receiving top notch medical care in the city will get you noticed so long as you also made good grades. You can make sacrifices. You hear about employers giving lessor bumps for having to work through undergrad, etc.)


The less obvious stuff is that if you go to a top school, you have access to a very wealthy alumni network, and when you are job hunting people will assume you are at least as smart as the dumbest kid in your class, which is still kickin wing at Harvard Law. That's not really responsive to your question, though.

User avatar
worldtraveler
Posts: 7667
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:47 am

Re: Rough out there...

Postby worldtraveler » Mon May 13, 2013 2:58 am

stuckinthemiddle wrote:I don't know why OP's post is news to anyone. This is how it's been for the past five years.

That being said, the debate that has sparked in this thread is something I've actually always wondered about. I wanted to make a thread about it on multiple occasions but was afraid of getting flamed.

Is it really the name of the school that gets you through the doors of legal hiring, or is it the quality of students/people that are generally accepted to these schools.

Phrased differently, do top schools have the best employment statistics purely because they attracted the best/most attractive students or is it because of the name of the school?

Phrased differently again, would someone who could get a job at Harvard similarly be attractive enough to get a job coming out of a T20 or T50 school?



For what it's worth, I helped select interns for a non-profit organization this year, and as its an organization that tries to get away from elitism someone blocked out all information related to what law school each applicant attended before I reviewed them. With a couple of exceptions, everyone granted an interview turned out to be attending a T20, even though we had applications from probably around 75 law schools. The applications from students at the top schools were just better even when trying to make the school anonymous. They had more experience and better cover letters.

User avatar
Richie Tenenbaum
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:17 am

Re: Rough out there...

Postby Richie Tenenbaum » Mon May 13, 2013 3:54 am

rinkrat19 wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:(And moonman, "a lot" is way more than "not everybody.")
lol. LSAT logic fail right there. "A lot" is entirely subjective and could be anything greater than zero, depending on the context. "not everyone" could be everyone except one person. It's perfectly possible for "not everyone" to be way, way more than "a lot."


Treating conversational english like the LSAT is annoying and, at times, unrealistic. Also, there's a problem with your critique since it looks like A. Nony Mouse was referring to her use of "a lot" versus your use of "not everybody," and from the context of both it's pretty clear that she was claiming to know more classmates that were very good at what they do than what you seemed to think would exist at a school in that range. (Compare "a lot of them are just mediocre students with mediocre minds who are going to be mediocre at whatever they do for the rest of their lives . . . . Not everybody, but...yeah, to a certain extent" with "[I] had a lot of classmates who are fucking good at what they do.")

I'm actually on board with what seems like a more tame version of your claim, something like "the average student at a school like NU is smarter than than the average student at a school like FSU." But you seem to be saying the vast majority (as in there are a small amount of exceptions, but not many) of students at a school like FSU are mediocre in intelligence and will be mediocre at their jobs. I don't agree with that--from my experience, there isn't a big difference between the people who are around the top of their class (~5-10%) at a good range of schools.

(But maybe our views aren't far apart and people are just talking past each other in this thread.)

User avatar
Richie Tenenbaum
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:17 am

Re: Rough out there...

Postby Richie Tenenbaum » Mon May 13, 2013 4:08 am

oldschool123 wrote:
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:
Finally, and here is where mind = blown, the reason that most of my buddies got a 164 and the people that hate you in class got a 169 is not because my buddies have "mediocre minds." It is because people are like, different, from one another, with a wide range of goals and aspirations. So while it is probably true that on the aggregate there are slightly smarter and harder working people at your school, the reason for the 6 or 7 question difference in the LSAT is much more likely that people like me who attend schools like mine never needed your LSAT score-- we do not want biglaw, do not like dropping names at parties, do not constantly adjust our own self-worth based on what others may think of us, etc. Thinking that everyone else on earth shares your ideas about success is childish and stupid. Maybe stop doing that.

By the way, that isn't to say there is something inherently wrong with wanting to work at a large firm, or selling yourself at a party, or having goals that require others to see you a certain way, etc-- I want to make it clear that I'm attacking you, as a tool, and not others who happen to do what you do for completely different reasons.


For real??? So people who get 164s only do so because they don't want to be tools and don't "need" a better score on a test that has a huge impact on, if not the rest of their lives, the next several years of their lives (not only by deciding which schools you get into but, often more importantly, how much $$$ you get from them)?? So all these kids hold themselves back purposely from getting a better score just so they're not tools?

I agree that saying that "all students at mediocre schools are mediocre students who will only do mediocre things with their lives" is a completely ridiculous/elitist/offensive thing to say and a huge over-dramatization, but to say that people get 164s basically as their own personal choice to do so is also pretty ridiculous. And even if it is true in some cases, that's damn sad that someone would sell themselves short on an opportunity to make an investment in their future just because they don't want to be seen as a tool.


Meh, a lot of people at T14s are there because 1) they realized how important the LSAT was, and 2) they realized the LSAT was a very learnable test, so they didn't settle for a lower score.

When I first started studying for the LSAT, I got a 155 on my diagnostic and decided that a score in the low 160s seemed like a reasonable goal. That seems to be a pretty typical experience (I taught the LSAT and a lot of students seemed to initially think they should shoot for a small increase over their diagnostic). If I hadn't taken a powerscore class with other students scoring in the 170s (which made me think that maybe I shoot higher) and found TLS (which confirmed that I should try to shoot for a much higher score), I would have stopped after taking the LSAT once and scoring a 163. Instead, I put in a lot more effort and finally ended up with a 174. Teaching the LSAT, I managed to push a decent amount of students into the high 160s and low 170s, when they were initially happy with small improvements over their diagnostic.

I'm not trying to argue that all the FSU students would be at NU if they had just taken the LSAT more seriously and studied more, but I do think there are a significant amount of people at lower ranked schools who didn't try to maximize their LSAT score when they could have. Shit, this is a TLS routine by now--trying to convince people not to settle for a lower LSAT score so they can go to a school with significantly better employment statistics.

froglee
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:14 am

Re: Rough out there...

Postby froglee » Mon May 13, 2013 4:25 am

Waiting for someone to say: "This is nothing new...."
Last edited by froglee on Mon May 13, 2013 4:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Clearly
Posts: 4166
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:09 pm

Re: Rough out there...

Postby Clearly » Mon May 13, 2013 4:30 am

froglee wrote:Waiting for someoe to say: "This is nothing new...."

Should prob read the thread.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22846
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Rough out there...

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Mon May 13, 2013 7:32 am

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:Treating conversational english like the LSAT is annoying and, at times, unrealistic. Also, there's a problem with your critique since it looks like A. Nony Mouse was referring to her use of "a lot" versus your use of "not everybody," and from the context of both it's pretty clear that she was claiming to know more classmates that were very good at what they do than what you seemed to think would exist at a school in that range. (Compare "a lot of them are just mediocre students with mediocre minds who are going to be mediocre at whatever they do for the rest of their lives . . . . Not everybody, but...yeah, to a certain extent" with "[I] had a lot of classmates who are fucking good at what they do.")

I'm actually on board with what seems like a more tame version of your claim, something like "the average student at a school like NU is smarter than than the average student at a school like FSU." But you seem to be saying the vast majority (as in there are a small amount of exceptions, but not many) of students at a school like FSU are mediocre in intelligence and will be mediocre at their jobs. I don't agree with that--from my experience, there isn't a big difference between the people who are around the top of their class (~5-10%) at a good range of schools.

(But maybe our views aren't far apart and people are just talking past each other in this thread.)

Yeah, this is all exactly what I meant.
Richie Tenenbaum wrote:Meh, a lot of people at T14s are there because 1) they realized how important the LSAT was, and 2) they realized the LSAT was a very learnable test, so they didn't settle for a lower score.

When I first started studying for the LSAT, I got a 155 on my diagnostic and decided that a score in the low 160s seemed like a reasonable goal. That seems to be a pretty typical experience (I taught the LSAT and a lot of students seemed to initially think they should shoot for a small increase over their diagnostic). If I hadn't taken a powerscore class with other students scoring in the 170s (which made me think that maybe I shoot higher) and found TLS (which confirmed that I should try to shoot for a much higher score), I would have stopped after taking the LSAT once and scoring a 163. Instead, I put in a lot more effort and finally ended up with a 174. Teaching the LSAT, I managed to push a decent amount of students into the high 160s and low 170s, when they were initially happy with small improvements over their diagnostic.

I'm not trying to argue that all the FSU students would be at NU if they had just taken the LSAT more seriously and studied more, but I do think there are a significant amount of people at lower ranked schools who didn't try to maximize their LSAT score when they could have. Shit, this is a TLS routine by now--trying to convince people not to settle for a lower LSAT score so they can go to a school with significantly better employment statistics.

And this too. I realize everyone here believes that "I should aim for a 163" approach is wrong. But it's not some kind of signifier of that person's ability to be a lawyer.

ETA: I really don't mean this as a defense of going to a lower T1 and I'ma shut up about it after this because I'm getting sucked in that direction. All I'm saying is that to claim that "a lot" of people [however many you want to spin this into] who attend a lower T1 have mediocre minds and will be mediocre at what they do for the rest of their life, especially when the person so claiming has never attended a lower T1, is fucking bullshit and reveals an incredibly narrow and elitist definition of intelligence and success. Whether people *should* attend a lower T1 - based on employment stats, cost, and portability of degree - is an entirely different question from the lawyering/life ability of people who *do* attend such a school. (Acknowledging that that ability may be less than that possessed by those in the beloved T14 - who are, you realize, people who generally scored in, say, the top 4% of LSAT-takers and are by definition exceptional on that scale.) Most of the time I think TLS does an adequate job of not eliding those two things, but this was a moment of absolute fail.

User avatar
stuckinthemiddle
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 2:24 am

Re: Rough out there...

Postby stuckinthemiddle » Mon May 13, 2013 7:47 am

worldtraveler wrote:
stuckinthemiddle wrote:I don't know why OP's post is news to anyone. This is how it's been for the past five years.

That being said, the debate that has sparked in this thread is something I've actually always wondered about. I wanted to make a thread about it on multiple occasions but was afraid of getting flamed.

Is it really the name of the school that gets you through the doors of legal hiring, or is it the quality of students/people that are generally accepted to these schools.

Phrased differently, do top schools have the best employment statistics purely because they attracted the best/most attractive students or is it because of the name of the school?

Phrased differently again, would someone who could get a job at Harvard similarly be attractive enough to get a job coming out of a T20 or T50 school?



For what it's worth, I helped select interns for a non-profit organization this year, and as its an organization that tries to get away from elitism someone blocked out all information related to what law school each applicant attended before I reviewed them. With a couple of exceptions, everyone granted an interview turned out to be attending a T20, even though we had applications from probably around 75 law schools. The applications from students at the top schools were just better even when trying to make the school anonymous. They had more experience and better cover letters.



This is really interesting.

Someone should do some sort of study on this. :lol: Like, what if big firms blocked out the names of the law schools of their applicants? I wonder if there would actually be a change in who gets hired.

User avatar
mehiguess
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 9:23 am

Re: Rough out there...

Postby mehiguess » Mon May 13, 2013 8:23 am

stuckinthemiddle wrote:
worldtraveler wrote:
stuckinthemiddle wrote:I don't know why OP's post is news to anyone. This is how it's been for the past five years.

That being said, the debate that has sparked in this thread is something I've actually always wondered about. I wanted to make a thread about it on multiple occasions but was afraid of getting flamed.

Is it really the name of the school that gets you through the doors of legal hiring, or is it the quality of students/people that are generally accepted to these schools.

Phrased differently, do top schools have the best employment statistics purely because they attracted the best/most attractive students or is it because of the name of the school?

Phrased differently again, would someone who could get a job at Harvard similarly be attractive enough to get a job coming out of a T20 or T50 school?



For what it's worth, I helped select interns for a non-profit organization this year, and as its an organization that tries to get away from elitism someone blocked out all information related to what law school each applicant attended before I reviewed them. With a couple of exceptions, everyone granted an interview turned out to be attending a T20, even though we had applications from probably around 75 law schools. The applications from students at the top schools were just better even when trying to make the school anonymous. They had more experience and better cover letters.



This is really interesting.

Someone should do some sort of study on this. :lol: Like, what if big firms blocked out the names of the law schools of their applicants? I wonder if there would actually be a change in who gets hired.


I could get on board with that. I have to tell myself that if I do my best at a non top tier school I can still be successful in a law career.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22846
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Rough out there...

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Mon May 13, 2013 8:52 am

stuckinthemiddle wrote:Someone should do some sort of study on this. :lol: Like, what if big firms blocked out the names of the law schools of their applicants? I wonder if there would actually be a change in who gets hired.

The thing that's interesting about this is that as I understand it, big firms tend to hire primarily for grades, whereas a non-profit/public interest employer generally tends to look for related experiences/dedicated commitment/passion for the cause, so I would think the results could differ by what the employer gives more weight to. (I'm not going to argue that top schools don't provide better opportunities for students. I mean, worldtraveler, you're in international public interest stuff, right? No, there aren't opportunities to get a lot of experience for that at my law school.)

timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: Rough out there...

Postby timbs4339 » Mon May 13, 2013 12:59 pm

I once had the occasion to review about 150 resumes at my T6 school. They were mostly amazing- top UGs, good GPAs, language skills, prestigious internships and work experience. That's not to say they weren't equally amazing at a T10 or T14 or T25 or T30 or whatever, but very few were K-JD with a few summers of working at Walmart.

bananapeanutbutter
Posts: 351
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:12 pm

Re: Rough out there...

Postby bananapeanutbutter » Mon May 13, 2013 1:06 pm

timbs4339 wrote:I once had the occasion to review about 150 resumes at my T6 school. They were mostly amazing- top UGs, good GPAs, language skills, prestigious internships and work experience. That's not to say they weren't equally amazing at a T10 or T14 or T25 or T30 or whatever, but very few were K-JD with a few summers of working at Walmart.

Oh yeah, the people in all those top 14's normally are extremely impressive. The kind of skills that go into 170's scores make way for potential in a variety of industries. That's why it's so a shame that if you strike out, you're kind of f'd from non-legal fields now. I believe >90% of people at my top 14 have a lot to contribute to society, and it's shity a solid 30% are just going to get boned.

I was once studying with a small group, and I was the only one who wasn't a high school valedictorian. It's just crazy how competitive this stuff is.

Skater
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 1:12 pm

Re: Rough out there...

Postby Skater » Mon May 13, 2013 1:15 pm

Tho OP's father's friend's wife (?) surely didn't mean that she had actually interviewed multiple Yale students or grads for a law firm associate job paying $50,000 in Florida? Things might be rough out there, but not that rough.

User avatar
bandenjamin
Posts: 172
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:25 pm

Re: Rough out there...

Postby bandenjamin » Mon May 13, 2013 1:22 pm

mehiguess wrote:Hello all, I'm new to the forum and have been lurking for a while and thought I'd pull the trigger on my first post. I was talking to with my father's friend's wife who has been practicing as a corporate litigation attorney for the past 20 years and she basically told me now is not a good time for law. As I've read here, she essentially said made two clear points: 1)Do not got to law school unless you can get into a T20 school and, 2: If you can't get in to a T20 school then your cost of attendance should be free or damn close to it. She explained to me how this week she conducted interviews of Yale grads all looking for one associate position(50K starting) and just felt sorry for these kids and their loan burden. Furthermore, and I quote, "We don't even look at the resume if the applicant went to a Florida law school." I realize I'm telling most of you something you already know, but it did crystallize some skepticism for me. I was like, "What about UM or UF?", to which she replied, " Yea, what about em? People get so up in arms over UM but it ain't what it used to be and does hold nearly the prestige of applicants we're looking for." So this is one anecdote to which there can be many rebuttals, and I would love to hear them! I could also tell you about how my buddy from NSU law is making ridiculous money working for a PIP firm. So at the end of the day it is what it is but in just talking to he it crystallized some things for me. Take it easy.


One of their interview questions is about the student's current student loan burden?

User avatar
mehiguess
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 9:23 am

Re: Rough out there...

Postby mehiguess » Mon May 13, 2013 1:30 pm

Skater wrote:Tho OP's father's friend's wife (?) surely didn't mean that she had actually interviewed multiple Yale students or grads for a law firm associate job paying $50,000 in Florida? Things might be rough out there, but not that rough.


Nope, that rough...

User avatar
mehiguess
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 9:23 am

Re: Rough out there...

Postby mehiguess » Mon May 13, 2013 1:33 pm

bandenjamin wrote:
mehiguess wrote:Hello all, I'm new to the forum and have been lurking for a while and thought I'd pull the trigger on my first post. I was talking to with my father's friend's wife who has been practicing as a corporate litigation attorney for the past 20 years and she basically told me now is not a good time for law. As I've read here, she essentially said made two clear points: 1)Do not got to law school unless you can get into a T20 school and, 2: If you can't get in to a T20 school then your cost of attendance should be free or damn close to it. She explained to me how this week she conducted interviews of Yale grads all looking for one associate position(50K starting) and just felt sorry for these kids and their loan burden. Furthermore, and I quote, "We don't even look at the resume if the applicant went to a Florida law school." I realize I'm telling most of you something you already know, but it did crystallize some skepticism for me. I was like, "What about UM or UF?", to which she replied, " Yea, what about em? People get so up in arms over UM but it ain't what it used to be and does hold nearly the prestige of applicants we're looking for." So this is one anecdote to which there can be many rebuttals, and I would love to hear them! I could also tell you about how my buddy from NSU law is making ridiculous money working for a PIP firm. So at the end of the day it is what it is but in just talking to he it crystallized some things for me. Take it easy.


One of their interview questions is about the student's current student loan burden?


My apologies. I connected two thoughts-we were discussing the average loan debt incurred for going to law school in a seperate discussion.

User avatar
Cobretti
Posts: 2560
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:45 am

Re: Rough out there...

Postby Cobretti » Mon May 13, 2013 1:34 pm

mehiguess wrote:
Skater wrote:Tho OP's father's friend's wife (?) surely didn't mean that she had actually interviewed multiple Yale students or grads for a law firm associate job paying $50,000 in Florida? Things might be rough out there, but not that rough.


Nope, that rough...

I don't believe this either, there's simply no way 5 yls grads would be applying for fl shitlaw

User avatar
Richie Tenenbaum
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:17 am

Re: Rough out there...

Postby Richie Tenenbaum » Mon May 13, 2013 1:40 pm

Cobretti wrote:
mehiguess wrote:
Skater wrote:Tho OP's father's friend's wife (?) surely didn't mean that she had actually interviewed multiple Yale students or grads for a law firm associate job paying $50,000 in Florida? Things might be rough out there, but not that rough.


Nope, that rough...

I don't believe this either, there's simply no way 5 yls grads would be applying for fl shitlaw


Where did you get the number 5? And why is it unbelievable?--especially considering when we aren't too far away from the no-offer class of 2010, the no-firms-were-hiring class of 2011, and stealth layoffs screwing over first and second year associates throughout that time. And as I already mentioned earlier in the thread, there are people at even HYS that fall through the cracks and end up in a bad spot. It's not really breaking news. The vast majority of yale grads are probably doing fine (really, more than fine), but to think that Yale has 100% optimal outcomes seems unrealistic.

User avatar
Cobretti
Posts: 2560
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:45 am

Re: Rough out there...

Postby Cobretti » Mon May 13, 2013 1:52 pm

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:
Cobretti wrote:
mehiguess wrote:
Skater wrote:Tho OP's father's friend's wife (?) surely didn't mean that she had actually interviewed multiple Yale students or grads for a law firm associate job paying $50,000 in Florida? Things might be rough out there, but not that rough.


Nope, that rough...

I don't believe this either, there's simply no way 5 yls grads would be applying for fl shitlaw


Where did you get the number 5? And why is it unbelievable?--especially considering when we aren't too far away from the no-offer class of 2010, the no-firms-were-hiring class of 2011, and stealth layoffs screwing over first and second year associates throughout that time. And as I already mentioned earlier in the thread, there are people at even HYS that fall through the cracks and end up in a bad spot. It's not really breaking news. The vast majority of yale grads are probably doing fine (really, more than fine), but to think that Yale has 100% optimal outcomes seems unrealistic.

After rereading op apparently I pulled 5 out of my ass. Even still I find 2 almost impossible to believe. These jobs are legitimate shitlaw, they are as non optimal as you can get. I'm very familiar with the bimodal salary distribution of law firms, but I can't believe yls grads would ever have to dip all the way to actual shitlaw. I'll say I guess its possible, but I find it unlikely enough that I don't believe OP

User avatar
kwais
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 12:28 pm

Re: Rough out there...

Postby kwais » Mon May 13, 2013 1:58 pm

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote: we do not want biglaw, do not like dropping names at parties, do not constantly adjust our own self-worth based on what others may think of us, etc. Thinking that everyone else on earth shares your ideas about success is childish and stupid.


maybe one of the most self-conscious straw man arguments I've ever read. I lol'd pretty hard.

utlaw2007
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:49 pm

Re: Rough out there...

Postby utlaw2007 » Mon May 13, 2013 2:05 pm

[/quote]
I don't believe this either, there's simply no way 5 yls grads would be applying for fl shitlaw[/quote][/quote]



I met a Harvard and Yale grad on different projects doing doc review. That's WORSE that sh%$#t law. So I find her story believable. I'm sure it's exaggerated as to the number of Yale applicants. But it is a real outcome for a few.

Skater
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 1:12 pm

Re: Rough out there...

Postby Skater » Mon May 13, 2013 2:06 pm

Yale has about 200 graduates per year. Most have at least one of the following: Ivy or equivalent undergrad degrees, PhD, interesting or prestigious work experience, prestigious fellowships. So if a few have "fallen through the cracks" , how many are going to be applying for a single 50K law firm job in Florida ? I might believe that one person may have to be in that location for a specific reason and there are few other opportunities but, with the information given, multiple Yale interviewees makes this anecdote suspect.

User avatar
Micdiddy
Posts: 2190
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: Rough out there...

Postby Micdiddy » Mon May 13, 2013 2:12 pm

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:
Cobretti wrote:
mehiguess wrote:
Skater wrote:Tho OP's father's friend's wife (?) surely didn't mean that she had actually interviewed multiple Yale students or grads for a law firm associate job paying $50,000 in Florida? Things might be rough out there, but not that rough.


Nope, that rough...

I don't believe this either, there's simply no way 5 yls grads would be applying for fl shitlaw


Where did you get the number 5? And why is it unbelievable?--especially considering when we aren't too far away from the no-offer class of 2010, the no-firms-were-hiring class of 2011, and stealth layoffs screwing over first and second year associates throughout that time. And as I already mentioned earlier in the thread, there are people at even HYS that fall through the cracks and end up in a bad spot. It's not really breaking news. The vast majority of yale grads are probably doing fine (really, more than fine), but to think that Yale has 100% optimal outcomes seems unrealistic.


It's not hard to believe that a couple Yale grads strike out every year, I just want to know why they all congregated at the same random shit law firm in Florida :mrgreen:




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest