TLS is a mindless echo chamber Forum

[094320]

..

[rad lulz]

If it comes to a tie-break, fine, but if the position is that you will be disadvantaged beyond that, I just can't for the life of me see it.

In re secondary market ties, even from the local school, even in smaller firms (calling Indifferent):

You could conceive of it like a tiebreaker, but in a game with a lot of ties or near-ties (people with similar pre-LS backgrounds and grades) competing over limited jobs. The rationales are similar,

1) Flee before becoming profitable - not as big of concern right out of LS, but still real. If you don't have a demonstrated pre-LS commitment to the area, you might hate it after a while or just get homesick. Employers may and often do overlook this given other stuff, but at in-state schools there will be a lot of locals who don't present the same concern.

2) Do they like you - see stratocophic's post

When there are a ton of locals, you're at a disadvantage. You can overcome by hustling hard, networking, proving your commitment through community involvement, having really special and desirable pre-LS WE, etc., all while trying to make good grades. But it's like you're in a comeback situation from the beginning.

[doomed123]

Hugely credited. I snuck my way into a bunch of OCI markets on callbacks I shouldn't have been in. This got me free vacations, a ton of frequent flier miles, many single serving friends, but I only got offers from those places were I actually had ties (and wanted to be). It makes the callback so much easier when you can chat local sports, entertainment, talk about the awesome restaurant down the street, joke about the community, discuss the beaches with better surf, etc.

This brings up a major concern for me: even if I'm local, will not knowing anything about sports put me at a disadvantage? This isn't the first time I've seen people mention how chatting about sports was a positive in their interview. I don't follow sports, so I worry that I'm doomed.

[rad lulz]

1) OP only spoke to regional schools and 2) OP did not mention big law.

OP didn't mention that his inquiry (or more accurately, challenge) should only be limited to regional schools or small firms. And his example (the extreme outlier of having trouble moving from Manhattan to AK) would suggest that discussion of the the opposite is certainly warranted.

[TaipeiMort]

Hugely credited. I snuck my way into a bunch of OCI markets on callbacks I shouldn't have been in. This got me free vacations, a ton of frequent flier miles, many single serving friends, but I only got offers from those places were I actually had ties (and wanted to be). It makes the callback so much easier when you can chat local sports, entertainment, talk about the awesome restaurant down the street, joke about the community, discuss the beaches with better surf, etc.

This brings up a major concern for me: even if I'm local, will not knowing anything about sports put me at a disadvantage? This isn't the first time I've seen people mention how chatting about sports was a positive in their interview. I don't follow sports, so I worry that I'm doomed.

I only talked about sports on three or four CBs. It is more being about to chat about stuff locally. Imagine you are on a flight with a stranger and you both discover you are from the same city. To dispell awkwardness, you would probably strike up a conversation about your town because that is what you have in common. It is about finding something in common. Sports is just easy because 1) most males like to talk about it, and 2) it is usually regional.

[Br3v]

Hugely credited. I snuck my way into a bunch of OCI markets on callbacks I shouldn't have been in. This got me free vacations, a ton of frequent flier miles, many single serving friends, but I only got offers from those places were I actually had ties (and wanted to be). It makes the callback so much easier when you can chat local sports, entertainment, talk about the awesome restaurant down the street, joke about the community, discuss the beaches with better surf, etc.

This brings up a major concern for me: even if I'm local, will not knowing anything about sports put me at a disadvantage? This isn't the first time I've seen people mention how chatting about sports was a positive in their interview. I don't follow sports, so I worry that I'm doomed.

relevant username?

I highly doubt not following sports will be a disadvantage. But I think you should at least be aware of the local teams (names). Quit stressing

[freaknroll]

What would yal define as major markets, absent NYC and Chicago?

[freaknroll]

What would yal define as major markets, absent NYC and Chicago?

DC, LA and SF would be the next biggest.

After that you're into the secondary major markets like Miami, Atlanta, and Seattle.

Where would Boston and Houston fall into this scheme?

[romothesavior]

What would yal define as major markets, absent NYC and Chicago?

DC, LA and SF would be the next biggest.

After that you're into the secondary major markets like Miami, Atlanta, and Seattle.

I always sorta think of it like:

NYC
...
DC/Chicago/LA/Bay Area
...
Atlanta/Philly/Boston/Dallas
...
The rest

But Atlanta is a cut above Miami and Seattle. Also, keep in mind that while Chicago and D.C. are big markets, they are still far smaller than NYC. NYC is head and shoulders bigger than the rest, particularly when it comes to biglaw jobs.

[Ruxin1]

What would yal define as major markets, absent NYC and Chicago?

DC, LA and SF would be the next biggest.

After that you're into the secondary major markets like Miami, Atlanta, and Seattle.

I always sorta think of it like:

NYC
...
DC/Chicago/LA/Bay Area
...
Atlanta/Philly/Boston/Dallas
...
The rest

But Atlanta is a cut above Miami and Seattle. Also, keep in mind that while Chicago and D.C. are big markets, they are still far smaller than NYC. NYC is head and shoulders bigger than the rest, particularly when it comes to biglaw jobs.

Thank you for being the most helpful poster on TLS, IMO.

[Kurst]

ITT: 0Ls and 1Ls tell post-OCI 2Ls and 3Ls how legal hiring works.

[rad lulz]

ITT: 0Ls and 1Ls tell post-OCI 2Ls and 3Ls how legal hiring works.

lol Grizz, RIP. If he were here right now he'd have plenty to say about ties.

[mrwarre85]

Wow it looks like I struck a nerve.

To clarify: my original OP was about the phenomenon on TLS of telling everyone who'd listen that one should not go to a regional school without ties to the region. I've scanned 96% of the responses, and it seems like most people are confusing "ties" at a regional school with "ties" for a big law firm. This is my fault. I should have been more clear.

I completely understand that "ties" are critical for big law firms. My OP is about the fact that TLS had made "ties" the biggest consideration for any 0L looking at going to a regional school, despite the fact that going to the regional school will provide said 0L with essentially the same chance of success in the forum state as homer simpson from down the road. Just look at the forum: In 100% of the State U v. State U match ups, "ties" are talked about more than anything else, in every single one of them. However, when I looked back three years, "ties" was literally never mentioned.

I've noticed some people think "ties" will help the local kid at the local school get the local job, but I think this is just lazy thinking. Granted, there might be some minuscule boost at a fraction of employers, but in reality that might be the deciding consideration in 1 out of 24233424 cases, where in the rest the job is given to the person who is better liked, smarter, harder working, more personable/might bring in business one day, etc. Yet, "ties" seem like the most important thing for 0Ls to consider when picking a law school per current TLS mindless groupthink.

I hope this helps to clarify my comment. FWIW, I can imagine it might be hard to understand this type of thing if you go to a private and or national school, where many of the students only attend for the school and not for the chance of employment nearby.

[rad lulz]

My OP is about the fact that TLS had made "ties" the biggest consideration for any 0L looking at going to a regional school, despite the fact that going to the regional school will provide said 0L with essentially the same chance of success in the forum state as homer simpson from down the road. Just look at the forum: In 100% of the State U v. State U match ups, "ties" are talked about more than anything else, in every single one of them. However, when I looked back three years, "ties" was literally never mentioned.

I've noticed some people think "ties" will help the local kid at the local school get the local job, but I think this is just lazy thinking. Granted, there might be some minuscule boost at a fraction of employers, but in reality that might be the deciding consideration in 1 out of 24233424 cases, where in the rest the job is given to the person who is better liked, smarter, harder working, more personable/might bring in business one day, etc. Yet, "ties" seem like the most important thing for 0Ls to consider when picking a law school per current TLS mindless groupthink.

Why they matter from even local schools is largely discussed on the previous page (tl;dr - ties help in connecting with employers in making them like you and also indicate a probability to stick around and bring in business). And they're mentioned a lot because you can't know your grades, the best, albeit imperfect indicator of "smarts and hardworking" ex ante; it's one of the few things you can account for going in.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

Bro, ties to a region are important to attend a school in that region because they are important in searching for legal employment there afterwards.

Dude. Point is that if you went to the school in that region, you have "ties."

You just went to the same law school that all the hiring partners went to. You are committed to the region because you spent so much time/money there. You're fine, man.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

UMontana limits out-of-staters to one-third of its class. I'd be willing to bet that most of the out-of-state people are from neighboring states. So you're talking about a small handful students who this might apply to and I doubt any of them show up on TLS. But let's look at employment statistics anyway.

Montana reports that for class of 2011, 77% are working in a JD required job. 70% of its students are in-state. That's potentially as few as two out-of-state students, but assuming grades are evenly distributed, it's like six students, getting JD required jobs. With an average law firm salary of less than $52k and an average business/industry salary of $16k, how much are you willing to bet on being one of the six out-of-staters to get that job when you're from Florida and the other 24 competitors are from Idaho and North Dakota?

I'm not sure if you are even being serious. You cannot extrapolate the data to show that the out-of-state students aren't employed. Hell, all 30% of the out-of-state students could be in JD required full time gigs. That data doesn't dispute that, either. I feel like Romo (SHOUT OUT AGAIN) tried this same move on me and I'm still not budging. Fuck now you all got me TLS'ing in Crim Law.

So instead of providing a cogent response, you mischaracterize my argument into a strawman. Well done.

Sorry. What is your argument?

[rad lulz]

Point is that if you went to the school in that region, you have "ties."

It's not as simple as checking a box. See rad lulz, supra page 1.

You're also up against people who are from the location and went to the local school. Why is this important? See rad lulz, supra page 6.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

My OP is about the fact that TLS had made "ties" the biggest consideration for any 0L looking at going to a regional school, despite the fact that going to the regional school will provide said 0L with essentially the same chance of success in the forum state as homer simpson from down the road. Just look at the forum: In 100% of the State U v. State U match ups, "ties" are talked about more than anything else, in every single one of them. However, when I looked back three years, "ties" was literally never mentioned.

I've noticed some people think "ties" will help the local kid at the local school get the local job, but I think this is just lazy thinking. Granted, there might be some minuscule boost at a fraction of employers, but in reality that might be the deciding consideration in 1 out of 24233424 cases, where in the rest the job is given to the person who is better liked, smarter, harder working, more personable/might bring in business one day, etc. Yet, "ties" seem like the most important thing for 0Ls to consider when picking a law school per current TLS mindless groupthink.

Why they matter from even local schools is largely discussed on the previous page (tl;dr - ties help in connecting with employers in making them like you and also indicate a probability to stick around and bring in business). And they're mentioned a lot because you can't know your grades, the best, albeit imperfect indicator of "smarts and hardworking" ex ante; it's one of the few things you can account for going in.

That is all just a super duper theory. Do you have data to back this up? We have tons of anecdotal data about firm hiring, and I agree with that wholeheartedly. But do we have data about PI, Gov, small-law in Idaho not hiring people from FL, even though they went to the same law school that they did? No way.

I moved to a state and was completely accepted by the legal community because I go to the school that they went to. They know I'll stick around, because 1) the vast majority of us want to and 2) there aren't very many other options. The point is that "ties" in this sense are overstated-- it just ins't nearly as big of a deal as some are making it.

If you wanna go to UW because you want to have a legal career in Seattle, that is overwhelming possible. If you don't make it, it was because you fucked up, not because you were from Milwaukee. "Ties" only realistically fit in under the category of "fit" or "likability," and all I'm saying is that if it comes down to "ties" holding you back, you've got way bigger problems that were the real reason you didn't get a job.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

Dude. Point is that if you went to the school in that region, you have "ties."

You just went to the same law school that all the hiring partners went to. You are committed to the region because you spent so much time/money there. You're fine, man.

It may be. But in your case at CU:

You have two bros, one is from Colorado, the other is from Missouri.

Both have the same grades and same soft factors. Both are not sperglords and interview equally well. Who is more likely to get hired?

Uh I have no idea? The firm I work for has four partners, and none of them are from Colorado...

Second problem: your hypo, literally never happens.

[MTBike]

Dude. Point is that if you went to the school in that region, you have "ties."

You just went to the same law school that all the hiring partners went to. You are committed to the region because you spent so much time/money there. You're fine, man.

It may be. But in your case at CU:

You have two bros, one is from Colorado, the other is from Missouri.

Both have the same grades and same soft factors. Both are not sperglords and interview equally well. Who is more likely to get hired?

You are correct that the "ties" individual would most likely get hired. But the bolded seems unlikely...

EDIT: swooped above

[romothesavior]

A big law firm makes a shit ton of money. They take associates away from billing and make them go find new meat-- this costs money. Associates do not want to waste firms time and not hire anyone. Associates, therefor, think long and hard about who is actually going to accept their offer. They also, and at the CB stage, the partners, at the behest of the business, think long and hard about who is going to grind it out over the long haul and be "contributor." If someone, from say, Vandy, gets a big law job in Miami but then wants to move back closer to home in ATL, firm in Miami just took a big loss (which in big law world, means lost potential revenue). Add it all up-- big law cares about "ties."

And small firms generally care about it more. Small firms spend less raw money on recruiting, summer salaries, and first-year salaries than big firms, but it is a significantly bigger investment for a firm of 25 people to pay a $70,000 salary to a first-year than it is for a firm of 500 people to pay a salary of $160,000. The bigger the firm, the more likely it is that attrition is being accounted for. The economics of your argument actually break against your conclusion; small firms are far more likely to care about "ties" than big firms for all the reasons you just laid out.

I mean yeah, there are small sweatshop firms that will churn associates out at $40,000 a year and don't provide much in the way of partnership opportunities (think crappy ID work), and they probably don't care much about "ties" or long-term commitment. I can think of a number of these types of firms off the top of my head. But the small and midsize firms that hire people with the intention of grooming them and hopefully having them become partner someday (in other words, the ones worth working for) are a hell of a lot more picky. Are there exceptions? Yep. I got an offer from a firm of 30-50 in Kansas City without ever having set foot in the city before my CB. But for most firms like these, they care a great deal about your level of commitment. And as others have said, there is also the "connection" factor involved with ties that can help tremendously at the interview phase.

I find this thread timely because I just had an email exchange this morning with a hiring partner at a very solid small firm in town on this topic. His email said that it is "hard for firms like us to take a leap with people from out of town. We view the summer experience as an investment." He went on to tell me that one of their hires this year is a non-local, but this is a "rare exception" for their firm. Limited sample size? Absolutely. Are there exceptions? By his own words, yes. But this is a common theme for hiring partners in parochial secondary markets.

Finally, I will concede that my experience is different than yours. I am sure that things operate differently at a flagship state school, as compared to a quasi-regional, quasi-national school like Vanderbilt or WUSTL. It could very well be (and probably is true) that ties are less of an issue for students at CU than at WUSTL. But I know people at UIUC, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, etc., both in real life and on TLS, and most would disagree with you. There is a reason that pretty much the only people agreeing with you are 0Ls and 1Ls.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

Point is that if you went to the school in that region, you have "ties."

It's not as simple as checking a box. See rad lulz, supra page 1.

You're also up against people who are from the location and went to the local school. Why is this important? See rad lulz, supra page 6.

I agree with 1, it is just that the importance of "ties" are way overstated when you are talking about choosing which school to attend.

I agree with 6, except that it would only help you in some ridiculous tie-breaker that probably never happens. Firm hires the person that will be best for the firm, period. If that person has great "ties" to the area and that is going to help them out, that is super, but rare-- I was born and raised in a place and had lots of buddies, but is that going to translate to business for X law firm back home? No. If I was the governors son, and that was my "tie," then were talking.

[de5igual]

Bro, ties to a region are important to attend a school in that region because they are important in searching for legal employment there afterwards.

Dude. Point is that if you went to the school in that region, you have "ties."

You just went to the same law school that all the hiring partners went to. You are committed to the region because you spent so much time/money there. You're fine, man.

dude, but it's not. regardless of the size of the employer, one of the first questions always asked is "are you from here?" or "have you ever lived here before law school?" failure to answer those questions correctly (and it's hard to if you lack any real ties) results in a giant mark against you from the outset of the interview. yes, you can overcome this stigma, but it's a stigma nonetheless that can be avoided if you go to a school that feeds into a market where you already have ties.

[romothesavior]

Dude. Point is that if you went to the school in that region, you have "ties."

You just went to the same law school that all the hiring partners went to. You are committed to the region because you spent so much time/money there. You're fine, man.

It may be. But in your case at CU:

You have two bros, one is from Colorado, the other is from Missouri.

Both have the same grades and same soft factors. Both are not sperglords and interview equally well. Who is more likely to get hired?

You are correct that the "ties" individual would most likely get hired. But the bolded seems unlikely...

Uh, why? Law students generally are a morass of similarly situated people with similar backgrounds and characteristics.

And yes, grades differentiate a person, as do interviewing skills, etc. But these aren't things you can predict coming in.

[ThreeRivers]

I read some of these thread, and I found it quite interesting

I have a question for those who have some experience with OCI and such

I get that going to a school is a "tie" but you still won't have as much of a "tie" as someone who grew up in that city, but what about schools in which most students aren't local

I've asked about certain schools that have about a 10% in-state student body and was asked if I was from there... I get that those 10% of students may have an advantage over me, but wouldn't the fact 90% aren't from there either limit the must be from there logic?