icydash wrote:1. Again, the point of bringing my father, uncle and brother into the conversation was to show that, in response to someone earlier saying (more or less) "nobody outside of the T14 can do corporate work and get paid well", this is not the case. I used my brother as a current example, and my uncle/dad as past examples. I'm aware that since the legal market was different 30 years ago, it may be different for recent grads. However, I do know specifically that my dads firm (which has a bunch of T2/T3 grads as partners as previously mentioned), along with specifically two other NYC firms (and I suspect many more) who have partners from similar prestige schools and do corporate work, do in fact hire T2/T3s (as it would be pretty hypocritical of these partners not to).
2. Smaller/mid sized firms do do M&A.
3. Again, the point of using my family was to show good opportunities for the grads outside the T14. Not any specific tier of schools, individual school, specific starting salary amount, etc etc... Gosh I feel like I have to put a disclaimer on my posts...or just start rereading them because I guess they haven't been read the way I had intended.
again, this is the problem I (and possibly many other posters have) w/ your comments. to back up your statement, you use examples that are NOT the norm, yet they are implied to be the norm. that is the problem.
if you had said it is simply possible
, and that ppl in T2/T3's have a SHOT (not a "good" shot) at biglaw, then id say, yeah i agree. all your early posts make it seem as if someone going to a T2/T3 can "reasonably expect" a biglaw job ITE. that's bad advice, esp. when you consider actual current job statistics, not anecdotal evidence you are using. i mean, sure SOME (1+) of them will get such a job, but they are not the norm.
you should have just owned up and said you worded your comments badly, that you actually meant to say x (some of your later comments i dont have a problem with and i think are more reflective of reality), but instead you just said no we read your earlier posts wrong, and that you actually said x.
we dont need a disclaimer, we just need you to be more clear. now to be fair, your very first post was a pretty safe comment (excluding the be happy and have a life part
jk), and the ppl who quoted it afterwards and attacked it -- well, let's say you could have initially defended yourself better and seemed more in the "right." unfortunately, your first defensive post was poorly done and kind of took your argument off on a tangent...and in a direction you wouldnt want it to go lol.