While some of this is certainly my fault for wording things poorly, a lot of it still comes back to people not fully reading what I'm saying. With regards to the "good shot" statement, the exact thing I said was:
"No one is saying it's not better to go to a top school. I'm just saying you still have a good shot if you happen to fall outside of the T14."
This is entirely true, and I stand by it no matter how you want to read it. I back it up later on with this post:
"Of course they [the t14] routinely place more grads. No one is disputing this. Read my past posts. However, as a previous poster mentioned looking at these stats:http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... hbxlogin=1
Normally, outside of the T14, for schools ranked 15-23, you have a 30% shot at biglaw. For schools ranked 24-36 (give or take) you have a 20% shot biglaw. I don't know about you, but a 1/3 to 1/5 shot at biglaw if you basically don't suck in law school (come out as top 20/30%) is a pretty good
shot. Barring biglaw, you could probably get into a boatload of smaller firms who still do corporate work."
Also, I didn't realize I worded my comments badly until I started hearing some of these posts and realized people did not understand what I was saying the way I meant them too. I wish it had been sooner, too, but it is what it is. When I realized this, I did own up to it.
it bothers me that you still dont see how your posts would mislead people. you begin w/ one argument, others attack it, and your rebuttal is a modified version of what you originally said. needless to say, people read your defense as a continuation of your first point. later, you go and claim they are attacking the wrong things you said lol.
icydash wrote:My brother, coming out of Albany law school, got a job in a medium NYC corporate law/litigation firm-- starting salary ABOVE big law.
These kinds of jobs exist all over -- most of you guys just don't know it because you're 0Ls speculating. I know it because my father, who is a senior partner at a firm for over 30 years in NYC (also from Albany Law School), my uncle whose now a judge (St. Johns Law School), and many other partners in my dads firm (Hofstra grads, Brooklyn Law School grads, Loyola grads, etc) have all done it -- and they where by no means "special," in the top 10% of their class, etc.
bolded is a particularly bad part of your comment. italicized was unnecessary insult
we then went on to talk about how your family's situation = connections. wont cover that again. the part where you say after a few yrs, law school rep doesnt matter as much as how good of a lawyer you are in the firm, hm, i agree. but the problem was when the convo continued on this thread:
icydash wrote:...there are still plenty of small/mid-sized firms (my dads being one of them) that hire T2/T3 grads to do corporate work, pay pretty well and also have partnership tracks.
now while the above isnt necessarily inaccurate, it is misleading because it is telling the OP (and anyone else who reads this thread) that they should go to a T2/T3 school w/ the reasonable
expectation of getting such a small/mid corporate well paying job. that is the part i have the most problem w/...and what id imagine most others do as well:
Unemployed wrote:Really? I mean I am sure they are out there, but "all over?" Do you really think it's a good idea for someone with no connections to take out $200k for a mediocre school because he can count on these super boutique jobs (seeing as how they "exist all over")? And yes, they are called boutiques, not midlaw or small-law.
Look, there is merit to what you are saying. Even today, at least some people from mediocre law schools grade, network, claw, stab, and (sometimes) cheat their way to success. That doesn't make attending such schools is a good idea.
blsingindisguise wrote:The idea that 175k starting lawyer jobs exist "all over" is one of the most laughable things I have ever heard even from a clueless 0L.
Let's think about this. CRAVATH pays 160, WLRK pays 160, SULL CROM pays 160. Basically all the top firms in the top markets start at 160, yet somehow there are jobs "all over" that start more at mid-sized firms. Because top firms are glad to lose talent to mid-sized firms.
in response you typed:
icydash wrote:People are reading way too literally into what I'm saying. When I said "jobs like these exist all over" what I meant was small/medium/boutique/whatever you want to call it sized firms where one can practice corporate law, make a good salary and get on a partnership track. You also don't have to go to a T14 to get these kinds of jobs.
I didn't literally mean 175k exactly or more jobs are everywhere. I meant well paying jobs where our OP can practice corporate law not coming out of a T14 school. See above.
but do you see how what you type...the words you use...actually matter? if you had phrased it differently, no one would have a problem w/ your statements. maybe if you didnt say they exist all over, but just do
exist or maybe if you didnt type out 175k as if it is something a 0L reading this and considering a T2/T3 should believe is reasonably possible.
blsingindisguise wrote:Look man, the fact that jobs like that "exist" has little bearing on the reality for most non T14 law grads. Those jobs are NOT all over and they are NOT easy to get.
icydash wrote:And apparently you're still not catching my drift along with the rest of the posters who have voted in the poll. No one is saying it's not better to go to a top school. I'm just saying you still have a good shot if you happen to fall outside of the T14. It's not ideal, but life throws you curve balls and you deal with it.
do you see how you keep hedging your comments? making it sound as if everyone else is just not understanding what you're saying instead of you just slowly realizing that maybe you used the wrong words?
and the bolded "good" shot part drew even more criticism...when someone pointed it out as wrong, you said they needed to back it up. they did:
there are 180+ schools outside the T-14 and only 6 of them are looking at a better than 1/3 chance of biglaw, I don't consider that a good shot at all but I guess it really depends on what you meant by that.
you then responded w/ this:
Of course they routinely place more grads (see your bolded wording above). No one is disputing this. Read my past posts. However, as a previous poster mentioned looking at these stats:http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL
Normally, outside of the T14, for schools ranked 15-23, you have a 30% shot at biglaw. For schools ranked 24-36 (give or take) you have a 20% shot biglaw. I don't know about you, but a 1/3 to 1/5 shot at biglaw if you basically don't suck in law school (come out as top 20/30%) is a pretty good shot. Barring biglaw, you could probably get into a boatload of smaller firms who still do corporate work.
do you see what you keep doing now? you keep hedging your comments and misleading people. now it is schools ranked 24-36. the whole BEGINNING and POINT of this debate was about T2/T3 schools (which Albany belongs to)...that is what people were objecting to! now you use stats about schools no one was really focusing on in the first place. you're arguing a different essence of the problem. stop that. i mean, there has to be some latin phrase for your style of argumentation here lol, it's classic. you say:
icydash wrote: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.
yet you were the one confusing people from the start lol. that was not the "point" anyone reading your earlier posts would have gotten. if you had used BU instead of Albany in your example and never mentioned T2/T3 or rather said T50, most of this argument would not have even taken place.
damn this is a long post!!!