TLS is a mindless echo chamber Forum

[rad lulz]

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

[Ludo!]

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

Oh shit, I just looked at his profile. He is a 1l. Well, that explains that then.

[romothesavior]

Exactly what you'd expect. People who go to regional schools know that "ties" are way overstated.

Like all things on here, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Actually it doesn't. If you read what I and others (the "ties" crew) have said in the subject you'll see that McDuff ain't exactly doing our position justice. Ties are a tiebreaker, or even a boost of sorts. They aren't complete dealbreakers, but they make a difference. No one has said otherwise.

Also, McDuff basically just admitted that ties make a big difference in getting high paying jobs. Which I've been attempting to argue for the last page. I'd say that's a pretty relevant factor for people looking to take out debt to go to school in a market where they lack ties, hence why it comes up so often in Choosing a Law School threads.

[romothesavior]

PS. Loving that of the 67 votes only 25 think "ties" are accurately stated. Yet from reading this thread jammed packed with regular posters (who all go to national schools with the exception of maybe the one UIUC dooder) you'd think the results would be flipped.

Exactly what you'd expect. People who go to regional schools know that "ties" are way overstated.

This actually just proves that drive by voters in TLS polls are fools.

Your argument is broken. You're basically saying "if you go to a school without any placement outside of its region, you'll be forced to get a job in that region." Yeah, no kidding. That doesn't mean that the kids who are from that region don't have an advantage.

+1

ALSO SOMEONE ACKNOWLEDGE ME IN THIS THREAD DAMMIT. I HAVE IMPORTANT OPINIONS AND INSIGHTS.

[rad lulz]

+1 to Romo.

Echo chamber!

[rad lulz]

Exactly what you'd expect. People who go to regional schools know that "ties" are way overstated.

Like all things on here, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Actually it doesn't. If you read what I and others (the "ties" crew) have said in the subject you'll see that McDuff ain't exactly doing our position justice. Ties are a tiebreaker, or even a boost of sorts. They aren't complete dealbreakers, but they make a difference. No one has said otherwise.

Also, McDuff basically just admitted that ties make a big difference in getting high paying jobs. Which I've been attempting to argue for the last page. I'd say that's a pretty relevant factor for people looking to take out debt to go to school in a market where they lack ties, hence why it comes up so often in Choosing a Law School threads.

This boost is important when only 58% of grads get full time bar passage required jobs and the average indebtedness nears 100k.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

Exactly what you'd expect. People who go to regional schools know that "ties" are way overstated.

Like all things on here, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Actually it doesn't. If you read what I and others (the "ties" crew) have said in the subject you'll see that McDuff ain't exactly doing our position justice. Ties are a tiebreaker, or even a boost of sorts. They aren't complete dealbreakers, but they make a difference. No one has said otherwise.

Also, McDuff basically just admitted that ties make a big difference in getting high paying jobs. Which I've been attempting to argue for the last page. I'd say that's a pretty relevant factor for people looking to take out debt to go to school in a market where they lack ties, hence why it comes up so often in Choosing a Law School threads.

This boost is important when only 58% of grads get full time bar passage required jobs and the average indebtedness nears 100k.

58%?

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

Also, McDuff basically just admitted that ties make a big difference in getting high paying jobs. Which I've been attempting to argue for the last page. I'd say that's a pretty relevant factor for people looking to take out debt to go to school in a market where they lack ties, hence why it comes up so often in Choosing a Law School threads.

I admitted something?

Where do you have data on Colorado homers (who are in the minority) getting better jobs than out of state doods?

[MTBike]

Exactly what you'd expect. People who go to regional schools know that "ties" are way overstated.

Like all things on here, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Actually it doesn't. If you read what I and others (the "ties" crew) have said in the subject you'll see that McDuff ain't exactly doing our position justice. Ties are a tiebreaker, or even a boost of sorts. They aren't complete dealbreakers, but they make a difference. No one has said otherwise.

Also, McDuff basically just admitted that ties make a big difference in getting high paying jobs. Which I've been attempting to argue for the last page. I'd say that's a pretty relevant factor for people looking to take out debt to go to school in a market where they lack ties, hence why it comes up so often in Choosing a Law School threads.

The "ties" crew

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

The argument is illogical at regional schools. Rad, Romo, and others disagree because they are not at regional schools, so "ties" are a very big deal to them. They are right to be concerned with ties.

Someone who moves to Montana to go to the U of Montana may not get a legal job, but it won't be because they weren't from Montana (unless it was some weird tie-break situation, which I'm doubtful ever really happens very often)

[rad lulz]

58% as per the NALP 2010 report.

[rad lulz]

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

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

58%?

I can't find the exact article, but the stat is (I think) 28,000 jobs for 45,000 grads.

Also this

Ok, but we are talking about a specific market. Surely some southern states are parochial, but I'd bet they are the exception.

I'm waiting to hear a cogent argument as to why people considering moving to attend the U Montana should be bombard with "ties' "TIES" "where are you from" immediately in the choosing a law school section. Montana has so many legal jobs available and of course not every grad is going to get one-- that is not the point.

Point is that employers are going to view moving to the middle of fucking nowhere and staying for three years as a credible indication that X person will not bail on their firm after two years. Hiring is contextual, and "ties" may be play a role, but at the very least they are overstated.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

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

ITT: t-25 students see the world through a very narrow lens.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

The argument is illogical at regional schools. Rad, Romo, and others disagree because they are not at regional schools, so "ties" are a very big deal to them. They are right to be concerned with ties.

Someone who moves to Montana to go to the U of Montana may not get a legal job, but it won't be because they weren't from Montana (unless it was some weird tie-break situation, which I'm doubtful ever really happens very often)

I'd say WUSTL and Vandy (where they go IIRC) are regional. Not as regional as say, University of Arkansas, but they're not HYS in terms of portability.

Yeah, but Vandy kids have options, where State U kids do not. So in Nashville, the employers might wonder about the kid sticking around. You honestly think a U of Montana grad is going to make employers in Helena MT think the kid is going to run?

Run to fucking where?

[MTBike]

The argument is illogical at regional schools. Rad, Romo, and others disagree because they are not at regional schools, so "ties" are a very big deal to them. They are right to be concerned with ties.

Someone who moves to Montana to go to the U of Montana may not get a legal job, but it won't be because they weren't from Montana (unless it was some weird tie-break situation, which I'm doubtful ever really happens very often)

TCR

[Samara]

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?

[stratocophic]

The argument is illogical at regional schools. Rad, Romo, and others disagree because they are not at regional schools, so "ties" are a very big deal to them. They are right to be concerned with ties.

Someone who moves to Montana to go to the U of Montana may not get a legal job, but it won't be because they weren't from Montana (unless it was some weird tie-break situation, which I'm doubtful ever really happens very often)

I'd say WUSTL and Vandy (where they go IIRC) are regional. Not as regional as say, University of Arkansas, but they're not HYS in terms of portability.

Yeah, but Vandy kids have options, where State U kids do not. So in Nashville, the employers might wonder about the kid sticking around. You honestly think a U of Montana grad is going to make employers in Helena MT think the kid is going to run?

Run to fucking where?

Not wanting to "run" isn't the only thing that'll get someone with ties a job over someone without them. Ability to connect with an interviewer due to common experiences (shared high schools/high schools that played each other in sports, area sports teams, knowing the specific area someone grew up in etc) and shared contacts can be very important as well. Having all of these things in your favor can make an interview easier as you talk about subjects that you're comfortable and familiar with rather than having to run the clock down for 20 awkward minutes of "so why this firm/why that school/what was your favorite class." You develop a sense of connection/rapport with the interviewer when you have easy softball questions and comfortable conversation that someone with no connection to the area might not get (because those topics aren't on the table, which on the average is more likely to lead to awkward questions). If you connect, you're more likely to get a callback or offer.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

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

ITT: t-25 students see the world through a very narrow lens.

Sorry I got one more and then I gotta go to class:

Rad, you are right about ties for your situation. However, you comment is very telling in that it indicates that you don't understand "legal hiring" at regional schools. You claimed superior knowledge because you and the "ties crew" were "post-OCI 2Ls and 3Ls?"

Do you know how many people at even a "top regional school" like mine get their jobs through OCI?

For class of 2010, 6.9 %. OCI effectively doesn't exist.

So for 93.1% of us, your knowledge about what big law firms think or do not think about "ties" is completely useless. I've said from the beginning-- 1) OP only spoke to regional schools and 2) OP did not mention big law.

You tell me if I'm off about big law.
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."

My question is obvious Rad: do ties matter for the 95% of all law students who are not going into big law? Your reasoning, and Romos (SHOUT OUT!!!), that "ties" are still important for regional schools/non big law hiring isn't persuasive. When asked, you all seemed to be repeating really good points that would win the argument if we were all trying to discuss big law hiring/ anecdotes about friends who blamed their bad luck on the fact that they weren't from the area.

I'd like to hear about Missoula MT and how ties are important up there for prospective U of Montana students. 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.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

The argument is illogical at regional schools. Rad, Romo, and others disagree because they are not at regional schools, so "ties" are a very big deal to them. They are right to be concerned with ties.

Someone who moves to Montana to go to the U of Montana may not get a legal job, but it won't be because they weren't from Montana (unless it was some weird tie-break situation, which I'm doubtful ever really happens very often)

I'd say WUSTL and Vandy (where they go IIRC) are regional. Not as regional as say, University of Arkansas, but they're not HYS in terms of portability.

Yeah, but Vandy kids have options, where State U kids do not. So in Nashville, the employers might wonder about the kid sticking around. You honestly think a U of Montana grad is going to make employers in Helena MT think the kid is going to run?

Run to fucking where?

Not wanting to "run" isn't the only thing that'll get someone with ties a job over someone without them. Ability to connect with an interviewer due to common experiences (shared high schools/high schools that played each other in sports, area sports teams, knowing the specific area someone grew up in etc) and shared contacts can be very important as well. Having all of these things in your favor can make an interview easier as you talk about subjects that you're comfortable and familiar with rather than having to run the clock down for 20 awkward minutes of "so why this firm/why that school/what was your favorite class." You develop a sense of connection/rapport with the interviewer when you have easy softball questions and comfortable conversation that someone with no connection to the area might not get (because those topics aren't on the table, which on the average is more likely to lead to awkward questions). If you connect, you're more likely to get a callback or offer.

Agree with this. Still have my vote on "dunno, but ties are overstated."

[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.

[TaipeiMort]

The argument is illogical at regional schools. Rad, Romo, and others disagree because they are not at regional schools, so "ties" are a very big deal to them. They are right to be concerned with ties.

Someone who moves to Montana to go to the U of Montana may not get a legal job, but it won't be because they weren't from Montana (unless it was some weird tie-break situation, which I'm doubtful ever really happens very often)

I'd say WUSTL and Vandy (where they go IIRC) are regional. Not as regional as say, University of Arkansas, but they're not HYS in terms of portability.

Yeah, but Vandy kids have options, where State U kids do not. So in Nashville, the employers might wonder about the kid sticking around. You honestly think a U of Montana grad is going to make employers in Helena MT think the kid is going to run?

Run to fucking where?

Not wanting to "run" isn't the only thing that'll get someone with ties a job over someone without them. Ability to connect with an interviewer due to common experiences (shared high schools/high schools that played each other in sports, area sports teams, knowing the specific area someone grew up in etc) and shared contacts can be very important as well. Having all of these things in your favor can make an interview easier as you talk about subjects that you're comfortable and familiar with rather than having to run the clock down for 20 awkward minutes of "so why this firm/why that school/what was your favorite class." You develop a sense of connection/rapport with the interviewer when you have easy softball questions and comfortable conversation that someone with no connection to the area might not get (because those topics aren't on the table, which on the average is more likely to lead to awkward questions). If you connect, you're more likely to get a callback or offer.

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.

I think the main fallacy of the OPs cognitive dissonance-based argument is that he overestimates law firms' desire to search for the "best candidate." They just want to know you are smart, interested in what they do, and appealing to be around. Enough locals fulfill this criteria to crowd out the others. They will likely take the local girl at median over Mr. Law Review with honors because 1) they train you again, 2) they know that people at the same school generally have the same mental acumen and law school is somewhat arbitrary as long as you have the marginal grade requirement, 3) the risk to them that you leave after they've trained you or that you are hard to be around because you have nothing in common is much more significant than the risk that you take 5 mins longer to do assignments because you are slightly dumber.

[Samara]

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.

[Indifferent]

I echo everything that's been said in this thread.

[MTBike]

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.

I think the main fallacy of the OPs cognitive dissonance-based argument is that he overestimates law firms' desire to search for the "best candidate." They just want to know you are smart, interested in what they do, and appealing to be around. Enough locals fulfill this criteria to crowd out the others. They will likely take the local girl at median over Mr. Law Review with honors because 1) they train you again, 2) they know that people at the same school generally have the same mental acumen and law school is somewhat arbitrary as long as you have the marginal grade requirement, 3) the risk to them that you leave after they've trained you or that you are hard to be around because you have nothing in common is much more significant than the risk that you take 5 mins longer to do assignments because you are slightly dumber.

The bolded is incorrect