flem wrote:It's not about actually wanting to work in the region, it's about your ability to convince employers that you do.
This.
flem wrote:It's not about actually wanting to work in the region, it's about your ability to convince employers that you do.
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:Emma. wrote:From my own (admittedly anectodal, unscientific) experience:
I bid on a firm at a diversity event and didn't get an interview even though I had a very strong transcript/resume and had met and had a great conversation with the hiring partner. Ended up emailing the partner to see if I could get a screening interview. She told me my resume had probably gone straight in the trash because it didn't indicate ties to the market, and probably no one even looked at my transcript.
Ended up getting screener, callback, etc., but only because I had met that partner and took the time to email her. Almost every interview I had in this market asked a LOT of questions about ties and it clearly is a very live issue in that market.
I wish the OP would come back and re-clarify that he/she wasn't talking about big law hiring. The Q is literally completely different. Haha I'm starting to lose it.
romothesavior wrote:Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:Emma. wrote:From my own (admittedly anectodal, unscientific) experience:
I bid on a firm at a diversity event and didn't get an interview even though I had a very strong transcript/resume and had met and had a great conversation with the hiring partner. Ended up emailing the partner to see if I could get a screening interview. She told me my resume had probably gone straight in the trash because it didn't indicate ties to the market, and probably no one even looked at my transcript.
Ended up getting screener, callback, etc., but only because I had met that partner and took the time to email her. Almost every interview I had in this market asked a LOT of questions about ties and it clearly is a very live issue in that market.
I wish the OP would come back and re-clarify that he/she wasn't talking about big law hiring. The Q is literally completely different. Haha I'm starting to lose it.
Please explain what it is clearly different. I'm pretty sure I already explained a page or two ago that your thing about small firms being less concerned with them is completely $*#@ing wrong.
MTBike wrote:To the "ties crew" dudebros... What would you consider the "tie" that holds the most weight?
romothesavior wrote: Once you get into the CB stage, it becomes less about grades and more about other factors.
rad lulz wrote:romothesavior wrote:Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:Emma. wrote:From my own (admittedly anectodal, unscientific) experience:
I bid on a firm at a diversity event and didn't get an interview even though I had a very strong transcript/resume and had met and had a great conversation with the hiring partner. Ended up emailing the partner to see if I could get a screening interview. She told me my resume had probably gone straight in the trash because it didn't indicate ties to the market, and probably no one even looked at my transcript.
Ended up getting screener, callback, etc., but only because I had met that partner and took the time to email her. Almost every interview I had in this market asked a LOT of questions about ties and it clearly is a very live issue in that market.
I wish the OP would come back and re-clarify that he/she wasn't talking about big law hiring. The Q is literally completely different. Haha I'm starting to lose it.
Please explain what it is clearly different. I'm pretty sure I already explained a page or two ago that your thing about small firms being less concerned with them is completely $*#@ing wrong.
I actually wasn't gonna touch this one, but now that we have gone here, I agree.
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:romothesavior wrote: Once you get into the CB stage, it becomes less about grades and more about other factors.
God damn't Romo. No one is talking about big law hiring. No one at State U gets their job through OCI. OCI peps have other options, so employers definitely want to know about "ties" to the region so they won't get burned.
Are you trolling me now?
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:U OF MONTANA GRADS HAVE "TIES" TO MONTANA.
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:
And your a 2L! You went through OCI which has zero impact on the actual discussion that the OP started!
KEWL!
rad lulz wrote:MTBike wrote:To the "ties crew" dudebros... What would you consider the "tie" that holds the most weight?
Growing up in an area.
flem wrote:MTBike wrote:To the "ties crew" dudebros... What would you consider the "tie" that holds the most weight?
If I had to take wild stabs in the dark:
1) Being from that place
2) Going to undergrad in that place, or having worked in that place for a while
3) Having parents/wife there
Combo them to maximizebiglawloffers.
rad lulz wrote:flem wrote:It's not about actually wanting to work in the region, it's about your ability to convince employers that you do.
This.
MTBike wrote:rad lulz wrote:MTBike wrote:To the "ties crew" dudebros... What would you consider the "tie" that holds the most weight?
Growing up in an area.
Is this because that tie itself creates other ties? I guess I'm confused why growing up in an area would be a stronger tie than if, hypothetically, while in law school you started a family and can clearly demonstrate that you would like to live and keep your family in an area.
Seems like #2 would be a stronger indicator of future intentions... wouldn't you agree?
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:rad lulz wrote:flem wrote:It's not about actually wanting to work in the region, it's about your ability to convince employers that you do.
This.
Which is accomplished, 100% of the time, by going to State U, summering there both summers, and then applying for jobs there.
Did I just win?
rad lulz wrote:Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:U OF MONTANA GRADS HAVE "TIES" TO MONTANA.
IT'S NOT LIKE A CHECKBOX
MTBike wrote:To the "ties crew" dudebros... What would you consider the "tie" that holds the most weight?
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:rad lulz wrote:Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:U OF MONTANA GRADS HAVE "TIES" TO MONTANA.
IT'S NOT LIKE A CHECKBOX
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE FOR U MONTANA GRADS TO CONVINCE EMPLOYERS THEY WANT TO WORK THERE!!!
AHHHHHH
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:I agree too. Seriously.
Point is though that while Helena MT employers are going to be more concerned with ties than anywhere else, U OF MONTANA GRADS HAVE "TIES" TO MONTANA.
Are you guys trying?
Nelson wrote:What rational person relocates across the country for a much less than guaranteed shot at a salary in the 40-50k range?
flem wrote:1) Blanket all law schools, which I chose by throwing darts with a blindfold on
2) ???
3) Profit
Samara wrote:Ties are brought up in threads where people are like "ZOMG I don't know which school to pick. I got into Florida State, UC-Hastings, and Missouri. Which do I choose?! I don't care where I work." If that person has ties to Florida, that person would be better off going to FSU. If that person wants to work in Missouri for some specific reason, they should go to Mizzou. That's why ties are talked about. If it seems like it's talked about a lot, it's because there are a lot of people who blanket T1 schools and act like they are all equal options when they aren't.
rad lulz wrote:Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:rad lulz wrote:Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:U OF MONTANA GRADS HAVE "TIES" TO MONTANA.
IT'S NOT LIKE A CHECKBOX
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE FOR U MONTANA GRADS TO CONVINCE EMPLOYERS THEY WANT TO WORK THERE!!!
AHHHHHH
I responded to this like 4 times already.
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:Nelson wrote:What rational person relocates across the country for a much less than guaranteed shot at a salary in the 40-50k range? You're strawmanning the intentions of the vast majority of people who start "Denver vs. Case Western vs. Miami vs. UNLV" threads, most have whom have no clue what they're doing. Asking them what their ties are is a way of figuring out if they have a rational plan.
Ahh the precious TLS moments. They go so quickly...
Return to “Law School Admissions Forum�
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests