Top Law Schools

Desert Fox wrote:

flcath wrote:By the way, OP, you might want to go talk to your CSO about this before you bid on OCIs / resume-bomb the greater Honolulu metropolitan area.

NU's career services tells you to bid where you have ties. It's not a TLS thing.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. How ironic would it be if OP ends up fucked from ignoring TLS advice.

Desert Fox wrote:If you wanna bid where you have no ties? Fake fiance bro.

I have panicked and used this. A friend of mine panicked and fabricated a wife from Des Moines. I would never write it down on a cover letter, though.

. . . Lol, this OP is so dumb. Literally the most unpleasant part of all my interviews was when they'd ask "So why are you interested in [this city, in which you've never set foot prior to landing at the airport last night]?"

flcath wrote:Weird. The "ties" thing is totally legit. What I do think is TLS echo chamber BS is the idea of certain schools being "regional." E.g., that a firm from the midwest will want to hire me because I go to ND (they don't, but firms from the South--where I'm from--do).

You do understand why firms want ties, right? It has nothing to do with 'liking' hometown peeps more. It has to do with your statistical probability of sticking around past 3 years in, when most secondary-market firms make the most $$$ off of you.

Not disagreeing with you.

But firms wanting ties is insanely stupid. Especially if you go to a regional school. Yup. Totally getting back to Florida from the University of Washington. No problem there, chiefs!

Maybe it's just because I can't figure out for the life of me why anyone on Earth would want to return to the rust bucket that is my hometown. I wonder if I just beg for the firm not to send me back to the crappy trailer park from which I come they'll believe me.

Gail wrote:

flcath wrote:Weird. The "ties" thing is totally legit. What I do think is TLS echo chamber BS is the idea of certain schools being "regional." E.g., that a firm from the midwest will want to hire me because I go to ND (they don't, but firms from the South--where I'm from--do).

You do understand why firms want ties, right? It has nothing to do with 'liking' hometown peeps more. It has to do with your statistical probability of sticking around past 3 years in, when most secondary-market firms make the most $$$ off of you.

Not disagreeing with you.

But firms wanting ties is insanely stupid. Especially if you go to a regional school. Yup. Totally getting back to Florida from the University of Washington. No problem there, chiefs!

Maybe it's just because I can't figure out for the life of me why anyone on Earth would want to return to the rust bucket that is my hometown. I wonder if I just beg for the firm not to send me back to the crappy trailer park from which I come they'll believe me.

Yeah, it's really shitty from our perspective, because a lot of us really would be willing to live permanently in a city we have to which we have no ties. Of course some people are flat-out lying (I was when I CB'ed at Honigman [Detroit] and Foley [Milwaukee]), and others think they'd be happy in SoCal but really wouldn't.

And lol at there being jobs in Florida.

flcath wrote: And lol at there being jobs in Florida.

FL firm hiring is one step above being an elaborate flame.

Also what's funny about FL is that I couldn't get a CB in South FL to save my life. All my ties are elsewhere in FL. Some of this shit is REAL parochial.

One firm asked me if I had even ever been to NYC. First fucking question.

Desert Fox wrote:One firm asked me if I had even ever been to NYC. First fucking question.

Got this question all the time too.

NYC cares about ties somewhat. There. I said it. Come at me, TLS.

rad lulz wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:One firm asked me if I had even ever been to NYC. First fucking question.

Got this question all the time too.

NYC cares about ties somewhat. There. I said it. Come at me, TLS.

I also got this question / a form of it at all my NYC interviews.

TCR has been made several times in this thread already, firms want people who will stick around in a city for at least 6-7, if not more, years so they can make some $$$ off of your hours. This is especially true in smaller markets and anywhere in CA.

Self-fulfilling prophecy. Ties didn't matter until someone started trolling it on TLS, recruiters noticed and thought it wasn't a bad idea.

rad lulz wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:One firm asked me if I had even ever been to NYC. First fucking question.

Got this question all the time too.

NYC cares about ties somewhat. There. I said it. Come at me, TLS.

After reading all the posts complaining about the size of apartments in new york city, the taxes in new york city and the general expense of new york city, I understand this question from NYC firms. I remember someone posting and asking why a "grown-ass" man would want to live in a small apartment. Some people are never gong to understand NYC.

Firms don't want to waste their time on someone who won't be happy in the city. Not everyone can handle the city on a day to day basis, it is a huge change for most people.

rad lulz wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:One firm asked me if I had even ever been to NYC. First fucking question.

Got this question all the time too.

NYC cares about ties somewhat. There. I said it. Come at me, TLS.

I think NYC firms just don't want to be backup choices for lifelong midwesterners, southerners and west coasters. From my resume it's clear I had never left Illinois.

Desert Fox wrote:

rad lulz wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:One firm asked me if I had even ever been to NYC. First fucking question.

Got this question all the time too.

NYC cares about ties somewhat. There. I said it. Come at me, TLS.

I think NYC firms just don't want to be backup choices for lifelong midwesterners, southerners and west coasters. From my resume it's clear I had never left Illinois.

This.

When I saw it, it was in the context of people not from the NE/midatlantic who did not have sick grades, who did not go to a northeast/midatlantic school for UG, or a traditional NYC-feeder LS (say, Cornell, NYU, Columbia).

Examples.

1. Southerner, Vandy/Tex, WE, minority, southern UG, ended up at Southern biglaw firms
2. Southerner, Vandy/Tex, minority, southern UG, ended up at Southern biglaw firms
3. Midwesterner, Midwest T14, IP, WE, midwest UG, ended up at Chi firm I think
4. Midwesterner, Midwest T14, WE, midwest UG, ended up at midatlantic firm in market to which s/he had no ties actually

I mean it's not like Mississippi, and plenty of people get jobs in NYC sans ties, but it's real.

The idea that "ties" to a market would have ANYTHING to do with whether or not an employer was more or less likely to hire you has always been a head-scratcher for me. I don't think employers really give a fuck if you have ties to a given market - if that can even be defined (:roll:). Employers care whether or not you can get excited about working for them and do a good job as a result. They care about productivity. Perhaps one's ties can be probative of whether a firm or company's long-term investment is worth the hassle, but it is only one of many factors in the calculus. During my Northwestern interview, I remember my interviewer asking me whether I wanted to work in the midwest. I told him that my goal was to work in NY or L.A., an answer that he seemed highly pleased with because he wanted NU grads to help expand NULaw's brand and market. He told me during the interview that he was recommending my acceptance. This makes sense. Employers expect that they will hire students from different geographic regions. As is the case with the schools, geographic diversity is a good thing for the firms. Their clients come from all over the country and/or world. Why would they want to hire people in a homogenous fashion? It's an absurd notion.

I will concede that employers can and do make some attempt(s) to gage a candidate's potential long-term happiness and commitment, but I don't believe that one's ties is a defining issue.

sunynp wrote:

rad lulz wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:One firm asked me if I had even ever been to NYC. First fucking question.

Got this question all the time too.

NYC cares about ties somewhat. There. I said it. Come at me, TLS.

After reading all the posts complaining about the size of apartments in new york city, the taxes in new york city and the general expense of new york city, I understand this question from NYC firms. I remember someone posting and asking why a "grown-ass" man would want to live in a small apartment. Some people are never gong to understand NYC.

Firms don't want to waste their time on someone who won't be happy in the city. Not everyone can handle the city on a day to day basis, it is a huge change for most people.

Yes, but what does this have to do with "ties"? Your family history, work history, etc may or may not indicate potential for happiness in a given market. Some small town folks want nothing more to do with the small towns. Some New Yorkers are looking for a simpler lifestyle. I grew up in a big city, and I love big cities and would never want to reside anywhere else. But that doesn't mean I am not open to big cities other than those in my home region.

PDaddy wrote:The idea that "ties" to a market would have ANYTHING to do with whether or not an employer was more or less likely to hire you has always been a head-scratcher for me. I don't think employers really give a fuck if you have ties to a given market - if that can even be defined (:roll:). Employers care whether or not you can get excited about working for them and do a good job as a result. They care about productivity. Perhaps one's ties can be probative of whether a firm or company's long-term investment is worth the hassle, but it is only one of many factors in the calculus.

In typical PDaddy fashion this poast is nonsensical and rife with contradiction in the first paragraph.

PDaddy wrote: Yes, but what does this have to do with "ties"? Your family history, work history, etc may or may not indicate potential for happiness in a given market.

It's a lot better indicator than visiting the city a few times, spending a summer there, or even worse, just reading about the place on Wikipedia.

rad lulz wrote:

PDaddy wrote:The idea that "ties" to a market would have ANYTHING to do with whether or not an employer was more or less likely to hire you has always been a head-scratcher for me. I don't think employers really give a fuck if you have ties to a given market - if that can even be defined (:roll:). Employers care whether or not you can get excited about working for them and do a good job as a result. They care about productivity. Perhaps one's ties can be probative of whether a firm or company's long-term investment is worth the hassle, but it is only one of many factors in the calculus.

In typical PDaddy fashion this poast is nonsensical and rife with contradiction in the first paragraph.

Rc Fail! There's a difference between whether an issue is "probative" and whether it's "defining".

My argument is that ties are not a defining issue, nor should they be.

The logic in my "poast" [sic] is sound.

You are wrong. People who I know who struck out mostly did so because they deluded themselves like you are now. There were plenty of firms dinging law review grad for lack of ties. I ended up in 10+ markets at OCT. You know the two Ialmost completely struck out in? NYC and Chicago. You know why? Because TLS made me think I wouldn't have to sell ties in these markets. I got into 10+ markets because I sold my ties everytime as if it were all that mattered. You will have trouble.

PDaddy wrote:

rad lulz wrote:

PDaddy wrote:The idea that "ties" to a market would have ANYTHING to do with whether or not an employer was more or less likely to hire you has always been a head-scratcher for me. I don't think employers really give a fuck if you have ties to a given market - if that can even be defined (:roll:). Employers care whether or not you can get excited about working for them and do a good job as a result. They care about productivity. Perhaps one's ties can be probative of whether a firm or company's long-term investment is worth the hassle, but it is only one of many factors in the calculus.

In typical PDaddy fashion this poast is nonsensical and rife with contradiction in the first paragraph.

Rc Fail! There's a difference between whether an issue is "probative" and whether it's "defining".

My argument is that ties are not a defining issue, nor should they be.

The logic in my "poast" [sic] is sound.

It's almost like you didn't read ANY of the firsthand accounts in the thread. Or the reasoning behind ties.

TaipeiMort wrote:You are wrong. People who I know who struck out mostly did so because they deluded themselves like you are now. There were plenty of firms dinging law review grad eons for lack of ties. I ended up in 10+ markets at OCT. You know the two Ialmost completely struck out in? NYC and Chicago. You know why? Because TULSA made me think I wouldn't have to sell ties. I got into 10+ markets because I sold my ties everytime as if it were all that mattered. You will have trouble.

As stated above, I had thios conversation with a dean at one of the elite law schools in the country, not to mention deans at other schools. Maybe it's my professional goal of being an entertainment lawyer (which dictates that one works in NY, L.A. or another entertainment capital). But no matter where you are from, recruiters expect that when you interview at an entertainment law firm, you know what you are getting into.

Besides, I asked how "ties" are even defined, and no one has responded to that question. Surely you do not propose that a NY firm won't hire a guy from S.F. just because he has no family in NY or has never worked there, do you? Like I said...absurd.

PDaddy wrote: Besides, I asked how "ties" are even defined, and no one has responded to that question.

Ties aren't best thought of as a box you check. I said this before. They range from weak (vacation in the area) to very strong (grew up in the area) and a whole mess in between.

Surely you do not propose that a NY firm won't hire a guy from S.F. just because he has no family in NY or has never worked there, do you? Like I said...absurd.Have any of those deans tried to get an entry-level firm job recently?

No one said that.

rad lulz wrote:

PDaddy wrote:

rad lulz wrote:

PDaddy wrote:The idea that "ties" to a market would have ANYTHING to do with whether or not an employer was more or less likely to hire you has always been a head-scratcher for me. I don't think employers really give a fuck if you have ties to a given market - if that can even be defined (:roll:). Employers care whether or not you can get excited about working for them and do a good job as a result. They care about productivity. Perhaps one's ties can be probative of whether a firm or company's long-term investment is worth the hassle, but it is only one of many factors in the calculus.

In typical PDaddy fashion this poast is nonsensical and rife with contradiction in the first paragraph.

Rc Fail! There's a difference between whether an issue is "probative" and whether it's "defining". My argument is that ties are not a defining issue, nor should they be. The logic in my "poast" [sic] is sound.

It's almost like you didn't read ANY of the firsthand accounts in the thread. Or the reasoning behind ties.

How many firsthand accounts are sufficient to validate the myth? Even if you get 1,000 first-hand accounts in this thread they will still be unrepresentative of the sample and thus render the argument flawed.

Now...how many first-hand accounts (i.e., horror stories about weak "ties" and lost job opps) do we have so far? We could probably get just as many saying the opposite tomorrow.

PDaddy stop trying to make interviewing for law school the basis for your expertise in interviewing for law firms. They're two totally different things.

PDaddy wrote: How many firsthand accounts are sufficient to validate the myth? Even if you get 1,000 first-hand accounts in this thread they will still be unrepresentative of the sample and thus render the argument flawed.

Now...how many first-hand accounts (i.e., horror stories about weak "ties" and lost job opps) do we have so far? We could probably get just as many saying the opposite tomorrow.

ho000okay brah

Don't you people sleep?

tedalbany wrote:Don't you people sleep?

GMT; whats ur excuse