Miracle wrote: Tiago Splitter wrote:
collegebum1989 wrote:But my question for you is, that even if you strike out a biglaw firm (either not making partner or getting dinged) you still have developed a professional network and valuable skills during your tenure at the firm. I imagine this (combined with your t14 pedigree) would cushion the unemployment process since you'd be applying for jobs against people with less prestigious credentials or experience (regional school students). Therefore, I'm not sure how these teo students would be "essentially the same".
He's saying that if you don't get a big firm job while in law school you are in exactly the same position whether you go to a T-14 or a TTT.
Which is an accurate statement. People attend T-14 to have a chance at big law. That's it. You strike out of it, you are in the same boat as everyone else.
Have you graduated yet?
Can those who have graduated (hopefully those who have been out for 1-3 years and had struck out OCI) qualify this statement?
I mean, it's hard to believe when you're applying for a job (biglaw, government, whatnot) a year after graduation, a Columbia graduate would be treated equally as someone who went to WUSTL. I know WE counts for more after graduating but 1-3 years still seems like a short amount of time.
I'm not saying it's not true but I have doubts. Is this true and why?
Edit: Also the numbers don't make sense.
The average law student has a 50% chance of being unemployed (biglaw or not).
A Columbia grad who struck out of OCI (So 40-50% of the class who don't make biglaw) still has a chance at a job. Only a small portion of the class was actually UNEMPLOYED whereas those in lower ranked schools have literally 20-50% the class working as baristas or the like.
There were only TEN people who were considered "unemployed" for Columbia Class of 2011
Using a CONSERVATIVE figure of those who struck out, didn't get PI, etc. this is about 10 out of 150 people. That's about 7%. Even 10 out of 100 people at Columbia who didn't get what they want is 10%.
There were 100 people who were considered "unemployed" for American Class of 2011 out of 400+.
Using a CONSERVATIVE (in terms of AGAINST Columbia) figure that takes 100 out of ALL 400 (including those who did or didn't get biglaw), that's about 25% who don't have jobs out of the entire class. Using the same criteria as Columbia, comparing these 100 to those that struck out, didn't get the job they wanted, etc., this number is even HIGHER.
Basically, the numbers don't show what you guys are saying.
Obviously this is a rough estimate/analysis but I don't understand what evidence there is to claim this statement.