'04 Grad wrote:swheat wrote:solo_lawyer wrote:For example, look at this ad on craigslist posted just today:
Nobody uses Craigslist to find a legal job. Those listings are there for the truly desperate only. I recently quoted an article from Kiplinger's that said that 80% of all workers find their jobs through networking. Only 20% find jobs through internet searches like craigslist, monster, etc. as well as through headhunting agencies.
For legal jobs, OCI and networking are paramount. So please, stop posting Craigslist ads as if they are indicative of the legal market as a whole, when in actuality they exist only for the absolute bottom rung of the profession.
Unfortunately the "truly desperate" include many recent law school grads. This networking argument you keep making is based on the flawed assumption that the jobs obtained through networking pay substantially more than the jobs posted on Craigslist. In my experience, the firms posting on Craigslist do pay less but it's not a huge difference.
I keep writing this but you need to look at what small firms, that do the kind of work that you will be able to do, pay. And that is $35K through $60K.
My assumption is flawed? Really? I notice you are no longer disputing the link I posted earlier dispelling your 35-60k theory, at least for CA.
So even though I have direct evidence from an unbiased source to the contrary of what you are saying, I am wrong for assuming that 35-40k is an atypical, bottom of the rung legal job? And because you have this handful of Craigslist postings at ridiculously low salaries, you can decisively conclude that this is what the majority of non-14 grads can look forward to?
Why is it that 80% of people DONT use Craigslist in finding a job? Maybe because the jobs posted there are shit? And the competition for those shit jobs is through the roof? How can Craigslist even be a close to a reliable indicator of the job market when it encompasses less than 20% of that market?