V25 hiring director: non-T20 hiring to decline permanently Forum

[Stringer Bell]

Before 2009 data, Cornell placed just about as well as MVPDBN. Last year they took a huge hit. Whether that is lasting, is to be seen but I doubt it. NYC market fell faster than the rest and the more a school placed in NYC the worse their 2009 data was. I bet in 2010, and 2011, Cornell willl start moving back to MVP rather than towards Gtown, Vandy Utex.

I like t12. My reason being that there is a distinction between Cornell and the 12 schools ahead of it in that Cornell is not national. It's basically a super regional like UCLA that happens to place into a region that is the country's legal capital.

[Stringer Bell]

I got the impression that it was basically don't go to a low tier 1 or tier 2 school and expect to do really well (relatively) and get biglaw. I have to assume that the ropes and grey partner didn't literally mean any sort of cutoff on the strong, "right-around-t20" schools

but perhaps i'm wrong. some other thoughts on this?

The main point was just that firms are going to cut back on the number of schools they go to if they continue to hire less associates. You can choose whether you think that means cutting off their recruiting at the t-50, t-30, t-17, t-12 or t-6.

[showNprove]

T1, T3, T5, T6, T10, T12, T13, T14, T17, T18

All valid cutoff points, but usage depends on the intent of the troll.

[badwithpseudonyms]

Paying sticker at [strike]NU[/strike] UVA just became a lot more palatable.

This is the only worthwhile thing I saw on the first two pages. Edited to reflect my own feelings.

[Renzo]

Again, You're missing my point. If you hire 49 associates at $90k, why not make them work 2100 hrs? What possible incentive is there for firms to allow associates to work less, no matter what they pay them?

2 Reasons:

1. No one with another choice will come work at your firm.
2. You don't have that much work to go around.

Right, but now this is getting circular.

There's no shortage of new grad lawyers willing to works insane hours for $90k, but they won't be the best of the best--hence firms will need to pay more to attract top talent and we're back at market rate.

If there isn't enough work to keep your 49 associates busy, why not fire a few of them and keep billing rate high? Keep in mind that this is EXACTLY what firms just did--when revenue went down, they didn't lower billing expectations and salaries, they kept billing rates high and fired people, leading to paradoxically higher PPP even at firms where revenue fell.

[bigben]

The 'T20' advocates are finally bailed out

To be fair, "top 20" is just a more adult way of actually referring to the T14, or maybe T18 or whatever.

[miamiman]

To be fair, t14 or t17 are more adult ways to express t14 or t17.



(I think the recruiter meant to hug the BUs and Emorys of the legal world)

[AngryAvocado]

This may be the rose colored glasses of a T21 student, but I would interpret it more as a shot against Cardozo type schools where a big firm might show up and give callbacks to only one or two people.

But what I really think is that this is just one guy's temporary ramblings. Firms have put a lot of thought and research into whether the talent is better at the top of school X or the median of school Y. They aren't going to throw that away just for the sake of administrative efficiency.

I could be wrong, but I don't think ~V25 firms were really conducting meaningful OCI at Cardozo et. al. anyhow. Many top firms were, however, investing serious resources into ~T20-T30 schools. This article makes thing look pretty dim for those schools. The "good" (well, maybe "less bad") news is that I don't think you're screwed just because you go to the school ranked 21 instead of 20 or 19. I just think that, generally, this bodes poorly for every school across the board, and increasingly bad once you get around the 20s and below.

Along that note, I don't really get the "Paying sticker at *insert T14* just got more palatable" sentiment. This is bad news for everyone. Maybe it makes you feel better about turning down a scholarship to BU or something, but there's nothing about the "dim future for young litigators" that makes the 200k I'm about to shell out any more palatable.

[miamiman]

Avocado, swinging for the fences yet again. And delivering.

I gawked when I read the "litigation is dead" comment.

[09042014]

This is bad news for everyone. Maybe it makes you feel better about turning down a scholarship to BU or something, but there's nothing about the "dim future for young litigators" that makes the 200k I'm about to shell out any more palatable.

Yes, it means that taking the money at a T30 is a bad bet compared to T13 at sticker.

200k at a T13 > 100K at a t30

[badwithpseudonyms]

The rest of his predictions about the c/o 2013 weren't so bad.

[DerrickRose]

This is bad news for everyone. Maybe it makes you feel better about turning down a scholarship to BU or something, but there's nothing about the "dim future for young litigators" that makes the 200k I'm about to shell out any more palatable.

Yes, it means that taking the money at a T30 is a bad bet compared to T13 at sticker.

200k at a T13 > 100K at a t30

But I would stress that 200k at a T13 is still a much worse investment than it was 5 years ago (well, it was actually a terrible investment 5 years ago, but you know what I mean)

[DerrickRose]

Again, You're missing my point. If you hire 49 associates at $90k, why not make them work 2100 hrs? What possible incentive is there for firms to allow associates to work less, no matter what they pay them?

2 Reasons:

1. No one with another choice will come work at your firm.
2. You don't have that much work to go around.

Right, but now this is getting circular.

There's no shortage of new grad lawyers willing to works insane hours for $90k, but they won't be the best of the best--hence firms will need to pay more to attract top talent and we're back at market rate.

If there isn't enough work to keep your 49 associates busy, why not fire a few of them and keep billing rate high? Keep in mind that this is EXACTLY what firms just did--when revenue went down, they didn't lower billing expectations and salaries, they kept billing rates high and fired people, leading to paradoxically higher PPP even at firms where revenue fell.

It stops being circular if you can attract the same (or better) talent for less money, and I contend that ITE, you can.

[MC Southstar]

Who cares? I'm going to be unemployed anyway.

[09042014]

This is bad news for everyone. Maybe it makes you feel better about turning down a scholarship to BU or something, but there's nothing about the "dim future for young litigators" that makes the 200k I'm about to shell out any more palatable.

Yes, it means that taking the money at a T30 is a bad bet compared to T13 at sticker.

200k at a T13 > 100K at a t30

But I would stress that 200k at a T13 is still a much worse investment than it was 5 years ago (well, it was actually a terrible investment 5 years ago, but you know what I mean)

Yes it is much worse. But T30 is worse by an even greater magnitude.

[itsmytime10]

This is bad news for everyone. Maybe it makes you feel better about turning down a scholarship to BU or something, but there's nothing about the "dim future for young litigators" that makes the 200k I'm about to shell out any more palatable.

Yes, it means that taking the money at a T30 is a bad bet compared to T13 at sticker.

200k at a T13 > 100K at a t30

It depends on your profile. For someone coming straight out of undergrad with no WE, that might make sense but with some solid WE and a MS degree...no way i would pay 200k for any school.

[09042014]

This is bad news for everyone. Maybe it makes you feel better about turning down a scholarship to BU or something, but there's nothing about the "dim future for young litigators" that makes the 200k I'm about to shell out any more palatable.

Yes, it means that taking the money at a T30 is a bad bet compared to T13 at sticker.

200k at a T13 > 100K at a t30

It depends on your profile. For someone coming straight out of undergrad with no WE, that might make sense but with some solid WE and a MS degree...no way i would pay 200k for any school.

Explain why having W/E and MS makes you less willing to pay sticker.

[Renzo]

It stops being circular if you can attract the same (or better) talent for less money, and I contend that ITE, you can.

No, it doesn't. That's just really bad news. Again, if they can attract the same talent for less money, where is the incentive to work them less? Now associates are doing the same amount of work for less money!

[itsmytime10]

This is bad news for everyone. Maybe it makes you feel better about turning down a scholarship to BU or something, but there's nothing about the "dim future for young litigators" that makes the 200k I'm about to shell out any more palatable.

Yes, it means that taking the money at a T30 is a bad bet compared to T13 at sticker.

200k at a T13 > 100K at a t30

It depends on your profile. For someone coming straight out of undergrad with no WE, that might make sense but with some solid WE and a MS degree...no way i would pay 200k for any school.

Explain why having W/E and MS makes you less willing to pay sticker.

You are paying sticker at NU because attending a T14 obviously will increase your chances of getting bigLaw right? I believe an excellent resume from a T30 student gives them this extra push as well....Believe it or not firms favor law students with good WE, and that is the main reason why NU places so well.

[vanwinkle]

You are paying sticker at NU because attending a T14 obviously will increase your chances of getting bigLaw right? I believe an excellent resume from a T30 student gives them this extra push as well....Believe it or not firms favor law students with good WE, and that is the main reason why NU places so well.

NU places well because its students have good WE and are attending a T10. You're kind of skipping over one part while focusing too much on the other.

[09042014]

It stops being circular if you can attract the same (or better) talent for less money, and I contend that ITE, you can.

No, it doesn't. That's just really bad news. Again, if they can attract the same talent for less money, where is the incentive to work them less? Now associates are doing the same amount of work for less money!

Also while you can get the same talent from before the crash for less, you can't get the same talent in relation to you competitors with you cut salary, and that is all that matters.

Now for some of the lesser prestigious firms they might as well do it, because even if they paid 160, top students won't go there. And in Chicago this happened. Some firms dropped back to 145K. Because its them or unemployment.

But top firms still compete over top students.

[itsmytime10]

You are paying sticker at NU because attending a T14 obviously will increase your chances of getting bigLaw right? I believe an excellent resume from a T30 student gives them this extra push as well....Believe it or not firms favor law students with good WE, and that is the main reason why NU places so well.

NU places well because its students have good WE and are attending a T10. You're kind of skipping over one part while focusing too much on the other.

True...but i highly doubt that a NU student with 0 years of WE, will do better in finding a job than say..a WashU student with 4 years of solid WE

[Kohinoor]

The 'T20' advocates are finally bailed out

To be fair, "top 20" is just a more adult way of actually referring to the T14, or maybe T18 or whatever.

with that said, T14 or T18 are diplomatic ways of referring to YHS.

[romothesavior]

You are paying sticker at NU because attending a T14 obviously will increase your chances of getting bigLaw right? I believe an excellent resume from a T30 student gives them this extra push as well....Believe it or not firms favor law students with good WE, and that is the main reason why NU places so well.

NU places well because its students have good WE and are attending a T10. You're kind of skipping over one part while focusing too much on the other.

True...but i highly doubt that a NU student with 0 years of WE, will do better in finding a job than say..a WashU student with 4 years of solid WE

Oh no... I'm going to be a Wash U student with 0 years of WE. Killself?

[09042014]

You are paying sticker at NU because attending a T14 obviously will increase your chances of getting bigLaw right? I believe an excellent resume from a T30 student gives them this extra push as well....Believe it or not firms favor law students with good WE, and that is the main reason why NU places so well.

NU places well because its students have good WE and are attending a T10. You're kind of skipping over one part while focusing too much on the other.

True...but i highly doubt that a NU student with 0 years of WE, will do better in finding a job than say..a WashU student with 4 years of solid WE

You are vastly overemphasizing the importance of WE in legal hiring.

The NU student will have a MUCH easier time finding a job.