Proskauer Rose minimum class rank to interview by school Forum

[Scallywaggums]

Heaven forbid you slow down on behalf of us 0L's who are making important decisions.

Board index » Students and Graduates » Legal Employment » Proskauer Rose minimum class rank to interview by school

Just for the record: this is out side of the playground, champ.

Yes it is, and I've been aware of that since I started posting here. I will make a concerted effort to be less loose when jumping in. I saw it as an opportunity to learn. But, since the stated purpose is for students and grads I will hold my tongue when I'm unsure about something. I suppose it would bog things down quite a bit if you had five people like me join these forums every day. You're not here to teach people, you're here to exchange ideas based on a solid grasp of the subject matter. I am sorry for being more eager than I should have been.

[miamiman]

Scally, I admire your persistence. I'm going to do my best to briefly address your question of percentile comparisons within the context of what is occuring ITE. I disclaim that my response may have some slight errors because I'm not as grizzled or veteran as some revered TLS elders but I have read enough on TLS, ATL, and other outlets to have a slight better-than-educated opinion on the topic:

There is a pecking order of law schools, even within the T14. Most say it's T3 than T6 than T10 than T14. The idea here is that law firms will dig slightly (or in some cases, generously) deeper in one tier than in the tier below it.

The problem with comparing a candidate in the 66th percentile at CCN with a median student at NU is that firms do take other variables into account, even if they operate mostly at the margins. How well one interviews, prior work experience, ethnic diversity, knowing people in law firms, the size of a female candidate's tits, and other factors make it such that it's very hard to compare these people as if they exist as simply dots on a page. There were above-median candidates at CCN that didn't get offers and I imagine well-below median candidates at MVPBDCNG that did. Also, as others point out, a sizable fraction of HYS and other schools opt into clerkships upon graduation. Others into prestigious government/PI work. Finally, there were macro elements at play that affected the 09 NLJ 250 data, one being that schools placing primarily into NYC were disproportionately affected by no-offers. This past year, as I pointed out, Chicago was a much harder market to penetrate relative to NYC. In addition, NU does disproportionately well in placing kids into biglaw because they a) require work experience and b) foster somewhat more self-selection into biglaw. All of these factors ultimately come into play when you see the aggregate data and so it's hard to dispositively account for this 15% gap that you are referenceing; a lot of it comes down to what individuals in a class choose to do in a given year. And that can and does fluctuate widely in some cases.

The point here is that while things change slightly on a year to year basis, firms dig deeper into the more prestigious schools than they do at less elite ones. It's hard to quantify PRECISELY how much deeper but they do dig deeper. Fin.

[mallard]

I've already apologized for my childish, shoot-from-the hip without much thought reaction to Mallard, and I meant it sincerely. But I still would like a response from TTT-LS, or otherwise an apology.

Hey, I'm not offended. But the Legal Employment forum is new and it's really important to have accurate and realistic data in here, which usually means a certain degree of familiarity with the debates, with many different types of workplaces and their hiring standards, the different kinds of information out there and the multiple interpretations that information tends to be able to afford, and certainly with the basics of the OCI/EIP process. It's a little different when you've spent a year or two reading Vault, reading Above the Law, reading OCI threads on autoadmit chronicling failures to convert interviews to callbacks, failures to convert callbacks to summer positions, and failures to convert summer positions to offers. (You might especially like this, because you can watch different schools go through the process at the same time, and see who gets what from what school!) And above all it's a little different when you've actually spent a year in law school, the sound of nail-biting audible, the stories of median 2Ls who didn't get callbacks and 3Ls who didn't get offers ringing in your ears, attending events that used to be called "How to Pick your Firm" and "How to Pick your Practice Area" but which are now called "How to Get an Offer" and "Which Practice Areas Will Survive?"

By the way, at least as far as this forum goes, my standard presumption is deference to TTT-LS on basically all matters; I really don't think my knowledge level is comparable to his.

[Scallywaggums]

...
That being said, it's outside of the playground. That pretty much means exactly and only that if somebody who isn't a law student is wrong and gets huffy about law students saying he's wrong in the forum for law students and graduates, I will respond by saying "this is our side of the playground, champ."

For the record, I cherish being corrected or proven wrong as the ideal outcome when interaction is limited to text-based dialogue. It makes the accuracy of your opinions +1.

I responded well when given two good corrections in this thread, responded well when you spotted and corrected my erroneous assumption about "bids", and I responded well when romo corrected me in the V&E partner interview thread http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 5&start=25 (very last post on the thread).

I love being proven wrong, but I hate being snapped at despite countless pleas to analyze my suggestion rationally. I didn't get huffy because people have been saying I'm wrong. I got huffy because it wasn't with good intentions: it was disproportionately thoughtless, negative shouting. Each passerby casting their stone eagerly without taking a moment to think anything through.

I F'd up in my response to Mallard, making me sound like someone I'm not, which got the ball rollin'. But then I stood up to TTT-LS when he joined the mob. It would require a great deal of cognitive dissonance to agree that TTT-LS' comment was belligerent on the sayso of a n00b, so might as well go along with it... which just made things even more childish than before. It degenerated so far that "let/them/eat/cake" literally completed the severance between reason and my flogging, quoting a post of mine and responding simply with referencing "you're not wrong, walter, you're just an asshole." At that point it was clearly just a numbers game: anyone could snap at me for anything and the mob would grin.

[romothesavior]

Scally, take a chill pill bro.

[Scallywaggums]

::takes a chill pill::

[Scallywaggums]

Thank you to MiamiMan and Mallard for the helpful posts.

I reiterate: I will try not to participate so loosely in the future, in a thread where my presence is a privilege rather than a right.

[dood]

...

[romothesavior]

I love how 3/5 pages of this thread has nothing to do with proskauer rose or minimum class rank to interview at any firm from any school. lol.

Very disappointing, considering how much I appreciated the OP. This type of information can be very valuable knowledge, especially for 0Ls trying to compare schools (if only as a rough and incomplete guide).

[miamiman]

Romo, your new tar is adorable but I don't do well with change. Please revert back to ron burgundy.

[Matthies]

Some doom for your gloom

Cravath summer class down 81% in 2010 over 2009

This year's summer associates "have the ability to get a greater proportion of substantive work than if they were competing with a larger class, and they get more individualized attention from partners and associates," said Jonathan Schaffzin, co-administrative partner at Cahill Gordon.

Nice spin

http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleN ... hbxlogin=1

[bwv812]

.

[Scallywaggums]

One thing I believe is that the degree to which I was at fault for commenting in good spirits in an attempt to be helpful, no matter how ignorant, is less than the degree to which you are at fault for being so vicious for such a trivial offense.

This was used as an example of your willingness to speak and offer advice despite your ignorance, something which is evident in almost all of your posts that I've seen. These sorts of posts explain a lot of the reaction you're seeing here.

Stating a subjective belief about the difference in fault between my misstep and your insults is just that, stating a subjective belief. It is NOT offering advice. Even if it were, it is in the realm of values which I have as much knowledge of as you: none.

Are you seriously that dense? Your "trivial offense" — telling people things like:

0 L here, but with real advice.

ITE don't pick and choose. Think volume, not precision.

does not, in your mind, constitute advice?

By choosing "this" you led me to read your comment as follows: "[the quotation above, being the only piece of information this response is directly referencing] was used as an example..."
Thus, I responded as if you were suggesting that my quotation about a value judgment was given to offer you advice, not as if the bidding post were intended to give advice. Obviously I thought I was giving advice in that case.
If you had chosen "that", "it", or "the bid post" in favor of "this", I would have understood your meaning and this confusion would not have come about.

As for my guilt portion of your post: no, I am not guilty of making thoughtless comments such as we've seen in this thread.
Contributions based on insufficient knowledge, yes. And as such, unproductive for most people in these threads, even though it is productive for myself. I have apologized for the inappropriateness of my behavior, given the particulars of this environment.

As for "failing to think things through", I am guilty only to a certain degree: not thinking them through in the same manner, or to the same extent as I would if I were more knowledgeable. But this is fundamentally different from what I was referring to: the complete absence of rational thought; not even attempting to do so, but rather intending only to mock and jeer with fruitless attacks. Don't spin my words.

And don't make it sound as if my responding to this, or "getting the last word" as you say makes me high and mighty or stubborn. I've merely responded to you every time you've attacked me. We are not trading thrusts here, I am merely parrying.

[rayiner]

TTT-LS, please respond to my response, or an apology would work as well.

Scallywaggums: Well meaning but naive 0L, totally overwhelmed by the data. Makes logical inferences from small slivers of data that are farcical to people who have been mired in its entirety for years. For all intents and purposes was born yesterday.

TTT-LS: Easy contender for most helpful poster and most successful law student this board has ever had the privileged to know. Multi-year veteran of law school, job searching, and this forum. As close to a deity as the internet can produce.

QFFT.