Proskauer Rose minimum class rank to interview by school

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
User avatar
Scallywaggums
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:52 pm

Re: Proskauer Rose minimum class rank to interview by school

Postby Scallywaggums » Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:37 pm

If you stop assuming I meant more than I did with that post, and take Desert Fox's post about the NY market hitting Columbia and Cornell hard, can we civilly agree that the above assumption might be inaccurate ITE???

miamiman
Posts: 1486
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:55 pm

Re: Proskauer Rose minimum class rank to interview by school

Postby miamiman » Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:40 pm

Scallywaggums wrote:If you stop assuming I meant more than I did with that post, and take Desert Fox's post about the NY market hitting Columbia and Cornell hard, can we civilly agree that the above assumption might be inaccurate ITE???


in this moment in time, new york is an easier market to get than Chicago. Chicago was safer for class of 09 and was completely dead to class of 11.

User avatar
Scallywaggums
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:52 pm

Re: Proskauer Rose minimum class rank to interview by school

Postby Scallywaggums » Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:56 pm

miamiman wrote:in this moment in time, new york is an easier market to get than Chicago. Chicago was safer for class of 09 and was completely dead to class of 11.


If this is indeed true, than my use of the '09 graph serves no purpose whatsoever.

I still don't see a 17% difference in "undesirable jobs" in the 2008 graph though.

But I can tell that y'alls gots the scent of blood in yer nostrils, so let's play this the easy way: I am wrong, wrong, wrong. The kids at 50% in NU have roughly equal prospects as those at 65% rank in CCN.

FYI, I am actually interested in this, so if anyone has data which suggests this is true, please let it loose.

miamiman
Posts: 1486
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:55 pm

Re: Proskauer Rose minimum class rank to interview by school

Postby miamiman » Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:59 pm

Scallywaggums wrote:
miamiman wrote:in this moment in time, new york is an easier market to get than Chicago. Chicago was safer for class of 09 and was completely dead to class of 11.


If this is indeed true, than my use of the '09 graph serves no purpose whatsoever.

I still don't see a 17% difference in "undesirable jobs" in the 2008 graph though.

But I can tell that y'alls gots the scent of blood in yer nostrils, so let's play this the easy way: I am wrong, wrong, wrong. The kids at 50% in NU have roughly equal prospects as those at 65% rank in CCN.

FYI, I am actually interested in this, so if anyone has data which suggests this is true, please let it loose.


It is true. Chicago was absolutely apocalyptic last fall. Here's to hoping it improves and soon.

User avatar
MusicNutMeggie
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:12 pm

Re: Proskauer Rose minimum class rank to interview by school

Postby MusicNutMeggie » Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:14 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
MusicNutMeggie wrote:
Scallywaggums wrote:
mallard wrote:I tend to assume that anybody who will take median at Northwestern would take anybody outside the bottom third at CCN, but I might be wrong about that.


No.

'09 NLJ 250 Hiring by % of class

Northwestern University School of Law 55.9
Columbia Law School 54.4
Stanford Law School 54.1
University of Chicago Law School 53.1
University of Virginia School of Law 52.8
University of Michigan Law School 51
University of Pennsylvania Law School 50.8
New York University School of Law 50.1
University of California, Berkeley School of Law 50
Duke Law School 49.8

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ february 22, 2010


Dude, four words: clerkships, fellowships, public interest

Notice how Y and H aren't even on the list? That's not because NLJ firms don't want Y and H grads; it's because more Y and H grads do clerkships and fellowships before going into BigLaw. There's also the question of prestigious PI positions.



Nah, that isn't why its wrong. Columbia for example, doesn't place a large precentage into clerkships or PI.

The difference was in 2009, NYC firms "no offered" a lot more than Chicago firms did. This hit CCN harder than Northwestern.

Also even if you compare old economy numbers, you still can't get a general feel for where individual firms hire from. NU puts a lot of their marginal students into Chicago firms, who overvalue NU. The home field advantage evens the gap a lot.

And finally the economy seeming increased the distance between CCN and the rest of the t13.


Point taken. :-) But clerkships and such ARE a major reason for Yale and Harvard not making that list.

As an incoming NU 1L, though, I somewhat resent the use of the word "overvalue"-- maybe just "value more highly"? Pretty please?

And I have to call you on the subtle anti-GULC/Cornell trolling. T13?

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Proskauer Rose minimum class rank to interview by school

Postby 09042014 » Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:21 pm

MusicNutMeggie wrote:
Point taken. :-) But clerkships and such ARE a major reason for Yale and Harvard not making that list.

As an incoming NU 1L, though, I somewhat resent the use of the word "overvalue"-- maybe just "value more highly"? Pretty please?

And I have to call you on the subtle anti-GULC/Cornell trolling. T13?


It's not subtle :P

And I hope its "value more highly" I'm NU 2013 as well.

User avatar
MusicNutMeggie
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:12 pm

Re: Proskauer Rose minimum class rank to interview by school

Postby MusicNutMeggie » Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:24 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
MusicNutMeggie wrote:
Point taken. :-) But clerkships and such ARE a major reason for Yale and Harvard not making that list.

As an incoming NU 1L, though, I somewhat resent the use of the word "overvalue"-- maybe just "value more highly"? Pretty please?

And I have to call you on the subtle anti-GULC/Cornell trolling. T13?


It's not subtle :P

And I hope its "value more highly" I'm NU 2013 as well.


Of course you are! Clearly, I am not on top of my game today. In my defense, though, I think you changed your 'tar? Anyway, when we get to NU in August, let's meet up and toast to being overvalued by Chicago firms. ;-)

User avatar
Scallywaggums
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:52 pm

Re: Proskauer Rose minimum class rank to interview by school

Postby Scallywaggums » Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:33 pm

It's occurred to me that the venom in response to my critique of Mallard's assumption was warranted.

Not due to the content, but due to the fact that I prefaced it with "no", which came off quite bitchily now that I look back at it.

So, Mallard, I sincerely apologize for being bitchy. Shan't happen again.

User avatar
Kohinoor
Posts: 2756
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Proskauer Rose minimum class rank to interview by school

Postby Kohinoor » Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:45 pm

TTT-LS wrote:
NayBoer wrote:In light of threads like this one, they should rename this whole sub-forum "Where 0Ls Decide to Become Gunners."

Not to nitpick, but I think you misunderstand the true meaning of "gunner" here. Being a gunner is a bad thing. Gunners inject their personal views into class comments improperly. They pose hypos to the class. They annoy the shit out of the prof and their classmates. None of these things equates with working hard, necessarily. Sure, some gunners work hard, but many just like to *talk* about doing so. Point being: you can bust your ass 1L year without being a gunner, and you can be a gunner without working hard.

If I know you're working hard, you're probably a gunner.

User avatar
Scallywaggums
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:52 pm

Re: Proskauer Rose minimum class rank to interview by school

Postby Scallywaggums » Thu Jun 10, 2010 1:06 pm

mallard wrote:I tend to assume that anybody who will take median at Northwestern would take anybody outside the bottom third at CCN, but I might be wrong about that. I think it's unclear whether certain T14 schools can place kids at the 40% mark anywhere in biglaw.


Here's a slightly more relevant thread than the last one I posted: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=108528

Again, I feel the best way is not to positively think in terms of "good placement", but rather in terms of "undesirable positions" such as Unemployment, "other firms", and arguably others in the 2008 comprehensive graph. I don't see a 17% difference between NU and CCN.

However, while the assumption may or may not have been accurate for 2008, it's quite possible/probable that it is more accurate ITE, with job losses creating a greater bottleneck for desirable jobs and thus, possibly widening the gap between NU and CCN.

User avatar
TTT-LS
Posts: 764
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:36 pm

Re: Proskauer Rose minimum class rank to interview by school

Postby TTT-LS » Thu Jun 10, 2010 1:13 pm

,
Last edited by TTT-LS on Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Scallywaggums
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:52 pm

Re: Proskauer Rose minimum class rank to interview by school

Postby Scallywaggums » Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:35 pm

^ Hooooow about those who share your opinion can disregard such comparisons, and those who don't believe that shades of gray & a significant degree of uncertainty render a practice "pointless" can go on discussing the influence that various schools on one's resume might have on their job prospects.
Last edited by Scallywaggums on Thu Jun 10, 2010 6:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
RVP11
Posts: 2774
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:32 pm

Re: Proskauer Rose minimum class rank to interview by school

Postby RVP11 » Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:52 pm

Scallywaggums wrote:^ Hooooow about those who share your opinion can disregard such comparisons, and those who don't believe that shades of gray & a significant degree of uncertainty don't render a practice "pointless" can go on discussing the influence that various schools on one's resume might have on their job prospects.


Mods, this poster shows why we should have something to prevent 0Ls from posting in the Legal Employment forum.

User avatar
TTT-LS
Posts: 764
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:36 pm

Re: Proskauer Rose minimum class rank to interview by school

Postby TTT-LS » Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:56 pm

,
Last edited by TTT-LS on Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Scallywaggums
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:52 pm

Re: Proskauer Rose minimum class rank to interview by school

Postby Scallywaggums » Thu Jun 10, 2010 6:23 pm

TTT-LS wrote:
RVP11 wrote:
Scallywaggums wrote:^ Hooooow about those who share your opinion can disregard such comparisons, and those who don't believe that shades of gray & a significant degree of uncertainty don't render a practice "pointless" can go on discussing the influence that various schools on one's resume might have on their job prospects.


Mods, this poster shows why we should have something to prevent 0Ls from posting in the Legal Employment forum.
TTT-LS, J. concurs. Alternatively, we could make the 0Ls wear a scarlet letter so at least people would have a way of ignoring them more easily.


I find it humorous that you're just dogpiling on me irrationally at this point. Since the sole argument in my quoted post was that some of us find it worthwhile to discuss the differences in job prospects between two schools, you ought to be clamoring for Mallard to be prevented from participating here, as it was he who offered the interesting suggestion about NU median ~CCN top 2/3, a ::gasp:: comparison between two schools.

Oh wait, this entire thread is devoted to the subject of a "school vs. school" comparison. So I guess all of us should never have posted here? No, you wouldn't say that, but you WOULD have to say that we should nod at the numbers in the OP and spend no time positing further guesswork.

If you're NOT suggesting I be prevented from posting here solely for arguing that conjectures about "school vs. school" are not a waste of time, please elaborate on your rationale.

User avatar
let/them/eat/cake
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:20 pm

Re: Proskauer Rose minimum class rank to interview by school

Postby let/them/eat/cake » Thu Jun 10, 2010 6:40 pm

Scallywaggums wrote:^ Hooooow about those who share your opinion can disregard such comparisons, and those who don't believe that shades of gray & a significant degree of uncertainty don't render a practice "pointless" can go on discussing the influence that various schools on one's resume might have on their job prospects.


isn't this saying the opposite of what you are trying to say? stop using so many GD negatives. clean it up. how can i mock your posts if i can't understand them?

scallywaggums: my new least favorite TLS poster. there. i said it.

User avatar
Scallywaggums
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:52 pm

Re: Proskauer Rose minimum class rank to interview by school

Postby Scallywaggums » Thu Jun 10, 2010 6:49 pm

let/them/eat/cake wrote:
Scallywaggums wrote:^ Hooooow about those who share your opinion can disregard such comparisons, and those who don't believe that shades of gray & a significant degree of uncertainty don't render a practice "pointless" can go on discussing the influence that various schools on one's resume might have on their job prospects.


isn't this saying the opposite of what you are trying to say? stop using so many GD negatives. clean it up. how can i mock your posts if i can't understand them?

scallywaggums: my new least favorite TLS poster. there. i said it.


My apologies, I was fuming as I wrote it. Take out the "don't" between "and those who __ believe that shades".

I took out said "don't" In the posting, but I'll past it here 'cause I stand by it and I'd rather it be responded to than have people get all excited and attack me for a misstep without actually addressing the content:

^ Hooooow about those who share your opinion can disregard such comparisons, and those who don't believe that shades of gray & a significant degree of uncertainty render a practice "pointless" can go on discussing the influence that various schools on one's resume might have on their job prospects.

There, you understand it now. Please, please mock it.

miamiman
Posts: 1486
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:55 pm

Re: Proskauer Rose minimum class rank to interview by school

Postby miamiman » Thu Jun 10, 2010 6:53 pm

Scallywaggums wrote:
let/them/eat/cake wrote:
Scallywaggums wrote:^ Hooooow about those who share your opinion can disregard such comparisons, and those who don't believe that shades of gray & a significant degree of uncertainty don't render a practice "pointless" can go on discussing the influence that various schools on one's resume might have on their job prospects.


isn't this saying the opposite of what you are trying to say? stop using so many GD negatives. clean it up. how can i mock your posts if i can't understand them?

scallywaggums: my new least favorite TLS poster. there. i said it.


My apologies, I was fuming as I wrote it. Take out the "don't" between "and those who __ believe that shades".

I took out said "don't" In the posting, but I'll past it here 'cause I stand by it and I'd rather it be responded to than have people get all excited and attack me for a misstep without actually addressing the content:

^ Hooooow about those who share your opinion can disregard such comparisons, and those who don't believe that shades of gray & a significant degree of uncertainty render a practice "pointless" can go on discussing the influence that various schools on one's resume might have on their job prospects.

There, you understand it now. Please, please mock it.



Dude, everyone's going off on you because you're an 0L posting erroneous, exclamatory responses in threads that have no meaning to your life yet. I'm an 0L, too. Unlike you, I try to sit back, listen, and learn. Take my lead.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Proskauer Rose minimum class rank to interview by school

Postby romothesavior » Thu Jun 10, 2010 7:09 pm

miamiman wrote:Dude, everyone's going off on you because you're an 0L posting erroneous, exclamatory responses in threads that have no meaning to your life yet. I'm an 0L, too. Unlike you, I try to sit back, listen, and learn. Take my lead.


+1. Scally, like I told you the other day... you need to show respect and know your shit when you're posting. You really shouldn't be telling current students (and regular TLS posters) that you know more than they do, and if you are going to call them out, make sure you know what you're saying first. TLS is a great place for info, and it can be a lot of fun to post, but sit back and soak things in (and read ATL and WSJ law a bit too) before you make too bold of statements.

You wouldn't walk into a law school and tell a bunch of 2Ls that you know the job market better than they do. So why would you do it online?

User avatar
Scallywaggums
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:52 pm

Re: Proskauer Rose minimum class rank to interview by school

Postby Scallywaggums » Thu Jun 10, 2010 7:28 pm

Miamiman, when you first joined the dogpile, you said I made an incoherent post when it was in fact perfectly coherent.

We've already discussed why the initial post I made didn't have enough info (although I still believe it was worth something, as NU and Columbia both seem to have a strong push toward BigLaw). Desert Fox and yourself made the two best points regarding why that wasn't enough to go on.

I apologized for the "No." It was stupid and bitchy, but I stand by the rest of what I've posted.

I simply followed by referencing the 2008 graph with all the purty colors for various jobs (i.e. "NLJ 250", "other firms", "clerkships", "Government", "Public Interest", "business", "grad school", "academia", "unemployed", "unreported", and "1L attrition".

My claim is simple: if NU50% is roughly equivalent to CCN top 2/3, than there should be at least a 17% difference between them in "undesirable positions". I suggested "unemployment" (a no-brainer) and "other firms" (as most of those landing a position with a firm probably would have preferred to land a NLJ 250 slot). This is certainly not always the case, and the method is certainly less than surefire for plenty of other reasons, but I don't see how it's "erroneous". Point out how it is if it is, I have no ego problem with admitting when I'm wrong.

I simply don't see that much of a difference, but I explained why things might be different ITE.


But, whether or not you're right about my making "exclamatory, erroneous" remarks being the reason for the dogpile, it doesn't explain the "^ give it up dude. These school vs. school comparative battles on TLS are all pretty much pointless. Just let it go."

User avatar
let/them/eat/cake
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:20 pm

Re: Proskauer Rose minimum class rank to interview by school

Postby let/them/eat/cake » Thu Jun 10, 2010 7:32 pm

Scallywaggums wrote:Miamiman, when you first joined the dogpile, you said I made an incoherent post when it was in fact perfectly coherent.

We've already discussed why the initial post I made didn't have enough info (although I still believe it was worth something, as NU and Columbia both seem to have a strong push toward BigLaw). Desert Fox and yourself made the two best points regarding why that wasn't enough to go on.

I apologized for the "No." It was stupid and bitchy, but I stand by the rest of what I've posted.

I simply followed by referencing the 2008 graph with all the purty colors for various jobs (i.e. "NLJ 250", "other firms", "clerkships", "Government", "Public Interest", "business", "grad school", "academia", "unemployed", "unreported", and "1L attrition".

My claim is simple: if NU50% is roughly equivalent to CCN top 2/3, than there should be at least a 17% difference between them in "undesirable positions". I suggested "unemployment" (a no-brainer) and "other firms" (as most of those landing a position with a firm probably would have preferred to land a NLJ 250 slot). This is certainly not always the case, and the method is certainly less than surefire for plenty of other reasons, but I don't see how it's "erroneous". Point out how it is if it is, I have no ego problem with admitting when I'm wrong.

I simply don't see that much of a difference, but I explained why things might be different ITE.


But, whether or not you're right about my making "exclamatory, erroneous" remarks being the reason for the dogpile, it doesn't explain the "^ give it up dude. These school vs. school comparative battles on TLS are all pretty much pointless. Just let it go."


"You're not wrong, Walter, you're just an asshole."

User avatar
Scallywaggums
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:52 pm

Re: Proskauer Rose minimum class rank to interview by school

Postby Scallywaggums » Thu Jun 10, 2010 7:36 pm

romothesavior wrote:
+1. Scally, like I told you the other day... you need to show respect and know your shit when you're posting. You really shouldn't be telling current students (and regular TLS posters) that you know more than they do, and if you are going to call them out, make sure you know what you're saying first. TLS is a great place for info, and it can be a lot of fun to post, but sit back and soak things in (and read ATL and WSJ law a bit too) before you make too bold of statements.

You wouldn't walk into a law school and tell a bunch of 2Ls that you know the job market better than they do. So why would you do it online?


Agh, this all came about because of the "No." Ironically I realized how off it was and was about to edit it out but I was pounced on instantly. So it goes.

I wasn't intending to come off as saying "I know the truth and you are wrong" to Mallard, I was intending to say "I'm not so sure about that assumption". I failed hard with an epically terrible choice of words. I just wanted to post the graph and didn't give any thought to what preceded it.

You can't soak up particular nuggets of information unless you understand them. I believed the assumption was questionable due to the info I posted, and people are welcome to correct me, which they did. I am not a know-it-all type, but I AM the type to disagree when I have reason to do so. When that reason is lacking, point out why, which happened.

My "fuming" only came about recently, when TTT-LS made his comment, which I'm still waiting to discuss rationally.

TTT-LS please, please address my response to your "just drop it" comment.

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 1239
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:50 am

Re: Proskauer Rose minimum class rank to interview by school

Postby clintonius » Thu Jun 10, 2010 7:37 pm

let/them/eat/cake wrote:"You're not wrong, Walter, you're just an asshole."

The Dude
Image
is credited.

User avatar
Scallywaggums
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:52 pm

Re: Proskauer Rose minimum class rank to interview by school

Postby Scallywaggums » Thu Jun 10, 2010 7:38 pm

let/them/eat/cake wrote:"You're not wrong, Walter, you're just an asshole."


Why?

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Proskauer Rose minimum class rank to interview by school

Postby romothesavior » Thu Jun 10, 2010 7:41 pm

clintonius wrote:
let/them/eat/cake wrote:"You're not wrong, Walter, you're just an asshole."

The Dude
Image
is credited.


Classic. I may go watch that movie tonight.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.