bottom quarter at davis/hastings...what kind of jobs? advice Forum

[Anonymous User]

"Individuals growing up during recessions tend to believe that success in life depends more on luck than on effort, support more government redistribution, but are less confident in public institutions," conclude Paola Giuliano of UCLA's Anderson School of Management and Antonio Spilimbergo of the International Monetary Fund in a 2009 study. Downturns, the study suggests, breed self-doubting liberals."

guilty as charged...I was a republican in high school

ya me too.... I am growing more and more liberal by the day........

sorry.. clicked wrong button. Should not be anonymous.

[rose711]

I think you need to figure out a specific area you want to go for and then start doing all you can to get experience and contacts in that area. I don't think you are anywhere close to even start looking for a job right now - but you will be starting on the right track if you can get focused. At this point, making contacts and getting experience is as important (probably more important) as getting your grades up higher. Higher grades will help you though if you can show you improved; but actually having some kind of direct experience will help even more.

FWIW I wouldn't work with a solo attorney unless you are getting substantial experience. I dunno - just working with one person depends so much on that one person. There must be somewhere you can get experience in a practice area that interests you - but you have to figure that out.

Or, do you really want to be a lawyer? Because graduating with no debt is great but if you don't want to practice law then law school is a waste of your time and your savings.

[keg411]

Downturns, the study suggests, breed self-doubting liberals."

I was already this pre-downturn .

[theghostofDrewTate]

but anyone who can get into a good LS would be just fine in corporate America

Lol, most law firm partners wouldn't even be fine in corporate America.

A decent chunk of in house counsel positions are filled from firms. Partners in major firms that require rainmaking as a precondition of making partner would be just fine in corporate America since they are good salesmen, hardworking and pretty smart - but the socially awkward service partners who are scared of their own shadows would be eaten alive in corporate America. The 10+ years spent in a law firm makes plenty of partners very paranoid about every possible thing that could go wrong and that would harm their ability to thrive in the corporate world, however, a kid who doesn't go through the processes of developing that paranoia would be just fine.

[theghostofDrewTate]

"Individuals growing up during recessions tend to believe that success in life depends more on luck than on effort, support more government redistribution, but are less confident in public institutions," conclude Paola Giuliano of UCLA's Anderson School of Management and Antonio Spilimbergo of the International Monetary Fund in a 2009 study. Downturns, the study suggests, breed self-doubting liberals."

guilty as charged...I was a republican in high school

ya me too.... I am growing more and more liberal by the day........

sorry.. clicked wrong button. Should not be anonymous.

Come on - you guys will make your come up - the boomers are going to be stepping aside and you'll be in a great position. When the boomers are advocating for massive redistribution of your income, you'll grow out of your self-doubting liberal ways.

[General Tso]

Come on - you guys will make your come up - the boomers are going to be stepping aside and you'll be in a great position. When the boomers are advocating for massive redistribution of your income, you'll grow out of your self-doubting liberal ways.

They aren't going to disappear all at once. It'll be a slow trickle of job openings, and many worry (like that article someone posted earlier), that our generation will simply be passed over altogether. Most of us will not acquire meaningful work experience and thus will not be in a position to step in once the boomers retire.

I am even more afraid of your second point. The average boomer does not have enough retirement savings (~$38,000 according to some sources), and they've been so resistant to healthcare reform that I think we can only assume the cost of Medicare will only continue to rise. SS is a ticking time bomb. And old people vote at a higher rate than any other group. These bastards have had their cake (30 years of tax cuts) and when they retire, they'll eat it too. At our expense.

[Veyron]

When the boomers are advocating for massive redistribution of your income, you'll grow out of your self-doubting liberal ways.

+1.

[General Tso]

When the boomers are advocating for massive redistribution of your income, you'll grow out of your self-doubting liberal ways.

+1.

The problem with that is that old people basically get whatever they want. They vote at higher rates than anyone else and they play on people's morality..."are you really going to pull the plug on Granny?"

I've seen a society that does not take care of its old people, and it is an ugly sight indeed.

[Drake014]

When the boomers are advocating for massive redistribution of your income, you'll grow out of your self-doubting liberal ways.

+1.

Nonsense, I will always advocate the redistribution of inherited wealth because I didn't inherit anything.

[theghostofDrewTate]

When the boomers are advocating for massive redistribution of your income, you'll grow out of your self-doubting liberal ways.

+1.

Nonsense, I will always advocate the redistribution of inherited wealth because I didn't inherit anything.

I posted about income. Income is not wealth, income is what SS taxes, not wealth. Wealth on its own is very hard to tax (other than through inheritance) because the great capitalists who accumulate billions of dollars of wealth rarely have material recognition events during their lives. And a lot of them are moving toward charitable contributions with their fortunes - those aren't taxed. I fear the biggest impediment most of us will have to ever getting rich (assuming we are all labor producing cogs) is the income tax rates we will all face will be so high that wealth accumulation will be very difficult. As a nation we simply can't afford to pay the SS and Medicare liabilities and fund this giant military.

You guys in your early 20's are not going to get skipped over. The younger generation is breeding these emos and stuff like that - you're really worried about competing against them?

[Veyron]

When the boomers are advocating for massive redistribution of your income, you'll grow out of your self-doubting liberal ways.

+1.

The problem with that is that old people basically get whatever they want. They vote at higher rates than anyone else and they play on people's morality..."are you really going to pull the plug on Granny?"

I've seen a society that does not take care of its old people, and it is an ugly sight indeed.

If old people were good to their children and raised them to be loving productive members of society they will get taken care of (even if they were irresponsible and did not save enough for old age), if they weren't or didn't, why do they deserve my money?

Maybe I'm from an old school family, but when my grandparents were alive they had plenty of money and were healthy enough to live on their own, yet several of my uncles made sure to buy houses just a little bit too big, just in case.

[Anonymous User]

Pissing contests aside, the problem with Mr. Super-Wise-Old-Guy here is that he's in love with a dead--long dead--system of loyalty advancement. When he was a child, 23 yos sacrificed themselves for then-Old-Guys like him. This is the mentor ideal. It pumps up old Old Guys in the crotch because it makes them feel powerful. Who doesn't want a desperate bitchboy to bring you coffee and praise you, work weekends and sacrifice their youth for you? But we just got scathed by mass layoffs, rescissions, and deferrals. Loyalty isn't rewarded. Networking is overrated. This isn't a matter of entitlement, it's just recognition that people will take your time and cost and will still f you over.

I think the opposite. I believe solely in a meritocracy. People with experience tend to think we should reward experience. People without experience think we should reward talent. Most the posters here are in the latter group. So am I, frankly. The difference is, as you gain experience, you realize that the fat fucks at the top of the food chain actually have a lot of talent also. Not all of them, but it is easy to pick out the posers. They are the ones asking you to get their coffee.

Actually, does that really happen or did you see it in some movie? I have never asked anyone to get me coffee regardless of how many rungs they are down, unless they were giong that way, and I reciprocate. Having said that, new hires ought to work 60 hour weeks. It's how you learn to do your job.

What's more, the educational system is so degraded, I interview fresh grads that can't find their own ass with two hands and radar. I know that may be stretching, but I am shocked at how retarded some of your peers are. No offense to Sarah Palin. Granted, most of the posters here are a bit more prepared than that.

[Plan2008]

When the boomers are advocating for massive redistribution of your income, you'll grow out of your self-doubting liberal ways.

+1.

Nonsense, I will always advocate the redistribution of inherited wealth because I didn't inherit anything.

Maybe we should confiscate your iPod and any other cool stuff you have. You can feed clothe and educate an orphan in africa for $25-30 bucks a month. That iPod should cover about 6 months. Your rich mf'er .

[General Tso]

If old people were good to their children and raised them to be loving productive members of society they will get taken care of (even if they were irresponsible and did not save enough for old age), if they weren't or didn't, why do they deserve my money?

Maybe I'm from an old school family, but when my grandparents were alive they had plenty of money and were healthy enough to live on their own, yet several of my uncles made sure to buy houses just a little bit too big, just in case.

I'm not saying they do deserve anybody else's money. I'm saying the political reality is that if they want it, they'll take it.

[Veyron]

Pissing contests aside, the problem with Mr. Super-Wise-Old-Guy here is that he's in love with a dead--long dead--system of loyalty advancement. When he was a child, 23 yos sacrificed themselves for then-Old-Guys like him. This is the mentor ideal. It pumps up old Old Guys in the crotch because it makes them feel powerful. Who doesn't want a desperate bitchboy to bring you coffee and praise you, work weekends and sacrifice their youth for you? But we just got scathed by mass layoffs, rescissions, and deferrals. Loyalty isn't rewarded. Networking is overrated. This isn't a matter of entitlement, it's just recognition that people will take your time and cost and will still f you over.

I think the opposite. I believe solely in a meritocracy. People with experience tend to think we should reward experience. People without experience think we should reward talent. Most the posters here are in the latter group. So am I, frankly. The difference is, as you gain experience, you realize that the fat fucks at the top of the food chain actually have a lot of talent also. Not all of them, but it is easy to pick out the posers. They are the ones asking you to get their coffee.

Actually, does that really happen or did you see it in some movie? I have never asked anyone to get me coffee regardless of how many rungs they are down, unless they were giong that way, and I reciprocate. Having said that, new hires ought to work 60 hour weeks. It's how you learn to do your job.

What's more, the educational system is so degraded, I interview fresh grads that can't find their own ass with two hands and radar. I know that may be stretching, but I am shocked at how retarded some of your peers are. No offense to Sarah Palin. Granted, most of the posters here are a bit more prepared than that.

And yet people complain that employers place such a huge premium on the T-14. . .

However, I know a woman of your generation who graduated from HLS and yet cannot write a grammatically correct sentence - people of our generation are orders of magnitude more intelligent than their boomer counterpart because the competition was much more intense at each level. The hoops that a (white) boomer had to jump through to get to a top law school were far punier than the ones that we do, hell, Harvard's LSAT median was like 166 even back in the 90's

[Veyron]

If old people were good to their children and raised them to be loving productive members of society they will get taken care of (even if they were irresponsible and did not save enough for old age), if they weren't or didn't, why do they deserve my money?

Maybe I'm from an old school family, but when my grandparents were alive they had plenty of money and were healthy enough to live on their own, yet several of my uncles made sure to buy houses just a little bit too big, just in case.

I'm not saying they do deserve anybody else's money. I'm saying the political reality is that if they want it, they'll take it.

This is true.

[Veyron]

What's more, the educational system is so degraded, I interview fresh grads that can't find their own ass with two hands and radar.[/b] I know that may be stretching, but I am shocked at how retarded some of your peers are. No offense to Sarah Palin. Granted, most of the posters here are a bit more prepared than that.

And yet people complain that employers place such a huge premium on the T-14. . .

However, I know a woman of your generation who graduated from HLS and yet cannot write a grammatically correct sentence - people of our generation are orders of magnitude more intelligent than their boomer counterpart because the competition was much more intense at each level. The hoops that a (white) boomer had to jump through to get to a top law school were far punier than the ones that we do, hell, Harvard's LSAT median was like 166 even back in the 90's

Having said that, new hires ought to work 60 hour weeks. It's how you learn to do your job.

Maybe a boomer thinks that working 60 hours a week is "so tough." Our generation competes to work at firms that require 90. Gosh you guys are soft, greatest generation spoiled your ass.

[Anonymous User]

What's more, the educational system is so degraded, I interview fresh grads that can't find their own ass with two hands and radar. I know that may be stretching, but I am shocked at how retarded some of your peers are. No offense to Sarah Palin. Granted, most of the posters here are a bit more prepared than that.

And yet people complain that employers place such a huge premium on the T-14. . .

However, I know a woman of your generation who graduated from HLS and yet cannot write a grammatically correct sentence - people of our generation are orders of magnitude more intelligent than their boomer counterpart because the competition was much more intense at each level. The hoops that a (white) boomer had to jump through to get to a top law school were far punier than the ones that we do, hell, Harvard's LSAT median was like 166 even back in the 90's

Having said that, new hires ought to work 60 hour weeks. It's how you learn to do your job.

Maybe a boomer thinks that working 60 hours a week is "so tough." Our generation competes to work at firms that require 90. Gosh you guys are soft, greatest generation spoiled your ass.

Biglaw associates work harder than most. But get your billable hours up to where they should be and you wont need to work 90's. Biglaw will be satified with a new assoc. billing 40-50 hours a week. A ninety is 14 hour days, 7 days a week. And even the morons aren't working that much.

[Veyron]

[/quote]

Biglaw associates work harder than most. But get your billable hours up to where they should be and you wont need to work 90's. Biglaw will be satified with a new assoc. billing 40-50 hours a week. A ninety is 14 hour days, 7 days a week. And even the morons aren't working that much.[/quote]

Remember that thing you said about "learning" to do you job, yah, your conversion rate doesn't go up till you've done that. Also, firms are maxing out their associates instead of hiring. Lots of kids even at "lower" V100s are going 2500-3000 these days, maybe they are all morons, or maybe its 2011 and the game done changed.

[Plan2008]

And yet people complain that employers place such a huge premium on the T-14. . .

However, I know a woman of your generation who graduated from HLS and yet cannot write a grammatically correct sentence - people of our generation are orders of magnitude more intelligent than their boomer counterpart because the competition was much more intense at each level. The hoops that a (white) boomer had to jump through to get to a top law school were far punier than the ones that we do, hell, Harvard's LSAT median was like 166 even back in the 90's

The fact that you dont get that a 166 is a STANDARDIZED SCORE TO A STANDARIZED TEST proves just how ignorant and stupid you are. If Harvard is accepting only the top 1% versus the top 5% in days past say NOTHING about the pool itself. You prove my point, and to be honest, you are one of the brighter one's on here.

Also, one anecdote about some blue-blooded lady who snuck through also does not an argument make.

[Anonymous User]

Biglaw associates work harder than most. But get your billable hours up to where they should be and you wont need to work 90's. Biglaw will be satified with a new assoc. billing 40-50 hours a week. A ninety is 14 hour days, 7 days a week. And even the morons aren't working that much.

Remember that thing you said about "learning" to do you job, yah, your conversion rate doesn't go up till you've done that. Also, firms are maxing out their associates instead of hiring. Lots of kids even at "lower" V100s are going 2500-3000 these days, maybe they are all morons, or maybe its 2011 and the game done changed.

Anybody who bills 3000 is a superstar, a rarety, and a huge money maker. That person is billing 60/week, and working 70. Not 90 champ.

[Veyron]

Biglaw associates work harder than most. But get your billable hours up to where they should be and you wont need to work 90's. Biglaw will be satified with a new assoc. billing 40-50 hours a week. A ninety is 14 hour days, 7 days a week. And even the morons aren't working that much.

Remember that thing you said about "learning" to do you job, yah, your conversion rate doesn't go up till you've done that. Also, firms are maxing out their associates instead of hiring. Lots of kids even at "lower" V100s are going 2500-3000 these days, maybe they are all morons, or maybe its 2011 and the game done changed.[/quote]

Anybody who bills 3000 is a superstar, a rarety, and a huge money maker. That person is billing 60/week, and working 70. Not 90 champ.[/quote]

Lol, how is the ancient past? My friends who meet this description are only working 70 hours a week only in the dreams that they have during the 40 hours a week that they are sleeping instead of billing. Basically, if your practice group is picking up, firms are squeezing associates to an unprecedented degree (how do you think PPP is higher than ever before, huh?) - if not, you might only be at the office 9-6 but I think you'd still rather be an a practice group that works you to death instead of facing impending layoffs.

Edit: Just realized that you may have experience with non-NYC law, in which case, I can understand why you think I'm being extreme.

[Plan2008]

Lol, how is the ancient past? My friends who meet this description are only working 70 hours a week only in the dreams that they have during the 40 hours a week that they are sleeping instead of billing. Basically, if your practice group is picking up, firms are squeezing associates to an unprecedented degree (how do you think PPP is higher than ever before, huh?) - if not, you might only be at the office 9-6 but I think you'd still rather be an a practice group that works you to death instead of facing impending layoffs.

Maybe your "friends" are working 100 hours a week. I could care less. I acually do think biglaw axxosiates work incredible hours. Dont know how I got stuck on that side of the argument. You think the 90's is the ancient past? Im not a boomer you dufus, my parents were. You should save this quote you made. In about 10 years I am pretty sure you will laugh at yourself.

people of our generation are orders of magnitude more intelligent than their boomer counterpart

[Plan2008]

And yet people complain that employers place such a huge premium on the T-14. . .

However, I know a woman of your generation who graduated from HLS and yet cannot write a grammatically correct sentence - people of our generation are orders of magnitude more intelligent than their boomer counterpart because the competition was much more intense at each level. The hoops that a (white) boomer had to jump through to get to a top law school were far punier than the ones that we do, hell, Harvard's LSAT median was like 166 even back in the 90's

The fact that you dont get that a 166 is a STANDARDIZED SCORE TO A STANDARIZED TEST proves just how ignorant and stupid you are. If Harvard is accepting only the top 1% versus the top 5% in days past say NOTHING about the pool itself. You prove my point, and to be honest, you are one of the brighter one's on here.

Also, one anecdote about some blue-blooded lady who snuck through also does not an argument make.

Chirp chirp.

[Veyron]

Lol, how is the ancient past? My friends who meet this description are only working 70 hours a week only in the dreams that they have during the 40 hours a week that they are sleeping instead of billing. Basically, if your practice group is picking up, firms are squeezing associates to an unprecedented degree (how do you think PPP is higher than ever before, huh?) - if not, you might only be at the office 9-6 but I think you'd still rather be an a practice group that works you to death instead of facing impending layoffs.

Maybe your "friends" are working 100 hours a week. I could care less. I acually do think biglaw axxosiates work incredible hours. Dont know how I got stuck on that side of the argument. You think the 90's is the ancient past? Im not a boomer you dufus, my parents were. You should save this quote you made. In about 10 years I am pretty sure you will laugh at yourself.

people of our generation are orders of magnitude more intelligent than their boomer counterpart

*Attacks my pluralization instead of my statistics*
*Pats self on back*

The 90s is the ancient past economically, its like pre-new deal and post-new deal, the world is a different place.