Grades don't matter?

(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
Julio_El_Chavo
Posts: 803
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:09 pm

Re: Grades don't matter?

Postby Julio_El_Chavo » Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:50 pm

Desert Fox wrote:With good grades from T6, asking if he tried to apply to clerkships or fedgov isn't shitty advice. It's not like he goes to Georgetown.


Zing!

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Grades don't matter?

Postby keg411 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:04 pm

OP, I'm curious if you only tried federal clerkships or if you tried state appellate/trial clerkships as well? That was (and is still in case of a no-offer) my backup plan. That can be a great way to do something for a year + at least increase your chances at regional biglaw/midlaw. A large number of the associates I met on the regional CB circuit had some type of state court clerkship.

(It might be too late for OP, but might help anyone who "struck out" so far as a 2L w/good grades at a T14)

luthersloan
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Grades don't matter?

Postby luthersloan » Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:09 pm

Unfortunately I have not done that yet, It is one of the things I am going to move on as soon as exams are over.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273104
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Grades don't matter?

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:25 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Why didn't you try clerking Broseph?

I gotta think that good grades and CCN will help at BigFed, but now those jobs are mythical.


As one of the anonymous posters from earlier in a similar situation to the OP, this advice has always been pretty irritating. I love when people say things like oh, no problem, just go out and get a federal clerkship. The one sole interview I managed with a district judge in a fairly rural district I was competing among YLS 3Ls / T14 alums with substantive attorney work experience. It's similar to when people just casually remark, oh why don't you just work for the federal government or do DOJ Honors?? While it's of course dumb not to pursue these options, people really underestimate how competitive they are; by no means are they guaranteed. Perhaps what people might find more interesting is that a lot of smaller firms people tell you to suck it up and work for won't hire you out of your T10/T14 school because they'd rather hire from their local T2/T3 school where most of their attorneys come from. They also sometimes seem somewhat skeptical of grads from top schools and it's a bit of a hurdle to convince them you're truly interested. I've done quite a bit of networking with local attorneys in my home market as well as applied to state trial courts there and these places aren't necessarily as eager to jump on a T10 student as everyone might assume. All in all, while we of course have to hustle if we want something, people really can take for granted how things work when you strike out from a top school.



With good grades from T6, asking if he tried to apply to clerkships or fedgov isn't shitty advice. It's not like he goes to Georgetown.

These are two job where he can leverage his school and grades most effectively. Also fedgov != DOJ honors. But like I said fedgov jobs are myth ITE.

Of course he isn't a sure thing for those kind of jobs, but he's got as much chance as anyone.

Also it's stupid to think telling someone to apply to a job is the same as saying that person would easily get it.


Same anonymous poster here and while it's probably clogging up the thread to respond, I feel compelled to do so anyways. In fact, your response doesn't really add much of anything at all whatsoever but to quibble and dick around over minor irrelevant points. I never said it's shitty advice, in fact I said it would be dumb NOT to pursue those sorts of options. The problem I have is the nonchalant tone with which people give such advice which almost seems to suggest it's a foregone conclusion that someone from a T6 with good grades is almost guaranteed to be able to get these jobs when they miss out on biglaw. OP never mentioned clerking until you made your own remark of "why didn't you try clerking," which seemed to inherently assume that OP never bothered to apply but probably would've gotten one if he/she applied. I've heard of T10 caliber people with LR executive board, etc. shutout during this clerkship cycle and OP is a transfer which has it's own difficulties. Therefore, the point of my post is that your "advice" came off a bit naive the way it was written and it's certainly not the first time I've seen that sort of response.

EDIT TO PROVIDE SOME CONSTRUCTIVE THOUGHTS TO OP:

Again, given I'm in a somewhat similar scenario, I understand the frustration of coming up short. That said, it sounds like your motivation for wanting biglaw really isn't coming from the right place. I think it would be a dire mistake to endlessly chase biglaw for nothing more than some sort of superficial satisfaction of your own personal goals. Like others have suggested, you might want to reevaluate your priorities and set your pride aside. I'm not suggesting that you take the first shitty job option thrown your way. However, it seems like with the frame of mind you have right now, you would be more interested in taking biglaw at all costs, even if it meant doing an area of law you had no interest in or would hate. For me, I'm not really upset at the "failure" of missing out on biglaw. I just know that transferring and tripling my tuition is setting me up for a precarious situation financially after law school. However, all that said, I've talked to several attorneys over the summer that missed biglaw SAs and several indicated that it was the best thing that could've happened to their careers. A lot of them ended up in jobs where they were able to garner far more interesting experience out of law school than a junior associate in biglaw gets (which generally, is shitty grunt work). In fact, a number of them are now biglaw partners. Admittedly, times are probably a little different now and the advice may not apply 100% to our situations, but try to get yourself some perspective. The more you look at missing out on biglaw as some personal failure, the more you're just going to bring yourself down into the pits. It's really not worth it and ultimately, you may find that you hate the shit out of biglaw anyways once you sacrifice everything to get there. I know it's a long rant but just some food for thought

Anonymous User
Posts: 273104
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Grades don't matter?

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:40 pm

.

User avatar
TaipeiMort
Posts: 874
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: Grades don't matter?

Postby TaipeiMort » Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:42 pm

Problem is that unlike HYSCC, which looks good at Biglaw as well as in academia, PI, Big GOV, Small Gov, and midlaw pretty much anywhere, NYU really doesn't leverage well outside of New York, and maybe Boston and DC to a smaller extent. If you go to CA, employers will see NYU roughly the same at UVA, Georgetown, and Northwestern. Transfers drinking TLS koolaide don't realize this.

ITE I believe that applying outside your school's market you are basically going to see Big firms hiring: 1) Top 1% dogs from the local T1s, 2) HYSCC kids, 3) Nepotism hires. Only occasionally do you see a non-HYSCC T14 student, and they usually have a combination of great grades, charisma, and local ties.

If I were OP I would work do an LLM in tax, or get the one-year patent bar graduate courses waiver the ABA will approve to sit for the patent bar. Either one of these paths should get you biglaw next cycle.

User avatar
Grizz
Posts: 10583
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:31 pm

Re: Grades don't matter?

Postby Grizz » Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:59 pm

TaipeiMort wrote:ITE I believe that applying outside your school's market you are basically going to see Big firms hiring: 1) Top 1% dogs from the local T1s, 2) HYSCC kids, 3) Nepotism hires. Only occasionally do you see a non-HYSCC T14 student, and they usually have a combination of great grades, charisma, and local ties.

:roll:

But yes, local firms don't generally wet themselves about some T14 median bro.

luthersloan
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Grades don't matter?

Postby luthersloan » Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:59 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Why didn't you try clerking Broseph?

I gotta think that good grades and CCN will help at BigFed, but now those jobs are mythical.


As one of the anonymous posters from earlier in a similar situation to the OP, this advice has always been pretty irritating. I love when people say things like oh, no problem, just go out and get a federal clerkship. The one sole interview I managed with a district judge in a fairly rural district I was competing among YLS 3Ls / T14 alums with substantive attorney work experience. It's similar to when people just casually remark, oh why don't you just work for the federal government or do DOJ Honors?? While it's of course dumb not to pursue these options, people really underestimate how competitive they are; by no means are they guaranteed. Perhaps what people might find more interesting is that a lot of smaller firms people tell you to suck it up and work for won't hire you out of your T10/T14 school because they'd rather hire from their local T2/T3 school where most of their attorneys come from. They also sometimes seem somewhat skeptical of grads from top schools and it's a bit of a hurdle to convince them you're truly interested. I've done quite a bit of networking with local attorneys in my home market as well as applied to state trial courts there and these places aren't necessarily as eager to jump on a T10 student as everyone might assume. All in all, while we of course have to hustle if we want something, people really can take for granted how things work when you strike out from a top school.



With good grades from T6, asking if he tried to apply to clerkships or fedgov isn't shitty advice. It's not like he goes to Georgetown.

These are two job where he can leverage his school and grades most effectively. Also fedgov != DOJ honors. But like I said fedgov jobs are myth ITE.

Of course he isn't a sure thing for those kind of jobs, but he's got as much chance as anyone.

Also it's stupid to think telling someone to apply to a job is the same as saying that person would easily get it.


Same anonymous poster here and while it's probably clogging up the thread to respond, I feel compelled to do so anyways. In fact, your response doesn't really add much of anything at all whatsoever but to quibble and dick around over minor irrelevant points. I never said it's shitty advice, in fact I said it would be dumb NOT to pursue those sorts of options. The problem I have is the nonchalant tone with which people give such advice which almost seems to suggest it's a foregone conclusion that someone from a T6 with good grades is almost guaranteed to be able to get these jobs when they miss out on biglaw. OP never mentioned clerking until you made your own remark of "why didn't you try clerking," which seemed to inherently assume that OP never bothered to apply but probably would've gotten one if he/she applied. I've heard of T10 caliber people with LR executive board, etc. shutout during this clerkship cycle and OP is a transfer which has it's own difficulties. Therefore, the point of my post is that your "advice" came off a bit naive the way it was written and it's certainly not the first time I've seen that sort of response.

EDIT TO PROVIDE SOME CONSTRUCTIVE THOUGHTS TO OP:

Again, given I'm in a somewhat similar scenario, I understand the frustration of coming up short. That said, it sounds like your motivation for wanting biglaw really isn't coming from the right place. I think it would be a dire mistake to endlessly chase biglaw for nothing more than some sort of superficial satisfaction of your own personal goals. Like others have suggested, you might want to reevaluate your priorities and set your pride aside. I'm not suggesting that you take the first shitty job option thrown your way. However, it seems like with the frame of mind you have right now, you would be more interested in taking biglaw at all costs, even if it meant doing an area of law you had no interest in or would hate. For me, I'm not really upset at the "failure" of missing out on biglaw. I just know that transferring and tripling my tuition is setting me up for a precarious situation financially after law school. However, all that said, I've talked to several attorneys over the summer that missed biglaw SAs and several indicated that it was the best thing that could've happened to their careers. A lot of them ended up in jobs where they were able to garner far more interesting experience out of law school than a junior associate in biglaw gets (which generally, is shitty grunt work). In fact, a number of them are now biglaw partners. Admittedly, times are probably a little different now and the advice may not apply 100% to our situations, but try to get yourself some perspective. The more you look at missing out on biglaw as some personal failure, the more you're just going to bring yourself down into the pits. It's really not worth it and ultimately, you may find that you hate the shit out of biglaw anyways once you sacrifice everything to get there. I know it's a long rant but just some food for thought


Yeah, I mean I see your point and all, but I don't see it as superficial at all. Mean it causes me extreme displeasure, and the reality is like I can try to rationalize it away, but it was my fault. Like I had a shot, and I fucked it up. Like maybe it would be better if I could just get over it, but I can't. I mean, a man's got to know his limitations right? Like it is great that you don't see not getting big law as a personal failure, but I do. I do not think either of us is right, we are both right about ourselves. Like I wanted it so fucking bad and not getting it crushed me, I am sure other people felt differently and that is fine. But I know myself pretty well, I know what I can and can't deal with.

User avatar
ConfidenceMan2
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 8:04 am

Re: Grades don't matter?

Postby ConfidenceMan2 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:02 pm

TaipeiMort wrote:Problem is that unlike HYSCC, which looks good at Biglaw as well as in academia, PI, Big GOV, Small Gov, and midlaw pretty much anywhere, NYU really doesn't leverage well outside of New York, and maybe Boston and DC to a smaller extent. If you go to CA, employers will see NYU roughly the same at UVA, Georgetown, and Northwestern. Transfers drinking TLS koolaide don't realize this.

ITE I believe that applying outside your school's market you are basically going to see Big firms hiring: 1) Top 1% dogs from the local T1s, 2) HYSCC kids, 3) Nepotism hires. Only occasionally do you see a non-HYSCC T14 student, and they usually have a combination of great grades, charisma, and local ties.

If I were OP I would work do an LLM in tax, or get the one-year patent bar graduate courses waiver the ABA will approve to sit for the patent bar. Either one of these paths should get you biglaw next cycle.


Peer-reviewed journal citation or it didn't happen

...No, but seriously, I think you're exaggerating just a whee bit. What data are you possibly basing this off of? More pointedly, what markets are you referring to? I have a suspicion that you're referring to Chicago. I mean, almost any T14's market conceivably includes NYC, so that market excludes your definition. But what else besides Chicago (/DC) could you be referring to? No way that, for instance, in Texas only the top 1% of UT grads are getting jobs at big firms, or in Boston only the top 1% of BU/BC grads, or in STL/KC only the top 1% of WUSTL, etc.... Not to even bring the rest of the T14 into the discussion.

Maybe you intended to include only Chicago, DC, in which case I still think you're exaggerating quite a bit but maybe you're making a point.

User avatar
TaipeiMort
Posts: 874
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: Grades don't matter?

Postby TaipeiMort » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:28 pm

ConfidenceMan2 wrote:
TaipeiMort wrote:Problem is that unlike HYSCC, which looks good at Biglaw as well as in academia, PI, Big GOV, Small Gov, and midlaw pretty much anywhere, NYU really doesn't leverage well outside of New York, and maybe Boston and DC to a smaller extent. If you go to CA, employers will see NYU roughly the same at UVA, Georgetown, and Northwestern. Transfers drinking TLS koolaide don't realize this.

ITE I believe that applying outside your school's market you are basically going to see Big firms hiring: 1) Top 1% dogs from the local T1s, 2) HYSCC kids, 3) Nepotism hires. Only occasionally do you see a non-HYSCC T14 student, and they usually have a combination of great grades, charisma, and local ties.

If I were OP I would work do an LLM in tax, or get the one-year patent bar graduate courses waiver the ABA will approve to sit for the patent bar. Either one of these paths should get you biglaw next cycle.


Peer-reviewed journal citation or it didn't happen

...No, but seriously, I think you're exaggerating just a whee bit. What data are you possibly basing this off of? More pointedly, what markets are you referring to? I have a suspicion that you're referring to Chicago. I mean, almost any T14's market conceivably includes NYC, so that market excludes your definition. But what else besides Chicago (/DC) could you be referring to? No way that, for instance, in Texas only the top 1% of UT grads are getting jobs at big firms, or in Boston only the top 1% of BU/BC grads, or in STL/KC only the top 1% of WUSTL, etc.... Not to even bring the rest of the T14 into the discussion.

Maybe you intended to include only Chicago, DC, in which case I still think you're exaggerating quite a bit but maybe you're making a point.


I'm stating that NYU isn't more relevant than the rest of the T14 outside of New York (and to a lesser degree Boston and DC-- I've heard this anecdotally but don't know if it is true).

There are only 5 real national schools (schools that provide a uniformly significant advantage anywhere): HYSCC. Stanford could be debated as not being a national as well based upon their placement hugely on the West Coast, but I don't think anyone would argue that this is because of self-selection more than not having a national reach.

NYU is included in the "T6" because they are the local T14 in the largest market. If the center of the legal world switched from New York to Chicago we'd be saying "HYSCCN(orthestern), holding all else constant.

User avatar
johansantana21
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:11 pm

Re: Grades don't matter?

Postby johansantana21 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:49 pm

TaipeiMort wrote:
ConfidenceMan2 wrote:
TaipeiMort wrote:Problem is that unlike HYSCC, which looks good at Biglaw as well as in academia, PI, Big GOV, Small Gov, and midlaw pretty much anywhere, NYU really doesn't leverage well outside of New York, and maybe Boston and DC to a smaller extent. If you go to CA, employers will see NYU roughly the same at UVA, Georgetown, and Northwestern. Transfers drinking TLS koolaide don't realize this.

ITE I believe that applying outside your school's market you are basically going to see Big firms hiring: 1) Top 1% dogs from the local T1s, 2) HYSCC kids, 3) Nepotism hires. Only occasionally do you see a non-HYSCC T14 student, and they usually have a combination of great grades, charisma, and local ties.

If I were OP I would work do an LLM in tax, or get the one-year patent bar graduate courses waiver the ABA will approve to sit for the patent bar. Either one of these paths should get you biglaw next cycle.


Peer-reviewed journal citation or it didn't happen

...No, but seriously, I think you're exaggerating just a whee bit. What data are you possibly basing this off of? More pointedly, what markets are you referring to? I have a suspicion that you're referring to Chicago. I mean, almost any T14's market conceivably includes NYC, so that market excludes your definition. But what else besides Chicago (/DC) could you be referring to? No way that, for instance, in Texas only the top 1% of UT grads are getting jobs at big firms, or in Boston only the top 1% of BU/BC grads, or in STL/KC only the top 1% of WUSTL, etc.... Not to even bring the rest of the T14 into the discussion.

Maybe you intended to include only Chicago, DC, in which case I still think you're exaggerating quite a bit but maybe you're making a point.


I'm stating that NYU isn't more relevant than the rest of the T14 outside of New York (and to a lesser degree Boston and DC-- I've heard this anecdotally but don't know if it is true).

There are only 5 real national schools (schools that provide a uniformly significant advantage anywhere): HYSCC. Stanford could be debated as not being a national as well based upon their placement hugely on the West Coast, but I don't think anyone would argue that this is because of self-selection more than not having a national reach.

NYU is included in the "T6" because they are the local T14 in the largest market. If the center of the legal world switched from New York to Chicago we'd be saying "HYSCCN(orthestern), holding all else constant.


It's a stretch to say CC are "national". They may have a bigger reach but only truly national schools are probably HYS.

Flanker1067
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:47 pm

Re: Grades don't matter?

Postby Flanker1067 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:56 pm

This video explains a lot about TLS, the practice of law, and this thread:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/dan_gi ... happy.html

For those that don't watch (although it's a good TED talk), the point is that people don't know shit about what will make them happy. We are always wrong about what we expect will make us happy (big law) and, over a relatively short time, we always believe we are happier because X happened to us, regardless of what it is. It also addresses why it sucks so much to be in flux, i.e. figuring out where we are going to work. Obviously, I think this excludes being very poor.

Edited a million times for clarity.

luthersloan
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Grades don't matter?

Postby luthersloan » Mon Dec 05, 2011 8:21 pm

In the main the message of happiness research is that very little matters, so it really does not provide guidance to decision making. Also, the silliest conceit of modern life has got to be the myopic focus on happiness. Like I would have been happier, almost certainly (though only incrementally cause that is all you can do) if I had not transferred because I had a much tighter group of friends and the environment was in some ways better. But I would not take back the decision to come to NYU for nearly anything, because going to a top law school is something I wanted to do like my whole life and the experience has been very enriching.

User avatar
ConfidenceMan2
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 8:04 am

Re: Grades don't matter?

Postby ConfidenceMan2 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:40 pm

TaipeiMort wrote:
ConfidenceMan2 wrote:
TaipeiMort wrote:Problem is that unlike HYSCC, which looks good at Biglaw as well as in academia, PI, Big GOV, Small Gov, and midlaw pretty much anywhere, NYU really doesn't leverage well outside of New York, and maybe Boston and DC to a smaller extent. If you go to CA, employers will see NYU roughly the same at UVA, Georgetown, and Northwestern. Transfers drinking TLS koolaide don't realize this.

ITE I believe that applying outside your school's market you are basically going to see Big firms hiring: 1) Top 1% dogs from the local T1s, 2) HYSCC kids, 3) Nepotism hires. Only occasionally do you see a non-HYSCC T14 student, and they usually have a combination of great grades, charisma, and local ties.

If I were OP I would work do an LLM in tax, or get the one-year patent bar graduate courses waiver the ABA will approve to sit for the patent bar. Either one of these paths should get you biglaw next cycle.


Peer-reviewed journal citation or it didn't happen

...No, but seriously, I think you're exaggerating just a whee bit. What data are you possibly basing this off of? More pointedly, what markets are you referring to? I have a suspicion that you're referring to Chicago. I mean, almost any T14's market conceivably includes NYC, so that market excludes your definition. But what else besides Chicago (/DC) could you be referring to? No way that, for instance, in Texas only the top 1% of UT grads are getting jobs at big firms, or in Boston only the top 1% of BU/BC grads, or in STL/KC only the top 1% of WUSTL, etc.... Not to even bring the rest of the T14 into the discussion.

Maybe you intended to include only Chicago, DC, in which case I still think you're exaggerating quite a bit but maybe you're making a point.


I'm stating that NYU isn't more relevant than the rest of the T14 outside of New York (and to a lesser degree Boston and DC-- I've heard this anecdotally but don't know if it is true).

There are only 5 real national schools (schools that provide a uniformly significant advantage anywhere): HYSCC. Stanford could be debated as not being a national as well based upon their placement hugely on the West Coast, but I don't think anyone would argue that this is because of self-selection more than not having a national reach.

NYU is included in the "T6" because they are the local T14 in the largest market. If the center of the legal world switched from New York to Chicago we'd be saying "HYSCCN(orthestern), holding all else constant.


When you say "uniformly significant advantage anywhere," you mean what, exactly?

I'm taking you to mean something like this: If I decide I want BigLaw in Seattle (where I have no ties but love the market - the literal market, such good seafood), I should either plan on graduating in the top 1% (or whatever) at UW - or go to HYSCC.

This seems arbitrary to me (a fact which is interesting to me, at least, but probably not you) - but I'd believe you if there were some sort of data to substantiate this point. But what kind of data could that even be? And if your opinion is not based on said data, then what is it based on?

In addition, I think you're going to run into substantial problems here with the very concept of "region". It's probably true that C & C have some sort of prestige bonus relative to N...CG, but do you really think it is uniform? You think Birmingham, AL BigLaw is going to be tough shit for, say, UVA and Duke grads, but significantly easier for UChi grads? That strikes me as very implausible - but I'd believe it if there were data.

My mention of Seattle was about the most charitable instance I could think of of an isolated yet desirable (to me!!) market without clear regional ties to any particular T14 (though I don't know if this even holds there) - but outside of Pacific NW, where are these markets that aren't implicitly more tied to some top schools than others? I just don't think UChi means in Dallas what it means in Chicago/NY - or hell, what UT means in Dallas. (Same with CLS). I'm conjecturing, however, so again - I'd believe it if there were data.

Sorry if I sound antagonistic, but I'm just trying to interpret what you're saying consistently. I tried my best to capture what I think you mean (re:Seattle), but I still think there are holes here.

EDITED to add!: Sorry for stealing your thread. I wish you nothing but the best.
Last edited by ConfidenceMan2 on Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
johansantana21
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:11 pm

Re: Grades don't matter?

Postby johansantana21 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:42 pm

This shit is dumb. Somebody says CC is better than N. You say N is relatively the same compared to CC. But is N significantly better or substantially different compared to P? You can keep going on and on. Rankings are arbitrary for the most part. People may say T3, T5, T6, T10, T13, T14, but other than HYS and maybe G, it will be hard to argue.

Flanker1067
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:47 pm

Re: Grades don't matter?

Postby Flanker1067 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:48 pm

luthersloan wrote:In the main the message of happiness research is that very little matters, so it really does not provide guidance to decision making. Also, the silliest conceit of modern life has got to be the myopic focus on happiness. Like I would have been happier, almost certainly (though only incrementally cause that is all you can do) if I had not transferred because I had a much tighter group of friends and the environment was in some ways better. But I would not take back the decision to come to NYU for nearly anything, because going to a top law school is something I wanted to do like my whole life and the experience has been very enriching.


You make no sense. First, you are assigning an arbitrary, narrow and wrong definition to the word happiness. For some reason, the pleasure you derive from going to a top school (achieving a goal?) and the "enriching experience" do not factor into the definition, which is literally "feeling or showing pleasure." I guess I had a second point, but then I realized that it all stems from this one idiotic mistake in your post.

Wait I figured it out. A second point I mean. You missed the main message. It's not that "very little" matters, it's just that the things that you think matter, don't. I am sure there is plenty that matters, like whatever is the true cause of the high suicide rates of lawyers, since presumably you cannot be happy if you are dead.

Second add: Also, I agree with the point that it "doesn't guide decision making." This is true, and I didn't post that video to tell you what to do, but rather explain in part why you think it's so important (because essentially, the "grass is greener" is true), and that you should not worry nearly as much as you are because it only feels important right now, kind of like teenager with the belly ring analogy made earlier (thank you to whoever made that).

Anonymous User
Posts: 273104
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Grades don't matter?

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:11 pm

You make no sense. First, you are assigning an arbitrary, narrow and wrong definition to the word happiness. For some reason, the pleasure you derive from going to a top school (achieving a goal?) and the "enriching experience" do not factor into the definition, which is literally "feeling or showing pleasure." I guess I had a second point, but then I realized that it all stems from this one idiotic mistake in your post.

Wait I figured it out. A second point I mean. You missed the main message. It's not that "very little" matters, its just that the things that you think matter, don't. I am sure there is plenty that matters, like whatever is the true cause of the high suicide rates of lawyers, since presumably you cannot be happy if you are dead.[/quote]

First of all, there is no reason to be nasty. Really, like don't you have anything better to do then be a dick on the internet? Second, I was sort of imprecise in my expression. What I should have said is almost nothing changes the level of happiness in happiness studies. Like cripplingly injuries only make you less happy for a short time, having kids makes you less happy on balance, winning the lottery does not make you happy, getting denied tenure does not make you less happy, etc. My point is A, very few things beyond like getting enough sleep, not being poor, and not being depressed make you all that much happier so happiness research is not that useful when it comes to deciding how to live ones life B) also people clearly care about things beyond that which shows up in happiness research. Also, it is not clear lawyers do have a higher rate of suicide then the general population, See -Ronald Maris, PhD, director of the Center for the Study of Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior at the University of South Carolina, "Occupation is not a major predictor of suicide and it does not explain much about why the person commits suicide."

User avatar
johansantana21
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:11 pm

Re: Grades don't matter?

Postby johansantana21 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:12 pm

I don't ever hope to achieve happiness, or anything close to it.

What I want to achieve is some form of economic stability and leisure.

c3pO4
Posts: 835
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Grades don't matter?

Postby c3pO4 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:16 pm

johansantana21 wrote:I don't ever hope to achieve happiness, or anything close to it.

What I want to achieve is some form of economic stability and leisure.


You guys won't get anywhere arguing.

Yes, most people make decisions about LLM programs, whether to search for a job that pays a 200k debt burden or hold out for a 160k job that has passed them by rationally. Here, OP is arguing that there is no objectively determined route in his position, and instead is irrationally holding onto a (flawed) image of self worth as reaching for his 3-4 years in the biglaw limelight. Essentially OP is arguing irrationality good because it furthers self-actualization. So OP will concede that his path risks economic instability and possibility of leisure and argue that a) he can survive on 26k income or close to it indefinitely and b) his self-determination to be a prestigious biglaw lawyer outweighs other considerations.

There can be no victory in this argument.

ETA: OP also is an activist against using the quote feature rationally.
Last edited by c3pO4 on Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Flanker1067
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:47 pm

Re: Grades don't matter?

Postby Flanker1067 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:20 pm

flanker1067 wrote:You make no sense. First, you are assigning an arbitrary, narrow and wrong definition to the word happiness. For some reason, the pleasure you derive from going to a top school (achieving a goal?) and the "enriching experience" do not factor into the definition, which is literally "feeling or showing pleasure." I guess I had a second point, but then I realized that it all stems from this one idiotic mistake in your post.

Wait I figured it out. A second point I mean. You missed the main message. It's not that "very little" matters, its just that the things that you think matter, don't. I am sure there is plenty that matters, like whatever is the true cause of the high suicide rates of lawyers, since presumably you cannot be happy if you are dead.


Anonymous User wrote:First of all, there is no reason to be nasty. Really, like don't you have anything better to do then be a dick on the internet? Second, I was sort of imprecise in my expression. What I should have said is almost nothing changes the level of happiness in happiness studies. Like cripplingly injuries only make you less happy for a short time, having kids makes you less happy on balance, winning the lottery does not make you happy, getting denied tenure does not make you less happy, etc. My point is A, very few things beyond like getting enough sleep, not being poor, and not being depressed make you all that much happier so happiness research is not that useful when it comes to deciding how to live ones life B) also people clearly care about things beyond that which shows up in happiness research. Also, it is not clear lawyers do have a higher rate of suicide then the general population, See -Ronald Maris, PhD, director of the Center for the Study of Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior at the University of South Carolina, "Occupation is not a major predictor of suicide and it does not explain much about why the person commits suicide."


Sorry, my reason for being nasty is just personal, since I am in a worse position than you so the way you are talking makes me hate you. Second, no I don't have anything better to do, because I'm at my computer to study for a final tommorow.

Also, would someone please figure this damn suicide stat out, I see conflicting info all the time.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Grades don't matter?

Postby Renzo » Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:27 pm

ITT: everything I cannot fucking stand about law students.

Flanker1067
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:47 pm

Re: Grades don't matter?

Postby Flanker1067 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:29 pm

Renzo wrote:ITT: everything I cannot fucking stand about law students.

I hate myself for participating in it.

luthersloan
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Grades don't matter?

Postby luthersloan » Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:31 pm

c3pO4 wrote:
johansantana21 wrote:I don't ever hope to achieve happiness, or anything close to it.

What I want to achieve is some form of economic stability and leisure.


You guys won't get anywhere arguing.

Yes, most people make decisions about LLM programs, whether to search for a job that pays a 200k debt burden or hold out for a 160k job that has passed them by rationally. Here, OP is arguing that there is no objectively determined route in his position, and instead is irrationally holding onto a (flawed) image of self worth as reaching for his 3-4 years in the biglaw limelight. Essentially OP is arguing irrationality good because it furthers self-actualization. So OP will concede that his path risks economic instability and possibility of leisure and argue that a) he can survive on 26k income or close to it indefinitely and b) his self-determination to be a prestigious biglaw lawyer outweighs other considerations.

There can be no victory in this argument.

ETA: OP also is an activist against using the quote feature rationally.


How would you define irrational in this context? Like, what is a rational basis v. an irrational one? I am not sure on what basis one can say that a persons preferences for risk, prestige or money in some combination are better or worse than any one else's. Like, I agree if i was under or over weighing the probability of an outcome, that would be irrational, but what I am saying is that there a high subjective value to the outcome of getting another shot at big law, how is that irrational? How is that any more irrational than a person who takes out large amounts of debt because they want to be an ADA or a public defender, which are both much worse bets than an LLM on a strict expected monetary value calculation.

luthersloan
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Grades don't matter?

Postby luthersloan » Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:31 pm

Renzo wrote:ITT: everything I cannot fucking stand about law students.


And it is everything I love about them.

c3pO4
Posts: 835
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Grades don't matter?

Postby c3pO4 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:35 pm

luthersloan wrote:
c3pO4 wrote:
johansantana21 wrote:I don't ever hope to achieve happiness, or anything close to it.

What I want to achieve is some form of economic stability and leisure.


You guys won't get anywhere arguing.

Yes, most people make decisions about LLM programs, whether to search for a job that pays a 200k debt burden or hold out for a 160k job that has passed them by rationally. Here, OP is arguing that there is no objectively determined route in his position, and instead is irrationally holding onto a (flawed) image of self worth as reaching for his 3-4 years in the biglaw limelight. Essentially OP is arguing irrationality good because it furthers self-actualization. So OP will concede that his path risks economic instability and possibility of leisure and argue that a) he can survive on 26k income or close to it indefinitely and b) his self-determination to be a prestigious biglaw lawyer outweighs other considerations.

There can be no victory in this argument.

ETA: OP also is an activist against using the quote feature rationally.


How would you define irrational in this context? Like, what is a rational basis v. an irrational one? I am not sure on what basis one can say that a persons preferences for risk, prestige or money in some combination are better or worse than any one else's. Like, I agree if i was under or over weighing the probability of an outcome, that would be irrational, but what I am saying is that there a high subjective value to the outcome of getting another shot at big law, how is that irrational? How is that any more irrational than a person who takes out large amounts of debt because they want to be an ADA or a public defender, which are both much worse bets than an LLM on a strict expected monetary value calculation.


Yes, you said exactly what I said you would say. I'm not trying to argue with you anymore. I was just characterizing your stance to the other poster who was trying to debate you to explain that you've staked a tautological position that cannot be refuted.

To me, and most people, what you are saying is irrational. If you want to say it makes sense to you, that's fine, I get it. But all I'm saying is there is no arguing.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.