The difference between "top top firms" and "top firms"

(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
bk1
Posts: 18418
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: The difference between "top top firms" and "top firms"

Postby bk1 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 8:46 pm

c3pO4 wrote:I don't think 1mm/year is rich, and I don't think that's detached from reality.

The reality is by the time you hit that number, you've killed yourself in terms of health and family life. Also, you've spent a good amount of time paying of law school debt. Also, you have to keep working insanely hard to keep that 1MM and probably won't have much to live off in retirement. It's not really rich as most people think of it.


Just because you've made sacrifices in your personal life to get the money does not diminish its actual value. So yeah, it's rich.

Yous trollin.

Boggs
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:57 pm

Re: The difference between "top top firms" and "top firms"

Postby Boggs » Tue Dec 06, 2011 8:58 pm

c3pO4 wrote:
ToTransferOrNot wrote:

You are absolutely fucking detached from reality if you believe that $1mm+ per year isn't "rich". There are obviously "richer" people, but jesus fucking christ.


I don't think 1mm/year is rich, and I don't think that's detached from reality.

The reality is by the time you hit that number, you've killed yourself in terms of health and family life. Also, you've spent a good amount of time paying of law school debt. Also, you have to keep working insanely hard to keep that 1MM and probably won't have much to live off in retirement. It's not really rich as most people think of it.


Not sure if you outed your socioeconomic background here by sounding like you want to be rich without having to work for it. Either that or you're appealing to a set of values that define "rich" in terms other than $$. Nah, it's the first.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: The difference between "top top firms" and "top firms"

Postby Old Gregg » Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:31 pm

Jesus Christ I hope I never have to work with any of you.

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

Re: The difference between "top top firms" and "top firms"

Postby c3pO4 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:44 pm

Boggs wrote:
c3pO4 wrote:
ToTransferOrNot wrote:

You are absolutely fucking detached from reality if you believe that $1mm+ per year isn't "rich". There are obviously "richer" people, but jesus fucking christ.


I don't think 1mm/year is rich, and I don't think that's detached from reality.

The reality is by the time you hit that number, you've killed yourself in terms of health and family life. Also, you've spent a good amount of time paying of law school debt. Also, you have to keep working insanely hard to keep that 1MM and probably won't have much to live off in retirement. It's not really rich as most people think of it.


Not sure if you outed your socioeconomic background here by sounding like you want to be rich without having to work for it. Either that or you're appealing to a set of values that define "rich" in terms other than $$. Nah, it's the first.


Fidelity did a survey of people with 1 million in assets and 42% said they did not feel wealthy and were concerned about outliving their finances.

For a law firm partner who makes $1m a year, whose clients make orders of magnitude more, you can bet they don't feel wealthy. I don't agree with a lot of what that ostrich guy was saying, but to say that law school is "worth it for a chance to be rich" is probably one of the most dumbass things I've heard all week. I chose the uphill argument of "it's not actually rich," but just so you know, a) there is no chance of you making and b) the downside is being debt-ridden and life-ruined. But, go ahead and make yourself feel better by inaccurately characterizing people's socioeconomic background.

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

Re: The difference between "top top firms" and "top firms"

Postby Julio_El_Chavo » Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:04 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:Jesus Christ I hope I never have to work with any of you.


If it makes you feel any better, most of us just use this site as a sort of intellectual masturbation between intense periods of studying.

ToTransferOrNot
Posts: 1928
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:45 am

Re: The difference between "top top firms" and "top firms"

Postby ToTransferOrNot » Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:22 pm

I am so tired of the psedu-psychological bullshit sentiment that whether one is rich is a subjective thing. It's not. Taken to the absurd limit, no one aside from Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and the Saudi Oil Princes are rich. In fact, in the ridiculous "subjectivity of wealth" world, Bill Gates wouldn't feel rich because he had to work for his wealth but the Saudis just had to be born.

Give me a fucking break.

The fact that rich people still can live beyond their means does not make them not rich. Was Michael Jackson "not rich"? I mean, sure, by the time they go bankrupt, they're not rich anymore - at least temporarily - but that doesn't mean they weren't rich when they were pulling down $1mm+ a year.

There is an 'argument' to be had about where the lines are between middle class, upper-middle-class, and 'rich.' But $1mm a year - well beyond the "1% of people in the wealthiest country in the world make this amount" - is wayyyy past that line. The arguments fall into "is a junior associate middle class, upper-middle-class, or rich," not "is a partner at a V100 firm rich."

If you think otherwise, you are objectively detached from reality. I'm tempted to assume you grew up at least middle/upper-middle-class, and have no concept of what it is to be poor (or even middle class), to have such an absurd viewpoint.

Anyway, that tangent out of the way, RPL is a better measure of a firm's financial strength than RPP, and RPL is harder to game.

ETA: And I do agree that people can "not feel rich" if their peers make more than they do. That doesn't mean they aren't objectively rich, though.

ETA2: And you are certainly right that "going to law school for a shot at being rich" is probably a bad move, unless you get into a top school and have dim prospects elsewhere. Even then, uphill battle. But if you get into one of the top schools, going to law school with the expectation of making much better money than you would have sans-law-school is more than justifiable for many people.
Last edited by ToTransferOrNot on Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Boggs
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:57 pm

Re: The difference between "top top firms" and "top firms"

Postby Boggs » Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:25 pm

c3pO4 wrote:
Boggs wrote:
c3pO4 wrote:
ToTransferOrNot wrote:

You are absolutely fucking detached from reality if you believe that $1mm+ per year isn't "rich". There are obviously "richer" people, but jesus fucking christ.


I don't think 1mm/year is rich, and I don't think that's detached from reality.

The reality is by the time you hit that number, you've killed yourself in terms of health and family life. Also, you've spent a good amount of time paying of law school debt. Also, you have to keep working insanely hard to keep that 1MM and probably won't have much to live off in retirement. It's not really rich as most people think of it.


Not sure if you outed your socioeconomic background here by sounding like you want to be rich without having to work for it. Either that or you're appealing to a set of values that define "rich" in terms other than $$. Nah, it's the first.


Fidelity did a survey of people with 1 million in assets and 42% said they did not feel wealthy and were concerned about outliving their finances.

For a law firm partner who makes $1m a year, whose clients make orders of magnitude more, you can bet they don't feel wealthy. I don't agree with a lot of what that ostrich guy was saying, but to say that law school is "worth it for a chance to be rich" is probably one of the most dumbass things I've heard all week. I chose the uphill argument of "it's not actually rich," but just so you know, a) there is no chance of you making and b) the downside is being debt-ridden and life-ruined. But, go ahead and make yourself feel better by inaccurately characterizing people's socioeconomic background.


The observation that feeling wealthy (or poor) is relational is an important one. But it's a different argument to say people who make $1m/year don't feel rich than it is to say they aren't rich. It's really the difference between subjective and objective standards.

Edit: I see the poster above beat me to pointing this out. I'm not as ready to brand subjective measures of wealth "bullshit," but it is important to recognize the difference.
Last edited by Boggs on Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

BeenDidThat
Posts: 704
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:18 am

Re: The difference between "top top firms" and "top firms"

Postby BeenDidThat » Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:39 am

c3pO4 wrote:
Boggs wrote:
c3pO4 wrote:
ToTransferOrNot wrote:

You are absolutely fucking detached from reality if you believe that $1mm+ per year isn't "rich". There are obviously "richer" people, but jesus fucking christ.


I don't think 1mm/year is rich, and I don't think that's detached from reality.

The reality is by the time you hit that number, you've killed yourself in terms of health and family life. Also, you've spent a good amount of time paying of law school debt. Also, you have to keep working insanely hard to keep that 1MM and probably won't have much to live off in retirement. It's not really rich as most people think of it.


Not sure if you outed your socioeconomic background here by sounding like you want to be rich without having to work for it. Either that or you're appealing to a set of values that define "rich" in terms other than $$. Nah, it's the first.


Fidelity did a survey of people with 1 million in assets and 42% said they did not feel wealthy and were concerned about outliving their finances.

For a law firm partner who makes $1m a year
, whose clients make orders of magnitude more, you can bet they don't feel wealthy. I don't agree with a lot of what that ostrich guy was saying, but to say that law school is "worth it for a chance to be rich" is probably one of the most dumbass things I've heard all week. I chose the uphill argument of "it's not actually rich," but just so you know, a) there is no chance of you making and b) the downside is being debt-ridden and life-ruined. But, go ahead and make yourself feel better by inaccurately characterizing people's socioeconomic background.


You're fucking retarded.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273256
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: The difference between "top top firms" and "top firms"

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:23 am

c3pO4 wrote:
ToTransferOrNot wrote:

You are absolutely fucking detached from reality if you believe that $1mm+ per year isn't "rich". There are obviously "richer" people, but jesus fucking christ.


I don't think 1mm/year is rich, and I don't think that's detached from reality.

The reality is by the time you hit that number, you've killed yourself in terms of health and family life. Also, you've spent a good amount of time paying of law school debt. Also, you have to keep working insanely hard to keep that 1MM and probably won't have much to live off in retirement. It's not really rich as most people think of it.


your a lunatic if you believe someone making 1mm/year isn't rich or have some delusional definition of rich

Magnificent
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 1:27 pm

Re: The difference between "top top firms" and "top firms"

Postby Magnificent » Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:29 am

c3pO4 wrote:
Boggs wrote:
c3pO4 wrote:
ToTransferOrNot wrote:

I don't think 1mm/year is rich, and I don't think that's detached from reality.

The reality is by the time you hit that number, you've killed yourself in terms of health and family life. Also, you've spent a good amount of time paying of law school debt. Also, you have to keep working insanely hard to keep that 1MM and probably won't have much to live off in retirement. It's not really rich as most people think of it.


Not sure if you outed your socioeconomic background here by sounding like you want to be rich without having to work for it. Either that or you're appealing to a set of values that define "rich" in terms other than $$. Nah, it's the first.


Fidelity did a survey of people with 1 million in assets and 42% said they did not feel wealthy and were concerned about outliving their finances.

For a law firm partner who makes $1m a year
, whose clients make orders of magnitude more, you can bet they don't feel wealthy. I don't agree with a lot of what that ostrich guy was saying, but to say that law school is "worth it for a chance to be rich" is probably one of the most dumbass things I've heard all week. I chose the uphill argument of "it's not actually rich," but just so you know, a) there is no chance of you making and b) the downside is being debt-ridden and life-ruined. But, go ahead and make yourself feel better by inaccurately characterizing people's socioeconomic background.


You're fucking retarded.


exactly

the clown is confusing someone who makes $1 mil a year with someone who just has $1 in assets....huge difference

any big law partner whose been going on at least 10 years as a partner has at least $3-5 million in wealth at a minimum.....or they're just retarded

I think have at least $5 in assets while making $1-2 mil/year is f'in rich

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

Re: The difference between "top top firms" and "top firms"

Postby romothesavior » Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:05 am

c3pO4 wrote:Fidelity did a survey of people with 1 million in assets and 42% said they did not feel wealthy and were concerned about outliving their finances.

This is so irrelevant. How one feels about their wealth does not change that they are wealthy. TTON is right on.

It is kinda like how you may not feel like you are retarded, but that doesn't change the fact that you objectively are.

mrloblaw
Posts: 534
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: The difference between "top top firms" and "top firms"

Postby mrloblaw » Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:16 am

Does anyone else ever read one of these threads and wonder what the Hell you did wrong in life to end up on the same career track, at the same schools, as such utter morons?

User avatar
NinerFan
Posts: 482
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: The difference between "top top firms" and "top firms"

Postby NinerFan » Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:19 am

mrloblaw wrote:Does anyone else ever read one of these threads and wonder what the Hell you did wrong in life to end up on the same career track, at the same schools, as such utter morons?


The mistake I made was getting a liberal arts degree.

mrloblaw
Posts: 534
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: The difference between "top top firms" and "top firms"

Postby mrloblaw » Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:26 am

NinerFan wrote:
mrloblaw wrote:Does anyone else ever read one of these threads and wonder what the Hell you did wrong in life to end up on the same career track, at the same schools, as such utter morons?


The mistake I made was getting a liberal arts degree.


That was definitely one of the strikes against me, too.

BeenDidThat
Posts: 704
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:18 am

Re: The difference between "top top firms" and "top firms"

Postby BeenDidThat » Wed Dec 07, 2011 9:04 am

romothesavior wrote:
c3pO4 wrote:Fidelity did a survey of people with 1 million in assets and 42% said they did not feel wealthy and were concerned about outliving their finances.

This is so irrelevant. How one feels about their wealth does not change that they are wealthy. TTON is right on.

It is kinda like how you may not feel like you are retarded, but that doesn't change the fact that you objectively are.


I think I love you. It could be stress-induced. But still.

ToTransferOrNot
Posts: 1928
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:45 am

Re: The difference between "top top firms" and "top firms"

Postby ToTransferOrNot » Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:03 am

NinerFan wrote:
mrloblaw wrote:Does anyone else ever read one of these threads and wonder what the Hell you did wrong in life to end up on the same career track, at the same schools, as such utter morons?


The mistake I made was getting a liberal arts degree.


+infinity




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.