I wouldn't listen to 95 percent of the stuff here

(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.
citylawyer1010
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 10:33 am

Re: I wouldn't listen to 95 percent of the stuff here

Postby citylawyer1010 » Sun Jul 07, 2013 11:39 pm

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:
Paul Campos wrote:The OP's post and replies in the thread illustrate a couple of very common psychological reactions/defense mechanisms, that I think are related in an interesting way.

(2) An overwhelming desire to give a moralized interpretation to statistical outcomes. If half his classmates didn't get legal jobs while he did, even though he wasn't an obvious candidate to get a job (not top 10% etc), then that must mean that they failed to do what he did to get a job (key terms: "hustle," "network").

This is all tied up with cultural imperatives to treat social outcomes as reflections of merit, as opposed to cronyism and other forms of unearned privilege, and most of all sheer random luck.


Completely agree this type of rationalization happens all the time, but..

Paul Campos wrote: The OP no doubt understands that if half the graduates of a law school don't get jobs as lawyers that means the chances of not getting a legal job for graduates of that school is 50%


Got to disagree here, and this logic is repeated over and over again on TLS. It's basic: 50% of people got X, so chances of obtaining X equals 50%. This logic is completely false. It assumes 100% of people are striving for X.

1/4 people at your law school (and mine) came here to study environmental puppy law. Others came here to kill time and would rather get married/join Peace Corps/become a farmer than work full-time in a JD required role. A few came here and got depressed because they never got over their old boyfriend, never forgave their dad, or never found their true calling. For lack of a better way of putting it, I am not really competing with these people. Then you have all the other people who have the maturity and drive to become a successful professional, but you can't assume they are all working towards "X." Point is, the "56% of Oregon grads obtain full-time JD required work, so Oregon students have a coins flip chance of becoming a real lawyer" thing is mindless and silly. Maybe at U of Chicago 90% of students want X, but the difference between U of Chicago and whatever the fuck "T30" signifies is huge. There is a difference in intelligence between top schools and average schools, especially at the bottom of the class, but the real difference is culture, work ethic, goals, etc. That's why OP (who was clearly being a dick and attempting to start a fight) is finding some support. TLS over-states the problems of the legal market. The truth is the legal market sucks, but TLS tries so hard to avoid blaming students that it presents ridiculous alternatives-- that legal hiring is completely different than non-legal hiring, that (outside of Biglaw and Fed clerks) grades trump actual skills, that everyone wants the same thing out of law school, etc.


One thing I'm sick of hearing is that t14 people or even those at the top of their class are somehow more intelligent or even more qualified than the rest. If you go to U of Chicago u did well on the LSAT. That's it. If you did well in law school, that's one skill set. None of this justifies the difference in the market, where nearly 70% of elite school grads get biglaw job or equal to and the rest of us get nothing. It's a retarded system.

User was outed for anon abuse.

User avatar
Skye
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:51 pm

Re: I wouldn't listen to 95 percent of the stuff here

Postby Skye » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:04 am

johnpierce14 wrote:There are some helpful threads - like the procedural/mechanical aspects of looking for a job - but don't believe anything you believe on these forums. It's just fear mongering at its most disgusting level. This is the fox news of internet forums. .

What I don’t see on TLS are many discouraging grumbles from T14 students. What I do see a lot of are people with +5,000 posts proclaiming how bad things are. There is a solid disconnect between those two worlds.

User was outed for anon abuse.

citylawyer1010
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 10:33 am

Re: I wouldn't listen to 95 percent of the stuff here

Postby citylawyer1010 » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:07 am

Anonymous User wrote:
johnpierce14 wrote:There are some helpful threads - like the procedural/mechanical aspects of looking for a job - but don't believe anything you believe on these forums. It's just fear mongering at its most disgusting level. This is the fox news of internet forums. .

What I don’t see on TLS are many discouraging grumbles from T14 students. What I do see a lot of are people with +5,000 posts proclaiming how bad things are. There is a solid disconnect between those two worlds.


Uh because these t14 people are the lucky undeserving victors in this senseless legal hiring system. That's why.

User was outed for anon abuse.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273382
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: I wouldn't listen to 95 percent of the stuff here

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:07 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:
Paul Campos wrote:The OP's post and replies in the thread illustrate a couple of very common psychological reactions/defense mechanisms, that I think are related in an interesting way.

(2) An overwhelming desire to give a moralized interpretation to statistical outcomes. If half his classmates didn't get legal jobs while he did, even though he wasn't an obvious candidate to get a job (not top 10% etc), then that must mean that they failed to do what he did to get a job (key terms: "hustle," "network").

This is all tied up with cultural imperatives to treat social outcomes as reflections of merit, as opposed to cronyism and other forms of unearned privilege, and most of all sheer random luck.


Completely agree this type of rationalization happens all the time, but..

Paul Campos wrote: The OP no doubt understands that if half the graduates of a law school don't get jobs as lawyers that means the chances of not getting a legal job for graduates of that school is 50%


Got to disagree here, and this logic is repeated over and over again on TLS. It's basic: 50% of people got X, so chances of obtaining X equals 50%. This logic is completely false. It assumes 100% of people are striving for X.

1/4 people at your law school (and mine) came here to study environmental puppy law. Others came here to kill time and would rather get married/join Peace Corps/become a farmer than work full-time in a JD required role. A few came here and got depressed because they never got over their old boyfriend, never forgave their dad, or never found their true calling. For lack of a better way of putting it, I am not really competing with these people. Then you have all the other people who have the maturity and drive to become a successful professional, but you can't assume they are all working towards "X." Point is, the "56% of Oregon grads obtain full-time JD required work, so Oregon students have a coins flip chance of becoming a real lawyer" thing is mindless and silly. Maybe at U of Chicago 90% of students want X, but the difference between U of Chicago and whatever the fuck "T30" signifies is huge. There is a difference in intelligence between top schools and average schools, especially at the bottom of the class, but the real difference is culture, work ethic, goals, etc. That's why OP (who was clearly being a dick and attempting to start a fight) is finding some support. TLS over-states the problems of the legal market. The truth is the legal market sucks, but TLS tries so hard to avoid blaming students that it presents ridiculous alternatives-- that legal hiring is completely different than non-legal hiring, that (outside of Biglaw and Fed clerks) grades trump actual skills, that everyone wants the same thing out of law school, etc.


One thing I'm sick of hearing is that t14 people or even those at the top of their class are somehow more intelligent or even more qualified than the rest. If you go to U of Chicago u did well on the LSAT. That's it. If you did well in law school, that's one skill set. None of this justifies the difference in the market, where nearly 70% of elite school grads get biglaw job or equal to and the rest of us get nothing. It's a retarded system.


Poster above . . . thank you for saying what more lurkers on here are likely thinking. Try to explain the caste system of legal/clerkship hiring to someone outside of this profession and they will usually tell you about how ridiculous it is. Who hires two years out? Who let's one year of academic performance determine suitability for jobs? It's laughable that because of law school rankings that a top 1/3 at a Tier 3/Tier 2/Tier 1 does not equate to same elsewhere. When you speak to people outside of the profession (heck even some of those inside it), those are the typical and logical reactions related to hiring.

TLS is primarily good for tiny nuggets of actually usable information if you can peel away the layers of prestige bullshit, outright lies, and mostly uninformed opinions that get thrown around.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

citylawyer1010
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 10:33 am

Re: I wouldn't listen to 95 percent of the stuff here

Postby citylawyer1010 » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:13 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:
Paul Campos wrote:The OP's post and replies in the thread illustrate a couple of very common psychological reactions/defense mechanisms, that I think are related in an interesting way.

(2) An overwhelming desire to give a moralized interpretation to statistical outcomes. If half his classmates didn't get legal jobs while he did, even though he wasn't an obvious candidate to get a job (not top 10% etc), then that must mean that they failed to do what he did to get a job (key terms: "hustle," "network").

This is all tied up with cultural imperatives to treat social outcomes as reflections of merit, as opposed to cronyism and other forms of unearned privilege, and most of all sheer random luck.


Completely agree this type of rationalization happens all the time, but..

Paul Campos wrote: The OP no doubt understands that if half the graduates of a law school don't get jobs as lawyers that means the chances of not getting a legal job for graduates of that school is 50%


Got to disagree here, and this logic is repeated over and over again on TLS. It's basic: 50% of people got X, so chances of obtaining X equals 50%. This logic is completely false. It assumes 100% of people are striving for X.

1/4 people at your law school (and mine) came here to study environmental puppy law. Others came here to kill time and would rather get married/join Peace Corps/become a farmer than work full-time in a JD required role. A few came here and got depressed because they never got over their old boyfriend, never forgave their dad, or never found their true calling. For lack of a better way of putting it, I am not really competing with these people. Then you have all the other people who have the maturity and drive to become a successful professional, but you can't assume they are all working towards "X." Point is, the "56% of Oregon grads obtain full-time JD required work, so Oregon students have a coins flip chance of becoming a real lawyer" thing is mindless and silly. Maybe at U of Chicago 90% of students want X, but the difference between U of Chicago and whatever the fuck "T30" signifies is huge. There is a difference in intelligence between top schools and average schools, especially at the bottom of the class, but the real difference is culture, work ethic, goals, etc. That's why OP (who was clearly being a dick and attempting to start a fight) is finding some support. TLS over-states the problems of the legal market. The truth is the legal market sucks, but TLS tries so hard to avoid blaming students that it presents ridiculous alternatives-- that legal hiring is completely different than non-legal hiring, that (outside of Biglaw and Fed clerks) grades trump actual skills, that everyone wants the same thing out of law school, etc.


One thing I'm sick of hearing is that t14 people or even those at the top of their class are somehow more intelligent or even more qualified than the rest. If you go to U of Chicago u did well on the LSAT. That's it. If you did well in law school, that's one skill set. None of this justifies the difference in the market, where nearly 70% of elite school grads get biglaw job or equal to and the rest of us get nothing. It's a retarded system.


Poster above . . . thank you for saying what more lurkers on hear are likely thinking. Try to explain the caste system of legal/clerkship hiring to someone outside of this profession and they will usually tell you about how ridiculous it is. Who hires two years out? Who let's one year of academic performance determine suitability for jobs? It's laughable that because of law school rankings that a top 1/3 at a Tier 3/Tier 2/Tier 1 does not equate to same elsewhere. When you speak to people outside of the profession (heck even some of those inside it), those are the typical and logical reactions related to hiring.

TLS is primarily good for tiny nuggets of actually usable information if you can peel away the layers of prestige bullshit, outright lies, and mostly uninformed opinions that get thrown around.


Couldn't have said it better myself. It's a bizarre system, having no relation to quality of legal services provided. Baffles me and everyone I know. These T14 grads are nothing but a bunch of phonies, taking advantage of a system that is treating them well. Frustrating how much they don't deserve the rewards they get. Completely unjustified. Violation of any merit based system.

User was outed for anon abuse.

User avatar
laxbrah420
Posts: 2748
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:53 am

Re: I wouldn't listen to 95 percent of the stuff here

Postby laxbrah420 » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:15 am

As an above median guy at a top 50 school, I'll be the final fucking arbiter on this subject. I'll let you know if I get rich or die trying in a year. After that, you guys can know what legal hiring is like.

User avatar
Samara
Posts: 3245
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:26 pm

Re: I wouldn't listen to 95 percent of the stuff here

Postby Samara » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:16 am

LOL. All you anonymous critics are TSO BRAVE.

User avatar
stillwater
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:59 pm

Re: I wouldn't listen to 95 percent of the stuff here

Postby stillwater » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:19 am

maybe its General Tso

Anonymous User
Posts: 273382
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: I wouldn't listen to 95 percent of the stuff here

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:19 am

The same system is used in investment banking/management consulting. Its not fair that's true, but unfortunately you just have to play the game. If you get an MBA and its not from a M7 school your chances of getting a job at bulge bracket firms are diminished significantly. Furthermore, I wouldnt say those T14 grads dont deserve the rewards they get.... but it is definitely easy to be frustrated by the fact that just cause you dont go to a school in that premium tier you get shut out.

User avatar
laxbrah420
Posts: 2748
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:53 am

Re: I wouldn't listen to 95 percent of the stuff here

Postby laxbrah420 » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:19 am

Samara wrote:LOL. All you anonymous critics are TSO BRAVE.

I presume they're not being serious

Anonymous User
Posts: 273382
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: I wouldn't listen to 95 percent of the stuff here

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:20 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:TLS is primarily good for tiny nuggets of actually usable information if you can peel away the layers of prestige bullshit, outright lies, and mostly uninformed opinions that get thrown around.


Couldn't have said it better myself. It's a bizarre system, having no relation to quality of legal services provided. Baffles me and everyone I know. These T14 grads are nothing but a bunch of phonies, taking advantage of a system that is treating them well. Frustrating how much they don't deserve the rewards they get. Completely unjustified. Violation of any merit based system.


If nothing else, it does a good job of separating the people who carefully research their career paths from those who want to go to law school without fully realizing what that means.

I went to a T14 school, watched the economy crater, tried like hell 1L year, and landed a big firm job. At no point during that process - or now - did I have anything but contempt and amusement for the way the system was set up. But I knew how it was set up in advance, just like everyone who signs a check made out to Cooley every year. It wasn't a secret what the big firms were (we publish lists of them), it wasn't secret what their salaries were (what other industry has such public uniformity?) and it definitely wasn't a secret who got the jobs (I remember reading NLJ hiring data from 2005 and being dumbstruck by how big of an advantage the T10/T14 or so schools had in big firm placement).

Basically, the time to bitch about the inequity in the legal hiring market was probably before starting somewhere that put you on your back foot.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bronte
Posts: 2128
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: I wouldn't listen to 95 percent of the stuff here

Postby Bronte » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:20 am

Anonymous User wrote:Poster above . . . thank you for saying what more lurkers on hear are likely thinking. Try to explain the caste system of legal/clerkship hiring to someone outside of this profession and they will usually tell you about how ridiculous it is. Who hires two years out? Who let's one year of academic performance determine suitability for jobs? It's laughable that because of law school rankings that a top 1/3 at a Tier 3/Tier 2/Tier 1 does not equate to same elsewhere. When you speak to people outside of the profession (heck even some of those inside it), those are the typical and logical reactions related to hiring.

TLS is primarily good for tiny nuggets of actually usable information if you can peel away the layers of prestige bullshit, outright lies, and mostly uninformed opinions that get thrown around.


TLS didn't create the legal hiring system. It seems like you're shooting the messenger. In any event, your gripes seem naive. There are only enough legal jobs for half the law school graduates. Of course the best employers are going to take students from the most selective schools with the best grades. And the effects are going to be severe when there are so few jobs to go around.

Anonymous User wrote:Couldn't have said it better myself. It's a bizarre system, having no relation to quality of legal services provided. Baffles me and everyone I know. These T14 grads are nothing but a bunch of phonies, taking advantage of a system that is treating them well. Frustrating how much they don't deserve the rewards they get. Completely unjustified. Violation of any merit based system.


So not only are TLS posters really bad guys for explaining the realities of the market, but now T14 grads are bad people because they're getting good jobs? What the hell is going on in this thread?

Also, I'm not usually a member of the anon police, but this is getting out of hand.

User avatar
Skye
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:51 pm

Re: I wouldn't listen to 95 percent of the stuff here

Postby Skye » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:29 am

Anonymous User wrote:These T14 grads are nothing but a bunch of phonies, taking advantage of a system that is treating them well. Frustrating how much they don't deserve the rewards they get. Completely unjustified. Violation of any merit based system.

Whoa! You make it sound like it’s a lottery system where they randomly pick names out of a barrel. First there’s the GPA threshold and then the LSAT. Those that are accomplished receive the T14 benefits. The cliché “best of the best” exists for a reason.

User was outed for anon abuse.

User avatar
Scotusnerd
Posts: 813
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: I wouldn't listen to 95 percent of the stuff here

Postby Scotusnerd » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:30 am

Yeah the anon feature is getting abused. Learn to be vague and switch up facts or shut your mouth. Not everything needs to be said.

I still think this thread is an elaborate and successful trolling attempt by a few dedicated individuals.

User avatar
soj
Posts: 7735
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm

Re: I wouldn't listen to 95 percent of the stuff here

Postby soj » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:49 am

citylawyer1010 wrote:
citylawyer1010 wrote:Ill add that once you lose this job, you're screwed. So hold on tight!



Ouch.

User was outed for anon abuse.

fuck you.

User avatar
stillwater
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:59 pm

Re: I wouldn't listen to 95 percent of the stuff here

Postby stillwater » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:50 am

soj wrote:
citylawyer1010 wrote:
citylawyer1010 wrote:Ill add that once you lose this job, you're screwed. So hold on tight!



Ouch.

User was outed for anon abuse.

fuck you.


but he's a lawyer from a city. he must know something.

User avatar
soj
Posts: 7735
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm

Re: I wouldn't listen to 95 percent of the stuff here

Postby soj » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:53 am

I banned Skye and citylawyer1010 for anon abuse.

RodneyRuxin
Posts: 455
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:08 pm

Re: I wouldn't listen to 95 percent of the stuff here

Postby RodneyRuxin » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:54 am

soj wrote:
citylawyer1010 wrote:
citylawyer1010 wrote:Ill add that once you lose this job, you're screwed. So hold on tight!



Ouch.

User was outed for anon abuse.

fuck you.



LOL

User avatar
Kikero
Posts: 1208
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:28 am

Re: I wouldn't listen to 95 percent of the stuff here

Postby Kikero » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:56 am

soj wrote:
citylawyer1010 wrote:
citylawyer1010 wrote:Ill add that once you lose this job, you're screwed. So hold on tight!



Ouch.

User was outed for anon abuse.

fuck you.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

TYBsoj

User avatar
UVAIce
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:10 pm

Re: I wouldn't listen to 95 percent of the stuff here

Postby UVAIce » Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:06 am

Darn wasps and all their elite institutions.

rad lulz
Posts: 9844
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm

Re: I wouldn't listen to 95 percent of the stuff here

Postby rad lulz » Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:11 am

.
Last edited by rad lulz on Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Myself
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:36 pm

.

Postby Myself » Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:28 am

.
Last edited by Myself on Tue Nov 19, 2013 9:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
20160810
Posts: 19648
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:18 pm

Re: I wouldn't listen to 95 percent of the stuff here

Postby 20160810 » Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:39 am

Guys the OP is right. Don't listen to these alarmists with their numbers and their facts. You should all borrow $250,000 for a JD from McGeorge RIGHT NOW! Insurance defense jobs for everyone! It's raining men!

johnpierce14
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 12:32 am

Re: I wouldn't listen to 95 percent of the stuff here

Postby johnpierce14 » Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:57 am

My simple intention was purely to warn those who skim these forums twice in their legal lives. Once in August before their 1L year, and once during the 2L job hunt.

The first time, these boards are helpful.

The second time, they are not. Here is why.

My anecdotal evidence is more helpful than your "statistics" and "data." My anecdote is data with a soul.

Your statistics and data track a lawyer's FIRST POSITION out of law school and their STARTING SALARY, sometimes before they have even graduated. Statistics that come from the schools themselves of course are TOTAL bullshit - they juke the numbers like Rawls and Burrell.

When you guys figure out how to plug someone's GPA into a machine that predict what a lawyer's salary will be in 10 years and also some sort of barometer to measure his happiness, I'll start buying into what is said here.

I understand I talked bad about this masturbatory little club of yours and will not be well received, but my point is that simple. The numbers relied upon do not tell the whole story, yet some people here present them as such. Going to law school is an investment - and not a short term one.

I think only two people should even go to law school.

1) The sort of optimistic ones who think they can promote "justice" in our country. Good for them, there's plenty of them, and we need them.
2) Those who think a legal career aligns with their specific skill set. I went to law school for this reason.

So, before these sharks try to tear down your dreams, remember that 1) what they're saying probably isn't true or at least is manipulated to seem more terrifying and 2) why did you want to come to law school in the first place? Remember this my little lords and these miserable, tyrannical little cunts cannot hurt you.

But, ALAS, it is true that you do not have a good chance at working at Ropes and Gray if you suck it up in law school like I sort of it (by suck it up, i mean, barely below the median).

BUT WAIT, I HAVE ONE MORE WONDERFUL DATA WITH SOUL TO MAKE THIS CONFUSED, DEPRESSED FUTURE OFFICER OF THE COURT FEEL BETTER!

A man I know was doing work you gunner cunts call "shitlaw.' He was an associate at a place that does personal injury (watch where this goes, because I actually end up taking his job!). He won an 18 million dollar settlement against an insurance company. A couple months later he now works in Connecticut at a firm with 125 lawyers, and he makes a salary comparable to first year big law associates.

Lucky? NO! Well, sort of, but no. This guy was really good at med mal cases. He had a science background and was the only person in the office who could really dissect medical records AND THEN turn them into plain English for the jury. Luck had nothing to do it, he, like me, simply was not top 25 percent at the reputable school he attended. Like him, I will hopefully find a specialty that allows me to be the best "shit law" lawyer I can be (why I came to law school!) and maybe make a lot of money doing it.

That's all I'm saying, and if you lunatic cunts can't appreciate these types of discussions, I understand and will take my business elsewhere, and will warn my boyfriend who will be a 1L in September never to look for advice here.

Cunts

rad lulz
Posts: 9844
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm

Re: I wouldn't listen to 95 percent of the stuff here

Postby rad lulz » Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:00 am

okay




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.