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.