FlightoftheEarls wrote: manofjustice wrote:
Ludovico Technique wrote:Pollfressor you have no idea what you're talking about. Shut the fuck up
LT, go suck a cock. I know what I am talking about more than you.
FightoftheEarls, it only seems like I'm deliberately ignoring the reliance argument. I addressed it when I said the reliance damage is fungible. That was my first argument and it still is my main argument. You're deliberately ignoring that argument.
You finally hit on an argument that works: forgoing the summer of job searching.
But I don't think that dog hunts. 30 grand is still a lot, and the jobs strike-outs find are not all that good anyway.
I'm not deliberately ignoring that argument - that's what essentially every post I've made has addressed. You said it's fungible, and I explained why the situations are simply not the same. Both are tough, without a doubt, but they're legitimately different circumstances.And it's not just the summer of job searching, but an entire year. 2L hiring for small and mid-law firms may be later in the fall or in the spring, but a very large number of those jobs won't be possible to a no-offered 3L (due to both the timeline and the no-offer stigma) in the same way they would be obtainable for an OCI strike out. At the end of the day, we've completely moved the goal posts from our line of discussion because now we're talking about why it's better to be a strike out than a no-offered 3L. The real issue we were initially discussing is whether it's reasonable that a law firm suffers reputational harm due to its no-offering of summer associates, and I think it's unquestionable that firms do.
I also think there are legitimate reasons for why that is fair, and it does this thread a disservice to limit that discussion with an argument that essentially boils down to "whatever, people are making money and you knew that going in, so you can't complain" when in fact there are considerable differences between how different firms handle certain situations.
To the second bolded: I agree. The firm suffers reputational damage. But it is important to connect the no-offering of the summer class to the larger normative and economic context. Once we do that, we recognize the entire profession, and BigLaw in particular, suffers the same kind of reputational damage when so many qualified candidates strike out.
To the first bolded: I am only willing to admit that the no-offer suffers foregone job-search time but the strike-out does not. I do not agree that there is any extra stigma to being no-offered than there is to striking out (provided the no-offering firm, as alleged here, no-offered a large portion of their class and that that is public knowledge). Nor do I agree (nor would you suggest) that strike-outs who land the typical post-OCI position--an unpaid internship--are in a substantially better position than they would be if they had no position at all. (It's also important to recognize that an extra 30 grand in your pocket really is a very big deal.)
I reiterate that to suggest the firm should defer and cut future class sizes, hire you anyway and take a hit to PPP, or fund a fellowship, ignores the larger context, and ignores the plight of the legions of qualified strike-outs.
Please keep in mind the logical connection in my argument: ONLY IF the no-offer had offers elsewhere that they gave up does my argument work. That way, the no-offer "took one for the team" and gave up an offer that (presumably) turned out better to someone else. (Now, that someone else might have had multiple offers--but it's a chain reaction and at some point in the chain, someone who wouldn't have had any offers gets a chance at BigLaw.)
It's not fair that you're the one who gets screwed. No one should get screwed. But aside from the question of foregone job-search time, which I admit is valid, it's not any less fair to you than to that person at the end of the chain, who, if you took the offer that would have turned out well, would have struck out (or taken an offer from Winston and been screwed just like you).