NYstate wrote:I didn't realize that the term humblebrag was so offensive. I'm not sure why there is a correlation with the Vale thread and the assumed anti- success attitude? My guess is that people in the Vale mostly don't read the on topic forums much. So why there is an assumption of a spillover, I'm just missing that point.
I wasn't really prepared with examples, I thought others had picked up on it (hence laxbrah's post in the thread I linked, or even bk1's post about a "sea change" here. For a better example of my point, this thread is probably pretty good:viewtopic.php?f=23&t=215449
The OP brings up a problem that is unfortunate, but real: how are you supposed to act when friends without jobs decide to wontonly trash law school in general. Speaking from personal knowledge, people at my school involved in organizing stuff like the class gift and graduation events are currently being harangued by people that pretty much want to burn everything down because of their employment prospects. How are you supposed to deal with that? I don't want to minimize their pain, but I'm also not going to support elimination of the class gift.
The OP in the linked thread is not a jerk, and is even-handed about this. He gets two reasonable responses as a result, from popular, well-known posters, including Vale mascot rad lulz. This is then followed by this lovely comment from a Vale-ee:
Isn't it terrible that those unemployed proles are raining on your parade?
The thread degenerates from there in a manner similar to this one: what's luck and what isn't, who's lucky and who isn't, etc.
If you REALLY want, I can keep digging up other examples, but I'm hoping this will suffice as I've provided several at this point. There was no reason for this comment, the OP of the thread was discussing a reasonable issue, he received reasonable responses, and then boom.
To a certain extent, I would argue the same thing happened in this thread. Originally I had no intent to post anything until Icculus posted that anyone with a job got it "mostly through luck" (a point he later admitted was incorrect hyperbole).
If you look at the 3Ls with jobs thread, I feel like the same shit happened. The OP may have been a douche with the title, but two other posters and myself started a reasonable discussion when BOOM thread over, we're just going to argue about whether or not everyone with a job owes it to luck. Again, Vale posters were involved.
lolwat wrote:@onemorelawhopeful - If you look at a single law school, there aren't that many people (I think your numbers came to 8% from NU which is 24 people). If you take something like 5-10% per law school out of the T14 though, it's really not an insignificant number of people for whom luck can affect outcomes. Especially if you start taking like HLS and GULC which I think have the largest law school classes. You can go a little further down too, including UT, UCLA, and some of the other schools that aren't in the T14 but still place decently. Just have to mark the cutoffs differently to account for the school.
I agree with you. If you look at my earlier posts in this thread I wanted to include ALL law schools (I specifically referenced Cooley), because the more you add, the less luck is actually involved. No one doubts that choosing Cooley is something the applicant can control (because you could just not go!), and it definitely keeps you from getting biglaw. Likewise, at lower-down schools, there is usually a much larger qualitative difference between the qualifications of the top 10% of the class, and those at the bottom 50%. These things actually reduce the amount of luck that factors in, and this was agreed upon, which is why the others wanted to limit it to the T-14.
You also have to realize that as you expand the pool, you have assume that the number without acceptable interview skills ALSO expands. My point is NOT that very few are affected, my point is that it is not so many that we can rule out interview skills at the top schools, nor grades at the schools farther down.