IAFG wrote:I feel lucky as fuck to have the job I have. I don't know who could feel entitled to it.
I think this is a false dichotomy that is the cause of all the problems here.
bk1 et al seem to be of the opinion that anyone who claims they got a job because of "hard work" is simply "entitled."
Yet this is crap. If anything the viewpoint that is more indicative of entitlement goes something like "But I did everything right and ended up unemployed..."
Are there elements of the job search that are beyond the applicants control? Of course there are - the students who accepted summer positions at Dewey and LeBoeuf did so months before there was any outward indication the firm was falling apart (the major partner defections didn't come until January, well after OCI).
But at the same time, the major elements of the job search are either within the applicants control, or a product of the applicant's aptitude. These include where you go to law school (because you can always just not go!), what grades you get when you're there (the variance in the GPA curve is always much larger than it would be if grades were actually "random"), how you come off in an interview (we've all met charismatic people, and we've all met awkward people), and what you do in your spare time (habitat for humanity v. Call of Duty).
It's absolutely ridiculous to claim, as Icculus did, that the MAJORITY of the reason you get a job is "luck." Unless you are counting innate intelligence, charisma, and drive as "luck," in which case MAYBE it's majority luck, but that's a separate argument.
What we're actually unwilling to talk about is the very real possibility that some people, even at HYS, likely are missing something required to get a job, and they are not getting adequate feedback to that effect. I've personally been to mock-interview workshops where someone clearly came off like a serial killer, and yet the mock-interviewer didn't have the heart to tell them; this seems to especially be the case the more hopeless the interviewee seems to come off.
Likewise, imagine the kind of feedback problem inherent in lawschool grading at a place like Stanford. 70% of each class gets a P, and no one ever gets failed. So a student at Stanford could be turning in absolutely crap work, quarter after quarter, and getting a P. A classmate of that student could also be getting straight Ps, but is turning in median work every quarter. Both work hard, but because the feedback is a joke, the one whose work has actually been crap all along gets blind-sided by a no offer as a summer associate - but because the work was legitimately crap, and had been the whole time, the no-offer was actually earned. Since almost half the T14 uses some kind of non-standard grading, this could happen to students at a whole slew of top schools.
But we don't ever talk about this. We don't acknowledge that there really are people who cannot interview if their lives depended upon it. We don't acknowledge that people can have a great undergrad GPA, and a great LSAT score, and ALSO have absolutely no ability when it comes to legal reasoning. But anyone who's gone to law school knows otherwise - they've seen the poor interviewer, or the guy who literally got a PhD in physics, but cannot distinguish a case to save his life.
We don't talk about this, and it's skewing the viewpoint about what really goes on - we're calling each other "entitled" because it's easier than dealing with the whole story.