Have an offer? Do the rest of us a favor... Forum

[A. Nony Mouse]

But your question is also irrelevant; this discussion also isn't about any one particular job. Which firm gives you an offer is probably majority luck in most cases. Whether or not you get an offer at all is a very different story. Someone with above median grades, who is a charismatic interviewer, will probably get some kind of a job coming out of most law schools.

The bolded in itself acknowledges the possibility that someone who does it all right won't get a job for reasons outside their control. And no, statistically, when you're talking about law students collectively, one particular job doesn't matter. For a given individual, though, it might in fact be about one particular job.

I'm willing to say that most people who get the job they want probably are hardworking, have good grades, interview well, and all those good things. But that doesn't mean those who strike out don't have those qualities.

[lolwat]

Look at it this way:
Assume that all law students can be given a competence score somewhere between 1 and 100. Anyone with a competence score >70 is going to get biglaw. Because of "luck" your actual competence score can get bumped up or down 5 points, for whatever reason. This REALLY matters if you have a score in the 66-75 range. But if the majority of law students (again counting ALL schools) are scoring somewhere in the 50s, then someone who got an offer, even if they were at 66 without luck, really is more talented/hardworking than most of the others. Telling them "You only got an offer because of luck!" is silly because most people weren't even at 66 to begin with.

You're just looking at this from a different perspective than everyone else. That's not to say that the above is wrong; it's not. But I think other people are focusing on the 66-75 range and you're looking at the entire universe of law students. Of course bottom of class at any school didn't strike out because of crappy luck, and of course top of class at HYS didn't get their offers because of great luck. But when you look at the 66-75 range--of which there are a significant number of people--then luck can very well factor into whether someone in that range gets an offer but someone else doesn't.

[Pokemon]

Look at it this way:
Assume that all law students can be given a competence score somewhere between 1 and 100. Anyone with a competence score >70 is going to get biglaw. Because of "luck" your actual competence score can get bumped up or down 5 points, for whatever reason. This REALLY matters if you have a score in the 66-75 range. But if the majority of law students (again counting ALL schools) are scoring somewhere in the 50s, then someone who got an offer, even if they were at 66 without luck, really is more talented/hardworking than most of the others. Telling them "You only got an offer because of luck!" is silly because most people weren't even at 66 to begin with.

You're just looking at this from a different perspective than everyone else. That's not to say that the above is wrong; it's not. But I think other people are focusing on the 66-75 range and you're looking at the entire universe of law students. Of course bottom of class at any school didn't strike out because of crappy luck, and of course top of class at HYS didn't get their offers because of great luck. But when you look at the 66-75 range--of which there are a significant number of people--then luck can very well factor into whether someone in that range gets an offer but someone else doesn't.

I agree... though I do not think people fully appreciate how large that 66-75, and how many people outside of it still struck out (or below it and still get a jerb).

@onemorelawhopeful, check out "narrative fallacy."

[Anonymous User]

1) don't cancel CBs

2) if you're this desperate, focus your attention on scaring up new interviews.

3) Most firms know their yields and it is unlikely that someone who cancels a CB or turns down an offer is going to result in an offer/CB for someone else. See #2.

You're wrong. Don't post crap. See the responses to this thread and apologize for your error. I dare you to do the right thing.

Like the world owes you an offer and it's our fault that you haven't received any offer. Should have worked hard on your grades, WE, and interview skills, dood.

There's a guy at my CCN walking around saying I lied to get all my callbacks not happy.

[KidStuddi]

Well first of all, my position here seems to have been slightly misunderstood. I started my critique by saying "you've gone too far with this," and I stand by that. As OneMoreLawHopeful pointed out, Icculus initially said that the majority of finding a job was luck or factors outside of the applicants control, and I was responding to say that position was way too fatalistic. I did, however, state that I agreed that luck plays a role at the margins, but that that A) not everyone is at the margins and B) even those at the margins have only gotten there as the product of working towards relevant achievements that made them serious candidates for consideration.

Second, I'd like to endorse basically everything OneMoreLawHopeful has argued. It all seems directly on point from where I'm sitting.

I feel like a lot of the negative responses to my position are the product of the participation trophy generation. I feel like we now grow up playing sports without keeping score and somehow actually start to believe that winning is always arbitrary. Many of you seem to be arguing that if effort doesn't correlate 100% with outcomes the result can only be luck, as if the actual work product is irrelevant. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it is simply not the case that anyone who puts in nominal effort, or even very real, maximal effort, and produces poor product is equal to those who succeed.

When I read these arguments, it sounds like most of you guys think that any Division III player who works his ass off and goes to practice every day, attends every team's camp and tries really hard to prepare for every NBA tryout should, objectively speaking, be as desirable as LeBron James. And that if every team wants LeBron, and no team wants the Div III guy, that's just luck because the Div III guy worked every bit as hard as LeBron James. It's like you don't care who's actually better at playing basketball so long as they go through the motions. The Div III guy has been judged by the experts to be an inferior NBA prospect. Sure, these experts are not infallible, and sometimes they get it wrong, but by and large, they get it right. Why the hell are you guys to try and denigrate LeBron's success as "luck"? Call it what it is: an enviable outcome that resulted from a lifetime of working towards a goal of playing professional basketball.

I use LeBron as an analog here because I think his skill and success and effort are all undeniable, but I think we should give the same respect to the guy struggling to stay on the bench as the 12th man. Making it to the league over the last guy out may be partially attributable to chance, but he sure as shit didn't get to the final cut by accident.

[Anonymous User]

I don't know what's up with all this discussion on this thread. The OP made it clear this didn't apply to people seriously considering certain firms. I personally know people who told me they would NEVER choose one firm (that they had an offer from) over another firm they had an offer from as well, but were holding on to all offers. Why? No fucking idea. Some of them literally told me "I don't know, in case the firm changes its mind?" Seriously? Release your offers if you know 100% you don't want them.

[KidStuddi]

I don't know what's up with all this discussion on this thread. The OP made it clear this didn't apply to people seriously considering certain firms. I personally know people who told me they would NEVER choose one firm (that they had an offer from) over another firm they had an offer from as well, but were holding on to all offers. Why? No fucking idea. Some of them literally told me "I don't know, in case the firm changes its mind?" Seriously? Release your offers if you know 100% you don't want them.

Let's be serious. There was no point to this thread other than for OP (and others in OP's situation) to bitch about people with multiple offers. OP would be very stupid and naive to think his snarky post here would actually impel anyone to release an offer or cancel callbacks.

[Tiago Splitter]

I think we should give the same respect to the guy struggling to stay on the bench as the 12th man. Making it to the league over the last guy out may be partially attributable to chance, but he sure as shit didn't get to the final cut by accident.

Sure. OMLH obviously has the winning argument when we look at all law students; most law students choose to attend schools that make getting biglaw near impossible. To extend your analogy, most law students are the 5'5'' dude who has no chance at the NBA. But once you take those people out of the equation a large percentage of the remaining students are in the D-league/12th man category, and there is a ton of right place/right time there.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Well, you're clearly not reading the arguments carefully, because absolutely no one has said that people who are less qualified or producing poor product should get the same results as people who are more qualified/producing good product. The argument has been that an applicant's objective qualifications only go so far toward getting a job, because much of what goes into one person getting a particular job is outside the individual applicants' control; and that people who are objectively qualified and produce good product can in fact strike out. I find it interesting how strongly some people resist this reality.

You've created a lovely straw man, though. I particularly like the idea that first-year biglaw associates are analogous to LeBron James, rather than completely fungible.

And to be clear, I think I'm about as far from the "participation trophy generation" as you can find on this forum.

I feel like a lot of the negative responses to my position are the product of the participation trophy generation. I feel like we now grow up playing sports without keeping score and somehow actually start to believe that winning is always arbitrary. Many of you seem to be arguing that if effort doesn't correlate 100% with outcomes the result can only be luck, as if the actual work product is irrelevant. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it is simply not the case that anyone who puts in nominal effort, or even very real, maximal effort, and produces poor product is equal to those who succeed.

When I read these arguments, it sounds like most of you guys think that any Division III player who works his ass off and goes to practice every day, attends every team's camp and tries really hard to prepare for every NBA tryout should, objectively speaking, be as desirable as LeBron James. And that if every team wants LeBron, and no team wants the Div III guy, that's just luck because the Div III guy worked every bit as hard as LeBron James. It's like you don't care who's actually better at playing basketball so long as they go through the motions. The Div III guy has been judged by the experts to be an inferior NBA prospect. Sure, these experts are not infallible, and sometimes they get it wrong, but by and large, they get it right. Why the hell are you guys to try and denigrate LeBron's success as "luck"? Call it what it is: an enviable outcome that resulted from a lifetime of working towards a goal of playing professional basketball.

I use LeBron as an analog here because I think his skill and success and effort are all undeniable, but I think we should give the same respect to the guy struggling to stay on the bench as the 12th man. Making it to the league over the last guy out may be partially attributable to chance, but he sure as shit didn't get to the final cut by accident.

[bk1]

Many of you seem to be arguing that if effort doesn't correlate 100% with outcomes the result can only be luck, as if the actual work product is irrelevant. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it is simply not the case that anyone who puts in nominal effort, or even very real, maximal effort, and produces poor product is equal to those who succeed...

I use LeBron as an analog here because I think his skill and success and effort are all undeniable, but I think we should give the same respect to the guy struggling to stay on the bench as the 12th man. Making it to the league over the last guy out may be partially attributable to chance, but he sure as shit didn't get to the final cut by accident.

Nobody is saying that. Nobody is saying that hard work is irrelevant or that the result is "only" luck. What we are saying is that people who get biglaw should appreciate that there was a very real possibility that things could have gone differently. That's it.

To use the part of your basketball analogy that actually makes sense, the 12th man (who made the team) and the 13th man (who didn't) could have easily been in opposite positions. The 12th man should be appreciative of the fact that had things gone slightly differently, things that he had no control over (say he instead got virulently ill while trying to make the cut or some other random act of chance), he could just as easily been the 13th man.

This all started in response to gorki's dichotomy of law students (oblivious employeds and depressed unemployeds). To which Icculus responded that no, many employed law students do actually appreciate how much luck can play a factor in getting a job. Your response was essentially that it only mattered at the margins, but I would say that I don't think you appreciate how many people are actually at those margins. There are vast amounts of people every year who get a single offer. All those people could just as easily gotten no offers had things outside of their control gone only slightly differently.

I get it, you and OneMoreLawHopeful cling to the idea that the world is a very meritocratic place (essentially the bootstraps fallacy). It's a comforting thought and the idea that the world isn't like that isn't a very pleasant idea to entertain. But the reality is that the world is far less meritocratic than either of you want to believe.

[KidStuddi]

I think we should give the same respect to the guy struggling to stay on the bench as the 12th man. Making it to the league over the last guy out may be partially attributable to chance, but he sure as shit didn't get to the final cut by accident.

Sure. OMLH obviously has the winning argument when we look at all law students; most law students choose to attend schools that make getting biglaw near impossible. To extend your analogy, most law students are the 5'5'' dude who has no chance at the NBA. But once you take those people out of the equation a large percentage of the remaining students are in the D-league/12th man category, and there is a ton of right place/right time there.

Eh, if we're going to extend the bball analogy, I think it's more like the T1 schools are Div. 1 and T14 represent the traditional basketball powerhouses. And even at the best programs, say Kentucky, there's still going to be the 9-12th men on the bench who are going to end up being dentists and used car salesmen after college. It's pure self-delusion that lets those 12th men think they're actually good enough to make it in the NBA just because they played college ball at UK when they couldn't even move up the depth charts past the rest of their college team.

I don't think the percentage of students who are truly on the periphery is near as large as people are making it out to be. Maybe the lottery systems at top schools give people a lot of false hope, but for the most part, there aren't that many surprises as to who ends up getting a BigLaw job and who doesn't.

[bk1]

I don't think the percentage of students who are truly on the periphery is near as large as people are making it out to be. Maybe the lottery systems at top schools give people a lot of false hope, but for the most part, there aren't that many surprises as to who ends up getting a BigLaw job and who doesn't.

This just isn't true. There are people every year who strike out from the top of the class at T14s and people at the bottom of the class who nab biglaw. People around median often end up with a significant number getting biglaw and a significant number striking out.

This isn't the best data but it is illustrative: T7-14 2012 TLS OCI Data. There are 17 people with median grades. 4 of them struck out. 5 have a single offer. 3 have 6+ offers. I'm sorry to break it to you but the world just isn't as neat, ordered, and predictable as you would like to think it is.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I don't think the percentage of students who are truly on the periphery is near as large as people are making it out to be. Maybe the lottery systems at top schools give people a lot of false hope, but for the most part, there aren't that many surprises as to who ends up getting a BigLaw job and who doesn't.

You really think there are such clear differences in ability between all those who get a job and all those who strike out? And the fact that there are more qualified applicants than jobs, and employers have to find some way to make cuts, leads only to meritocractic outcomes, with no arbitrary distinctions drawn?

[smaug_]

I don't really follow the logic of people in this thread from either side. On the one hand, I totally and emphatically agree that the difference between killing OCI and striking out is narrower than we'd like to believe. For every person that gets ten offers there's someone with one and I don't think there's a good way to predict who will end up in each position.

That said, I don't think it is entitled to think that you vaguely "deserve" biglaw. Even though a biglaw job is something that many people kill for, it's the expected positive outcome of law school for most students at top schools. If one didn't expect to get a job they love from law school, I'm not sure what the point of going would be.

So, I guess I think one should appreciate that some people get worked by the system and don't end up where they should be or could have been were they a little luckier.

I don't see what's wrong with attributing it to luck, though. Each step in law school is work accompanied by luck: you don't exactly know what you're going to score on the LSAT, where you're going to get in to law school, what your 1L grades will be, how well your interviews will go, whether you make meaningful connections with the people you work with—each step gets more unclear and more luck gets thrown into the picture from what I can tell. There's no way to start with inputs and know how your career will turn out. Given that, we should all be kind and empathize with those who didn't end up in the same position.

[Pokemon]

I think we should give the same respect to the guy struggling to stay on the bench as the 12th man. Making it to the league over the last guy out may be partially attributable to chance, but he sure as shit didn't get to the final cut by accident.

Sure. OMLH obviously has the winning argument when we look at all law students; most law students choose to attend schools that make getting biglaw near impossible. To extend your analogy, most law students are the 5'5'' dude who has no chance at the NBA. But once you take those people out of the equation a large percentage of the remaining students are in the D-league/12th man category, and there is a ton of right place/right time there.

Eh, if we're going to extend the bball analogy, I think it's more like the T1 schools are Div. 1 and T14 represent the traditional basketball powerhouses. And even at the best programs, say Kentucky, there's still going to be the 9-12th men on the bench who are going to end up being dentists and used car salesmen after college. It's pure self-delusion that lets those 12th men think they're actually good enough to make it in the NBA just because they played college ball at UK when they couldn't even move up the depth charts past the rest of their college team.

I don't think the percentage of students who are truly on the periphery is near as large as people are making it out to be. Maybe the lottery systems at top schools give people a lot of false hope, but for the most part, there aren't that many surprises as to who ends up getting a BigLaw job and who doesn't.

Well, there is also another way of seeing things. When the DNA structure was discovered there were thousands of scientists working at it in their own separate labs. All of them were working pretty damn hard. All of them were very smart. One might imagine, that some of those scientists were even more talented and smarter that the Watson guy + his buddy. Yet only Watson + his buddy got to be famous... and their discovery, even by their admission, came out somewhat accidentally/randomly.

Obviously my point here is a little extreme (probably as extreme as your point about LeBron). Getting biglaw is not like that. I am just trying to show you situations where something random can make a huge difference. To think that is not the case is silly... Also, I knew someone who had one offer from OCI... that offer was a V5... do you see my point here? Pure bad luck, something like not bidding for that one firm (or that year that firm being more popular so other people outbid him), would have meant that this person would have had one of the worse results at the school he was at. Yet, at the end of day, if you care about firm rankings, he had one of the best possible results...

[KidStuddi]

I get it, you and OneMoreLawHopeful cling to the idea that the world is a very meritocratic place (essentially the bootstraps fallacy). It's a comforting thought and the idea that the world isn't like that isn't a very pleasant idea to entertain. But the reality is that the world is far less meritocratic than either of you want to believe.

You've created a lovely straw man, though. I particularly like the idea that first-year biglaw associates are analogous to LeBron James, rather than completely fungible.

Are people BigLaw associates hired on prospective merit or... what??? I'm arguing that it's largely prospective merit with a bit of chance thrown in when firms attempt to make fine gradient distinctions. I'm fully willing to acknowledge that firms are imperfect and diving prospective legal talent, but, at the end of the day, I believe that is what they're trying to do. Because to me, that is why you see so much convergence among firms on the "can't miss" students with multiple offers and universal panning of students with 0 offers. I bet if you were to plot BigLaw offers among law students, you would see huge spikes towards the edges with a trough in the middle, much like first-year salaries. Do you all really think the spike is in the middle, even after controlling for individuals who cancel callbacks with "lower" firms after receiving a more plum offer?

You guys seem so vehement that it's all an unfair, a capricious, meritless system of distinction, but why are there people walking around with dozens of offers while others have to claw and fight for one? Do you really think it's nothing more than a statistical quirk? They're outliers for no reason? Do you really think that a candidate with 10 V15 offers will produce the exact same quality work product as the guy with 1 offer from a satellite office of a NLJ250 firm? I don't. Maybe I'm a dick, but after grading journal competitions, I'm pretty confident in saying more than half of the rising 1Ls at my school are idiots while an uncomfortably small minority actually can write coherently and make cogent arguments. And this inequality is my reality. I see it all around me and I accept it.

[KidStuddi]

I don't think the percentage of students who are truly on the periphery is near as large as people are making it out to be. Maybe the lottery systems at top schools give people a lot of false hope, but for the most part, there aren't that many surprises as to who ends up getting a BigLaw job and who doesn't.

This just isn't true. There are people every year who strike out from the top of the class at T14s and people at the bottom of the class who nab biglaw. People around median often end up with a significant number getting biglaw and a significant number striking out.

This isn't the best data but it is illustrative: T7-14 2012 TLS OCI Data. There are 17 people with median grades. 4 of them struck out. 5 have a single offer. 3 have 6+ offers. I'm sorry to break it to you but the world just isn't as neat, ordered, and predictable as you would like to think it is.

This would be persuasive if legal hiring was based on exclusively numerical inputs. We all know that it's much more complex than that. I'm not arguing that it's a formula, I'm arguing that it's not arbitrary. There's a difference. It's like me saying, that guy is a really good orator, he'll make the debate team for sure - and then you coming back and saying no look this guys verbal SATs were in the top 1% and he didn't make the cut, clearly there's a huge chance element. GPA != employability anymore than Verbal SAT score = ability to argue extemporaneously.

I was not shocked when friends of mine with top 1/4th grades struck out (many were awkward as fuck), nor was I surprised when medianish friends with stellar personalities got multiple offers. That social IQ is pretty important. The pernicious part is that most everyone seems to think they're likable (otherwise they'd probably act differently). It's virtually impossible to collect hard data on it since the vast majority of OCI data is self-reported.

[A. Nony Mouse]

You guys seem so vehement that it's all an unfair, a capricious, meritless system of distinction, but why are there people walking around with dozens of offers while others have to claw and fight for one? Do you really think it's nothing more than a statistical quirk? They're outliers for no reason? Do you really think that a candidate with 10 V15 offers will produce the exact same quality work product as the guy with 1 offer from a satellite office of a NLJ250 firm? I don't. Maybe I'm a dick, but after grading journal competitions, I'm pretty confident in saying more than half of the rising 1Ls at my school are idiots while an uncomfortably small minority actually can write coherently and make cogent arguments. And this inequality is my reality. I see it all around me and I accept it.

You really think that you can accurately judge the lawyering ability of the rising 2Ls at your school based on their LR write ons, and that based on this impeccable measure, more than half of them are idiots? Wow.

[20160810]

But your question is also irrelevant; this discussion also isn't about any one particular job. Which firm gives you an offer is probably majority luck in most cases. Whether or not you get an offer at all is a very different story. Someone with above median grades, who is a charismatic interviewer, will probably get some kind of a job coming out of most law schools.

The bolded in itself acknowledges the possibility that someone who does it all right won't get a job for reasons outside their control. And no, statistically, when you're talking about law students collectively, one particular job doesn't matter. For a given individual, though, it might in fact be about one particular job.

I'm willing to say that most people who get the job they want probably are hardworking, have good grades, interview well, and all those good things. But that doesn't mean those who strike out don't have those qualities.

Also I love how casually he just assumes that outperforming half of his classmates is a no brainer.

[KidStuddi]

Obviously my point here is a little extreme (probably as extreme as your point about LeBron). Getting biglaw is not like that. I am just trying to show you situations where something random can make a huge difference. To think that is not the case is silly... Also, I knew someone who had one offer from OCI... that offer was a V5... do you see my point here? Pure bad luck, something like not bidding for that one firm (or that year that firm being more popular so other people outbid him), would have meant that this person would have had one of the worse results at the school he was at. Yet, at the end of day, if you care about firm rankings, he had one of the best possible results...

Guys, I used LeBron as an example because I thought it would illustrate how, IMO, you guys are throwing the baby out with the bathwater when you start saying "luck is clearly part of it for some people so clearly anyone who hasn't been fucked over yet is lucky." If you guys really think LeBron would be bumbling around in the D-leaguge right now if the Cavs went bankrupt and cut him to save money after his first year (or some other stupidly implausible scenario), fine, continue living in your cynical world everyone is an arbitrary decision away from undeserved irrelevance. I'll continue to think that if the talent is there in sufficient concentration, it will ultimately become undeniable and it will be recognized and rewarded on a long enough timeline. Brining it back to law, Sotomayor seems to be the apt example.

To the point in bold, I don't subscribe to the belief that voluntary actions are bad luck. How many neurotic 1Ls post their bidlists here for critiques and feedback? If you just throw your shit together without thinking it through, how is that on anyone but you? If your resume doesn't stand out of the piles you chose to put it into, how is that on anyone but you? If you didn't mass mail to as many firms as humanly possible, how is that on anyone but you? I don't see being unremarkable as bad luck. I see it as... being unremarkable. I don't see failing to convert screeners into CBs as bad luck. I see it as... being unlikable (or not as likable as your peers, if you prefer). Etc.

[KidStuddi]

You guys seem so vehement that it's all an unfair, a capricious, meritless system of distinction, but why are there people walking around with dozens of offers while others have to claw and fight for one? Do you really think it's nothing more than a statistical quirk? They're outliers for no reason? Do you really think that a candidate with 10 V15 offers will produce the exact same quality work product as the guy with 1 offer from a satellite office of a NLJ250 firm? I don't. Maybe I'm a dick, but after grading journal competitions, I'm pretty confident in saying more than half of the rising 1Ls at my school are idiots while an uncomfortably small minority actually can write coherently and make cogent arguments. And this inequality is my reality. I see it all around me and I accept it.

You really think that you can accurately judge the lawyering ability of the rising 2Ls at your school based on their LR write ons, and that based on this impeccable measure, more than half of them are idiots? Wow.

Unless you're arguing that law firms don't base hiring decisions at least in part on law review / journal invitations, not only am I making that decision based on a writing sample, but dozens if not hundreds of firms are then relying on my judgement when evaluating those candidates.

But really, how many chances do I need to give someone before I'm justified in telling them that they're a fuck up? Not to go too ad hominem here, but this is what I mean by the participation trophy mindset. I'm sorry, but my job was to rank the quality of these 1Ls' writing and that's exactly what I did. I was given the responsibility by a group of my peers to decide whether these 1Ls would be invited to join the law review (with all the attendant implications for their future) and that's exactly what I did. While you may be handwringing about it all the way home, I'm not going to invite someone onto law review just to give them a chance to fuck up again when, at that point, it would be my job as an editor to catch and fix their fuck ups. If you can't hunker down and produce some quality writing for a writing competition with full knowledge of what's at stake for yourself? I don't want you briefing my motions when it's someone else's ass / money on the line. Sorry if that makes me judgmental, but I've got a stack of 10 other essays where the authors took the task seriously and delivered.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Dude, obviously when you're grading write ons there are lots of crappy ones. I graded them too and I had no problem rejecting them. But I'm not nearly arrogant enough to say that someone who wrote a crappy write-on submission has demonstrated any kind of categorical inability to be a good lawyer. They just happened to produce one bad piece of writing at one time, for whatever reason. That doesn't mean they should get on law review, but getting on law review is also not direct evidence of being a good lawyer or meritocracy at work. I know idiots who made law review and plenty of people who didn't make law review and who went on to succeed brilliantly.

[edited to remove snarkier bits]

[dixiecupdrinking]

ITT: people who went to law school because they "like to argue"

[Anonymous User]

When calling a hiring partner at a firm in TX, after thanking him for the opportunity and offer, but that I would be accepting with another firm, the partner said, "Thanks for letting us know....That may possibly mean an opportunity for one of your classmates."

Every law firm generally has a fixed target for SA class size, and people with multiple offers can only go to 1 (maybe 2 in TX) places, so I definitely support non-hoarding of offers so other people can hear from those firms.

[TatteredDignity]

KidStuddi seems like someone I'd like to grab a beer with.