Top Law Schools

Anonymous User wrote:You know, when I started this topic I was hoping to get some chuckles.

And even though I have gotten some laughs, I've also had quite a few "Wow, WTF moments."

It's very disheartening to read about how naive/out-of-touch individuals are about the legal market.

Though, some of the worst/starkest things I've heard so far have come from when I was just hanging out at my school's main area, and overhearing 1Ls talk about jobs:

"I'll only work at [x] firm because they are the only ones with a good [x] practice."

"I'll only work at a big firm because I want to make a lot of money but only put in 40 hours a week."

"I want to go to a big firm so I can become an expert trial lawyer."

I can't remember ever being that naive as a 1L. But I should credit that to my old mentor who sat me down before I started and gave me a pretty accurate portrait of the legal market.

I agree, it's kind of depressing. I spent hours this summer trying to convince one of my best friend's little sister not to go to a TTT. She just wouldn't listen. And she had no good responses. It was basically "Yeah, I know it's bad out there, and I know my TTT isn't a good school. I just want to go and not retake the LSAT." I sent her links, argued about stats with her, told her how awful it is for all of my friends from my shitty school that actually does better than her TTT, and so on. I don't even think it's special snowflake syndrome. It's more or less a reckless, IDGAF, I'll deal with it later mentality.

The worst was she was banking on a family friend's <10 attorney firm hiring her. This firm didn't even pay her when she was interning there during UG, and the managing partner had previously told me that he was trying to shrink their firm by getting rid of a few associates.

The saddest thing is I've come to figure out that she's paying sticker and her parents can't afford to help her at all. It's like I'm watching someone willingly ruin their (financial) life by turning a blind eye.

I wish I could say that my classmates--at a T20--have a better perspective on the legal market. But sadly they do not.

For example, most of them only went through OCI, and after 80%+ struck out, they still have not moved their asses to secure 2L employment. Most of them just think that something will fall into their lap later this term, or during spring.

One of my friends very recently just started to mass-mail. He gave me a ton of grief because I had started mass mailing months ago.

Anonymous User wrote: If you are weighing the pros and cons of being a URM, you can't just take in the boost in jobs...

Even this part is overblown...it's more complicated than just being urm, even though it helps obviously. this is a stupid subject not worth wasting time arguing over, but i would't be surprised if a study came out showing the biggest beneficiaries of law firm aa policy turned out to be white women.

Anonymous User wrote:I wish I could say that my classmates--at a T20--have a better perspective on the legal market. But sadly they do not.

For example, most of them only went through OCI, and after 80%+ struck out, they still have not moved their asses to secure 2L employment. Most of them just think that something will fall into their lap later this term, or during spring.

One of my friends very recently just started to mass-mail. He gave me a ton of grief because I had started mass mailing months ago.

I feel the same, but I also realize that I don't generally talk about my mass mailing and interviews. People wouldn't realize I was doing anything for the job search if not for the fact that I've missed a ton of classes for interviews (and then only the people who say 'hey, haven't seen you in class for a while, everything okay/you interviewing or is something up' know). I hope that a lot of the lack of action is just people not talking about it.

On the other hand, I definitely know people who just recently started sending materials or thinking of applying, because they've asked me questions or made comments (like, wow, you've been at it for a while... I should probably send out some apps. Oh, look, I sent out five! That's good for this month!). I don't get it, but I hope that my work will pay off and I'll find a job soon... and that they are lucky and get something.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: If you are weighing the pros and cons of being a URM, you can't just take in the boost in jobs...

Even this part is overblown...it's more complicated than just being urm, even though it helps obviously. this is a stupid subject not worth wasting time arguing over, but i would't be surprised if a study came out showing the biggest beneficiaries of law firm aa policy turned out to be white women.

The data shows a random black law student at a TLS is likelier than a random white law student at the same TLS of getting an SA. The same data shows the odds of that black student lasting more than a few years are much lower. This suggests either they are less qualified or partners assume s/he's a URM beneficiary and don't give them complicated and important work. It seems clear the whole boost is counterproductive to the AA who has a 170 plus LSAT. S/he would likely succeed without it, and the stigma is stunting his/her career growth.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: If you are weighing the pros and cons of being a URM, you can't just take in the boost in jobs...

Even this part is overblown...it's more complicated than just being urm, even though it helps obviously. this is a stupid subject not worth wasting time arguing over, but i would't be surprised if a study came out showing the biggest beneficiaries of law firm aa policy turned out to be white women.

The data shows a random black law student at a TLS is likelier than a random white law student at the same TLS of getting an SA. The same data shows the odds of that black student lasting more than a few years are much lower. This suggests either they are less qualified or partners assume s/he's a URM beneficiary and don't give them complicated and important work. It seems clear the whole boost is counterproductive to the AA who has a 170 plus LSAT. S/he would likely succeed without it, and the stigma is stunting his/her career growth.

Yeah, this is getting close to an AA discussion, which isn't appropriate in this thread.

A. Nony Mouse wrote: Yeah, this is getting close to an AA discussion, which isn't appropriate in this thread.

Thank you Nony, you're doing Mod's work.

kay2016 wrote:School brought in an pre-recession grad (who was top of her class every semester, booked several classes) who in regards to exam nerves told everyone not to worry. grades aren't that important. there are tons of jobs...

What is she supposed to say. The curve is the curve. If you all work harder nothing changes. You should happy she is telling people to chill.

Desert Fox wrote:

kay2016 wrote:School brought in an pre-recession grad (who was top of her class every semester, booked several classes) who in regards to exam nerves told everyone not to worry. grades aren't that important. there are tons of jobs...

What is she supposed to say. The curve is the curve. If you all work harder nothing changes. You should happy she is telling people to chill.

Somehow I doubt that that's the part that was concerning.

.

Danger Zone wrote:

BlueLotus wrote:quote from dean of career services in response to the nyt article from 2011 ("is law school a losing game"):
"People do need to pay attention to the debt involved. But that shouldn't discourage anyone [from attending law school at full price]."

Take note of it, then disregard it entirely. Got it, thanks Dean.

Same Dean who defended posting on symplicity a FT postgrad law firm associate job with a yearly salary of $10K.

Fuckin' sh*tboomers.

10k is that legal?

^ don't think so, cuz MA's min. wage is $8 an hour, and 10K/year working FT comes out to <$5 an hour.

really disgraceful that my school would give such an unscrupulous employer a platform...

BlueLotus wrote:^ don't think so, cuz MA's min. wage is $8 an hour, and 10K/year working FT comes out to <$5 an hour.

really disgraceful that my school would give such an unscrupulous employer a platform...

thats part of the problem. law schools are complicit in the subjugation of its students to their own money-making interests.

Okay, this has to be one of most ridiculous things I've heard so far:

"I'd rather excel on my journal (a secondary journal that basically accepts anyone) and get published, and become president of my student organization, and wait for my 3L year to start looking for a biglaw job."

My main priority this year was to secure 2L employment, and everything else has taken a backseat. Some of my classmates had it reversed, where they overly focused on school-related activities, and their job-search took a backseat.

"I'm not doing OCI, I don't think a big law firm is for me."

- Person with mediocre grades and no other prospects

I wonder what the responses would have been if I had made this a "What's the funniest thing Career Services has said to you?" thread.

androstan wrote:"I'm not doing OCI, I don't think a big law firm is for me."

- Person with mediocre grades

That isn't that absurd. Maybe she has something else lined up. I didn't do OCI.

.

brotherdarkness wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I wonder what the responses would have been if I had made this a "What's the funniest thing Career Services has said to you?" thread.

"Network."

I remember one time I specifically asked my OCS counselor for advice on networking and she just said, "Just put yourself out there, and go to networking events."

Then I asked her specifically on how I should "put myself out there."

And her only response was "check Symplicity often."

Not to sound overly cynical, but I just do not get much out of meeting with OCS.

It just seems like they have the same 2 lines: (1) network and (2) don't worry you'll find a job.

worldtraveler wrote:

androstan wrote:"I'm not doing OCI, I don't think a big law firm is for me."

- Person with mediocre grades

That isn't that absurd. Maybe she has something else lined up. I didn't do OCI.

a shame. oci was great for professional development, actually

mephistopheles wrote:

worldtraveler wrote:

androstan wrote:"I'm not doing OCI, I don't think a big law firm is for me."

- Person with mediocre grades

That isn't that absurd. Maybe she has something else lined up. I didn't do OCI.

a shame. oci was great for professional development, actually

heh, same here, didn't even do oci. focused my energy on EJW/direct applying to jerbs (straight up pi gunner here).

Anonymous User wrote:

brotherdarkness wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I wonder what the responses would have been if I had made this a "What's the funniest thing Career Services has said to you?" thread.

"Network."

I remember one time I specifically asked my OCS counselor for advice on networking and she just said, "Just put yourself out there, and go to networking events."

Then I asked her specifically on how I should "put myself out there."

And her only response was "check Symplicity often."

Not to sound overly cynical, but I just do not get much out of meeting with OCS.

It just seems like they have the same 2 lines: (1) network and (2) don't worry you'll find a job.

So true. Career Services makes it sound like as thought the only unemployed people are those that failed to "network" or could not do so properly. Showing up wasted at local bar functions obviously does not count. . . .

CSO actually emailed me to tell me to stop giving my friends advice on bid lists. I responded by asking them what statistical formula they were using. (lottery system so if you have enough data points, I did, you can map out where to bid certain firms) Got a very rude response saying they used their experience etc. Joke ended up being on them as my friends got 10 more OCI interviews then the average and I got 28 when the average is around 11. Why do these people get paid again?

Anonymous User wrote:CSO actually emailed me to tell me to stop giving my friends advice on bid lists. I responded by asking them what statistical formula they were using. (lottery system so if you have enough data points, I did, you can map out where to bid certain firms) Got a very rude response saying they used their experience etc. Joke ended up being on them as my friends got 10 more OCI interviews then the average and I got 28 when the average is around 11. Why do these people get paid again?

This isn't really that surprising. CSO's job is not to get you a job, it's to get as many law students as possible a job. If there are a finite number of interview spots, when you get 28, that means some of your classmates get less than 11 or even 0. From a CSO perspective, of course it's better for everyone to get 11 then to have someone get 0 and someone get 20+.