C/O 2014 NLJ 250 Numbers

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
03152016
Posts: 9189
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: C/O 2014 NLJ 250 Numbers

Postby 03152016 » Tue Feb 24, 2015 1:40 am

lol ya, you really got the better of me
very responsive to my argument

User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12569
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: C/O 2014 NLJ 250 Numbers

Postby smaug » Tue Feb 24, 2015 1:42 am

Brut wrote:lol ya, you really got the better of me
very responsive to my argument

What's your argument, again?

Do you want to respond to this:

Like, maybe you're too busy getting angry, but the NLJ 250 is just the 250 largest firms, right? They might even put them in descending numerical order, such that number one is that titan for the ages, DLA Piper. Am Law figures are from the same organization, so are you going to decry them for publishing PPP and profitability figures without having greater context. What if someone sees Cahill's no. 2 ranking in profitability and assumes that Cahill is the second best law firm?


More importantly, this:

You can't stop people from drawing poor conclusions from statistics. This is just data publishing. It's hilarious that you're so worked up about it. I just want you to say "yes Jason, I know I'm just arguing about fine nuances in biglaw employment statistic reporting" acknowledge that it's a funny thing to get worked up about, and carry on.


This post brought to you by Litigation. Mention TLS and get a discount on your subscription!

User avatar
Cal Trask
Posts: 4720
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:40 pm

Re: C/O 2014 NLJ 250 Numbers

Postby Cal Trask » Tue Feb 24, 2015 1:44 am

Brut wrote:lol ya, you really got the better of me
very responsive to my argument

Stop doing this shit.

03152016
Posts: 9189
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: C/O 2014 NLJ 250 Numbers

Postby 03152016 » Tue Feb 24, 2015 1:50 am

Jason Taverner wrote:
Brut wrote:lol ya, you really got the better of me
very responsive to my argument

What's your argument, again?

Do you want to respond to this:

Like, maybe you're too busy getting angry, but the NLJ 250 is just the 250 largest firms, right? They might even put them in descending numerical order, such that number one is that titan for the ages, DLA Piper. Am Law figures are from the same organization, so are you going to decry them for publishing PPP and profitability figures without having greater context. What if someone sees Cahill's no. 2 ranking in profitability and assumes that Cahill is the second best law firm?


More importantly, this:

You can't stop people from drawing poor conclusions from statistics. This is just data publishing. It's hilarious that you're so worked up about it. I just want you to say "yes Jason, I know I'm just arguing about fine nuances in biglaw employment statistic reporting" acknowledge that it's a funny thing to get worked up about, and carry on.


This post brought to you by Litigation. Mention TLS and get a discount on your subscription!

everyone has moved on
we had all started a new topic when you dropped back into the thread to sling more insults, it's time to move on

if you actually are curious about my argument, go back to pages 1 and 2. it's pretty clear.
i'd be happy to engage you on those points, but not if we're just going round and round again
if you genuinely can't figure out what my point is, say so and i'll link to the relevant posts

Cal Trask wrote:
Brut wrote:lol ya, you really got the better of me
very responsive to my argument

Stop doing this shit.

pointless as usual cal
Last edited by 03152016 on Tue Feb 24, 2015 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Attax
Posts: 3589
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:59 am

Re: C/O 2014 NLJ 250 Numbers

Postby Attax » Tue Feb 24, 2015 1:51 am

"Everyone has moved on"

Continues to rant about it.

Hey, Brut, move on.

User avatar
cookiejar1
Posts: 834
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:07 am

Re: C/O 2014 NLJ 250 Numbers

Postby cookiejar1 » Tue Feb 24, 2015 1:51 am

What's more meaningful: the 2014 NLJ 250 Numbers or Brut's contribution to this thread? Discuss.

03152016
Posts: 9189
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: C/O 2014 NLJ 250 Numbers

Postby 03152016 » Tue Feb 24, 2015 1:54 am

Attax wrote:"Everyone has moved on"

Continues to rant about it.

Hey, Brut, move on.

very brave to pile on, how do you find the strength

03152016
Posts: 9189
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: C/O 2014 NLJ 250 Numbers

Postby 03152016 » Tue Feb 24, 2015 1:54 am

cookiejar1 wrote:What's more meaningful: the 2014 NLJ 250 Numbers or Brut's contribution to this thread? Discuss.

pile ons are great because it helps me identify useless posters ahead of time

User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12569
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: C/O 2014 NLJ 250 Numbers

Postby smaug » Tue Feb 24, 2015 1:55 am

Brut wrote:idk what your strange obsession with continuing this argument is all about, but it's beyond pointless
, he lisped.

I'm pretty sure I addressed your "point." You don't seem to get who the NLJ's target audience is, why they would gather this information, why they would publish it or anything else.

Moreover, yeah, the presented data in a sorted, ranked format. Is that shocking? I really, truly don't think that NLJ is saying "Columbia is best at Biglaw!" or anything else with these numbers. They're just publishing the numbers that they have. That's what journalists do.

But, instead of just looking at the numbers, shrugging and going "eh" you decide that there's something wrong with them, don't point out specifically which firms are missing, don't really explain how or why that's all that important or anything else.

So, again, I just want you to say "yes Jason, I know I'm just arguing about fine nuances in biglaw employment statistic reporting" acknowledge that it's a funny thing to get worked up about, and carry on.

User avatar
runinthefront
Posts: 1053
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:18 am

Re: C/O 2014 NLJ 250 Numbers

Postby runinthefront » Tue Feb 24, 2015 1:56 am

I wonder how Bruno Mars would feel about this thread

User avatar
cookiejar1
Posts: 834
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:07 am

Re: C/O 2014 NLJ 250 Numbers

Postby cookiejar1 » Tue Feb 24, 2015 1:57 am

Brut wrote:
cookiejar1 wrote:What's more meaningful: the 2014 NLJ 250 Numbers or Brut's contribution to this thread? Discuss.

pile ons are great because it helps me identify useless posters ahead of time


and your username is great because it helps me identify 6301 useless posts ahead of time :lol:

Kimikho
Posts: 3971
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:01 pm

Re: C/O 2014 NLJ 250 Numbers

Postby Kimikho » Tue Feb 24, 2015 1:58 am

There should be a rule that you can't participate in the joys of a pile on until you have been the victim of one.

That being said, Brut: brief.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22776
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: C/O 2014 NLJ 250 Numbers

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Tue Feb 24, 2015 1:58 am

Brut, I'm not romo, but you do need to chill. I don't know if this is how you intend your posts to be read, but they do come across as oddly hostile, offering strangely personal attacks, and unable to handle disagreement. TLS is TLS and all, but those kinds of posts do derail on-topic discussion, so do please chill.

03152016
Posts: 9189
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: C/O 2014 NLJ 250 Numbers

Postby 03152016 » Tue Feb 24, 2015 2:04 am

definitely not sad and pathetic that you're snooping my profile to dig up "dirt" on me
frantically scouring my profile for tidbits of information about me is a sure sign of a winning argument and definitely doesn't prove my point that you're increasingly looking desperate

since you obviously have a reading comprehension problem (as if it wasn't obvious already), my point is here

my point (that this is a useless, incomplete, and potentially misleading ranking (as all national rankings of law schools are)) hasn't been challenged, except by the argument that it wasn't intended to be a ranking a la USNWR, which is bullshit because (a) the problem arises in how 0Ls use it, not in what it's intended for, and (b) there's no other legitimate purpose for putting it in a ranking form and calling it a "ranking" with "ranks", than to try to compete with usnwr, which is widely watched by prospective students, generating considerable traffic. if they were truly just interested in sharing the raw data and had no interest in being perceived as a law school ranking, why call it "the go to law schools", why refer to it as a "ranking", why assign each school a "rank", why include the tagline "ranking the go-to schools". this completely undermines the argument that it's not intended to be relied on as a measurement of what schools students should go to.

Kimikho
Posts: 3971
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:01 pm

Re: C/O 2014 NLJ 250 Numbers

Postby Kimikho » Tue Feb 24, 2015 2:05 am

Brut wrote:definitely not sad and pathetic that you're snooping my profile to dig up "dirt" on me
frantically scouring my profile for tidbits of information about me is a sure sign of a winning argument and definitely doesn't prove my point that you're increasingly looking desperate

since you obviously have a reading comprehension problem (as if it wasn't obvious already), my point is here

my point (that this is a useless, incomplete, and potentially misleading ranking (as all national rankings of law schools are)) hasn't been challenged, except by the argument that it wasn't intended to be a ranking a la USNWR, which is bullshit because (a) the problem arises in how 0Ls use it, not in what it's intended for, and (b) there's no other legitimate purpose for putting it in a ranking form and calling it a "ranking" with "ranks", than to try to compete with usnwr, which is widely watched by prospective students, generating considerable traffic. if they were truly just interested in sharing the raw data and had no interest in being perceived as a law school ranking, why call it "the go to law schools", why refer to it as a "ranking", why assign each school a "rank", why include the tagline "ranking the go-to schools". this completely undermines the argument that it's not intended to be relied on as a measurement of what schools students should go to.


Okay I'm using my pile-on-victim privileges here

Come on Brut you told someone once you had saved all of his posts

Also, please feel free to take this discussion to the Official TLS Gossip and Defamation Thread: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=243662

03152016
Posts: 9189
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: C/O 2014 NLJ 250 Numbers

Postby 03152016 » Tue Feb 24, 2015 2:06 am

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Brut, I'm not romo, but you do need to chill. I don't know if this is how you intend your posts to be read, but they do come across as oddly hostile, offering strangely personal attacks, and unable to handle disagreement. TLS is TLS and all, but those kinds of posts do derail on-topic discussion, so do please chill.

i saw my posts as just dishing out what i was taking
especially now that he's elevated the attacks to "you're an aspie"

03152016
Posts: 9189
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: C/O 2014 NLJ 250 Numbers

Postby 03152016 » Tue Feb 24, 2015 2:08 am

Kimikho wrote:
Brut wrote:definitely not sad and pathetic that you're snooping my profile to dig up "dirt" on me
frantically scouring my profile for tidbits of information about me is a sure sign of a winning argument and definitely doesn't prove my point that you're increasingly looking desperate

since you obviously have a reading comprehension problem (as if it wasn't obvious already), my point is here

my point (that this is a useless, incomplete, and potentially misleading ranking (as all national rankings of law schools are)) hasn't been challenged, except by the argument that it wasn't intended to be a ranking a la USNWR, which is bullshit because (a) the problem arises in how 0Ls use it, not in what it's intended for, and (b) there's no other legitimate purpose for putting it in a ranking form and calling it a "ranking" with "ranks", than to try to compete with usnwr, which is widely watched by prospective students, generating considerable traffic. if they were truly just interested in sharing the raw data and had no interest in being perceived as a law school ranking, why call it "the go to law schools", why refer to it as a "ranking", why assign each school a "rank", why include the tagline "ranking the go-to schools". this completely undermines the argument that it's not intended to be relied on as a measurement of what schools students should go to.


Okay I'm using my pile-on-victim privileges here

Come on Brut you told someone once you had saved all of his posts

Also, please feel free to take this discussion to the Official TLS Gossip and Defamation Thread: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0&t=243662

well, i intended for that to mean the posts specifically pertaining to the dumb argument we were having
that seems different to me than scouring a post history for dirt about anything and everything
but w/e point taken

User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12569
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: C/O 2014 NLJ 250 Numbers

Postby smaug » Tue Feb 24, 2015 2:09 am

What did I dig up on you? I'm really confused by that. Seriously. Literally nothing in my post was about anything beyond what you've posted in this thread.

And to address your points:

(a) not NLJ's fault that other people read their articles
(b) yes, it's a horrible sin to sort data, how dare they!
and the implicit (c) they're going to call them the "go-to" schools because they're schools to go to if you want to go to the firms they gather information about/report on

I'm dead serious when I think this is designed as a thing to catch the eye of a practicing attorney, to have them click on it and maybe read a portion of it, and then close their tab.

It's just such a silly thing to get worked up about, dude.

User avatar
Desert Fox
Progressively loosing literacy
Posts: 14375
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm

Re: C/O 2014 NLJ 250 Numbers

Postby Desert Fox » Tue Feb 24, 2015 2:13 am

is brut a WUSTL guy or michigan guy

03152016
Posts: 9189
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: C/O 2014 NLJ 250 Numbers

Postby 03152016 » Tue Feb 24, 2015 2:23 am

welp, got a mod pm and am in trouble again
i thought it was fair game b/c of the posts i was responding to, but apparently that's not how it works
i guess i'll just do all my arguing over pm from now on

sry nony

jason i pmed you

User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12569
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: C/O 2014 NLJ 250 Numbers

Postby smaug » Tue Feb 24, 2015 2:23 am


User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12569
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: C/O 2014 NLJ 250 Numbers

Postby smaug » Tue Feb 24, 2015 2:25 am

You can post here, Brut.

It's less creepy than PM.

Also, "answer honestly and I promise this stays in PM" comes across as an odd threat.

Don't threaten my corporate sponsorship, please. Mouths to feed, et cetera.

Kimikho
Posts: 3971
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:01 pm

Re: C/O 2014 NLJ 250 Numbers

Postby Kimikho » Tue Feb 24, 2015 2:28 am


User avatar
Cal Trask
Posts: 4720
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:40 pm

Re: C/O 2014 NLJ 250 Numbers

Postby Cal Trask » Tue Feb 24, 2015 2:30 am

Jason Taverner wrote:http://i.imgur.com/MRGXhjg.png

Wow.

03152016
Posts: 9189
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: C/O 2014 NLJ 250 Numbers

Postby 03152016 » Tue Feb 24, 2015 2:31 am

you're great jason
you've showed everyone that you know how to drop an argument when it has clearly ended
it definitely does not look desperate, and i look forward to my new friendship with you

eta: ok just saw that you took my post as a weird threat, that's not paranoid at all
but actually it meant exactly what it said
in the event that you knew me personally, which i thought you might, i wouldn't go blurting it out on the board. in other words, it would stay in PM




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.