greekdebtcrisis wrote: A. Nony Mouse wrote: greekdebtcrisis wrote:
First Offense wrote:Damn bro, you're so much smarter than all these other prestige chasers. Don't listen to the hate.
Come on. In all seriousness it's not about being smarter or stupider. It's honestly about fleshing out the prestige factor. Why pursue transactional biglaw if you have altnerative options in non-legal and which you'll probabilistically pursue after several years in biglaw?
Has anyone actually said people who have alternative options should do biglaw? Besides Lat being satirical?
That's what many associates have said. That's what implicitly people do when they don't try to pursue any option when they get biglaw after 2L summer.
Also my favorite is when you ask first year associates what the difference is between them and contract attorneys as they're doing a similar job. The best response I got was that "because we're smarter." It sounds like the same response to people who make the claim that it is biglaw or bust because you know "prestige."
Also it sounds like you aren't disagreeing with me. But haven't you heard of this nebulous reasoning about pursuing biglaw for the sake of prestige?
I'm very unprestigious, so no, I haven't really seen people say that. When I read about it here, people generally suggest going to biglaw 1) for the money, whether to pay off debt or not; 2) for the kind of work those firms offer, and/or 3) to get the necessary years of experience required to get/do the job they really want (usually in-house/government). I'm sure prestige plays some role, but most people here would laugh at going to biglaw *only* for prestige if you don't need to for other reasons.
And I don't think not pursuing other jobs after getting something through OCI is motivated as much by prestige as you think. I think it's mostly motivated by inertia (it's easiest) and/or fear (why risk a secure job??) or lack of confidence (why would other employers hire me?) or ignorance (what other jobs can law students get??). I don't think most law students feel like they have lots of non-legal options, so the way you stated that seemed kind of straw-man-ish.
I also don't get how what associates say about contract attorneys fits here. Of course it's more prestigious in biglaw to be an associate rather than a contract attorney, because higher pay/title/better security/benefits are always more prestigious than less, but that doesn't say much about doing biglaw for the prestige compared to other non-legal jobs.
It's true that most lawyers are prestige whores, sure. But if your options are in fact so much better, who cares?