Top Law Schools

Anonymous User wrote:lol just fuck this profession.

rpupkin wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:lol just fuck this profession.

Sorry to rain on the let's-all-shit-on-the-OP parade, but I think the reaction ITT is a little over the top. The OP is just doing what many of us (myself included) probably did as rising 2Ls: viewing OCI as a continuation of the brass-ring chasing that most T14 law students have done for much of their lives.

It's understandable. Vault sucks. Chambers isn't that helpful either. But what else is someone with one year of law school behind them supposed to look at? When I was a 1L, I didn't understand what it meant to work at a big law firm as an associate. I didn't really understand after SA stints either. Or after a clerkship. It's really, really hard to gain useful perspective on this decision as a rising 2L, because you don't know what it's like to work as a litigation associate until, well, you start working as a litigation associate.

OP: All I can tell you is that the difference between what you describe as a "strong litigation firm," on the one hand, and a less-distinctive V20/V30/V50 firm, on the other, is probably not as meaningful as you think. The painful reality is that--if your goal is to maximize professional happiness and opportunities--the most important factor here is probably luck. Do you end up in a practice group that's growing? Do you end up working for a partner (or partners) who actually bother to invest in your development as an associate? Do you have the fortune of getting staffed on the cases that give you the opportunities to build your skills? Those are the things that really matter. And they don't have much (if anything) to do with Vault, Chambers, or any other assessment of prestige.

Mr. Blackacre wrote: Lol this actually explains why your first comment was so nice. The irony in there is that you have no problem making snarky comments to other posters asking stupid questions, but you're going to defend this OP because you had a similar experience in LS. It would be nice if you extended the same kind of leniency to other people as well, fyi.

rpupkin wrote:

Mr. Blackacre wrote: Lol this actually explains why your first comment was so nice. The irony in there is that you have no problem making snarky comments to other posters asking stupid questions, but you're going to defend this OP because you had a similar experience in LS. It would be nice if you extended the same kind of leniency to other people as well, fyi.

I make snarky comments when I want to make snarky comments. I'm sorry that you're disappointed that my posts don't align with your assessment of when such comments are appropriate.

Mr. Blackacre wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

Mr. Blackacre wrote: Lol this actually explains why your first comment was so nice. The irony in there is that you have no problem making snarky comments to other posters asking stupid questions, but you're going to defend this OP because you had a similar experience in LS. It would be nice if you extended the same kind of leniency to other people as well, fyi.

I make snarky comments when I want to make snarky comments. I'm sorry that you're disappointed that my posts don't align with your assessment of when such comments are appropriate.

Not disappointed - not surprised either. I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy in you calling out others when you shit on clueless posters on a daily basis.

Mr. Blackacre wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

Mr. Blackacre wrote: Lol this actually explains why your first comment was so nice. The irony in there is that you have no problem making snarky comments to other posters asking stupid questions, but you're going to defend this OP because you had a similar experience in LS. It would be nice if you extended the same kind of leniency to other people as well, fyi.

I make snarky comments when I want to make snarky comments. I'm sorry that you're disappointed that my posts don't align with your assessment of when such comments are appropriate.

Not disappointed - not surprised either. I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy in you calling out others when you shit on clueless posters on a daily basis.

rpupkin wrote: I disagree that I "shit on clueless posters on a daily basis." I think most of my posts are offered in the spirit of helpful advice. I have no idea who you are, but you appear to have a special interest in my posting history. I don't think it's appropriate to derail an on-topic thread with this kind of thing, so I suggest you start a thread in the lounge if you really want to discuss the hypocrisy of my TLS posting.

lavarman84 wrote: This site as a whole tends to shit on clueless posters. It's understandable, but it also sucks. It's understandable because reading through the threads would make people less clueless. It sucks because the people often don't become less clueless in their own thread because they're put on the defensive. We are all hypocrites at one point or another. We all contribute to the good and bad of this place.

Mr. Blackacre wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

Mr. Blackacre wrote: Lol this actually explains why your first comment was so nice. The irony in there is that you have no problem making snarky comments to other posters asking stupid questions, but you're going to defend this OP because you had a similar experience in LS. It would be nice if you extended the same kind of leniency to other people as well, fyi.

I make snarky comments when I want to make snarky comments. I'm sorry that you're disappointed that my posts don't align with your assessment of when such comments are appropriate.

Not disappointed - not surprised either. I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy in you calling out others when you shit on clueless posters on a daily basis.