legends159 wrote:Not to be overly pessimistic, but ITE = the new biglaw model.
Stop thinking things will go back to the gravy train times.
I personally wouldn't bite the hand that feeds me.
...and why are certain people who shall remain nameless but not silent acting as though this is some brilliant PR move by Fordham's dean? It doesn't seem like a letter of the kind that was distributed was designed to be sent out all over the internet. Sure, the dean could probably have foreseen that someone might send it out there, but to credit him not only with predicting discussions of this kind, but also with correctly anticipating a positive return for his school (something which has yet to be determined...but which is highly doubtful), goes beyond ridiculous.
First of all, the public airing of this letter was extremely foreseeable. While I'm sure this wasn't intended primarily as a PR move, you can hardly deny that it's had that effect, and the dean would have known as much when he wrote the letter. As I said before, there's no way to guarantee that this won't have some effect on other firms that come to our OCI. It was a calculated risk. Most likely, however, this episode will have no lasting impact on Fordham, Reed Smith, or any other firms that do OCI here. Even if Fordham doesn't lift the ban, students will still send their resumes to RS, and the firm may or may not hire them as it sees fit. We're all making a mountain out of a molehill.
What results from this? A bit of press for Fordham (and some for Reed Smith, even if it is "negative"). A statement from RS telling the public that the firm doesn't think we suck. Most likely, a reconciliation sooner, rather than later. If I actually thought this letter was likely to damage Fordham in the eyes of employers, of course I'd be unhappy about it. It is, however, a tempest in a teapot. That's basically it.