whats needed to land wachtell (or = elite firms)

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
daesonesb
Posts: 499
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:18 pm

Re: whats needed to land wachtell (or = elite firms)

Postby daesonesb » Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:52 am

King wrote:I remember checking the associate profiles on wachtell. All of them had the generic elite UG summa cum laude and HYS summa cum laude order of the coif. I just want to know if the elite UG is necessary for Wachtell.


A really basic perusal of the site shows that there are two associates at Watchell right now that went to UG at ASU. That should answer your question about whether or not an elite UG is necessary. Arizona State....

If you couldn't do that simple research on your own, how do you expect to be an asset to frickin' Watchell?

User avatar
Boba Fett
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: whats needed to land wachtell (or = elite firms)

Postby Boba Fett » Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:59 am

daesonesb wrote:
King wrote:I remember checking the associate profiles on wachtell. All of them had the generic elite UG summa cum laude and HYS summa cum laude order of the coif. I just want to know if the elite UG is necessary for Wachtell.


A really basic perusal of the site shows that there are two associates at Watchell right now that went to UG at ASU. That should answer your question about whether or not an elite UG is necessary. Arizona State....

If you couldn't do that simple research on your own, how do you expect to be an asset to frickin' Watchell?


+1

and, additionally, there are less than a handful of HLS grades who made summa since the school modified its cutoff in 1970, none of whom work for Wachtell:

1.) Lewis Sargentich '70

2.) Isaac Pachulski '74

3.) Peter Huber '82

4.) Lisa Ann Grow/Sun '97

5.) Julian Poon '99

6) Michael Shah '03

7) Yaakov Roth '07

Oblomov
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:16 am

Re: whats needed to land wachtell (or = elite firms)

Postby Oblomov » Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:05 am

.
Last edited by Oblomov on Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
daesonesb
Posts: 499
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:18 pm

Re: whats needed to land wachtell (or = elite firms)

Postby daesonesb » Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:06 am

Boba Fett wrote:
daesonesb wrote:
King wrote:I remember checking the associate profiles on wachtell. All of them had the generic elite UG summa cum laude and HYS summa cum laude order of the coif. I just want to know if the elite UG is necessary for Wachtell.


A really basic perusal of the site shows that there are two associates at Watchell right now that went to UG at ASU. That should answer your question about whether or not an elite UG is necessary. Arizona State....

If you couldn't do that simple research on your own, how do you expect to be an asset to frickin' Watchell?


+1

and, additionally, there are less than a handful of HLS grades who made summa since the school modified its cutoff in 1970, none of whom work for Wachtell:

1.) Lewis Sargentich '70

2.) Isaac Pachulski '74

3.) Peter Huber '82

4.) Lisa Ann Grow/Sun '97

5.) Julian Poon '99

6) Michael Shah '03

7) Yaakov Roth '07


I like seeing this wall of Optimus Prime and Boba fett we got going here.

User avatar
daesonesb
Posts: 499
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:18 pm

Re: whats needed to land wachtell (or = elite firms)

Postby daesonesb » Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:06 am

Oblomov wrote:W's reputation is so well established that they don't need to prestige whore. I think they actually have greater latitude to hire outside of the top schools than other v-20 firms. If you're went to Indiana, you're out of place at Sherman Sterling. If you went to Indiana and work at Wachtell, you belong at Wachtell.


Your tar needs to involve Sci Fi.
you are ruining the wall.

flcath
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: whats needed to land wachtell (or = elite firms)

Postby flcath » Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:38 am

bigben wrote:
flcath wrote:
Boba Fett wrote:
OperaSoprano wrote:it is hard to imagine a job with less appeal


I'm pretty sure you could find something less appealing than $165,000/yr + 90-100% bonus.

$165K base salary?! With only another measly $150K bonus?!?! Pfff, get with the times, Mr. Fett. I wouldn't fix a parking ticket for that.

--LinkRemoved--

This link also supports OS's point, though.


HAHA this article was kidding bro.


You're right I didn't even read it. (I obviously am not WLRK material.)

That having been said I totally believed the salary figures when I skimmed for just them.

User avatar
macattaq
Posts: 441
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:46 pm

Re: whats needed to land wachtell (or = elite firms)

Postby macattaq » Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:41 am

PDaddy wrote:
Cavalier wrote:This is the most retarded post I've read here. We are going to law school to make money to afford big homes, summer homes, nice cars, and trophy wives, not to free Tibet and save the whales. If you want to dedicate your life to social justice or some other trivial goal you shouldn't be going to law school.


You must be a 19-year-old rich white kid from the Hamptons. That's the type of person dumb enough to read a discourse on "social justice" in the words of my post. My post has nothing to do with social justice per se, and everything to do with the mentality that we should let law firms and other employers have so much control over our destiny. I like money; I love money. If you want to make money, go do it. But have a plan besides "I hope 'school X' accepts me because, otherwise, I am fucked! I will never get the 'job' I want otherwise."

Do you get it?

There's room for everyone to do what they want to do in the profession, and someone has to serve corporate clients. This is not about telling anyone that there's something wrpong with BigLaw. It's about people thinking so narrowly. If you think that's retarded, I really feel sorry for you. :wink:

Another thing: I realize that many of you will disagree with whatever I say because of my self tar, and that's cool. But you'll do yourself a huge favor if you accept the fact that A) I know I make a lot of sense and that's not going to change because people disagree with me, B) I am not going anywhere, C) you know when you shut the computer down that you agree with much of what I say but are too much of a coward to admit it in the public sphere, and D) some of you only disagree with me because I'm black.

If I were a white boy, you guys would be saying..."Dude...ur smack is so on point!" It's all good...just recognize that I know these things. I'm a soldier...and I'm much too strong for anyone here to intimidate me or try to fool me into thinking that I am the one with the problem.

And to the dude who thinks you are not powerful enough to create anything just being who you are...why don't you say that in one of your essays to the law schools...see if they accept you.

JFK had a low LSAT score and failed the bar like three times. He was rich and connected, but no different from any of us otherwise. Give me the guy with no money who rolls up his sleeves and works his ass off over the spoiled, rich prettyboy every time.


Its pretty clear that you know somewhere between fuck all and jack shit about how things like 'experience' or 'connections' or 'totem pole systems' work. I'll state up front that I am not an expert on these things. But I have enough of a grounding in reality to know that having this thing you call a 'job' isn't just about clocking in, doing work, clocking out, and collecting a paycheck. Having a 'job', particularly one in BigLaw enables an associate to develop connections that open doors to better employment, a more fruitful and satisfying career, and the chance to do what you want to do. Simultaneously, it enables you to gain practical lawyering experience. While most of us here will probably participate in clinics and externships as 2/3Ls, this is not the same as going to work everyday. Having a job in BigLaw, MidLaw, or even ShitLaw enables you to work along much more experienced attorneys, who (should) have thorough knowledge of their practice area. This creates a situation where the associate/junior attorney is able to learn some of the tricks of a particular area. Upon leaving the firm, and either joining a specialized practice or establishing their own, the attorney has a network of highly qualified, well established attorneys and clients that s/he can go to for assistance. The attorney has an established client base (hopefully). The attorney has clients who can help generate new clients. Most importantly, the attorney should have made significant progress towards paying off the cost of student loans, and should have a number of cases to which s/he can point when discussing their own expertise in a given area of law. These are some of the benefits of the traditional system. I am not making a value judgment about the way things are set up, I am simply pointing out what I have observed.

Now, your two main posts do not even begin to acknowledge the validity of the system as it is currently set up. I do agree with two of your overall assertions though, which seem to be: do not to get caught up in the material comforts a good job can bring, and to focus on using a JD to take an active, positive role in the community. But to assume that because a person has, for one reason or another, chosen to go the firm route AND to then argue that that person must not want anything more for their life than that job is horseshit. What you are doing is drawing a line and saying, "if a person goes route x, then it means y about them as a person." That simply isn't true. Sure, there are those who only want to practice corporate law. But again, there are also many who go the firm route because it is the fastest way to pay off law school loans, get financially established, and acquire the things I mentioned previously.

I also happen to agree with what seems to be your main point. That is, that rather than working for the man, we should be using our degrees to create our own reality, so to speak. I absolutely, 100% agree with that. There are many reasons, some having to do with pride, some having to do with sheer practicality, why this is true. But it is clear that you do not realize how many attorneys end up as solo practitioners. There are also plenty of attorneys who don't even practice law. They work as consultants, human rights workers, artists, and so on. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to get my songs published, I'll finish law school, but I probably won't practice. That being said, I think that you are a little too dismissive of the grey area. That grey area is the space between the PI and BigLaw. It is massive, and encompasses far more than attorneys (at least from my own observation) than either of those two areas do. Moreover, you need to recognize that TLS is inherently self-selecting. Its not called "Top Law Schools" for nothing. There are people here who are shooting to get as close as possible to the tip-top of the peak of legal practice. If not there, then at least into a position where they can accomplish their goals. Some motivations for this may be as basic as maintaining a lifestyle their parents afforded them growing up. Some may include purely altruistic motivations. But I'm willing to bet that for the vast majority of TLSers, it is a mix of many, many different motivations. Regardless, it is pretty dick to make a value call on a person's motivations. You may not agree, but its not up to you or anyone else to decide whose motivations have merit. This is the undercurrent I picked up in your posts, and man, if you maintain this perspective, I hope that we are never colleagues.

You make various claims about what people may or may not be thinking about you. Hint: you're making that shit up. You don't know what anyone is thinking. I'm willing to guess that it could be something like, "this guy is an idiot". Or perhaps, "LOL at this guy". Personally, I think its pathetic when a clearly intelligent person stoops to oscillating between playing the race card, being pedantic, and coming off as holier-than-thou. You may not have intended to present yourself that way, but that is what I see. Others may or may not agree. That beings said, drop the hubris. Doing so will help you to avoid the law school smack down that is almost certainly in your future.
Last edited by macattaq on Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
superserial
Posts: 376
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:57 pm

Re: whats needed to land wachtell (or = elite firms)

Postby superserial » Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:44 am

superior cock-sucking abilities.

User avatar
Cavalier
Posts: 1994
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: whats needed to land wachtell (or = elite firms)

Postby Cavalier » Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:30 am

PDaddy wrote:
Cavalier wrote:This is the most retarded post I've read here. We are going to law school to make money to afford big homes, summer homes, nice cars, and trophy wives, not to free Tibet and save the whales. If you want to dedicate your life to social justice or some other trivial goal you shouldn't be going to law school.


You must be a 19-year-old rich white kid from the Hamptons. That's the type of person dumb enough to read a discourse on "social justice" in the words of my post. My post has nothing to do with social justice per se, and everything to do with the mentality that we should let law firms and other employers have so much control over our destiny. I like money; I love money. If you want to make money, go do it. But have a plan besides "I hope 'school X' accepts me because, otherwise, I am fucked! I will never get the 'job' I want otherwise."

Do you get it?

There's room for everyone to do what they want to do in the profession, and someone has to serve corporate clients. This is not about telling anyone that there's something wrpong with BigLaw. It's about people thinking so narrowly. If you think that's retarded, I really feel sorry for you. :wink:

Another thing: I realize that many of you will disagree with whatever I say because of my self tar, and that's cool. But you'll do yourself a huge favor if you accept the fact that A) I know I make a lot of sense and that's not going to change because people disagree with me, B) I am not going anywhere, C) you know when you shut the computer down that you agree with much of what I say but are too much of a coward to admit it in the public sphere, and D) some of you only disagree with me because I'm black.

If I were a white boy, you guys would be saying..."Dude...ur smack is so on point!" It's all good...just recognize that I know these things. I'm a soldier...and I'm much too strong for anyone here to intimidate me or try to fool me into thinking that I am the one with the problem.

And to the dude who thinks you are not powerful enough to create anything just being who you are...why don't you say that in one of your essays to the law schools...see if they accept you.

JFK had a low LSAT score and failed the bar like three times. He was rich and connected, but no different from any of us otherwise. Give me the guy with no money who rolls up his sleeves and works his ass off over the spoiled, rich prettyboy every time.

First of all, you erroneously assume I read your post. I was only responding to the tl;dr version (the bold part) that you kindly provided. I actually attempted to make it through this second rant of yours, which turned out to be a waste of time. I recommend you strongly reconsider your choice to attend law school. Should you enroll, I fully expect to see you back here with another idiotic post complaining about being in the bottom 10% of the class. This profession is not for everyone.

User avatar
FunkyJD
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:38 pm

Re: whats needed to land wachtell (or = elite firms)

Postby FunkyJD » Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:24 am

PDaddy wrote:It seems that we on TLS keep thinking, talking and asking about...."JOB"?! "JOB"?! "JOB"?! Don't we want to create anything anymore? I read about a hundred posts a day; few if any involve a person asking, "What steps do I take to create a small firm of my own, a production company, a non-profit, or a for profit business?" We don't ask, "How can I use my education to create a foundation that solves some of the problems that I claim inspired me to pursue a legal career?"

Just because you perhaps haven't read a post like this -- and I don't know why, because I believe that I have -- doesn't mean that people don't feel this way. Some people don't feel like putting all of their hopes, dreams, and hopey-changey stuff out there.

Regardless, I am trying to become a lawyer because I feel I have the natural skills for it, and because I want to practice law that addresses issues of interest to me, such as regulation in a specific industry. If it compensates me well at some point, and I hope that it does, I will accept it without apology and seek more.

PDaddy wrote:Law students and graduates are supposed to create things; they are leaders in society. JFK Jr. understood this when he started George Magazine.

Having a former First Lady/Greek billionaire's widow as a mother probably enhanced his understanding.

PDaddy wrote:That's the reason adcoms ask for personal statements that discuss "unique background and attributes", or something akin to them.

Personally, I think they're just bored and want entertainment.

PDaddy wrote:According to what I read these days, most of our personal statements should read, "I'm going to tell you a story, but don't dare believe that it has anything to do with my wanting to be a "social engineer" because I am really a liar. I want to go to HLS because it provides the best opportunities for me to get a BigLaw job and potentially get rich."

Telling Harvard to accept you because you want to make a difference is like telling Erin Andrews that you're attracted to her personality. You can always be attracted to the personality of a four -- why then, do you choose to shoot for the 10? Accordingly, you can always make a difference at Vermont or Pace; but if you could go to Harvard, because of all of the opportunities it offers -- including financial opportunities -- you probably would.

PDaddy wrote:We also might as well be saying, "Please, please, take me into your elite school so I DON'T have to create anything and really prove myself.

I believe that the best lawyers are creative problem-solvers.

PDaddy wrote:It's not wrong to wonder about job prospects or want financial security, but we should remember that we are supposed to be future leaders, not followers. We must strike a balance...and remember to think creatively about our abilities to contribute.

Given what you're written, I'm trying to figure out why you're applying to law school, instead of policy school.

User avatar
prezidentv8
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am

Re: whats needed to land wachtell (or = elite firms)

Postby prezidentv8 » Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:58 pm

bigben wrote:
prezidentv8 wrote:Based on my current knowledge, I would not work at W,R,L&K. They could double the salary/bonus and I might consider it for a year. I'm not opposed to working at firms, but from the small amount of knowledge of the industry I have, they take the big law reputation to new lows (or highs, depending on your perspective).


Don't worry. They wouldn't consider hiring you even if you offered to pay them double the salary for the opportunity to work there.


Probably also true.

But thanks for being an ass anyway.

Action Jackson
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 12:46 am

Re: whats needed to land wachtell (or = elite firms)

Postby Action Jackson » Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:18 pm

Two things:

1. Lawyers are NOT supposed to create things. They facilitate transactions. Business people create deals, lawyers work out the details on paper. Criminals create crime, lawyers figure out how to mitigate their punishments (or facilitate their punishments, as the case may be).

JFK Jr. wasn't a lawyer when he started George. He was a business person. As noted, one with tons of money and huge family connections. And that magazine of his was notable SOLELY because he started it. Is it even still around? I've never, ever known anyone to actually purchase a copy of George.

That aside, it's not at all unreasonable that not every person going into law school doesn't have entrepreneurial ambitions. They're not supposed to. Running a business takes a certain kind of mind, drive, and will, and that's totally different than what it takes to be a lawyer.

2. Yes, the QOL at Wachtell is low, but so what? You either don't care, and stay on to try and make partner, or you leave after 2, 3, 4, 5 years, and you've got the prestige to claim any job you want. I've met plenty of people that started at V5's and then went on to get their dream jobs in other places. One is the general council of a great PI organization, and he loves his job. He wouldn't have been able to get that job if he didn't have such a prestigious start.

It annoys me to know end how people bitch and moan about QOL like every moment of their life has to be perfect. Sometimes you have to sacrifice a couple of years to make the REST of your life better. Ten, twenty, thirty years down the line are you really going to give a shit that you had a rough couple of years in your 20's? People go to WAR and come back and make a life for themselves, you can surely put up with a couple years at Wachtell.

Unfortunately, I doubt I'll have the grades to qualify for Wachtell, but if I did, I would do everything I could to get a position there. Everyone that wants to work in the legal field should. You don't walk away from that job empty handed. Plus you get paid a shit ton.

User avatar
FunkyJD
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:38 pm

Re: whats needed to land wachtell (or = elite firms)

Postby FunkyJD » Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:09 pm

Tbf, George was actually an okay mag. Not special, but decent. As soon as JFK Jr. left the stage, it did as well. Websites like HuffPo and Politico and others carry on with the same sort of celebrity politics "celebutics" type format.

User avatar
beach_terror
Posts: 7256
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: whats needed to land wachtell (or = elite firms)

Postby beach_terror » Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:14 pm

Xizenta wrote:Can any admins just delete Pdaddy's account?


+1000000. If I wanted to listen to a preacher, I wouldn't be on an internet message board.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: axel.foley, HokieHi307, ididntwantsalmon, Rich29 and 9 guests