Columbia students taking questions Forum

[White Dwarf]

Dang.

All this OCI/EIP talk is giving me such anxiety. Now I understand why so many people who come into 1L focused on PI end up at firms.

*Real Talk*

That makes sense. I guess avoiding all that peer pressure is one of the upsides of going to a crappy undergrad. My most successful friend is an in-house accountant at a medium size company.

[RSN]

So, what happens now after the "offensive remarks" at the OCS panel this morning? Has this kind of thing happened before?

[White Dwarf]

So, what happened at the Litigation panel this morning? I just got the email about one of the presenters saying something offensive.

I'm going to guess it was an anodyne joke that someone took way too seriously.

[RSN]

No, I was there, it was not a bad joke taken out of context. The question was about how each speaker's firm is working on fixing the gender imbalance among partners and in general. The first three panelists (the whole panel was white men, two of whom are hiring partners) talked about how it's a real issue and their firms are working hard to bring in and retain talented women, including with mentoring programs, and seemed a little uncomfortable but earnest. Then the last guy starts off with something like (paraphrasing) I know this is an unpopular opinion, and not a PC answer, but I remember sitting in these events as a student and thinking, as a white man, why don't they want me? He then went on a rant about how women and minorities have it easy because law firms want diversity so badly, and that if they aren't making partner etc., it's because of choices they make (which seemed to be an allusion to women starting families). There was more too, but that's what I recall. Didn't seem off the cuff either, much more like he had thought about this a lot and was airing his grievances.

It was honestly pretty jaw-dropping and the whole room seemed stunned. So that's why I'm thinking this goes bigger than the one OCS email.

[almondjoy]

Holy shit lol

[White Dwarf]

Wow, was not expecting that. He knows this is Columbia, right?

Still, if you want a taste of what working at a big firm is going to be like, that's probably much more representative of the general feeling among your future colleagues than canned speeches on the value of diversity.

[Tiago Splitter]

Wow, I was not expecting that.

Still, if you want a taste of what working at a big firm is going to be like, that's probably much more representative of the general feeling among your future colleagues than canned speeches on the value of diversity.

Nah it's mostly canned speeches on diversity TBH

[smaug]

No, I was there, it was not a bad joke taken out of context. The question was about how each speaker's firm is working on fixing the gender imbalance among partners and in general. The first three panelists (the whole panel was white men, two of whom are hiring partners) talked about how it's a real issue and their firms are working hard to bring in and retain talented women, including with mentoring programs, and seemed a little uncomfortable but earnest. Then the last guy starts off with something like (paraphrasing) I know this is an unpopular opinion, and not a PC answer, but I remember sitting in these events as a student and thinking, as a white man, why don't they want me? He then went on a rant about how women and minorities have it easy because law firms want diversity so badly, and that if they aren't making partner etc., it's because of choices they make (which seemed to be an allusion to women starting families). There was more too, but that's what I recall. Didn't seem off the cuff either, much more like he had thought about this a lot and was airing his grievances.

It was honestly pretty jaw-dropping and the whole room seemed stunned. So that's why I'm thinking this goes bigger than the one OCS email.

What was the firm?

[RSN]

No, I was there, it was not a bad joke taken out of context. The question was about how each speaker's firm is working on fixing the gender imbalance among partners and in general. The first three panelists (the whole panel was white men, two of whom are hiring partners) talked about how it's a real issue and their firms are working hard to bring in and retain talented women, including with mentoring programs, and seemed a little uncomfortable but earnest. Then the last guy starts off with something like (paraphrasing) I know this is an unpopular opinion, and not a PC answer, but I remember sitting in these events as a student and thinking, as a white man, why don't they want me? He then went on a rant about how women and minorities have it easy because law firms want diversity so badly, and that if they aren't making partner etc., it's because of choices they make (which seemed to be an allusion to women starting families). There was more too, but that's what I recall. Didn't seem off the cuff either, much more like he had thought about this a lot and was airing his grievances.

It was honestly pretty jaw-dropping and the whole room seemed stunned. So that's why I'm thinking this goes bigger than the one OCS email.

What was the firm?

Axinn Veltrop? Hadn't heard the name before

[smaug]

lol

They're an antitrust boutique. That's really bad too because it would be hard to escape the atmosphere of that's what even a couple of people think.

[stoopkid13]

No, I was there, it was not a bad joke taken out of context. The question was about how each speaker's firm is working on fixing the gender imbalance among partners and in general. The first three panelists (the whole panel was white men, two of whom are hiring partners) talked about how it's a real issue and their firms are working hard to bring in and retain talented women, including with mentoring programs, and seemed a little uncomfortable but earnest. Then the last guy starts off with something like (paraphrasing) I know this is an unpopular opinion, and not a PC answer, but I remember sitting in these events as a student and thinking, as a white man, why don't they want me? He then went on a rant about how women and minorities have it easy because law firms want diversity so badly, and that if they aren't making partner etc., it's because of choices they make (which seemed to be an allusion to women starting families). There was more too, but that's what I recall. Didn't seem off the cuff either, much more like he had thought about this a lot and was airing his grievances.

It was honestly pretty jaw-dropping and the whole room seemed stunned. So that's why I'm thinking this goes bigger than the one OCS email.

Yeah that's pretty much what I remember him saying as well. Also the the other panelists were visibly uncomfortable with what that last guy was saying.

[GoneSouth]

If he'd just said something like "firms these days have a huge focus on trying to diversify the partnership and are looking for reasons to promote women and minorities, so work hard and give them reasons and you'll be ok" (which I think was the main point he was trying to make anyway) then it would have been fine. It was all the weird editorializing around that point that made him look really out of touch

[jbagelboy]

That's horrifying, mostly because SJI and OCS usually screen these panels for wackjobs, but it certainly won't be the only questionable diversity/AA comments you hear from a law firm partner during your recruiting/SA/career.

[bobr]

Anyone have a Davis outline for PR? Thanks!

[ForgotMyPassword]

Since bobr opened it up to outline panhandling, I'm going to chime in as well - If anyone has an outline or notes for Long's Unfair Competition I'd really appreciate it!

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

No, I was there, it was not a bad joke taken out of context. The question was about how each speaker's firm is working on fixing the gender imbalance among partners and in general. The first three panelists (the whole panel was white men, two of whom are hiring partners) talked about how it's a real issue and their firms are working hard to bring in and retain talented women, including with mentoring programs, and seemed a little uncomfortable but earnest. Then the last guy starts off with something like (paraphrasing) I know this is an unpopular opinion, and not a PC answer, but I remember sitting in these events as a student and thinking, as a white man, why don't they want me? He then went on a rant about how women and minorities have it easy because law firms want diversity so badly, and that if they aren't making partner etc., it's because of choices they make (which seemed to be an allusion to women starting families). There was more too, but that's what I recall. Didn't seem off the cuff either, much more like he had thought about this a lot and was airing his grievances.

It was honestly pretty jaw-dropping and the whole room seemed stunned. So that's why I'm thinking this goes bigger than the one OCS email.

Wait, the school sent a email to make sure everyone who attended was feeling okay?

Anyone who couldn't handle a comment like this doesn't deserve to be hired anyway.

[TheoO]

I asked a Ropes partner who was somewhat tipsy what the firm offered in terms of family options. He grew visibly upset and said that we are hired to make the firms money and was a family the first thing I was thinking about?

I found it pretty honest, tbh, and give him the benefit of saying it after a few drinks. The above story is just absurd. But white male racial resentment is not particularly surprising.

[mylifeis24]

Anyone have a recommendation for a corporation's supplement for Judge? Not understanding the majority of the class.

[RSN]

No, I was there, it was not a bad joke taken out of context. The question was about how each speaker's firm is working on fixing the gender imbalance among partners and in general. The first three panelists (the whole panel was white men, two of whom are hiring partners) talked about how it's a real issue and their firms are working hard to bring in and retain talented women, including with mentoring programs, and seemed a little uncomfortable but earnest. Then the last guy starts off with something like (paraphrasing) I know this is an unpopular opinion, and not a PC answer, but I remember sitting in these events as a student and thinking, as a white man, why don't they want me? He then went on a rant about how women and minorities have it easy because law firms want diversity so badly, and that if they aren't making partner etc., it's because of choices they make (which seemed to be an allusion to women starting families). There was more too, but that's what I recall. Didn't seem off the cuff either, much more like he had thought about this a lot and was airing his grievances.

It was honestly pretty jaw-dropping and the whole room seemed stunned. So that's why I'm thinking this goes bigger than the one OCS email.

Wait, the school sent a email to make sure everyone who attended was feeling okay?

Anyone who couldn't handle a comment like this doesn't deserve to be hired anyway.

Yeah, not sure if it went to all 1Ls or just people who RSVP'ed for the event, email had a link to the statement which required logging in to see.

[MCFC]

Anyone have a recommendation for a corporation's supplement for Judge? Not understanding the majority of the class.

I thought the E&E and the Concepts and Insights by Bainbridge were decent. Both should be on the 3rd floor of the library.

[MCFC]

No, I was there, it was not a bad joke taken out of context. The question was about how each speaker's firm is working on fixing the gender imbalance among partners and in general. The first three panelists (the whole panel was white men, two of whom are hiring partners) talked about how it's a real issue and their firms are working hard to bring in and retain talented women, including with mentoring programs, and seemed a little uncomfortable but earnest. Then the last guy starts off with something like (paraphrasing) I know this is an unpopular opinion, and not a PC answer, but I remember sitting in these events as a student and thinking, as a white man, why don't they want me? He then went on a rant about how women and minorities have it easy because law firms want diversity so badly, and that if they aren't making partner etc., it's because of choices they make (which seemed to be an allusion to women starting families). There was more too, but that's what I recall. Didn't seem off the cuff either, much more like he had thought about this a lot and was airing his grievances.

It was honestly pretty jaw-dropping and the whole room seemed stunned. So that's why I'm thinking this goes bigger than the one OCS email.

Wait, the school sent a email to make sure everyone who attended was feeling okay?

Anyone who couldn't handle a comment like this doesn't deserve to be hired anyway.

Yeah, not sure if it went to all 1Ls or just people who RSVP'ed for the event, email had a link to the statement which required logging in to see.

I think it was school wide. Or at least I was on the list somehow. Anyways, you can read it here. https://web.law.columbia.edu/career-ser ... e-students

[theconsigliere]

Asked this in the Columbia acceptances page and was told this page might be able to provide a better answer: is there any/much precedent for people who didn't receive a named scholarship to eventually receive/negotiate an award that equals or surpasses the value (90k) of a Butler? I'm asking b/c if the answer is essentially no, then Columbia is probably off the table for me...

[theconsigliere]

Asked this in the Columbia acceptances page and was told this page might be able to provide a better answer: is there any/much precedent for people who didn't receive a named scholarship to eventually receive/negotiate an award that equals or surpasses the value (90k) of a Butler? I'm asking b/c if the answer is essentially no, then Columbia is probably off the table for me.

[GreenEggs]

Handed in my brief on time, but got me thinking about the "NO EXCEPTIONS" for briefs handed in after 5 PM, that they won't be accepted. What actually happens to people who don't get it in for the 5 PM deadline? Are they blowing smoke, or is there some consequence?

[smaug]

Asked this in the Columbia acceptances page and was told this page might be able to provide a better answer: is there any/much precedent for people who didn't receive a named scholarship to eventually receive/negotiate an award that equals or surpasses the value (90k) of a Butler? I'm asking b/c if the answer is essentially no, then Columbia is probably off the table for me.

Really difficult I think. Know folks in the 75-50k range but don't know how common that was either really.