Columbia 2010

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
jobless2Lguy
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:10 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby jobless2Lguy » Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:44 pm

No problemo. I was actually median or slightly above median. It's unclear exactly what 1L median is - some say it is 3.2, others say 3.25.

It's possible that c/o 2011 EIP was an aberration. Most people think that firms just decided to screw over one class, and that hiring will return to normal. It just sucks to be the class on the business end of firms' arbitrary decisions.

r6_philly
Posts: 10707
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:32 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby r6_philly » Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:54 pm

Sorry about your situation :( I hope you will find something good soon.

My question is: is this sort of normal for your class or are you an isolated case? I think everyone is assuming that hiring with return at least close to normal in 2013, and everyone is more or less judging their prospects based on pre-crash stats and understandings. People are probably actually more hopeful about their chances now since there is an increase (although a small one) in applicants.

starsong
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 2:35 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby starsong » Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:54 pm

jobless2Lguy wrote:No problemo. I was actually median or slightly above median. It's unclear exactly what 1L median is - some say it is 3.2, others say 3.25.

It's possible that c/o 2011 EIP was an aberration. Most people think that firms just decided to screw over one class, and that hiring will return to normal. It just sucks to be the class on the business end of firms' arbitrary decisions.

Wow. I have heard similar stories at schools everywhere...sorry to hear.

jobless2Lguy
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:10 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby jobless2Lguy » Sat Apr 03, 2010 2:00 pm

r6_philly wrote:Sorry about your situation :( I hope you will find something good soon.

My question is: is this sort of normal for your class or are you an isolated case? I think everyone is assuming that hiring with return at least close to normal in 2013, and everyone is more or less judging their prospects based on pre-crash stats and understandings. People are probably actually more hopeful about their chances now since there is an increase (although a small one) in applicants.


About half of my 2L friends have public interest or government gigs lined up even though they wanted biglaw. In previous years, you had to be able to fog a mirror to get biglaw out of CLS. I'd say maybe half the class or so got biglaw overall, although I haven't asked career services because I hate those people. The stats may be available somewhere though.

I would avoid using past data on hiring to judge, because although we may be coming out of this recession, it looks like a jobless recovery.

In addition, biglaw hiring largely tracks finance, which was most likely permanently damaged by this recession. The biglaw hiring pattern of the structured finance/real estate boom may never return.

As far as why more people are applying, I would speculate that it's because they can't find jobs in other sectors. Regardless, take what I say with a grain of salt, because I have limited perspective and economic understanding.

starsong
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 2:35 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby starsong » Sat Apr 03, 2010 2:06 pm

jobless2Lguy wrote:I would avoid using past data on hiring to judge, because although we may be coming out of this recession, it looks like a jobless recovery.

In addition, biglaw hiring largely tracks finance, which was most likely permanently damaged by this recession. The biglaw hiring pattern of 2006 etc. may never return.

Yeah I think it's a little early to conclude the recovery will be jobless, market forces are always cyclical. Finance is also definitely on the rise again at least from what I've read. But it really sucks to be in your shoes, your class definitely got screwed.

User avatar
Dignan
Posts: 1110
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:52 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby Dignan » Sat Apr 03, 2010 2:16 pm

r6_philly wrote:Sorry about your situation :( I hope you will find something good soon.

My question is: is this sort of normal for your class or are you an isolated case? I think everyone is assuming that hiring with return at least close to normal in 2013, and everyone is more or less judging their prospects based on pre-crash stats and understandings. People are probably actually more hopeful about their chances now since there is an increase (although a small one) in applicants.

First, I think those who are assuming that hiring will return to "at least close to normal" are making a mistake. There are indications that the effects of the recent market correction will last several years, if not longer. Although job market conditions will probably (though not certainly) be better for the class of 2013, I doubt that firm hiring rates and salaries will be close to pre-2008 levels.

As for why law school applications are up, I don't think it has much to do with people being hopeful about recovery in the legal job market. The same conditions that sunk the legal market have hit other parts of the economy. With a significant rise in unemployment and a huge decline in non-service sector jobs, educated people are applying to professional schools in greater numbers. This happens every recession. But this recession is unusually bad, so the number of law school applications is unusually high.

starsong
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 2:35 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby starsong » Sat Apr 03, 2010 2:28 pm

Dignan wrote:First, I think those who are assuming that hiring will return to "at least close to normal" are making a mistake. There are indications that the effects of the recent market correction will last several years, if not longer. Although job market conditions will probably (though not certainly) be better for the class of 2013, I doubt that firm hiring rates and salaries will be close to pre-2008 levels.

Salaries have remained largely unchanged at large firms. $160k is still the starting salary in NYC and in many parts of the country. A few firms did lower salaries in non-NYC offices, and a handful have adopted "performance-based pay" which in most cases is simply a disguised salary cut. But these are the exceptions, not the norm--go see the latest NALP data that was just published. $160k is still the base salary.

Hiring #s, OTOH, are down simply due to the glut of talent in the pipeline. As the economy improves and unemployment decreases, associates will flee for other opportunities, leading to greater demand for talent at large firms. It's all cyclical.

jobless2Lguy
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:10 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby jobless2Lguy » Sat Apr 03, 2010 2:32 pm

starsong wrote:
jobless2Lguy wrote:I would avoid using past data on hiring to judge, because although we may be coming out of this recession, it looks like a jobless recovery.

In addition, biglaw hiring largely tracks finance, which was most likely permanently damaged by this recession. The biglaw hiring pattern of 2006 etc. may never return.

Yeah I think it's a little early to conclude the recovery will be jobless, market forces are always cyclical. Finance is also definitely on the rise again at least from what I've read. But it really sucks to be in your shoes, your class definitely got screwed.


One problem is that the era of lax regulation of derivatives and real estate is over. Although this means more jobs in compliance, government, etc., this will probably not make up for entire practice groups that were essentially wiped out.

User avatar
Dignan
Posts: 1110
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:52 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby Dignan » Sat Apr 03, 2010 2:33 pm

starsong wrote:
Hiring #s, OTOH, are down simply due to the glut of talent in the pipeline. As the economy improves and unemployment decreases, associates will flee for other opportunities, leading to greater demand for talent at large firms. It's all cyclical.

For all of our sakes, I hope you're right.

User avatar
swc65
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby swc65 » Sat Apr 03, 2010 2:36 pm

Dignan wrote:
starsong wrote:
Hiring #s, OTOH, are down simply due to the glut of talent in the pipeline. As the economy improves and unemployment decreases, associates will flee for other opportunities, leading to greater demand for talent at large firms. It's all cyclical.

For all of our sakes, I hope you're right.



Let's just hope this happens within the next 17 months before we are interviewing for SA positions in Aug 2011.

starsong
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 2:35 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby starsong » Sat Apr 03, 2010 2:39 pm

jobless2Lguy wrote:One problem is that the era of lax regulation of derivatives and real estate is over. Although this means more jobs in compliance, government, etc., this will probably not make up for entire practice groups that were essentially wiped out.

Again, I'm not sure here. Obama hasn't passed financial reform yet, and even if he does, it's hard to imagine major, market-choking change passing in the current political environment. In fact, minor regulation could be helpful for the legal sector as a new source of revenue for attorneys.

starsong
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 2:35 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby starsong » Sat Apr 03, 2010 2:42 pm

swc65 wrote:Let's just hope this happens within the next 17 months before we are interviewing for SA positions in Aug 2011.

+1, but remember that firms hire based on projected demand two years out. We just need strong signs of a robust economic recovery within the next 17 months, a very likely possibility.

APimpNamedSlickback
Posts: 1126
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:33 am

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby APimpNamedSlickback » Sat Apr 03, 2010 2:45 pm

starsong wrote:
swc65 wrote:Let's just hope this happens within the next 17 months before we are interviewing for SA positions in Aug 2011.

+1, but remember that firms hire based on projected demand two years out. We just need strong signs of a robust economic recovery within the next 17 months, a very likely possibility.


yeah but to what extent is the demand for legal services a leading or trailing indicator relative to the real economy?

gdp growth means shit for us if no one needs lawyers

jobless2Lguy
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:10 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby jobless2Lguy » Sat Apr 03, 2010 2:48 pm

It's not just Obama's reforms that will cause this, although that could potentially be the final blow that permanently cripples real estate and derivatives. The feds and states have started enforcing regulations that were already on the books.

Now that loans and derivatives are much more closely scrutinized, it's much tougher to write new businesses.

Regulatory/compliance work should experience an upswing, but not groups who base their revenue on real estate and derivatives, which was a huge chunk of biglaw.
Last edited by jobless2Lguy on Sat Apr 03, 2010 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

starsong
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 2:35 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby starsong » Sat Apr 03, 2010 2:49 pm

APimpNamedSlickback wrote:yeah but to what extent is the demand for legal services a leading or trailing indicator relative to the real economy.

gdp growth means shit for us if no one needs lawyers

It's trailing, but not by much. I mean just notice how few firm layoffs have occurred since the recession technically ended last summer/fall.

starsong
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 2:35 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby starsong » Sat Apr 03, 2010 2:49 pm

jobless2Lguy wrote:It's not just Obama's reforms that will cause this, although that could potentially be the final blow that permanently cripples real estate and derivatives. The feds and states have started enforcing regulations that were already on the books.

It's a good thing businesses need lawyers to deal with the feds and states though, eh? :-)

jobless2Lguy
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:10 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby jobless2Lguy » Sat Apr 03, 2010 2:51 pm

starsong wrote:
jobless2Lguy wrote:It's not just Obama's reforms that will cause this, although that could potentially be the final blow that permanently cripples real estate and derivatives. The feds and states have started enforcing regulations that were already on the books.

It's a good thing businesses need lawyers to deal with the feds and states though, eh? :-)


Right, well the hope is that somehow the new regulatory and compliance jobs will make up for lost jobs in practice groups based on loan origination, property sales, and securitization of loans, but realistically this isn't happening. We had a massive boom, and we went bust, and we've have to have another boom to come close to making up that ground.

User avatar
swc65
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby swc65 » Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:01 pm

jobless2Lguy wrote:
starsong wrote:
jobless2Lguy wrote:It's not just Obama's reforms that will cause this, although that could potentially be the final blow that permanently cripples real estate and derivatives. The feds and states have started enforcing regulations that were already on the books.

It's a good thing businesses need lawyers to deal with the feds and states though, eh? :-)


Right, well the hope is that somehow the new regulatory and compliance jobs will make up for lost jobs in practice groups based on loan origination, property sales, and securitization of loans, but realistically this isn't happening. We had a massive boom, and we went bust, and we've have to have another boom to come close to making up that ground.



I would actually prefer the things that led to this boom and bust to be more heavily scrutinized. That way I hopefully (at least not for the same reason anyway) won't end up a jobless fourth year associate with a family, mortgage, car, AND student loan payments.

User avatar
SaintClarence27
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:48 am

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby SaintClarence27 » Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:08 pm

starsong wrote:
SaintClarence27 wrote:First of all, I specifically excepted URMs in my original post. Secondly, you may be right about the fluid nature of the application process, though, excepting URMs, I don't see that there is a lean towards softs. I think it would usually be more increase median GPA or increase median LSAT. That said, if the school was comfortable with both GPA and LSAT medians, I could see them adding in people with strong soft considerations.

My point exactly. In my terminology, I would say when the GPA/LSAT medians look solid, other interests--interesting life experience, URM status, legacy status, etc.--receive greater weight. But since this is a continuous process of re-evaluating the school's needs, it's impossible to talk about one factor as "primary" over others.

SaintClarence27 wrote:I don't think that happens all that often at most schools, though. My entire argument is that, excluding URMs, numbers *ARE* the primary factor to a significant degree for the entirety of the cycle.

I would also like to know what schools have less desire to move up in the rankings. Not saying you're wrong - I'm just curious.

Here's a few examples of schools that are obviously less concerned with raising their medians:
http://uva.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats (extreme example)
http://michigan.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats
http://berkeley.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats

Not every school has a strong desire to move up in the rankings, some desire simply to preserve their medians while improving diversity, etc. I know you mentioned this in your original post, so that's why I think we largely agree, but I would just argue that since this process is a dynamic re-evaluation of a school's interests across the passage of time, it makes little sense to speak of a factor that is always "primary".


Yeah, those that you post do seem to legitimately take a holistic view of applications, rather than just pay lip service. I would say that they're the exception, but it's nice to see that they're out there. I think that the biggest issue is the importance placed on USNWR rankings that are clearly problematic in a lot of ways. I mean, come on. We all know that Illinois is better than WUSTL.

starsong
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 2:35 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby starsong » Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:33 pm

jobless2Lguy wrote:
starsong wrote:
jobless2Lguy wrote:It's not just Obama's reforms that will cause this, although that could potentially be the final blow that permanently cripples real estate and derivatives. The feds and states have started enforcing regulations that were already on the books.

It's a good thing businesses need lawyers to deal with the feds and states though, eh? :-)


Right, well the hope is that somehow the new regulatory and compliance jobs will make up for lost jobs in practice groups based on loan origination, property sales, and securitization of loans, but realistically this isn't happening. We had a massive boom, and we went bust, and we've have to have another boom to come close to making up that ground.

Yeah, well nobody needs regulatory/compliance work when there are no deals happening. As market activity returns, lawyers from every PG will benefit...

lovepink2
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 4:46 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby lovepink2 » Sat Apr 03, 2010 8:07 pm

After nearly five months of waiting I was placed on "hold" today via snail mail. WTF!

User avatar
Jacinda
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 10:21 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby Jacinda » Sat Apr 03, 2010 9:35 pm

Does anyone know if Fordham is a numbers or softs school?

User avatar
Core
Posts: 977
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 3:09 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby Core » Sat Apr 03, 2010 11:24 pm

Jacinda wrote:Does anyone know if Fordham is a numbers or softs school?

I think it's a numbers/soft school to same extent CLS is. #'s are key.

jimmyd11011
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby jimmyd11011 » Sat Apr 03, 2010 11:32 pm

For the people that have been held then accepted: did you learn of your acceptance through snail mail like the hold letter, or did you get an email?

User avatar
$1.99
Posts: 684
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:49 am

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby $1.99 » Sun Apr 04, 2010 3:05 am

there has only been 1 or 2 but you find out via email




Return to “Law School Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: amberb94, Anon.y.mousse., Baby Gaga, blackmamba8, brinicolec, cyclawps, Google Adsense [Bot], hellohalo, malysh and 17 guests