Support Thread for the 6-figure debt plunge Forum

[TheOcho]

I think the only concerns regarding the state of the economy are the current uprisings in North Africa/Middle East.

Not to be contrarian, but there are plenty of economists who will argue our economic "recovery" has been entirely artificial. There has been no fundamental change in the capital structure of the economy and when stimulus stops and interest rates are allowed to return to market levels we will have another housing-like crash in a different sector of the economy. I sure hope I'm wrong, but it's a real possibility.

What other sector of the economy are we talking about? Also, a bunch of big banks went bust while others were forced to adapt or were bailed out. The foreclosure crisis is not getting worse, and it's reasonable to say that any financial company who's weathered it thus far is probably going to survive long term. So, in a way, the fundamentals of the economy have changed, and maybe the capital structure for the remaining companies is ok.

Also, a lot of the stimulus is already gone, and most of it went to special interest groups anyway. I'm not sure current growth is solely or even significantly due to stimulus spending. We might still be in a recession for a long time to come; however, since we have thus far escaped the inflation of the 70's, and Chinese exports are weakening by the day, I think it's fair to say that the market will broadly get better between now and when I do OCI in 2012 or 2013.

I can't predict where the bubble is being created.

Edit: And inflation isn't just a general rise in prices. Inflation is an increase in the money supply that leads to a general rise in prices. The money supply can increase and prices can stay the same if real productivity increases. You won't see a price increase, but prices will be higher than what they would have been in the absence of creating more money.

When talking about the capital structure, I'm talking about the processes businesses undertake to bring goods to market. When interest rates decrease (in an ideal world), this is a signal to business that they can invest in long-term projects that will be profitable later because consumers have actually released those resources by increasing saving. Artificially lowering interest rates by creating more money manipulates the capital structure and the "malinvestment" isn't exposed until interest rates are allowed to rise near actual market levels.

Sorry for getting off topic.

[sparty99]

I thought he went to UVA and has been unemployed for a while.

Oh, that's it? So he just struck out at OCI, or is there some cool/tragic story I'm missing?

It was Northwestern not UVA. The bits of story I've heard is that he is a terrible interviewer fwiw.

Ah, gotcha. See, this is what (legitimately) scares me about sticker the most: that I don't have the credentials of my peers that would allow me to compete at OCI. I know grades are a big part of it, but I look around and see a whole lot of professional work experience, interesting graduate degrees, and Ivy undergrads. Meanwhile, I'm coming straight from a very mediocre undergrad with nothing of value on my resume. If we want to talk about what scares me shitless about paying sticker, it's that I'll be out-classed by my peers, even with respectable grades.

Anyway, back to the senseless bickering.

The people with the ivy league credintials don't get the job, it's the person who can best explain what they bring to the table who gets the job. "Knock Em' Dead" by Martin Yate is a must read.

[romothesavior]

The people with the ivy league credintials don't get the job, it's the person who can best explain what they bring to the table who gets the job.

TBF, the Ivy League credentials (or T14 credentials or whatever you want to call it) help get you the interview in the first place.

And while being a great interviewer certainly helps (it is almost essential for biglaw), it is hard to explain what you bring to the table as a 23 year old, fresh-from-undergrad 2L with little to no real world experience. The main thing you bring to the table are your academic credentials (i.e., school and grades). Those will be the most important factors in getting the interview, and they remain important throughout most of the hiring process for almost any job you are going for.

Not saying what you said is wrong, I just think we need to be realistic. In a field that is incredibly prestige-driven, your grades and school matter a lot.

[FiveSermon]

The people with the ivy league credintials don't get the job, it's the person who can best explain what they bring to the table who gets the job.

TBF, the Ivy League credentials (or T14 credentials or whatever you want to call it) help get you the interview in the first place.

And while being a great interviewer certainly helps (it is almost essential for biglaw), it is hard to explain what you bring to the table as a 23 year old, fresh-from-undergrad 2L with little to no real world experience. The main thing you bring to the table are your academic credentials (i.e., school and grades). Those will be the most important factors in getting the interview, and they remain important throughout most of the hiring process for almost any job you are going for.

Not saying what you said is wrong, I just think we need to be realistic. In a field that is incredibly prestige-driven, your grades and school matter a lot.

Interview skills seem to matter the most, probably tied with grades. I think you need both and not just one unless you go to a school like HYS.

My friend who got hired at a v15 firm during 3L OCI without ever having networked or worked for them before told me at first they didn't want to interview him but once he persisted and got an interview his interview skills landed him the job. Being top 10% at Fordham probably didn't hurt either.

[romothesavior]

Interview skills seem to matter the most, probably tied with grades. I think you need both and not just one unless you go to a school like HYS.

Like I said, interviewing is almost essential for a biglaw job. Maybe some people can be poor or mediocre interviewers and land biglaw, but those people likely have something else going for them like incredible grades or a great background in a relevant field.

But if you don't have the credentials (grades/top school), you likely won't even get the interview, which means you could be the greatest interviewer in the world and not be able to do anything with those skills. That's why I put interviewing (which is surely a crucial skill) slightly below credentials in terms of landing a biglaw job. But I think we basically agree. They're both incredibly important, and students should work hard at both.

[FiveSermon]

Interview skills seem to matter the most, probably tied with grades. I think you need both and not just one unless you go to a school like HYS.

Like I said, interviewing is almost essential for a biglaw job. Maybe some people can be poor or mediocre interviewers and land biglaw, but those people likely have something else going for them like incredible grades or a great background in a relevant field.

But if you don't have the credentials (grades/top school), you likely won't even get the interview, which means you could be the greatest interviewer in the world and not be able to do anything with those skills. That's why I put interviewing (which is surely a crucial skill) slightly below credentials in terms of landing a biglaw job. But I think we basically agree. They're both incredibly important, and students should work hard at both.

The most frustrating part is that almost no one knows how to rank their interview skills. Unless you've already interviewed for highly competitive jobs before and been highly successful it's hard to rank. I think one can be a great interviewer and have a bad interview or be a bad interviewer and have a good interview. I guess that kind of sucks also.

[romothesavior]

Interview skills seem to matter the most, probably tied with grades. I think you need both and not just one unless you go to a school like HYS.

Like I said, interviewing is almost essential for a biglaw job. Maybe some people can be poor or mediocre interviewers and land biglaw, but those people likely have something else going for them like incredible grades or a great background in a relevant field.

But if you don't have the credentials (grades/top school), you likely won't even get the interview, which means you could be the greatest interviewer in the world and not be able to do anything with those skills. That's why I put interviewing (which is surely a crucial skill) slightly below credentials in terms of landing a biglaw job. But I think we basically agree. They're both incredibly important, and students should work hard at both.

The most frustrating part is that almost no one knows how to rank their interview skills. Unless you've already interviewed for highly competitive jobs before and been highly successful it's hard to rank. I think one can be a great interviewer and have a bad interview or be a bad interviewer and have a good interview. I guess that kind of sucks also.

For sure. So many variables. Like many things in the whole law school process, there is a degree of luck and a degree of arbitrariness.

I've had both good interviews and bad interviews, and I don't think it has been due to anything I've done differently. Sometimes you just click, sometimes you don't.

[FiveSermon]

Interview skills seem to matter the most, probably tied with grades. I think you need both and not just one unless you go to a school like HYS.

Like I said, interviewing is almost essential for a biglaw job. Maybe some people can be poor or mediocre interviewers and land biglaw, but those people likely have something else going for them like incredible grades or a great background in a relevant field.

But if you don't have the credentials (grades/top school), you likely won't even get the interview, which means you could be the greatest interviewer in the world and not be able to do anything with those skills. That's why I put interviewing (which is surely a crucial skill) slightly below credentials in terms of landing a biglaw job. But I think we basically agree. They're both incredibly important, and students should work hard at both.

The most frustrating part is that almost no one knows how to rank their interview skills. Unless you've already interviewed for highly competitive jobs before and been highly successful it's hard to rank. I think one can be a great interviewer and have a bad interview or be a bad interviewer and have a good interview. I guess that kind of sucks also.

For sure. So many variables. Like many things in the whole law school process, there is a degree of luck and a degree of arbitrariness.

I've had both good interviews and bad interviews, and I don't think it has been due to anything I've done differently. Sometimes you just click, sometimes you don't.

I wish I was a busty blonde. That MUST help for interviews. Unless you get interviewed by an unattractive female. They may feel some spite.

[sparty99]

Interview skills seem to matter the most, probably tied with grades. I think you need both and not just one unless you go to a school like HYS.

Like I said, interviewing is almost essential for a biglaw job. Maybe some people can be poor or mediocre interviewers and land biglaw, but those people likely have something else going for them like incredible grades or a great background in a relevant field.

But if you don't have the credentials (grades/top school), you likely won't even get the interview, which means you could be the greatest interviewer in the world and not be able to do anything with those skills. That's why I put interviewing (which is surely a crucial skill) slightly below credentials in terms of landing a biglaw job. But I think we basically agree. They're both incredibly important, and students should work hard at both.

Credentials get you in the door....Your mouth/initiative gets you the job. You gotta "play the game." If you're 22/23 with no experience, then get on clinics. Work for free for a month at one of those big law firms or over christmas break. Then you can put that "brand name" on your resume. All the recruiter will see is: "Baker Botts." It's all game.

[romothesavior]

Credentials get you in the door....Your mouth/initiative gets you the job. You gotta "play the game." If you're 22/23 with no experience, then get on clinics. Work for free for a month at one of those big law firms or over christmas break. Then you can put that "brand name" on your resume. All the recruiter will see is: "Baker Botts." It's all game.

Just curious, what year are you in law school?

[fatduck]

Credentials get you in the door....Your mouth/initiative gets you the job. You gotta "play the game." If you're 22/23 with no experience, then get on clinics. Work for free for a month at one of those big law firms or over christmas break. Then you can put that "brand name" on your resume. All the recruiter will see is: "Baker Botts." It's all game.

Just curious, what year are you in law school?

-1L

[romothesavior]

Credentials get you in the door....Your mouth/initiative gets you the job. You gotta "play the game." If you're 22/23 with no experience, then get on clinics. Work for free for a month at one of those big law firms or over christmas break. Then you can put that "brand name" on your resume. All the recruiter will see is: "Baker Botts." It's all game.

Just curious, what year are you in law school?

-1L

I was just wondering if he knew about a "work for free for a month to bolster your resume" internship program at Baker Botts I was unaware of.

[sparty99]

Credentials get you in the door....Your mouth/initiative gets you the job. You gotta "play the game." If you're 22/23 with no experience, then get on clinics. Work for free for a month at one of those big law firms or over christmas break. Then you can put that "brand name" on your resume. All the recruiter will see is: "Baker Botts." It's all game.

Just curious, what year are you in law school?

-1L

+1

[sparty99]

Credentials get you in the door....Your mouth/initiative gets you the job. You gotta "play the game." If you're 22/23 with no experience, then get on clinics. Work for free for a month at one of those big law firms or over christmas break. Then you can put that "brand name" on your resume. All the recruiter will see is: "Baker Botts." It's all game.

Just curious, what year are you in law school?

-1L

I was just wondering if he knew about a "work for free for a month to bolster your resume" internship program at Baker Botts I was unaware of.

No, you need to create this position. This is where the "initiative" part comes into play. Or you can get a Law Clerk position after your first year...

[FiveSermon]

No, you need to create this position. This is where the "initiative" part comes into play. Or you can get a Law Clerk position after your first year...

Yeah the thousands of law school grads without a job lacked initiative -- that explains it all, not the horrible economy or the over saturated market.

[romothesavior]

-1L

+1

Then you need to learn more about how legal hiring works. You don't just "play the game" and waltz into an unpaid internship at a big firm for a few weeks. Should you network? Absolutely. Should you work for a clinic? Absolutely. Should you work for free in some instances? Quite possibly, especially during 1L summer. But even doing those three things, you could very easily wind up jobless, and none of those three things will get you into a big firm without the credentials to back it up.

Your last post really exhibits how little you know about "the game" that you keep talking about. Not that there is anything wrong with that, I certainly didn't know much about it as a 0L before I researched it. I just think you should learn more about how the whole system works before you lecture people on how to "play the game."

If you are the type of person who is capable of self-deprecating humor, I'd bookmark this page and return to it in a few years. You'll have a good chuckle.

[sparty99]

No, you need to create this position. This is where the "initiative" part comes into play. Or you can get a Law Clerk position after your first year...

Yeah the thousands of law school grads without a job lacked initiative -- that explains it all, not the horrible economy or the over saturated market.

I never said a thing about why law school grads lack jobs...quit trying to put words in my mouth.

[romothesavior]

No, you need to create this position. This is where the "initiative" part comes into play. Or you can get a Law Clerk position after your first year...

Yeah the thousands of law school grads without a job lacked initiative -- that explains it all, not the horrible economy or the over saturated market.

I never said a thing about why law school grads lack jobs...quit trying to put words in my mouth.

You're just saying ridiculous things. No NLJ 250 firm that I know of is going to let you just work for free during the semester for a few weeks. That is not at all how these things work. Certainly, some smaller firms and solo shops would allow it (and I am looking into a few), but Baker Botts? Not so much.

Also, "create this position?" Really???? You can't network into a job that does not exist due to financial constraints. As one of the hardest working networkers and one of the most "schmoozy" people I know, I can safely say that all of my networking has not gotten me noticeably closer to getting a job. Will it eventually? Maybe. But so much of getting a job through networking is just being in the right place at the right time. In other words, it takes some luck to have that happen. Thousands of law students graduate every year without a job after having done "all the right things" for three years.

Again, networking, participating in clinics, and working for free are all great. You want to put yourself in the best possible position to succeed, and these types of things can help you do that. But they are not going to result in jobs (especially well-paying jobs) for the majority of people, and they certainly don't constitute a viable job-hunting strategy for most law students.

[beachbum]

Dude, just ignore sparty. He's not in law school. He's never participated in OCI, or had experience with BigLaw hiring. He couldn't break median on the LSAT, and will likely be attending a school where he'll never have to worry about BigLaw hiring. And I'm sick and fucking tired of him acting like he has all the answers and knows all the "secrets" to getting a plum job.

If you don't have a good, reliable response to the current discussion, that's fine. As a 0L, I don't either. But don't come in spewing your misinformation, because then you just create confusion and needless debate.

[FiveSermon]

Dude, just ignore sparty. He's not in law school. He's never participated in OCI, or had experience with BigLaw hiring. He couldn't break median on the LSAT, and will likely be attending a school where he'll never have to worry about BigLaw hiring. And I'm sick and fucking tired of him acting like he has all the answers and knows all the "secrets" to getting a plum job.

If you don't have a good, reliable response to the current discussion, that's fine. As a 0L, I don't either. But don't come in spewing your misinformation, because then you just create confusion and needless debate.

Ouch burn. But hey man. Worrying about 5% chance at biglaw is still worrying.

[reddituser]

Looking at ~175k at John Marshall. With my scholarship and hopefully my family will match, i'll have that number down to 125. Scared out of my mind, but excited to continue my edumacation.

[powerlawyer06]

The are ways outside of IBR/LRAP to have your law debt discharged.

Discharge/Cancellation
It's possible to have your student loan debt discharged (canceled) or reduced, but only under certain specific circumstances:

•You die or become totally and permanently disabled. LOL
•Your school closed before you could complete your program.
•For FFELSM and Direct Stafford Loans only: Your school owes your lender a refund, forged your signature on a promissory note, or certified your loan even though you didn't have the ability to benefit from the coursework.
•You work in certain designated public school service professions (including teaching in a low-income school).
•You file for bankruptcy. (This cancellation is rare and occurs only if a bankruptcy court rules that repayment would cause undue hardship.)

I wonder how rare the last one is? I better research this while in law school, just in case.

[romothesavior]

Looking at ~175k at John Marshall. With my scholarship and hopefully my family will match, i'll have that number down to 125. Scared out of my mind, but excited to continue my edumacation.

125k in debt for a 4th tier school in one of the most oversaturated markets in the country? Sounds like a great plan.

[FiveSermon]

Looking at ~175k at John Marshall. With my scholarship and hopefully my family will match, i'll have that number down to 125. Scared out of my mind, but excited to continue my edumacation.

Retake.

[reddituser]

Looking at ~175k at John Marshall. With my scholarship and hopefully my family will match, i'll have that number down to 125. Scared out of my mind, but excited to continue my edumacation.

Retake.

Already did, this is close to the best I can do, and something I really care about, so I'm going for it. This is supposed to be a "support" thread