Determing Elite Job Outcomes 250+ or 100+ Forum

[chuckbass]

I don't understand why you're being ~willfully dense~

[Princetonlaw68]

I don't understand why you're being ~willfully dense~

I'm not being willfully dense, you're just failing to understand certain factors that affect things like this that you're not going to see clearly off of a sheet of paper.

[star fox]

Who cares about prestige? Whether a firm has over 500 attorneys and a Vault ranking in NYC or has 250 attorneys in Nashville, that's a job anyone should be happy to get.

[chuckbass]

I don't understand why you're being ~willfully dense~

I'm not being willfully dense, you're just failing to understand certain factors that affect things like this that you're not going to see clearly off of a sheet of paper.

You are being ~willfully dense~ I made a claim, you asked for a link to the data, you took 7 minutes to examine it and see that you were wrong, and then instead of admitting that you were wrong you just said that the data doesn't matter.

[Princetonlaw68]

I don't understand why you're being ~willfully dense~

I'm not being willfully dense, you're just failing to understand certain factors that affect things like this that you're not going to see clearly off of a sheet of paper.

You are being ~willfully dense~ I made a claim, you asked for a link to the data, you took 7 minutes to examine it and see that you were wrong, and then instead of admitting that you were wrong you just said that the data doesn't matter.

No, I did not. You made an argument, used data that one could believe supports it, then judged what one could possibly draw from the data with a quick glance as the inarguable truth.

Southerners will fight for those top DC and NY jobs more often than a northerner will fight for southern jobs. These are the facts of life. I feel like I'm about to offend a bunch of southerners, but this really is extremely true. It is definitely extremely true for law. (No, I don't have a chart, so I must be completely wrong )

Now, if you connected me to a link that showed me that the 8% in DC were from those places you showed, etc. then you would have indisputable proof. You don't. A clear and logical argument can be made against your data that lends some support to your point. The data you provided is some support for your contention, and that's all.

You're acting like I was arguing something that you just proved false. That is wrong in itself.



Edit: Here's another way to put it. We all know that getting DC big law is nearly impossible for a non T14 grad. Vanderbilt gets about 8% DC law (a place that's known to attract lawyers from all over. Not like TN.) About 8% of Vandy grads were from that area. Do you really believe that the 8% is even mostly comprised of that tiny portion of students at the school that are from the area? That is highly unlikely. The numbers are skewed to look more equal because people from all over happily and willingly work in places like DC and NYC more often than they cross over from places like that to places like TN (happily). Again, there's no graph, but it's a solid argument. Not purposefully dense...

[chuckbass]

Southerners will fight for those top DC and NY jobs more often than a northerner will fight for southern jobs. These are the facts of life. I feel like I'm about to offend a bunch of southerners, but this really is extremely true. It is definitely extremely true for law. (No, I don't have a chart, so I must be completely wrong )

I really hope people see this, this is gold.

[Princetonlaw68]

Southerners will fight for those top DC and NY jobs more often than a northerner will fight for southern jobs. These are the facts of life. I feel like I'm about to offend a bunch of southerners, but this really is extremely true. It is definitely extremely true for law. (No, I don't have a chart, so I must be completely wrong )

I really hope people see this, this is gold.

Now you're being purposefully dense. Gimme a break. There's a reason certain markets are more saturated than others. I don't think you're smart enough to look beyond a simple chart. You lack some pretty basic reasoning skills.


You do have horse laugh down though. Too bad you can't use horse laugh on the lsat. You would've done well.

[Danger Zone]

lol this thread

[chuckbass]

I don't think you're smart enough to look beyond a simple chart. You lack some pretty basic reasoning skills.


You do have horse laugh down though. Too bad you can't use horse laugh on the lsat. You would've done well.

While it's cute that you've now resorted to just calling me stupid, now you're mocking my LSAT score? Are you trying to get banned?

[Princetonlaw68]

I don't think you're smart enough to look beyond a simple chart. You lack some pretty basic reasoning skills.


You do have horse laugh down though. Too bad you can't use horse laugh on the lsat. You would've done well.

While it's cute that you've now resorted to just calling me stupid, now you're mocking my LSAT score? Are you trying to get banned?

Hypocrite.

[johnnyquest]

Princetonlaw, since you're insulting someone for their lack of reasoning skills,

I don't think you're smart enough to look beyond a simple chart. You lack some pretty basic reasoning skills.


You do have horse laugh down though. Too bad you can't use horse laugh on the lsat. You would've done well.

^Wouldn't this be an example of an ad hominem?

[Princetonlaw68]

Princetonlaw, since you're insulting someone for their lack of reasoning skills,

I don't think you're smart enough to look beyond a simple chart. You lack some pretty basic reasoning skills.


You do have horse laugh down though. Too bad you can't use horse laugh on the lsat. You would've done well.

^Wouldn't this be an example of an ad hominem?

Sort of. I'm not attacking his point on the basis of his bad reasoning skills, just pointing it out to insult him. That's not really ad hominem.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Princetonlaw, since you're insulting someone for their lack of reasoning skills,

I don't think you're smart enough to look beyond a simple chart. You lack some pretty basic reasoning skills.


You do have horse laugh down though. Too bad you can't use horse laugh on the lsat. You would've done well.

^Wouldn't this be an example of an ad hominem?

Sort of. I'm not attacking his point on the basis of his bad reasoning skills, just pointing it out to insult him. That's not really ad hominem.

But saying he has a horse laugh and he should have used that to improve his LSAT score isn't ad hominem? [putting on mod hat] Yeah, don't make those kinds of arguments here. That was insulting and irrelevant.[taking off mod hat]

As for your argument - why should we believe your argument about who fights harder to work where? You haven't provided any evidence apart from your fervent conviction. That's nice and all, but what justifies it?

[09042014]

What are you nerds arguing about. I solved this question on page 1. 50+ is 2 legit 2 quit

[Princetonlaw68]

Princetonlaw, since you're insulting someone for their lack of reasoning skills,

I don't think you're smart enough to look beyond a simple chart. You lack some pretty basic reasoning skills.


You do have horse laugh down though. Too bad you can't use horse laugh on the lsat. You would've done well.

^Wouldn't this be an example of an ad hominem?

Sort of. I'm not attacking his point on the basis of his bad reasoning skills, just pointing it out to insult him. That's not really ad hominem.

But saying he has a horse laugh and he should have used that to improve his LSAT score isn't ad hominem? [putting on mod hat] Yeah, don't make those kinds of arguments here. That was insulting and irrelevant.[taking off mod hat]

As for your argument - why should we believe your argument about who fights harder to work where? You haven't provided any evidence apart from your fervent conviction. That's nice and all, but what justifies it?

(No the thing I did was not ad hominem. I made fun of his horse laugh, which was valid. I insulted his reasoning skills to be a dick. I attacked his LSAT score on the basis of his argumentation. I didn't attack his argumentation on the basis of his LSAT score. That would be ad hominem.)
Well, if you're asking what justifies my belief that people from all over want to work in DC/NYC and that this is not nearly as true for pretty much anywhere in the south, I could find a lot of info that supports this belief.

[Arboreal]

(No the thing I did was not ad hominem. I made fun of his horse laugh, which was valid. I insulted his reasoning skills to be a dick. I attacked his LSAT score on the basis of his argumentation. I didn't attack his argumentation on the basis of his LSAT score. That would be ad hominem.)
Well, if you're asking what justifies my belief that people from all over want to work in DC/NYC and that this is not nearly as true for pretty much anywhere in the south, I could find a lot of info that supports this belief.

How does one attack an LSAT score?

[johnnyquest]

(No the thing I did was not ad hominem. I made fun of his horse laugh, which was valid. I insulted his reasoning skills to be a dick. I attacked his LSAT score on the basis of his argumentation. I didn't attack his argumentation on the basis of his LSAT score. That would be ad hominem.)
Well, if you're asking what justifies my belief that people from all over want to work in DC/NYC and that this is not nearly as true for pretty much anywhere in the south, I could find a lot of info that supports this belief.

Speaking about someone and their horse laugh translating to a better LSAT seems to me like a personal attack. Why wouldn't you just try and refute the quantitative evidence that he supplied to make his point? And do it with you know....further evidence to support your claims.

[DELG]

Worst active thread right now

MODERATORS PLEASE

[Arboreal]

Worst active thread right now

MODERATORS PLEASE

Let it ride, DELG.

[sundance95]

What are you nerds arguing about. I solved this question on page 1. 50+ is 2 legit 2 quit

This. My firm has ~70 attys and pays market, and I turned down more 'elite' firms for it.

'Elite' = pays market, not some arbitrary # of attys, else we're missing the point.

[A. Nony Mouse]

(No the thing I did was not ad hominem. I made fun of his horse laugh, which was valid. I insulted his reasoning skills to be a dick. I attacked his LSAT score on the basis of his argumentation. I didn't attack his argumentation on the basis of his LSAT score. That would be ad hominem.)

Making fun of his horse laugh as a way to counter his arguments in this thread is valid and isn't an ad hominem? WTF? In any case, that and insulting someone based on their LSAT score is low class. Don't do it again.

Well, if you're asking what justifies my belief that people from all over want to work in DC/NYC and that this is not nearly as true for pretty much anywhere in the south, I could find a lot of info that supports this belief.

What I'm asking is what supports your belief that a significant number of people who go to Vandy are coming from all over the country/not the south and do not intend to work in the south and are disappointed to find that Vandy places largely in the south. You've asserted this as the basis for your denigration of the school but haven't provided any evidence in support of that assertion.

[chuckbass]

Thanks nony/johnnyquest

[Princetonlaw68]

(No the thing I did was not ad hominem. I made fun of his horse laugh, which was valid. I insulted his reasoning skills to be a dick. I attacked his LSAT score on the basis of his argumentation. I didn't attack his argumentation on the basis of his LSAT score. That would be ad hominem.)

Making fun of his horse laugh as a way to counter his arguments in this thread is valid and isn't an ad hominem? WTF? In any case, that and insulting someone based on their LSAT score is low class. Don't do it again.

Well, if you're asking what justifies my belief that people from all over want to work in DC/NYC and that this is not nearly as true for pretty much anywhere in the south, I could find a lot of info that supports this belief.

What I'm asking is what supports your belief that a significant number of people who go to Vandy are coming from all over the country/not the south and do not intend to work in the south and are disappointed to find that Vandy places largely in the south. You've asserted this as the basis for your denigration of the school but haven't provided any evidence in support of that assertion.

No. It's not ad hominem. I made fun of his lsat score to be a dick. I said that because he made fun of me in the post before that. I was not using it as a way to further my argument, or detract from his argument. Again, not ad hominem.

I'm not trying to denigrate the school. I'm just saying it only places well in the south. That entire point was just a subpoint to support my argument that it's not all about "self selection." The school is a top rated school. If we compared it to other non T14 southern schools, (except maybe UT), we'd see that the percentage of people not from the south is much higher at Vanderbilt. People from all over go there. People from NY, CT, NJ, DC etc. would almost always prefer to live in the north. If you're from the north, ask some of your friends about this.

If you're looking for numbers, go compare a school like Fordham (a northern regional) to any comparable southern school, with that same idea where from the school you can really only get a job in that area, but it's pretty good for that area. You'll see that the geographic diversity at these lesser schools is much lesser. Why? People from the northeast want to work in DC, NY etc. not in TN.

As for the info that included the percentage of students in DC or NY, go compare the amount of kids from NY at Penn, GULC, really just about any T14, and you'll see the percentage of students ending up in NY is much higher than the percentage of students from NY/NJ. Why? People want to work in NY. A lot of the jobs are in NY. At Vanderbilt, the percentages are roughly equal, which means a lot of people from the north are not able to get NYC or DC or whatever.


I will say I think some of my posts are being taken the wrong way. All I'm saying is vandy isn't great for getting a job in the north. It's mostly a regional. No insult to them, they place comparably to a T14. If a northerner goes there and can't get a job back in NYC, that's his fault. Not the school's. Vanderbilt is a top and well respected school.

[Princetonlaw68]

(No the thing I did was not ad hominem. I made fun of his horse laugh, which was valid. I insulted his reasoning skills to be a dick. I attacked his LSAT score on the basis of his argumentation. I didn't attack his argumentation on the basis of his LSAT score. That would be ad hominem.)
Well, if you're asking what justifies my belief that people from all over want to work in DC/NYC and that this is not nearly as true for pretty much anywhere in the south, I could find a lot of info that supports this belief.

How does one attack an LSAT score?

I don't know, maybe by saying it's low? I had no idea, he could've gotten a 180. I just assumed it was low, and made fun of it, hoping I'd be right. Looks like I was.

[johnnyquest]

(No the thing I did was not ad hominem. I made fun of his horse laugh, which was valid. I insulted his reasoning skills to be a dick. I attacked his LSAT score on the basis of his argumentation. I didn't attack his argumentation on the basis of his LSAT score. That would be ad hominem.)
Well, if you're asking what justifies my belief that people from all over want to work in DC/NYC and that this is not nearly as true for pretty much anywhere in the south, I could find a lot of info that supports this belief.

Speaking about someone and their horse laugh translating to a better LSAT seems to me like a personal attack. Why wouldn't you just try and refute the quantitative evidence that he supplied to make his point? And do it with you know....further evidence to support your claims.