Do people who get into reaches struggle more than others? Forum

[vanwinkle]

I know, I know. You're a URM, so you're not going to buy this.

I love how you admit you have no sources while simultaneously mocking someone for not believing you.

[Kohinoor]

you know... T1 to T14 transfers are a good case study. the t14 was definitely a reach for them as a 1L, but i wonder how they perform as 2Ls at their new schools.

It's actually a terrible case study because nobody tries nearly as hard 2L year AND everyone has experience with law school exams.

well that claim is a bit too strong. surely *some* people try even harder as 2Ls (hello? clerkships?).

Fair. A nontrivial number of students stop trying as hard.

[krogers]

I love how you admit you have no sources while simultaneously mocking someone for not believing you.

Yeah, because anyone here who posts basically what they've heard from a hiring partner is just talking out of their ass.

I mean, it's fine not to believe me. But it doesn't mean that I'm wrong. that's what im getting at. anyways, if you look at the URM partnership numbers, they aren't encouraging, and are surely not proportional with the number of URM associates taken in. It could be because they're highly sought out for in-house, but im not sure that's true. ive never really heard of anyone in particular being "highly sought out" in that way. usually, associates are the ones seeking those spots.

[krogers]

Fair. A nontrivial number of students stop trying as hard.

Great! I got you to step down from that first ridiculous claim. Now get ready for this one:

In this economy, even if you have a fancy nice firm jobbie, odds are you want to keep your grades at least where you got them, just in case the firms look at them when they're making permanent offers. It's no secret that Gibson Dunn has actually no-offered summers based on their 2L grades, and I'm sure other firms do this too. Law students, being as risk-averse as we are, won't take that chance.

I know I'm not, and I don't give a rat's ass about clerkships.

So, people who try hard as 2Ls: People who have firm jobs (and want to keep them), people gunning for clerkships, people gunning for prestigious PI. That adds up to a significant majority of the class, me thinks.

[vanwinkle]

I mean, it's fine not to believe me. But it doesn't mean that I'm wrong.

It's okay to just speak from personal belief, especially if you can admit that you don't have definitive sources to back it up, but berating a person for not believing you when we don't even know who the fuck you are is kind of arrogant.

[Kohinoor]

Fair. A nontrivial number of students stop trying as hard.

Great! I got you to step down from that first ridiculous claim. Now get ready for this one:

In this economy, even if you have a fancy nice firm jobbie, odds are you want to keep your grades at least where you got them, just in case the firms look at them when they're making permanent offers. It's no secret that Gibson Dunn has actually no-offered summers based on their 2L grades, and I'm sure other firms do this too. Law students, being as risk-averse as we are, won't take that chance.

I know I'm not, and I don't give a rat's ass about clerkships.

So, people who try hard as 2Ls: People who have firm jobs (and want to keep them), people gunning for clerkships, people gunning for prestigious PI. That adds up to a significant majority of the class, me thinks.

Your penchant for being an asshole on the internet is disconcerting.

[krogers]

It's okay to just speak from personal belief, but berating a person for not believing you when we don't even know who the fuck you are is kind of arrogant.

I wasn't speaking from personal belief...

I emphasized that this is something "I've heard." That's a source. Yes, it's shitty by your and kohinoor's standards, but it's still a source. I berated kohinoor for asking a stupid question. Just like I'm about to berate you for saying I'm speaking out of personal belief.

[vanwinkle]

I emphasized that this is something "I've heard." That's a source. Yes, it's shitty by your and kohinoor's standards, but it's still a source. I berated kohinoor for asking a stupid question. Just like I'm about to berate you for saying I'm speaking out of personal belief.

If you're sharing things based on only what you heard from other sources, and your belief that the source is true, and you can't provide that source to objectively back that belief up, then you are speaking from your personal beliefs. This would be considered "hearsay" in the legal world and isn't considered acceptable because we don't want some third party's beliefs about what was said and how true it was, we want to hear the facts directly from the source and verify their accuracy ourselves.

All we get is your personal belief that what you are saying is true, and that's not very helpful at all, especially when, as I pointed out, nobody here knows who the fuck you are.

[rando]

Dear Krogers. Congrats on berating people who don't agree with you on the internet. That is all.

[krogers]

f you're sharing things based on only what you heard from other sources, and your belief that the source is true, and you can't provide that source to objectively back that belief up, then you are speaking from your personal beliefs.

then based on your reasoning, everyone argues from personal belief if they cite a source and believe it. That sounds kind of stupid. in all actuality, i prefaced my statement with "from what I've heard." if anything, that sounds like the exact opposite of speaking from personal belief, since it implies im not taking the claim as my own (and in this thread, id definitely shy of speaking about my personal beliefs on the matter, lest peeps like kohinoor try to shoot me down).

honestly, it just sounds like you're trying to stretch the phrase so you don't look like a massive idiot. it's cool and all, but im not going to be party to it so carry on.

This would be considered "hearsay" in the legal world and isn't considered acceptable because we don't want some third party's beliefs about what was said and how true it was, we want to hear the facts directly from the source and verify their accuracy ourselves.

hahahahaha. your little spiel on hearsay is cute and all, but save it for when you actually take evidence. im telling you to save it because there are actually a billion exceptions to the hearsay rule.

anyway, i made my point. buy it or not, i dont care. you guys will believe whatever you want to believe no matter what i say.

[krogers]

so ill throw out an example just to show that im not completely talking out of my ass. im NOT saying this definitively proves my point (as rando, kohinoor, etc. will be eager to point out), but it's just interesting:

Wachtell has 0 African American partners. 0. How do I know this? It's basically what keeps them pretty low on the A-List (and I believe one of the amlaw articles actually discusses how diversity SUCKS at the firm). To boot, they earnestly try to get african americans on the team. From what I know, the only people who ever get the highly desired 1L SA-ship at the firm are... African Americans (at least as far as I know, this was the case for last summer and is the case for this summer). Yet somehow, they don't make it through the ranks.

Is that voluntary or involuntary? I don't know. ONce you're at Wachtell, making partner isn't all that bad (at least not nearly as bad as other V10s, where it's basically impossible. So you'd think that'd be evidence for why people would have an incentive to stay. It is also Wachtell, though, so im sure people have plenty of reasons to leave...

edit: on second thought. bad example. it is INTERESTING though.

[vanwinkle]

then based on your reasoning, everyone argues from personal belief if they cite a source and believe it. That sounds kind of stupid.

In that case they arguing from personal belief, yes, but they're also arguing from verifiable sources. And then people can go form their own beliefs from those sources even if they don't want to consider that person's personal beliefs. Personal beliefs no longer become an issue.

in all actuality, i prefaced my statement with "from what I've heard." if anything, that sounds like the exact opposite of speaking from personal belief, since it implies im not taking the claim as my own (and in this thread, id definitely shy of speaking about my personal beliefs on the matter, lest peeps like kohinoor try to shoot me down).

It means that you're taking the claim as having been truthful, honest, and accurate. Those are your personal beliefs regarding your source, which we can't verify at all. So, like I was saying before, you can share these things if you want, but berating people for not believing you is really stupid since you're offering nothing but your personal beliefs to us, and that's not something you should expect anyone to jump to believe, especially when your arrogant and abrasive personality suggests your judgment is suspect.

hahahahaha. your little spiel on hearsay is cute and all, but save it for when you actually take evidence. im telling you to save it because there are actually a billion exceptions to the hearsay rule.

I'm familiar with the exceptions to the hearsay rule. I was explaining it in that manner to try to make a point to you, which you clearly missed, about how society has pretty broadly acknowledged that hearsay is less reliable than direct sources. When people want direct sources, it's because they want something more reliable to go on. Simply claiming "I'm reliable" doesn't cut it unless there's a specific reason to do so... and you haven't given us a reason to believe you, so we're not really willing to make an exception in your case.

anyway, i made my point. buy it or not, i dont care. you guys will believe whatever you want to believe no matter what i say.

That's because you can't provide sources and don't sound credible. It's kind of natural to not believe what you say in those circumstances.

[vanwinkle]

Wachtell has 0 African American partners. 0. How do I know this?

I love how you say "How do I know this?" and then don't provide a source.

[krogers]

wow, now someone is trying to tell me what my personal beliefs are.

this is pretty surreal, since i never expected someone to do something so stupid, but it's also kind of funny, since i never expected someone to do something so stupid.

it's a trivial point. i know how you all like to fap to these arguments, but again, i made my point, and im done. if you think im wrong, feel free to think im wrong.

[krogers]

Wachtell has 0 African American partners. 0. How do I know this?

I love how you say "How do I know this?" and then don't provide a source.

You are retarded:

t's basically what keeps them pretty low on the A-List (and I believe one of the amlaw articles actually discusses how diversity SUCKS at the firm). To boot, they earnestly try to get african americans on the team. From what I know, the only people who ever get the highly desired 1L SA-ship at the firm are... African Americans (at least as far as I know, this was the case for last summer and is the case for this summer). Yet somehow, they don't make it through the ranks.

At this point, you'd get off your lazy ass and look for the A-List and firms' diversity scores.

[vanwinkle]

wow, now someone is trying to tell me what my personal beliefs are.

It's easy to infer what your personal beliefs are about something from the way you assert it as truth. If you assert something as truthful then it's pretty obvious your personal belief is that it's true, unless you're lying.

The only way it isn't your personal belief that your source is accurate is if you don't believe your source is accurate. Is it true, then, that you don't believe your source is accurate even though you're pushing it as something we should believe and berating people for not believing?

[vanwinkle]

At this point, you'd get off your lazy ass and look for the A-List and firms' diversity scores.

You're the one asserting it as true. Why should I have to prove the truth of something you're claiming? If no source is provided, that harms your argument, not mine.

[krogers]

You're the one asserting it as true. Why should I have to prove the truth of something you're claiming? If no source is provided, that harms your argument, not mine.

dude, at which point will you realize that i dont give a shit whether you think im right or wrong. if you dont believe me, exercise your god-given right not to believe me and dont make a huge dick-insecure fuss about it.

[vanwinkle]

dude, at which point will you realize that i dont give a shit whether you think im right or wrong. if you dont believe me, exercise your god-given right not to believe me and dont make a huge dick-insecure fuss about it.

This is really hilarious coming from someone who berates people for not believing them. Why would you do that if you don't give a shit whether people believe you or not?

[Mickey Quicknumbers]

you know... T1 to T14 transfers are a good case study. the t14 was definitely a reach for them as a 1L, but i wonder how they perform as 2Ls at their new schools.

It's actually a terrible case study because nobody tries nearly as hard 2L year AND everyone has experience with law school exams.

It would also a terrible case study because: the only T1's you get to sample are those that have already proven they have an exceptional knack for law relative to others with similar numbers. Seems like like very biased sampling.

also ITT: Vanwinkle lays a smackdown on krogers, and he still hasn't realized it yet (and probably never will)

[Unemployed]

you know... T1 to T14 transfers are a good case study. the t14 was definitely a reach for them as a 1L, but i wonder how they perform as 2Ls at their new schools.

It's actually a terrible case study because nobody tries nearly as hard 2L year AND everyone has experience with law school exams.

It would also a terrible case study because: the only T1's you get to sample are those that have already proven they have an exceptional knack for law relative to others with similar numbers. Seems like like very biased sampling.

also ITT: Vanwinkle lays a smackdown on krogers, and he still hasn't realized it yet (and probably never will)

Both... actually all 3 are credited points.

[krogers]

you know... T1 to T14 transfers are a good case study. the t14 was definitely a reach for them as a 1L, but i wonder how they perform as 2Ls at their new schools.

It's actually a terrible case study because nobody tries nearly as hard 2L year AND everyone has experience with law school exams.

Also a terrible case study because: the only T1's you get to sample are those that have already proven they have an exceptional knack for law relative to others with similar numbers. Seems like like very biased sampling.

also ITT: Vanwinkle lays a smackdown on krogers, and he still hasn't realized it yet (or probably ever will)

Interesting. But isn't the point of using that as an example? Kids with shitty GPA/LSATs who still do excellently in law school and continue to do excellently at schools they would never have gotten into as 0Ls?

anywho, at least asking transfers is more politically correct, since you can actually spot them (hey, you were NOT in my 1L class). it's better than asking some random dude, "Hey, did you have reach numbers for this place?" or even worse, approaching a URM and asking that.

Worth pointing out that, as a 2L, im pretty sure that peeps around me are gunning pretty hardcore. could be because of the economy. im not sure how the whole "having taken exams" thing is an argument. presumably, this would also mean you could never ask how a reach student did after 1L, since everyone's had exam experience after the first semester...

[vanwinkle]

also ITT: Vanwinkle lays a smackdown on krogers, and he still hasn't realized it yet (and probably never will)

[krogers]

vanwinkle can "lay the internet smackdown" all he wants. at the end of the day, he's still a dumbshit basement dwelling virgin who posts shit i cannot even be bothered to read (and to be honest, haven't read).

[Mickey Quicknumbers]

you know... T1 to T14 transfers are a good case study. the t14 was definitely a reach for them as a 1L, but i wonder how they perform as 2Ls at their new schools.

It's actually a terrible case study because nobody tries nearly as hard 2L year AND everyone has experience with law school exams.

Also a terrible case study because: the only T1's you get to sample are those that have already proven they have an exceptional knack for law relative to others with similar numbers. Seems like like very biased sampling.

also ITT: Vanwinkle lays a smackdown on krogers, and he still hasn't realized it yet (or probably ever will)

Interesting. But isn't the point of using that as an example? Kids with shitty GPA/LSATs who still do excellently in law school and continue to do excellently at schools they would never have gotten into as 0Ls?

anywho, at least asking transfers is more politically correct, since you can actually spot them (hey, you were NOT in my 1L class). it's better than asking some random dude, "Hey, did you have reach numbers for this place?" or even worse, approaching a URM and asking that.

Worth pointing out that, as a 2L, im pretty sure that peeps around me are gunning pretty hardcore. could be because of the economy. im not sure how the whole "having taken exams" thing is an argument. presumably, this would also mean you could never ask how a reach student did after 1L, since everyone's had exam experience after the first semester...

yes, but if we were trying to determine whether or not, on a large scale, candidates with subpar numbers would fair negatively, we can't only sample a group that has shown to do exceptionally well relative to their numbers. It would defeat the whole purpose of the study.