TLS is a mindless echo chamber Forum

[sunynp]

Who was the fist person to claim that "ties" to a given market were so important? I went back on the TLS archives and couldn't find a single mention of "ties" in all the countless threads from 2009.

Surely if you moved from Manhattan to Fayetteville, Arkansas to attend UA you may have trouble fitting in with the yocals and this might hinder your job hunt. However, the first thing an employer is going to consider is whether you are going to add value to the business. If you are going to add more value than the "homer," you are going to get the gig.

Best I can tell, it looks like about six months ago someone mentioned "ties" and created a plausible argument around "ties" and now the first thing everyone asks applicants is where they have "ties." Hilarious.

TLS didn't have a legal employment forum in 2009, and consequently most people didn't have a reason to stick around to give OCI advice. After the establishment f the legal employment forum, I definitely remember talking about ties during my OCI in 2010.

Also, having gone through OCI, ties are the real deal. Every Chicago firm grilled me about ties despite my going to Northwestern, even national V25 firms.

Also, suck it: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... s#p1799120

Yikes, I read through some of the posts in thread around the above linked post. It is scary reading those old posts. People were debating much the same way then, some people denying that things were bad, others trying to say the market was really bad. People refusing to listen to advice. Other people saying T6 or T14 with a great scholarship is the only way to go.

That linked post is around the time that layoffs were being announced with regular frequency. And some people tried to claim that things weren't that bad. I guess I am realizing that many people aren't going to listen no matter what you tell them. Right now I feel like trying to advise people is a waste of time unless you just agree that they have a smart plan, should borrow as much as they need, and that with hustle they can have a great career.

[Gail]

Nvm. I'm screwed no matter what. 25k salary after UG and early death or unemployment and a reason to be a hobo.

[romothesavior]

Nvm. I'm screwed no matter what. 25k salary after UG and early death or unemployment and a reason to be a hobo.

What

[Gail]

Nvm. I'm screwed no matter what. 25k salary after UG and early death or unemployment and a reason to be a hobo.

What

always wanted to be a hobo.

[romothesavior]

Nvm. I'm screwed no matter what. 25k salary after UG and early death or unemployment and a reason to be a hobo.

What

always wanted to be a hobo.

Well if you take out debt to go to a regional law school where you have no ties, you'll be off to a good start.

[JusticeHarlan]

My god, this thread was 180 for lulz. I wish more 1Ls would come in here and tell us how everyone at their high school law school gets jobs without ties, it's no big deal.

Anyways, my favorite part was:

despite the fact that going to the regional school will provide said 0L with essentially the same chance of success in the forum state as homer simpson from down the road

Someone's been hitting the Civ Pro E&E hard.

[JusticeHarlan]

60% of my school is out-of-state and yet 90% work in Colorado.

Also, wtf is this 90% number? Only 124/183 grads work in "Mountain" states (LinkRemoved), so it's less than 70%. And considering that fewer than 124 grads got full time, JD required work, it's gonna be less than that. Were you just making up numbers that fit your argument or something?

[romothesavior]

60% of my school is out-of-state and yet 90% work in Colorado.

Also, wtf is this 90% number? Only 124/183 grads work in "Mountain" states (LinkRemoved), so it's less than 70%. And considering that fewer than 124 grads got full time, JD required work, it's gonna be less than that. Were you just making up numbers that fit your argument or something?

Thank you sir.

[Scuppers]

I'm a 0L and have less total posts than Romo will make this evening, but I read the Choosing a School forum twice a day in the taxi, so I'm an expert on TLS groupthink. 

Ties have not been lauded as necessary or sufficient. They are brought up when someone is asking for advice on choosing between wildly dissimilar schools. They can be important in some cases in securing interviews and connecting with interviewers. ITE, stuff like that is increasingly important and increasingly discussed. The rest of this thread is strawman genocide. 

And Gail, please don't couchsurf your way around looking for "other ways to pay bills."

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

60% of my school is out-of-state and yet 90% work in Colorado.

Also, wtf is this 90% number? Only 124/183 grads work in "Mountain" states (LinkRemoved), so it's less than 70%. And considering that fewer than 124 grads got full time, JD required work, it's gonna be less than that. Were you just making up numbers that fit your argument or something?

Haha reading fail, judge.

124 work in mountain states (colorado...) out of 151 known to be employed. 82%. Did you just assume that unemployed looking and unemployed not looking all moved out of state? I'd imagine even more of those people, likely all of the unemployed not looking, are in-state, pushing it higher than 82%.

My 90% must have been from last 09 or something, but if you'd like me to subtract .08 from my point, I certainly will.
Truth is still most people are OOS, and by far most work in Colorado. Many sans "ties." If you'd like, go ahead and make the wild and completely unsubstantiated assumption that some other dude did a few pages back, about how the ones with the better jobs are CO natives. That's rational argument argument 101 right there.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

60% of my school is out-of-state and yet 90% work in Colorado.

Also, wtf is this 90% number? Only 124/183 grads work in "Mountain" states (LinkRemoved), so it's less than 70%. And considering that fewer than 124 grads got full time, JD required work, it's gonna be less than that. Were you just making up numbers that fit your argument or something?

Thank you sir.

Well researched approval, Romo. More TLS groupthink right there.

[rad lulz]

mountain states (colorado...)

you sure?

[skers]

Haha reading fail, judge.
124 work in mountain states (colorado...) out of 151 known to be employed. 82%. Did you just assume that unemployed looking and unemployed not looking all moved out of state? I'd imagine even more of those people, likely all of the unemployed not looking, are in-state, pushing it higher than 82%.

My 90% must have been from last 09 or something, but if you'd like me to subtract .08 from my point, I certainly will.
Truth is still most people are OOS, and by far most work in Colorado. Many sans "ties." If you'd like, go ahead and make the wild and completely unsubstantiated assumption that some other dude did a few pages back, about how the ones with the better jobs are CO natives. That's rational argument argument 101 right there.

It's not so much a reading fail as you not accounting for unemployed grads.

[JusticeHarlan]

Haha reading fail, judge.
124 work in mountain states (colorado...) out of 151 known to be employed. 82%. Did you just assume that unemployed looking and unemployed not looking all moved out of state? I'd imagine even more of those people, likely all of the unemployed not looking, are in-state, pushing it higher than 82%.

My 90% must have been from last 09 or something, but if you'd like me to subtract .08 from my point, I certainly will.
Truth is still most people are OOS, and by far most work in Colorado. Many sans "ties." If you'd like, go ahead and make the wild and completely unsubstantiated assumption that some other dude did a few pages back, about how the ones with the better jobs are CO natives. That's rational argument argument 101 right there.

It's not so much a reading fail as you not accounting for unemployed grads.

Yeah, this.

The entire point of the "ties" discussion, McDuff, was trying to avoid the situation where (1) you're stuck at a school that has little pull outside it's particular region, while (2) having a harder time getting a job because you don't have ties to that region. Only looking at a denominator of employed people doesn't address this concern. Someone who didn't get a job because they didn't have ties - where do they fall in your statistic?

I don't want to re-hash the respective weight ties have in getting a job or not. I just wanted to say that your statistic doesn't address that question.

If you decide not to count the people who don't have jobs, you can make a great argument that everyone is employed. That's pretty much what you're doing. It's kinda what law schools are getting sued for. You sound like you should work in law school admissions.

[romothesavior]

I am so glad this was bumped. I learned so much the first time around.

Today I learned that agreeing with someone who is right constitutes "groupthink."

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

If you decide not to count the people who don't have jobs, you can make a great argument that everyone is employed. That's pretty much what you're doing. It's kinda what law schools are getting sued for. You sound like you should work in law school admissions.

I'm not counting people who don't have jobs to make a great argument that everyone is employed? You must be high.

You said less than 70% of people work in Colorado, and that is the misleading statistic. In the context of the convo we were having, it implied that 30%+ of people were going elsewhere (or, in your view, probably going to where they have "ties"). That is a completely baseless assumption. I also happen to know that a bunch of people who come here don't want to work as an attorney-- It is also represented in the employment surveys. Implying that these people either A) left the state or B) couldn't get a job because of "ties" is a fairy-tale. You also make the assumption that people who don't work probably failed from a lack of ties, or people who don't work aren't in Colorado. People that come here and get a J.D. overwhelmingly work in Colorado, and that is the point. I wasn't making a point about how great employment is out of CU. It isn't great. I making the previous point, and that's it.

Rad-- Yeah I'm making that huge assumption cuz the year before they said 80% worked in Colorado, and this year it was, apparently, 82% in the mountain west. I don't know. However, none of this changes the fact that you have zero data on your ties theory, and while my data is hugely imperfect, it does show people becoming employed where they have no ties-- even including judges unemployed/unemployed not looking and living off the trust fund in Aspen folks, 30% have to be getting jerbs who paid out of state tuition the first year, and may not have "ties." At least, assuming that year had a similar 60/40 in-state out of state split.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

I am so glad this was bumped. I learned so much the first time around.

Today I learned that agreeing with someone who is right constitutes "groupthink."

You're doing awesome. Very proud.

[rad lulz]

If you decide not to count the people who don't have jobs, you can make a great argument that everyone is employed. That's pretty much what you're doing. It's kinda what law schools are getting sued for. You sound like you should work in law school admissions.

I'm not counting people who don't have jobs to make a great argument that everyone is employed? You must be high.

You said less than 70% of people work in Colorado, and that is the misleading statistic. In the context of the convo we were having, it implied that 30%+ of people were going elsewhere (or, in your view, probably going to where they have "ties"). That is a completely baseless assumption. I also happen to know that a bunch of people who come here don't want to work as an attorney-- It is also represented in the employment surveys. Implying that these people either A) left the state or B) couldn't get a job because of "ties" is a fairy-tale. You also make the assumption that people who don't work probably failed from a lack of ties, or people who don't work aren't in Colorado. People that come here and get a J.D. overwhelmingly work in Colorado, and that is the point. I wasn't making a point about how great employment is out of CU. It isn't great. I making the previous point, and that's it.

Rad-- Yeah I'm making that huge assumption cuz the year before they said 80% worked in Colorado, and this year it was, apparently, 82% in the mountain west. I don't know. However, none of this changes the fact that you have zero data on your ties theory, and while my data is hugely imperfect, it does show people becoming employed where they have no ties-- even including judges unemployed/unemployed not looking and living off the trust fund in Aspen folks, 30% have to be getting jerbs who paid out of state tuition the first year, and may not have "ties." At least, assuming that year had a similar 60/40 in-state out of state split.

That's not what your data shows, and there's no way to make it clearer than other poasters have.

[JusticeHarlan]

You said less than 70% of people work in Colorado, and that is the misleading statistic.

124/183 work in the Mountain States. That's less than 70%. How is that misleading?

In the context of the convo we were having, it implied that 30%+ of people were going elsewhere (or, in your view, probably going to where they have "ties").

They could be staying in Colorado. But they're not working in Colorado. So I don't care where they are. The point is employment. If you're saying people can go UC without ties and wind up unemployed in Colorado, I think you'll find that assertion completely uncontroversial.

You seem too obtuse to get this, so I'll say it again:
It doesn't matter where they live, it matters both if, and where, they got a job. You said, 90% are working in state. Let's look at the possibilities:

(1) If they got a job in Colorado.
(2) If they got a job elsewhere.
(3) If they didn't get a job and live in Colorado.
(4) If they didn't get a job and live elsewhere.

The 84% number only looks at (1) and (2), and says 84% of the people who were in either (1) or (2) were in (1). But that's not the question. The question is, for a prospective student going to UC to work in Colorado, what are the chances they wind up in (1)? We have to ask, how many people, out of (1) (2) (3) and (4) wound up in (1). That's not 90% or 84%. It's 124/183, or about 68%. The 84% statistic only looks at those who have jobs. Get it?

[romothesavior]

I get it, but I refuse to agree with you. Don't wanna perpetuate the echo echo echo

[JusticeHarlan]

I get it, but I refuse to agree with you. Don't wanna perpetuate the echo echo echo

If we only count the percent of TLS that disagrees with you, you're not perpetuating the echo chamber, you're a free thinking radical.

[romothesavior]

I get it, but I refuse to agree with you. Don't wanna perpetuate the echo echo echo

If we only count the percent of TLS that disagrees with you, you're not perpetuating the echo chamber, you're a free thinking radical.

[rad lulz]

I get it, but I refuse to agree with you. Don't wanna perpetuate the echo echo echo

If we only count the percent of TLS that disagrees with you, you're not perpetuating the echo chamber, you're a free thinking radical.

lulz

[rad lulz]

You said less than 70% of people work in Colorado, and that is the misleading statistic.

124/183 work in the Mountain States. That's less than 70%. How is that misleading?

In the context of the convo we were having, it implied that 30%+ of people were going elsewhere (or, in your view, probably going to where they have "ties").

They could be staying in Colorado. But they're not working in Colorado. So I don't care where they are. The point is employment. If you're saying people can go UC without ties and wind up unemployed in Colorado, I think you'll find that assertion completely uncontroversial.

You seem too obtuse to get this, so I'll say it again:
It doesn't matter where they live, it matters both if, and where, they got a job. You said, 90% are working in state. Let's look at the possibilities:

(1) If they got a job in Colorado.
(2) If they got a job elsewhere.
(3) If they didn't get a job and live in Colorado.
(4) If they didn't get a job and live elsewhere.

The 84% number only looks at (1) and (2), and says 84% of the people who were in either (1) or (2) were in (1). But that's not the question. The question is, for a prospective student going to UC to work in Colorado, what are the chances they wind up in (1)? We have to ask, how many people, out of (1) (2) (3) and (4) wound up in (1). That's not 90% or 84%. It's 124/183, or about 68%. The 84% statistic only looks at those who have jobs. Get it?

Also assumes "Mountain West" is a synonym for CO.

[Lawl Shcool]

You said less than 70% of people work in Colorado, and that is the misleading statistic.

124/183 work in the Mountain States. That's less than 70%. How is that misleading?

In the context of the convo we were having, it implied that 30%+ of people were going elsewhere (or, in your view, probably going to where they have "ties").

They could be staying in Colorado. But they're not working in Colorado. So I don't care where they are. The point is employment. If you're saying people can go UC without ties and wind up unemployed in Colorado, I think you'll find that assertion completely uncontroversial.

You seem too obtuse to get this, so I'll say it again:
It doesn't matter where they live, it matters both if, and where, they got a job. You said, 90% are working in state. Let's look at the possibilities:

(1) If they got a job in Colorado.
(2) If they got a job elsewhere.
(3) If they didn't get a job and live in Colorado.
(4) If they didn't get a job and live elsewhere.

The 84% number only looks at (1) and (2), and says 84% of the people who were in either (1) or (2) were in (1). But that's not the question. The question is, for a prospective student going to UC to work in Colorado, what are the chances they wind up in (1)? We have to ask, how many people, out of (1) (2) (3) and (4) wound up in (1). That's not 90% or 84%. It's 124/183, or about 68%. The 84% statistic only looks at those who have jobs. Get it?

Also assumes "Mountain West" is a synonym for CO.

FTW!