If You Want to be an Corporate Attorney in BigLaw... Forum

[Unemployed]

ITT: icydash makes absurd claims based on anecdotal evidence that is both incredibly irrelevant (relatives in the legal market 30 years ago) and drawn from far too small of a sample size. Other posters call him out on it, and he then claims, "That wasn't what I meant."

Maybe his/her posts should come with a disclaimer:

Warning! The following claim is currently inaccurate, but you can help fix it. I will stand by what I said, but you'll know better.

This is getting absurd.

Icydash - believe whatever you will. It would be great if you stopped spreading misinformation though.

[danquayle]

My brother, coming out of Albany law school, got a job in a medium NYC corporate law/litigation firm-- starting salary ABOVE big law.

These kinds of jobs exist all over -- most of you guys just don't know it because you're 0Ls speculating. I know it because my father, who is a senior partner at a firm for over 30 years in NYC (also from Albany Law School), my uncle whose now a judge (St. Johns Law School), and many other partners in my dads firm (Hofstra grads, Brooklyn Law School grads, Loyola grads, etc) have all done it -- and they where by no means "special," in the top 10% of their class, etc.

Contrary to popular belief, once you get into a firm, the law school you went to means little to nothing. What makes or breaks your chance at partnership is your ability to bring in clients and the quality of your work. In reality, law school only *helps* you get that first job, and there are many small/medium sized firms with partnership tracks and great salaries out there. I guarantee you law firms would take an Albany Law School grad with a book of work he can bring in and not look twice at the school on his resume.

I don't know, but I'll speculate and say your brother had some advantages coming out of law school that the typical law student doesn't have access to.

Edit: And its 'uncle who's now a judge.' Who is contracts to who's. Whose would be a different word.

[romothesavior]

My brother, coming out of Albany law school, got a job in a medium NYC corporate law/litigation firm-- starting salary ABOVE big law.

These kinds of jobs exist all over -- most of you guys just don't know it because you're 0Ls speculating. I know it because my father, who is a senior partner at a firm for over 30 years in NYC (also from Albany Law School), my uncle whose now a judge (St. Johns Law School), and many other partners in my dads firm (Hofstra grads, Brooklyn Law School grads, Loyola grads, etc) have all done it -- and they where by no means "special," in the top 10% of their class, etc.

Contrary to popular belief, once you get into a firm, the law school you went to means little to nothing. What makes or breaks your chance at partnership is your ability to bring in clients and the quality of your work. In reality, law school only *helps* you get that first job, and there are many small/medium sized firms with partnership tracks and great salaries out there. I guarantee you law firms would take an Albany Law School grad with a book of work he can bring in and not look twice at the school on his resume.

I don't know, but I'll speculate and say your brother had some advantages coming out of law school that the typical law student doesn't have access to.

Edit: And its 'uncle who's now a judge.' Who is contracts to who's. Whose would be a different word.

I agree with your overall point, but the grammar call-out really detracts from your overall argument. It just makes everyone

[icydash]

ITT: icydash makes absurd claims based on anecdotal evidence that is both incredibly irrelevant (relatives in the legal market 30 years ago) and drawn from far too small of a sample size. Other posters call him out on it, and he then claims, "That wasn't what I meant."

#1: We already completely went over this. I was not making ANY claims based on personal family experience except that a certain kind of job exists and I wasn't making it up. Please learn to read all the posts before being a douche.

#2: I love how everyone keeps saying I'm making absurd claims....but that's it. They provide no evidence/sources to the contrary. Over and over I keep hearing "no, you're wrong" ...but then nothing....no source...nada. Most peoples arguments are from the same caliber of data as mine. The last few posts basically someone was like "no you're wrong etc etc, you're using personal experiences and anecdotal evidence"...and I was like "so what's your source?" to which he basically responded with personal experiences and anecdotal evidence. At this point people are using their anecdotal evidence and past experiences as much as I am. If you're going to call me wrong, show me proof (via a real source) to back it up, or I blatantly disregard anything you post and assume you're just sharing an opinion as well.

My brother, coming out of Albany law school, got a job in a medium NYC corporate law/litigation firm-- starting salary ABOVE big law.

These kinds of jobs exist all over -- most of you guys just don't know it because you're 0Ls speculating. I know it because my father, who is a senior partner at a firm for over 30 years in NYC (also from Albany Law School), my uncle whose now a judge (St. Johns Law School), and many other partners in my dads firm (Hofstra grads, Brooklyn Law School grads, Loyola grads, etc) have all done it -- and they where by no means "special," in the top 10% of their class, etc.

Contrary to popular belief, once you get into a firm, the law school you went to means little to nothing. What makes or breaks your chance at partnership is your ability to bring in clients and the quality of your work. In reality, law school only *helps* you get that first job, and there are many small/medium sized firms with partnership tracks and great salaries out there. I guarantee you law firms would take an Albany Law School grad with a book of work he can bring in and not look twice at the school on his resume.

I don't know, but I'll speculate and say your brother had some advantages coming out of law school that the typical law student doesn't have access to.

Edit: And its 'uncle who's now a judge.' Who is contracts to who's. Whose would be a different word.

We already went over this entirely at length. I'm not going to waste any more typing if you're not going to read past posts, anyway.
Edit: this is a forum. Only douchebags correct other peoples' spelling and grammar.

ITT: icydash makes absurd claims based on anecdotal evidence that is both incredibly irrelevant (relatives in the legal market 30 years ago) and drawn from far too small of a sample size. Other posters call him out on it, and he then claims, "That wasn't what I meant."

Maybe his/her posts should come with a disclaimer:

Warning! The following claim is currently inaccurate, but you can help fix it. I will stand by what I said, but you'll know better.

This is getting absurd.

Icydash - believe whatever you will. It would be great if you stopped spreading misinformation though.

This is getting absurd. I'm not wasting any more time on this thread. I have my opinion, you guys have yours. Believe what you want.

[romothesavior]

You want sources? Oh I dunno... NJL would be a good place to start. Look through around these threads, they are chock full of newspaper articles and first hand accounts of how bad the market is. I just talked to a friend at Iowa (3L there) who says most of his friends have no job lined up. A pretty good tier 1 school, I might add!

Honestly, I don't even think we need sources to refute your claims. You make two HUGE mistakes in your first few posts.

1. You say your brother had no connections. Really? An uncle who is a judge and dad who is partner is what constitutes no connections these days? And even if your brother had to work his ass off to get where he is now, the bottom line is that he had someone help get his foot in the door. That is literally the hardest part for most people. EVERYONE in big law had to work hard to get there. But having someone make a phone call to help get him connected (even if it was just moving boxes around) is the definition of connections. The vast majority of people don't have that.

2. You claim your uncle and your dad were self made men who busted their butts to get where they are. And I believe that is probably true. But you know what else is true? There were far fewer law grads, far fewer law schools, far less debt incurred by the average student, and a far better legal market. Even using your brother as an example is extremely suspect. It is impossible to compare 2002 to 2010, much less 1975 to 2010. Completely and utterly different legal worlds.


So no, I have no sources, no journal articles, no newspaper clippings to back up my claims. At the end of the day, they are unnecessary. Your posts were off base from the get-go.

[Mattalones]

I knew someone whose kin had two friends, one of whom went off to one of those fancy colleges in another state, and they both dated some lady - it happened at different times so it wasn't weird - and that lady ended up going to the O'law school down the way. Man-O-Man, did she make some cake - cash cake that is! And it sure seemed like she wasn't never at work neither. Those silly sons'a bitches both left'r high'n dry fer lil' sarah's sister and her friend. Why one'a them boys coulda spent their days learnin' bout legal things with a wealthy o'l misses who, cuz she had so much free time on'r hands, could waist the day away makin' all kindza luvin' to'em. Sad to think it.

[icydash]

You want sources? Oh I dunno... NJL would be a good place to start. Look through around these threads, they are chock full of newspaper articles and first hand accounts of how bad the market is. I just talked to a friend at Iowa (3L there) who says most of his friends have no job lined up. A pretty good tier 1 school, I might add!

Honestly, I don't even think we need sources to refute your claims. You make two HUGE mistakes in your first few posts.

1. You say your brother had no connections. Really? An uncle who is a judge and dad who is partner is what constitutes no connections these days? And even if your brother had to work his ass off to get where he is now, the bottom line is that he had someone help get his foot in the door. That is literally the hardest part for most people. EVERYONE in big law had to work hard to get there. But having someone make a phone call to help get him connected (even if it was just moving boxes around) is the definition of connections. The vast majority of people don't have that.

2. You claim your uncle and your dad were self made men who busted their butts to get where they are. And I believe that is probably true. But you know what else is true? There were far fewer law grads, far fewer law schools, far less debt incurred by the average student, and a far better legal market. Even using your brother as an example is extremely suspect. It is impossible to compare 2002 to 2010, much less 1975 to 2010. Completely and utterly different legal worlds.


So no, I have no sources, no journal articles, no newspaper clippings to back up my claims. At the end of the day, they are unnecessary. Your posts were off base from the get-go.

You do realize everything you're saying has nothing to do with the main argument / theme throughout the thread right? My family, my connections, and my family history have nothing to do with the argument I'm trying to make---you do understand this right? You keep bringing this stuff up as if trying to refute some huge point I made with my personal insight..... but this stuff was a mere sidenote to the main point of what I was trying to say....read the whole thread.

[romothesavior]

f

I knew someone whose kin had two friends, one of whom went off to one of those fancy colleges in another state, and they both dated some lady - it happened at different times so it wasn't weird - and that lady ended up going to the O'law school down the way. Man-O-Man, did she make some cake - cash cake that is! And it sure seemed like she wasn't never at work neither. Those silly sons'a bitches both left'r high'n dry fer lil' sarah's sister and her friend. Why one'a them boys coulda spent their days learnin' bout legal things with a wealthy o'l misses who, cuz she had so much free time on'r hands, could waist the day away makin' all kindza luvin' to'em. Sad to think it.

I'm not sure where to go with this... lol

[DoubleChecks]

I knew someone whose kin had two friends, one of whose went off to one of them fancy colleges in 'nother state, and they both dated some lady - it happened at different times so it wasn't weird - and that lady ended up going to the O'law school down the way. Man-O-Man, did she make some cake - cash cake that is! And it sure seemed like she wut'ent never at work neither. Those silly sons'a bitches both left'r high'n dry fer lil' sarah's sister and her friend. Why one'a them boys coulda spent their days learnin' bout legal thangs with a wealthy o'l misses who, cuz she had so much free time on'r hands, could waste the day away makin' all kindza luvin' to'em. Sad to dink it.

fify

[Unemployed]

You do realize everything you're saying has nothing to do with the main argument / theme throughout the thread right? My family, my connections, and my family history have nothing to do with the argument I'm trying to make---you do understand this right? You keep bringing this stuff up as if trying to refute some huge point I made with my personal insight..... but this stuff was a mere sidenote to the main point of what I was trying to say....read the whole thread.

So... in the interest of clearing up any misunderstanding, what the hell is your point? I mean I've been following this whole thread and I still can't figure out what you are trying to say, because every time you get pinned down, you say "no you guys are misreading it"

[Mattalones]

I knew someone whose kin had two friends, one of whose went off to one of them fancy colleges in 'nother state, and they both dated some lady - it happened at different times so it wasn't weird - and that lady ended up going to the O'law school down the way. Man-O-Man, did she make some cake - cash cake that is! And it sure seemed like she wut'ent never at work neither. Those silly sons'a bitches both left'r high'n dry fer lil' sarah's sister and her friend. Why one'a them boys coulda spent their days learnin' bout legal thangs with a wealthy o'l misses who, cuz she had so much free time on'r hands, could waste the day away makin' all kindza luvin' to'em. Sad to dink it.

fify

Nicely done ... But the point's still valid either way.

I like it better with your edits, though.

[icydash]

You want sources? Oh I dunno... NJL would be a good place to start. Look through around these threads, they are chock full of newspaper articles and first hand accounts of how bad the market is. I just talked to a friend at Iowa (3L there) who says most of his friends have no job lined up. A pretty good tier 1 school, I might add!

Haha and just to point it out and reiterate my past point, you seem to be saying more or less in a past post "no no you're wrong you're using personal experience" and then go on to say you have no real sources, and give a personal anecdote. Hypocritical much?

[romothesavior]

You want sources? Oh I dunno... NJL would be a good place to start. Look through around these threads, they are chock full of newspaper articles and first hand accounts of how bad the market is. I just talked to a friend at Iowa (3L there) who says most of his friends have no job lined up. A pretty good tier 1 school, I might add!

Honestly, I don't even think we need sources to refute your claims. You make two HUGE mistakes in your first few posts.

1. You say your brother had no connections. Really? An uncle who is a judge and dad who is partner is what constitutes no connections these days? And even if your brother had to work his ass off to get where he is now, the bottom line is that he had someone help get his foot in the door. That is literally the hardest part for most people. EVERYONE in big law had to work hard to get there. But having someone make a phone call to help get him connected (even if it was just moving boxes around) is the definition of connections. The vast majority of people don't have that.

2. You claim your uncle and your dad were self made men who busted their butts to get where they are. And I believe that is probably true. But you know what else is true? There were far fewer law grads, far fewer law schools, far less debt incurred by the average student, and a far better legal market. Even using your brother as an example is extremely suspect. It is impossible to compare 2002 to 2010, much less 1975 to 2010. Completely and utterly different legal worlds.


So no, I have no sources, no journal articles, no newspaper clippings to back up my claims. At the end of the day, they are unnecessary. Your posts were off base from the get-go.

You do realize everything you're saying has nothing to do with the main argument / theme throughout the thread right? My family, my connections, and my family history have nothing to do with the argument I'm trying to make---you do understand this right? You keep bringing this stuff up as if trying to refute some huge point I made with my personal insight..... but this stuff was a mere sidenote to the main point of what I was trying to say....read the whole thread.

I did read the thread. If your main and sole point is to argue that legal jobs exist, then okay. We are in agreement. They do exist. Groundbreaking point on your part. But good luck convincing me that's all you meant in your post.

[romothesavior]

You want sources? Oh I dunno... NJL would be a good place to start. Look through around these threads, they are chock full of newspaper articles and first hand accounts of how bad the market is. I just talked to a friend at Iowa (3L there) who says most of his friends have no job lined up. A pretty good tier 1 school, I might add!

Haha and just to point it out and reiterate my past point, you seem to be saying more or less in a past post "no no you're wrong you're using personal experience" and then go on to say you have no real sources, and give a personal anecdote. Hypocritical much?

A personal experience that is closely in line with the reports I've gotten from every school visit I've gone on, every student I've talked to, everything I've read on TLS and elsewhere, and the general trends of the economy. So yes, your right. The personal experience I use and the one you cite are definitely on the same plane.

[icydash]

You do realize everything you're saying has nothing to do with the main argument / theme throughout the thread right? My family, my connections, and my family history have nothing to do with the argument I'm trying to make---you do understand this right? You keep bringing this stuff up as if trying to refute some huge point I made with my personal insight..... but this stuff was a mere sidenote to the main point of what I was trying to say....read the whole thread.

So... in the interest of clearing up any misunderstanding, what the hell is your point? I mean I've been following this whole thread and I still can't figure out what you are trying to say, because every time you get pinned down, you say "no you guys are misreading it"

The point is, and always has been, what I said in the beginning:
--------------------------
Honestly, you can also not work in "big law," take an initial 20k a year pay cut, have a life and still be extremely happy/well off in a small/mid-sized firm....You can also still practice corporate law and eventually make partner/a ludicrous amount of money.

[....]

But back from my tangent: you can still get into a decent school and practice corporate law with your stats. Obviously, it wouldn't hurt to study harder and improve your LSAT score, but your life isn't over.
--------------------------
Then someone basically said "that's a great fictional job you made up there" and posted an image of South Parks' imaginationland, basically insinuating that these kinds of jobs don't exist. That's when I gave personal evidence of these kinds of jobs existing via family, which apparently everyone took weirdly for whatever reason and everything got all off on a tangent.

[icydash]

You want sources? Oh I dunno... NJL would be a good place to start. Look through around these threads, they are chock full of newspaper articles and first hand accounts of how bad the market is. I just talked to a friend at Iowa (3L there) who says most of his friends have no job lined up. A pretty good tier 1 school, I might add!

Haha and just to point it out and reiterate my past point, you seem to be saying more or less in a past post "no no you're wrong you're using personal experience" and then go on to say you have no real sources, and give a personal anecdote. Hypocritical much?

A personal experience that is closely in line with the reports I've gotten from every school visit I've gone on, every student I've talked to, everything I've read on TLS and elsewhere, and the general trends of the economy. So yes, your right. The personal experience I use and the one you cite are definitely on the same plane.

So what you're saying is the personal evidence you've gathered via visits, your law school friends, forum posters (often 0Ls and 1Ls) and the overall economic trends (which don't necessarily apply to the sector of law I'm talking about) is more correct then the personal evidence I've gathered from professionals in this specific legal sector, forum posters, and my law school friends? Are you serious?

What's also pretty sweet is how you've read all this stuff "on TLS and elsewhere," but you can't produce any of it as evidence.

This is really a dumb argument, and totally hypocritical.

[Unemployed]

You do realize everything you're saying has nothing to do with the main argument / theme throughout the thread right? My family, my connections, and my family history have nothing to do with the argument I'm trying to make---you do understand this right? You keep bringing this stuff up as if trying to refute some huge point I made with my personal insight..... but this stuff was a mere sidenote to the main point of what I was trying to say....read the whole thread.

So... in the interest of clearing up any misunderstanding, what the hell is your point? I mean I've been following this whole thread and I still can't figure out what you are trying to say, because every time you get pinned down, you say "no you guys are misreading it"

The point is, and always has been, what I said in the beginning:
--------------------------
Honestly, you can also not work in "big law," take an initial 20k a year pay cut, have a life and still be extremely happy/well off in a small/mid-sized firm....You can also still practice corporate law and eventually make partner/a ludicrous amount of money.

[....]

But back from my tangent: you can still get into a decent school and practice corporate law with your stats. Obviously, it wouldn't hurt to study harder and improve your LSAT score, but your life isn't over.
--------------------------
Then someone basically said "that's a great fictional job you made up there" and posted an image of South Parks' imaginationland, basically insinuating that these kinds of jobs don't exist. That's when I gave personal evidence of these kinds of jobs existing via family, which apparently everyone took weirdly for whatever reason and everything got all off on a tangent.

So you are simply arguing that "it is possible for a non-T14 grad to take a 140k job, work less than biglaw associates, and be happy." Or differently put, that "there is at least one job that pays 140k, works you less, and hires people with not-so-stellar grades from not-so-stellar law schools." Stop there. These are both reasonable statements and most people would believe you with or without personal anecdotes. Where you lose us is when you go further by using words like "good shot" or "these kinds of jobs exist all over."

None of the "evidence" you've shown us is good enough to allow you to go further. Quit while you are ahead.

[DoubleChecks]

While some of this is certainly my fault for wording things poorly, a lot of it still comes back to people not fully reading what I'm saying. With regards to the "good shot" statement, the exact thing I said was:

"No one is saying it's not better to go to a top school. I'm just saying you still have a good shot if you happen to fall outside of the T14."

This is entirely true, and I stand by it no matter how you want to read it. I back it up later on with this post:
"Of course they [the t14] routinely place more grads. No one is disputing this. Read my past posts. However, as a previous poster mentioned looking at these stats:
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... hbxlogin=1
Normally, outside of the T14, for schools ranked 15-23, you have a 30% shot at biglaw. For schools ranked 24-36 (give or take) you have a 20% shot biglaw. I don't know about you, but a 1/3 to 1/5 shot at biglaw if you basically don't suck in law school (come out as top 20/30%) is a pretty good shot. Barring biglaw, you could probably get into a boatload of smaller firms who still do corporate work."

Also, I didn't realize I worded my comments badly until I started hearing some of these posts and realized people did not understand what I was saying the way I meant them too. I wish it had been sooner, too, but it is what it is. When I realized this, I did own up to it.

it bothers me that you still dont see how your posts would mislead people. you begin w/ one argument, others attack it, and your rebuttal is a modified version of what you originally said. needless to say, people read your defense as a continuation of your first point. later, you go and claim they are attacking the wrong things you said lol.

for example:

My brother, coming out of Albany law school, got a job in a medium NYC corporate law/litigation firm-- starting salary ABOVE big law.

These kinds of jobs exist all over -- most of you guys just don't know it because you're 0Ls speculating. I know it because my father, who is a senior partner at a firm for over 30 years in NYC (also from Albany Law School), my uncle whose now a judge (St. Johns Law School), and many other partners in my dads firm (Hofstra grads, Brooklyn Law School grads, Loyola grads, etc) have all done it -- and they where by no means "special," in the top 10% of their class, etc.

bolded is a particularly bad part of your comment. italicized was unnecessary insult

we then went on to talk about how your family's situation = connections. wont cover that again. the part where you say after a few yrs, law school rep doesnt matter as much as how good of a lawyer you are in the firm, hm, i agree. but the problem was when the convo continued on this thread:

...there are still plenty of small/mid-sized firms (my dads being one of them) that hire T2/T3 grads to do corporate work, pay pretty well and also have partnership tracks.

now while the above isnt necessarily inaccurate, it is misleading because it is telling the OP (and anyone else who reads this thread) that they should go to a T2/T3 school w/ the reasonable expectation of getting such a small/mid corporate well paying job. that is the part i have the most problem w/...and what id imagine most others do as well:

Really? I mean I am sure they are out there, but "all over?" Do you really think it's a good idea for someone with no connections to take out $200k for a mediocre school because he can count on these super boutique jobs (seeing as how they "exist all over")? And yes, they are called boutiques, not midlaw or small-law.

Look, there is merit to what you are saying. Even today, at least some people from mediocre law schools grade, network, claw, stab, and (sometimes) cheat their way to success. That doesn't make attending such schools is a good idea.

The idea that 175k starting lawyer jobs exist "all over" is one of the most laughable things I have ever heard even from a clueless 0L.

Let's think about this. CRAVATH pays 160, WLRK pays 160, SULL CROM pays 160. Basically all the top firms in the top markets start at 160, yet somehow there are jobs "all over" that start more at mid-sized firms. Because top firms are glad to lose talent to mid-sized firms.

in response you typed:

People are reading way too literally into what I'm saying. When I said "jobs like these exist all over" what I meant was small/medium/boutique/whatever you want to call it sized firms where one can practice corporate law, make a good salary and get on a partnership track. You also don't have to go to a T14 to get these kinds of jobs.

I didn't literally mean 175k exactly or more jobs are everywhere. I meant well paying jobs where our OP can practice corporate law not coming out of a T14 school. See above.

but do you see how what you type...the words you use...actually matter? if you had phrased it differently, no one would have a problem w/ your statements. maybe if you didnt say they exist all over, but just do exist or maybe if you didnt type out 175k as if it is something a 0L reading this and considering a T2/T3 should believe is reasonably possible.

Look man, the fact that jobs like that "exist" has little bearing on the reality for most non T14 law grads. Those jobs are NOT all over and they are NOT easy to get.

And apparently you're still not catching my drift along with the rest of the posters who have voted in the poll. No one is saying it's not better to go to a top school. I'm just saying you still have a good shot if you happen to fall outside of the T14. It's not ideal, but life throws you curve balls and you deal with it.

do you see how you keep hedging your comments? making it sound as if everyone else is just not understanding what you're saying instead of you just slowly realizing that maybe you used the wrong words?

and the bolded "good" shot part drew even more criticism...when someone pointed it out as wrong, you said they needed to back it up. they did:

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... hbxlogin=1

there are 180+ schools outside the T-14 and only 6 of them are looking at a better than 1/3 chance of biglaw, I don't consider that a good shot at all but I guess it really depends on what you meant by that.

you then responded w/ this:

Of course they routinely place more grads (see your bolded wording above). No one is disputing this. Read my past posts. However, as a previous poster mentioned looking at these stats:
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... hbxlogin=1
Normally, outside of the T14, for schools ranked 15-23, you have a 30% shot at biglaw. For schools ranked 24-36 (give or take) you have a 20% shot biglaw. I don't know about you, but a 1/3 to 1/5 shot at biglaw if you basically don't suck in law school (come out as top 20/30%) is a pretty good shot. Barring biglaw, you could probably get into a boatload of smaller firms who still do corporate work.

do you see what you keep doing now? you keep hedging your comments and misleading people. now it is schools ranked 24-36. the whole BEGINNING and POINT of this debate was about T2/T3 schools (which Albany belongs to)...that is what people were objecting to! now you use stats about schools no one was really focusing on in the first place. you're arguing a different essence of the problem. stop that. i mean, there has to be some latin phrase for your style of argumentation here lol, it's classic. you say:

Again, the point of using my family was to show good opportunities for the grads outside the T14. Not any specific tier of schools, individual school, specific starting salary amount, etc etc... Gosh I feel like I have to put a disclaimer on my posts...or just start rereading them because I guess they haven't been read the way I had intended.

yet you were the one confusing people from the start lol. that was not the "point" anyone reading your earlier posts would have gotten. if you had used BU instead of Albany in your example and never mentioned T2/T3 or rather said T50, most of this argument would not have even taken place.

damn this is a long post!!!

[DoubleChecks]

btw, i apologize for that egregiously long post. i just got tired of icydash dashing away from the accountability of his earlier comments.

as unemployed and romo have said...your CURRENT statements are VERY realistic. most people, including us, would agree w/ them. the problem is, your earlier posts did NOT imply whatever you are saying now.

[romothesavior]

Do I have to state every premise of my argument for you to understand my conclusion or something? Everything I've stated (and everything other people have stated) regarding the state of the legal economy is simply common knowledge by now. Every time someone says something like, "Man the job market blows," are they gonna be required to give you a specific statistic or article or something?

We are all saying things that have been pretty well-established and well-known, hence the reason why most of us aren't throwing out sources. You, on the other hand, say there is a good shot at getting a mid-law job that pays well. In order to support this claim, you cite your well-connected brother getting a job like this. That simply isn't evidence of there being a "good shot" at midlaw jobs from T2 schools. Sorry 'boutcha.

Time to go to the bar.

[icydash]

Do I have to state every premise of my argument for you to understand my conclusion or something? Everything I've stated (and everything other people have stated) regarding the state of the legal economy is simply common knowledge by now. Every time someone says something like, "Man the job market blows," are they gonna be required to give you a specific statistic or article or something?

We are all saying things that have been pretty well-established and well-known, hence the reason why most of us aren't throwing out sources. You, on the other hand, say there is a good shot at getting a mid-law job that pays well. In order to support this claim, you cite your well-connected brother getting a job like this. That simply isn't evidence of there being a "good shot" at midlaw jobs from T2 schools. Sorry 'boutcha.

Time to go to the bar.

#1: This is so off base I find it hard to even respond to it. The only reason my brother was brought in to this equation is to show these jobs do exist. Period. We went over this 1000 times. I say there is a good shot at getting a mid-law job that pays well from outside of the T14, which for some reason you keep reading as T2/T3 whatever. I'm not sure what your deal is with that.

#2: edited. I don't feel like fighting any more. I think the main confusion came from everyone thinking I was talking about T2/T3 schools, and I was talking about schools outside of the T14 (which I repeatedly wrote over and over on pretty much every post since the beginning of the second page, so I'm not sure how the confusion happened, but it is what it is.)

#3: You're right. I'm wrong. If I think about this any more I'm going to killself.

[romothesavior]

Do I have to state every premise of my argument for you to understand my conclusion or something? Everything I've stated (and everything other people have stated) regarding the state of the legal economy is simply common knowledge by now. Every time someone says something like, "Man the job market blows," are they gonna be required to give you a specific statistic or article or something?

We are all saying things that have been pretty well-established and well-known, hence the reason why most of us aren't throwing out sources. You, on the other hand, say there is a good shot at getting a mid-law job that pays well. In order to support this claim, you cite your well-connected brother getting a job like this. That simply isn't evidence of there being a "good shot" at midlaw jobs from T2 schools. Sorry 'boutcha.

Time to go to the bar.

#1: This is so off base I find it hard to even respond to it. The only reason my brother was brought in to this equation is to show these jobs do exist. Period. We went over this 1000 times. I say there is a good shot at getting a mid-law job that pays well from outside of the T14, which for some reason you keep reading as T2/T3 whatever. I'm not sure what your deal is with that.

#2: edited. I don't feel like fighting any more. I think the main confusion came from everyone thinking I was talking about T2/T3 schools, and I was talking about schools outside of the T14 (which I repeatedly wrote over and over on pretty much every post since the beginning of the second page, so I'm not sure how the confusion happened, but it is what it is.)

#3: You're right. I'm wrong. If I think about this any more I'm going to killself.

Alright, I agree. Let's just all chillax and have a beer. Sorry if you took offense to any of my posts, but let's just drop it.

[Mattalones]

Alright, I agree. Let's just all chillax and have a beer. Sorry if you took offense to any of my posts, but let's just drop it.

APPLAUSE

Side Note: You know what I thought was funny the whole time? It was that people on here kept saying, "show me data," while there was a pole on top of each-and-every page that said most people on the thread would go to a school outside T14 for biglaw (I know it wasn't 100% relavent to the little tiff here, but it was close and no one used it ... Ah, that's funny )

[icydash]

Alright, I agree. Let's just all chillax and have a beer. Sorry if you took offense to any of my posts, but let's just drop it.

APPLAUSE

Side Note: You know what I thought was funny the whole time? It was that people on here kept saying, "show me data," while there was a pole on top of each-and-every page that said most people on the thread would go to a school outside T14 for biglaw (I know it wasn't 100% relavent to the little tiff here, but it was close and no one used it ... Ah, that's funny )

Haha I actually did use it about 3/4 down the second page:

The numbers the rest of TLS has thus far provided us just backs up what I'm saying. 52% of people who have voted on this poll have told the OP to continue down his corporate law career path even if he goes to an outside of T14 school.

You may not like what I'm saying, but it's the truth, and the majority of people who have voted agree with me that it's not T14 or death.

[Mattalones]

Alright, I agree. Let's just all chillax and have a beer. Sorry if you took offense to any of my posts, but let's just drop it.

APPLAUSE

Side Note: You know what I thought was funny the whole time? It was that people on here kept saying, "show me data," while there was a pole on top of each-and-every page that said most people on the thread would go to a school outside T14 for biglaw (I know it wasn't 100% relavent to the little tiff here, but it was close and no one used it ... Ah, that's funny )

Haha I actually did use it about 3/4 down the second page:

The numbers the rest of TLS has thus far provided us just backs up what I'm saying. 52% of people who have voted on this poll have told the OP to continue down his corporate law career path even if he goes to an outside of T14 school.

You may not like what I'm saying, but it's the truth, and the majority of people who have voted agree with me that it's not T14 or death.

Oh, man ... I blatantly got caught skimming ... There was just so much banter. Anyway, I stand corrected.