Top Law Schools

http://www.nationallawjournal.com/home/ ... 0124095030

I'm looking at the Associates to Partner Tab. In 2014, 12 WUSTL grads were promoted to partner. 9 from Stanford.

There are other very similar stats that you can see for yourself.

There has got to be a rational explanation for this?

Yale isn't there either. My guess is for SLS, and Y grads, they find more unicorn positions available to them both immediately after graduation and after gaining a few years experience as an associate.

Fred Norris wrote:http://www.nationallawjournal.com/home/ ... 0124095030

I'm looking at the Associates to Partner Tab. In 2014, 12 WUSTL grads were promoted to partner. 9 from Stanford.

There are other very similar stats that you can see for yourself.

There has got to be a rational explanation for this?

If you can't figure this out on your own, please reconsider law school.

[hint: think relative/absolute]

Bigger class sizes at wustl, more stanford grads doing fancy govt work where making partner isn't a thing, wustl generally going to smaller markets where making partner is more viable

Its a really dumb metric. Villanova and temple both beat penn

Partner decisions aren't made based on where you went to law school

Making it to partner is essentially a sign you failed. It means that you never built enough connections to leave to a viable in house role or govt position.
You fucks think about law in all the wrong ways. If I make it to partner I will basically think to myself my god what have I done with the last 7-10 years of my life and what do I have to show for it.
But also, DC and New York are more ocmpetitive to make partner than somewhere like St Louis etc.

JohannDeMann wrote:Making it to partner is essentially a sign you failed. It means that you never built enough connections to leave to a viable in house role or govt position.
You fucks think about law in all the wrong ways. If I make it to partner I will basically think to myself my god what have I done with the last 7-10 years of my life and what do I have to show for it.

You really think no pros come from being a partner? lol

ggnobbq wrote:

JohannDeMann wrote:Making it to partner is essentially a sign you failed. It means that you never built enough connections to leave to a viable in house role or govt position.
You fucks think about law in all the wrong ways. If I make it to partner I will basically think to myself my god what have I done with the last 7-10 years of my life and what do I have to show for it.

You really think no pros come from being a partner? lol

A lot of money. And no life.

I too find it shocking that some lowly proles from a T20 could outshine Stanford grads.

Rowinguy2009 wrote:

ggnobbq wrote:

JohannDeMann wrote:Making it to partner is essentially a sign you failed. It means that you never built enough connections to leave to a viable in house role or govt position.
You fucks think about law in all the wrong ways. If I make it to partner I will basically think to myself my god what have I done with the last 7-10 years of my life and what do I have to show for it.

You really think no pros come from being a partner? lol

A lot of money. And no life.

i'm a 0L so i'm obv in no position to elaborate or even provide specific examples, but i think it's safe to assume a big law partner and a 3-5 year associate have vastly different exit-options.

Post removed.

JohannDeMann wrote:Making it to partner is essentially a sign you failed. It means that you never built enough connections to leave to a viable in house role or govt position.
You fucks think about law in all the wrong ways. If I make it to partner I will basically think to myself my god what have I done with the last 7-10 years of my life and what do I have to show for it.
But also, DC and New York are more ocmpetitive to make partner than somewhere like St Louis etc.

Yeah, this is terrible advice. I get you're a K-JD who is bitter about law school, but to call ALL law partners "failures" is probably the dumbest thing I've ever read on TLS.

And you won't make partner so why worry about it

MistakenGenius wrote:There's money that comes out of partnership. That's it. On the other hand, you spend your entire life working in a miserable position while your kids grow up in therapy and on drugs. your wife divorces you because she hasn't seen you in 6 months, and so you take out your frustration on your associates. The extra money doesn't mean shit when you don't have a life. Yes, if you make partner, I would say you're either a loner who values money over family or friends or you've made some mistakes in life.

sick stats in your profile. aren't you already in law school? lulz

Sorry Peter Theil didn't make partner.

Partners seems like they can have a pretty chill lifestyle. Some of them are hopeless work-a-holics and some are the bottom bitch of a rainmaker.

But if you have your own clients, it doesn't seem that bad.

LOL at real partner ever going in house or to a GS-12 gov job.

bearsfan23 wrote:

JohannDeMann wrote:Making it to partner is essentially a sign you failed. It means that you never built enough connections to leave to a viable in house role or govt position.
You fucks think about law in all the wrong ways. If I make it to partner I will basically think to myself my god what have I done with the last 7-10 years of my life and what do I have to show for it.
But also, DC and New York are more ocmpetitive to make partner than somewhere like St Louis etc.

Yeah, this is terrible advice. I get you're a K-JD who is bitter about law school, but to call ALL law partners "failures" is probably the dumbest thing I've ever read on TLS.

And you won't make partner so why worry about it

theres no advice in there. its a statement. and hopefully i wont make partner, because see above.

yeah df, lifestyle once partner is fine. but the casualty along the way is the problem. my family growing up was more functional and i probably have a cooler array of experiences i would want out of life than every partner in my dept.

MistakenGenius wrote:

ggnobbq wrote:

JohannDeMann wrote:Making it to partner is essentially a sign you failed. It means that you never built enough connections to leave to a viable in house role or govt position.
You fucks think about law in all the wrong ways. If I make it to partner I will basically think to myself my god what have I done with the last 7-10 years of my life and what do I have to show for it.

You really think no pros come from being a partner? lol

There's money that comes out of partnership. That's it. On the other hand, you spend your entire life working in a miserable position while your kids grow up in therapy and on drugs. your wife divorces you because she hasn't seen you in 6 months, and so you take out your frustration on your associates. The extra money doesn't mean shit when you don't have a life. Yes, if you make partner, I would say you're either a loner who values money over family or friends or you've made some mistakes in life.

I'm not sure this is as true in small firms/secondary markets where making partner is a lot easier than NYC big law.

Just repeating shit I've heard obviously, no firsthand experience

threadin' hard, bro

JohannDeMann wrote:Making it to partner is essentially a sign you failed. It means that you never built enough connections to leave to a viable in house role or govt position.
You fucks think about law in all the wrong ways. If I make it to partner I will basically think to myself my god what have I done with the last 7-10 years of my life and what do I have to show for it.
But also, DC and New York are more ocmpetitive to make partner than somewhere like St Louis etc.

I see the point you're trying to make but JFC this is dumb

romothesavior wrote:

JohannDeMann wrote:Making it to partner is essentially a sign you failed. It means that you never built enough connections to leave to a viable in house role or govt position.
You fucks think about law in all the wrong ways. If I make it to partner I will basically think to myself my god what have I done with the last 7-10 years of my life and what do I have to show for it.
But also, DC and New York are more ocmpetitive to make partner than somewhere like St Louis etc.

I see the point you're trying to make but JFC this is dumb

i hate biglaw and make overgeneralizations. its just something that has to be known. i try to keep an even keel for most questions, but i fail sometimes.

to substantively respond to the question:

There are many factors that go into this. The main factor is that almost everyone who works in biglaw realizes the job can eat your life. Because of this, almost everyone in biglaw has an open ear to all recruiting pitches there way. People with Standford law degrees likely have some more interesting offers thrown their way by recruiters that pay close to what partners make when you factor in stock compensation.
As I've already mentioned going somewhere like WUSTL that sets you up for Chicago and StL biglaw is a lot different then going to New York's white shoe firms. Those firms run on more ridiculous partner to associate ratios and factor in much more turnover into their model.
I'm sure a fair amount of Stanford grads went to law school with idealistic goals of changing the world or at least working for some greater good. You realize in biglaw this doesn't exist, so perhaps you leave and take a bit of a paycut to intellectually stimulate yourself and feel like you're leaving your fingerprints somewhere. The biggest rainmaker partner at the biggest firm will not leave fingerprints on law. He will only do what some business man told him to do. That's what it comes down to really.

It's just a dumb question, so I responded that way. Being a partner basically creates a shitton of problems for you and then gives you the money to solve those problems. There's better ways to live. There's better ways to build wealth (see thread of partner taking questions who made a hefty penny on a business venture).

To counter your biglaywers can't affect the law point, David Boise is a pretty obvious exception.

If you want to leave "fingerprints" on the law go lobby for the F500.

But viewing impact lit as the only pure law is silly.

JohannDeMann wrote:Making it to partner is essentially a sign you failed. It means that you never built enough connections to leave to a viable in house role or govt position.
You fucks think about law in all the wrong ways. If I make it to partner I will basically think to myself my god what have I done with the last 7-10 years of my life and what do I have to show for it.

Making it to an in house role or govt position (outside of POTUS/SCOTUS) is essentially a sign you failed. It means you never built enough connections to leave to a viable SCOTUS/POTUS position. You think about law in all the wrong ways. If I make it to an in house or government position (outside of POTUS/SCOTUS) I will basically think to myself my god what have I done with my life and what do I have to show for it.

DF Thread