Are Prospects Really That Bad in T10? Please Cut Me Down. Forum

[Alice+Olivia]

I said your conclusions seem wrong. And I asked you how you know this because you're merely a 2L. I disagreed with most of what you said, and I gave vague hints above as to why I think you're wrong--I really have no time to write a gigantic essay on why. At no point in my post did I base my conclusions on the fact that you're a 2L, though the fact that you are a 2L should cast doubt on your conclusions--that's not an ad hominem attack.

And your added boost of credibility isn't really a boost in the big picture. Back when I was applying to law school, I didn't even know what the top law firms were. Most of my peers didn't either. Just because you were doing this in 2005, doesn't mean you know the lay of the land.

Again, since you are in some sort of rage that's preventing you from reading things properly, I'm just saying that your statements about your background don't really give you the credibility you think they give you. Not saying you're necessarily wrong.

Hope you get the difference!

[Alice+Olivia]

Munger/Irell used to be below DLA Piper, and PBWT still is - that can always make me chuckle.

In terms of the quality of firms, it'll make most lawyers "in the know" chuckle. Problem is, most people aren't "in the know," hence why the latter two will be prestigious to some not to others. You can restrict the scope, but then you get into questions about whether you're really defining "prestige" at that point.

And this whole conversation is dumb, because I'm sure you have ten billion better things to do than to debate the intricacies of what "prestige" means.

[RVP11]

I said your conclusions seem wrong. And I asked you how you know this because you're merely a 2L. I disagreed with most of what you said, and I gave vague hints above as to why I think you're wrong--I really have no time to write a gigantic essay on why. At no point in my post did I base my conclusions on the fact that you're a 2L, though the fact that you are a 2L should cast doubt on your conclusions--that's not an ad hominem attack.

And your added boost of credibility isn't really a boost in the big picture. Back when I was applying to law school, I didn't even know what the top law firms were. Most of my peers didn't either. Just because you were doing this in 2005, doesn't mean you know the lay of the land.

Again, since you are in some sort of rage that's preventing you from reading things properly, I'm just saying that your statements about your background don't really give you the credibility you think they give you. Not saying you're necessarily wrong.

Hope you get the difference!

Your impeachment of my credibility seems wrong, Jones Day Summer Associate.

[Kohinoor]

I said your conclusions seem wrong. And I asked you how you know this because you're merely a 2L. I disagreed with most of what you said, and I gave vague hints above as to why I think you're wrong--I really have no time to write a gigantic essay on why. At no point in my post did I base my conclusions on the fact that you're a 2L, though the fact that you are a 2L should cast doubt on your conclusions--that's not an ad hominem attack.

And your added boost of credibility isn't really a boost in the big picture. Back when I was applying to law school, I didn't even know what the top law firms were. Most of my peers didn't either. Just because you were doing this in 2005, doesn't mean you know the lay of the land.

Again, since you are in some sort of rage that's preventing you from reading things properly, I'm just saying that your statements about your background don't really give you the credibility you think they give you. Not saying you're necessarily wrong.

Hope you get the difference!

Your impeachment of my credibility seems wrong, Jones Day Summer Associate.

This is going nowhere quickly. The only way to resolve this is with pics.

[IAFG]

Back when I was applying to law school, I didn't even know what the top law firms were. Most of my peers didn't either.

and before i chose a law school, i ran searches of the attorneys at my favorite firms to see which schools new hires came from and which practice areas they were joining. i guess some of us are just more thorough than others.

[HamDel]

I said your conclusions seem wrong. And I asked you how you know this because you're merely a 2L. I disagreed with most of what you said, and I gave vague hints above as to why I think you're wrong--I really have no time to write a gigantic essay on why. At no point in my post did I base my conclusions on the fact that you're a 2L, though the fact that you are a 2L should cast doubt on your conclusions--that's not an ad hominem attack.

And your added boost of credibility isn't really a boost in the big picture. Back when I was applying to law school, I didn't even know what the top law firms were. Most of my peers didn't either. Just because you were doing this in 2005, doesn't mean you know the lay of the land.

Again, since you are in some sort of rage that's preventing you from reading things properly, I'm just saying that your statements about your background don't really give you the credibility you think they give you. Not saying you're necessarily wrong.

Hope you get the difference!

Your impeachment of my credibility seems wrong, Jones Day Summer Associate.

This is going nowhere quickly. The only way to resolve this is with pics.

What a stupid ass joke. Why would you possibly think this is funny?

[Kohinoor]

This is going nowhere quickly. The only way to resolve this is with pics.

What a stupid ass joke. Why would you possibly think this is funny?

Why do you think I was joking?

[BruceWayne]

But, there is no reason that Munger and Irell should be ranked below Jones Day in prestige.

It depends on how you define prestige. Among those who care most about grades and schools and stuff, Munger and Irell are more prestigious. Among attorneys in general, you'll probably find a sizable amount who think Jones Day is more prestigious simply because it's a more well known brand name. In the same way, Skadden is considered by many in NYC to be the most prestigious, even though most in the NYC legal world know many firms in the city that are considerably better.

This talk about "prestige" and firms really just strikes me as weird self-promoting navel gazing that has nothing to do with the original purpose of this thread.

I'm not familiar with LA, but I seriously doubt practicing attorneys in LA don't realize that Munger is in a very different league than Jones Day--particularly with the firm's association with Warren Buffet. In addition, for all the talk on TLS of "only HYS a have a shot at this firm", I haven't really seen any V10 that fits that description, but Munger comes close. Check them out, they're like 40 percent HYS grads-that's insane. I've never seen another firm with so many HYS grads and a huge proportion of their grads have fed clerkships (many appellate and a sizeable amount have SCOTUS). The fact that a firm like Munger isn't in the V10 but Weil is, tells you just how bad of an idea it is to use the Vault rankings to determine selectivity/prestige etc. outside of NYC transactional work. I still can't believe Williams and Connolly is behind any of the firms they rank besides Wachtell.

[RVP11]

I'd put W&C after CSM and S&C in any list. But those three plus WLRK and Munger would be my top 5 if I were to rearrange Vault.

1. WLRK
2. CSM
3. S&C
4. W&C
5. MTO
6. DPW
7. Cleary
8. Skadden
9. STB
10. Covington
11. Irell
12. Weil
13. K&E
14. Debevoise
15. Paul Weiss
16. GDC
17. Boies Schiller
18. WilmerHale
19. A&P
20. Latham
21. Sidley
22. Hogan
23. OMM
24. QE
25. MoFo

I'm already doing better than Vault.

[spondee]

A lot of y'all are conflating prestige and selectivity.

Vault claims to rank firms by prestige - not by selectivity. So claiming "Vault ranking doesn't mean much for selectivity" is like claiming "weekly box office rankings don't mean much for a film's artistic value."

While selectivity and prestige are likely to be correlated overall, an individual firm can be more prestigious than another but be less selective - or vice versa. For example, size will correlate better with prestige than with selectivity. The kind of work a firm does will have a larger impact on prestige than on selectivity. The way a firm treats its associates will have a greater impact on selectivity than on prestige. Etc.

Vault does provide a selectivity rating for firms as well. If you have access, check it out. The current top 5:

1. W&C
2. Munger
3. Cravath
4. Boies
5. Wachtell

Last year's: 1. Wachtell; 2. W&C; 3. Munger; 4. Covington; 5. Irell. w/ Cravath at 9 and Boies at 11.

[RVP11]

A lot of y'all are conflating prestige and selectivity.

Vault claims to rank firms by prestige - not by selectivity. So claiming "Vault ranking doesn't mean much for selectivity" is like claiming "weekly box office rankings don't mean much for a film's artistic value."

While selectivity and prestige are likely to be correlated overall, an individual firm can be more prestigious than another but be less selective - or vice versa. For example, size will correlate better with prestige than with selectivity. The kind of work a firm does will have a larger impact on prestige than on selectivity. The way a firm treats its associates will have a greater impact on selectivity than on prestige. Etc.

Vault does provide a selectivity rating for firms as well. If you have access, check it out. The current top 5:

1. W&C
2. Munger
3. Cravath
4. Boies
5. Wachtell

ETA: Last year's: 1. Wachtell; 2. W&C; 3. Munger; 4. Covington; 5. Irell. w/ Cravath at 9 and Boies at 11.

Vault's selectivity rankings don't make any sense, either.

[spondee]

Vault's selectivity rankings don't make any sense, either.

Yeah, I agree. I'm not saying Vault's rankings are good. And why would Vault want them to be? If they were wholly accurate, they'd be pretty static year to year.

I'm just saying that Vault doesn't pretend to reflect selectivity in the main rankings. So arguing that the main rankings fail to correlate with selectivity is a really bad argument. It states the obvious and completely misses the point.

[Suziebob]

Hey, I'm relatively new to this type of discussion about law school, having just realized that I think I want to attend law school, so I apologize if my question here is a little... elementary.

Here's my situation. I go to the University of Virginia's College at Wise. My GPA at my university will be a 3.6 or higher, but because of some grades when I was a dual enrollment student in high school, my LSDAS GPA will probably be a 3.5ish. I expect to make in the lower 160s on the LSAT.

Now, I have no delusions that this will get me into a T14 law school. I'm looking at basically Wake Forest (~40) and down to the University of Richmond. I might throw the deep ball to UVA, Duke, William and Mary, and Washington and Lee, but I'm not holding out any real hopes that I'll get in there with those numbers. Just hoping for a sympathetic admissions officer.

My GPA will probably end up being slightly lower than the median/average at Wake Forest, which is a 3.6 now and will probably rise by the time I apply. My LSAT will probably be right at the median.

Should I consider myself a splitter? It's not like either is significantly lower than the median and I'm just trying to luck my way in. I just want to know if you guys would consider someone slightly below the average as one of the abominable people who luck into law school.

Thanks for any response!

[Alice+Olivia]

'm not familiar with LA, but I seriously doubt practicing attorneys in LA don't realize that Munger is in a very different league than Jones Day--particularly with the firm's association with Warren Buffet.

You seem to be missing the point entirely. In California, pretty much any practicing lawyer knows MTO and Irell are the top dogs, though the latter even only for certain things. Outside of California, they are every bit as irrelevant as WLRK is relevant in California.

But you're running into the problem I identified previously: When trying to talk about what "prestige" is, you will inevitably load the definition with your own scope and ideas. This will then turn into a semantic debate over a douchey concept.

So arguing that the main rankings fail to correlate with selectivity is a really bad argument. It states the obvious and completely misses the point.

Precisely. It's why I chuckle as I read RVP's posts (and entirely gratuitous rankings--no one asked for them, and no one really cares about his perceptions of what prestige is). He seems to be missing the point entirely.

For a guy who apparently has been reading xoxo a lot, RVP seems to be unaware of what an MFE is. It's ironic because he epitomizes it. I dare call him TLS's ":D."

[mcat4life87]

BruceWayne is similar to RVP in that respect.

[BruceWayne]

BruceWayne is similar to RVP in that respect.

You must be one of those people who follows Vault like middle age White women follow Oprah.

[Anonymous User]

Do not rely on anything career services says unless you've checked it out with people who have been through the process. Their position is that everyone will "be fine." The advice, at my T6, was absolutely useless. For some people it was downright counter-productive. They also seem to be hostile to people who are informed about the process, or people who go beyond the pre-ITE "bid on firms you think would be nice to work at," strategy.

The collective wisdom of TLS posters > CSO

Basically, I thought CSO was supposed to be one part expert on law firm hiring, one part statistician number-crunching last year's data, one part salesman trying to sell each student. They are none of these things. They seem to be event planners and psychologists for students who struck out.

Let me guess: UChicago? I'm a 1L here and the CSO looks disturbingly ineffectual.

[Kohinoor]

It's why I chuckle as I read RVP's posts (and entirely gratuitous rankings--no one asked for them, and no one really cares about his perceptions of what prestige is). He seems to be missing the point entirely.

For a guy who apparently has been reading xoxo a lot, RVP seems to be unaware of what an MFE is. It's ironic because he epitomizes it. I dare call him TLS's ":D."

You seem really upset about this.

[pasteurizedmilk]

BruceWayne is similar to RVP in that respect.

You must be one of those people who follows Vault like middle age White women follow Oprah.

I am one of those people, and this was still hilarious.

[vamedic03]

But, there is no reason that Munger and Irell should be ranked below Jones Day in prestige.

It depends on how you define prestige. Among those who care most about grades and schools and stuff, Munger and Irell are more prestigious. Among attorneys in general, you'll probably find a sizable amount who think Jones Day is more prestigious simply because it's a more well known brand name. In the same way, Skadden is considered by many in NYC to be the most prestigious, even though most in the NYC legal world know many firms in the city that are considerably better.

This talk about "prestige" and firms really just strikes me as weird self-promoting navel gazing that has nothing to do with the original purpose of this thread.

I'm not familiar with LA, but I seriously doubt practicing attorneys in LA don't realize that Munger is in a very different league than Jones Day--particularly with the firm's association with Warren Buffet. In addition, for all the talk on TLS of "only HYS a have a shot at this firm", I haven't really seen any V10 that fits that description, but Munger comes close. Check them out, they're like 40 percent HYS grads-that's insane. I've never seen another firm with so many HYS grads and a huge proportion of their grads have fed clerkships (many appellate and a sizeable amount have SCOTUS). The fact that a firm like Munger isn't in the V10 but Weil is, tells you just how bad of an idea it is to use the Vault rankings to determine selectivity/prestige etc. outside of NYC transactional work. I still can't believe Williams and Connolly is behind any of the firms they rank besides Wachtell.

I just have to point out that the two firms that you point to as the most 'prestigious' are very narrowly focused. Prestigious yes, but, not prestigious in everything. If, for example, you want a general corporate practice, regulatory practice, or appellate practice, neither Wachtell nor W&C are the most prestigious firms.

It's worth noting that when it comes time for the 1L's to bid on firms for OCI, you really can't focus on particular firms. It's better to look at firms in groups - i.e., focus on wanting a top DC firm or a top corporate practice, because there are so many factors in OCI that are completely out of your control.

[Kohinoor]

Clearly, the days of ever-expanding first-year classes are a thing of the past. More than 87 percent of respondents said that 2011's incoming class will be the same size or smaller than their (usually already reduced) 2010 class.

Although firm leaders responded to our survey on a confidential basis, managing partners interviewed for this article echoed this finding: "The loss of leverage is not a short-term reaction, it's a significant long-term change," says Bingham McCutchen chairman Jay Zimmerman. "We're hiring selectively and using paralegals and staff lawyers for more mundane tasks." He's not alone: A little more than half of our respondents (55 percent) said that their firm had used contract lawyers, up from 44 percent a year ago.

Moreover, few firm leaders worried that a smaller class size would leave them short-staffed in the event of a sudden uptick in work. With so many recent law school graduates looking for jobs, firms can staff up quickly if the need arises, says Perkins Coie managing partner Robert Giles.

http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTA ... hbxlogin=1

[Anonymous User]

My contribution to this thread: broken sobs.

Broken sobs statline: top 1/3 at T14, didn't know about mailing firms pre-OCI (and made other mistakes), jobless with most of my semester spent ignoring coursework to desperately mail firms. Now I'm supposed to get ready for finals while trying to hunt down something else and (wait for it ... ) consider turning my good GPA into a clerkship after building it up as a 2L. OH WAIT