Have an offer? Do the rest of us a favor... Forum

[bk1]

Dude, the title of that particular thread, while probably not meant maliciously, struck many as being in poor taste. If the title had been different no one would have cared about the content.

Then, as an alternative example, I would encourage you to examine the responses to these two "help me choose!" threads made a year apart:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... &p=5873844 (2012)
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=216459 (2013)

The first thread is thoughtful discussion, the second is anon-abuse and humblebrag accusations. The difference is the 12 months since the Vale went up.

Edit: deleted out of deference to Pokemon

I think the differences between these threads has less to do with a year difference and more to do with the fact that some people on TLS are quick to be "zomg you should pick the V5, duh." Even top lit boutiques in CA don't generally get this kind of response (see the 2012 thread) because the people who know about them aren't the same people to slob all over vault prestige (as you see happening in the 2013 thread).

Now you're right on a certain point, I think there has been a sea change in the last year. People have begun to understand just how difficult things are out there (as evidenced by the Vale thread, the no offer thread, etc). That there are people who do similar things to everyone else and yet they end up in far different places. I don't think this is a bad thing. Those threads aren't making people demonize success, they're just making people more cognizant of how things could have gone horribly wrong for them and that they're lucky that it didn't. As for the humblebrag accusations, I don't think it was appropriate in the thread you mentioned, but there have been tons of people on TLS going back years that humblebrag (e.g., can't avoid dropping the fact that they have a 1L SA at every possible turn).

[rad lulz]

.

[NYstate]

Dude, the title of that particular thread, while probably not meant maliciously, struck many as being in poor taste. If the title had been different no one would have cared about the content.

Then, as an alternative example, I would encourage you to examine the responses to these two "help me choose!" threads made a year apart:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... &p=5873844 (2012)
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=216459 (2013)

The first thread is thoughtful discussion, the second is anon-abuse and humblebrag accusations. The difference is the 12 months since the Vale went up.

Edit: deleted out of deference to Pokemon

I think the differences between these threads has less to do with a year difference and more to do with the fact that some people on TLS are quick to be "zomg you should pick the V5, duh." Even top lit boutiques in CA don't generally get this kind of response (see the 2012 thread) because the people who know about them aren't the same people to slob all over vault prestige (as you see happening in the 2013 thread).

Now you're right on a certain point, I think there has been a sea change in the last year. People have begun to understand just how difficult things are out there (as evidenced by the Vale thread, the no offer thread, etc). That there are people who do similar things to everyone else and yet they end up in far different places. I don't think this is a bad thing. Those threads aren't making people demonize success, they're just making people more cognizant of how things could have gone horribly wrong for them and that they're lucky that it didn't. As for the humblebrag accusations, I don't think it was appropriate in the thread you mentioned, but there have been tons of people on TLS going back years that humblebrag (e.g., can't avoid dropping the fact that they have a 1L SA at every possible turn).

I didn't realize that the term humblebrag was so offensive. I'm not sure why there is a correlation with the Vale thread and the assumed anti- success attitude? My guess is that people in the Vale mostly don't read the on topic forums much. So why there is an assumption of a spillover, I'm just missing that point.

My guess is that people thought OCI this year would be the same as last year or even better, but it seems to be worse. Also, people are more willing to discuss striking out and what to do about it, instead of not saying anything. People seem more tense in general. And there are at least a few people who expect more cheers than they are getting from constantly mentioning their offers. Mostly I see people getting good advice on how to choose a firm beyond simply going by vault ranking.

Though I do admit making fun of the Yale kid who complained that they didn't have enough firms from different markets at their OCI. That had everything to do with his attitude about having to email some firms and convince them to hire him and nothing to do with the Vale.

[bk1]

If you can't understand why a thread called "the anti vale" is in poor taste

I think it's more the mindset of thinking the name is appropriate than the actual name. The thread felt like a white student seeing BLSA and saying "well they have a club where they can talk about their stuff, why can't we have a club to talk about our stuff?"

[rad lulz]

If you can't understand why a thread called "the anti vale" is in poor taste

I think it's more the mindset of thinking the name is appropriate than the actual name. The thread felt like a white student seeing BLSA and saying "well they have a club where they can talk about their stuff, why can't we have a club to talk about our stuff?"

It was the title, the OP, and the poster who created it

[Borhas]

can I get a link to anti-vale?

[masterbrowski]

can I get a link to anti-vale?

Are we talking about that thread called something like "3L's with jobs?" That one generated some controversy...

[Samara]

can I get a link to anti-vale?

What a surprise, it was started by Grade A-Hole RELIC/Evil Clinton/Shoeshine.

[masterbrowski]

can I get a link to anti-vale?

What a surprise, it was started by Grade A-Hole RELIC/Evil Clinton/Shoeshine.

I don't think the idea is per-se bad. There are a distinct set of things that 3L's with offers might deal with during the course of 3L year - from helping their firm recruit, stipends, working part time with their SA firm, moving, switching offices, deferred start dates, etc.

It's hard to think of something else to call it either. You could title the thread "3L's on biglaw track" or "3L former SA's" or something, but that would still probably piss people off as much as "3L's with jobs" did.

[lolwat]

I bitched at one guy recently, but that situation was him balking at accepting a biglaw offer when he had nothing else to choose from. So my natural reaction was "what are you thinking? you accept because you don't have anything else."

@onemorelawhopeful - If you look at a single law school, there aren't that many people (I think your numbers came to 8% from NU which is 24 people). If you take something like 5-10% per law school out of the T14 though, it's really not an insignificant number of people for whom luck can affect outcomes. Especially if you start taking like HLS and GULC which I think have the largest law school classes in the T14. You can go a little further down too, including UT, UCLA, and some of the other schools that aren't in the T14 but still place decently. Just have to mark the cutoffs differently to account for the school.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

I didn't realize that the term humblebrag was so offensive. I'm not sure why there is a correlation with the Vale thread and the assumed anti- success attitude? My guess is that people in the Vale mostly don't read the on topic forums much. So why there is an assumption of a spillover, I'm just missing that point.

I wasn't really prepared with examples, I thought others had picked up on it (hence laxbrah's post in the thread I linked, or even bk1's post about a "sea change" here. For a better example of my point, this thread is probably pretty good:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=215449

The OP brings up a problem that is unfortunate, but real: how are you supposed to act when friends without jobs decide to wontonly trash law school in general. Speaking from personal knowledge, people at my school involved in organizing stuff like the class gift and graduation events are currently being harangued by people that pretty much want to burn everything down because of their employment prospects. How are you supposed to deal with that? I don't want to minimize their pain, but I'm also not going to support elimination of the class gift.

The OP in the linked thread is not a jerk, and is even-handed about this. He gets two reasonable responses as a result, from popular, well-known posters, including Vale mascot rad lulz. This is then followed by this lovely comment from a Vale-ee:

Isn't it terrible that those unemployed proles are raining on your parade?

The thread degenerates from there in a manner similar to this one: what's luck and what isn't, who's lucky and who isn't, etc.

If you REALLY want, I can keep digging up other examples, but I'm hoping this will suffice as I've provided several at this point. There was no reason for this comment, the OP of the thread was discussing a reasonable issue, he received reasonable responses, and then boom.

To a certain extent, I would argue the same thing happened in this thread. Originally I had no intent to post anything until Icculus posted that anyone with a job got it "mostly through luck" (a point he later admitted was incorrect hyperbole).

If you look at the 3Ls with jobs thread, I feel like the same shit happened. The OP may have been a douche with the title, but two other posters and myself started a reasonable discussion when BOOM thread over, we're just going to argue about whether or not everyone with a job owes it to luck. Again, Vale posters were involved.

@onemorelawhopeful - If you look at a single law school, there aren't that many people (I think your numbers came to 8% from NU which is 24 people). If you take something like 5-10% per law school out of the T14 though, it's really not an insignificant number of people for whom luck can affect outcomes. Especially if you start taking like HLS and GULC which I think have the largest law school classes. You can go a little further down too, including UT, UCLA, and some of the other schools that aren't in the T14 but still place decently. Just have to mark the cutoffs differently to account for the school.

I agree with you. If you look at my earlier posts in this thread I wanted to include ALL law schools (I specifically referenced Cooley), because the more you add, the less luck is actually involved. No one doubts that choosing Cooley is something the applicant can control (because you could just not go!), and it definitely keeps you from getting biglaw. Likewise, at lower-down schools, there is usually a much larger qualitative difference between the qualifications of the top 10% of the class, and those at the bottom 50%. These things actually reduce the amount of luck that factors in, and this was agreed upon, which is why the others wanted to limit it to the T-14.

You also have to realize that as you expand the pool, you have assume that the number without acceptable interview skills ALSO expands. My point is NOT that very few are affected, my point is that it is not so many that we can rule out interview skills at the top schools, nor grades at the schools farther down.

[A. Nony Mouse]

It's hard to think of something else to call it either. You could title the thread "3L's on biglaw track" or "3L former SA's" or something, but that would still probably piss people off as much as "3L's with jobs" did.

The point is that it wasn't originally called "3Ls with jobs." It was originally literally called "the Anti-Vale thread."

[lolwat]

I agree with you. If you look at my earlier posts in this thread I wanted to include ALL law schools (I specifically referenced Cooley), because the more you add, the less luck is actually involved. No one doubts that choosing Cooley is something the applicant can control (because you could just not go!), and it definitely keeps you from getting biglaw. Likewise, at lower-down schools, there is usually a much larger qualitative difference between the qualifications of the top 10% of the class, and those at the bottom 50%. These things actually reduce the amount of luck that factors in, and this was agreed upon, which is why the others wanted to limit it to the T-14.

Well, I wanted to limit it because I think it's good to look at the group where luck is involved. Let me put it this way, people at Cooley probably never had a shot at biglaw, so it's nothing new that they didn't get it. But a top 20% at a T25 school? They probably do have a shot at biglaw. So I think it helps to focus on the marginal candidates, not the candidates for which biglaw is nearly guaranteed (top 1%s) or for which not getting biglaw is also nearly guaranteed (bottom-of-class, Cooley, etc). The people at 1/3 or median T14. The people around top 15-20% T25. The people at top 1-5% of more regional law schools. When you add them all up you probably get hundreds of people for whom some arbitrary randomness could be the difference between getting biglaw or not. And while that's an insigificant number given the entire universe of law school students, it's really not that insignificant of a number of people that realistically had a shot at biglaw to begin with.

Luck is probably a lot EASIER of a topic to bring up when we talk about clerkships though.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

Well, I wanted to limit it because I think it's good to look at the group where luck is involved.

But this is my whole point: you cannot actually identify this group because we cannot observe critical factors from the LST data: people who are actually terrible at interviewing often don't know it (because those who know they are terrible don't say anything out of politeness), charisma can't be gauged from a message board, and some summer associates do ridiculous and awful things and then describe them as "no big deal" later.

The guy I described in a post above, with top grades from a top school, but no ability to carry on normal human conversation, is NOT necessarily in the "luck" universe. It's possible that his interview skills were so lacking that no amount of luck was ever going to help him.

Additionally, it's possible that someone at BC who ranks just inside the top 25% level is actually super charismatic, and his 4 offers aren't luck, because his charisma was always going to get him an offer.

Because we don't know who actually "lucked out" and who was never going to get it, no matter what, it doesn't make sense to play up "luck" as a factor. Is it a factor? Sure. Does that automatically mean that someone who struck out and had a GPA that "gave them a shot" was unlucky? No. That person could have been a terrible interviewer. We just don't know, and it's silly to argue that luck is the determining factor when really that's just coming from a place of ignorance ("skill" is also being argued from a place of ignorance, but I've never claimed it's all skill, I'm just claiming that it's as likely to be skill as it is to be luck).

[masterbrowski]

It's hard to think of something else to call it either. You could title the thread "3L's on biglaw track" or "3L former SA's" or something, but that would still probably piss people off as much as "3L's with jobs" did.

The point is that it wasn't originally called "3Ls with jobs." It was originally literally called "the Anti-Vale thread."

Yeah that is ridiculous. Shame on that dude.

[bk1]

Because we don't know who actually "lucked out" and who was never going to get it, no matter what, it doesn't make sense to play up "luck" as a factor.

I like this line. See, just like the rest of us, people who actually have offers can't know for sure whether they lucked out or not. So it's not about playing up luck, but rather those who are fortunate recognizing that maybe they did have luck on their side (and if they hadn't that they would not be fortunate). Nobody is playing up anything, people are just saying that people are better off if they appreciate the reality of their situation (the reality being that luck may have been factor for them).

[Icculus]

Originally I had no intent to post anything until Icculus posted that anyone with a job got it "mostly through luck" (a point he later admitted was incorrect hyperbole).

This is a mischaracterization of what I said. And while the word mostly may have been a poor choice, I stand by what I said...

For people here who claim that those without jobs are inferior in some way, fuck you. There is more luck that goes into it than you know. Even outside of law when I applied for jobs in my previous industry I would maybe get one interview for every 50-100 resumes I sent and even I ended up with one job offer that I took. I don't know why it is so hard for people to understand how hiring works. A lot of it, the majority, is stuff totally outside the applicants control.

Reading that, no where did I say anyone with a job got them only, or mostly, through luck. The point is that people with jobs fail to realize that hiring is not totally within their control. I see people here over and over again say things that intimate they got their jobs because of all their hard work. And yes, that is important in getting a job, you need to mass mail, study, interview well, etc., but most people in law school do that stuff. We are not talking about the bottom of the class here, we're talking people who are your average law student, not the top 10% nor the bottom 10%.

Have you ever been on a hiring committee anywhere? Because I have. Guess what, most applicants come in with similar credentials, and many are good to great interviewers so the hiring comes down to who people think will fit in best, or do the best job. Two people with almost the same credentials sitting before me and I go with my gut as to who I think will work out, or maybe I pick the guy I liked better because we had something in common (like a hobby or undergrad or something). Now when you factor in most applicants are not going to the V10 in NYC where everyone has a huge class, and all of a sudden these factors play a bigger role.

Yes, the guy with 20 CBs and 15 offers obviously has a lot going for him, but most people end up with one MAYBE two offers and those people often don't understand that a couple of things going the other way, like getting sick the morning of the interview, not clicking with a partner who interviews you even if you click with everyone else, someone having a bad day, someone just feeling off about you, etc. can be the difference between 0 offers and 1 offer and therefore people with jobs shouldn't be so quick to judge those who struck out...specifically referring to:

Should have worked hard on your grades, WE, and interview skills, dood.

Now whether that poster was serious nor not is inconsequential as I have seen plenty of people write similar things and mean it. All I said was people should appreciate the good position they are in and realize that there are plenty of people who worked as hard on grades/interviewing skills/resume building/etc. and missed the boat of getting an offer.

I also think that people fail to realize just how fungible most of us are, making the line between 1 offer and 0 offers even thinner.

[lolwat]

Because we don't know who actually "lucked out" and who was never going to get it, no matter what, it doesn't make sense to play up "luck" as a factor. Is it a factor? Sure. Does that automatically mean that someone who struck out and had a GPA that "gave them a shot" was unlucky? No. That person could have been a terrible interviewer. We just don't know, and it's silly to argue that luck is the determining factor when really that's just coming from a place of ignorance ("skill" is also being argued from a place of ignorance, but I've never claimed it's all skill, I'm just claiming that it's as likely to be skill as it is to be luck).

Sure. But even if we don't know whether luck was the determining factor, we do know that luck is a factor in some form. I don't think anyone claimed that it was all luck (or all skill), just that there is some luck involved for these marginal candidates. If I'm wrong about what people were claiming, then I'm wrong, but my claim would be that there is luck involved. And enough luck such that people with offers that weren't a total lock for them should probably be somewhat appreciative of either (1) having good luck OR (2) not having bad luck.

My OCI was 2009 which I don't think any law student could really have foreseen when they were applying for/entering law school, so I'm probably extra-sensitive to BAD LUCK (or stated differently, "stuff out of my control") fucking up my chances.

[J. D.]

Because we don't know who actually "lucked out" and who was never going to get it, no matter what, it doesn't make sense to play up "luck" as a factor. Is it a factor? Sure. Does that automatically mean that someone who struck out and had a GPA that "gave them a shot" was unlucky? No. That person could have been a terrible interviewer. We just don't know, and it's silly to argue that luck is the determining factor when really that's just coming from a place of ignorance ("skill" is also being argued from a place of ignorance, but I've never claimed it's all skill, I'm just claiming that it's as likely to be skill as it is to be luck).

True and what you read on TLS and what happens IRL do not always sync.

As an SA I was asked to be a liaison for my firm during OCI (I did not attend the interviews). My job was to “chat ‘em, up” while they waited for their meeting. I did this thrice (four hour shifts) covering three different schools. For the most part the candidates were very good. But then there were those. Late because their coffee break with friends ran over… or they were here practicing their interviewing skills because they had an upcoming V-10 interview (why say that?)… or the guy with non-matching black shoes (the little things, huh) or the nervous candidates who felt they didn’t have a realistic chance because of their school or their grades. Surprising to me is that (for the most part) grades were not nearly as crucial as their IRL OCI performance.

During the partner evaluations what I heard mentioned was that they liked a candidate because of confidence, eye contact, being well prepared and likeability… those are the ones that made the callback pile. As a tip, if the firm has liaison, be nice, because the interviewers usually ask their opinion too. I can say for a fact I moved one person (who was on the bubble) from the ding stack to a callback.

[KidStuddi]

Because we don't know who actually "lucked out" and who was never going to get it, no matter what, it doesn't make sense to play up "luck" as a factor.

I like this line. See, just like the rest of us, people who actually have offers can't know for sure whether they lucked out or not. So it's not about playing up luck, but rather those who are fortunate recognizing that maybe they did have luck on their side (and if they hadn't that they would not be fortunate). Nobody is playing up anything, people are just saying that people are better off if they appreciate the reality of their situation (the reality being that luck may have been factor for them).

How is this position anything more than a secular version of what the theists in my life constantly tell me: that I've been "blessed" and how I should "thank God" for everything good that's ever happened to me. It feels like you've just replaced divine intervention with "luck." Rational minds are still going to reject this as an attempt to mysticize what you cannot understand.

[smaug_]

Rational minds are still going to reject this as an attempt to mysticize what you cannot understand.

[Borhas]

Because we don't know who actually "lucked out" and who was never going to get it, no matter what, it doesn't make sense to play up "luck" as a factor.

I like this line. See, just like the rest of us, people who actually have offers can't know for sure whether they lucked out or not. So it's not about playing up luck, but rather those who are fortunate recognizing that maybe they did have luck on their side (and if they hadn't that they would not be fortunate). Nobody is playing up anything, people are just saying that people are better off if they appreciate the reality of their situation (the reality being that luck may have been factor for them).

How is this position anything more than a secular version of what the theists in my life constantly tell me: that I've been "blessed" and how I should "thank God" for everything good that's ever happened to me. It feels like you've just replaced divine intervention with "luck." Rational minds are still going to reject this as an attempt to mysticize what you cannot understand.

are you retarded?

[rad lulz]

Because we don't know who actually "lucked out" and who was never going to get it, no matter what, it doesn't make sense to play up "luck" as a factor.

I like this line. See, just like the rest of us, people who actually have offers can't know for sure whether they lucked out or not. So it's not about playing up luck, but rather those who are fortunate recognizing that maybe they did have luck on their side (and if they hadn't that they would not be fortunate). Nobody is playing up anything, people are just saying that people are better off if they appreciate the reality of their situation (the reality being that luck may have been factor for them).

How is this position anything more than a secular version of what the theists in my life constantly tell me: that I've been "blessed" and how I should "thank God" for everything good that's ever happened to me. It feels like you've just replaced divine intervention with "luck." Rational minds are still going to reject this as an attempt to mysticize what you cannot understand.

top lel

[A. Nony Mouse]

Because we don't know who actually "lucked out" and who was never going to get it, no matter what, it doesn't make sense to play up "luck" as a factor.

I like this line. See, just like the rest of us, people who actually have offers can't know for sure whether they lucked out or not. So it's not about playing up luck, but rather those who are fortunate recognizing that maybe they did have luck on their side (and if they hadn't that they would not be fortunate). Nobody is playing up anything, people are just saying that people are better off if they appreciate the reality of their situation (the reality being that luck may have been factor for them).

How is this position anything more than a secular version of what the theists in my life constantly tell me: that I've been "blessed" and how I should "thank God" for everything good that's ever happened to me. It feels like you've just replaced divine intervention with "luck." Rational minds are still going to reject this as an attempt to mysticize what you cannot understand.

[This dumbass thread, why can't I quit you? But:] What the flying fuck??

[wiz]

Because we don't know who actually "lucked out" and who was never going to get it, no matter what, it doesn't make sense to play up "luck" as a factor.

I like this line. See, just like the rest of us, people who actually have offers can't know for sure whether they lucked out or not. So it's not about playing up luck, but rather those who are fortunate recognizing that maybe they did have luck on their side (and if they hadn't that they would not be fortunate). Nobody is playing up anything, people are just saying that people are better off if they appreciate the reality of their situation (the reality being that luck may have been factor for them).

How is this position anything more than a secular version of what the theists in my life constantly tell me: that I've been "blessed" and how I should "thank God" for everything good that's ever happened to me. It feels like you've just replaced divine intervention with "luck." Rational minds are still going to reject this as an attempt to mysticize what you cannot understand.

What the flying fuck??