CCN Students without Offers Forum

[legends159]

interesting to read all this as an 0L... i must admit i also had always thought the t14 was divided pretty neatly between YHS / CCN / BMVP / DNCG... but it looks like a lot of you believe the BMVP / DN distinction is a bit blurred? perhaps it's more YHS / CCN / BMVPDN / CG?

it's more like employers don't see fine grain distinctions between schools when making hiring decisions.

[Anonymous User]

No. Employers do make fine-grained distinctions between schools, but they just don't conform to the student's perception of "prestige" and "caliber." Often, the distinctions are based on idiosyncrasies that come down to random preferences from partners that do recruiting.

[KMaine]

No. Employers do make fine-grained distinctions between schools, but they just don't conform to the student's perception of "prestige" and "caliber." Often, the distinctions are based on idiosyncrasies that come down to random preferences from partners that do recruiting.

Why would they make such distinctions? When you are talking about the difference in the "cailber" of student from any of the schools in the lower t-14, you are making distinctions between 2 LSAT points or so. Why would an employer care about that?

[IAFG]

No. Employers do make fine-grained distinctions between schools, but they just don't conform to the student's perception of "prestige" and "caliber." Often, the distinctions are based on idiosyncrasies that come down to random preferences from partners that do recruiting.

Why would they make such distinctions? When you are talking about the difference in the "cailber" of student from any of the schools in the lower t-14, you are making distinctions between 2 LSAT points or so. Why would an employer care about that?

because lawyers are prestige whoring assholes

[12262010]

No. Employers do make fine-grained distinctions between schools, but they just don't conform to the student's perception of "prestige" and "caliber." Often, the distinctions are based on idiosyncrasies that come down to random preferences from partners that do recruiting.

Why would they make such distinctions? When you are talking about the difference in the "cailber" of student from any of the schools in the lower t-14, you are making distinctions between 2 LSAT points or so. Why would an employer care about that?

Because people have arbitrary preferences on schools?

[Anonymous User]

Why would they make such distinctions? When you are talking about the difference in the "cailber" of student from any of the schools in the lower t-14, you are making distinctions between 2 LSAT points or so. Why would an employer care about that?

You're assuming that the distinctions are based on firms' perceptions of which schools are "better." As I said above, most of the distinctions are based on random preferences. Many hiring partners prefer their alma maters. Other hiring partners just want more from a particular school because they haven't been particularly successful at recruiting from that school in prior years. Yet other hiring partners have a proven track record with some schools and not with others, and prefer to take the safer bet.

You'll see these preferences flair up in various ways: NU students preferred to Cornell students at some firms, and yet other firms will take a GULC student over Cornell or NU or Duke students. Other firms simply must have that one Stanford student. If it's an east coast firm, then that means they'll have to dig deeper into SLS's class for that student than at HLS or NYU or CLS, simply because their class is so small and not so many voluntarily come out to the east coast to work.

The examples are numerous. This is what partly motivates the confidentiality behind GPA-offer statistics at various schools. Some firms have obvious favorites and would rather not expose this to either their competitors or students at other schools.

[Anonymous User]

I remember when Cornell used to have the worst trolls on TLS. That was back around when the board would ponder the possibility of the T13. I think the Cornell students were trying to save face, making sure we knew they were more than the bottom of the top. Now that we're contemplating a T12, the Duke trolls are overcompensating with their own egregious trolling.

We hear you, #12. Now please take a deep breath and relax a minute.

A sentient TLS is pretty scary, almost as scary as Michigan's continued slide from 3 to wherever it ends up--and the inability of its students to look beyond USNWR.

That would have almost hurt my feelings if I was a Michigan Law student.

Duke, the 12th best school in the country, does in fact place as about as well as MVPB. Now, how much that has to do with the school paying students to work so that their employers don't have to, I don't know. But it does place similarly well.

At least for 3 months or so anyway, because that's about as long as those students who Duke Law helps fund are "employed" post-graduation.

[Anonymous User]

No. Employers do make fine-grained distinctions between schools, but they just don't conform to the student's perception of "prestige" and "caliber." Often, the distinctions are based on idiosyncrasies that come down to random preferences from partners that do recruiting.

TCR. The distinctions are different for every firm.

A firm I know tends to recruit a lot from my school (one of the MVP), one of the CCN, and Harvard. It doesn't have the same HYS/CCN/MVPB/DCN/G distinction that we see on TLS, but it does have its own distinctions and prefers certain t-10 schools.

[KMaine]

Perhaps I was not being clear. I was responding to a poster who siad that hiring preferences did not break down according to the typical TLS tiers (which I think are laregely based on how hard it is to gain admission at a school). I was simply saying, if employers did not pay attention to those tiers, it would make sense. You all make some good points, and there is very little siad that I disagree with.

When I chose my school (Cornell) over Duke and Michigan, I decided to go to the place where I thought would be the better fit and the place that gave me the most money. I did not really see any difference between career options coming out. I am happy with the way things turned out, and I don't think my options would have been any different had I chosen one of the other schools. I also think that is true of a vast majority of the people at the bottom t-14, and the fine distinctions made by employers may not break down according to the "tiers" that are so much a part of TLS.

[rayiner]

interesting to read all this as an 0L... i must admit i also had always thought the t14 was divided pretty neatly between YHS / CCN / BMVP / DNCG... but it looks like a lot of you believe the BMVP / DN distinction is a bit blurred? perhaps it's more YHS / CCN / BMVPDN / CG?

The CCN / BMVP... distinction makes sense because there is a clear jump in selectivity/employment prospects / reputation at those schools. There is no such similarly clear jump between BMVP and DN. Within that group, Duke arguably has the best numbers, Michigan and Virginia the best clerkship placement, Michigan and Berkeley the best academic reputation, Penn/Duke/NU the largest %-age placement into V100 firms, etc.

[quakeroats]

No. Employers do make fine-grained distinctions between schools, but they just don't conform to the student's perception of "prestige" and "caliber." Often, the distinctions are based on idiosyncrasies that come down to random preferences from partners that do recruiting.

Why would they make such distinctions? When you are talking about the difference in the "cailber" of student from any of the schools in the lower t-14, you are making distinctions between 2 LSAT points or so. Why would an employer care about that?

Because people have arbitrary preferences on schools?

I'm sure this explains some of it. The question is how much. As an example:

W&C has 13 Duke associates, 9 from Yale, and 11 from UVA. Considering that UVA has almost double Duke and Yale's class size in an average year, the difference is stark.

[Anonymous User]

well, this thread digressed.

is the same 5 hour requirement for PILF summer funding attached to 2L summer work if we don't have jerbs? also, are people applying anyway who have jobs? today is the deadline.

[Anonymous User]

well, this thread digressed.

is the same 5 hour requirement for PILF summer funding attached to 2L summer work if we don't have jerbs? also, are people applying anyway who have jobs? today is the deadline.

I never did the 5 hour requirement last year... I don't think it's enforced.

[Anonymous User]

well, this thread digressed.

is the same 5 hour requirement for PILF summer funding attached to 2L summer work if we don't have jerbs? also, are people applying anyway who have jobs? today is the deadline.

What deadline? I'm clearly out of the loop.

[Anonymous User]

well, this thread digressed.

is the same 5 hour requirement for PILF summer funding attached to 2L summer work if we don't have jerbs? also, are people applying anyway who have jobs? today is the deadline.

What deadline? I'm clearly out of the loop.

CLS deadline for summer funding is 11:59 tonight.

[dresden doll]

well, this thread digressed.

is the same 5 hour requirement for PILF summer funding attached to 2L summer work if we don't have jerbs? also, are people applying anyway who have jobs? today is the deadline.

What deadline? I'm clearly out of the loop.

CLS deadline for summer funding is 11:59 tonight.

Oh, gotcha. No wonder that didn't sound too familiar.

[Anonymous User]

OK, so say you struck out at OCI but would still like big law. What could you realistically do your 2L summer that would make you marketable to big law as a 3L?

[Aqualibrium]

OK, so say you struck out at OCI but would still like big law. What could you realistically do your 2L summer that would make you marketable to big law as a 3L?

Work at a big law firm...

[Anonymous User]

OK, so say you struck out at OCI but would still like big law. What could you realistically do your 2L summer that would make you marketable to big law as a 3L?

Work at a big law firm...

Thanks, I tried that, but didn't get any SA offers.

[JazzOne]

OK, so say you struck out at OCI but would still like big law. What could you realistically do your 2L summer that would make you marketable to big law as a 3L?

Work at a big law firm...

Thanks, I tried that, but didn't get any SA offers.

I would find out which firms routinely hire 3Ls and then start to love those firms with all your heart.

[Anonymous User]

OK, so say you struck out at OCI but would still like big law. What could you realistically do your 2L summer that would make you marketable to big law as a 3L?

1) Go to T6 law school

2) Get really high grades 2L year- like top 10%

2.5) Working for gov't or corporate org 2L summer seemed to help

3) Do 3L OCI, hope you are interviewing with the few firms still hiring 3Ls

4) Mass mail all other firms, prepare to receive many rejections

[Aqualibrium]

Corp org is the only part of option 2.5 that's really still in play though. The gov agencies that could possibly lead to big firm work have completed hiring, or the application deadlines have passed.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone completely strike out? What are you doing now?

[Anonymous User]

Yes and looking for ideas/suggestions.....

[Anonymous User]

I'm trying to decide whether to continue looking for small/mid-law or to try for gov/PI and hope to get a firm job 3L year. Law students have a skewed view of the world, but it seems like even non ultra-competitive gov/PI is more prestigious than non-boutique small/mid-law , and I'm wondering if 3L employers would look at it that way too (I think it's more a student thing). Personally, I'd rather work private sector, and even small-mid law pays more than most gov/PI, but loan-repayment assistance factors into the calculation as well.