The Legal Market for Entry Levels is not Improving, Fyi Forum

[hashashin]

That said, Campos is still less of a douchebag than Brian Leiter.

[NYstate]

I'm not interested in arguing with uninformed idiots. For example, you can believe that top schools hid the number of students they hired to boost their numbers until forced to account for them, or not. I don't really care.

If you want to address Campos, he posts here so PM him and see what he has to say. I read his blog when he was writing it and I don't recall the story you are describing.

I'm not sure why you are so quick to defend top schools. Here are two quick lies schools tell on their websites: they consider all LSAT scores so consider that before you retake ( or words to that effect) and that they have a holistic admission process that doesn't focus solely on numbers. This is true at a couple of schools but not most of the top schools, even Columbia and NYU.

But, honestly, I don't care what you believe. The evidence and history are all there for anyone with a brain to figure out.

[hashashin]

Tone down the Campos hagiography, brah.

As for Campos exploiting his student's suicide, here ya go: http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot. ... story.html

[Bikeflip]

Hell, why stop reading Campos?

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/author/paul-campos

[hashashin]

I'm not sure why you are so quick to defend top schools. Here are two quick lies schools tell on their websites: they consider all LSAT scores so consider that before you retake ( or words to that effect) and that they have a holistic admission process that doesn't focus solely on numbers. This is true at a couple of schools but not most of the top schools, even Columbia and NYU.

...Top schools probably SHOULD focus mostly on numbers, since LSAT scores, at least, indicate (with passable high accuracy) how high a given candidate's aptitude is for executive reasoning, which you kinda need if you intend to handle complex transactions. So, if their "lie" leads to a largely meritocratic distribution of top test-takers into top law schools, what exactly is wrong with that? This "deceit" is actually kinda cool.

[Bikeflip]

I'm not sure why you are so quick to defend top schools. Here are two quick lies schools tell on their websites: they consider all LSAT scores so consider that before you retake ( or words to that effect) and that they have a holistic admission process that doesn't focus solely on numbers. This is true at a couple of schools but not most of the top schools, even Columbia and NYU.

...Top schools probably SHOULD focus mostly on numbers, since LSAT scores, at least, indicate (with passable high accuracy) how high a given candidate's aptitude is for executive reasoning, which you kinda need if you intend to handle complex transactions. So, if their "lie" leads to a largely meritocratic distribution of top test-takers into top law schools, what exactly is wrong with that? This "deceit" is actually kinda cool.

::checks profile. C/o 2016. 0L. Ignores::

[zman]

Most schools have fewer people for for the 2011-2014(compared to 2010-2013) class. I suppose the % of the class getting the SA position is the same.

[NYstate]

I'm not sure why you are so quick to defend top schools. Here are two quick lies schools tell on their websites: they consider all LSAT scores so consider that before you retake ( or words to that effect) and that they have a holistic admission process that doesn't focus solely on numbers. This is true at a couple of schools but not most of the top schools, even Columbia and NYU.

...Top schools probably SHOULD focus mostly on numbers, since LSAT scores, at least, indicate (with passable high accuracy) how high a given candidate's aptitude is for executive reasoning, which you kinda need if you intend to handle complex transactions. So, if their "lie" leads to a largely meritocratic distribution of top test-takers into top law schools, what exactly is wrong with that? This "deceit" is actually kinda cool.

::checks profile. C/o 2016. 0L. Ignores::

See the point is that schools mislead students into not retaking the LSAT because they think only their first score will count. Or that they can't improve enough to make a difference. Schools should honestly say that they look at the highest score.

[NYstate]

Tone down the Campos hagiography, brah.

As for Campos exploiting his student's suicide, here ya go: http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot. ... story.html

Talk to Campos about Campos, like I suggested. He posts here and reads this forum regularly. PM him with your concerns if you want an answer.

[androstan]

I'm not sure why you are so quick to defend top schools. Here are two quick lies schools tell on their websites: they consider all LSAT scores so consider that before you retake ( or words to that effect) and that they have a holistic admission process that doesn't focus solely on numbers. This is true at a couple of schools but not most of the top schools, even Columbia and NYU.

...Top schools probably SHOULD focus mostly on numbers, since LSAT scores, at least, indicate (with passable high accuracy) how high a given candidate's aptitude is for executive reasoning, which you kinda need if you intend to handle complex transactions. So, if their "lie" leads to a largely meritocratic distribution of top test-takers into top law schools, what exactly is wrong with that? This "deceit" is actually kinda cool.

I refuse to debate with a person who uses "since" to mean "because."

[Danger Zone]

OOOH BURNED

[blsingindisguise]

I refuse to debate with a person who uses "since" to mean "because."

Well that sounds like a cop-out, as "since" means "because."

[Danger Zone]

I refuse to debate with a person who uses "since" to mean "because."

Well that sounds like a cop-out, since "since" means "because."

FTFY

[androstan]

I refuse to debate with a person who uses "since" to mean "because."

Well that sounds like a cop-out, as "since" means "because."

Who the hell are you?

[blsingindisguise]

I refuse to debate with a person who uses "since" to mean "because."

Well that sounds like a cop-out, as "since" means "because."

Who the hell are you?

A guy who swoops down into threads to fuck with people.

*swoops away*

[09042014]

I refuse to debate with a person who uses "since" to mean "because."

Well that sounds like a cop-out, as "since" means "because."

Who the hell are you?

Why? You don't like getting fucked without knowing his name after?

[androstan]

I refuse to debate with a person who uses "since" to mean "because."

Well that sounds like a cop-out, as "since" means "because."

Who the hell are you?

Why? You don't like getting fucked without knowing his name after?

Not while I'm fucking someone else.

[blsingindisguise]

I refuse to debate with a person who uses "since" to mean "because."

Well that sounds like a cop-out, as "since" means "because."

Who the hell are you?

"I'm William Blake. You know my poetry?"

[justonemoregame]

thread is dying of natural causes

[androstan]

I refuse to debate with a person who uses "since" to mean "because."

Well that sounds like a cop-out, as "since" means "because."

Who the hell are you?

"I'm William Blake. You know my poetry?"

No.

[blsingindisguise]

What I love in these threads is how the 0Ls (and I mean this has happened every year since the financial crisis) always say stuff like "well this isn't NEWS to ANYONE," and "well we all know things aren't going to improve to 2006 levels, but they're getting better," when what they actually mean is "nah nah nah I can't hear you NYC to 190k!"

[NYstate]

What I love in these threads is how the 0Ls (and I mean this has happened every year since the financial crisis) always say stuff like "well this isn't NEWS to ANYONE," and "well we all know things aren't going to improve to 2006 levels, but they're getting better," when what they actually mean is "nah nah nah I can't hear you NYC to 190k!"

This is probably true. No one really believes that they will end up without a job. They can say they understand the odds, but if they really thought they might end up unemployed, or even out of biglaw, they simply wouldn't go. They are willing to roll the dice but they don't believe they will lose.

I have always found that strange. Most lawyers are not huge risk takers. Yet the will take on debt and waste 3 years on an assumption that they will be fine.

I think it is the enticement of a biglaw salary.

[RodneyRuxin]

I am so sick of these stupid fucking threads sharing stupid fucking articles started by some aspie OP with <30 posts.


Why do people respond?

[sener212]

I am so sick of these stupid fucking threads sharing stupid fucking articles started by some aspie OP with <30 posts.


Why do people respond?

I'm sorry I don't post enough on TLS for you.

My guess is people (at least initially) responded because the article has some interesting, and very up-to-date, information about the legal market for large law firms. But what the hell was I thinking posting that kind of thing in the Legal Employment Forum? It's just so ridiculous and stupid. I'm sorry.

[RodneyRuxin]

I am so sick of these stupid fucking threads sharing stupid fucking articles started by some aspie OP with <30 posts.


Why do people respond?

I'm sorry I don't post enough on TLS for you.

My guess is people (at least initially) responded because the article has some interesting, and very up-to-date, information about the legal market for large law firms. But what the hell was I thinking posting that kind of thing in the Legal Employment Forum? It's just so ridiculous and stupid. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry let me rephrase. If school hasn't started yet, and you're still a 0L (which I'm guessing is the case considering you're posting in the class of 2016 northwestern thread) then GTFO of the employment forum.