3L no job, is OK? Forum

[KamaalTheAbstract]

I've reported a bunch of them instead of commenting but they haven't dealt with any of them. Its kind of useless. It just says case closed and nothing happens.

We switch out the "anon" for the poster's real handle whenever we think it's appropriate. We do our best to keep up on this, but really? As IAFG has pointed out, unless someone is using the "anon" feature to actively abuse/harass another poster it's not at the top of the priority list. We do the best we can, mang - but we are students, too.

We appreciate both the use of the report button AND the self-policing suggested by a certain lovely lady (who, like me, is not a morning person.)

Gotcha.

[nygrrrl]

I've reported a bunch of them instead of commenting but they haven't dealt with any of them. Its kind of useless. It just says case closed and nothing happens.

We switch out the "anon" for the poster's real handle whenever we think it's appropriate. We do our best to keep up on this, but really? As IAFG has pointed out, unless someone is using the "anon" feature to actively abuse/harass another poster it's not at the top of the priority list. We do the best we can, mang - but we are students, too.

We appreciate both the use of the report button AND the self-policing suggested by a certain lovely lady (who, like me, is not a morning person.)

Gotcha.

Keep reporting them, man - we appreciate it and it's often the only way we'll see 'em.

(FYI - we DO keep track of repeat offenders, so yeah - keep the input coming)

[DoubleChecks]

I guess I just don't see what the big problem with abusing anon is. I mean... is being a dick on the internet under some stupid username really that much different than doing it under Anonymous User? It's worthy of public shaming because, jesus christ you're being a little bitch if you pull that shit, but... who fucking cares? Anonymous User posts aren't going to change TLS into xoxo, because the mods would shut down heinous shit that would threaten the TLS-ness of TLS.

Then the rule should be changed to reflect that. I don't disagree with your logic, but I see little reason for a rule that says one thing but enforcement is another (especially when the rule could just easily be rewritten).

[nygrrrl]

I guess I just don't see what the big problem with abusing anon is. I mean... is being a dick on the internet under some stupid username really that much different than doing it under Anonymous User? It's worthy of public shaming because, jesus christ you're being a little bitch if you pull that shit, but... who fucking cares? Anonymous User posts aren't going to change TLS into xoxo, because the mods would shut down heinous shit that would threaten the TLS-ness of TLS.

Then the rule should be changed to reflect that. I don't disagree with your logic, but I see little reason for a rule that says one thing but enforcement is another (especially when the rule could just easily be rewritten).

See above. Without input from you guys, enforcement is damn near impossible. But self-policing helps, too.
For the record, I don't really care about dumb anon "abuse" - using the feature to post irrelevant information, etc. What bugs me is when someone uses it to attack another poster. You want to go there? Cool - but man up, do it openly. (Just my personal opinion, NOT shared by all of the mod team. )

[DoubleChecks]

I guess I just don't see what the big problem with abusing anon is. I mean... is being a dick on the internet under some stupid username really that much different than doing it under Anonymous User? It's worthy of public shaming because, jesus christ you're being a little bitch if you pull that shit, but... who fucking cares? Anonymous User posts aren't going to change TLS into xoxo, because the mods would shut down heinous shit that would threaten the TLS-ness of TLS.

Then the rule should be changed to reflect that. I don't disagree with your logic, but I see little reason for a rule that says one thing but enforcement is another (especially when the rule could just easily be rewritten).

See above. Without input from you guys, enforcement is damn near impossible. But self-policing helps, too.

Sorry, what I meant was...if it is only going to be enforced when it crosses x line, no reason why the current rule draws a stricter y line. Might as well just make the rule at x as well. And self-policing goes directly against the anon rule posted in the employment thread as well (I am assuming by self-policing, you mean the public shaming/posting of other users in the thread against the anon's abuse of the feature).

As an aside, kudos to that anon poster for insulting people in this thread and then changing the information to something sensitive to not being able to be outed. I did lol irl.

[nygrrrl]

Sorry, what I meant was...if it is only going to be enforced when it crosses x line, no reason why the current rule draws a stricter y line. Might as well just make the rule at x as well. And self-policing goes directly against the anon rule posted in the employment thread as well (I am assuming by self-policing, you mean the public shaming/posting of other users in the thread against the anon's abuse of the feature).

As an aside, kudos to that anon poster for insulting people in this thread and then changing the information to something sensitive to not being able to be outed. I did lol irl.

I hear you - and believe me, we discuss this issue a lot. We're working on it and I'll be conveying this discussion back to the rest of the team. (and yeah, I lol'd at that, too. did it before anyone could quote the original post. lol.)

[IAFG]

I guess I just don't see what the big problem with abusing anon is. I mean... is being a dick on the internet under some stupid username really that much different than doing it under Anonymous User? It's worthy of public shaming because, jesus christ you're being a little bitch if you pull that shit, but... who fucking cares? Anonymous User posts aren't going to change TLS into xoxo, because the mods would shut down heinous shit that would threaten the TLS-ness of TLS.

Then the rule should be changed to reflect that. I don't disagree with your logic, but I see little reason for a rule that says one thing but enforcement is another (especially when the rule could just easily be rewritten).

See above. Without input from you guys, enforcement is damn near impossible. But self-policing helps, too.

Sorry, what I meant was...if it is only going to be enforced when it crosses x line, no reason why the current rule draws a stricter y line. Might as well just make the rule at x as well. And self-policing goes directly against the anon rule posted in the employment thread as well (I am assuming by self-policing, you mean the public shaming/posting of other users in the thread against the anon's abuse of the feature).

As an aside, kudos to that anon poster for insulting people in this thread and then changing the information to something sensitive to not being able to be outed. I did lol irl.

And let's install GPS devices in all cars to automatically ticket anyone going .01 MPH over the speed limit while we're at it.

[nygrrrl]

Also, for you guys who think reporting doesn't matter? That poster may have edited out the post, but I know who it is now - and I'll be watching for future abusive behavior. Cuz yeah. I'm not a morning person and this is making me a bit stabby.

[DoubleChecks]

And let's install GPS devices in all cars to automatically ticket anyone going .01 MPH over the speed limit while we're at it.

Tad disingenuous to compare the two things as they aren't actually the same thing. One is the actual inability to stop and ticket and prove that every person was going over the limit (generally-speaking), while the other is the choice to not enforce a rule. Not to mention there is a lot more flexibility in a somewhat arbitrary rule made in the hands of a few that can easily be changed.

^for mods, I am now arguing more on principle with IAFG and not suggesting that you guys necessarily have to go back and reword the ruling or whatever. It isn't that big of an issue lol.

[IAFG]

Also, for you guys who think reporting doesn't matter? That poster may have edited out the post, but I know who it is now - and I'll be watching for future abusive behavior. Cuz yeah. I'm not a morning person and this is making me a bit stabby.

WHY AM I AWAKE AHHHHHH

[nygrrrl]

Also, for you guys who think reporting doesn't matter? That poster may have edited out the post, but I know who it is now - and I'll be watching for future abusive behavior. Cuz yeah. I'm not a morning person and this is making me a bit stabby.

And let's install GPS devices in all cars to automatically ticket anyone going .01 MPH over the speed limit while we're at it.

God I hate bright line rules. And speed traps. And GPS, actually.
AND MORNING

[IAFG]

Know what else sucks? People, the sun, fluorescent lighting, the Internet, clinic, and spiders.

[nygrrrl]

Know what else sucks? People, the sun, fluorescent lighting, the Internet, clinic, and spiders.

yes, at high noon, always, NO!, totally, gaaaaah.

AND....

parents who don't discipline their children, people who don't pick up after their dogs, waterbugs, moot court try outs, and the TSA

[IAFG]

Know what else sucks? People, the sun, fluorescent lighting, the Internet, clinic, and spiders.

yes, at high noon, always, NO!, totally, gaaaaah.

AND....

parents who don't discipline their children, people who don't pick up after their dogs, waterbugs, moot court try outs, and the TSA

ooh... good ones.

[nygrrrl]

Know what else sucks? People, the sun, fluorescent lighting, the Internet, clinic, and spiders.

yes, at high noon, always, NO!, totally, gaaaaah.

AND....

parents who don't discipline their children, people who don't pick up after their dogs, waterbugs, moot court try outs, and the TSA

ooh... good ones.

I can't lie: I've had 3 cups of coffee.

[Anonymous User]

To get this thread back on track --- had the following conversation recently with a graduated at median student with tons of debt, no job and seemingly no conception of how screwed they are.

"This job looks really awesome, I can't wait to apply once I pass the Bar. It seems perfect for my interests and skills."

"These jobs are tough to get, because usually they only hire people who did biglaw and became partners.

In the same breath... Some people really need to take a few years off before law school. Otherwise, you've done nothing but school your entire life and your brain is just mush!

[Aberzombie1892]

While I am well of aware of the state of the legal job market, it's impossible to come to conclusions concerning a particular student without looking at the circumstances surrounding that student.

And yet you did???

things will ultimately be fine.

Things may be fine, but this individual student likely has a huge uphill battle to getting a full-time, JD-required job. I'd guess that for a median T50 student with no moot court or journal (or most importantly, no job leads), odds are probably pointing to temp work or no legal job. OP, your friend needs to get their ass in gear because they don't sound like they have a lot going for them right now.

Yes and no. The vast majority of people that attend law school will be fine, regardless of the crap spewed out over this website. For example, if someone takes out more than $100,000 (even) in loans, then they are in the extreme minority of all law school students in terms of debt load - yet - this website tries to pretend as though everyone owes $120K+ for their law degrees.

Also, that person referred to by the OP will likely get a JD required job. This website pretends as though people have to be above median to get a JD required job, and that's simply not even close to true in the real world (even in this economy). TLS.com is a good site for raw information, but people make too many blanket statements regarding average debt loads (OMG everyone owes $100,000+!!!!) and employment prospects (OMG everyone does doc review or is employed who doesn't get big/mid law, PI or fed/state/city gov!!!!).

But yes, this website is right when it claims that people that go to T3/T4s for $150,000+ of debt are making poor decisions. But that isn't nearly as many people as you would think.

[timbs4339]

Yes and no. The vast majority of people that attend law school will be fine, regardless of the crap spewed out over this website. For example, if someone takes out more than $100,000 (even) in loans, then they are in the extreme minority of all law school students in terms of debt load - yet - this website tries to pretend as though everyone owes $120K+ for their law degrees.

Source for the $100,000 figure? This list seems to imply that many more than an "extreme minority" graduate with over 100K in debt.

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandr ... t-rankings

[Nicholasnickynic]

Yes and no. The vast majority of people that attend law school will be fine, regardless of the crap spewed out over this website. For example, if someone takes out more than $100,000 (even) in loans, then they are in the extreme minority of all law school students in terms of debt load - yet - this website tries to pretend as though everyone owes $120K+ for their law degrees.

Source for the $100,000 figure? This list seems to imply that many more than an "extreme minority" graduate with over 100K in debt.

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandr ... t-rankings

I agree- I'm not sure why 120k would be a rarity.

20k-30k col X 3 = 60k-90k
15-30k tuition x 3 = 45k-90k

105k-180k would be about the average cost, I would imagine.

Acting like 120k is a rarity is stupid.

[tlstlstls73]

Sticker at most private schools is 200k with COL loans.

[Nicholasnickynic]

Sticker at most private schools is 200k with COL loans.

Exactly, I was trying to be generous.

I know for my school, Wake Forest, half the students pay sticker.

Thats 35k + 20k CoL =55k x 3= 165k. Not to mention half the loans are not subsidized so by the time of graduation you can probably tack on at least another 5-10k I imagine.

So 170k-180k.

Also, the fact that the worse schools are no cheaper than the more elite schools does not help the situation.

ETA: Thanks to Obama, NO grad loans will be subsidized starting in 2012, so the numbers are technically going to be worse than that.

[Kendi]

If you have a good GPA/LSAT, going to a solid T-1 school greatly reduces debt. I understand that there is a perceived downside concerning job prospects but somewhere along the line there will be risks, one way or the other. A southern T-1 works for me since I want to live and work in the tropics, not in the land of nor’easters.

[Nicholasnickynic]

While I am well of aware of the state of the legal job market, it's impossible to come to conclusions concerning a particular student without looking at the circumstances surrounding that student.

And yet you did???

things will ultimately be fine.

Things may be fine, but this individual student likely has a huge uphill battle to getting a full-time, JD-required job. I'd guess that for a median T50 student with no moot court or journal (or most importantly, no job leads), odds are probably pointing to temp work or no legal job. OP, your friend needs to get their ass in gear because they don't sound like they have a lot going for them right now.

Yes and no. The vast majority of people that attend law school will be fine, regardless of the crap spewed out over this website. For example, if someone takes out more than $100,000 (even) in loans, then they are in the extreme minority of all law school students in terms of debt load - yet - this website tries to pretend as though everyone owes $120K+ for their law degrees.

Also, that person referred to by the OP will likely get a JD required job. This website pretends as though people have to be above median to get a JD required job, and that's simply not even close to true in the real world (even in this economy). TLS.com is a good site for raw information, but people make too many blanket statements regarding average debt loads (OMG everyone owes $100,000+!!!!) and employment prospects (OMG everyone does doc review or is employed who doesn't get big/mid law, PI or fed/state/city gov!!!!).

But yes, this website is right when it claims that people that go to T3/T4s for $150,000+ of debt are making poor decisions. But that isn't nearly as many people as you would think.

As discussed above, that is probably the majority of people.

I highly doubt that more than half of a group of people at any give school are on scholarship.

20-30k col
30-50k sticker..

50-80k a year... 150k-240year, for half the students at law schools, easily. (I don't think there are more than a handful of schools that charge under 30k at sticker.

Of course, there are people with parents money, so that lessens it. Of course, there are plenty of people that lose scholarships, so that makes it worse.

A large large large chunk of people are taking out 150k in loans.

[Anonymous User]

To get this thread back on track --- had the following conversation recently with a graduated at median student with tons of debt, no job and seemingly no conception of how screwed they are.

"This job looks really awesome, I can't wait to apply once I pass the Bar. It seems perfect for my interests and skills."

"These jobs are tough to get, because usually they only hire people who did biglaw and became partners.

In the same breath... Some people really need to take a few years off before law school. Otherwise, you've done nothing but school your entire life and your brain is just mush!

I get that some jobs require you to be barred as a prerequisite to applying, but I've never understood the mentality of waiting until you get the bar results to start applying. If you don't have a job as a new graduate, you can't expect to be picky and find the perfect job. Lots of professional service jobs out there (governmental non-legal jobs, consulting, accounting, non-legal teaching, policy/think tanks, politics) don't care about bar status and would be a great job for someone from a TT or even bottom of a T-14 to land after ending up empty handed from law school.

[romothesavior]

Yes and no. The vast majority of people that attend law school will be fine, regardless of the crap spewed out over this website. For example, if someone takes out more than $100,000 (even) in loans, then they are in the extreme minority of all law school students in terms of debt load - yet - this website tries to pretend as though everyone owes $120K+ for their law degrees.

Source for the $100,000 figure? This list seems to imply that many more than an "extreme minority" graduate with over 100K in debt.

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandr ... t-rankings

+1. Aberzombie you are way off.