OperaSoprano wrote:
I admire Dean Treanor's courage. Fordham was always the underdog of NYC, and now my school is standing up for itself.
hmmmm....
OperaSoprano wrote:
I admire Dean Treanor's courage. Fordham was always the underdog of NYC, and now my school is standing up for itself.
I agree. I think this one of those things that looks great in the abstract, but ends up poorly in action. Like if everybody hates a teacher, all the students will cheer if somebody socks that teacher. But nobody, NOBODY, wants to be the student who does it.Dwaterman86 wrote:Am I the only one that thinks that this is a lose-lose situation. Reed Smith looks really bad here, but I think Fordham also did themselves a disservice.
Want to continue reading?
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
LOL. I think a more effective course of action would have been for schools to band together and come up with a certain standard regarding legal employers (better notice, hiring intentions w.r.t summer class, etc...). Granted in a lot cases firms don't know what they plan to do until about when they do it, but you'd surprised how many firms are pulling crap like this because they know they can get away with it ITE.thesealocust wrote:And while my opinion is not worth anything, I'm not among the 'top 5% LR at yaal only!' doomsayer crowd, my guess is it will dip back to top-third-ish this year but be able to recover with the economy.OperaSoprano wrote: Historically, we've placed top third out to 40%.
I also think this email is a bit of a tempest in a teapot whichever side you are on. Law students / lawyers just love to gossip and judge
Agreed.rondemarino wrote: LOL. I think a more effective course of action would have been for schools to band together and come up with a certain standard regarding legal employers (better notice, hiring intentions w.r.t summer class, etc...).
I agree. That is the only recourse law schools have. The supply is just far too great for the demand, otherwise.teaadntoast wrote:Agreed.rondemarino wrote: LOL. I think a more effective course of action would have been for schools to band together and come up with a certain standard regarding legal employers (better notice, hiring intentions w.r.t summer class, etc...).
Then again, I'm not entirely sure how schools would have gone about that for this season, since no one was really sure at the beginning of the year how firms were going to react. I'm also not sure how you'd balance the competing interests of schools with very different class sizes and overall placement rates.
Yup. Notice that EVERY California school places well below its respective peers (in 2006)thesealocust wrote:Interesting point. That would mean older NLJ 250 placement data would likely hurt CA schools more than more recent NLJ 250 placement data, no?rondemarino wrote:Since everyone keeps citing NLJ 250 placement, does anyone know how stable that list was over the last 4-5 years. It seemed like everyone was merging with everyone, at least in CA.
You probably don't need this. Just a stronger mechanism (stronger than ATL) for shaming employers might suffice.teaadntoast wrote:Agreed.rondemarino wrote: LOL. I think a more effective course of action would have been for schools to band together and come up with a certain standard regarding legal employers (better notice, hiring intentions w.r.t summer class, etc...).
Then again, I'm not entirely sure how schools would have gone about that for this season, since no one was really sure at the beginning of the year how firms were going to react. I'm also not sure how you'd balance the competing interests of schools with very different class sizes and overall placement rates.
As of yesterday.Anonymous User wrote:Off topic: I just noticed this anonymous post feature. Is this something new?
Register now!
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
/thread.PKSebben wrote:I think this is a retarded move by Fordham. Is what Reed Smith did shitty? I don't know. It depends when they knew, I suppose. But Reed Smith is going to do what's best for the firm, and who cares about the fallout to law schools. Would I be personally upset -- maybe, but why waste an interview on students they're not going to hire in this economy. It's a buyer's market.
What Fordham doesn't want to do is make beef with employers right now and that's exactly what they've done. Reed Smith, nor any other firm, needs Fordham. They'll all go somewhere else. News flash: there are a lot of law schools. Even intimating that any firm needs any one law school is simply retarded. If you really believe this, you really -- REALLY -- need a reality check.
And even if they don't come to OCI, Fordham grads could probably still apply. So all they've done is make it a pain in the ass for Fordham students. Good job, Dean assface.
83.2% of ATL readers disagree, apparently. My opinions have been noted already.MrOrange wrote:/thread.PKSebben wrote:I think this is a retarded move by Fordham. Is what Reed Smith did shitty? I don't know. It depends when they knew, I suppose. But Reed Smith is going to do what's best for the firm, and who cares about the fallout to law schools. Would I be personally upset -- maybe, but why waste an interview on students they're not going to hire in this economy. It's a buyer's market.
What Fordham doesn't want to do is make beef with employers right now and that's exactly what they've done. Reed Smith, nor any other firm, needs Fordham. They'll all go somewhere else. News flash: there are a lot of law schools. Even intimating that any firm needs any one law school is simply retarded. If you really believe this, you really -- REALLY -- need a reality check.
And even if they don't come to OCI, Fordham grads could probably still apply. So all they've done is make it a pain in the ass for Fordham students. Good job, Dean assface.
83.2% of ATL readers also think Kash has a nice asslobster. So, take that for what it's worth.OperaSoprano wrote:83.2% of ATL readers disagree, apparently. My opinions have been noted already.MrOrange wrote:/thread.PKSebben wrote:I think this is a retarded move by Fordham. Is what Reed Smith did shitty? I don't know. It depends when they knew, I suppose. But Reed Smith is going to do what's best for the firm, and who cares about the fallout to law schools. Would I be personally upset -- maybe, but why waste an interview on students they're not going to hire in this economy. It's a buyer's market.
What Fordham doesn't want to do is make beef with employers right now and that's exactly what they've done. Reed Smith, nor any other firm, needs Fordham. They'll all go somewhere else. News flash: there are a lot of law schools. Even intimating that any firm needs any one law school is simply retarded. If you really believe this, you really -- REALLY -- need a reality check.
And even if they don't come to OCI, Fordham grads could probably still apply. So all they've done is make it a pain in the ass for Fordham students. Good job, Dean assface.
thats awesomerondemarino wrote:After garbage like this (LinkRemoved), I applaud Dean Treanor for lighting a firecracker up Reed Smith's ass.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Already a member? Login
I think ATL readers feel that way because most of them are either pre-law or early in law school. It's ludicrous for me that an 0L would call a law firm that pays 6 figures 'trash.' Tell me that 3 years from now when you're scrapping to get a job with the Albany Public Defender's office.nitsudrx wrote:I agree with PK. In this economy, Fordham should be BEGGING firms to come. If not this year, then come back the next.
I don't care how many ATL readers agree or not.
I am guessing that this has more to do with the fact that it's self-reported data, and almost every New York office reported, while most CA offices (being smaller) did not.rondemarino wrote:Yup. Notice that EVERY California school places well below its respective peers (in 2006)thesealocust wrote:Interesting point. That would mean older NLJ 250 placement data would likely hurt CA schools more than more recent NLJ 250 placement data, no?rondemarino wrote:Since everyone keeps citing NLJ 250 placement, does anyone know how stable that list was over the last 4-5 years. It seemed like everyone was merging with everyone, at least in CA.
Stanford v. Columbia, Chicago, Harvard
Boalt v. Michigan, Virginia, Penn
UCLA/USC v. Georgetown, Texas, Cornell (although people may quibble about this)
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login