bottom quarter at davis/hastings...what kind of jobs? advice Forum

[Plan2008]

Lol, how is the ancient past? My friends who meet this description are only working 70 hours a week only in the dreams that they have during the 40 hours a week that they are sleeping instead of billing. Basically, if your practice group is picking up, firms are squeezing associates to an unprecedented degree (how do you think PPP is higher than ever before, huh?) - if not, you might only be at the office 9-6 but I think you'd still rather be an a practice group that works you to death instead of facing impending layoffs.

Maybe your "friends" are working 100 hours a week. I could care less. I acually do think biglaw axxosiates work incredible hours. Dont know how I got stuck on that side of the argument. You think the 90's is the ancient past? Im not a boomer you dufus, my parents were. You should save this quote you made. In about 10 years I am pretty sure you will laugh at yourself.

people of our generation are orders of magnitude more intelligent than their boomer counterpart

*Attacks my pluralization instead of my statistics*
*Pats self on back*

The 90s is the ancient past economically, its like pre-new deal and post-new deal, the world is a different place.

WTF? Could care less about your pluralization. You should take statistics, it may help you.

I am alive and working now, you know 2011. Just started in the 90's. Of course you started negative 3 years ago, so you are post-everything that exists. So, do you go on blogs for heart surgeons and tell all those post-new deal docs how to sew in a new heart valve too?

[Veyron]

Lol, how is the ancient past? My friends who meet this description are only working 70 hours a week only in the dreams that they have during the 40 hours a week that they are sleeping instead of billing. Basically, if your practice group is picking up, firms are squeezing associates to an unprecedented degree (how do you think PPP is higher than ever before, huh?) - if not, you might only be at the office 9-6 but I think you'd still rather be an a practice group that works you to death instead of facing impending layoffs.

Maybe your "friends" are working 100 hours a week. I could care less. I acually do think biglaw axxosiates work incredible hours. Dont know how I got stuck on that side of the argument. You think the 90's is the ancient past? Im not a boomer you dufus, my parents were. You should save this quote you made. In about 10 years I am pretty sure you will laugh at yourself.

people of our generation are orders of magnitude more intelligent than their boomer counterpart

*Attacks my pluralization instead of my statistics*
*Pats self on back*

The 90s is the ancient past economically, its like pre-new deal and post-new deal, the world is a different place.

WTF? Could care less about your pluralization. You should take statistics, it may help you.

I am alive and working now, you know 2011. Just started in the 90's. Of course you started negative 3 years ago, so you are post-everything that exists. So, do you go on blogs for heart surgeons and tell all those post-new deal docs how to sew in a new heart valve too?

Oh, I thought you were attacking me because I was claiming corresponding higher intelligence then similarly situated people 40 years ago in a sentence where I failed to append an "s" to a plural.

My only points were that those who go to X school now tend to have better numbers and that those who work X job tend to have achieved higher levels of education than their counterparts from previous generations.

As far as knowing the field is concerned, its a fair bet that I'm closer to and more knowledgeable about the situation of recent grads than someone who graduated a while ago. In lawyers of long standing are often detached from the reality for new entrants, I've spoken to Of Council of 40 years standing that didn't even know that the T-14 gets a hiring boost

[theghostofDrewTate]

As far as knowing the field is concerned, its a fair bet that I'm closer to and more knowledgeable about the situation of recent grads than someone who graduated a while ago. In lawyers of long standing are often detached from the reality for new entrants, I've spoken to Of Council of 40 years standing that didn't even know that the T-14 gets a hiring boost

Oh man, you're killing me. My eyes, my eyes. It's of counsel, man. Every argument you have posted to date on this board has lost any merit it once had.

in case you can't tell - I'm just busting your b*lls

[Veyron]

As far as knowing the field is concerned, its a fair bet that I'm closer to and more knowledgeable about the situation of recent grads than someone who graduated a while ago. In lawyers of long standing are often detached from the reality for new entrants, I've spoken to Of Council of 40 years standing that didn't even know that the T-14 gets a hiring boost

Oh man, you're killing me. My eyes, my eyes. It's of counsel, man. Every argument you have posted to date on this board has lost any merit it once had.

in case you can't tell - I'm just busting your b*lls

Oh noes!

P.S. the world is raund.

[General Tso]

And yet people complain that employers place such a huge premium on the T-14. . .

However, I know a woman of your generation who graduated from HLS and yet cannot write a grammatically correct sentence - people of our generation are orders of magnitude more intelligent than their boomer counterpart because the competition was much more intense at each level. The hoops that a (white) boomer had to jump through to get to a top law school were far punier than the ones that we do, hell, Harvard's LSAT median was like 166 even back in the 90's

The fact that you dont get that a 166 is a STANDARDIZED SCORE TO A STANDARIZED TEST proves just how ignorant and stupid you are. If Harvard is accepting only the top 1% versus the top 5% in days past say NOTHING about the pool itself. You prove my point, and to be honest, you are one of the brighter one's on here.

Also, one anecdote about some blue-blooded lady who snuck through also does not an argument make.

the 90s LSATs are a cakewalk. I scored 170+ on many of them, but scored in the low 160s on the actual test. it was easier to do well back then because most people did not study for the LSAT diligently.

the leading LSAT prep company Powerscore was not even created until 1997. Prior to that, the only test prep courses were Kaplan and Princeton Review, whose methods are pretty flawed. People today pay thousands of dollars and spend 100-200 hours preparing for this thing.

The competition today is far greater.

[A'nold]

Plus, nice ad homs old guy.

[Plan2008]

And yet people complain that employers place such a huge premium on the T-14. . .

However, I know a woman of your generation who graduated from HLS and yet cannot write a grammatically correct sentence - people of our generation are orders of magnitude more intelligent than their boomer counterpart because the competition was much more intense at each level. The hoops that a (white) boomer had to jump through to get to a top law school were far punier than the ones that we do, hell, Harvard's LSAT median was like 166 even back in the 90's

The fact that you dont get that a 166 is a STANDARDIZED SCORE TO A STANDARIZED TEST proves just how ignorant and stupid you are. If Harvard is accepting only the top 1% versus the top 5% in days past say NOTHING about the pool itself. You prove my point, and to be honest, you are one of the brighter one's on here.

Also, one anecdote about some blue-blooded lady who snuck through also does not an argument make.

the 90s LSATs are a cakewalk. I scored 170+ on many of them, but scored in the low 160s on the actual test. it was easier to do well back then because most people did not study for the LSAT diligently.

the leading LSAT prep company Powerscore was not even created until 1997. Prior to that, the only test prep courses were Kaplan and Princeton Review, whose methods are pretty flawed. People today pay thousands of dollars and spend 100-200 hours preparing for this thing.

The competition today is far greater.

I took the LSAT in 1990 and again this december, same percentile ranking on both. Back in 90 I think my acuity and, for sure, endurance was stronger. Probably among the top 2-3%, the competition is increasing, there is a small group that always has and always will be expceptional. But below that, IMHO, the quality is decreasing quickly.

There is a greater pool of candidates, but I am not sure that means that the pool is more competitive. There are just more college graduates, with fewer career options. Where I took my LSAT I felt like I was walking into a bar in a Star Wars movie. Scary, the sample of would be lawyers.

Plus, nice ad homs old guy.

If the conclusion of your argument is that your opponent is a douche, is it ad hom to say "Thus, you are a gigantic douche!" I don't think so. I'd like to keep up this banter but I have to eat my oatmeal and take my afternoon nap. My wife has taken to calling my "Blue".

[Veyron]

Probably among the top 2-3%, the competition is increasing, there is a small group that always has and always will be expceptional. But below that, IMHO, the quality is decreasing quickly.

This may actually be correct.

[vanwinkle]

Maybe we should confiscate your iPod and any other cool stuff you have. You can feed clothe and educate an orphan in africa for $25-30 bucks a month. That iPod should cover about 6 months. Your rich mf'er .

This didn't need to be anonymous. Stop using the anon feature to attack other posters. You're gonna get outed and banned.

[General Tso]

I took the LSAT in 1990 and again this december, same percentile ranking on both.

for what reason? to prove your generation's superiority yet again?

[A'nold]

And yet people complain that employers place such a huge premium on the T-14. . .

However, I know a woman of your generation who graduated from HLS and yet cannot write a grammatically correct sentence - people of our generation are orders of magnitude more intelligent than their boomer counterpart because the competition was much more intense at each level. The hoops that a (white) boomer had to jump through to get to a top law school were far punier than the ones that we do, hell, Harvard's LSAT median was like 166 even back in the 90's

The fact that you dont get that a 166 is a STANDARDIZED SCORE TO A STANDARIZED TEST proves just how ignorant and stupid you are. If Harvard is accepting only the top 1% versus the top 5% in days past say NOTHING about the pool itself. You prove my point, and to be honest, you are one of the brighter one's on here.

Also, one anecdote about some blue-blooded lady who snuck through also does not an argument make.

the 90s LSATs are a cakewalk. I scored 170+ on many of them, but scored in the low 160s on the actual test. it was easier to do well back then because most people did not study for the LSAT diligently.

the leading LSAT prep company Powerscore was not even created until 1997. Prior to that, the only test prep courses were Kaplan and Princeton Review, whose methods are pretty flawed. People today pay thousands of dollars and spend 100-200 hours preparing for this thing.

The competition today is far greater.

I took the LSAT in 1990 and again this december, same percentile ranking on both. Back in 90 I think my acuity and, for sure, endurance was stronger. Probably among the top 2-3%, the competition is increasing, there is a small group that always has and always will be expceptional. But below that, IMHO, the quality is decreasing quickly.

There is a greater pool of candidates, but I am not sure that means that the pool is more competitive. There are just more college graduates, with fewer career options. Where I took my LSAT I felt like I was walking into a bar in a Star Wars movie. Scary, the sample of would be lawyers.

Plus, nice ad homs old guy.

If the conclusion of your argument is that your opponent is a douche, is it ad hom to say "Thus, you are a gigantic douche!" I don't think so. I'd like to keep up this banter but I have to eat my oatmeal and take my afternoon nap. My wife has taken to calling my "Blue".

Not really. There were many "non-conclusory" character attacks.....but whatevs.

[theghostofDrewTate]

Not really. There were many "non-conclusory" character attacks.....but whatevs.

I rarely post on here, but I'll attack the character of you young'uns sometimes because some of the stuff I read on here seems like one track thinking. I went to LS because I was living in a foreign country with my wife's parents and I had to have a solid plan to let them let me and my wife move back to America but I didn't have enough solid work experience to get into a good MBA program. I think a lot of you young'uns who post on here could probably be successful in other endeavors, so I rail against some peoples' decisions to go to/remain in LS because I think you dudes could have a better future without massive debt and a degree that pigeonholes you into a narrow job market, so if I seem like a crusty old dude, please forgive me. Don't get me wrong, I think plenty of kids your age are pwn3d, but I think a good number of you dudes could make a good living in other endeavors, so if you read ad homs from me, don't put too much stock in them.

[Anonymous User]

OP here...haha thanks for all the advice guys

[lisjjen]

Probably among the top 2-3%, the competition is increasing, there is a small group that always has and always will be expceptional. But below that, IMHO, the quality is decreasing quickly.

This may actually be correct.

Unfortunately.

When you argue that everyone's numbers are higher, I'm tempted to attribute that to grade inflation. When you say people in the same job have more degrees, it makes me think the degrees are worth less. My grandfather worked as a successful and published agricultural inventor for decades and he barely graduated high school.

On a related note, he learned Latin and engineering in high school.

[Veyron]

Probably among the top 2-3%, the competition is increasing, there is a small group that always has and always will be expceptional. But below that, IMHO, the quality is decreasing quickly.

This may actually be correct.

Unfortunately.

When you argue that everyone's numbers are higher, I'm tempted to attribute that to grade inflation. When you say people in the same job have more degrees, it makes me think the degrees are worth less. My grandfather worked as a successful and published agricultural inventor for decades and he barely graduated high school.

On a related note, he learned Latin and engineering in high school.

I agree with you except I wasn't talking about grade inflation but rather LSAT score. The LSAT is curved and has been made increasingly more difficult over the years to maintain a good distribution.

[lisjjen]

Probably among the top 2-3%, the competition is increasing, there is a small group that always has and always will be expceptional. But below that, IMHO, the quality is decreasing quickly.

This may actually be correct.

Unfortunately.

When you argue that everyone's numbers are higher, I'm tempted to attribute that to grade inflation. When you say people in the same job have more degrees, it makes me think the degrees are worth less. My grandfather worked as a successful and published agricultural inventor for decades and he barely graduated high school.

On a related note, he learned Latin and engineering in high school.

I agree with you except I wasn't talking about grade inflation but rather LSAT score. The LSAT is curved and has been made increasingly more difficult over the years to maintain a good distribution.

The curve has always been there, so the point distribution has always been similar. Do you have any evidence that it has been getting harder instead of easier though? I'd be interested to see some LSATs from 1965 given out to 2011 students.

One of the biggest differences of course is the material would be straight Whitey McWhiteman focused. The one thing that has improved in US education has been diversity. In practicing for the LSAT, I saw reading comprehension and logic games on Chinese opera, Mississippi farming techniques, gay newspapers, Latin cinema, Renaissance Poetry and more. If modern tests are skewed towards one demographic, I'd like to meet this cosmopolitan race.

[Veyron]

[/quote]
Unfortunately.

When you argue that everyone's numbers are higher, I'm tempted to attribute that to grade inflation. When you say people in the same job have more degrees, it makes me think the degrees are worth less. My grandfather worked as a successful and published agricultural inventor for decades and he barely graduated high school.

On a related note, he learned Latin and engineering in high school.[/quote]

I agree with you except I wasn't talking about grade inflation but rather LSAT score. The LSAT is curved and has been made increasingly more difficult over the years to maintain a good distribution.[/quote]

The curve has always been there, so the point distribution has always been similar. Do you have any evidence that it has been getting harder instead of easier though? I'd be interested to see some LSATs from 1965 given out to 2011 students.

One of the biggest differences of course is the material would be straight Whitey McWhiteman focused. The one thing that has improved in US education has been diversity. In practicing for the LSAT, I saw reading comprehension and logic games on Chinese opera, Mississippi farming techniques, gay newspapers, Latin cinema, Renaissance Poetry and more. If modern tests are skewed towards one demographic, I'd like to meet this cosmopolitan race.[/quote]


Evidence: Follow the LSAT re-centerings. However, 1965 wouldn't be a good match-up, around 1990, the LSAT changed in everything but name. In 1965 it was more like the SAT, less logic, more math.

As far as the curve always being there, sure, but you had to rank lower on it to get into top schools back in the day.

[lisjjen]

Evidence: Follow the LSAT re-centerings. However, 1965 wouldn't be a good match-up, around 1990, the LSAT changed in everything but name. In 1965 it was more like the SAT, less logic, more math.

As far as the curve always being there, sure, but you had to rank lower on it to get into top schools back in the day.

Thanks. I really was looking for evidence, I didn't know if they tracked that.

[Veyron]

Evidence: Follow the LSAT re-centerings. However, 1965 wouldn't be a good match-up, around 1990, the LSAT changed in everything but name. In 1965 it was more like the SAT, less logic, more math.

As far as the curve always being there, sure, but you had to rank lower on it to get into top schools back in the day.

Thanks. I really was looking for evidence, I didn't know if they tracked that.

No problem.

[Anonymous User]

So just to confirm...i should work for the solo over a superior court/government stuff if i want to do private practice in the future? Theres a small chance I might try and juggle both jobs at the same time.

hopefully I can pull myself out of the bottom third by the end of my 1L year. midlaw anywhere in Norcal is out of the question right? I'm pretty much on the track for a small firm(even if that)...

[Veyron]

So just to confirm...i should work for the solo over a superior court/government stuff if i want to do private practice in the future? Theres a small chance I might try and juggle both jobs at the same time.

Focus your fire bro, how you going to make an impression in 1/2 a summer?

[Anonymous User]

So just to confirm...i should work for the solo over a superior court/government stuff if i want to do private practice in the future? Theres a small chance I might try and juggle both jobs at the same time.

Focus your fire bro, how you going to make an impression in 1/2 a summer?

yeah i think both jobs dont require me to be in the office every day of the week...both require about 3-4 days a week in the office...i can try and set my schedule to accomodate both jobs?

I guess I'm trying to get as much legal experience before I graduate...hopefully to try and offset my bad grades(I know it won't help that much though)