NLJ 250 numbers out Forum

[A. Nony Mouse]

to the aspie that delights in outing people, fuck you, you autistic little fuck. ban me, you stupid, neurotic fuck. i barely comment on on-topic shit due to your neurotic, aspie stupid little theatrics. again, fuck you. ban me. it takes a rare kind of aspie (even by law school standards) to police a stupid little internet chatroom. just lol at this miserable shit.

If you insist.

(For the record, the rule about anonymous posting states, "Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc." If you're not revealing any sensitive information, you have no need to post anon, and you may be outed. This probably happens most when other posters report your posts. Just so it's clear.)

[Old Gregg]

to the aspie that delights in outing people, fuck you, you autistic little fuck. ban me, you stupid, neurotic fuck. i barely comment on on-topic shit due to your neurotic, aspie stupid little theatrics. again, fuck you. ban me. it takes a rare kind of aspie (even by law school standards) to police a stupid little internet chatroom. just lol at this miserable shit.

I mean... was there any reason you had to post anonymously in the first place? I get that you tried to sound smart with the "but see" blue booking, but if anything you'd want such neurotic, aspie stupid little theatrics to stand by your username, no?

[moonman157]

Well this thread took an interesting turn

[blessedassurance_2.0]

I mean... was there any reason you had to post anonymously in the first place? I get that you tried to sound smart with the "but see" blue booking, but if anything you'd want such neurotic, aspie stupid little theatrics to stand by your username, no?

there've been attempts to out me before. lol at sounding smart. it was a placeholder to separate the multiple quotes. you're overthinking it.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I mean... was there any reason you had to post anonymously in the first place? I get that you tried to sound smart with the "but see" blue booking, but if anything you'd want such neurotic, aspie stupid little theatrics to stand by your username, no?

there've been attempts to out me before. lol at sounding smart. it was a placeholder to separate the multiple quotes. you're overthinking it.

I never understand why people think posting under their actual username about a non-personal topic like the NLJ 250 is going to out them in any way, like posting in the legal employment forum is some kind of revealing activity. But for the record for those watching at home, alting around a ban just earns you a longer ban.

[downinDtown]

Aw come on, don't tease...post the rest of the t30

Didn't mean to anon. You can out me

I posted a link to a Google Doc with 21-50 over in this thread: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 7#p7500657

[sighsigh]

it is also worth adding that there are some truly shit firms in the nlj 250 including firms some might qualify as shitlaw or thereabouts (see --LinkRemoved--)

I don't think there are large firms which pay true shitlaw wages, are there? Even WEMED, which everyone on JDU makes fun of and is basically the Cooley of large law firms, starts associates at like 65k-70k.

[84651846190]

dear god, this place is hopeless

[zman]

just a slight improvement..

Rich clients have more money thanks to the fed inflating the stock market but that's about it.. There is no real recovery..

[giantsfan564789]

Sorry if I'm being an idiot, but what's with this GULC 37 vs 31 discrepancy? Is it 37 or 31?

[wojo98]

Sorry if I'm being an idiot, but what's with this GULC 37 vs 31 discrepancy? Is it 37 or 31?

31% in 2012; 37% in 2013 - regardless, pretty disheartening placement (even with scholly).

[giantsfan564789]

Sorry if I'm being an idiot, but what's with this GULC 37 vs 31 discrepancy? Is it 37 or 31?

31% in 2012; 37% in 2013 - regardless, pretty disheartening placement (even with scholly).

Ok, so why does the list that Zweitbester posted have GULC at 31.75 then?

[Tiago Splitter]

Sorry if I'm being an idiot, but what's with this GULC 37 vs 31 discrepancy? Is it 37 or 31?

31% in 2012; 37% in 2013 - regardless, pretty disheartening placement (even with scholly).

Ok, so why does the list that Zweitbester posted have GULC at 31.75 then?

It's a typo.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... chool.html

[giantsfan564789]

Sorry if I'm being an idiot, but what's with this GULC 37 vs 31 discrepancy? Is it 37 or 31?

31% in 2012; 37% in 2013 - regardless, pretty disheartening placement (even with scholly).

Ok, so why does the list that Zweitbester posted have GULC at 31.75 then?

It's a typo.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... chool.html

Wow, thanks a lot. Missed that