I got Biglaw from T2 AND YOU CAN TOO Forum

[BigZuck]

going to stick up for onemorelawhopeful here

guys, mal, mono, zuck all you guys, c'mmon everybody here knows that you all went to t14 schools (zuck- i think texas? so, pretty much a top school), anyway, why the hell cant u just tolerate that someone like onemore got big law from a school like hastings? it seems that all you guys just cannot stand the thought that someone from lower tier 1 or tier 2 school got big law, so pretty much the same outcome that you guys will get (or hope to get) from a "top" school. Now, yes it was risky for onemore, he very well could not have gotten big law,as will majorty of lower of tier 1 and tier 2 students, but just for god sake appreciate the hardwork that guys like one more puts in to get where he is today. I dont have a problem with you all saying that he got lucky, he might have but the difference with me and you guys is that you all say he got ONLY lucky, and i am saying that he was hardworking AND lucky. so why are you all so adamant about taking away credit from someone who gets big law from not a top school?

I'm honestly not sure that you're even reading the same posts I am if this is your takeaway

[Adrian Monk]

mal, a) doesnt look like you are happy that he got big law, b) and one more is advocating 0l's to go to hastings? show me where

[Mal Reynolds]

You're right. I'm so ~-angry-~

[fourtyacslaw]

mal, a) doesnt look like you are happy that he got big law, b) and one more is advocating 0l's to go to hastings? show me where

To be fair the title of this thread reads like a prospective Hastings advert.

[Paul Campos]

The title of this thread, and the OP's posts in it, are a microcosm of what's wrong not only with legal education, but also with higher education in general, and especially with the cultural rhetoric regarding the social problems that more higher ed for everyone is supposed to ameliorate, if not cure.

Individual effort does exactly nothing about structural social problems. For example, what if literally everybody who went to law school did all the right things: studied very hard, networked, "hustled," etc? Would all this exemplary effort create even one more legal job? The message "you can too" is by definition false at the collective level, so people concerned with structural reform are properly dismissive of it, and also rightly concerned about such messages' potentially bad effect on reform efforts.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Adrian Monk, you're an 0L, right? You're not allowed to post in this forum.

I don't think anyone's saying that the people who succeed at law school aren't smart and/or hard-working - I think anyone in the top 10% almost anywhere is going to be one of the two. But honestly, so are all the other people at their school (or if not all, enough that top 10% it whatever isn't guaranteed). Saying that grades are unpredictable doesn't say anything about whether a particular person merits those grades. It's just that other people at the school are equally smart and/or hard-working and don't get the grades.

But I've had long arguments before with 1MLH about his vision of law/getting jobs as a meritocracy and I don't buy it.

[Adrian Monk]

sorry nony. it was just that one more has given some good advice before and just wanted to stand up for him as he was getting just targeted by a gang.

[A. Nony Mouse]

sorry nony. it was just that one more has given some good advice before and just wanted to stand up for him as he was getting just targeted by a gang.

No, that's not what happened.

Also, I'm sorry I stepped on Campos' post. Everyone go read that.

[run26.2]

The title of this thread, and the OP's posts in it, are a microcosm of what's wrong not only with legal education, but also with higher education in general, and especially with the cultural rhetoric regarding the social problems that more higher ed for everyone is supposed to ameliorate, if not cure.

Individual effort does exactly nothing about structural social problems. For example, what if literally everybody who went to law school did all the right things: studied very hard, networked, "hustled," etc? Would all this exemplary effort create even one more legal job? The message "you can too" is by definition false at the collective level, so people concerned with structural reform are properly dismissive of it, and also rightly concerned about such messages' potentially bad effect on reform efforts.

I think this is right, but it intertwines two different problems. First, not everyone is created equal (in terms of stamina, intelligence, etc.), so even if everyone does "all the right things," some outcomes will be different from others. Second, the product of everyone doing "all the right things" does nothing to address the fact that there are still not enough jobs for everyone that goes to law school. The first problem seems to me to be more relevant to a pervasive problem in education.

[patogordo]

Even if there were enough jobs for everyone, some would be more desirable than others, would require more "hustling" to get, whatever. If you define unemployment as "really shitty job" then it would be the same as the status quo.

[Anonymous User]

I'm happy for OP and I didn't read through the thread but here's a counterexample:

Top 6 school, decent grades (above median)
I treated law school as anyone at T2 school would (didn't take things for granted). I studied my ass off. I practiced MONTHS on my interviewing. Made my bidlist as strategic as possible. Mass mailed (still am).

Struck out of OCI.

Take that however you may.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

The title of this thread, and the OP's posts in it, are a microcosm of what's wrong not only with legal education, but also with higher education in general, and especially with the cultural rhetoric regarding the social problems that more higher ed for everyone is supposed to ameliorate, if not cure.

Individual effort does exactly nothing about structural social problems. For example, what if literally everybody who went to law school did all the right things: studied very hard, networked, "hustled," etc? Would all this exemplary effort create even one more legal job? The message "you can too" is by definition false at the collective level, so people concerned with structural reform are properly dismissive of it, and also rightly concerned about such messages' potentially bad effect on reform efforts.

So, your position is that people like myself should have sacrificed our future goals in the name of "structural change" that would primarily benefit people who were not us.

Does that mean you will be resigning your tenured position soon in support of necessary structural change, or is this a "do as I say, not as I do" situation?

[Total Litigator]

Obvious humble brag.

That, and he just wants to fight because his later comments indicate that this is an "F U TLS" not a "Thank you TLS".

[moneybagsphd]

The title of this thread, and the OP's posts in it, are a microcosm of what's wrong not only with legal education, but also with higher education in general, and especially with the cultural rhetoric regarding the social problems that more higher ed for everyone is supposed to ameliorate, if not cure.

Individual effort does exactly nothing about structural social problems. For example, what if literally everybody who went to law school did all the right things: studied very hard, networked, "hustled," etc? Would all this exemplary effort create even one more legal job? The message "you can too" is by definition false at the collective level, so people concerned with structural reform are properly dismissive of it, and also rightly concerned about such messages' potentially bad effect on reform efforts.

So, your position is that people like myself should have sacrificed our future goals in the name of "structural change" that would primarily benefit people who were not us.

Does that mean you will be resigning your tenured position soon in support of necessary structural change, or is this a "do as I say, not as I do" situation?

you are so far up your own asshole.

[Johann]

The question of whether law school is right for you is what your alternative options are. I don't get how TLS misses this repeatedly. Most people who go T-2 literally have no other career options. Access to 200k and a chance at a way better life than their alternative is not a bad outcome. Lots of people at T2s are the people who should be the first ones to apply to law school - meaning the people who have high gpas and other options should really examine whether law school is right for them compared to the alternative. If the government is going to give you access to cash to make an investment or gamble on yourself when you are out of options, even if that gamble has a 10% chance of hitting, you aren't doing the math right if you think law school isn't worth going to. A 10% chance at a sitdown desk job making over $100k a year beats the piss out of working at starbucks for $11/hr.

I agree with most that law school is sorta a gamble. But it's still a gamble on yourself that you have some control over. So it's more like poker than roulette. Which guess what, if you graduate from college and have no career options taking out a $200k loan to go play poker in Vegas isnt the dumbest thing in the world. Unfortunately, there aren't many places you can get money to gamble on yourself other than higher education.

The system creates a tension where the best interest of the individual is almost always go to the T2 but the best interest of society is for less people to go into law in general. But still, the advice of all the T-14 people here is very selfish and it's obvious bullshit (esp in situations where people have told long-term unemployed people not working to not go to law school - hell I'd advise that person to go to law school for the living money if nothing else). Their right to the legal education gamble doesn't take priority over someone at Hastings or St. Johns. In fact, they should be the first ones defending themselves because most likely they had the most alternative career paths.

[Johann]

The title of this thread, and the OP's posts in it, are a microcosm of what's wrong not only with legal education, but also with higher education in general, and especially with the cultural rhetoric regarding the social problems that more higher ed for everyone is supposed to ameliorate, if not cure.

Individual effort does exactly nothing about structural social problems. For example, what if literally everybody who went to law school did all the right things: studied very hard, networked, "hustled," etc? Would all this exemplary effort create even one more legal job? The message "you can too" is by definition false at the collective level, so people concerned with structural reform are properly dismissive of it, and also rightly concerned about such messages' potentially bad effect on reform efforts.

So, your position is that people like myself should have sacrificed our future goals in the name of "structural change" that would primarily benefit people who were not us.

Does that mean you will be resigning your tenured position soon in support of necessary structural change, or is this a "do as I say, not as I do" situation?

Exactly. Being a martyr for society gets you nowhere almost all of the time. Society is fucked. Doesn't mean you shouldn't play the game.

[Mal Reynolds]

The question of whether law school is right for you is what your alternative options are. I don't get how TLS misses this repeatedly. Most people who go T-2 literally have no other career options. Access to 200k and a chance at a way better life than their alternative is not a bad outcome. Lots of people at T2s are the people who should be the first ones to apply to law school - meaning the people who have high gpas and other options should really examine whether law school is right for them compared to the alternative. If the government is going to give you access to cash to make an investment or gamble on yourself when you are out of options, even if that gamble has a 10% chance of hitting, you aren't doing the math right if you think law school isn't worth going to. A 10% chance at a sitdown desk job making over $100k a year beats the piss out of working at starbucks for $11/hr.

I agree with most that law school is sorta a gamble. But it's still a gamble on yourself that you have some control over. So it's more like poker than roulette. Which guess what, if you graduate from college and have no career options taking out a $200k loan to go play poker in Vegas isnt the dumbest thing in the world. Unfortunately, there aren't many places you can get money to gamble on yourself other than higher education.

The system creates a tension where the best interest of the individual is almost always go to the T2 but the best interest of society is for less people to go into law in general. But still, the advice of all the T-14 people here is very selfish and it's obvious bullshit (esp in situations where people have told long-term unemployed people not working to not go to law school - hell I'd advise that person to go to law school for the living money if nothing else). Their right to the legal education gamble doesn't take priority over someone at Hastings or St. Johns. In fact, they should be the first ones defending themselves because most likely they had the most alternative career paths.

[Johann]

The question of whether law school is right for you is what your alternative options are. I don't get how TLS misses this repeatedly. Most people who go T-2 literally have no other career options. Access to 200k and a chance at a way better life than their alternative is not a bad outcome. Lots of people at T2s are the people who should be the first ones to apply to law school - meaning the people who have high gpas and other options should really examine whether law school is right for them compared to the alternative. If the government is going to give you access to cash to make an investment or gamble on yourself when you are out of options, even if that gamble has a 10% chance of hitting, you aren't doing the math right if you think law school isn't worth going to. A 10% chance at a sitdown desk job making over $100k a year beats the piss out of working at starbucks for $11/hr.

I agree with most that law school is sorta a gamble. But it's still a gamble on yourself that you have some control over. So it's more like poker than roulette. Which guess what, if you graduate from college and have no career options taking out a $200k loan to go play poker in Vegas isnt the dumbest thing in the world. Unfortunately, there aren't many places you can get money to gamble on yourself other than higher education.

The system creates a tension where the best interest of the individual is almost always go to the T2 but the best interest of society is for less people to go into law in general. But still, the advice of all the T-14 people here is very selfish and it's obvious bullshit (esp in situations where people have told long-term unemployed people not working to not go to law school - hell I'd advise that person to go to law school for the living money if nothing else). Their right to the legal education gamble doesn't take priority over someone at Hastings or St. Johns. In fact, they should be the first ones defending themselves because most likely they had the most alternative career paths.

You can have your opinion. I'll have mine. Then people can use all of the information to make an informed decision. Thank god for the internet.

[notgreat]

Just want to make it clear that I am not happy onemorelawhopeful got big law.

[hiima3L]

The title of this thread, and the OP's posts in it, are a microcosm of what's wrong not only with legal education, but also with higher education in general, and especially with the cultural rhetoric regarding the social problems that more higher ed for everyone is supposed to ameliorate, if not cure.

Individual effort does exactly nothing about structural social problems. For example, what if literally everybody who went to law school did all the right things: studied very hard, networked, "hustled," etc? Would all this exemplary effort create even one more legal job? The message "you can too" is by definition false at the collective level, so people concerned with structural reform are properly dismissive of it, and also rightly concerned about such messages' potentially bad effect on reform efforts.

So, your position is that people like myself should have sacrificed our future goals in the name of "structural change" that would primarily benefit people who were not us.

Does that mean you will be resigning your tenured position soon in support of necessary structural change, or is this a "do as I say, not as I do" situation?

As a Hastings grad who went because it made financial sense and has had a pretty damn good outcome, I really wish you wouldn't try to justify your decision to go there (you did transfer, right?). I would never tell anyone to go to Hastings nowadays, even for for free, because it's a total sinking ship--and for good reason. It's one of DOZENS of CA law schools that need to go under. You face a 10% chance of getting a job that might justify the costs. It is just too damn risky to attend and it baffles me how anyone could justify going there and paying anywhere near sticker. And because it's a UC, no one gets a decent scholarship, so under no circumstances should anyone go there.

Moreover, the CA law school/attorney oversupply is just plain ridiculous at this point and student loan debt is having a disastrous effect on the national economy and our generation. There is no justification than more than a handful of schools in this state, and even that is pushing it.

People who try to justify attending schools like UCH are doing a disservice to everyone.

But I do agree that, while I appreciate Paul Campos's work, I think he is a huge hypocrite. He's literally living off of student loans and taxpayer money. By remaining a prof at a horrendous school, he's part of the problem.

[pancakes3]

The question of whether law school is right for you is what your alternative options are. I don't get how TLS misses this repeatedly. Most people who go T-2 literally have no other career options. Access to 200k and a chance at a way better life than their alternative is not a bad outcome. Lots of people at T2s are the people who should be the first ones to apply to law school - meaning the people who have high gpas and other options should really examine whether law school is right for them compared to the alternative. If the government is going to give you access to cash to make an investment or gamble on yourself when you are out of options, even if that gamble has a 10% chance of hitting, you aren't doing the math right if you think law school isn't worth going to. A 10% chance at a sitdown desk job making over $100k a year beats the piss out of working at starbucks for $11/hr.

I agree with most that law school is sorta a gamble. But it's still a gamble on yourself that you have some control over. So it's more like poker than roulette. Which guess what, if you graduate from college and have no career options taking out a $200k loan to go play poker in Vegas isnt the dumbest thing in the world. Unfortunately, there aren't many places you can get money to gamble on yourself other than higher education.

The system creates a tension where the best interest of the individual is almost always go to the T2 but the best interest of society is for less people to go into law in general. But still, the advice of all the T-14 people here is very selfish and it's obvious bullshit (esp in situations where people have told long-term unemployed people not working to not go to law school - hell I'd advise that person to go to law school for the living money if nothing else). Their right to the legal education gamble doesn't take priority over someone at Hastings or St. Johns. In fact, they should be the first ones defending themselves because most likely they had the most alternative career paths.

You can have your opinion. I'll have mine. Then people can use all of the information to make an informed decision. Thank god for the internet.

Your opinion is objectively wrong.

[moneybagsphd]

Just want to make it clear that I am not happy onemorelawhopeful got big law.

Me neither. If ever anyone deserved to choke on his non-dischargeable debt, it's 1MLH.

[Johann]

Your opinion is objectively wrong.

How is it wrong? Let's do the risk analysis: I can make $11/hr at starbucks that is $20,000 a year. The government will give me an opportunity where I get about that salary to live on while in school. So there is literally 0 opportunity cost other than the advancement you would make at starbucks - which is close enough to nil to call it nil. 0 opportunity cost and I get a law degree that gives me a 10% chance at making a great salary and 50% chance at getting into the field of law. It's already easy to see the first situation has already lost. Without even examining the investment 20 years down the road when it actually pays off. Even making 50k wins here. Even making 40k wins here. There is almost no way for a person who is unemployed or working fast food or $10/hr to lose in law school.
If you fail, guess what it is just fucking money. The government can't take the money out of your ass. There is no debtor prison. You fail you default. This assumes all of the generous payment plans in existence right now get wiped out.
Based on your risk analysis, you are clearly a puss though. Congrats.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

you are so far up your own asshole.

The thing is, you don't really know anything about me.

I had to put myself through community college, working full time, before transferring to a CSU (the UC system was not an option for financial reasons, I had to transfer in 2008 when the state slashed the budget and financial aid became a joke). Even then I still had to carry a full work schedule to make ends meet. I literally had to study for the LSAT on the public transit bus I rode from work to school everyday, because that was the only time I could find a spare 45 minutes. Do you know how hard it is to do a logic games section standing up on a public bus? My first year of law school I demonstrated hardship and worked the 20 hours/week the ABA allowed as a tutor. Despite all of that I still scored in the top 10% of the class, and once I saw how the system worked, I was able to improve my grades further.

But according to posters here, getting through all of that was "just luck, bro,"; and according to BigZuck I should be ashamed of myself; and according to Paul Campos, I should have just taken one for the team so that others who hadn't worked 18 hour days, for years on end, could have an even easier time.

If you cannot understand why this would bother me, then I'm not the one with the problem.

[Adrian Monk]

.