law firm bans ivy grads Forum

[beautyistruth]

Doesn't he only shit on Ivies? NYU's just a lowly non-Ivy.

[k5220]

I can't find him on NYU's adjunct faculty list and the only places that list him teaching there are his website and his profile on his law school's alumni page.

Me neither. I think he might have just been an adjunct at the UG

[philepistemer]

Law school grades also don't measure a person's ability to practice law.

I agree. It's why there are plenty of amazing lawyers out there that did not get a chance to start in big law.

I"m saying it on a broad scale. Personally, I'm trusting the guy that went to Harvard and was median than the guy at Fordham and finished top 20%. I'll think he's better suited to defend me, am I right, I might be, I might not be. And, you don't know what rank he graduated with... you'll be approached by two people, a guy from Harvard, and a guy from Fordham. In this profession, prestige is huge and it matters. I'm certainly not stuck in the perception that LSAT+GPA = everything, it's not. BUT it matters a lot. There are plenty of case's out there where someone messed up in college, went to a TT law school, killed it because he got his mind right and ended up successful. However, there are many MORE stories about those students who didn't kill it, and didn't get shit together.

The point is, you set yourself up for success, and if you start at a TT you're not getting the same opportunities for it as you would have if you went to a T-14. This article was in part, arguing that those at the Ivy's aren't as dedicated and as motivated and as "fill in adjective" as those at TT's or TTT's or even TTTT's and that, I'd argue is BS, with no substantial proof, because it takes those same qualities to do well for 4 years in college and then on the LSAT.

If I get approach by two attorneys, I don't care where they went to school. I'll take a great trial lawyer for my case from Stetson, Brooklyn, Mercer, South Carolina, Cardozo, etc. any day of the week over an average trial lawyer from Harvard.

We're not talking about the students who didn't kill it and didn't get their shit together. We're talking about the ones that did.

You're digressing from the point of discussion. Nobody is arguing it's a better idea to go to a T1, T2, T3, etc. over a T14 school (ignoring the other factors that are taken under consideration). The point being made by some is that those people that come out of those lower ranked schools had to compete hard, scratch/claw their way to the top, and then fight hard to get a job with a big law firm. So they're likely going to continue to compete, fight, and strive at the firm.

And frankly, I think it's a pretty fair argument to make that many of the people at the elite law schools don't have to be as dedicated or motivated as the people at the very top of their class at the lower ranked schools.

And the problems with your assumption that it takes those same qualities is that not everyone develops those qualities at the same rate. Some people develop them early on. Some people develop them in college. Some people develop them after college. Some people never developed them. For those that developed them in college or after college, they can't retroactively go back and change their grades from before that development.

As for the LSAT, it doesn't test dedication, competitiveness, motivation, work ethic, and lawyering skills. All those things can factor into how well you do but it's not true in all cases.

Hey adam

[chuckbass]

I can't find him on NYU's adjunct faculty list and the only places that list him teaching there are his website and his profile on his law school's alumni page.

Me neither. I think he might have just been an adjunct at the UG

Maybe he teaches at NYLS.

[lapolicia]

I can't find him on NYU's adjunct faculty list and the only places that list him teaching there are his website and his profile on his law school's alumni page.

Me neither. I think he might have just been an adjunct at the UG

Maybe he teaches at NYLS.

He probably teaches at NYU's continuing education school.

[Lacepiece23]

TTT lawyers that do well seem gunnerish in my experience. I went to a TTT my first year and I kind of understand some of what he's talking about. You realize early on (I wish I would have realized it way earlier and retaken the LSAT with proper preparation) that its either achieve or starve. There is a permanent chip on the shoulder and sense of urgency that just isn't present at the high ranking schools. I have nothing but respect for students at high ranking schools, indeed I graduated from one and am very proud, but TTT's are much more competitive. Not in terms of intellect, but in terms of what people are willing to do to get to the top.

This... I was shocked during my summer. I met a lot of people from my local TT and TTT, and you could just tell that there was always some type of competition. It took a very long time for people to gell and become comfortable with the idea that we are collegues and not competitors at this point. It was really strange to me.

At my school we all helped each other out. I even gave my friend everything that I had in civ pro when he was lost--supplements and advice--and he ended up getting a better grade in the course. If you give someone an edge at a TT or TTT you don't get hired. So I think it just leads to everyone being that much more competitive.

[cdotson2]

Also, what the fuck kinda bullshit is this: "we find these men and women we take under our wing to be more ambitious and more hungry to excel in the legal profession." Since when are students who are attending the best schools in the world less ambitious than those who attend TTT''s....

Although the article is basically an advertising piece for the author's firm, I actually agree with the author's observation here. The most ambitious, gunnerish lawyers I encounter in the profession are those who went to TTTs and got hired in big law. Come to think of it, someone posted an article here awhile back--not a bullshit marketing article, but an actual piece of scholarly work--that showed that TTT grads who got hired as associates at big law firms made partner at a much higher rate than T14 grads.

this is because so few make it from ttt's and those who make it are most likely fully committed to the path, while a large amount of t-14 get into big-law and hate it, burn out, or only do it to pay off their loans. they have a higher matriculation rate, but it says nothing about the quality IMO.

[rpupkin]

Also, what the fuck kinda bullshit is this: "we find these men and women we take under our wing to be more ambitious and more hungry to excel in the legal profession." Since when are students who are attending the best schools in the world less ambitious than those who attend TTT''s....

Although the article is basically an advertising piece for the author's firm, I actually agree with the author's observation here. The most ambitious, gunnerish lawyers I encounter in the profession are those who went to TTTs and got hired in big law. Come to think of it, someone posted an article here awhile back--not a bullshit marketing article, but an actual piece of scholarly work--that showed that TTT grads who got hired as associates at big law firms made partner at a much higher rate than T14 grads.

this is because so few make it from ttt's and those who make it are most likely fully committed to the path, while a large amount of t-14 get into big-law and hate it, burn out, or only do it to pay off their loans. they have a higher matriculation rate, but it says nothing about the quality IMO.

Agreed. But we weren't talking about the objective "quality" of the students; we were talking about the author's contention that kids who manage to finish near the top of the class at a TTT are "more ambitious and more hungry" than the typical elite law school grad, and are therefore more likely to excel in a professional environment. Your point basically supports the author's position.

[cdotson2]

Agreed. But we weren't talking about the objective "quality" of the students; we were talking about the author's contention that kids who manage to finish near the top of the class at a TTT are "more ambitious and more hungry" than the typical elite law school grad, and are therefore more likely to excel in a professional environment. Your point basically supports the author's position.

While the specific people that are hired on through this philosophy might be more hungry than than the average t-14 student I specifically disagree with his point that that makes them more qualified-
"To attract our clientele, we need to win our cases and close our deals and give better counsel than every other law firm."

hunger and ambition does not equate to better counsel than every other firm.

[smallfirmassociate]

This guy is hilarious. He's like a caricature, but honestly, if he's hustled and built his practice and just doesn't give a **** anymore, then I guess he's earned his spot to act ridiculous.

Also, a large portion of the country's most accomplished litigators went to non-T14's. I mean, graduating from Harvard and working at a biglaw firm is a great way to make some dough and build the resume, but it doesn't exactly teach how to provide skilled advocacy. If you're building a firm on needing people to provide skilled advocacy, you probably don't want to take the Harvard rejects who didn't get biglaw. You'd be better off with some 33-percenter from Emory or Pepperdine or some shit.

[iamgeorgebush]

P.S. the lawyer "adam leitman bailey" who wrote that article has his interns edit his wikipedia page. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... lb/Archive (showing investigation of multiple sock puppets connected with adam leitman bailey wikipedia page) and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history (showing edit history; page created by "InternALB").

[papercut]

That's hilarious.

[mvp99]

from wiki: "eventually setting for more than $1 million and gaining the right of the tenants to remain in the building"