Does Anyone Know How to Get Over Law School Butt Hurt? Forum

[elendinel]

ITT: One SMU student gets the outcome typical for SMU, three people make helpful points, and 20 others screech autistically about nothing.

In other news: water, wet.

Lawl at the bolded and italicized

I get that TLSers like to think that only people who can buy a sports car every year or buy $10 mil properties in NYC/SF are "wealthy," but by normal and actual standards of wealth, you can both be wealthy and not be able to throw money at literally anything you want to pay for.

[GGMcSwift]

OP if you actually have great grades, law review, and other stuff on your resume, then don't sweat it. You may have struckout on big law, but you won't strike out on a job altogether. You will find something at some point.

[Phil Brooks]

How do we know that people who have full scholarships on their resume are more likely to get hired? (And why does that advantage the poor as opposed to the thrifty? I would say it signals academic ability, not class.)

Because someone whose parents can easily pay for law school will not defer law school by another year in order to boost their LSAT score by 2, 3, 4, 5 points and earn a full scholarship.

No one puts all their LSAT scores on their resume for OCI. So I don't know how you get from "this kid listed a scholarship on his resume" to "because he needs the money and deferred law school several times to get that full scholarship."

Because someone whose parents can easily pay for law school will be more likely to take the prestige of Harvard over a full scholarship at Penn, compared to someone who would have to go $250k in debt for the prestige.

But this assumes the student with the full scholly at Penn also got into Harvard. Why would you assume this just based on a resume?

I agree with Nony that a fully scholarship is a signal of merit/academic ability, not class. I think there are a lot of assumptions you have to make to assume otherwise, based on what you put here.

Both assumptions I made are reasonable. Regarding 1), it is common sense that if you cannot afford to pay for school, you will gun for a big scholarship.

Regarding 2), go to mylsn.info. People with LSAT scores high enough to get full scholarships at Penn, Columbia, NYU, UChicago routinely get into Harvard. Rich students who can afford to pay sticker for Harvard are more likely to choose it over the full scholarship at the "lower" school.

I would bet that the proportion of poor law students with full scholarship is higher than the proportion of rich law students with full scholarship.

It's logical that not rich -> gun for big scholarship, but not that have big scholarship -> you gunned for it and were not rich. You are doing the latter, not the former, when you look at a resume and assume a person isn't well-off because they listed a scholarship. You are assuming a person gunned for a scholarship, and that because they gunned for it, they must not be rich.

Also let me also back up and point out that it's possible to be rich/come from a rich family and not have parents who can/will pay sticker for law school, even for Yale/Harvard. The idea that only poor people need scholarships ever assumes that all rich parents are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on law school for their kids, which is not true of all rich parents; many rich parents don't pay their kids' law school tuition (or tuition, period). It also almost implies that people who can't spend $200k on law school aren't actually rich, which is also kind of strange, too; a family of three earning $300k may not be able to outright pay sticker Harvard tuition if their kid decides to go there on a whim, but that doesn't mean they aren't rich. So there are plenty of people who are wealthy and still would need their kids to get scholarships, too.

So I don't disagree that there are poor students who gun for scholarships or that there are rich people who don't, etc., but I still think you have to make a lot of assumptions before you get from your A to B. Most of which rely on information you just won't have when you're looking at a resume.

No. The interviewer doesn't see full scholarship on a resume and assume the candidate is poor. The interviewer sees full scholarship on a resume and assumes that the candidate is talented (and wise enough not to be tricked into paying $250k for law school). Insofar as poor students are more likely to have full scholarships than rich students, this acts as a counterweight to alleged discrimination against poor students.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Still don't think poor students are disproportionately represented in full scholarships, because rich kids have the resources to get assistance in getting better grades in school/better LSAT scores. And as much as you don't believe this, people from rich families can also bust their butts to get full scholarships.

(I also don't think people put full scholarships on their resumes, unless they're named, which is only a small proportion of scholarships.)

[zot1]

Here's the thing about class, it is very different to fake unless you've done a good deal of research about it and have been part of it. But then again, this requires being deceitful.

I had a lunch with some firm folks once and all they wanted to talk about was castles they've visited in Europe. I have never been to Europe, so when I was asked, I simply said I hadn't been yet, but I was looking forward to visiting some of the places they had mentioned. Needless to say this was awkward for them (and for me) and they don't want to be surrounded by that. Well-off people don't want to feel guilty about their privilege, so they don't want to be near people who reminds them of that (of course this is an overgeneralization and it mostly applies to those who've always been well off).

[Nebby]

wtf is even the point of this thread and how did it get to 4 pages

[sublime]

Here's the thing about class, it is very different to fake unless you've done a good deal of research about it and have been part of it. But then again, this requires being deceitful.

I had a lunch with some firm folks once and all they wanted to talk about was castles they've visited in Europe. I have never been to Europe, so when I was asked, I simply said I hadn't been yet, but I was looking forward to visiting some of the places they had mentioned. Needless to say this was awkward for them (and for me) and they don't want to be surrounded by that. Well-off people don't want to feel guilty about their privilege, so they don't want to be near people who reminds them of that (of course this is an overgeneralization and it mostly applies to those who've always been well off).

Yea, I haven't been to Europe and get this same experience with colleagues. I never recall it really coming up in that way before law.

[Anonymous User]

Here's the thing about class, it is very different to fake unless you've done a good deal of research about it and have been part of it. But then again, this requires being deceitful.

I had a lunch with some firm folks once and all they wanted to talk about was castles they've visited in Europe. I have never been to Europe, so when I was asked, I simply said I hadn't been yet, but I was looking forward to visiting some of the places they had mentioned. Needless to say this was awkward for them (and for me) and they don't want to be surrounded by that. Well-off people don't want to feel guilty about their privilege, so they don't want to be near people who reminds them of that (of course this is an overgeneralization and it mostly applies to those who've always been well off).

Dude that sounds awkward. I think one way to diffuse an awkward situation like this is, rather than say you've never been to Europe, make up a lie about how you have tentative plans to visit X country in the future, and rattle on about a few things you hope to see (but like you said, this requires being deceitful). Then, they'll think you're in their same socioeconomic class as they are (even if you weren't before) and not feel uncomfortable around you.

[zot1]

Dude, fantastic use of anon.

I'm not gonna lie to protect someone's privilege. Also, it can be unethical in some situations.

I don't care that it was awkward. This wasn't the point. The point was that unless you lie in certain occasions, your class will come through and can lead to no call backs.

And yeah in interviews, you could lie to get a job. But you might have to lie on a day-to-day basis. That ain't the kind of life I want. But if that's your thing, go for it. I'm happy where I am.

[Nebby]

I revel in making rich people uncomfortable. I think it's in the Kansas water or something.

[PeanutsNJam]

Having traveled through Europe isn't a rich people only thing.

I backpacked through for 1 month during the summer before law school, and it cost about $3500 total (with plane ticket). Granted, I had friends to stay with, especially in London, but hostels are ~$30/night and food is cheap. RyanAir is super cheap. Then just take buses.

Idk about castles I didn't visit any, but that wasn't the point of my trip.

I don't see how "I didn't go to Europe" makes rich people uncomfortable, other than perhaps stalling the conversation?

[A. Nony Mouse]

I feel like saying that reflects a little bit of privilege in itself. It's not just about literal cost.

[PeanutsNJam]

I certainly wasn't poor, but as long as you're in the position to quit your job 1 month early before you start law school and have ~$3500 sitting around, you're good. Sure, poor people can't do that, but you don't have to be making 6 figs to do that either.

[zot1]

Sigh. Not everyone can go to Europe. You are privileged in that sense albeit not as privileged as other people. I'm not rich, but in comparison to people who can't afford to go out to eat whenever they feel like it, I am privileged. Up until now, I was never in a place in my life to blow $3k on a pleasure trip. I'm glad you and others can. It's not like it bothers me.

My current coworkers have all been to Europe. Some were previous military so they were sent there. Others have gone there for pleasure travel. When we talk about these trips, it isn't awkward. But that's because they come from a different perspective.

The experience I was referring to... those folks did not stay at hostels or with friends (lol).

So it's about the context, which I thought the castles part gave it away, but if it didn't, my apologies for not being clearer.

[zot1]

I certainly wasn't poor, but as long as you're in the position to quit your job 1 month early before you start law school and have ~$3500 sitting around, you're good. Sure, poor people can't do that , but you don't have to be making 6 figs to do that either.

Poor is one class. Middle class is another. Wealthy is another. If you can't do the bolded then class shows. So you do agree with what I'm talking about but not realizing it.

[jchiles]

I think being actually or willfully ignorant about this stuff can go a long way in making life easier and not getting too hung up on "class" distinctions.

[zot1]

It's a valid discussion for the purposes of the legal profession and interviewing to get a legal job, but if you want to ignore it to feel safer, no one is asking you not to.

[PeanutsNJam]

I certainly wasn't poor, but as long as you're in the position to quit your job 1 month early before you start law school and have ~$3500 sitting around, you're good. Sure, poor people can't do that , but you don't have to be making 6 figs to do that either.

Poor is one class. Middle class is another. Wealthy is another. If you can't do the bolded then class shows. So you do agree with what I'm talking about but not realizing it.

My point was if you came from a "middle class" household, or worked a "middle class" job before law school, you could do it. I was refuting the presumption in the above conversation that only rich people go on Europe trips.

Nobody presumes that just because you didn't go to Europe, you can't go to Europe.

[Phil Brooks]

Here's the thing about class, it is very different to fake unless you've done a good deal of research about it and have been part of it. But then again, this requires being deceitful.

I had a lunch with some firm folks once and all they wanted to talk about was castles they've visited in Europe. I have never been to Europe, so when I was asked, I simply said I hadn't been yet, but I was looking forward to visiting some of the places they had mentioned. Needless to say this was awkward for them (and for me) and they don't want to be surrounded by that. Well-off people don't want to feel guilty about their privilege, so they don't want to be near people who reminds them of that (of course this is an overgeneralization and it mostly applies to those who've always been well off).

You're completely right. There is so much tone deafness among people--especially partners--in biglaw about class and privilege, which is revealed in a lot of ways. One of these ways is the topics of conversation they choose, as shown by your example. Another way is politics. At my firm Trump-bashing is the coolest thing to do, yet I've never seen one particular partner talk as scornfully about Trump as he did once about protesters who were advocating a minimum wage increase near a hearing venue. Another way is the way some partners treat pro bono clients as a nuisance and generally interact with them in a condescending manner.

I'm sorry you had this awkward encounter, which was made awkward not by your response but by the blinkered topic of conversation the associates chose. But frankly, you probably wouldn't want to work for that firm anyway if it is full of people like that.

[zot1]

I certainly wasn't poor, but as long as you're in the position to quit your job 1 month early before you start law school and have ~$3500 sitting around, you're good. Sure, poor people can't do that , but you don't have to be making 6 figs to do that either.

Poor is one class. Middle class is another. Wealthy is another. If you can't do the bolded then class shows. So you do agree with what I'm talking about but not realizing it.

My point was if you came from a "middle class" household, or worked a "middle class" job before law school, you could do it. I was refuting the presumption in the above conversation that only rich people go on Europe trips.

Nobody presumes that just because you didn't go to Europe, you can't go to Europe.

But it wasn't just your average Europe trip or your backpacking Europe trip. You can fit in in some ways as middle class but not others.

It wasn't that the firm folk presumed I would never be able to go, but that they go almost every summer since they were babies...

But anyway, I don't really think I can make this clearer so I'll just let you think otherwise.

[zot1]

Here's the thing about class, it is very different to fake unless you've done a good deal of research about it and have been part of it. But then again, this requires being deceitful.

I had a lunch with some firm folks once and all they wanted to talk about was castles they've visited in Europe. I have never been to Europe, so when I was asked, I simply said I hadn't been yet, but I was looking forward to visiting some of the places they had mentioned. Needless to say this was awkward for them (and for me) and they don't want to be surrounded by that. Well-off people don't want to feel guilty about their privilege, so they don't want to be near people who reminds them of that (of course this is an overgeneralization and it mostly applies to those who've always been well off).

You're completely right. There is so much tone deafness among people--especially partners--in biglaw about class and privilege, which is revealed in a lot of ways. One of these ways is the topics of conversation they choose, as shown by your example. Another way is politics. At my firm Trump-bashing is the coolest thing to do, yet I've never seen one particular partner talk as scornfully about Trump as he did once about protesters who were advocating a minimum wage increase near a hearing venue. Another way is the way some partners treat pro bono clients as a nuisance and generally interact with them in a condescending manner.

I'm sorry you had this awkward encounter, which was made awkward not by your response but by the blinkered topic of conversation the associates chose. But frankly, you probably wouldn't want to work for that firm anyway if it is full of people like that.

Yeah, exactly. But I don't want to make this about my experience. It's just something that happens and can have an impact during interviews.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I certainly wasn't poor, but as long as you're in the position to quit your job 1 month early before you start law school and have ~$3500 sitting around, you're good. Sure, poor people can't do that, but you don't have to be making 6 figs to do that either.

Well, there's also a cultural element to class - is it a thing in your family to even think that going to Europe is something you could/should do? That's about social class disconnected from literal cost.

Also, I think the whole point of the original analogy was simply that there are some people who haven't had the opportunity to go to Europe. Whether the people who have gone are rich or simply middle class seems to be nitpicking. (Also Americans are notoriously bad at identifying class differences and tend to identify everything as "middle class" even when quite a bit of wealth is involved.)

[pancakes3]

I think there's *something* to be said about wealth and scholarship. We've all seen on these boards the kids that say "money is not a factor" when choosing schools. If the parents can swing it, they'll pay sticker even if it's not the smartest thing to do. Kids who don't have parents that can swing it are more debt-conscious and are more likely to cop that scholly than pay sticker.

However it's not enough of a correlation to say facially "ah. scholly. must be a poor." In the context of hiring, it's completely irrelevant.

also lol @ bunch of patherns sitting around talking about European castles. that's some Mark Twain shit right there.

[sublime]

To clarify, I wasn't really complaining about it, just thought it was interesting. I don't think I knew anybody from real money prior to law school, and now it feels like most people I interact with came from that type of background. Admittedly, this could just be perception.

ETA: also a ton of people with hyp to yhccn backgrounds. Hikko would love it.

[dixiecupdrinking]

I certainly wasn't poor, but as long as you're in the position to quit your job 1 month early before you start law school and have ~$3500 sitting around, you're good. Sure, poor people can't do that , but you don't have to be making 6 figs to do that either.

Poor is one class. Middle class is another. Wealthy is another. If you can't do the bolded then class shows. So you do agree with what I'm talking about but not realizing it.

Also, you know, the idea that, even if you have it, you can just blow $3500 on a vacation immediately before embarking on a $200k graduate program.