Top Law Schools

Does anyone know their starting salary?

I remember a couple of years ago I saw them on the NALP Directory (which I remembered because few, if any, corporations are listed on there). If I'm not mistaken it was either 110 or 120K, which is comparable to some other in-house O&G counsel gigs I'm familiar with.

If you got the job, congrats.
If you don't, consider this: http://abovethelaw.com/2010/05/the-tier ... shell-oil/

downinDtown wrote:I remember a couple of years ago I saw them on the NALP Directory (which I remembered because few, if any, corporations are listed on there). If I'm not mistaken it was either 110 or 120K, which is comparable to some other in-house O&G counsel gigs I'm familiar with.

If you got the job, congrats.
If you don't, consider this: http://abovethelaw.com/2010/05/the-tier ... shell-oil/

That posting is a bit absurd. They are hiring someone with 10 years of experience. It makes little sense to focus so heavily on school and class rank, rather than the work that the person actually did in those 10 years.

Absurd, yes. But in this prestige-whorish industry, grades and school rank are the rudimentary proxy for actually evaluating an individual candidate's capabilities.

If you were gonna get 1000 applications for a position, you'd probably want to cull the herd too. Grades/school cut offs is the easiest way to limit the field.

XxSpyKEx wrote:

downinDtown wrote:I remember a couple of years ago I saw them on the NALP Directory (which I remembered because few, if any, corporations are listed on there). If I'm not mistaken it was either 110 or 120K, which is comparable to some other in-house O&G counsel gigs I'm familiar with.

If you got the job, congrats.
If you don't, consider this: http://abovethelaw.com/2010/05/the-tier ... shell-oil/

That posting is a bit absurd. They are hiring someone with 10 years of experience. It makes little sense to focus so heavily on school and class rank, rather than the work that the person actually did in those 10 years.

I've said this a million times: complain to the ABA. They are accrediting even more law schools these days, even in the midst of the law school crisis. They do not care about how difficult is if for practicing attorneys. They only care about enriching their law prof friends.

downinDtown wrote:Absurd, yes. But in this prestige-whorish industry, grades and school rank are the rudimentary proxy for actually evaluating an individual candidate's capabilities.

If you were gonna get 1000 applications for a position, you'd probably want to cull the herd too. Grades/school cut offs is the easiest way to limit the field.

For entry level hiring, yes. But when you're looking for someone with 10 years of experience in something pretty specific, then no you're not going to get 1000 qualified applicants for it. And out of the applications you get, the number of people who meet the specific requirements are going to be quite small. It makes a lot more sense to "cull the herd" by focusing on particulars--like having worked at V size large law firm and having X, Y, and Z experience (which would demonstrate that you've worked on cases/transactions similar to the ones you'll be dealing with at Shell). Why do you think law firms and corporations pay so much to head hunters? It's because finding they want to find someone who meets a very specific need, and they don't want to cull through 1000 applications to try and find that. I'm not saying that a corporation can't/shouldn't be snobbish when hiring someone for an in-house position, but the way that Shell is doing it is just idiotic for a position that requires 10+ years of experience. It's like saying you'll only hire someone with X LSAT score, and completely overlooking how the person did in law school. I think its hiring system would make a lot more sense for entry level hiring.

XxSpyKEx wrote:

downinDtown wrote:Absurd, yes. But in this prestige-whorish industry, grades and school rank are the rudimentary proxy for actually evaluating an individual candidate's capabilities.

If you were gonna get 1000 applications for a position, you'd probably want to cull the herd too. Grades/school cut offs is the easiest way to limit the field.

For entry level hiring, yes. But when you're looking for someone with 10 years of experience in something pretty specific, then no you're not going to get 1000 qualified applicants for it. And out of the applications you get, the number of people who meet the specific requirements are going to be quite small. It makes a lot more sense to "cull the herd" by focusing on particulars--like having worked at V size large law firm and having X, Y, and Z experience (which would demonstrate that you've worked on cases/transactions similar to the ones you'll be dealing with at Shell). Why do you think law firms and corporations pay so much to head hunters? It's because finding they want to find someone who meets a very specific need, and they don't want to cull through 1000 applications to try and find that. I'm not saying that a corporation can't/shouldn't be snobbish when hiring someone for an in-house position, but the way that Shell is doing it is just idiotic for a position that requires 10+ years of experience. It's like saying you'll only hire someone with X LSAT score, and completely overlooking how the person did in law school. I think its hiring system would make a lot more sense for entry level hiring.

I agree. The reasons to rely on GPA/school rank diminish as one's career progresses. I know it's important for law firms because they want to boast to the clients about the caliber of the students. And no firm is dying to brag about the student that graduated top of the class at Cooley. So in terms of who firms/companies hire, it's just one part pride and another part laziness, I think.

But, on another note, I have heard some firms still do ask about LSAT scores, and then some tech companies still ask for candidates scores. I think that's kinda crazy too. I think out of principle I would not apply to a firm that cares about that.

And while a 1000 applicants may have been an overstatement, I have heard of 200-300+ applicants for certain in-house O&G positions.

There's a federal judge who hires on OSCAR and asks for LSAT scores. In some sense LSAT scores make more sense than law school GPAs, which can vary depending on the difficulty of classes taken. If you want to measure raw intelligence, the LSAT is a better predictor, IMO. Law school grades say more about how fast you can type, how well you know the law school "game," and how hard you work. Obviously, the last of these matters most to firms.

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:There's a federal judge who hires on OSCAR and asks for LSAT scores. In some sense LSAT scores make more sense than law school GPAs, which can vary depending on the difficulty of classes taken. If you want to measure raw intelligence, the LSAT is a better predictor, IMO. Law school grades say more about how fast you can type, how well you know the law school "game," and how hard you work. Obviously, the last of these matters most to firms.

But LSAT can be mastered through studying as well... Just read on TLS. There are people who bump their scores by 20+ points with lots of studying.

XxSpyKEx wrote:

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:There's a federal judge who hires on OSCAR and asks for LSAT scores. In some sense LSAT scores make more sense than law school GPAs, which can vary depending on the difficulty of classes taken. If you want to measure raw intelligence, the LSAT is a better predictor, IMO. Law school grades say more about how fast you can type, how well you know the law school "game," and how hard you work. Obviously, the last of these matters most to firms.

But LSAT can be mastered through studying as well... Just read on TLS. There are people who bump their scores by 20+ points with lots of studying.

So can law school, but at least the LSAT is standardized. Law school is just another kind of game, and really it's a game that lends itself to cheating (or things that are like cheating): talking to profs about what's going to be on the exam, talking to people who have taken classes before, figuring out how profs grade exams, learning the Getting to Maybe method, etc. I never took a law school class where I thought, "Gee, this material is really tough. I bet only the super smart kids can even understand it." The material is insanely easy. It just comes down to who's memorized their outline in enough detail to be able to spot the most issues/type the most.

I got asked my LSAT score today at an interview

.

Anonymous User wrote:I got asked my LSAT score today at an interview

Were they impressed?

I find it odd that an interviewer would ask in an interview versus you filling it out on an application. If it makes a difference to the firm, why not ask it as part of the application/screening process? I mean, was the interviewer running out of other questions to ask?

Regulus wrote:at the same time, you've got people who are working full-time jobs while trying to squeeze in time to study for the test in the evenings or on the weekends while taking care of families.

Families affect law school performance much more than LSAT scores. It's a lot easier to bear down and focus on LSAT prep for 2-3 months and get a great score than it is to sustain a consistent, focused effort in law school over three years.

And your "marathon" analogy is more apt for law school grades than LSAT scores. In fact, one of my professors remarked that his best students were often long-distance runners because they develop the ability to focus at a high level over MULTIPLE YEARS of coursework. A lot of people who can hyperfocus for a few weeks do very well on the LSAT but relatively poorly in law school because they're unorganized or get tired.