Top Law Schools

/

What was your rank, did you have w/e, etc?

I am curious as to whether OP had w/e and to what his/her rank was.

Do you live in a major city? Doing event promotion is an effective and easy way to make money while job searching. Flexible and you choose which events you want to do, so it's easy to not work when you need days off for interviews. Generally pays well, between $100-300 a day for 4-8 hours of light labor and travel mostly involving wearing a branded shirt and giving away free shit.

I used to do this with a company called EventPro who would just text me every day with available gigs. They're still around as far as I know, and there are plenty of similar companies.

Were you gunning for PI or a firm job?

For those already at a law school or even a t6.... What do you think you would have done differently?

Anonymous User wrote:For those already at a law school or even a t6.... What do you think you would have done differently?

T6 1L: Should have been more focused last year and not dated. Week before school started, I networked and got cards and calls from a partner at a T30 firm and two different federal judges. Then I fucked up and dated someone who couldn't be worse for me (nagged that I wasn't spending enough time with them). Finally had enough after 6 months, but my winter semester grades are shit.

Hey man, sorry you find yourself in this position now. Hope things work out for you. Might want to start positing in the thread below for advice/support:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=192753

Best of luck.

Pancakes12 wrote:What was your rank, did you have w/e, etc?

Aren't you a 0L, and corollary is there anything worse than 0Ls asking questions in legal employment that are very transparently only being asked to rationalize why they don't turn out like the OP

DELG wrote:

Pancakes12 wrote:What was your rank, did you have w/e, etc?

Aren't you a 0L, and corollary is there anything worse than 0Ls asking questions in legal employment that are very transparently only being asked to rationalize why they don't turn out like the OP

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to communicate. Do you mean I'm trying to rationalize that I won't end up like OP? I'm not even attending anywhere. I asked the question because I was curious and it is a question on others' minds including those who aren't 0Ls. I know many of you get a lot of satisfaction from pointlessly attacking others on the forum but give it a rest.

edit: also why don't you check out the forum rules. There's no issue with a reasonable question: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=170603

No, Pancakes, the rule clearly states that 0Ls cannot ask questions in the Legal Employment forum, but should instead ask in Ask A Law Student/Graduate. There is a possible exception for reasonable posting of information, but not for asking questions. So don't do that.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:No, Pancakes, the rule clearly states that 0Ls cannot ask questions in the Legal Employment forum, but should instead ask in Ask A Law Student/Graduate. There is a possible exception for reasonable posting of information, but not for asking questions. So don't do that.

To me it seems like "no questions" is referring to starting threads to ask questions. So 0Ls can make reasonable posts as long as they're not in the form of a question. Makes sense. I've edited my post to ensure that I'm not disruptive.

Pancakes12 wrote:What was your rank, did you have w/e, etc?

I am curious as to whether OP had w/e and to what his/her rank was.

You're cool.

eta sorry that was unhelpful to the thread. But it just drives me nuts when someone posts something that is shitty--unemployed from X, V5 and miserable, etc.--and instead of empathizing, taking it to heart, or even asking questions to try not to make the same mistakes (I can deal with the did you try to go PI or for a firm job question) they immediately asked questions that are designed to try and distinguish themselves ("Yeah, but have you ever worked a blue collar where you had to shovel shit while flipping burgers for a shitty boss?").

Pancakes12 wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:No, Pancakes, the rule clearly states that 0Ls cannot ask questions in the Legal Employment forum, but should instead ask in Ask A Law Student/Graduate. There is a possible exception for reasonable posting of information, but not for asking questions. So don't do that.

To me it seems like "no questions" is referring to starting threads to ask questions. So 0Ls can make reasonable posts as long as they're not in the form of a question. Makes sense. I've edited my post to ensure that I'm not disruptive.

Probably best you're not going to law school then if you interpreted "don't post questions" in such an constrained manner.

wert3813 wrote:

Pancakes12 wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:No, Pancakes, the rule clearly states that 0Ls cannot ask questions in the Legal Employment forum, but should instead ask in Ask A Law Student/Graduate. There is a possible exception for reasonable posting of information, but not for asking questions. So don't do that.

To me it seems like "no questions" is referring to starting threads to ask questions. So 0Ls can make reasonable posts as long as they're not in the form of a question. Makes sense. I've edited my post to ensure that I'm not disruptive.

Probably best you're not going to law school then if you interpreted "don't post questions" in such an constrained manner.

Hey I admitted I was wrong. I corrected my mistake.

Pancakes12 wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:No, Pancakes, the rule clearly states that 0Ls cannot ask questions in the Legal Employment forum, but should instead ask in Ask A Law Student/Graduate. There is a possible exception for reasonable posting of information, but not for asking questions. So don't do that.

To me it seems like "no questions" is referring to starting threads to ask questions. So 0Ls can make reasonable posts as long as they're not in the form of a question. Makes sense. I've edited my post to ensure that I'm not disruptive.

Dude, get off your high horse. 0Ls are not supposed to talk about legal employment here. Reverse Jeopardy-ing it into the form of a not-question doesn't remotely disguise what you were doing, which was adding nothing to the conversation and trying to find a reason to rationalize OP's lack of a job as caused by some personal failing and not the fact that the job market sucks.

It's extremely rare that an 0L will have something to post that legitimately belongs in this forum and if you choose to post here as an 0L you run the risk of being told to STFU.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

Pancakes12 wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:No, Pancakes, the rule clearly states that 0Ls cannot ask questions in the Legal Employment forum, but should instead ask in Ask A Law Student/Graduate. There is a possible exception for reasonable posting of information, but not for asking questions. So don't do that.

To me it seems like "no questions" is referring to starting threads to ask questions. So 0Ls can make reasonable posts as long as they're not in the form of a question. Makes sense. I've edited my post to ensure that I'm not disruptive.

Dude, get off your high horse. 0Ls are not supposed to talk about legal employment here. Reverse Jeopardy-ing it into the form of a not-question doesn't remotely disguise what you were doing, which was adding nothing to the conversation and trying to find a reason to rationalize OP's lack of a job as caused by some personal failing and not the fact that the job market sucks.

It's extremely rare that an 0L will have something to post that legitimately belongs in this forum and if you choose to post here as an 0L you run the risk of being told to STFU.

Can I post to agree with you?

.

Can we just have automatic 24h bans for 0Ls who post in Legal Employment

..

Sorry dude/dudette. I'm in the same boat. Well, I didn't go to a T6. I was supposedly going to have FedGov, but had to wait for budget to get passed and hiring freeze lifted. The shutdown in October delayed that timeframe. Then when budget passed and hiring freeze lifted in February, the office I was supposed to work at decides they want a new director because old one is retiring, and aren't going to hire newbies until new director found. I feel like I'm the donkey chasing the carrot dangled in front of me by whoever's riding on my back. Starting to lose hope that anything will ever happen at all. I've been volunteering at a different place since graduation, and I'm trying to at least come up with a Plan B. Because Plan B right now is move back in with my parents. I can't even get any interviews. There are no jobs in my state for entry-level people...none. Been applying to different states, but they all want people who've passed the local bar, and they all have about 1,000 applicants for 1 position.

At least I got to sign up for Medicaid. It's better than the sorry excuse for a health insurance plan my law school offered.

There's just no funding in PI law right now. And government budgets are still a mess.

Really, if you don't land any non-preselect interviews at OCI, you need to just drop out immediately, before they stick their snout into the bottomless trough of student loan money and nail the non-dischargeable bill to your forehead for a third semester. Law students need to get over the sunk cost fallacy and just flee law school as fast as possible if they haven't been pre-selected at OCI. Because you can actually pay off 1 year of law school tuition with a decent non-law job. And you can actually convince other employers that you're not going to bolt for a law job. But once you have that JD ball and chain around your neck...well, good luck with that.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Reverse Jeopardy-ing

JCougar wrote:Sorry dude/dudette. I'm in the same boat. Well, I didn't go to a T6. I was supposedly going to have FedGov, but had to wait for budget to get passed and hiring freeze lifted. The shutdown in October delayed that timeframe. Then when budget passed and hiring freeze lifted in February, the office I was supposed to work at decides they want a new director because old one is retiring, and aren't going to hire newbies until new director found. I feel like I'm the donkey chasing the carrot dangled in front of me by whoever's riding on my back. Starting to lose hope that anything will ever happen at all. I've been volunteering at a different place since graduation, and I'm trying to at least come up with a Plan B. Because Plan B right now is move back in with my parents. I can't even get any interviews. There are no jobs in my state for entry-level people...none. Been applying to different states, but they all want people who've passed the local bar, and they all have about 1,000 applicants for 1 position.

At least I got to sign up for Medicaid. It's better than the sorry excuse for a health insurance plan my law school offered.

There's just no funding in PI law right now. And government budgets are still a mess.

Really, if you don't land any non-preselect interviews at OCI, you need to just drop out immediately, before they stick their snout into the bottomless trough of student loan money and nail the non-dischargeable bill to your forehead for a third semester. Law students need to get over the sunk cost fallacy and just flee law school as fast as possible if they haven't been pre-selected at OCI. Because you can actually pay off 1 year of law school tuition with a decent non-law job. And you can actually convince other employers that you're not going to bolt for a law job. But once you have that JD ball and chain around your neck...well, good luck with that.

This is a little overly cynical. Preselects are mostly just grades. Offers are not only just grades.

It's conceivable to have all lottery interviews, and get multiple offers. I've seen it happen a lot. A place with a median cutoff for a t-6 might still preselect the higher ranked students, but don't care as much about grades once they meet the applicants. There are people who come off really well in short stretches. The issue is most people think they come off this way, and they do not. Most social judgments are kept to oneself so people never get feedback in graded form.

It's also conceivable to sick grades, and strike out. If one has a trait that makes them not fit into this club either because of some perceived physical or personality shortcoming or trait that doesn't fit the prototype, you can be screwed. Diversity is craved in certain respects, but not in other respects. If someone is too weird looking, anxious, or has a disability then they will have a tough time seeming like they'll fit in even if they would ultimately fit in. One trend that should happen is the laws should change to allow schools to reject individuals solely because they have a superficially trait that makes it unlikely they'll get a job.

Anonymous User wrote:

JCougar wrote:Sorry dude/dudette. I'm in the same boat. Well, I didn't go to a T6. I was supposedly going to have FedGov, but had to wait for budget to get passed and hiring freeze lifted. The shutdown in October delayed that timeframe. Then when budget passed and hiring freeze lifted in February, the office I was supposed to work at decides they want a new director because old one is retiring, and aren't going to hire newbies until new director found. I feel like I'm the donkey chasing the carrot dangled in front of me by whoever's riding on my back. Starting to lose hope that anything will ever happen at all. I've been volunteering at a different place since graduation, and I'm trying to at least come up with a Plan B. Because Plan B right now is move back in with my parents. I can't even get any interviews. There are no jobs in my state for entry-level people...none. Been applying to different states, but they all want people who've passed the local bar, and they all have about 1,000 applicants for 1 position.

At least I got to sign up for Medicaid. It's better than the sorry excuse for a health insurance plan my law school offered.

There's just no funding in PI law right now. And government budgets are still a mess.

Really, if you don't land any non-preselect interviews at OCI, you need to just drop out immediately, before they stick their snout into the bottomless trough of student loan money and nail the non-dischargeable bill to your forehead for a third semester. Law students need to get over the sunk cost fallacy and just flee law school as fast as possible if they haven't been pre-selected at OCI. Because you can actually pay off 1 year of law school tuition with a decent non-law job. And you can actually convince other employers that you're not going to bolt for a law job. But once you have that JD ball and chain around your neck...well, good luck with that.

This is a little overly cynical. Preselects are mostly just grades. Offers are not only just grades.

It's conceivable to have all lottery interviews, and get multiple offers. I've seen it happen a lot. A place with a median cutoff for a t-6 might still preselect the higher ranked students, but don't care as much about grades once they meet the applicants. There are people who come off really well in short stretches. The issue is most people think they come off this way, and they do not. Most social judgments are kept to oneself so people never get feedback in graded form.

It's also conceivable to sick grades, and strike out. If one has a trait that makes them not fit into this club either because of some perceived physical or personality shortcoming or trait that doesn't fit the prototype, you can be screwed. Diversity is craved in certain respects, but not in other respects. If someone is too weird looking, anxious, or has a disability then they will have a tough time seeming like they'll fit in even if they would ultimately fit in. One trend that should happen is the laws should change to allow schools to reject individuals solely because they have a superficially trait that makes it unlikely they'll get a job.

That seems to me like an attempt of two wrongs making a right. I think the push should be towards firm not "discriminating" on such basis, rather than the student being limited all opportunity because of that trait. Also, most schools do not get to see you in person.

Pokemon wrote: That seems to me like an attempt of two wrongs making a right. I think the push should be towards firm not "discriminating" on such basis, rather than the student being limited all opportunity because of that trait.

Maybe the schools should be pushing firms not to discriminate, but they won't. We already know that there are both NALP policies and laws prohibiting interviewers from asking certain questions, but if you report it to your school's CSO it's almost certain they won't do anything about it. Some of them will if you explicitly and specifically ask that they report this violation, but for the most part they do whatever they can to keep the law firms happy.

dead head wrote:

Pokemon wrote: That seems to me like an attempt of two wrongs making a right. I think the push should be towards firm not "discriminating" on such basis, rather than the student being limited all opportunity because of that trait.

Maybe the schools should be pushing firms not to discriminate, but they won't. We already know that there are both NALP policies and laws prohibiting interviewers from asking certain questions, but if you report it to your school's CSO it's almost certain they won't do anything about it. Some of them will if you explicitly and specifically ask that they report this violation, but for the most part they do whatever they can to keep the law firms happy.

I mean can you imagine schools rejecting candidates cause they seem too nerdy or aspie, or weird, or foreign. Can you imagine them rejecting people for being poor? Socioeconomic background does also play a role in connecting with interviewers: someone who has two rich lawyer parents, can probably better talk to lawyers than someone who sees for the first time a high-paid professional worker. Also, schools do not know how their applicants behave in person, they only get applications. Plenty of people are also super-nice in person, but cannot interview well.

Finally, I think this all adds to the wrong idea that there must be something wrong with you not to get a job. Plenty of people do not get it because of plain dumb luck.