Top Law Schools

Firm and city or don't post.

One of the trademark characteristics of an antisocial personality is taking disproportionate pleasure in the humiliation and failures of others.

Pretty sure DF wants the firms to be shamed rather than the posters.

I think he wanted to properly out the firms

PepperJack wrote:One of the trademark characteristics of an antisocial personality is taking disproportionate pleasure in the humiliation and failures of others.

Trying to get the firms. I assume people would do it anon.

Ok ok stand corrected.

That's all fine and good if it happens en masse a la winston but if you are one of the only 1 or 2 dudes in a class of like 8-10 from a southern firm (not unusual) then youre giving it away

baal hadad wrote:That's all fine and good if it happens en masse a la winston but if you are one of the only 1 or 2 dudes in a class of like 8-10 from a southern firm (not unusual) then youre giving it away

Giving what away? Do it anon what are they going to learn. that you know about TLS.

baal hadad wrote:That's all fine and good if it happens en masse a la winston but if you are one of the only 1 or 2 dudes in a class of like 8-10 from a southern firm (not unusual) then youre giving it away

what are they gonna do about it... no-offer them again?

.

Desert Fox wrote:

baal hadad wrote:That's all fine and good if it happens en masse a la winston but if you are one of the only 1 or 2 dudes in a class of like 8-10 from a southern firm (not unusual) then youre giving it away

Giving what away? Do it anon what are they going to learn. that you know about TLS.

Just paranoind here bro

(not a Kasowitz recruiter)

The goal of outting/shaming firms betrays the assumption that no summer associate, ever, deserves to get no-offered. My firm is going to give an offer to someone this year that absolutely should not be hired, merely to protect the 100% offer rate. That's the shameful move, in my opinion.

ResIpsa21 wrote:The goal of outting/shaming firms betrays the assumption that no summer associate, ever, deserves to get no-offered. My firm is going to give an offer to someone this year that absolutely should not be hired, merely to protect the 100% offer rate. That's the shameful move, in my opinion.

wouldn't the assumption be they don't last long after starting?

mephistopheles wrote:

ResIpsa21 wrote:The goal of outting/shaming firms betrays the assumption that no summer associate, ever, deserves to get no-offered. My firm is going to give an offer to someone this year that absolutely should not be hired, merely to protect the 100% offer rate. That's the shameful move, in my opinion.

wouldn't the assumption be they don't last long after starting?

Presumably. But only after unnecessarily wasting a couple months/years of the firm's time.

randomstudent wrote:

mephistopheles wrote:

ResIpsa21 wrote:The goal of outting/shaming firms betrays the assumption that no summer associate, ever, deserves to get no-offered. My firm is going to give an offer to someone this year that absolutely should not be hired, merely to protect the 100% offer rate. That's the shameful move, in my opinion.

wouldn't the assumption be they don't last long after starting?

Presumably. But only after unnecessarily wasting a couple months/years of the firm's time.

but arguably the maintenance of a good reputation for desirable law students to consider would neutralize if not exceed that cost

mephistopheles wrote:

randomstudent wrote:

mephistopheles wrote:

ResIpsa21 wrote:The goal of outting/shaming firms betrays the assumption that no summer associate, ever, deserves to get no-offered. My firm is going to give an offer to someone this year that absolutely should not be hired, merely to protect the 100% offer rate. That's the shameful move, in my opinion.

wouldn't the assumption be they don't last long after starting?

Presumably. But only after unnecessarily wasting a couple months/years of the firm's time.

but arguably the maintenance of a good reputation for desirable law students to consider would neutralize if not exceed that cost

I think that's the poster's point. The firm shouldn't even have to worry about taking a reputation dip for no-offering someone that deserves it but they do.

ResIpsa21 wrote:The goal of outting/shaming firms betrays the assumption that no summer associate, ever, deserves to get no-offered. My firm is going to give an offer to someone this year that absolutely should not be hired, merely to protect the 100% offer rate. That's the shameful move, in my opinion.

Is it a cold offer? if no, why not?

I feel like you'd be doing the summer a mercy by letting her know that the firm doesn't think she should be fired.

sideroxylon wrote:Is it a cold offer? if no, why not?

Not a cold offer. The summer is a good person but botched several assignments/deadlines and left projects unfinished at the end of the program. Associates and junior partners complained about this to management, and they essentially said "we have a 100% offer rate regardless of performance."

lawhopeful10 wrote:

mephistopheles wrote:

randomstudent wrote:

mephistopheles wrote:wouldn't the assumption be they don't last long after starting?

Presumably. But only after unnecessarily wasting a couple months/years of the firm's time.

but arguably the maintenance of a good reputation for desirable law students to consider would neutralize if not exceed that cost

I think that's the poster's point. The firm shouldn't even have to worry about taking a reputation dip for no-offering someone that deserves it but they do.

Exactly this. Because the firm is more concerned about having a rep for 100% offer rate than having a rep for good quality associates, we get to dance around this person's incompetence for a year or two until s/he quits or is asked to leave. I am not worried about the firm's bottom line. I am annoyed that I'll have to delegate work to this person knowing that s/he is not capable of doing it right or on time.

Since everyone else is too goddamn derpy to follow simple instructions:

Winston, Chicago, 2012

lawhopeful10 wrote:

mephistopheles wrote:
but arguably the maintenance of a good reputation for desirable law students to consider would neutralize if not exceed that cost

I think that's the poster's point. The firm shouldn't even have to worry about taking a reputation dip for no-offering someone that deserves it but they do.

+1. Firms presumably already make the calculation that the liability of the potentially-no-offer-summer is greater than the cost of reputation of not having 100%. If a firm no-offered a whole bunch, then yeah, that's a reasonable cause for concern. But if it's just one student that's been no-offered, well, I've read enough to know that very rarely is someone no-offered for an isolated failure, unless the conduct was particularly egregious/shows terrible judgment. If you have a summer class of over 50, odds are pretty good that you have "that one guy." A bit more perplexing is wondering what exactly the Clearys and Debevoises are letting slide in order to maintain that 100% rate in a giant class.

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:

lawhopeful10 wrote:

mephistopheles wrote:
but arguably the maintenance of a good reputation for desirable law students to consider would neutralize if not exceed that cost

I think that's the poster's point. The firm shouldn't even have to worry about taking a reputation dip for no-offering someone that deserves it but they do.

+1. Firms presumably already make the calculation that the liability of the potentially-no-offer-summer is greater than the cost of reputation of not having 100%. If a firm no-offered a whole bunch, then yeah, that's a reasonable cause for concern. But if it's just one student that's been no-offered, well, I've read enough to know that very rarely is someone no-offered for an isolated failure, unless the conduct was particularly egregious/shows terrible judgment. If you have a summer class of over 50, odds are pretty good that you have "that one guy." A bit more perplexing is wondering what exactly the Clearys and Debevoises are letting slide in order to maintain that 100% rate in a giant class.

You think Cleary uses cold offers?

i wish there was some sort of stat on cold offers

mephistopheles wrote:i wish there was some sort of stat on cold offers

It would be interesting to see. I wonder if one could glean where it happens based on firms that people seem to summer with and then accept post-employment offers elsewhere.

sideroxylon wrote:

mephistopheles wrote:i wish there was some sort of stat on cold offers

It would be interesting to see. I wonder if one could glean where it happens based on firms that people seem to summer with and then accept post-employment offers elsewhere.

schools don't release post-grad employment, do they?