law firm bans ivy grads Forum

[Kinky John]

Over 80 percent of our externs either received full time employment with our firm or we assisted in placing with the judiciary or finding other employment with another law firm.

Uh... ouch.

Does that mean a bit less than 20% of their externs are still stuck in the building somewhere because they didn't show them where the door was aka assist them in finding employment elsewhere?

That is a very Kafka-esque mental image.

Between this and this -

Adam Leitman Bailey is just one guy's full name lololol

Lol -

it's clear that he/they are bad at being misleading

[Jchance]

This firm taking a stance against hiring ivy league graduates is like me taking a stance against dating supermodels

[smallfirmassociate]

Harvard MBA Client: Why the hell are you billing me $200 an hour for some first year who doesn't know shit?
Partner: The kid went to Harvard Law, we've got the best of the best working on your case.
Harvard MBA Client: That's nice, but can you answer my question?

Fixed it for ya.

[sanjola]

"Adam Leitman Bailey’s birth certificate indicates that he is barely middle aged. His physical stamina indicates that he is barely 25. His accomplishments and legal expertise indicate that he is a man 30 years his senior."

http://rew-online.com/2015/04/08/legal- ... -new-ones/

[rpupkin]

"Adam Leitman Bailey’s birth certificate indicates that he is barely middle aged. His physical stamina indicates that he is barely 25. His accomplishments and legal expertise indicate that he is a man 30 years his senior."

http://rew-online.com/2015/04/08/legal- ... -new-ones/

Excellent. Apparently, this guy likes John Quinn's approach but feels that Quinn is too modest.

[pancakes3]

Bro went to Syracuse

[Anonymous User]

This guy's arrogance makes me want to follow his cases and send him a shitty email every time he loses. This jack off didn't invent shit. He's just another guy with a west law account.

[Anonymous User]

Pretty sure this guy posted on Columbia symplicity a couple times already in the past year.

[Anonymous User]

“Do we have the best law firm in New York? Am I the go-to lawyer for litigation in New York?"

...No?

[jbagelboy]

"As the legal profession changes and evolves, one of the mort important elements of our success is our ability to hire the best candidates based purely on merit, not aristocracy"

flame

also this guy is a prof at nyu. stop shitting where you eat

[rpupkin]

"As the legal profession changes and evolves, one of the mort important elements of our success is our ability to hire the best candidates based purely on merit, not aristocracy"

flame

also this guy is a prof at nyu. stop shitting where you eat

This makes him uniquely qualified to pass judgment on the students at so-called elite schools. He's seen how shitty NYU students are; the rest of the T6 is impugned by association.

[landshoes]

"As the legal profession changes and evolves, one of the mort important elements of our success is our ability to hire the best candidates based purely on merit, not aristocracy"

flame

also this guy is a prof at nyu. stop shitting where you eat

seriously? that is embarrassing for NYU

[gnomgnomuch]

I think the thing that pissed me off the most was that asshole saying that only rich kids who glide through life get into elite schools. Sure, the uber wealthy are more representative at these schools, but that's just a slap in the face to the kid who was born with nothing and managed to crawl their way to Harvard or Yale.

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...and how does someone who is so eager to excel in the legal profession end up at a bad law school in the first place. Nothing against those people, but people who want to set themselves up for the most success either end up going to the elite schools, or at other schools for free or close to free.

This article was the for the most part complete BS.

[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.

[gnomgnomuch]

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.

Fair enough, but I still think it's wholly disingenuous to say this. We need to look into those at TTT's that ended up as partners...what was their LSAT score for one...I'd think that those who made partner but attended lower tier law schools had the grades to make it into top schools and then chose to attend for free, or had a circumstance that forced them to attend. I'd think that top 10% at a TTT would be attainable if you had an offer from a t-14...NOT LIKELY, but doable.

Granted, breaking through into big-law from a school that only places 5% of it's class into big-law is harder to do than attending a T-14, but, law school grading is up in the air, and luck plays a large factor in this. If that professor isn't in a great mood at the moment and gives you an B+ instead of an A-, you might drop out of that top 5%, not a land job and be labelled a failure.

Plus, to say that there isn't competition at top schools is bogus...even at Yale where basically everyone is guaranteed a great outcome, people who are looking for clerkships, or that job at the ACLU or something are all competing for it, and they're competing against the best of the best, which is the entire school, which is not the situation at a TTT.

[lavarman84]

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.

Can't say that's surprising. If you are able to fight your way into big law from a lower ranked school, you're probably a very motivated and hardworking individual. Not to insult T14 grads but firms dig far deeper into the class which means you're not just getting the strivers of all strivers.

Plus, this is pure anecdote here, but it seems like the lawyers from lower ranked schools tend to have a chip on their shoulder and want to stick it to the grads of the elite law schools.(especially Ivy grads)

[timmyd]

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.

[lavarman84]

Fair enough, but I still think it's wholly disingenuous to say this. We need to look into those at TTT's that ended up as partners...what was their LSAT score for one...I'd think that those who made partner but attended lower tier law schools had the grades to make it into top schools and then chose to attend for free, or had a circumstance that forced them to attend. I'd think that top 10% at a TTT would be attainable if you had an offer from a t-14...NOT LIKELY, but doable.

Granted, breaking through into big-law from a school that only places 5% of it's class into big-law is harder to do than attending a T-14, but, law school grading is up in the air, and luck plays a large factor in this. If that professor isn't in a great mood at the moment and gives you an B+ instead of an A-, you might drop out of that top 5%, not a land job and be labelled a failure.

Plus, to say that there isn't competition at top schools is bogus...even at Yale where basically everyone is guaranteed a great outcome, people who are looking for clerkships, or that job at the ACLU or something are all competing for it, and they're competing against the best of the best, which is the entire school, which is not the situation at a TTT.

I can't say for certain but I highly doubt that. I think you're convincing yourself of something that isn't very logical because it benefits your perspective.

I also am going to disagree with the best of the best. This assumes that undergrad GPA and LSAT scores tell you who the best of the best are in the law world. That isn't an assumption I'm willing to make.

All in all, I think you're a bit too stuck in the mindset that the LSAT actually measures how good of a lawyer a person can be. And I think that's absolutely false. It certainly makes your path to success easier. But it doesn't measure a person's ability to practice law.

[chuckbass]

Fair enough, but I still think it's wholly disingenuous to say this. We need to look into those at TTT's that ended up as partners...what was their LSAT score for one...I'd think that those who made partner but attended lower tier law schools had the grades to make it into top schools and then chose to attend for free, or had a circumstance that forced them to attend. I'd think that top 10% at a TTT would be attainable if you had an offer from a t-14...NOT LIKELY, but doable.

Granted, breaking through into big-law from a school that only places 5% of it's class into big-law is harder to do than attending a T-14, but, law school grading is up in the air, and luck plays a large factor in this. If that professor isn't in a great mood at the moment and gives you an B+ instead of an A-, you might drop out of that top 5%, not a land job and be labelled a failure.

Plus, to say that there isn't competition at top schools is bogus...even at Yale where basically everyone is guaranteed a great outcome, people who are looking for clerkships, or that job at the ACLU or something are all competing for it, and they're competing against the best of the best, which is the entire school, which is not the situation at a TTT.

I can't say for certain but I highly doubt that. I think you're convincing yourself of something that isn't very logical because it benefits your perspective.

I also am going to disagree with the best of the best. This assumes that undergrad GPA and LSAT scores tell you who the best of the best are in the law world. That isn't an assumption I'm willing to make.

All in all, I think you're a bit too stuck in the mindset that the LSAT actually measures how good of a lawyer a person can be. And I think that's absolutely false. It certainly makes your path to success easier. But it doesn't measure a person's ability to practice law.

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

[gnomgnomuch]

Fair enough, but I still think it's wholly disingenuous to say this. We need to look into those at TTT's that ended up as partners...what was their LSAT score for one...I'd think that those who made partner but attended lower tier law schools had the grades to make it into top schools and then chose to attend for free, or had a circumstance that forced them to attend. I'd think that top 10% at a TTT would be attainable if you had an offer from a t-14...NOT LIKELY, but doable.

Granted, breaking through into big-law from a school that only places 5% of it's class into big-law is harder to do than attending a T-14, but, law school grading is up in the air, and luck plays a large factor in this. If that professor isn't in a great mood at the moment and gives you an B+ instead of an A-, you might drop out of that top 5%, not a land job and be labelled a failure.

Plus, to say that there isn't competition at top schools is bogus...even at Yale where basically everyone is guaranteed a great outcome, people who are looking for clerkships, or that job at the ACLU or something are all competing for it, and they're competing against the best of the best, which is the entire school, which is not the situation at a TTT.

I can't say for certain but I highly doubt that. I think you're convincing yourself of something that isn't very logical because it benefits your perspective.

I also am going to disagree with the best of the best. This assumes that undergrad GPA and LSAT scores tell you who the best of the best are in the law world. That isn't an assumption I'm willing to make.

All in all, I think you're a bit too stuck in the mindset that the LSAT actually measures how good of a lawyer a person can be. And I think that's absolutely false. It certainly makes your path to success easier. But it doesn't measure a person's ability to practice 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.

[lavarman84]

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.

[jbagelboy]

this conversation is becoming very tedious

lets get back to shaming the author plz

[rpupkin]

this conversation is becoming very tedious

lets get back to shaming the author plz

(fishing for someone to mock author for teaching at ttt NYU instead of prestigious CLS)

[jbagelboy]

this conversation is becoming very tedious

lets get back to shaming the author plz

(fishing for someone to mock author for teaching at ttt NYU instead of prestigious CLS)

(either ironically missing the obvious point being made that he teaches at a top school like NYU and therefore shouldn't shit on them, or slyly suggesting the existence of a more subtle dig)

it's okay NYU, he's only an adjunct anyway

[registering]

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.