NY GOES TO 180k! IT HAPPENED!!!! (CovingTTTon does a 180! Holder wept.) Forum

[smaug]

I don't know who the trolls in this thread are anymore.

Everyone and no one.

[Mamba1991]

I mostly agree, but bar passage rates did drop in proportion to lsat scores on a 3 year delay...

so what? are big law firms hiring from cooley? no. passage rate are still plenty high at schools from which big law firms hire, so there's no shortage of candidates.

and also passage doesnt correlate with intelligence either, obviously.

come on. some more critical thinking here guys.

In my view, neither bar passage rates nor the supply of Biglaw candidates is relevant here. There will always be enough intelligent folks graduating from top schools to fill the NYC Associate classes. The issue is whether that top slice of talent really wants to practice in NYC anymore. COL has absolutely skyrocketed in the last 10 years- 160k doesn't go nearly as far as it does in ANY other major US market. The allure of New York as a young professional may not be dwindling yet, but when secondary-markets like Philadelphia are paying associates the same as their peers in NY, there is serious concern for long-term shifts of top talent away from new york city. Many of my peers chose markets like DC and Boston over NY because of COL. When salaries stay the same despite record PPP and firm revenues and benefits are cut and billable are increased, conditions are ripe for a shift away from NY.

[Cobretti]

you can't really call the lsat a measure of intelligence when people regularly improve their scores drastically on this site just by studying old tests

I think there is a strong enough correlation that when the average drops it says something. Unless you are saying people have started preparing for the LSAT less in recent years I don't see how prep isn't constant and therefore irrelevant in causing the drop.

[Johann]

unfortunately NYC has no shortage of talent either and the other cities are very very competitive meaning some peopel who want boston strike out and land NYC.

[Johann]

you can't really call the lsat a measure of intelligence when people regularly improve their scores drastically on this site just by studying old tests

I think there is a strong enough correlation that when the average drops it says something. Unless you are saying people have started preparing for the LSAT less in recent years I don't see how prep isn't constant and therefore irrelevant in causing the drop.

computers and machines do what 90% of biglaw juniors need to do. its not the same type of thinking at all. there are a lot of people in this thread just having a really hard time coming to grips with the fact that the legal industry does not require top talent anymore. it needs people who will be on call at all hours of the day and work hard - nothing more, nothing less. $160k is plenty of money to get that kind of talent in the door.

the jobs that do require talent are in the planning, coding, and creation of technology that lawyers use as crutches.

[jkpolk]

you can't really call the lsat a measure of intelligence when people regularly improve their scores drastically on this site just by studying old tests

I think there is a strong enough correlation that when the average drops it says something. Unless you are saying people have started preparing for the LSAT less in recent years I don't see how prep isn't constant and therefore irrelevant in causing the drop.

computers and machines do what 90% of biglaw juniors need to do. its not the same type of thinking at all. there are a lot of people in this thread just having a really hard time coming to grips with the fact that the legal industry does not require top talent anymore. it needs people who will be on call at all hours of the day and work hard - nothing more, nothing less. $160k is plenty of money to get that kind of talent in the door.

the jobs that do require talent are in the planning, coding, and creation of technology that lawyers use as crutches.

Legal "talent" may be a myth but there is still a limited pool of people with strong credentials. Those credentials are what clients pay for, because it helps clients justify their decisions and keep their jobs. 160k is not a lot of money for people with the right credentials.

[Johann]

you can't really call the lsat a measure of intelligence when people regularly improve their scores drastically on this site just by studying old tests

I think there is a strong enough correlation that when the average drops it says something. Unless you are saying people have started preparing for the LSAT less in recent years I don't see how prep isn't constant and therefore irrelevant in causing the drop.

computers and machines do what 90% of biglaw juniors need to do. its not the same type of thinking at all. there are a lot of people in this thread just having a really hard time coming to grips with the fact that the legal industry does not require top talent anymore. it needs people who will be on call at all hours of the day and work hard - nothing more, nothing less. $160k is plenty of money to get that kind of talent in the door.

the jobs that do require talent are in the planning, coding, and creation of technology that lawyers use as crutches.

Legal "talent" may be a myth but there is still a limited pool of people with strong credentials. Those credentials are what clients pay for, because it helps clients justify their decisions and keep their jobs. 160k is not a lot of money for people with the right credentials.

no dude there is still plenty of people with good law degrees. what credentials are you talking about?

[ruski]

NYC biglaw is not just competing with other locations. at the midlevel level, where NYC biglaw is especially hurting, there is a lot of competition with midlaw firms and in house positions. Over the past 10 years, there have been an increase in inhouse positions and, more importnantly, midlaw salaries have been creeping up. I've seen a lot of people at my biglaw firm leave for smaller firms, maybe taking a ~30k paycut, whereas 10 years ago it would have been an (unthinkable) ~70k pay cut. bottom line, it economically just doesn't make sense to either do NYC biglaw, or stay in NYC biglaw very long.

[jkpolk]

you can't really call the lsat a measure of intelligence when people regularly improve their scores drastically on this site just by studying old tests

I think there is a strong enough correlation that when the average drops it says something. Unless you are saying people have started preparing for the LSAT less in recent years I don't see how prep isn't constant and therefore irrelevant in causing the drop.

computers and machines do what 90% of biglaw juniors need to do. its not the same type of thinking at all. there are a lot of people in this thread just having a really hard time coming to grips with the fact that the legal industry does not require top talent anymore. it needs people who will be on call at all hours of the day and work hard - nothing more, nothing less. $160k is plenty of money to get that kind of talent in the door.

the jobs that do require talent are in the planning, coding, and creation of technology that lawyers use as crutches.

Legal "talent" may be a myth but there is still a limited pool of people with strong credentials. Those credentials are what clients pay for, because it helps clients justify their decisions and keep their jobs. 160k is not a lot of money for people with the right credentials.

no dude there is still plenty of people with good law degrees. what credentials are you talking about?

cravath isn't full of random kids who went to penn but have nothing else going for them.

[rpupkin]

Legal "talent" may be a myth but there is still a limited pool of people with strong credentials. Those credentials are what clients pay for, because it helps clients justify their decisions and keep their jobs. 160k is not a lot of money for people with the right credentials.

no dude there is still plenty of people with good law degrees. what credentials are you talking about?

Law review and moot court are each worth about $30K/yr, at least.

[UnicornHunter]

you can't really call the lsat a measure of intelligence when people regularly improve their scores drastically on this site just by studying old tests

I think there is a strong enough correlation that when the average drops it says something. Unless you are saying people have started preparing for the LSAT less in recent years I don't see how prep isn't constant and therefore irrelevant in causing the drop.

computers and machines do what 90% of biglaw juniors need to do. its not the same type of thinking at all. there are a lot of people in this thread just having a really hard time coming to grips with the fact that the legal industry does not require top talent anymore. it needs people who will be on call at all hours of the day and work hard - nothing more, nothing less. $160k is plenty of money to get that kind of talent in the door.

the jobs that do require talent are in the planning, coding, and creation of technology that lawyers use as crutches.

Legal "talent" may be a myth but there is still a limited pool of people with strong credentials. Those credentials are what clients pay for, because it helps clients justify their decisions and keep their jobs. 160k is not a lot of money for people with the right credentials.

no dude there is still plenty of people with good law degrees. what credentials are you talking about?

cravath isn't full of random kids who went to penn but have nothing else going for them.

It basically is though.

[rpupkin]

you can't really call the lsat a measure of intelligence when people regularly improve their scores drastically on this site just by studying old tests

I think there is a strong enough correlation that when the average drops it says something. Unless you are saying people have started preparing for the LSAT less in recent years I don't see how prep isn't constant and therefore irrelevant in causing the drop.

computers and machines do what 90% of biglaw juniors need to do. its not the same type of thinking at all. there are a lot of people in this thread just having a really hard time coming to grips with the fact that the legal industry does not require top talent anymore. it needs people who will be on call at all hours of the day and work hard - nothing more, nothing less. $160k is plenty of money to get that kind of talent in the door.

the jobs that do require talent are in the planning, coding, and creation of technology that lawyers use as crutches.

Legal "talent" may be a myth but there is still a limited pool of people with strong credentials. Those credentials are what clients pay for, because it helps clients justify their decisions and keep their jobs. 160k is not a lot of money for people with the right credentials.

no dude there is still plenty of people with good law degrees. what credentials are you talking about?

cravath isn't full of random kids who went to penn but have nothing else going for them.

Actually, Cravath is full of random T10 kids who have little else going for them. That's the whole point--I mean, those kids went to law school, after all.

[fats provolone]

cravath isn't full of random kids who went to penn but have nothing else going for them.

wow i was going to disprove this but you don't even get a web page bio at cravath until you're a "senior attorney" lol

how about this guy

Mr. Canning was born in Hartford, Connecticut. He received a B.A. cum laude from Harvard College in 1988, an Ed.M. from Harvard Graduate School of Education in 1992 and a J.D. cum laude from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1998. Prior to law school, Mr. Canning taught social studies as a New York City high school teacher.

harvard lib arts degree, high school teacher, penn law. not exactly curing cancer.

[jbagelboy]

Legal "talent" may be a myth but there is still a limited pool of people with strong credentials. Those credentials are what clients pay for, because it helps clients justify their decisions and keep their jobs. 160k is not a lot of money for people with the right credentials.

no dude there is still plenty of people with good law degrees. what credentials are you talking about?

Law review and moot court are each worth about $30K/yr, at least.

No way. Lol.

[jbagelboy]

Legal "talent" may be a myth but there is still a limited pool of people with strong credentials. Those credentials are what clients pay for, because it helps clients justify their decisions and keep their jobs. 160k is not a lot of money for people with the right credentials.

no dude there is still plenty of people with good law degrees. what credentials are you talking about?

cravath isn't full of random kids who went to penn but have nothing else going for them.

It basically is though.

[FSK]

That dude can take tests well, so we should revere the ground he shits on. Got it.

[Johann]

Legal "talent" may be a myth but there is still a limited pool of people with strong credentials. Those credentials are what clients pay for, because it helps clients justify their decisions and keep their jobs. 160k is not a lot of money for people with the right credentials.

no dude there is still plenty of people with good law degrees. what credentials are you talking about?

Law review and moot court are each worth about $30K/yr, at least.

No way. Lol.

tyeah rpupkin was joshing him.

but anyways jpolk, you also realize the current partners do not care if the current crop of talent can secure clients in 15-20 years right? they only care about their partnership window and so they care about their ability to bring in clients (which requires only their talent and accolades, of which they are plenty confident) and a floor of junior associates to do the grunt work (which they only care work endless hours - not about this talent you speak of).

[Johann]

Legal "talent" may be a myth but there is still a limited pool of people with strong credentials. Those credentials are what clients pay for, because it helps clients justify their decisions and keep their jobs. 160k is not a lot of money for people with the right credentials.

no dude there is still plenty of people with good law degrees. what credentials are you talking about?

cravath isn't full of random kids who went to penn but have nothing else going for them.

It basically is though.

these payoffs are the main reason i love visiting the ontopics. jpolk thinking hes the talent law firm needs. gets lawyered in 2 lines based on the argument he created.

[jkpolk]

Legal "talent" may be a myth but there is still a limited pool of people with strong credentials. Those credentials are what clients pay for, because it helps clients justify their decisions and keep their jobs. 160k is not a lot of money for people with the right credentials.

no dude there is still plenty of people with good law degrees. what credentials are you talking about?

cravath isn't full of random kids who went to penn but have nothing else going for them.

It basically is though.

these payoffs are the main reason i love visiting the ontopics. jpolk thinking hes the talent law firm needs. gets lawyered in 2 lines based on the argument he created.

Naw homie, you're thinking too narrowly about credentials. But Harvard/harvard is not some random penn kid

[UnicornHunter]

The problem is that all the gold stars and shit are distributed at a fixed rate. Columbia could have its dumbest class of law students ever and there'd still be the exact same number of law review students, top 10%ers, etc... This number isn't changed at all by the total number of students matriculating at law schools across the country, so you'd need to see a huge surge in demand for associates to really get any pressure to try to attract the well credentialed. minor markets raising their salaries isn't enough, because they're not trying to hire nearly enough students to impact NY. Perkins to 145 makes seattle more attractive for sure, but since it only hires 20 SAs and most of them would be going to Seattle anyway, it makes almost no difference for NYC firms. Maybe they get one law review member from Penn instead of Yale.

[Mamba1991]

Legal "talent" may be a myth but there is still a limited pool of people with strong credentials. Those credentials are what clients pay for, because it helps clients justify their decisions and keep their jobs. 160k is not a lot of money for people with the right credentials.

no dude there is still plenty of people with good law degrees. what credentials are you talking about?

cravath isn't full of random kids who went to penn but have nothing else going for them.

It basically is though.

these payoffs are the main reason i love visiting the ontopics. jpolk thinking hes the talent law firm needs. gets lawyered in 2 lines based on the argument he created.

Naw homie, you're thinking too narrowly about credentials. But Harvard/harvard is not some random penn kid

When the tech bubble bursts and the circle jerk around coders and entrepreneurs is over, BigLaw will still be chugging away, with its participants paid upwards of $1,000/hour for their non-existent talents. I'll take it.

[dixiecupdrinking]

Big law is egregiously scheming together to fix salaries and drive down competition, there is zero evidence that individual firms are the relevant decision makers here. Of course the industry is strongly motivated to keep their talent pool competitive, their long term health depends on it.

Also, I don't see where people are getting that the talent pool is the same at the top and therefore the top firms aren't being effected. The biggest drop in LSATs over the last few years has been elite scorers. I know we all want to think we aren't dumber than the class years ahead of us, but there is strong evidence that we are, on average.

Are you serious with this? You think that salaries are being intentionally fixed by a cabal of biglaw firms? And that they will coordinate their pay raises to encourage more talented people to become lawyers? This is some illuminati shit.

There is an obvious difference between conspiring to fix salaries and everyone independently realizing there is no incentive to raise them.

[BigZuck]

Thread sucks
Eta:

[Johann]

Legal "talent" may be a myth but there is still a limited pool of people with strong credentials. Those credentials are what clients pay for, because it helps clients justify their decisions and keep their jobs. 160k is not a lot of money for people with the right credentials.

no dude there is still plenty of people with good law degrees. what credentials are you talking about?

cravath isn't full of random kids who went to penn but have nothing else going for them.

It basically is though.

these payoffs are the main reason i love visiting the ontopics. jpolk thinking hes the talent law firm needs. gets lawyered in 2 lines based on the argument he created.

Naw homie, you're thinking too narrowly about credentials. But Harvard/harvard is not some random penn kid

but you did read hes not a junior associate anymore and juniors dont even have bios? its like a pyramid. you need 10X at the base of random junior and 1x at the middle of senior and .1x at partner bringing in deals (which is already a given). there is no talent shortage if we are just considering random ivy degrees talent. we are the age of education excess.

[rpupkin]

Big law is egregiously scheming together to fix salaries and drive down competition, there is zero evidence that individual firms are the relevant decision makers here. Of course the industry is strongly motivated to keep their talent pool competitive, their long term health depends on it.

Also, I don't see where people are getting that the talent pool is the same at the top and therefore the top firms aren't being effected. The biggest drop in LSATs over the last few years has been elite scorers. I know we all want to think we aren't dumber than the class years ahead of us, but there is strong evidence that we are, on average.

Are you serious with this? You think that salaries are being intentionally fixed by a cabal of biglaw firms? And that they will coordinate their pay raises to encourage more talented people to become lawyers? This is some illuminati shit.

Indeed it is. And, therefore, it's entirely appropriate. Frankly, I'm disappointed that this thread turned away from conspiracies over the last few pages. Do you think NY to 190K is going to happen without shady cabals engaged in clandestine meetings? Think again, my friend.