Stub Year Confusion Forum

[Anonymous User]

I am a current stub year, and I literally don’t know what is going on/expected of me in most of my assignments. Is this common? I feel awful and incompetent

[Anonymous User]

OP I also was busy, but now I slowed down a lot. Being worried that my work was terrible, and that's why I'm just not staffed on things. Submitted work product to a senior, and the senior just edited it pretty much himself and told me to hold off on revising.

[existentialcrisis]

I certainly felt that way and now I do fine.

I definitely think this is normal, especially in corporate or other transactional practices where law school doesn't teach you any of it.

No one really expects anything of stub years an that's probably doubly so with the current WFH environment.

[Dcc617]

OP I also was busy, but now I slowed down a lot. Being worried that my work was terrible, and that's why I'm just not staffed on things. Submitted work product to a senior, and the senior just edited it pretty much himself and told me to hold off on revising.

If you’re making an effort you’re fine. Nobody is doing good work as a stub.

[avenuem]

This post by a first-year associate is disputed.

OP I also was busy, but now I slowed down a lot. Being worried that my work was terrible, and that's why I'm just not staffed on things. Submitted work product to a senior, and the senior just edited it pretty much himself and told me to hold off on revising.

If you’re making an effort you’re fine. Nobody is doing good work as a stub.

This is garbage conventional wisdom that people spout.

You're right on some things, like how all associates should gift secretaries (I only recognize you because I just finished reading that thread). But you're wrong on junior work being useless. I'm a stub. I just did part of a big project, along with many other stubs, juniors, and midlevels (we all had the same exact task, because it was a divide and conquer project). ZERO of my work on the project had to be corrected. Others work did have to be corrected. Why? Because even though we did the same work, I used enough time and attention to get everything right. Also at a V5 that prides itself on not fucking up, so that helps. It pisses me off when people say all stub/1st year work is bad. It's bad if you suck. But you don't have to suck because you're a first year/stub.

Edit (in case anyone is wondering): The managing associate on the project circulated the final draft and I did comparisons to confirm if any changes were made to various sections. This is another indicator of being competent (not sucking). You find ways to check your own work without direct feedback.

[Anonymous User]

OP I also was busy, but now I slowed down a lot. Being worried that my work was terrible, and that's why I'm just not staffed on things. Submitted work product to a senior, and the senior just edited it pretty much himself and told me to hold off on revising.

If you’re making an effort you’re fine. Nobody is doing good work as a stub.

This is garbage conventional wisdom that people spout.

You're right on some things, like how all associates should gift secretaries (I only recognize you because I just finished reading that thread). But you're wrong on junior work being useless. I'm a stub. I just did part of a big project, along with many other stubs, juniors, and midlevels (we all had the same exact task, because it was a divide and conquer project). ZERO of my work on the project had to be corrected. Others work did have to be corrected. Why? Because even though we did the same work, I used enough time and attention to get everything right. Also at a V5 that prides itself on not fucking up, so that helps. It pisses me off when people say all stub/1st year work is bad. It's bad if you suck. But you don't have to suck because you're a first year/stub.

Edit (in case anyone is wondering): The managing associate on the project circulated the final draft and I did comparisons to confirm if any changes were made to various sections. This is another indicator of being competent (not sucking). You find ways to check your own work without direct feedback.

Thank god I’m not at this firm.

[Elston Gunn]

OP I also was busy, but now I slowed down a lot. Being worried that my work was terrible, and that's why I'm just not staffed on things. Submitted work product to a senior, and the senior just edited it pretty much himself and told me to hold off on revising.

If you’re making an effort you’re fine. Nobody is doing good work as a stub.

This is garbage conventional wisdom that people spout.

You're right on some things, like how all associates should gift secretaries (I only recognize you because I just finished reading that thread). But you're wrong on junior work being useless. I'm a stub. I just did part of a big project, along with many other stubs, juniors, and midlevels (we all had the same exact task, because it was a divide and conquer project). ZERO of my work on the project had to be corrected. Others work did have to be corrected. Why? Because even though we did the same work, I used enough time and attention to get everything right. Also at a V5 that prides itself on not fucking up, so that helps. It pisses me off when people say all stub/1st year work is bad. It's bad if you suck. But you don't have to suck because you're a first year/stub.

Edit (in case anyone is wondering): The managing associate on the project circulated the final draft and I did comparisons to confirm if any changes were made to various sections. This is another indicator of being competent (not sucking). You find ways to check your own work without direct feedback.

Congrats on copy pasting all the right clauses into a spreadsheet or whatever, but the second worst quality a junior can have after being lazy is being arrogant...

[existentialcrisis]

OP I also was busy, but now I slowed down a lot. Being worried that my work was terrible, and that's why I'm just not staffed on things. Submitted work product to a senior, and the senior just edited it pretty much himself and told me to hold off on revising.

If you’re making an effort you’re fine. Nobody is doing good work as a stub.

This is garbage conventional wisdom that people spout.

You're right on some things, like how all associates should gift secretaries (I only recognize you because I just finished reading that thread). But you're wrong on junior work being useless. I'm a stub. I just did part of a big project, along with many other stubs, juniors, and midlevels (we all had the same exact task, because it was a divide and conquer project). ZERO of my work on the project had to be corrected. Others work did have to be corrected. Why? Because even though we did the same work, I used enough time and attention to get everything right. Also at a V5 that prides itself on not fucking up, so that helps. It pisses me off when people say all stub/1st year work is bad. It's bad if you suck. But you don't have to suck because you're a first year/stub.

Edit (in case anyone is wondering): The managing associate on the project circulated the final draft and I did comparisons to confirm if any changes were made to various sections. This is another indicator of being competent (not sucking). You find ways to check your own work without direct feedback.

LOL

[avenuem]

This post by a first-year associate is disputed.

OP I also was busy, but now I slowed down a lot. Being worried that my work was terrible, and that's why I'm just not staffed on things. Submitted work product to a senior, and the senior just edited it pretty much himself and told me to hold off on revising.

If you’re making an effort you’re fine. Nobody is doing good work as a stub.

This is garbage conventional wisdom that people spout.

You're right on some things, like how all associates should gift secretaries (I only recognize you because I just finished reading that thread). But you're wrong on junior work being useless. I'm a stub. I just did part of a big project, along with many other stubs, juniors, and midlevels (we all had the same exact task, because it was a divide and conquer project). ZERO of my work on the project had to be corrected. Others work did have to be corrected. Why? Because even though we did the same work, I used enough time and attention to get everything right. Also at a V5 that prides itself on not fucking up, so that helps. It pisses me off when people say all stub/1st year work is bad. It's bad if you suck. But you don't have to suck because you're a first year/stub.

Edit (in case anyone is wondering): The managing associate on the project circulated the final draft and I did comparisons to confirm if any changes were made to various sections. This is another indicator of being competent (not sucking). You find ways to check your own work without direct feedback.

Congrats on copy pasting all the right clauses into a spreadsheet or whatever, but the second worst quality a junior can have after being lazy is being arrogant...

Good thing I'm not lazy.

I welcome actual arguments in response to my post. If you think that stub years cannot do good work, you're narrow-minded.

[persia1921]

Would not worry about it. Stub/first year work generally needs to be corrected/edited before it is shipped out. It's part of the process. I'd say the experience of the above poster is unusual.

[Elston Gunn]

It is possible for a stub to do a particular task well, especially if it is close to something you’d be expected to do in law school or very discrete. It is, however, not the norm, and very few stubs are doing consistently good work. No one holds it against them.

However, plenty of stubs establish a reputation for themselves as thinking their shit doesn’t stink despite knowing almost nothing about the practice of law. That is much more likely to negatively impact your career than what OP is describing.

[Anonymous User]

Thank you. This made me feel a lot better. I just am terrified that I am just an awful associate at this point. I’ve just been trying to be responsive and enthusiastic because at least that seems to be something more within my control

[TigerIsBack]

OP I also was busy, but now I slowed down a lot. Being worried that my work was terrible, and that's why I'm just not staffed on things. Submitted work product to a senior, and the senior just edited it pretty much himself and told me to hold off on revising.

If you’re making an effort you’re fine. Nobody is doing good work as a stub.

This is garbage conventional wisdom that people spout.

You're right on some things, like how all associates should gift secretaries (I only recognize you because I just finished reading that thread). But you're wrong on junior work being useless. I'm a stub. I just did part of a big project, along with many other stubs, juniors, and midlevels (we all had the same exact task, because it was a divide and conquer project). ZERO of my work on the project had to be corrected. Others work did have to be corrected. Why? Because even though we did the same work, I used enough time and attention to get everything right. Also at a V5 that prides itself on not fucking up, so that helps. It pisses me off when people say all stub/1st year work is bad. It's bad if you suck. But you don't have to suck because you're a first year/stub.

Edit (in case anyone is wondering): The managing associate on the project circulated the final draft and I did comparisons to confirm if any changes were made to various sections. This is another indicator of being competent (not sucking). You find ways to check your own work without direct feedback.

It's probably time to start the conversation with junior partners that you trust about what it takes to make partner and how you should start positioning yourself and getting in front of the right people. Cheers!

[avenuem]

This post by a first-year associate is disputed.

OP I also was busy, but now I slowed down a lot. Being worried that my work was terrible, and that's why I'm just not staffed on things. Submitted work product to a senior, and the senior just edited it pretty much himself and told me to hold off on revising.

If you’re making an effort you’re fine. Nobody is doing good work as a stub.

This is garbage conventional wisdom that people spout.

You're right on some things, like how all associates should gift secretaries (I only recognize you because I just finished reading that thread). But you're wrong on junior work being useless. I'm a stub. I just did part of a big project, along with many other stubs, juniors, and midlevels (we all had the same exact task, because it was a divide and conquer project). ZERO of my work on the project had to be corrected. Others work did have to be corrected. Why? Because even though we did the same work, I used enough time and attention to get everything right. Also at a V5 that prides itself on not fucking up, so that helps. It pisses me off when people say all stub/1st year work is bad. It's bad if you suck. But you don't have to suck because you're a first year/stub.

Edit (in case anyone is wondering): The managing associate on the project circulated the final draft and I did comparisons to confirm if any changes were made to various sections. This is another indicator of being competent (not sucking). You find ways to check your own work without direct feedback.

It's probably time to start the conversation with junior partners that you trust about what it takes to make partner and how you should start positioning yourself and getting in front of the right people. Cheers!

Chairman has already asked me to send him a draft of my partner bio, to be finalized in six years.

Again, I welcome actual arguments in response to my post. If you think that stub years cannot do good work, you're narrow-minded.

OP, glad you received some encouraging advice. It's normal for us not to know things, yes. But it's not impossible for us to do good work.

[Lukky]

OP I also was busy, but now I slowed down a lot. Being worried that my work was terrible, and that's why I'm just not staffed on things. Submitted work product to a senior, and the senior just edited it pretty much himself and told me to hold off on revising.

If you’re making an effort you’re fine. Nobody is doing good work as a stub.

This is garbage conventional wisdom that people spout.

You're right on some things, like how all associates should gift secretaries (I only recognize you because I just finished reading that thread). But you're wrong on junior work being useless. I'm a stub. I just did part of a big project, along with many other stubs, juniors, and midlevels (we all had the same exact task, because it was a divide and conquer project). ZERO of my work on the project had to be corrected. Others work did have to be corrected. Why? Because even though we did the same work, I used enough time and attention to get everything right. Also at a V5 that prides itself on not fucking up, so that helps. It pisses me off when people say all stub/1st year work is bad. It's bad if you suck. But you don't have to suck because you're a first year/stub.

Edit (in case anyone is wondering): The managing associate on the project circulated the final draft and I did comparisons to confirm if any changes were made to various sections. This is another indicator of being competent (not sucking). You find ways to check your own work without direct feedback.

It's probably time to start the conversation with junior partners that you trust about what it takes to make partner and how you should start positioning yourself and getting in front of the right people. Cheers!

Chairman has already asked me to send him a draft of my partner bio, to be finalized in six years.

Again, I welcome actual arguments in response to my post. If you think that stub years cannot do good work, you're narrow-minded.

OP, glad you received some encouraging advice. It's normal for us not to know things, yes. But it's not impossible for us to do good work.

Is there a v5 that has a six year partnership track?

[Anonymous User]

OP I also was busy, but now I slowed down a lot. Being worried that my work was terrible, and that's why I'm just not staffed on things. Submitted work product to a senior, and the senior just edited it pretty much himself and told me to hold off on revising.

If you’re making an effort you’re fine. Nobody is doing good work as a stub.

This is garbage conventional wisdom that people spout.

You're right on some things, like how all associates should gift secretaries (I only recognize you because I just finished reading that thread). But you're wrong on junior work being useless. I'm a stub. I just did part of a big project, along with many other stubs, juniors, and midlevels (we all had the same exact task, because it was a divide and conquer project). ZERO of my work on the project had to be corrected. Others work did have to be corrected. Why? Because even though we did the same work, I used enough time and attention to get everything right. Also at a V5 that prides itself on not fucking up, so that helps. It pisses me off when people say all stub/1st year work is bad. It's bad if you suck. But you don't have to suck because you're a first year/stub.

Edit (in case anyone is wondering): The managing associate on the project circulated the final draft and I did comparisons to confirm if any changes were made to various sections. This is another indicator of being competent (not sucking). You find ways to check your own work without direct feedback.

Partners / seniors (just like anyone) have personal preferences as to how they like things written. You can turn in a perfect document and they will still revise the hell out of it so that it matches their personal preferences. Eventually you learn their style, so the revisions decrease, until the partner stops reviewing because either they trust you or because you take ownership of the work so the partner doesn’t care as much.

If you turned it something as a stub year that didn’t get revised, it’s because whatever you wrote wasn’t important enough to get revised and it was “good enough.”

[Anonymous User]

Asking question as a stub; how much learning on your own do you do on the side? (As in watching CLEs, reading articles, etc). Or do you do most of your learning as you are doing the job?

[nixy]

This is garbage conventional wisdom that people spout.

You're right on some things, like how all associates should gift secretaries (I only recognize you because I just finished reading that thread). But you're wrong on junior work being useless. I'm a stub. I just did part of a big project, along with many other stubs, juniors, and midlevels (we all had the same exact task, because it was a divide and conquer project). ZERO of my work on the project had to be corrected. Others work did have to be corrected. Why? Because even though we did the same work, I used enough time and attention to get everything right. Also at a V5 that prides itself on not fucking up, so that helps. It pisses me off when people say all stub/1st year work is bad. It's bad if you suck. But you don't have to suck because you're a first year/stub.

Edit (in case anyone is wondering): The managing associate on the project circulated the final draft and I did comparisons to confirm if any changes were made to various sections. This is another indicator of being competent (not sucking). You find ways to check your own work without direct feedback.

This post is AMAZING. I'm sure you did fine on this project. I'm sure other people did have to be corrected. But extrapolating so broadly beyond that based on, what, maybe 2 months' work in your current job? is really really weird. Further, "Nobody is doing good work as a stub" is not a claim that literally everything every stub turns in needs to be corrected in some way, or that (as you seem to interpret it) literally all stub/1st year work is "useless."

And your offense at being lumped in with the ordinary mortal stubs doesn't at all help the OP, because even if you are the embodiment of the principle that stubs make amazing contributions to their firms (or at least at the V5 where they pride themselves on not fucking up, compared to all the other biglaw firms which are totally good with people fucking up), that's not useful to someone who is still adjusting to a job that law school doesn't actually train you for. You being offended that your work isn't being properly valued doesn't actually say anything about whether the OP should be worried (and OP, I agree with everyone that it's a big adjustment and you're almost certainly fine).

[boort]

OP I also was busy, but now I slowed down a lot. Being worried that my work was terrible, and that's why I'm just not staffed on things. Submitted work product to a senior, and the senior just edited it pretty much himself and told me to hold off on revising.

If you’re making an effort you’re fine. Nobody is doing good work as a stub.

This is garbage conventional wisdom that people spout.

You're right on some things, like how all associates should gift secretaries (I only recognize you because I just finished reading that thread). But you're wrong on junior work being useless. I'm a stub. I just did part of a big project, along with many other stubs, juniors, and midlevels (we all had the same exact task, because it was a divide and conquer project). ZERO of my work on the project had to be corrected. Others work did have to be corrected. Why? Because even though we did the same work, I used enough time and attention to get everything right. Also at a V5 that prides itself on not fucking up, so that helps. It pisses me off when people say all stub/1st year work is bad. It's bad if you suck. But you don't have to suck because you're a first year/stub.

Edit (in case anyone is wondering): The managing associate on the project circulated the final draft and I did comparisons to confirm if any changes were made to various sections. This is another indicator of being competent (not sucking). You find ways to check your own work without direct feedback.

this is a valuable post for OP not because it offers any meaningful or useful advice but because it's a nice reminder/warning of the psychopaths you're going to have to work with, OP. i would concentrate more on finding out who they are and avoiding them, rather than expending any energy worrying about your work product as a stub.

[avenuem]

This post by a first-year associate is disputed.

This is garbage conventional wisdom that people spout.

You're right on some things, like how all associates should gift secretaries (I only recognize you because I just finished reading that thread). But you're wrong on junior work being useless. I'm a stub. I just did part of a big project, along with many other stubs, juniors, and midlevels (we all had the same exact task, because it was a divide and conquer project). ZERO of my work on the project had to be corrected. Others work did have to be corrected. Why? Because even though we did the same work, I used enough time and attention to get everything right. Also at a V5 that prides itself on not fucking up, so that helps. It pisses me off when people say all stub/1st year work is bad. It's bad if you suck. But you don't have to suck because you're a first year/stub.

Edit (in case anyone is wondering): The managing associate on the project circulated the final draft and I did comparisons to confirm if any changes were made to various sections. This is another indicator of being competent (not sucking). You find ways to check your own work without direct feedback.

This post is AMAZING. I'm sure you did fine on this project. I'm sure other people did have to be corrected. But extrapolating so broadly beyond that based on, what, maybe 2 months' work in your current job? is really really weird. Further, "Nobody is doing good work as a stub" is not a claim that literally everything every stub turns in needs to be corrected in some way, or that (as you seem to interpret it) literally all stub/1st year work is "useless."

And your offense at being lumped in with the ordinary mortal stubs doesn't at all help the OP, because even if you are the embodiment of the principle that stubs make amazing contributions to their firms (or at least at the V5 where they pride themselves on not fucking up, compared to all the other biglaw firms which are totally good with people fucking up), that's not useful to someone who is still adjusting to a job that law school doesn't actually train you for. You being offended that your work isn't being properly valued doesn't actually say anything about whether the OP should be worried (and OP, I agree with everyone that it's a big adjustment and you're almost certainly fine).

Let's be honest, Nixy. Whose claim is truly more ridiculous?

My claim that stubs/1st years can do good work or this person's claim that "Nobody is doing good work as a stub."

You're painting over this person's black-and-white, absolute, broad-brush statement to make it look as if it is "not a claim that literally everything every stub turns in needs to be corrected in some way, or that literally all stub/1st year work is 'useless.'" Dishonest. The word "nobody" means "nobody," not "some stubs," not "maybe 2 in 100 stubs," but "none," "zero," "nilch." Meanwhile, my claim that stubs/1st years can do good work acknowledges that it's possible for stubs to do good work. Is it really me who is being absurd? No.

But you're jumping on the same bandwagon, as people do when you challenge conventional wisdom. Idiots. Enjoy your delusions. I'm done. But thank you, because dishonest as you were, you're the only one who made an argument based on reason. But I'll restate what you all know in your hearts to be true: You might dislike me or my post personally, because of how I phrased things in a way that some found "arrogant" and maybe rattled feathers by mentioning being at a V5 (none of this matters). But what you must admit and what does matter is that putting me and my posts aside, stubs/first years can do good work. This is a truth.

[The Lsat Airbender]

This is garbage conventional wisdom that people spout.

You're right on some things, like how all associates should gift secretaries (I only recognize you because I just finished reading that thread). But you're wrong on junior work being useless. I'm a stub. I just did part of a big project, along with many other stubs, juniors, and midlevels (we all had the same exact task, because it was a divide and conquer project). ZERO of my work on the project had to be corrected. Others work did have to be corrected. Why? Because even though we did the same work, I used enough time and attention to get everything right. Also at a V5 that prides itself on not fucking up, so that helps. It pisses me off when people say all stub/1st year work is bad. It's bad if you suck. But you don't have to suck because you're a first year/stub.

Edit (in case anyone is wondering): The managing associate on the project circulated the final draft and I did comparisons to confirm if any changes were made to various sections. This is another indicator of being competent (not sucking). You find ways to check your own work without direct feedback.

This post is AMAZING. I'm sure you did fine on this project. I'm sure other people did have to be corrected. But extrapolating so broadly beyond that based on, what, maybe 2 months' work in your current job? is really really weird. Further, "Nobody is doing good work as a stub" is not a claim that literally everything every stub turns in needs to be corrected in some way, or that (as you seem to interpret it) literally all stub/1st year work is "useless."

And your offense at being lumped in with the ordinary mortal stubs doesn't at all help the OP, because even if you are the embodiment of the principle that stubs make amazing contributions to their firms (or at least at the V5 where they pride themselves on not fucking up, compared to all the other biglaw firms which are totally good with people fucking up), that's not useful to someone who is still adjusting to a job that law school doesn't actually train you for. You being offended that your work isn't being properly valued doesn't actually say anything about whether the OP should be worried (and OP, I agree with everyone that it's a big adjustment and you're almost certainly fine).

Let's be honest, Nixy. Whose claim is truly more ridiculous?

My claim that stubs/1st years can do good work or this person's claim that "Nobody is doing good work as a stub."

You're painting over this person's black-and-white, absolute, broad-brush statement to make it look as if it is "not a claim that literally everything every stub turns in needs to be corrected in some way, or that literally all stub/1st year work is 'useless.'" Dishonest. The word "nobody" means "nobody," not "some stubs," not "maybe 2 in 100 stubs," but "none," "zero," "nilch." Meanwhile, my claim that stubs/1st years can do good work acknowledges that it's possible for stubs to do good work. Is it really me who is being absurd? No.

But you're jumping on the same bandwagon, as people do when you challenge conventional wisdom. Idiots. Enjoy your delusions. I'm done. But thank you, because dishonest as you were, you're the only one who made an argument based on reason. But I'll restate what you all know in your hearts to be true: You might dislike me or my post personally, because of how I phrased things in a way that some found "arrogant" and maybe rattled feathers by mentioning being at a V5 (none of this matters). But what you must admit and what does matter is that putting me and my posts aside, stubs/first years can do good work. This is a truth.

[Emphasis added]

Sounds like ur mad lol

Even if a stub gets something right, in the same way that a broken clock is right twice a day or Mozart was able to play by ear at age 5, it still has to be thoroughly reviewed to confirm that. So, even if your draft didn't have edits, it's still reasonable to say that your work was more for your own edification/integration into the team than it was a meaningful contribution to getting the deal done. Being able to rely on someone without having to review it thoroughly is what "good work" means instrumentally. HTH.

[TigerIsBack]

This is garbage conventional wisdom that people spout.

You're right on some things, like how all associates should gift secretaries (I only recognize you because I just finished reading that thread). But you're wrong on junior work being useless. I'm a stub. I just did part of a big project, along with many other stubs, juniors, and midlevels (we all had the same exact task, because it was a divide and conquer project). ZERO of my work on the project had to be corrected. Others work did have to be corrected. Why? Because even though we did the same work, I used enough time and attention to get everything right. Also at a V5 that prides itself on not fucking up, so that helps. It pisses me off when people say all stub/1st year work is bad. It's bad if you suck. But you don't have to suck because you're a first year/stub.

Edit (in case anyone is wondering): The managing associate on the project circulated the final draft and I did comparisons to confirm if any changes were made to various sections. This is another indicator of being competent (not sucking). You find ways to check your own work without direct feedback.

This post is AMAZING. I'm sure you did fine on this project. I'm sure other people did have to be corrected. But extrapolating so broadly beyond that based on, what, maybe 2 months' work in your current job? is really really weird. Further, "Nobody is doing good work as a stub" is not a claim that literally everything every stub turns in needs to be corrected in some way, or that (as you seem to interpret it) literally all stub/1st year work is "useless."

And your offense at being lumped in with the ordinary mortal stubs doesn't at all help the OP, because even if you are the embodiment of the principle that stubs make amazing contributions to their firms (or at least at the V5 where they pride themselves on not fucking up, compared to all the other biglaw firms which are totally good with people fucking up), that's not useful to someone who is still adjusting to a job that law school doesn't actually train you for. You being offended that your work isn't being properly valued doesn't actually say anything about whether the OP should be worried (and OP, I agree with everyone that it's a big adjustment and you're almost certainly fine).

Let's be honest, Nixy. Whose claim is truly more ridiculous?

My claim that stubs/1st years can do good work or this person's claim that "Nobody is doing good work as a stub."

You're painting over this person's black-and-white, absolute, broad-brush statement to make it look as if it is "not a claim that literally everything every stub turns in needs to be corrected in some way, or that literally all stub/1st year work is 'useless.'" Dishonest. The word "nobody" means "nobody," not "some stubs," not "maybe 2 in 100 stubs," but "none," "zero," "nilch." Meanwhile, my claim that stubs/1st years can do good work acknowledges that it's possible for stubs to do good work. Is it really me who is being absurd? No.

But you're jumping on the same bandwagon, as people do when you challenge conventional wisdom. Idiots. Enjoy your delusions. I'm done. But thank you, because dishonest as you were, you're the only one who made an argument based on reason. But I'll restate what you all know in your hearts to be true: You might dislike me or my post personally, because of how I phrased things in a way that some found "arrogant" and maybe rattled feathers by mentioning being at a V5 (none of this matters). But what you must admit and what does matter is that putting me and my posts aside, stubs/first years can do good work. This is a truth.

I don't think anyone ever really believed that no stub has ever done good work, but by and large most stub work is somewhat meaningless and mistakes are expected, so statements like that are meant to comfort OP that mistakes are normal at this point in OP's career. Then you came in hot with your take and if you think that your initial post wouldn't come across as arrogant to 95% of people, including the people you're doing your great work for, then your EQ is as low as your IQ is high. That initial rant started a chain of somewhat ad hominem attacks, but I'm sure everyone has gotten something from a stub that was not useless and was in decent shape so I don't think anyone is flatly disagreeing with you, they're mostly just acknowledging that even if your legal work is top notch for your class year, you'll need to spend the time your classmates are using to improve their substantive skills working on your soft skills. But who knows, maybe you're pleasant and well-adjusted in person and just a keyboard warrior.

That said, most stub work does tend to be the lowest hanging fruit and even stubs at firms like Cravath or wherever else are not substantially involved in drafting main deal docs, so to the extent a stub turns something in that doesn't get revised, it would still be a crazy leap to extrapolate that "I must be a great associate and all of my other classmates that needed revisions aren't on my level." Maybe that isn't what you intended to say, but it absolutely came across that way.

[malibustacy]

This is garbage conventional wisdom that people spout.

You're right on some things, like how all associates should gift secretaries (I only recognize you because I just finished reading that thread). But you're wrong on junior work being useless. I'm a stub. I just did part of a big project, along with many other stubs, juniors, and midlevels (we all had the same exact task, because it was a divide and conquer project). ZERO of my work on the project had to be corrected. Others work did have to be corrected. Why? Because even though we did the same work, I used enough time and attention to get everything right. Also at a V5 that prides itself on not fucking up, so that helps. It pisses me off when people say all stub/1st year work is bad. It's bad if you suck. But you don't have to suck because you're a first year/stub.

Edit (in case anyone is wondering): The managing associate on the project circulated the final draft and I did comparisons to confirm if any changes were made to various sections. This is another indicator of being competent (not sucking). You find ways to check your own work without direct feedback.

This post is AMAZING. I'm sure you did fine on this project. I'm sure other people did have to be corrected. But extrapolating so broadly beyond that based on, what, maybe 2 months' work in your current job? is really really weird. Further, "Nobody is doing good work as a stub" is not a claim that literally everything every stub turns in needs to be corrected in some way, or that (as you seem to interpret it) literally all stub/1st year work is "useless."

And your offense at being lumped in with the ordinary mortal stubs doesn't at all help the OP, because even if you are the embodiment of the principle that stubs make amazing contributions to their firms (or at least at the V5 where they pride themselves on not fucking up, compared to all the other biglaw firms which are totally good with people fucking up), that's not useful to someone who is still adjusting to a job that law school doesn't actually train you for. You being offended that your work isn't being properly valued doesn't actually say anything about whether the OP should be worried (and OP, I agree with everyone that it's a big adjustment and you're almost certainly fine).

Let's be honest, Nixy. Whose claim is truly more ridiculous?

My claim that stubs/1st years can do good work or this person's claim that "Nobody is doing good work as a stub."

You're painting over this person's black-and-white, absolute, broad-brush statement to make it look as if it is "not a claim that literally everything every stub turns in needs to be corrected in some way, or that literally all stub/1st year work is 'useless.'" Dishonest. The word "nobody" means "nobody," not "some stubs," not "maybe 2 in 100 stubs," but "none," "zero," "nilch." Meanwhile, my claim that stubs/1st years can do good work acknowledges that it's possible for stubs to do good work. Is it really me who is being absurd? No.

But you're jumping on the same bandwagon, as people do when you challenge conventional wisdom. Idiots. Enjoy your delusions. I'm done. But thank you, because dishonest as you were, you're the only one who made an argument based on reason. But I'll restate what you all know in your hearts to be true: You might dislike me or my post personally, because of how I phrased things in a way that some found "arrogant" and maybe rattled feathers by mentioning being at a V5 (none of this matters). But what you must admit and what does matter is that putting me and my posts aside, stubs/first years can do good work. This is a truth.

omg stfu

[nixy]

This is garbage conventional wisdom that people spout.

You're right on some things, like how all associates should gift secretaries (I only recognize you because I just finished reading that thread). But you're wrong on junior work being useless. I'm a stub. I just did part of a big project, along with many other stubs, juniors, and midlevels (we all had the same exact task, because it was a divide and conquer project). ZERO of my work on the project had to be corrected. Others work did have to be corrected. Why? Because even though we did the same work, I used enough time and attention to get everything right. Also at a V5 that prides itself on not fucking up, so that helps. It pisses me off when people say all stub/1st year work is bad. It's bad if you suck. But you don't have to suck because you're a first year/stub.

Edit (in case anyone is wondering): The managing associate on the project circulated the final draft and I did comparisons to confirm if any changes were made to various sections. This is another indicator of being competent (not sucking). You find ways to check your own work without direct feedback.

This post is AMAZING. I'm sure you did fine on this project. I'm sure other people did have to be corrected. But extrapolating so broadly beyond that based on, what, maybe 2 months' work in your current job? is really really weird. Further, "Nobody is doing good work as a stub" is not a claim that literally everything every stub turns in needs to be corrected in some way, or that (as you seem to interpret it) literally all stub/1st year work is "useless."

And your offense at being lumped in with the ordinary mortal stubs doesn't at all help the OP, because even if you are the embodiment of the principle that stubs make amazing contributions to their firms (or at least at the V5 where they pride themselves on not fucking up, compared to all the other biglaw firms which are totally good with people fucking up), that's not useful to someone who is still adjusting to a job that law school doesn't actually train you for. You being offended that your work isn't being properly valued doesn't actually say anything about whether the OP should be worried (and OP, I agree with everyone that it's a big adjustment and you're almost certainly fine).

Let's be honest, Nixy. Whose claim is truly more ridiculous?

My claim that stubs/1st years can do good work or this person's claim that "Nobody is doing good work as a stub."

You're painting over this person's black-and-white, absolute, broad-brush statement to make it look as if it is "not a claim that literally everything every stub turns in needs to be corrected in some way, or that literally all stub/1st year work is 'useless.'" Dishonest. The word "nobody" means "nobody," not "some stubs," not "maybe 2 in 100 stubs," but "none," "zero," "nilch." Meanwhile, my claim that stubs/1st years can do good work acknowledges that it's possible for stubs to do good work. Is it really me who is being absurd? No.

But you're jumping on the same bandwagon, as people do when you challenge conventional wisdom. Idiots. Enjoy your delusions. I'm done. But thank you, because dishonest as you were, you're the only one who made an argument based on reason. But I'll restate what you all know in your hearts to be true: You might dislike me or my post personally, because of how I phrased things in a way that some found "arrogant" and maybe rattled feathers by mentioning being at a V5 (none of this matters). But what you must admit and what does matter is that putting me and my posts aside, stubs/first years can do good work. This is a truth.

dude. who cares? what does this have to do with the OP?

[nixy]

(also, weren't you just recently worrying about whether you should be getting more to do than doc review?)