Top Law Schools

Assume ccn, ivy ug

What factors/stats do I need to land the most elusive biglaw jobs

multiple high-resolution photographs of hiring partner engaging in intercourse with woman/man other than hiring partner's spouse

Alternatively, SCOTUS clerkship

3.5+ GPA, law review, and be really personable (all required). Then, from there it's luck.

Tier 1 school, at least top half, maybe a secondary journal, and you'll be fine.

Well, I know around 73 people bid on Wachtell last August during YLS OCI. Of those 73, 7 landed offers.

As you're coming from ccn, you'd be wise to follow flcath's advice and snoop for skeletons in the hiring committee's closet.

Good luck.

Boba Fett wrote:Well, I know around 73 people bid on Wachtell last August during YLS OCI. Of those 73, 7 landed offers.

As you're coming from ccn, you'd be wise to follow flcath's advice and snoop for skeletons in the hiring committee's closet.

Good luck.

At Columbia, it's 94 bids, 77 interviews, 22 callbacks, and 9 offers... I don't think these numbers are from 2009 though. I'm not sure if Wachtell's hiring practice was affected at all by "ITE."

.

Although this rant is in response to OP's thread, it isn't directed at OP or any particular individual. I'm just taking an opportunity to remind my fellow TLSers about "diversity" and "leadership".

It seems that we on TLS keep thinking, talking and asking about...."JOB"?! "JOB"?! "JOB"?! Don't we want to create anything anymore? I read about a hundred posts a day; few if any involve a person asking, "What steps do I take to create a small firm of my own, a production company, a non-profit, or a for profit business?" We don't ask, "How can I use my education to create a foundation that solves some of the problems that I claim inspired me to pursue a legal career?" And that's wrong. Those are some of the questions we should be asking.

We have to get out of this mentality that the world owes us something just because we complete law school. Maybe that's the overall problem in the legal profession and the rankings. Because we are of the mentality that law school education is supposed to lead to jobs - certain types of jobs at that - schools are rated to heavily on their ability to serve as gateways to employment. While I agree that this should be a goal of law schools, it is only one piece of the puzzle.

Law students and graduates are supposed to create things; they are leaders in society. JFK Jr. understood this when he started George Magazine. Law graduates are authors, screenwriters, entrepreneurs, etc. We should take what's best in us as individuals and look first to make unique societal contributions. That's the reason adcoms ask for personal statements that discuss "unique background and attributes", or something akin to them. Threads like this make me wonder what people are even putting in their personal statements? Why talk about diversity if our goals are not diverse? It looks like 90% of us are looking for biglaw, the other 10%, PI jobs.

According to what I read these days, most of our personal statements should read, "I'm going to tell you a story, but don't dare believe that it has anything to do with my wanting to be a "social engineer" because I am really a liar. I want to go to HLS because it provides the best opportunities for me to get a BigLaw job and potentially get rich."

We also might as well be saying, "Please, please, take me into your elite school so I DON'T have to create anything and really prove myself. I'm not that unique, but I don't want anyone to figure it out. I have my 170 LSAT and my 3.8 UGPA. So let me into your school, get me a good job that pays me a pile of cash, and leave me alone."

That subtext should bore most of us, but somehow it doesn't.

It's not wrong to wonder about job prospects or want financial security, but we should remember that we are supposed to be future leaders, not followers. We must strike a balance...and remember to think creatively about our abilities to contribute.

Boba Fett wrote:Well, I know around 73 people bid on Wachtell last August during YLS OCI. Of those 73, 7 landed offers.

As you're coming from ccn, you'd be wise to follow flcath's advice and snoop for skeletons in the hiring committee's closet.

Good luck.

Yeah, but Yale grads are also less likely to go the firm route than other grads. So it may also have something to do with ensuring that they get people who are not only willing to go the firm route, but who also want to stick around for the long haul.

PDaddy wrote:Although this rant is in response to OP's thread, it isn't directed at OP or any particular individual. I'm just taking an opportunity to remind my fellow TLSers about "diversity" and "leadership".

It seems that we on TLS keep thinking, talking and asking about...."JOB"?! "JOB"?! "JOB"?! Don't we want to create anything anymore? I read about a hundred posts a day, few if any involve a person asking, "What steps to I take to create a small firm of my own, a production company, a non-profit, or a for profit business?" We don't ask, "How can I use my education to create a foundation that solves some of the problems I claim inspired me to pursue a legal career?" And that's wrong. Those are some of the questions we should be asking.

We have to get out of this mentality that the world owes us something just because we complete law school. Maybe that's the overall problem in the legal profession and the rankings. Because we are of the mentality that law school education is supposed to lead to jobs - certain types of jobs at that - schools are rated to heavily on their ability to serve as gateways to employment. While I agree that this should be a goal of law schools, it is only one piece of the puzzle.

Law students are supposed to create things; they are leaders in society. JFK Jr. understood this when he started George Magazine. Law graduates are authors, screenwriters, entrepreneurs, etc. We should take what's best in us as people and look first to make unique societal contributions. That's the reason adcoms ask for personal statements that discuss "unique background and attributes", or something like that. Threads like this make me wonder what people are putting in their personal statements? Why talk about diversity if our goals are not diverse? It looks like 90% of us are looking for biglaw, the other 10%, PI jobs.

According to what I read these days, most of our personal statements should read, "I'm going to tell you a story but don't dare believe that iot has anything to do with my wanting to be a lawyer, because I am really a liar. I want to go to HLS because it provides the best opportunities for me to get a BigLaw job and potentially get rich."

We also might as well be saying, "Please, please, take me into your elite school so I DON'T have to create anything and really prove myself. I'm not that unique, but I don't want anyone to figure it out. I have my 170 LSAT and my 3.8 UGPA. So let me into your school, get me a good job that pays me a pile of cash, and leave me the alone. That subtext should bore most of us, but somehow it doesn't.

It's not wrong to wonder about job prospects or want financial security, but we should remember that we are supposed to be future leaders, not followers. We must strike a balance.

This is the most retarded post I've read here. We are going to law school to make money to afford big homes, summer homes, nice cars, and trophy wives, not to free Tibet and save the whales. If you want to dedicate your life to social justice or some other trivial goal you shouldn't be going to law school.

Unemployed wrote:

Boba Fett wrote:Well, I know around 73 people bid on Wachtell last August during YLS OCI. Of those 73, 7 landed offers.

As you're coming from ccn, you'd be wise to follow flcath's advice and snoop for skeletons in the hiring committee's closet.

Good luck.

At Columbia, it's 94 bids, 77 interviews, 22 callbacks, and 9 offers... I don't think these numbers are from 2009 though. I'm not sure if Wachtell's hiring practice was affected at all by "ITE."

You guys would. But seriously, can you imagine actually having to work for WLRK? Work/life balance epic fail?

Cavalier wrote:

PDaddy wrote:Although this rant is in response to OP's thread, it isn't directed at OP or any particular individual. I'm just taking an opportunity to remind my fellow TLSers about "diversity" and "leadership".

blah blah blah

This is the most retarded post I've read here. We are going to law school to make money to afford big homes, summer homes, nice cars, and trophy wives, not to free Tibet and save the whales. If you want to dedicate your life to social justice or some other trivial goal you shouldn't be going to law school.

LOL. Thanks for giving us the TLDR version.

Also, LOL at comparing your average law student to JFK, Jr. Overall, the pedantic shit I've read all day, and I've been reading SCOTUS decisions.

Can any admins just delete Pdaddy's account?

OperaSoprano wrote:

Unemployed wrote:

Boba Fett wrote:Well, I know around 73 people bid on Wachtell last August during YLS OCI. Of those 73, 7 landed offers.

As you're coming from ccn, you'd be wise to follow flcath's advice and snoop for skeletons in the hiring committee's closet.

Good luck.

At Columbia, it's 94 bids, 77 interviews, 22 callbacks, and 9 offers... I don't think these numbers are from 2009 though. I'm not sure if Wachtell's hiring practice was affected at all by "ITE."

You guys would. But seriously, can you imagine actually having to work for WLRK? Work/life balance epic fail?

"If you are going to WLRK, you know who you are. You've known who you were since before you even applied to law schools," says a friend from YLS who's not working for WLRK.

I still don't know, so I guess that's a no.

PDaddy wrote:Although this rant is in response to OP's thread, it isn't directed at OP or any particular individual. I'm just taking an opportunity to remind my fellow TLSers about "diversity" and "leadership".

It seems that we on TLS keep thinking, talking and asking about...."JOB"?! "JOB"?! "JOB"?! Don't we want to create anything anymore? I read about a hundred posts a day, few if any involve a person asking, "What steps to I take to create a small firm of my own, a production company, a non-profit, or a for profit business?" We don't ask, "How can I use my education to create a foundation that solves some of the problems I claim inspired me to pursue a legal career?" And that's wrong. Those are some of the questions we should be asking.

We have to get out of this mentality that the world owes us something just because we complete law school. Maybe that's the overall problem in the legal profession and the rankings. Because we are of the mentality that law school education is supposed to lead to jobs - certain types of jobs at that - schools are rated to heavily on their ability to serve as gateways to employment. While I agree that this should be a goal of law schools, it is only one piece of the puzzle.

Law students are supposed to create things; they are leaders in society. JFK Jr. understood this when he started George Magazine. Law graduates are authors, screenwriters, entrepreneurs, etc. We should take what's best in us as people and look first to make unique societal contributions. That's the reason adcoms ask for personal statements that discuss "unique background and attributes", or something like that. Threads like this make me wonder what people are putting in their personal statements? Why talk about diversity if our goals are not diverse? It looks like 90% of us are looking for biglaw, the other 10%, PI jobs.

According to what I read these days, most of our personal statements should read, "I'm going to tell you a story but don't dare believe that iot has anything to do with my wanting to be a lawyer, because I am really a liar. I want to go to HLS because it provides the best opportunities for me to get a BigLaw job and potentially get rich."

We also might as well be saying, "Please, please, take me into your elite school so I DON'T have to create anything and really prove myself. I'm not that unique, but I don't want anyone to figure it out. I have my 170 LSAT and my 3.8 UGPA. So let me into your school, get me a good job that pays me a pile of cash, and leave me the alone. That subtext should bore most of us, but somehow it doesn't.

It's not wrong to wonder about job prospects or want financial security, but we should remember that we are supposed to be future leaders, not followers. We must strike a balance.

LoL. Get real. How do you "start" something? You get in a position of power. You can't just go out, start a firm and expect to be successful. You need a...yes...job.

PDaddy wrote:Although this rant is in response to OP's thread, it isn't directed at OP or any particular individual. I'm just taking an opportunity to remind my fellow TLSers about "diversity" and "leadership".

It seems that we on TLS keep thinking, talking and asking about...."JOB"?! "JOB"?! "JOB"?! Don't we want to create anything anymore? I read about a hundred posts a day, few if any involve a person asking, "What steps to I take to create a small firm of my own, a production company, a non-profit, or a for profit business?" We don't ask, "How can I use my education to create a foundation that solves some of the problems I claim inspired me to pursue a legal career?" And that's wrong. Those are some of the questions we should be asking.

We have to get out of this mentality that the world owes us something just because we complete law school. Maybe that's the overall problem in the legal profession and the rankings. Because we are of the mentality that law school education is supposed to lead to jobs - certain types of jobs at that - schools are rated to heavily on their ability to serve as gateways to employment. While I agree that this should be a goal of law schools, it is only one piece of the puzzle.

Law students are supposed to create things; they are leaders in society. JFK Jr. understood this when he started George Magazine. Law graduates are authors, screenwriters, entrepreneurs, etc. We should take what's best in us as people and look first to make unique societal contributions. That's the reason adcoms ask for personal statements that discuss "unique background and attributes", or something like that. Threads like this make me wonder what people are putting in their personal statements? Why talk about diversity if our goals are not diverse? It looks like 90% of us are looking for biglaw, the other 10%, PI jobs.

According to what I read these days, most of our personal statements should read, "I'm going to tell you a story but don't dare believe that iot has anything to do with my wanting to be a lawyer, because I am really a liar. I want to go to HLS because it provides the best opportunities for me to get a BigLaw job and potentially get rich."

We also might as well be saying, "Please, please, take me into your elite school so I DON'T have to create anything and really prove myself. I'm not that unique, but I don't want anyone to figure it out. I have my 170 LSAT and my 3.8 UGPA. So let me into your school, get me a good job that pays me a pile of cash, and leave me the alone. That subtext should bore most of us, but somehow it doesn't.

It's not wrong to wonder about job prospects or want financial security, but we should remember that we are supposed to be future leaders, not followers. We must strike a balance.

I think law school is a great $200,000 investment to launch your screenwriting career, PDiddy. Let us know how it goes.

Unemployed wrote:

OperaSoprano wrote:

Unemployed wrote:

Boba Fett wrote:Well, I know around 73 people bid on Wachtell last August during YLS OCI. Of those 73, 7 landed offers.

As you're coming from ccn, you'd be wise to follow flcath's advice and snoop for skeletons in the hiring committee's closet.

Good luck.

At Columbia, it's 94 bids, 77 interviews, 22 callbacks, and 9 offers... I don't think these numbers are from 2009 though. I'm not sure if Wachtell's hiring practice was affected at all by "ITE."

You guys would. But seriously, can you imagine actually having to work for WLRK? Work/life balance epic fail?

"If you are going to WLRK, you know who you are. You've known who you were since before you even applied to law schools," says a friend from YLS who's not working for WLRK.

I still don't know, so I guess that's a no.

Well, you could always bid on it and tell the OP what it takes. I'm just amused by this thread's existence, because it is hard to imagine a job with less appeal, and I say this as someone who has been talked into participating in OCI. That's going to be an adventure for certain.

OperaSoprano wrote:it is hard to imagine a job with less appeal

I'm pretty sure you could find something less appealing than $165,000/yr + 90-100% bonus.

Boba Fett wrote:

OperaSoprano wrote:it is hard to imagine a job with less appeal

I'm pretty sure you could find something less appealing than $165,000/yr + 90-100% bonus.

$165K base salary?! With only another measly $150K bonus?!?! Pfff, get with the times, Mr. Fett. I wouldn't fix a parking ticket for that.

--LinkRemoved--

This link also supports OS's point, though.

Boba Fett wrote:

OperaSoprano wrote:it is hard to imagine a job with less appeal

I'm pretty sure you could find something less appealing than $165,000/yr + 90-100% bonus.

In my personal opinion, it would not be worth the hours and the stress. I wouldn't be able to do a job like that, even if I had the qualifications and wanted to try.

Boba Fett wrote:

OperaSoprano wrote:it is hard to imagine a job with less appeal

I'm pretty sure you could find something less appealing than $165,000/yr + 90-100% bonus.

If you don't learn to respond to someone's actual point, you won't be working (anywhere) as a lawyer.

mikeytwoshoes wrote:

Boba Fett wrote:

OperaSoprano wrote:it is hard to imagine a job with less appeal

I'm pretty sure you could find something less appealing than $165,000/yr + 90-100% bonus.

If you don't learn to respond to someone's actual point, you won't be working (anywhere) as a lawyer.

Well, well, ironic enough, I suppose. Good luck with your non-legal job, then, Mikey!

Boba Fett wrote:

mikeytwoshoes wrote:

Boba Fett wrote:

OperaSoprano wrote:it is hard to imagine a job with less appeal

I'm pretty sure you could find something less appealing than $165,000/yr + 90-100% bonus.

If you don't learn to respond to someone's actual point, you won't be working (anywhere) as a lawyer.

Well, well, ironic enough, I suppose. Good luck with your non-legal job, then, Mikey!

You're use of precedent needs work as well. I was commenting on the fact that you failed to respond to OS's point that Wachtell has an awful work/life balance.

mikeytwoshoes wrote:You're use of precedent needs work as well. I was commenting on the fact that you failed to respond to OS's point that Wachtell has an awful work/life balance.

Salary makes up for it. I thought it was clear enough. Unfortunately, I failed to account for your idiocy.

I think Wachtell is a pretty good deal because if you're doing Biglaw you're already expected to be working intense hours, you're already expected to be on call, you're already expected to change your plans on a moments notice if that's what is asked of you, etc. Wachtell pays you much better for a less than proportional increase in work and effort. Plus it's more prestigious and often works on really high profile cases. I imagine this makes the Biglaw lifestyle somewhat more bearable than at other big NYC firms.