C/o 2015 kickin ass, takin names: a declaration of optimism Forum

[DaftAndDirect]

More new jobs for grads fresh out of law school? Or more jobs for experienced hires? If the latter, then that information is not useful for 0Ls like me.

[sunynp]

Please start every post you make with this in bold as follows:

I work with experienced lawyers - so some might say that I am out of touch with what is happening to immediate grads.

As for:

There are more new jobs today than there was a few years ago. Conditions are improving for new grads and experienced lawyers alike. That is a far better, and more accurate message, than the continued cries that the sky continues to fall.

Where are the statistics for this? I would really like to see your numbers for placing people. What size firms, what years, what salaries, what experience did they have? Because, as may be obvious, I simply don't believe you.

We know that OCI has picked up over the OCI after the crash when people were no offered, Lathamed, etc. If you are just trying to say that most people getting summer jobs can probably count on getting an offer unless they screw up, I think people know that. But class sizes are much smaller.

My understanding of the lateral market is that people are hiring now to make up for all the people they fired. There is some business but nowhere near the pre ITE levels. At least that is what I understand from the corporate side.

And yes I understand that hiring is up over the worst of the recession, but that still doesn't mean that law school at over $200,000 is a smart move.

[JDrecruiter]

Last post: I'm not sure when this became a conversation that a TTT law school at over $200k is a always a good move. New jobs, created because of increased demand for lawyers with 3+ years of experience, trickles down to increased demand for new grads. It has been a tough economy and legal market, no doubt, but it is improving and lawyers/new grads who recognize what it takes to succeed have a brighter future.

[sunynp]

Last post: I'm not sure when this became a conversation that a TTT law school at over $200k is a always a good move. New jobs, created because of increased demand for lawyers with 3+ years of experience, trickles down to increased demand for new grads. It has been a tough economy and legal market, no doubt, but it is improving and lawyers/new grads who recognize what it takes to succeed have a brighter future.

Like i said I think the increased demand for 3Ls is because of all the associates who were fired or no offered. The firms needs people to fill those classes now. You didn't ever give any solid data in any of your posts, which would have been helpful.

And for the other point - yes hiring is improving over the recession, but that still isn't a good reason to go to ANY school for $200,000, not just TTTs. 0Ls need to carefully evaluate the hiring from their school.

http://abovethelaw.com/2012/04/nalp-201 ... he-bottom/

Essentially, firms have adjusted to the new, reduced demand for their services. They’re not trying to shed weight anymore. And that means hiring should at least stabilize, instead of continuing to get worse.

[romothesavior]

I work with experienced lawyers - so some might say that I am out of touch with what is happening to immediate grads.

Hey, I think we're on to something here.

Just another case of an older attorney with NO idea what is going on right now. "Oh everything is fine, yadda yadda yadda, it'll all work out, chin up! The market is looking good!" No, it is absolutely not. Go look at the data. Almost half of the current law students will not have a full-time JD job nine months from graduation. Of the ~25,000 of us lucky enough to wind up with something, a pretty sizeable chunk are going to be working in objectively crappy jobs, many of which will not allow people to service their massive student loan debt. Never in the history of law school (maybe even in the history of higher education) has the ratio of job prospects to debt been so out of whack. And guess who is getting hurt the most? Lower-tier law grads. It is ridiculous for someone to come in here and admittledly not understand the current market for law students, and then turn around and lecture us about the state of the current market. Disingenuous at best, and actually a little insulting.

Again, you want people to stay optimistic and upbeat and keep grinding? Fine, go to tell it to the 3Ls and new grads. They should keep networking and working hard, because what choice do they have? But the 0Ls DO have a choice at this point. So I'm perfectly fine with TLS putting the fear of god in them when it comes time to deciding where and whether or not to go. Optimism has zero place at that stage.

[MrAnon]

This is how schools continue to rip off students. Instead of making a new life for yourself the hard way, you are forking over 6 figures in the hopes that some school will do it for you. The chances are high that the school will not.

[PutSumGravyOnIt]

I agree things are quite shitty for new law grads at this point (the bias of JD recruiter seems obvious). However, there is the entire rest of TLS to warn young 'uns about what they're about to get themselves into. I don't think one optimistic topic should cause everyone to repeat, once again, that 0Ls should get out now and that law school will likely not work out. There are hundreds of topics and probably millions of posts that are already telling us to do that.

Please let those who have committed, and who know the monumental risks, have one moment of optimism.

[rad lulz]

I agree things are quite shitty for new law grads at this point (the bias of JD recruiter seems obvious). However, there is the entire rest of TLS to warn young 'uns about what they're about to get themselves into. I don't think one optimistic topic should cause everyone to repeat, once again, that 0Ls should get out now and that law school will likely not work out. There are hundreds of topics and probably millions of posts that are already telling us to do that.

Please let those who have committed, and who know the monumental risks, have one moment of optimism.

And yet, even with all those posts, I still see threads about people asking whether they should go to Hofstra or St. Johns an stuff.

[MrAnon]

I agree things are quite shitty for new law grads at this point (the bias of JD recruiter seems obvious). However, there is the entire rest of TLS to warn young 'uns about what they're about to get themselves into. I don't think one optimistic topic should cause everyone to repeat, once again, that 0Ls should get out now and that law school will likely not work out. There are hundreds of topics and probably millions of posts that are already telling us to do that.

Please let those who have committed, and who know the monumental risks, have one moment of optimism.

And yet, even with all those posts, I still see threads about people asking whether they should go to Hofstra or St. Johns an stuff.

The overall smarts of law students are declining. who would press on in the face of such information that we have today. It really just daydreamers left at this point.

[Ludo!]

I agree things are quite shitty for new law grads at this point (the bias of JD recruiter seems obvious). However, there is the entire rest of TLS to warn young 'uns about what they're about to get themselves into. I don't think one optimistic topic should cause everyone to repeat, once again, that 0Ls should get out now and that law school will likely not work out. There are hundreds of topics and probably millions of posts that are already telling us to do that.

Please let those who have committed, and who know the monumental risks, have one moment of optimism.

You are allowed to be optimistic in the school specific threads. No one is allowed to go into the Rutgers Class of 2015 threads (for example) and tell you what a terrible decision you are making (RIP areyouinsane). So once you've committed to a school, you get the benefit of the doubt that you know the risks and chose wisely and now you can be excited about starting.

But to make a whole thread about how optimistic you are for law school and attack TLS regulars - that's just asking for people to step in and point out all the reasons you have to not be optimistic

[ChristFirst]

I agree things are quite shitty for new law grads at this point (the bias of JD recruiter seems obvious). However, there is the entire rest of TLS to warn young 'uns about what they're about to get themselves into. I don't think one optimistic topic should cause everyone to repeat, once again, that 0Ls should get out now and that law school will likely not work out. There are hundreds of topics and probably millions of posts that are already telling us to do that.

Please let those who have committed, and who know the monumental risks, have one moment of optimism.

Agreed.

I'm optimistic as well OP. Why start off with a negative attitude?

[hiima3L]

I agree things are quite shitty for new law grads at this point (the bias of JD recruiter seems obvious). However, there is the entire rest of TLS to warn young 'uns about what they're about to get themselves into. I don't think one optimistic topic should cause everyone to repeat, once again, that 0Ls should get out now and that law school will likely not work out. There are hundreds of topics and probably millions of posts that are already telling us to do that.

Please let those who have committed, and who know the monumental risks, have one moment of optimism.

Agreed.

I'm optimistic as well OP. Why start off with a negative attitude?

Because fear is a very strong motivator.

[Blessedassurance]

Reminder: Say no to thread necromancy!

[tyro]

Reminder: Say no to thread necromancy!

Snowy says "woof woof" to thread necromancy.

[manofjustice]

Everyone chill. Stop being a typical depressed, psychologically self-assaulting law student. Or keep on being that...it helps some of us out...

[vpintz]

Everyone chill. Stop being a typical depressed, psychologically self-assaulting law student. Or keep on being that...it helps some of us out...

lol

[Yossarian79]

There's nothing wrong with optimism per se, in the sense of "I'm facing this new challenge, but I'm confident through hard work and dedication I can make it work for me." But the danger is when you allow optimism to become a substitute for coldly rational analysis. The data is out there, and it is not ambiguous -- if you really evaluate it, and still decide that law school is for you and you're willing to run the risks, then go with God and be as optimistic as you want, particularly if you're the type (like me) who can't use fear very productively. But it better not become something you do instead of doing real analysis of some pretty brutal data.

[romothesavior]

There's nothing wrong with optimism per se, in the sense of "I'm facing this new challenge, but I'm confident through hard work and dedication I can make it work for me." But the danger is when you allow optimism to become a substitute for coldly rational analysis. The data is out there, and it is not ambiguous -- if you really evaluate it, and still decide that law school is for you and you're willing to run the risks, then go with God and be as optimistic as you want, particularly if you're the type (like me) who can't use fear very productively. But it better not become something you do instead of doing real analysis of some pretty brutal data.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner. Very well said.

There is a difference between optimism and idiocy. If you have seen the stats and read the articles on the current market, yet you still are optimistic about your chances at TTT Tech State, then you have crossed that line from optimism to idiocy. Reality is going to take a poo on your face in a year or two.

I was optimistic before law school (not stupidly so like this thread), and I've had a successful two years and a great job this summer. Im one of the lucky ones. Yet this law school experience has knocked my outlook down a few notches. Law school is an idiotic investment for probably 70% of law students.

[OperaSoprano]

There's nothing wrong with optimism per se, in the sense of "I'm facing this new challenge, but I'm confident through hard work and dedication I can make it work for me." But the danger is when you allow optimism to become a substitute for coldly rational analysis. The data is out there, and it is not ambiguous -- if you really evaluate it, and still decide that law school is for you and you're willing to run the risks, then go with God and be as optimistic as you want, particularly if you're the type (like me) who can't use fear very productively. But it better not become something you do instead of doing real analysis of some pretty brutal data.

Agree with this as well. You have to do the research about outcomes, and there is no shortcut for that. Are you willing to sacrifice? If you land a job practicing law, but making less money than you might have with just a bachelor's degree, will that bother you? And will you recognize you've gained more than many of your classmates, some of whom will not have any paying legal work a year after graduation? If you go in expecting to sacrifice, rational optimism can get you through many a long night. I'll buck the trend and say I think law school can be life changing in a positive way. As corny as this sounds, it helped me grow as a person, and helped me recommit to what I really wanted to do in my life. I am glad I went, but the gain for me was not financial (low paying PI job). I caution anyone about going if money is their primary motivation-- there must exist much easier ways to make it. Go, and go with your head up, if you fully understand the odds and are willing to sacrifice to make a career in law.

Law school is like a lot of things-- you get what you put in. It CAN be done with optimism, but never without due diligence.

[thelionsaysroar]

I disagree with assuming only the perspective or point-of-view that, for every person who performs well in law school, another student must suffer. This sort of logic parallels a basketball player assuming the point-of-view that if he win a game, other players must lose. Although it is true that, from this perspective, law school is a zero-sum game, is it not also true that each individual professor and to a greater extent law school formulates somewhat abstract standards for their ideal or "perfect" student (such as hours studied, writing style, and ability to retain information)? Is it not the same for those evaluating the performance of an athlete? Are we not all simply trying to adhere to those abstract standards and excel as individuals?

We should be cognizant of the fact that, as law school students, our respective performances are ranked relative to the performances of our peers. I can think of few other professions requiring such an appreciation of fact. However, is there not another standard? Does not the desire to improve ourselves as lawyers in training have anything to do with our performances as individuals?

I would submit that the best lawyers, athletes, and individuals in any profession are not simply those who compete against their rivals or peers, but those who compete against themselves. Do you think that Michael Jordan cared solely about the performance of his rivals? No. Jordan didn't just compete against his rivals; he didn't just work harder than the other basketball players. Jordan pushed his body further by setting personal standards for preparation and then exceeding those standards. He competed against himself.

Maybe we should too.

[sunynp]

I disagree with assuming only the perspective or point-of-view that, for every person who performs well in law school, another student must suffer. This sort of logic parallels a basketball player assuming the point-of-view that if he win a game, other players must lose. Although it is true that, from this perspective, law school is a zero-sum game, is it not also true that each individual professor and to a greater extent law school formulates somewhat abstract standards for their ideal or "perfect" student (such as hours studied, writing style, and ability to retain information)? Is it not the same for those evaluating the performance of an athlete? Are we not all simply trying to adhere to those abstract standards and excel as individuals?

We should be cognizant of the fact that, as law school students, our respective performances are ranked relative to the performances of our peers. I can think of few other professions requiring such an appreciation of fact. However, is there not another standard? Does not the desire to improve ourselves as lawyers in training have anything to do with our performances as individuals?

I would submit that the best lawyers, athletes, and individuals in any profession are not simply those who compete against their rivals or peers, but those who compete against themselves. Do you think that Michael Jordan cared solely about the performance of his rivals? No. Jordan didn't just compete against his rivals; he didn't just work harder than the other basketball players. Jordan pushed his body further by setting personal standards for preparation and then exceeding those standards. He competed against himself.

Maybe we should too.

You created an account for this nonsense and to necro a thread. great job.

You really, really ,really must understand the curve. It is absolutely true that only a certain number of people in any curved class will do extremely well. It is also absolutely true that a certain number of people in any curved class will not do well. There is no other way of looking at this scenario.

Law students are not rarefied athletes in some very tiny closed system, 44,000 law students graduate each year. The comparison to elite athletics is incorrect.

[somewhatwayward]

I disagree with assuming only the perspective or point-of-view that, for every person who performs well in law school, another student must suffer. This sort of logic parallels a basketball player assuming the point-of-view that if he win a game, other players must lose. Although it is true that, from this perspective, law school is a zero-sum game, is it not also true that each individual professor and to a greater extent law school formulates somewhat abstract standards for their ideal or "perfect" student (such as hours studied, writing style, and ability to retain information)? Is it not the same for those evaluating the performance of an athlete? Are we not all simply trying to adhere to those abstract standards and excel as individuals?

We should be cognizant of the fact that, as law school students, our respective performances are ranked relative to the performances of our peers. I can think of few other professions requiring such an appreciation of fact. However, is there not another standard? Does not the desire to improve ourselves as lawyers in training have anything to do with our performances as individuals?

I would submit that the best lawyers, athletes, and individuals in any profession are not simply those who compete against their rivals or peers, but those who compete against themselves. Do you think that Michael Jordan cared solely about the performance of his rivals? No. Jordan didn't just compete against his rivals; he didn't just work harder than the other basketball players. Jordan pushed his body further by setting personal standards for preparation and then exceeding those standards. He competed against himself.

Maybe we should too.

where's that LOLWUT pear when you need it?

[bjsesq]

I disagree with assuming only the perspective or point-of-view that, for every person who performs well in law school, another student must suffer. This sort of logic parallels a basketball player assuming the point-of-view that if he win a game, other players must lose. Although it is true that, from this perspective, law school is a zero-sum game, is it not also true that each individual professor and to a greater extent law school formulates somewhat abstract standards for their ideal or "perfect" student (such as hours studied, writing style, and ability to retain information)? Is it not the same for those evaluating the performance of an athlete? Are we not all simply trying to adhere to those abstract standards and excel as individuals?

We should be cognizant of the fact that, as law school students, our respective performances are ranked relative to the performances of our peers. I can think of few other professions requiring such an appreciation of fact. However, is there not another standard? Does not the desire to improve ourselves as lawyers in training have anything to do with our performances as individuals?

I would submit that the best lawyers, athletes, and individuals in any profession are not simply those who compete against their rivals or peers, but those who compete against themselves. Do you think that Michael Jordan cared solely about the performance of his rivals? No. Jordan didn't just compete against his rivals; he didn't just work harder than the other basketball players. Jordan pushed his body further by setting personal standards for preparation and then exceeding those standards. He competed against himself.

Maybe we should too.

Psssssssst. Could you, yeah, lean in for one second? Gotta tell you a secret.

SHUT THE FUCK UP

[Ludo!]

My money is on the necroer being another givema170/northwesternorbust alt

[terriers]

That post kind of bummed me out because I've always considered myself to be more of a Clyde Drexler type, so I guess all you MJs will be eviscerating me at law school and waving my dead carcass around the court.