Are successful/smart/hardworking students subsidizing others Forum

[paul_m86]

Wow, very gradual and elaborate AA flame...

Not a flame at all. I don't really have any problem with AA as it's implemented by schools now. Just wondering if LRAP, along with diversity scholarship and hiring, is enough to tip the balance of any potential subsidizing URMs might be doing with the rest of the general class. I really don't want this to turn into an AA debate.

[paul_m86]

Topic has nothing to do with legal employment, just law schools and their alumni. Moved.

Thanks. Sorry.

[romothesavior]

Of course students who go into the private sector subsidize students that go into public interest. This is because those who go into public interest are doing something good for the country. The idea that they're less successful, smart, or hardworking is bullshit. Most people at top schools are quite smart, many people who get good grades do PI as a choice, and regardless everyone agrees to the LRAP deal by enrolling in a school that offers it.

This is spot on.

I'm not a fan of a lot of the PI students, but to call them lazy, dumb, etc. is just disrespectful and untrue.

[paul_m86]

Of course students who go into the private sector subsidize students that go into public interest. This is because those who go into public interest are doing something good for the country. The idea that they're less successful, smart, or hardworking is bullshit. Most people at top schools are quite smart, many people who get good grades do PI as a choice, and regardless everyone agrees to the LRAP deal by enrolling in a school that offers it.

This is spot on.

I'm not a fan of a lot of the PI students, but to call them lazy, dumb, etc. is just disrespectful and untrue.

They're certainly not all lazy, bad at law school, etc.

But I don't think it's in doubt that people who are not hard-working or bad at law school tend to head toward public interest work, as a group. Again, just speaking in very general terms. Just like law review people as a group don't in general go for public interest jobs.

[ToTransferOrNot]

Of course students who go into the private sector subsidize students that go into public interest. This is because those who go into public interest are doing something good for the country. The idea that they're less successful, smart, or hardworking is bullshit. Most people at top schools are quite smart, many people who get good grades do PI as a choice, and regardless everyone agrees to the LRAP deal by enrolling in a school that offers it.

This is spot on.

I'm not a fan of a lot of the PI students, but to call them lazy, dumb, etc. is just disrespectful and untrue.

They're certainly not all lazy, bad at law school, etc.

But I don't think it's in doubt that people who are not hard-working or bad at law school tend to head toward public interest work, as a group. Again, just speaking in very general terms. Just like law review people as a group don't in general go for public interest jobs.

You should probably just stop posting.

[20121109]

Also, an interesting question might be to ask how URMs fit into this. They certainly perform worse than average as a group considering they get into their respective schools with lower numbers. I'm wondering if scholarship money and firm diversity hiring makes up for this deficit, or whether URMs might be, in a way, subsidizing non-URMs.

Thin ice.

[romothesavior]

Of course students who go into the private sector subsidize students that go into public interest. This is because those who go into public interest are doing something good for the country. The idea that they're less successful, smart, or hardworking is bullshit. Most people at top schools are quite smart, many people who get good grades do PI as a choice, and regardless everyone agrees to the LRAP deal by enrolling in a school that offers it.

This is spot on.

I'm not a fan of a lot of the PI students, but to call them lazy, dumb, etc. is just disrespectful and untrue.

They're certainly not all lazy, bad at law school, etc.

But I don't think it's in doubt that people who are not hard-working or bad at law school tend to head toward public interest work, as a group. Again, just speaking in very general terms. Just like law review people as a group don't in general go for public interest jobs.

Or they gravitate towards unemployment. I see your point, as the top of our class at WUSTL is almost exclusively going the private route. But there are a good number of PI folks who 1) knew they wanted to do PI before they even game to WUSTL or 2) got really good grades but just decided to go the PI route over the private firm route.

[paul_m86]

Also, an interesting question might be to ask how URMs fit into this. They certainly perform worse than average as a group considering they get into their respective schools with lower numbers. I'm wondering if scholarship money and firm diversity hiring makes up for this deficit, or whether URMs might be, in a way, subsidizing non-URMs.

Thin ice.

Thin ice for stating fact, and not doing it in an inflammatory nature? Sorry for stepping on toes I guess.

[IAFG]

The idea that PI people aren't good at law school is strange to me. The people I know who came in wanting PI were at the top of the class, and though a couple were lured by $ to join private practice, the idea that people do poorly in LS and then pursue PI doesn't comport with my experiences at all. I suppose it might be true that they are left with nothing to do 2L summer but PI? That hardly means that they'll end up getting or taking PI jobs after graduation. PI jobs are often harder to get than biglaw.

[ahduth]

So what is this guy talking about anyhow? Is he just hating on PI? He obviously doesn't go to my school. I can't figure out what else he's mad about. Seems like he's just an all-purpose elitist?

[Rotor]

But I don't think it's in doubt that people who are not hard-working or bad at law school tend to head toward public interest work, as a group. Again, just speaking in very general terms. Just like law review people as a group don't in general go for public interest jobs.

You have your last assertion backward. It's that PI folks tend not to go for law review. We've done several years of empirical study of who attempts to write on and this is a pretty clear conclusion. (Don't know what to make of grade-on schools though)

[paul_m86]

So what is this guy talking about anyhow? Is he just hating on PI? He obviously doesn't go to my school. I can't figure out what else he's mad about. Seems like he's just an all-purpose elitist?

I started this thread after enduring an OWS-esque lecture about the evils of big business by somebody who participated in OCI, struck out, and is now planning on going into public interest/plaintiffs side firm/whatever. So maybe this was a little bit of a rage thread to start off and now I'm trying to hang onto a sinking ship.

Still think that it's an interesting thing to think about (who is subsidizing who, etc).

[billyez]

But I don't think it's in doubt that people who are not hard-working or bad at law school tend to head toward public interest work, as a group. Again, just speaking in very general terms. Just like law review people as a group don't in general go for public interest jobs.

You have your last assertion backward. It's that PI folks tend not to go for law review. We've done several years of empirical study of who attempts to write on and this is a pretty clear conclusion. (Don't know what to make of grade-on schools though)

What empirical studies?

[uci2013]

important to keep in mind that I was just speaking in general terms

Maybe its just my school, but I don't know a single person on law review who is going into public interest, while the people who struck out at OCI are heading there in droves

Maybe it's your school or maybe you are making assumptions that aren't true. We have some very strong students who came in wanting to pursue public interest and are doing so, even with high grades. We also have some students with high grades who are interested in PI who decided not to waste their time with law review and do pro bono work instead, even some who got SAs didn't try for law review (it is 100% write on here - no grade on).

[romothesavior]

I started this thread after enduring an OWS-esque lecture about the evils of big business by somebody

This = good reason for disliking PI people

The reasons given in your OP were not.

[somewhatwayward]

OP, if your real name is paul, i think just figured out who you are

[20130312]

OP, if your real name is paul, i think just figured out who you are

I'm guessing his name is Paul M. and he was born in 1986.

[spondee]

But I don't think it's in doubt that people who are not hard-working or bad at law school tend to head toward public interest work, as a group. Again, just speaking in very general terms. Just like law review people as a group don't in general go for public interest jobs.

You have your last assertion backward. It's that PI folks tend not to go for law review. We've done several years of empirical study of who attempts to write on and this is a pretty clear conclusion. (Don't know what to make of grade-on schools though)

What empirical studies?

+1. It'd be interesting to hear more about this.

[forty-two]

I'm not a fan of a lot of the PI students, but to call them lazy, dumb, etc. is just disrespectful and untrue.

They're certainly not all lazy, bad at law school, etc.

But I don't think it's in doubt that people who are not hard-working or bad at law school tend to head toward public interest work, as a group. Again, just speaking in very general terms. Just like law review people as a group don't in general go for public interest jobs.

There's no reason for many people who want to do PI to be on LR. This doesn't mean those students are dumb and lazy. Instead, it means that most PI employers, at least the ones I know, value practical experience and dedication to the field over being on journal. PI and government jobs are very competitive and difficult to get these days, but those employers and biglaw employers look for different things. So, many of the people who want those jobs just aren't following the same path you are. I don't see how this means they don't work hard and are stupid.

[paul_m86]

OP, if your real name is paul, i think just figured out who you are

Do you go to CCN? Probably do then. Eh, don't really care either way.

[paul_m86]

I'm not a fan of a lot of the PI students, but to call them lazy, dumb, etc. is just disrespectful and untrue.

They're certainly not all lazy, bad at law school, etc.

But I don't think it's in doubt that people who are not hard-working or bad at law school tend to head toward public interest work, as a group. Again, just speaking in very general terms. Just like law review people as a group don't in general go for public interest jobs.

There's no reason for many people who want to do PI to be on LR. This doesn't mean those students are dumb and lazy. Instead, it means that most PI employers, at least the ones I know, value practical experience and dedication to the field over being on journal. PI and government jobs are very competitive and difficult to get these days, but those employers and biglaw employers look for different things. So, many of the people who want those jobs just aren't following the same path you are. I don't see how this means they don't work hard and are stupid.

(1) A fair amount of people who get onto LR grade on. Thus, being on LR for many is a signal of good grades--something that every employer should value; it's more than just "being on a journal."
(2) I think you're overestimating how easy some public interest work is to get. Sure, the DOJ or ACLU may be tough to snag, but finding some public interest organization willing to expend a rather small amount of money on an attorney really isn't that tough. I know a number of people who I suspect are in the bottom quarter, came straight from UG, and didn't have too much trouble getting something lined up with a public interest organization.

[Geist13]

OP, there's nothing wrong with wanting to do PI and still going through OCI. In fact, given the difficulty of breaking into PI nowadays, it would be silly not to give yourself as many professional opportunities as possible. Also, I know a number of people, myself included, who are more PI leaning, but also still like making money and so want to see what other opportunities are out there. Also, PI people, again myself included, often realize that substantive areas usually associated with "private" practice are more interesting than anticipated, so again they see the value of pursuing multiple professional opportunities.

Granted, it's silly to then turn around and talk smack about private practice (which is silly regardless of your interest in private practice), but it sounds like you're generalizing from an isolated interaction with a kid who probably doesn't like thinking about how he struck out, once again like myself.

As far as the subsidization question. The answer is "yes," your tuition dollars do, to some extent, subsidize people who get PI. That's the whole point of LRAP. However your tuition also subsidizes meals for kids who go to those free lunch events held by certain organizations (which you may not want to support), and your tuition subsidizes scholarships received by all manner of students, etc. It's not an isolated thing, it's part of giving tuition to an institution that apportions money in a number of ways. Lastly, you're an idiot if you think that people who don't work hard are the people getting PI positions. They aren't; PI is hard to get. The people who just simply don't work are often getting nothing at all (with exceptions of course).

[paul_m86]

OP, there's nothing wrong with wanting to do PI and still going through OCI. In fact, given the difficulty of breaking into PI nowadays, it would be silly not to give yourself as many professional opportunities as possible. Also, I know a number of people, myself included, who are more PI leaning, but also still like making money and so want to see what other opportunities are out there. Also, PI people, again myself included, often realize that substantive areas usually associated with "private" practice are more interesting than anticipated, so again they see the value of pursuing multiple professional opportunities.

Granted, it's silly to then turn around and talk smack about private practice (which is silly regardless of you interest in it), but it sounds like your generalizing from an isolated interaction with a kid who probably doesn't like thinking about how he struck out, once again like myself.

I don't have any problem with people who came in wanting to do PI and do OCI after their interests shift during 1L. Just don't act like you came to law school to save the whales when you would have jumped at a V10 offer. As related to the primary question of this thread, the issue might be whether people successful at OCI subsidize those who are not successful (as a result of bad grades or whatever) and do PI work as plan B. Again, speaking very generally.

And it's not been an isolated incident with the public interest person. I have experienced at least half a dozen public interest people who were doing their best to make people going into biglaw feel "dirty." Granted, most of them didn't even do OCI (not sure if this was because it would have been a fruitless endeavor or if they really are that religious to PI).

[somewhatwayward]

OP, if your real name is paul, i think just figured out who you are

Do you go to CCN? Probably do then. Eh, don't really care either way.

yes i do go to CCN

[paul_m86]

OP, there's nothing wrong with wanting to do PI and still going through OCI. In fact, given the difficulty of breaking into PI nowadays, it would be silly not to give yourself as many professional opportunities as possible. Also, I know a number of people, myself included, who are more PI leaning, but also still like making money and so want to see what other opportunities are out there. Also, PI people, again myself included, often realize that substantive areas usually associated with "private" practice are more interesting than anticipated, so again they see the value of pursuing multiple professional opportunities.

Granted, it's silly to then turn around and talk smack about private practice (which is silly regardless of your interest in private practice), but it sounds like you're generalizing from an isolated interaction with a kid who probably doesn't like thinking about how he struck out, once again like myself.

As far as the subsidization question. The answer is "yes," your tuition dollars do, to some extent, subsidize people who get PI. That's the whole point of LRAP. However your tuition also subsidizes meals for kids who go to those free lunch events held by certain organizations (which you may not want to support), and your tuition subsidizes scholarships received by all manner of students, etc. It's not an isolated thing, it's part of giving tuition to an institution that apportions money in a number of ways. Lastly, you're an idiot if you think that people who don't work hard are the people getting PI positions. They aren't; PI is hard to get. The people who just simply don't work are often getting nothing at all (with exceptions of course).

If PI work is so difficult to get, why do I see so many people who struck out at OCI getting public interest work lined up after graduation?