You're the hiring partner, who are you adding to the ship? Forum

[DoubleChecks]

i dont know how your hypothetical would play out, but personally, id like to believe the majority at HLS arent socially awkward types that suck at interviewing, etc.

it isnt about comparing 2 extremes in the real world, it is about getting as many advantages as you can, and HLS is an obvious advantage over a T50 school

[grifter]

...

[englawyer]

Do you jump on the hiring manager's couch like the real Tom Cruise?

lol - no, you know what I'm attempting to get at ITT. In the real world, this is the stuff that lands you the job, for better or worse. You have to have the ability, yes, but some of what we're obsessing over on TLS isn't going to matter in three years.

Networking, relationships, communication skills, appearance.....

By and large, Harvard grades have all those things + HLS on their resume.

exactly. all sensible law students see that getting a job is priority number one, and will maximize their chances to do so. all of those things help in your job search, so they are smart activities to undertake

[englawyer]

for davis polk, i did a quick scan/list of the JD schools of the partners from A-B (last name). the list is huge so i stopped there, but it should be a representative sample. Only one is a US non-T14 of 22.

Harvard
Georgetown
Melbourne
Columbia
Yale
Georgetown
Columbia
Columbia
Harvard
Pittsburgh (summa cum laude)
NYU
Chicago
Western Australia
Columbia
Columbia
Columbia
NYU
UPenn
NYU
Harvard
Michigan
Harvard

[Legacy316]

...

[reasonabledoubt]

for davis polk, i did a quick scan/list of the JD schools of the partners from A-B (last name). the list is huge so i stopped there, but it should be a representative sample. Only one is a US non-T14 of 22.

Harvard
Georgetown
Melbourne
Columbia
Yale
Georgetown
Columbia
Columbia
Harvard
Pittsburgh (summa cum laude)
NYU
Chicago
Western Australia
Columbia
Columbia
Columbia
NYU
UPenn
NYU
Harvard
Michigan
Harvard

Blatant Davis Polk trolling.

[echoi]

In the real world, the choice is: Harvard grad vs. other Harvard grad vs. Stanford grad vs. other T14 grads.

[Mr. Matlock]

For a major firm/player, the T50 resume doesn't make it past the file clerks assistant's oral hygienist. Yea, some one can say "I know a guy who...." Sure it happens. 1 in 100 times.... and that was probably a few years ago.

[ScaredWorkedBored]

The Harvard kid, mostly because I can justify his billing rate much more easily. Welcome to the world of resume-based websites, kids.

-

Social awkwardness is frankly irrelevant. If it was really a disabling criteria, the majority of T6 students would not be getting good jobs, let alone a near-monopoly on the best jobs. Chicago and Yale in particular, I suppose. The corrolation between selecting for extreme intelligence and getting people with "awkward" traits is so high that I don't see an argument for it being an accident. Maybe it's because they didn't drink in college and didn't have to explain that bad year that left them with an undistingushed 3.4 and the T50 school. Maybe it's because some of the weird genius processing that does things academically that most people can't even learn crowds out social intelligence. Who knows.

Personally, I think you would be well served to put "LOLNERD" out of your head. Most of the people who actually make difficult practice groups or valuable client businesses run are very much socially awkward nerds at "best" and often pretty obvious Aspergers cases. Since you have to work for and work under these people, it might be a good idea to stop pretending that you are better than them because you get to eat at the jock lunch table and are "good in a room." Don't make fun of the tax partner.

[reasonabledoubt]

The Harvard kid, mostly because I can justify his billing rate much more easily. Welcome to the world of resume-based websites, kids.

-

Social awkwardness is frankly irrelevant. If it was really a disabling criteria, the majority of T6 students would not be getting good jobs, let alone a near-monopoly on the best jobs. Chicago and Yale in particular, I suppose. The corrolation between selecting for extreme intelligence and getting people with "awkward" traits is so high that I don't see an argument for it being an accident. Maybe it's because they didn't drink in college and didn't have to explain that bad year that left them with an undistingushed 3.4 and the T50 school. Maybe it's because some of the weird genius processing that does things academically that most people can't even learn crowds out social intelligence. Who knows.

Personally, I think you would be well served to put "LOLNERD" out of your head. Most of the people who actually make difficult practice groups or valuable client businesses run are very much socially awkward nerds at "best" and often pretty obvious Aspergers cases. Since you have to work for and work under these people, it might be a good idea to stop pretending that you are better than them because you get to eat at the jock lunch table and are "good in a room." Don't make fun of the tax partner.

You know, I hear what you're trying to say but I've listened to dozens of Yale Law, Harvard Law, etc, podcasts I downloaded on various issues ranging from attempts and more effective market regulation, credit crisis, recovery, bailout, etc, etc, and frankly.... they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

It's all a theory-based circle-jerk of spectacularly detached observations relative to the actual "in the trenches" dynamics of the systems they pretentiously attempt to discuss. (and fail) In short, I think YLS and HLS may be producing self-assured academians and scholars, but we all know how useless those types can be when real-world dynamics are brought into question.

For example, there are thousands of YLS and HLS alums lurking throughout elevated roles in almost every major industry.... I've read my city's federal reserve banks explanation of "credit market turmoil, causes, consequences and cures" and guess what, on the first page it states: (and I quote)

Speaking of 2007:

"But generally, conditions were thought to be relatively good, as interest rates were low (as were credit risk spreads), liquidity was plentiful, equity markets were near record high levels, and consumers were utilizing their newfound wealth from increases in home values for greater consumption."

Are you f'ing kidding me? I knew in 2000 that this was an artificially created bubble that was going to explode to the detriment of every system connected to it. It turned out to be the world economy. Surely there were at least a few ivy leage law grads at Fannie/freddie, treasury, fed, regulatory agencies, etc, that checked (for instance) bank leverage ratio trends. No? Then they're either retarded or in on the orchestrated demolition/restructuring of our financial system. That's the bottom line.

Prior to collapse, banks were lending to corporations (which credit rating agencies rated as AAA or AA) using a leverage rate of 62.5 times to 1. Come on... this is either insanity, willful ignorance or destructive and systemically catastrophic greed.

My question is.... where were the brilliant YLS or HLS grads then to point out the obvious back in 2000? Nowhere to be found. Yet, I was ranting about it to anyone that would listen. Most people I know lost 30-40% of their net worth over the last 3-4 years. Earlier and more proactive regulation could have mitigated the subsequent collapse..... and it just might take a non-ivy type to go against the grain and point out the obvious when YHS grads are too disciplined to think outside of the rigid ideological box. This is also part of the reason I think firms might favor option 2 in this thread. (at least sometimes)

Sorry for the grammar.... typed fast.

[ScaredWorkedBored]

You know, I hear what you're trying to say but I've listened to dozens of Yale Law, Harvard Law, etc, podcasts I downloaded on various issues ranging from attempts and more effective market regulation, credit crisis, recovery, bailout, etc, etc, and frankly.... they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

It's all a theory-based circle-jerk of spectacularly detached observations relative to the actual "in the trenches" dynamics of the systems they pretentiously attempt to discuss. (and fail) In short, I think YLS and HLS may be producing self-assured academians and scholars, but we all know how useless those types can be when real-world dynamics are brought into question.

This has nothing to do with intelligence or the inherent ability of Harvard students. If you haven't worked in those fields, majored in those fields or grown up around those fields, you're not going to be able to speak on any of it. You won't be able to speak intelligently and analytically without considerable experience, an advanced degree, or both. You might be able to BS but this BS will be profoundly unconvincing to someone who actually can do it. It's like these people who spend a semester abroad and think they can conduct a complex business meeting at native fluency. In a difficult language like Chinese or Japanese, for that matter.

It's also not like the mythical guy at the T50 school is somehow getting an in-depth finance degree during his three years of law school, so I'm not really sure where you are going with this. Law school at best teaches some aspects of this stuff at a relatively superficial level, if you choose to take the courses.

[Mr. Matlock]

You know, I hear what you're trying to say but I've listened to dozens of Yale Law, Harvard Law, etc, podcasts I downloaded on various issues ranging from attempts and more effective market regulation, credit crisis, recovery, bailout, etc, etc, and frankly.... they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

It's all a theory-based circle-jerk of spectacularly detached observations relative to the actual "in the trenches" dynamics of the systems they pretentiously attempt to discuss. (and fail) In short, I think YLS and HLS may be producing self-assured academians and scholars, but we all know how useless those types can be when real-world dynamics are brought into question.

For example, there are thousands of YLS and HLS alums lurking throughout elevated roles in almost every major industry.... I've read my city's federal reserve banks explanation of "credit market turmoil, causes, consequences and cures" and guess what, on the first page it states: (and I quote)

Speaking of 2007:

"But generally, conditions were thought to be relatively good, as interest rates were low (as were credit risk spreads), liquidity was plentiful, equity markets were near record high levels, and consumers were utilizing their newfound wealth from increases in home values for greater consumption."

Are you f'ing kidding me? I knew in 2000 that this was an artificially created bubble that was going to explode to the detriment of every system connected to it. It turned out to be the world economy. Surely there were at least a few ivy leage law grads at Fannie/freddie, treasury, fed, regulatory agencies, etc, that checked (for instance) bank leverage ratio trends. No? Then they're either retarded or in on the orchestrated demolition/restructuring of our financial system. That's the bottom line.

Prior to collapse, banks were lending to corporations (which credit rating agencies rated as AAA or AA) using a leverage rate of 62.5 times to 1. Come on... this is either insanity, willful ignorance or destructive and systemically catastrophic greed.

My question is.... where were the brilliant YLS or HLS grads then to point out the obvious back in 2000? Nowhere to be found. Yet, I was ranting about it to anyone that would listen. Most people I know lost 30-40% of their net worth over the last 3-4 years. Earlier and more proactive regulation could have mitigated the subsequent collapse..... and it just might take a non-ivy type to go against the grain and point out the obvious when YHS grads are too disciplined to think outside of the rigid ideological box. This is also part of the reason I think firms might favor option 2 in this thread. (at least sometimes)

Sorry for the grammar.... typed fast.

Umm... geeze. I guess if you predicted all of that, then they'll definitely hire you over those lazy HLS and YLS grads. Kudos to you!

[of Benito Cereno]

The Harvard kid, mostly because I can justify his billing rate much more easily. Welcome to the world of resume-based websites, kids.

-

Social awkwardness is frankly irrelevant. If it was really a disabling criteria, the majority of T6 students would not be getting good jobs, let alone a near-monopoly on the best jobs. Chicago and Yale in particular, I suppose. The corrolation between selecting for extreme intelligence and getting people with "awkward" traits is so high that I don't see an argument for it being an accident. Maybe it's because they didn't drink in college and didn't have to explain that bad year that left them with an undistingushed 3.4 and the T50 school. Maybe it's because some of the weird genius processing that does things academically that most people can't even learn crowds out social intelligence. Who knows.

Personally, I think you would be well served to put "LOLNERD" out of your head. Most of the people who actually make difficult practice groups or valuable client businesses run are very much socially awkward nerds at "best" and often pretty obvious Aspergers cases. Since you have to work for and work under these people, it might be a good idea to stop pretending that you are better than them because you get to eat at the jock lunch table and are "good in a room." Don't make fun of the tax partner.

You know, I hear what you're trying to say but I've listened to dozens of Yale Law, Harvard Law, etc, podcasts I downloaded on various issues ranging from attempts and more effective market regulation, credit crisis, recovery, bailout, etc, etc, and frankly.... they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

It's all a theory-based circle-jerk of spectacularly detached observations relative to the actual "in the trenches" dynamics of the systems they pretentiously attempt to discuss. (and fail) In short, I think YLS and HLS may be producing self-assured academians and scholars, but we all know how useless those types can be when real-world dynamics are brought into question.

For example, there are thousands of YLS and HLS alums lurking throughout elevated roles in almost every major industry.... I've read my city's federal reserve banks explanation of "credit market turmoil, causes, consequences and cures" and guess what, on the first page it states: (and I quote)

Speaking of 2007:

"But generally, conditions were thought to be relatively good, as interest rates were low (as were credit risk spreads), liquidity was plentiful, equity markets were near record high levels, and consumers were utilizing their newfound wealth from increases in home values for greater consumption."

Are you f'ing kidding me? I knew in 2000 that this was an artificially created bubble that was going to explode to the detriment of every system connected to it. It turned out to be the world economy. Surely there were at least a few ivy leage law grads at Fannie/freddie, treasury, fed, regulatory agencies, etc, that checked (for instance) bank leverage ratio trends. No? Then they're either retarded or in on the orchestrated demolition/restructuring of our financial system. That's the bottom line.

Prior to collapse, banks were lending to corporations (which credit rating agencies rated as AAA or AA) using a leverage rate of 62.5 times to 1. Come on... this is either insanity, willful ignorance or destructive and systemically catastrophic greed.

My question is.... where were the brilliant YLS or HLS grads then to point out the obvious back in 2000? Nowhere to be found. Yet, I was ranting about it to anyone that would listen. Most people I know lost 30-40% of their net worth over the last 3-4 years. Earlier and more proactive regulation could have mitigated the subsequent collapse..... and it just might take a non-ivy type to go against the grain and point out the obvious when YHS grads are too disciplined to think outside of the rigid ideological box. This is also part of the reason I think firms might favor option 2 in this thread. (at least sometimes)

Sorry for the grammar.... typed fast.

Yea, I bet most of those Yale and Harvard professors STILL don't realize the CIA and Mossad blew up the Twin Towers in a controlled demolition. Whereas I'm sure you had the TRUTH figured out right from the get go. Its easy when you don't have those Ivory Tower / Mainstream Media blinders and read lots and lots and lots of message boards.

[Nom Sawyer]

You know, I hear what you're trying to say but I've listened to dozens of Yale Law, Harvard Law, etc, podcasts I downloaded on various issues ranging from attempts and more effective market regulation, credit crisis, recovery, bailout, etc, etc, and frankly.... they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

It's all a theory-based circle-jerk of spectacularly detached observations relative to the actual "in the trenches" dynamics of the systems they pretentiously attempt to discuss. (and fail) In short, I think YLS and HLS may be producing self-assured academians and scholars, but we all know how useless those types can be when real-world dynamics are brought into question.

Are you f'ing kidding me? I knew in 2000 that this was an artificially created bubble that was going to explode to the detriment of every system connected to it. It turned out to be the world economy. Surely there were at least a few ivy leage law grads at Fannie/freddie, treasury, fed, regulatory agencies, etc, that checked (for instance) bank leverage ratio trends. No? Then they're either retarded or in on the orchestrated demolition/restructuring of our financial system. That's the bottom line.

Prior to collapse, banks were lending to corporations (which credit rating agencies rated as AAA or AA) using a leverage rate of 62.5 times to 1. Come on... this is either insanity, willful ignorance or destructive and systemically catastrophic greed.

My question is.... where were the brilliant YLS or HLS grads then to point out the obvious back in 2000? Nowhere to be found. Yet, I was ranting about it to anyone that would listen. Most people I know lost 30-40% of their net worth over the last 3-4 years. Earlier and more proactive regulation could have mitigated the subsequent collapse..... and it just might take a non-ivy type to go against the grain and point out the obvious when YHS grads are too disciplined to think outside of the rigid ideological box. This is also part of the reason I think firms might favor option 2 in this thread. (at least sometimes)

Sorry for the grammar.... typed fast.

Yea, I bet most of those Yale and Harvard professors STILL don't realize the CIA and Mossad blew up the Twin Towers in a controlled demolition. Whereas I'm sure you had the TRUTH figured out right from the get go. Its easy when you don't have those Ivory Tower / Mainstream Media blinders and read lots and lots and lots of message boards.

[reasonabledoubt]

The Harvard kid, mostly because I can justify his billing rate much more easily. Welcome to the world of resume-based websites, kids.

-

Social awkwardness is frankly irrelevant. If it was really a disabling criteria, the majority of T6 students would not be getting good jobs, let alone a near-monopoly on the best jobs. Chicago and Yale in particular, I suppose. The corrolation between selecting for extreme intelligence and getting people with "awkward" traits is so high that I don't see an argument for it being an accident. Maybe it's because they didn't drink in college and didn't have to explain that bad year that left them with an undistingushed 3.4 and the T50 school. Maybe it's because some of the weird genius processing that does things academically that most people can't even learn crowds out social intelligence. Who knows.

Personally, I think you would be well served to put "LOLNERD" out of your head. Most of the people who actually make difficult practice groups or valuable client businesses run are very much socially awkward nerds at "best" and often pretty obvious Aspergers cases. Since you have to work for and work under these people, it might be a good idea to stop pretending that you are better than them because you get to eat at the jock lunch table and are "good in a room." Don't make fun of the tax partner.

You know, I hear what you're trying to say but I've listened to dozens of Yale Law, Harvard Law, etc, podcasts I downloaded on various issues ranging from attempts and more effective market regulation, credit crisis, recovery, bailout, etc, etc, and frankly.... they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

It's all a theory-based circle-jerk of spectacularly detached observations relative to the actual "in the trenches" dynamics of the systems they pretentiously attempt to discuss. (and fail) In short, I think YLS and HLS may be producing self-assured academians and scholars, but we all know how useless those types can be when real-world dynamics are brought into question.

For example, there are thousands of YLS and HLS alums lurking throughout elevated roles in almost every major industry.... I've read my city's federal reserve banks explanation of "credit market turmoil, causes, consequences and cures" and guess what, on the first page it states: (and I quote)

Speaking of 2007:

"But generally, conditions were thought to be relatively good, as interest rates were low (as were credit risk spreads), liquidity was plentiful, equity markets were near record high levels, and consumers were utilizing their newfound wealth from increases in home values for greater consumption."

Are you f'ing kidding me? I knew in 2000 that this was an artificially created bubble that was going to explode to the detriment of every system connected to it. It turned out to be the world economy. Surely there were at least a few ivy leage law grads at Fannie/freddie, treasury, fed, regulatory agencies, etc, that checked (for instance) bank leverage ratio trends. No? Then they're either retarded or in on the orchestrated demolition/restructuring of our financial system. That's the bottom line.

Prior to collapse, banks were lending to corporations (which credit rating agencies rated as AAA or AA) using a leverage rate of 62.5 times to 1. Come on... this is either insanity, willful ignorance or destructive and systemically catastrophic greed.

My question is.... where were the brilliant YLS or HLS grads then to point out the obvious back in 2000? Nowhere to be found. Yet, I was ranting about it to anyone that would listen. Most people I know lost 30-40% of their net worth over the last 3-4 years. Earlier and more proactive regulation could have mitigated the subsequent collapse..... and it just might take a non-ivy type to go against the grain and point out the obvious when YHS grads are too disciplined to think outside of the rigid ideological box. This is also part of the reason I think firms might favor option 2 in this thread. (at least sometimes)

Sorry for the grammar.... typed fast.

Yea, I bet most of those Yale and Harvard professors STILL don't realize the CIA and Mossad blew up the Twin Towers in a controlled demolition. Whereas I'm sure you had the TRUTH figured out right from the get go. Its easy when you don't have those Ivory Tower / Mainstream Media blinders and read lots and lots and lots of message boards.

LOLWUT!? Umm... stick to the topic much? Also, flame.

[reasonabledoubt]

You know, I hear what you're trying to say but I've listened to dozens of Yale Law, Harvard Law, etc, podcasts I downloaded on various issues ranging from attempts and more effective market regulation, credit crisis, recovery, bailout, etc, etc, and frankly.... they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

It's all a theory-based circle-jerk of spectacularly detached observations relative to the actual "in the trenches" dynamics of the systems they pretentiously attempt to discuss. (and fail) In short, I think YLS and HLS may be producing self-assured academians and scholars, but we all know how useless those types can be when real-world dynamics are brought into question.

Are you f'ing kidding me? I knew in 2000 that this was an artificially created bubble that was going to explode to the detriment of every system connected to it. It turned out to be the world economy. Surely there were at least a few ivy leage law grads at Fannie/freddie, treasury, fed, regulatory agencies, etc, that checked (for instance) bank leverage ratio trends. No? Then they're either retarded or in on the orchestrated demolition/restructuring of our financial system. That's the bottom line.

Prior to collapse, banks were lending to corporations (which credit rating agencies rated as AAA or AA) using a leverage rate of 62.5 times to 1. Come on... this is either insanity, willful ignorance or destructive and systemically catastrophic greed.

My question is.... where were the brilliant YLS or HLS grads then to point out the obvious back in 2000? Nowhere to be found. Yet, I was ranting about it to anyone that would listen. Most people I know lost 30-40% of their net worth over the last 3-4 years. Earlier and more proactive regulation could have mitigated the subsequent collapse..... and it just might take a non-ivy type to go against the grain and point out the obvious when YHS grads are too disciplined to think outside of the rigid ideological box. This is also part of the reason I think firms might favor option 2 in this thread. (at least sometimes)

Sorry for the grammar.... typed fast.

Yea, I bet most of those Yale and Harvard professors STILL don't realize the CIA and Mossad blew up the Twin Towers in a controlled demolition. Whereas I'm sure you had the TRUTH figured out right from the get go. Its easy when you don't have those Ivory Tower / Mainstream Media blinders and read lots and lots and lots of message boards.

LOL at a cat being named Reginald..... that's actually a funny pic.

[Nom Sawyer]

LOL at a cat being named Reginald..... that's actually a funny pic.

--ImageRemoved--

[stratocophic]

LOL at a cat being named Reginald..... that's actually a funny pic.

--ImageRemoved--

--ImageRemoved--

3-hit combo

[nealric]

One of our friends of the family is a senior partner at a top firm, and he basically answered this question for me. He'd choose the T1 or T2 state school (as long as it was in his region) any day. He told us how he thinks that the T14 don't prep you as well for real world application as do some of the regional schools.

Funny though, I guarantee his firm's actual hiring practices don't agree with that sentiment (if it's actually a national top firm).

But anyways, I think the whole thread is a false dichotomy. There is no particular reason why a HLS kid would be any more or less street smart than the state-school kid. I've met bookish people who couldn't tie their shoes from T2 schools and suave street-smart people who go to HLS (and vise versa).

[aIvin adams]

in terms of advancing one's career, the only reason to choose the state school over a t-14 school is the 3 yrs of access. and it largely depends on the type of job you want. i think for the vast majority of law jobs, t-14 > top state school. but the 3 years of networking is a huge asset if you want to be involved with local politics, for instance.

[aIvin adams]

in the vein of local politics, 3 yrs at the local law school will give you a chance to demonstrate that the city you are studying in is the place where you want to work.

"I am of the opinion that my life belongs to the whole community and as long as I live, it is my privilege to do for it whatever I can. I want to be thoroughly used up when I die, for the harder I work the more I live." George Bernard Shaw


that type of thing. im really, really attached to my city. i couldnt get into a t-14 if i wanted to (prolly), but even if i decided to study for the LSAT and retake it would only be to get more $$$ from my local LS. bc i want to work here and nowhere else.