This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - NYC2L
« on: April 17, 2008, 09:36:07 PM »
Hmmm. That's the trouble with blogs. It's difficult to express emotion.
Ahhh. That's better.
I was not suggesting that anyone run their mouths like an idiot nor discuss The Hills in an interview (or anywhere for that matter). My advice was simply for the OP to play to his (or her) strengths.
« on: April 17, 2008, 09:18:42 PM »
I would tend to agree. WUSTL is a very well respected school. However, like all schools outside of the T14, it would only place the top 1/3 of the class in big law and probably only top 10-15% in major markets. As a transfer with a high GPA you might be within that group. On the other hand, firms might pass you over because you have not proved yourself at a T1 school. Presumably, you applied to other schools. If your question was should I go to GULC? My answer would be an emphatic yes. For WUSTL, the answer is still yes, but more cautious.
« on: April 17, 2008, 09:10:32 PM »
I agree that some firms are, overall, nicer than others, but it is really hard to tell which is which. The LA firm that lets you wear jeans has, from what I hear, a lot of yellers. People focus on one aspect and draw way too many conclusions.
First, there are more than one such firms. Second, I was not drawing glib conclusions. I was merely providing examples of what could be construed as indicating a lifestyle firm. If, as you say, that firm has lots of yellers, maybe they are not a lifestyle firm. However, for an associate in a practice group not headed by a yeller, the firm could be a lifestyle firm merely because of the dress code. Clearly, for someone else, that one aspect might not make a lifestyle firm in their view. There are numerous aspects that could make a lifestyle firm and numerous personality types that would view lifestyle in different ways. Finally, you are right it is very hard to tell which firms are nicer. However, you can acquire some understanding by going to firm events and talking to young associates or 3Ls at your school or summered at the firm last summer. To paraphrase Obama, "are you bitter or something?"
« on: April 17, 2008, 08:55:15 PM »
The OP specifically said that he (or she) is "friendly and socially extroverted" and I will take the OP at his (or her) word. Moreover, the strategy could only offend an employer if the interviewee refused to provide his or her resume upon request (which would clearly be stupid and unprofessional). Not all interviewers immediately ask for a resume (many of mine did not). Consider the converse: "an average law school nerd" in the top 10% of his class at a top 10 school arrives at an interview and immediately presents his resume to the interviewer because the nerd is terrible at interviewing but knows that once the interviewer sees his class rank, a callback will be more likely forthcoming. Is that similarly disingenuous? Both the nerd and someone who uses the strategy are simply playing to their strengths.
« on: April 17, 2008, 08:25:15 PM »
At a top 10 school (are there ones that are not well-regarded?), even if you are in the bottom 20%, you will have a good shot at biglaw. You will get an additional boost if your school does not allow firms to pre-screen candidates. My friend had a great strategy to counteract her low GPA. When she walked into the interview she did not immediately hand the interviewer her resume. Instead, she wowed him or her with her personality and only provided the resume on her way out. She got two offers at V10 firms and many others at other firms with grades below the median. If your school does pre-screen, it may be more difficult to get interviews so just apply to a wide range of schools to hedge your bets. And don't listen to mutual_biscuit (assuming he or she is not joking), he or she clearly goes to a TTT. Practically everyone at top 10 schools is able to secure law firm employment if they so desire.
« on: April 17, 2008, 08:06:44 PM »
From my experience, I agree with you that lifestyle firms in the sense of less hours are a myth. It's simple economics really. How can a firm compete in the marketplace if they do not require the work output that other law firms demand? Further, how can a firm afford to pay associates the going rate, for less work? The firm would have to pay less which would discourage some of the best students from going there.
What I think the notion of a lifestyle firm actually reflects is the firm's culture. Some firms are known for being more laid back than others. For example, some CA firms do not have a dress code. Associates can walk around in jeans and flip-flops. Other firms are known for being really good to their associates. They work just the same but they are not treated like sh*t at 4 a.m.
The only way to work less hours is to be in a practice group that is slow (like many corporate ones are right now). Of course the down side is that you might get laid up. In addition, I have heard that certain practice groups are more conducive to working regular hours. For example, litigation revolves around courts so usually there is not the sudden demand that a document be drafted in 48 hrs like often occurs on the deal side. That means an associate can manage their time more easily.
« on: April 17, 2008, 02:37:04 PM »
One, never plan on transferring. It is unpredictable how well anyone will perform in law school. Accordingly, do not attend a law school that you would not be satisfied graduating from in the middle of the class with respect to rank.
Two, if you believe that your experiences with the LSAT were not reflective of your ability, deferring for a year and retaking the test would be a much better option than attending any of the schools that you are currently accepted or waitlisted at. Usually, a school will only consider the higher LSAT if an applicant scores 6-8 points higher than previous attempts. Hence, if you think that you could take the test again, and, barring further unforeseen circumstances, score a 158 or higher, you should defer. Think about it. This is one of the biggest decisions of your life and one year is nothing in the scheme of things.
« on: April 16, 2008, 01:40:16 AM »
Theoretically, yes, every single student at NYU can get a biglaw job in NY making 160,000. However, not every student at NYU is interested in biglaw. A significant number of students, probably 15-20%, voluntarily pursue public interest. In addition, many students decide to work at firms in DC, LA, SF, etc. So, while every student could choose NY biglaw, many do not for a variety of reason. Hence, although 95% is an exaggeration, it is a self-selected one.
« on: April 13, 2008, 03:24:20 AM »
Yes, correlate is the right word and my assumption is far from baseless.
"The national correlation between LSAT scores and first-year grades tends to be around +0.4. By comparison, the national correlation between undergraduate and law school grades tends to be around +0.25. The correlation for both variables combined is approximately +0.5." http://www.napla.org/LSAT.htm
Furthermore, I find it ironic that you view 3 hour law school exams as "one of the only factors (besides people skills/personality) [relevant to] legal success" but you blithely reject the predictive value of the LSAT. Why is the act of vomiting onto paper a semester's worth of material clearly so much more predictive of legal success than other factors? However, assuming that law school success = legal success and LSAT success = law school success (as stated above), it follows that LSAT success = legal success. Hence, if you accept your own proposition, you are logically bound to mine.
Finally, I should note that I am not defending the LSAT because it particularly benefited me (I transferred), but because it has demonstrated predictive value, is not hopelessly inflationary (like GPA) and weeds knuckle-draggers out of the profession.
« on: April 13, 2008, 03:03:00 AM »
Based on my experience with the same process, I would apply to both Federal District and Circuit judges. Your class rank and position on law review will make you a competitive candidate. However, that fact is that you will be competing for clerkships, especially circuit ones, with students from T14 schools with your same credentials. Thus, it will be important to apply to plenty of district judges. The most competitive circuits are DC, 2nd, 7th, 9th and those in big cities. Similarly, district clerkships in NY, SF, Chicago, DC, etc. are more competitive than in Fargo, Salem, etc.
I have not heard that a published note is requisite. Most judges ask for a writing sample as part of the application and I believe that they often do not want a completely vetted work product because they want to see your individual writing without outside editing. Finally, strong letters of rec are vital to securing the most competitive clerkships.
Good luck. I'm still trying to decide whether or not to apply.