Law School Discussion

Show Posts

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 - Refused Party Program

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 49
Transferring / Re: IP Electives or Bar related courses?
« on: October 08, 2008, 09:01:00 PM »
A professor of mine told our class a little while ago that the prep classes for the bar (Barbri specifically) can be very useful tools, even if you haven't taken the course. They have it down to a science apparently. She claimed she didn't take most of the classes that were on the NY bar and she did just fine (as did many of her peers). She is also brilliant, so you might want to consider that info ...

Other than the different Jx and won't remember it arguments (which are valid), I also think you should just take whatever interests you. It is your education. I've been told by many a patent attorney that taking Patent Law did not help them at all. However, I would much rather take Patent Law than Income Tax. You just sat through a year of taking stuff without an option. Exercise your options.

Transferring / Re: Top 25 to top 14
« on: October 08, 2008, 08:53:22 PM »
Third, if you want biglaw, go T14... you will crap your pants at how much more opportunity there is JUST DURING OCI. This doesn't include resume drops and personal mailings. It's obscene.

OldCraig has some wonderful advice, but I just want to elaborate a little bit on his 3d comment.

I was seriously considering transferring from a top 25 to a top 10 school with similar grades. I decided not to do it. There were three reasons why I did not. First, I'm in a few competitive programs at my current school that were not options at the transfer school. Two, I would be leaving a good deal of scholarship money on the table. Third, and finally, I didn't think my job opportunities would be vastly different. That last point is important.

If you able to transfer, you probably have stellar grades/extras. I have plenty of biglaw options, many of the same that people I know who did in fact transfer from my school to top 10 schools. (Of course, this depends on your definition, but for now lets say its a big firm that pays top of the market salaries). Will you get an interview with Watchtell? Maybe not. Will you get an interview at Cravath, Sullivan, Weil, et al.? It is very possible (at least that is my experience). Again, depends on your "biglaw" definition, but if you use mine, then you can get a job.

So, if it is ONLY to improve your job prospects, I'm not sure if it is the best move. You ought to have good options. It might be easier, but it may not be worth it if you are giving up some other things.

Plus, if you are a 1L, wait until your grades come out before worrying about this. There will be many 1Ls come Jan who end up lower than they thought they were going to be.

Transferring / Re: rock bottom to what? insight sought
« on: October 08, 2008, 08:36:08 PM »
The poster above is correct: if you are currently a 2L, most schools do not accept transfers for the 3L final year. Some do offer a visiting student status for 3d year. If any of the schools you are interested offer this, it might be a good option. You will still graduate with your Elon degree.

That being said, you may want to try a slightly alternative route to getting a job...

You already have a registration number, this can make you valuable on its own. You can use this as a backdoor way to an associate position. I know some firms let you work as a patent agent your 3L year, then hire you on as an associate once you pass the bar, paying you as a 2d year associate.

The only problem is that I assume you want to be in Chicago, and I guess Elon's law school is in NC? If that is a route you want to take then it makes more sense to try and finish your last year of school where you want to end up, if you can.

Job Search / Re: new suit NECESSARY for callback interview?
« on: October 02, 2008, 06:16:39 AM »

Haha, I just said I'm not even sure we disagree!  The only one who seems to be freaking out is the person you're defending.

OK, I'm taking umbrage with this comment.

First of all, my story was not gripping, it was a word of caution. Frankly, I don't care if the firm "dinged" me for pants. While she may have liked me, maybe she liked other people more. I didn't hear the comment first hand so I'm not even sure what was said. As I stated earlier, if it is the firm I think it is, I could do without the callback. I have options that are better for me in that city and I also don't think I clicked with this particular person.

Second, I think I'm hardly the one that is "freaking out" on this thread. There are plenty of others that I would say are more upset (on both sides of the issue). Honestly, I think both sides have valid arguments.

Finally, the comment was actually a good thing because it confirmed my suspicion that my pants were indeed to short and needed to be fixed.

All of that being said, I feel like some of you are very quick to make judgments about my character (that I am a sloppy, socially inept, impoverished, scum bag) based on my story. While that is fine and good, just keep in mind I shared a story with the purpose of saying: "yes, some firms may notice minor details of your dress." Attacking me for my pants after sharing the story comes across (to me at least) as arrogant and superficial, especially after I admitted that it was something I should have taken care of. I would argue that indicates social ineptitude more than an improperly tailored suit.

What about callback interviews?

There are two firms that I have not heard from either way.   Now that i'm outside the time frame that they gave me to hear back, should I call or email the recruiting coordinator?  Or leave it be?

One of the firms I was most interested in took 6 weeks to get back to me with a no. It was a small office of a national firm in smaller market. I had an offer that was going to expire. About half way through that time frame, I called the recruiting coordinator (this was 3.5 weeks after the callback) and she said they hadn't even met yet to discuss candidates. She is not in the office I interviewed. About a week later, I e-mailed the partner that screened me a week and a half later. He looked into it for me and told me (very apologetically and nicely) the "thanks but no thanks" letter was mailed the day before.

I think if they are small firms/offices in small markets, be patient. If you don't have an offer, there no sense in being impatient. If you do have an offer, and you would be interested in this firm over the offer, I think you should politely let them know your situation.

If you have a time frame, and it took longer than they it should have, you may have been "waitlisted." That happened to me with a different place.

We have similar lists. Honestly, as far as reputation and things on paper, any of those would be a good option. K&S while not a big player has a very solid group (they are mentioned by other firms in the good IP lit firms in the town discussion).

Ropes, Kenyon and maybe Fish and maybe K&S have better "quality of life" reps than Kirkland and Weil. Kirland and Weil have a higher rankings on Vault (if that matters to you), and maybe better bonuses but who knows.

However, I think I would base your decision more on where you "felt" better and where you liked the people the best. All of those firms are great places to be so I think you are almost in a "can't make a wrong choice" position if you liked them all the best.

Job Search / Re: new suit NECESSARY for callback interview?
« on: October 01, 2008, 11:38:29 AM »
Well I certainly didn't mean to hijack the thread, but I will say a few things:

1) My point was interviewers may notice something as "trivial" as pants that are an inch too short.
2) I actually thought they were too short when I got them tailored, but was told that was where they were supposed to sit. I didn't wear suits in my previous career, I didn't know anything about how a suit ought to fit. Moral of the story: just taking something to get tailored doesn't solve the problem. You need to make sure your tailor knows what they are doing. Mine did not. Do an internet search BEFORE you go to the tailor and tell them they are wrong if they are in fact wrong. I learned my lesson.
3) While one or two interviewers picked up on it, I still got a callback or two from that day. It wasn't the end of the world. I suppose my social ineptness wasn't as egregious as some in this thread have made it out to be. (I have offers as well from interviews where I wore my "highwater suit pants.").
4) As much as some may want to fight it, the law business IS an image business. Little things matter whether we want to or not and I think that carries over into places that have biz casual dress codes and PI organizations.
5) That being said, a nice fitting suit won't cover up your lousy personality, grades, lack of significant work experience, elitist attitude, state school degree or whatever else someone isn't going to like about you. However, if there is only one callback or position, and its between you in the bad fitting suit, and the guy in the nice suit, all else being equal, I think they are going with the nice suit. Just a hunch.

Job Search / Re: new suit NECESSARY for callback interview?
« on: September 29, 2008, 07:36:25 PM »
Well, I will say, if who said it was who I think said it, I'm probably better off. Actually, I'm better off regardless, I'm not sure I would want to work at a place where pant length was that important.

It really isn't a big deal at the end of the day. I have good options. It is a funny story and a word of caution to some other people out there.

I guess the question here is this: if you are a natural leader, and an extrovert, do you really want to work for a firm that doesn't appreciate those qualities? I think there are good firms out there that like personality and there are "good" firms out there that want no personality because they want you to be a billing machine and not a person. Frankly, I'd like to be a person.

At first, I was really surprised how much I liked all the firms from which I got callbacks. The more I thought about it, the more it made sense. The reason they called me back is because they saw I would be a good fit and they were looking for people like me, and I was looking for a firm like them. I will also say I went on ALOT of screening interviews and did not get as many callbacks, percentage wise, as some my classmates. However, I would rather be somewhere that appreciates me than some where that is a Vault 10 firm.

I wouldn't take it so hard. They probably think you wouldn't be a good fit, and they are probably doing you a favor.

Then again, I guess crap job is better than no job?

Job Search / Re: Which of these firms?
« on: September 29, 2008, 02:22:27 PM »
Take this with a grain of salt, because its all rumors, but isn't that what the internet is for:

1) Fitzpatrick: one person in an interview mentioned these guys as one of the boutiques in NYC that is hurting a little bit. I did not mention the Fitzpatrick, he did as the GP v. Boutique discussion came up. He did follow that up with a comment that boutiques are a great place to get training, especially for Pat. Pros.

2) Goodwin: I have heard good things about the NYC office, especially if you want to do bio-tech stuff. That isn't my focus, this is what I hear from my bio-tech friends at school.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 49