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 - O.
« on: July 25, 2008, 01:19:28 PM »
I've started with a list of major markets I'd like to work in (or have ties to), medium markets I have ties to, and international cities I'd like to live for the summer. I have no idea how to compile firms, though. Are you just grabbing all firms from the area off of NALP?
I think it was yellowbrickroad who recommended peppering all marginal markets that pay you the minimum you'd like to be paid. I might do this and figure that career services has a list of bull reasons we can give with no ties.
Yep. I've been going through NALP and compiling a long list, with the firm name, the date at which they'd like you to apply (sometimes it's 12/5, 1/1, or they don't hire 1Ls), and the recruiter's e-mail. By September, I should have my cover letters ready as well, though I've written only two as of today.
I'm debating whether to add Austin firms to the list and say that, although I've never been to Texas, it's been my dream to work in that great college town.
« on: July 25, 2008, 12:21:23 PM »
I thought that I could give them some little speech about how much I like low COL and good weather, but I'm wondering whether my apps will end up in the trash.
<-- currently compiling list of firms, soon to write cover letters.
« on: July 25, 2008, 10:59:08 AM »
What type of people love it? Good writers who are fond of detail?
Also, I would love to hear some discussion of BigLaw salaries in Chicago.
« on: July 25, 2008, 10:40:02 AM »
Fourth, from that perspective it is hard to see an argument that four years of an elite education is going to shape someone's life so completely that they would not be able to relate to the rest of the populace.
This is where I agree with you, as evidenced my by earlier comments. This man is a professor, not a four-year graduate of an elite school. He's been in the Ivory Tower for all of his working life, which is why he can't relate to his plumber. It has nothing to do with your average elite graduate.
In fact, I would say that English is part of the problem. Most of the English grad students I know are completely unable to relate to working stiffs, regardless of where they study.
« on: July 25, 2008, 10:37:32 AM »
Third, no one cares about elite colleges and universities anymore. Sure saying you go to Harvard sounds good, but I doubt it really has any practical competitive benefit anymore. Say you went to Harvard for undergrad and Emory for law school. A kid who went to Emory for undergrad and Harvard for law school has just jumped over you completely. And so has every other kid in elite law schools. The same for business and other disciplines.
This is wrong. When I graduated from a non-elite college, I scrambled for work and ended up in an industry that didn't interest me in the least. That was part of the impetus for professional school. I know it's anecdotal evidence, but many of my classmates were in the same boat.
The Harvard UG will have a good chance at landing places on Wall Street, Management Consulting, Paralegal work at top firms (where the benefits and pay are good), and a variety of other spots in publishing and business. Engineering is no different, since I don't see many unemployed MIT grads in my line of work; in fact, someone advertised their MIT status only a week ago on a street corner in NYC. Do you think that same man would have written, "Unemployed MIT grad" if it didn't show his status and talents? Whether the Harvard/MIT/Yale UG student marticulates at a lower-ranked LS is beside the discussion. Of course, that would limit his or her options.
« on: July 25, 2008, 10:28:41 AM »
You make some fantastic points, but I would like to debate you on a few of them.
The article, we must recall, comes from the perspective of an English professor, which is why he constantly harps on the introspection and the pure intellectualism and curiosity he seeks from his students. However, he fails to show how Yale is any different from any other school: intellectual curiosity in students is very rare anywhere you go. Most people I knew treated college as a vocational exercise. His examples about Wall Street are more reflective of the English distrust of the working world, if not academia's distrust of the working world in general.
To the extent that kids at elite colleges care about their grades in high school and their SAT score relative to peers at less prestigious schools, it is probably because they are 18, 19 years old and have an overly proud sense of accomplishment; not because the school itself teaches them to think like that.
But. But. I think that sense of accomplishment is what he's getting at: it starts there, and then grows. The 18 year-old is proud of how he beat his classmates at the GPA/LSAT combo game, then proud of how he scored an A in Calc, then proud of his Harvard degree, then proud . . . .
And, yes, no grades is still grades. Instead of fighting over for that A, I think that even Yalies fight over jobs at McKinsey, Wachtell, and CoA. It's a different sense of competition, which reinforces the end-game result as the victory, rather than the means (i.e., the grades).
« on: July 25, 2008, 09:44:19 AM »
Fine. I'll start.
I was dismayed by the article's suggestion that there is "nobility" to some working-class jobs like a teacher, an attitude that reflects a latent guilt complex about being an upper-class professor. When he suggests that you can live comfortably as a teacher or banana boat operator, he's correct insofar he compares that comfort to a teacher in, say, a third-world country -- the notion of relative versus absolute provery -- but I don't think that it's all that comfortable. The reality is that some teachers have salaries that can't keep up with inflation; others are at the whim of creditors and their home equity; and, as any teacher would tell you, the work and pay aren't always that great.
I think there's been a push to create some working-class people out of these "elite" schools, in order to further the idea that it's not beneath a Yalie to teach third-graders, so long as it makes a "difference."
The truth is that these elite schools kids have no monopoly on excellent education, and that the teachers they produce, by the logic of this author, are usually unable to relate to average folks, like John Kerry can't relate to them. (Would you want Kerry to teach your son history?)
In effect, I think it's another way to create prestige: the illusion that it's prestigious to do these jobs (see: the ironic prestige of TFA, which should be a decidely unprestigious program that's loaded with working folks). A State School graduate that teaches history isn't prestigious, while your ho-hum Yalie turns the classroom into a world of difference, a way of charging the new generation with values. I think that's a bullocks way to look at things.
Anywoo, that's one point the article made. I thought there were many other excellent onces, all of which are relevant to LSD.
« on: July 25, 2008, 09:10:29 AM »
I'll quote a few excerpts from this dashing article and let you discuss them. Here's one with particular relevance to LSD:
"The second disadvantage, implicit in what I’ve been saying, is that an elite education inculcates a false sense of self-worth. Getting to an elite college, being at an elite college, and going on from an elite college—all involve numerical rankings: SAT, GPA, GRE.
You learn to think of yourself in terms of those numbers. They come to signify not only your fate, but your identity; not only your identity, but your value. It’s been said that what those tests really measure is your ability to take tests, but even if they measure something real, it is only a small slice of the real. The problem begins when students are encouraged to forget this truth, when academic excellence becomes excellence in some absolute sense, when “better at X” becomes simply “better.”
Also another gem:
"At the same time, because these schools tend to cultivate liberal attitudes, they leave their students in the paradoxical position of wanting to advocate on behalf of the working class while being unable to hold a simple conversation with anyone in it. Witness the last two Democratic presidential nominees, Al Gore and John Kerry: one each from Harvard and Yale, both earnest, decent, intelligent men, both utterly incapable of communicating with the larger electorate."
« on: July 12, 2008, 10:00:49 AM »
« on: July 06, 2008, 11:36:18 PM »
So I've been doing a little research about certain firms in secondary markets, and, once in a while, I'll come upon a firm that OCIs at a school yet rarely hires from it.
For instance, I found a secondary market firm that regularly goes to Michigan, but they have only two Michigan graduates, and both of them are senior partners. One graduated in the late 1960s.
What's the point? Do some of these places go for other reasons? What might they be? If a firm OCIs at a school yet never hires from it, is it a good sign for someone trying to drum up 1L employment?