Why I don't agree with AA

[goaliechica]

You're comparing apples and kittens.

Both of which taste great in pie.

Too much?

I have no idea what's going on in this thread, but now I want pie.

Incidentally, the pie sampler at kramerbooks is excellent. Pumpkin, pecan, key lime, flourless chocolate, and peanut butter all together on one delicious plate!

/helpful addition to thread

[goaliechica]

That doesn't make any sense.

Ten years from now, they'll need a complex securities guy to work in-house.  Who are they going to take?  The guy with lots of experience and a less shiny degree, or the dude who went to Chicago and has fewer of the necessary skills?

I think you underestimate the extent to which prestige-whoring carries on past law school and into the actual profession. They will judge your skills mostly based on where you've worked, which depends a lot on where you went to school.

[goaliechica]

You're comparing apples and kittens.

Both of which taste great in pie.

Too much?

I have no idea what's going on in this thread, but now I want pie.

Incidentally, the pie sampler at kramerbooks is excellent. Pumpking, pecan, key lime, flourless chocolate, and peanut butter all together on one delicious plate!

/helpful addition to thread

No kitten pie?

I forgot to ask. Next time!

::makes embarrassing joke about killing kittens::

[mugatu]

That doesn't make any sense.

Ten years from now, they'll need a complex securities guy to work in-house.  Who are they going to take?  The guy with lots of experience and a less shiny degree, or the dude who went to Chicago and has fewer of the necessary skills?

I saw your original post (came in the auto update).  Fancy!

The counterfactual situation to this point, however, does not hold up.  Who is going to more easily get all that juicy experience?  The guy from Chicago or the guy with the less shiny degree?

Furthermore, you seem to be arguing completely against your life decisions when accepting enrollment.  If what you are postulating is really true, I expect that you would have gotten money from a less shiny school, and thus it is better, long term, to go there.

(But, see, that's not how it works...is it?)

[goaliechica]

Dammit. Why is it that my arguments are always inscrutable and derailed by talk of pie?

I hope this doesn't carry over into the exam book.   

 

::talks of pie::

[mugatu]

I concede defeat, so long as the defeat package comes with pie.   

Speaking of which, I have some tiramisu to attend to.

You should be flattered.  Your statement just sparked a possible era for SFLSD.

Here's my other point.  Is it more convincing?

"My point is ultimately a simple one: people try to show that, somehow, the legal world is unfair when its schools admit AA students with lower numbers.

But.  But.  In making that point, they miss the entire absurdity of the system in the first place!  In comparison to other fields, the legal one is a bubble.  Among other things, we 1) are fixated on degree to the point of insanity, but you rarely hear anyone talk about the quality of their legal education 2) pay people with the "right" credentials 160k before know anything (something that would never happen in IT; there's a ladder) 3) huge disparity between BigLaw and small law 4) rely almost SOLELY on numbers in order to make admissions decisions 5) thousands of other minor points I could make.

The system is incoherent in the first place.  You can't pick one thing and say, "Gee, this is somewhat odd."  It's unfair.  Why don't you complain about how, on account of a four hour test, young people with no worthwhile understanding of the world can get into a top school over a thirty-year-old Tibetian refugee?"

to a certain extent, i agree with this statement completely.  I think it's absolutely silly to pay a first year associate something utterly incommensurate with their ability. 

however, this "bigger problem" over here warrants attention while the "systemic problems" over there exist.

[goaliechica]

I concede defeat, so long as the defeat package comes with pie.   

Speaking of which, I have some tiramisu to attend to.

You should be flattered.  Your statement just sparked a possible era for SFLSD.

Sweet!

Get it, get it?

 

[mugatu]

I concede defeat, so long as the defeat package comes with pie.   

Speaking of which, I have some tiramisu to attend to.

You should be flattered.  Your statement just sparked a possible era for SFLSD.

Sweet!

Get it, get it?

 

lol

[Susan B. Anthony]

You're comparing apples and kittens.

Both of which taste great in pie.

Too much?

I'm about to eat some pie. It's one of those varieties.

[Susan B. Anthony]

Wally, just a few more reasons it doesn't really hold up:

As mu (I think) mentioned - you have to get the relevant experience for it to matter.

I recently attended a meeting at my firm talking about the direction we're taking and their goals for development, etc. In talking about hiring laterals, there's a lot of emphasis on bringing in people with a book of business. That's not something you develop easily, if at all, in many of the career paths open to people who don't attend shiny schools.*

Finally, being fantastic at taking depositions, or having another particular skill, is rarely going to translate into a prestigious or highly paying job. Being a f-ing awesome trial attorney might, but that's a little different than being an awesome deposition taker, at least in terms of the variety of skills necessary and the ability to develop them.

As to your second point...eh. The system is odd, yes, but it's also highly predictable. I find that you can agitate against a system in general and still point to individual bits that don't make sense to you, especially when the system is so predictable.

And now you've put me in the somewhat awkward position of supporting, at least in theory, the arguments of people who are against AA. Thanks for that.

*As always, for the record, statements of this sort should be be understood as constituting approval of the system, or as suggesting that it isn't possible for people who attend lower-ranked schools to be successful. Also, I acknowledge that this discussion is firm-centric.