Why is LSD failing to TLS?

[vap]

Have fun at your TTT, f**.

Autoadmit in six words.

I haven't checked them out in a while; I think it reminded me too much of TLS.

[bt]

Why is LSD failing to TLS?

This thread is a good example.   

[heartbreaker]

Why is LSD failing to TLS?

This thread is a good example.   

What's your point? Higher traffic does not mean better conversation or more useful information.

[Thistle]

srsly.  what useful information was meant to be gleaned from here anyway?

[bt]

Why is LSD failing to TLS?

This thread is a good example.   

What's your point? Higher traffic does not mean better conversation or more useful information.

This thread is one big complaint fest about the arch-nemesis of LSD, TLS.  Having been a member of both sites for some time, it seems quite clear that both sites have some of the same posters and often have similar topics.  To claim that TLS is inferior to LSD due to post content is silly, since there has been just as much useful information on that site as there is here.  Moreover, I think my initial assessment is pretty accurate: TLS is more active, and response time is quicker. 

That isn't to say I'm claiming that LSD is inferior to TLS - if that were the case I wouldn't read/post here anymore.  But to claim that LSD is "failing" to TLS because TLS has crappier posts seems self-loathing.  It's just the case that there is more activity over there, which generates even more activity.  I don't know why LSD has slowed down (it's not dead or anything, though) but there's just as much crap here as there is over there.

[Miss P]

You simply need to go where associates are, because they know best.

Assuming what you want to learn is something associates would be in a position to know.

[,.,.,.;.,.,.]

You simply need to go where associates are, because they know best.

Assuming what you want to learn is something associates would be in a position to know.

It's a good assumption.

There are virtually no PI people over there, but some government workers (allegedly).

[Miss P]

It's a good assumption.

I'd say this really depends on the person, but no, their advice is not directly helpful for over 90% of law students.

IDK, some of the associates I knew at my old work were . . . shockingly uninformed.  For example, one of them tried to talk me into applying to his T14 alma mater despite the fact that he knew my precise numbers, which were laughable.  And he had just graduated, so he had no excuse.

I also agree with this.  A former supervisor of mine (who had worked as an associate before joining my public interest employer) somehow thought I was getting into her alma mater (HLS) despite my sub-3.0 GPA, just because I had a 170+ LSAT.

[Pop Up Video]

Same thing with my NU interviewer. He really thought I'd be gold at some of my reaches, which is pretty laughable given my numbers.

[Pop Up Video]

That isn't even to mention how generally misinformed many of them were about, oh, the work we were doing.  Or how things worked at the firm.  Or where things were.  Or really anything.

It was like guiding blind children around.  Blind children with bad attitudes.

Do you think this was limited to your firm? Or are associates this dumb generally?