Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?

[vansondon]

Well, first of all, you don't know what anything sounds like, since there is no "sound" component to this discussion.  If it reads a certain way to you, I think it's a matter of reading comprehension.  Second of all, speak for yourself. You have some 6 pages of discussion/debate under this topic, yet you're not able to discern my position as the alternative to the elitist perception.  I've been very clear in my position.  If you don't understand it, you either have a comprehension problem, or you haven't read it all.  I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you through the alternatives, here. If you don't understand it, that isn't my problem. There is a larger narrative here, and if you can't see it, then there is no place for you in this discussion.

The only solution is for you to go away.

It isn't difficult.   

[hooloovoo]

The only solution is for you to go away.

yeah, i'm not going to do that.  and commenting on a person's tone is not a reading comprehension issue.  i'm just saying you sound like someone with a chip on her shoulder.  you'd be more effective if you adopted a different tone.

[soundsgood]

I don't even see the "All TTT's are shitholes" argument in this thread.  Only that higher-ranked schools will serve most students better than lower-ranked schools in many (but not all) situations.  Illini Boy even stated that he doesn't know if elitism SHOULD exist, only that it DOES exist--and that law students should not blindly ignore it.

Vansondon, it seems you're arguing against some pretty mild (and reasonable) statements.  Maybe save some of your points for the posters that really rip on lower-ranked schools.  Law school is all about the gray area, and this discussion definitely has a ton of gray.  Painting the issue as black and white isn't gonna work.

[vansondon]

Would you really want to pick a guy from Appalachian, FAMU, or some CBA toilet that finished slightly above median over a guy from Columbia or Virginia that finished slightly below median and would you really pay them the same that you would have paid the guy from the better school, or maybe even more since they are apparently the better candidate based on their class rank?

Soundsgood, I see what you mean, but don't you think the above quote falls in line the "All TTT's are shitholes" argument?  I mean "CBA toilet?" Come on!

Plus, he said, "Law is an elitist profession and that's the way it should remain for everyone's good."

And just to be clear, I'm not arguing against the fact that elitism exists in the legal education and employment apparatuses, I know it exists. I've acknowledged the reality.  I just think it's discriminatory, and it should stop.  It should be unlawful.

It's one thing to not hire someone because they have demonstrated disqualification and incompetence for the practice of law; but it's quite another thing not to hire them simply because they went to a certain school.  That's all I've been saying, here.

[soundsgood]

Eh, maybe the language wasn't the nicest way to put it, but it is fairly common vernacular on the message boards.  If I were you, I'd try not to get bogged down by the language, and instead try to focus on the points being made.

From a quick glance, it looks like you've completely "dug in."  I think some of your points are pretty good, others are pretty indefensible.  If you'd cede some of the weaker points, I think you'd find more people in agreement with your stronger arguments.

But either way, I've been entertained by the arguing, so it is a win-win from my point-of-view, haha.

[hooloovoo]

Plus, he said, "Law is an elitist profession and that's the way it should remain for everyone's good."

i think he means that entry into the legal profession isn't an entitlement, and that it should be reserved for those who have the capacity to act as counselors.

and that's something that you agree with, isn't that right?  you merely disagree with how we determine who has that capacity?  you're suggesting that there is absolutely no relationship between that capacity and what school a person attends?

[vansondon]

you're suggesting that there is absolutely no relationship between that capacity and what school a person attends?

Yes!  That's exactly right.  That's precisely what I'm suggesting and arguing, here.

[hooloovoo]

It's one thing to not hire someone because they have demonstrated disqualification and incompetence for the practice of law; but it's quite another thing not to hire them simply because they went to a certain school.  That's all I've been saying, here.

what if an employer only has time to interview five people for a position?  should they be required to interview everyone out there or are they allowed to use imperfect proxies to determine which five people might be the best to interview?

[vansondon]

It's one thing to not hire someone because they have demonstrated disqualification and incompetence for the practice of law; but it's quite another thing not to hire them simply because they went to a certain school.  That's all I've been saying, here.

what if an employer only has time to interview five people for a position?  should they be required to interview everyone out there or are they allowed to use imperfect proxies to determine which five people might be the best to interview?

If these are five strong candidates, I don't see why it would be a hardship to interview all of them (if I understand what you're saying).  Succumbing to imperfect proxies is likely to yield imperfect results, and perhaps a disappointing hire.

[hooloovoo]

you're suggesting that there is absolutely no relationship between that capacity and what school a person attends?

Yes!  That's exactly right.  That's precisely what I'm suggesting and arguing, here.

what if employers have determined, through their experience over the years in hiring law school graduates, that on balance some schools produce more capable lawyers than others?  for example, say an employer has hired people from two schools for the past 20 years (we'll call these hypothetical schools "boalt" and "uchicago" to be random), and that it's found that in general, graduates of boalt are awesome and graduates from uchicago are mediocre at best?  should it still not be allowed to favor boalt graduates over uchicago graduates?

but you're saying this doesn't happen, and that really what's going on is that employers aren't using their past hiring experiences as a guide, but instead are just going by what some magazine tells them.  is that right?