And to say that, well, in practice most employers in other industries don't do this, so you shouldn't expect this from law firms -- the set of firms that participate in OCI recruiting have created expectations through a long history of certain behaviors. And this determines how applicants interpret what firms' behavior means, and then adjust their own behavior accordingly. The fact that we are applying to them (and need jobs) . . . well, maybe this is the overall source of our disagreement. I am thankful in a sort of broad cosmic sense for having an offer, but I by no means see this as, like, a gift from the firm, for which I should be grateful to THEM. Because if I go there, they're going to make a shitload of money off of me -- arguably MOST of their money is from associate leverage, rather than high fees for partner expertise. Whatever benefits there are to any of us in going to a firm, the relationship works fundamentally in their favor, especially if you stay longer than a year or two. I think the same is true of the recruiting process -- interviewing us isn't doing any of us a favor, even if working at a firm will be beneficial to us as well for whatever reason. This whole process is ultimately a moneymaking enterprise for them, even if it requires spending money up front to fly us around, take time to talk to us, etc. To be clear, I'm not saying that on this point you guys are wrong and I am right. There certainly IS a lot of time and expense involved in recruiting and getting a new associate class to the point where they're profitable.
This is the thing that in the other thread I said comes off as elitist, even if your not trying to be. You just canít look at the past and expect anything like that to be the case NOW. If you understand the way legal hiring has worked over the last 15 years (OCI has not always been what it was, there is a relatively recent phenomena) then you understand that until last year it was a studentís market for the most part. Under the Cravath model firms needed brand name JDs to support their business model, it was all based on billing more for top talent so there was a race on from all firms supporting that billing model to grab as many graduates as they could from top law schools. It was studentís market and that is why we saw steady increases in salary each year and firms going so deep into schools classes.Those days are gone, and they are not coming back. The Cravath model has crashed and burned for all but a few elite firms. Clients are no longer willing to pay top dolor to train new associates just because they have a barnd name degree. Law firms are losing money left and right on new associates in this ecomony, they can't bill like they used to for triaining. Thinking a firm in the ecocemny owes you anything like what it used to be comes from not understanding that there is a fundamental change in the way big firms work AND hire underway. Should be feel like you owe the firm something for hiring you? Hell yes is my view. They donít really need you, and for everyone they hire there are 100ís would give a testicul to be in your position. The simple fact is its not 2007 and it never will be again. Expecting firms to act like it is, to bow to recruits timelines over there own struggles to keep afloat and thinking youíre more needed than you are, is just not understand how the new legal world is shaping up. Believe me Iím not saying you should be thanking god on your knees this firm said yes to you, but I am suggesting you start researching the changing legal market outside what your classmates are telling you. Knowing whatís coming and the value added side to legal work will make you more valuable then if you donít. Its not going back to the way it used to be, and thinking that firms should act like they did in 2007 now is just putting more pressure on yourself then you need. Itís a firms market and will be for awhile. They have all the cards, and if you want the job then you have to play by their rules, even if those rules seem like they are screwing with the rest of your life.
Perhaps I want to enter this type of business because I see inherent value in a business model that is driven almost entirely by profit-maximization (regardless of the place a new law graduate would take in this model -- a source of huge profit margins). (I say "my"/"I" because I have no idea if anyone else actually agrees with me.)
As for alternatives, what good reason do you have for firms being rude or unresponsive? Or giving you the run around when you ask about status? I mean, what harm is it to admit they're running a waitlist when all of us know that's what they're doing? I'm not being contrarian; I honestly cannot come up with anything that isn't totally refutable.
Again, I do know what "false consciousness" means, but I think you're still assuming that the value I believe exists stems from my interest as an individual who would be at the bottom of the ladder. I am not arguing that the model's inherent value is that "to someone who starts at the bottom... you have the possibility of getting to the top." My reasoning doesn't, in any way, depend on the ability of the organizational structure to allow people to advance if they submit to certain employment conditions. My reasoning is that a model driven strongly by profit-maximization provides incentives to those at the top, which are significant not because of how it persuades those at the bottom to stick it out so that they can advance later on, but because of how it allows the business to provide desirable services to a certain subset of (also profit-driven) clients.Of course, this will seem circular if you are against the capitalist system and so don't think that a profit-driven model is inherently valuable in any context (as an incentive for productivity or otherwise). If this is the case, the underlying assumptions of the financial markets are null and, sure, Marx might call this false consciousness. (This being because, under that view, there would be no reason that a junior employee would accept undesirable working conditions other than for a self-interested belief that it would lead to advancement.) However if that's the case, well, I don't accept the argument that there is a more effective incentive to productivity than profit (on an organizational level, where I do think motives differ from those of the organization's component-people)... so, under that assumption, I could care less about the labels put on my viewpoint by those who I don't share fundamental views with. I will note that, if it is true that most new associates in law firms only stick it out for the self-interested reasons you mentioned -- the possibility of advancement or the benefits of being at the bottom of this type of org over a less profitable one -- rather than because they share the belief that the business model is the most efficient, then I would agree that the conditions of this particular organizational form are inefficient (as distinct from a belief that this form would always be inefficient).
Like I said before they hold all the cards, that's just how the game is played now, is it right or wrong, I don't know nor do I really care, since my beilf in if its right or wrong is not going to change the fact theat they still have all the wpoer and you have to put up with the crap that comes along if you want to play the game.
Mmm. I want to read this again later. (I ran into a bit of a "tl;dr" problem, since Boo has to pee and it's my turn to take him out.) But: system justification theory + system threat. I'm intrigued by the possibility of applying it to this thread/problem. Wally, please don't feel bad for partners. Unless it's to make them think that you are their bestie, and then to bilk them for all they are worth. That, I approve of.