Jealous of Big Law partner spouses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ And I'll add, WE miss dinner with the kids when we go out on a date or have another social obligation, but HE has missed dinner for work only once in the last six months.

Geostationary.

Clearly there is something wrong with your memory if you only remember once. No one believes this is true. I do believe that your cognition might be faulty.

Well, I believe it to be true. I had a law school professor who was always home for dinner. She said it was just really, really important to her to be home for dinner every day so she did it even when she was a junior partner at a big law firm (in case anybody is curious I think it was Kirkland in litigation). Her husband wasn't an attorney but had a really demanding job as well and he was there for dinners too. Of course they stayed up late to get things done. It's just about what you prioritize.

I didn't mean junior partner, I meant junior associate.

Yes, of course, because you don’t make partner at Kirkland by leaving every day at 4pm and never traveling. Hence, she’s a law professor making 1/50th of what a Kirkland partner makes. Cool story bro.

Kirkland makes everyone who sticks around to 10th year "junior partner" (non-equity)

+1

They do that so you can claim to be a "partner" at dinner parties, for people like OP, who posts these same questions so often.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what you’re seeing here are spouses who’s married to biglaw and fall into 2 camps… 1 happy marriages, 2 unhappy marriages. The happy marriages find a way to maximize time at home and the unhappy marriages the biglaw partner throws in more and more time at work for possibly diminishing returns because it’s more palatable than being at home. This is supported by the claims of better work/life balance being accompanied by less unpleasant posters and the claims of bad work/life balance being accompanied by bitter, accusatory, suspicious, and unpleasant posters.

It all seems to align.

Not even close. My husband is very happy at home and miserable at work. We are saving FU money as fast as we possibly can. It think it’s the more materlistic/less materialistic divide. They happy wives are willing to up with anything just for the giant paycheck. Even if it’s “easy street” now, they didn’t get there on easy street.

Yea, I'm the PP with a big law spouse but who also works. Reading this thread was fascinating. I think the people who think it's worth it can't make their own money.

Double Biglaw for over a decade (he made partner I made counsel). I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Of course having so much money you never have to think about it is worth a lot of BS.

Ah, but you actually wanted biglaw - people who 'make' counsel basically wanted partner but didn't get it. By the way, I was biglaw too until I jumped ship - I was the associate you all hated because I was super smart, super good, and also super jack@$$-y about the fact that I wouldn't work for partners who didn't go to Ivies. I also memorized all of the associates published hours so I could tell you which dummy to bother instead of me who wasn't hitting their billables.

You sound like a badass. And what are you doing now with your Ivy League degree besides bragging on DCUM?

Making bank at one of those dream in house flex jobs. Because my end goal was never to make partner. It served me well. And to the PP recovering lawyer, what’s your issue? You have to not overwork your star people? Guess what, some of us weren’t in it to cover for white guys who shot the shit and bro-ed out all day.

“Making bank” in-house? We make the same - let’s not exaggerate. My in-house legal team is paid on the same pay scale and there are no bonuses for your fancy Ivy League degree, no one cares.

DP here. This is not usually the case - maybe you got lucky, but if you graduated last (or even first) in your bottom of the barrel barely-accredited law school, your options are usually quite limited - especially (especially) compared to ivy educated lawyers. Most every lawyer knows this.

[Anonymous]

Not me. I'd be super annoyed if my spouse was "on call" all the time and I had to parent the children on my own. But to each their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what you’re seeing here are spouses who’s married to biglaw and fall into 2 camps… 1 happy marriages, 2 unhappy marriages. The happy marriages find a way to maximize time at home and the unhappy marriages the biglaw partner throws in more and more time at work for possibly diminishing returns because it’s more palatable than being at home. This is supported by the claims of better work/life balance being accompanied by less unpleasant posters and the claims of bad work/life balance being accompanied by bitter, accusatory, suspicious, and unpleasant posters.

It all seems to align.

Not even close. My husband is very happy at home and miserable at work. We are saving FU money as fast as we possibly can. It think it’s the more materlistic/less materialistic divide. They happy wives are willing to up with anything just for the giant paycheck. Even if it’s “easy street” now, they didn’t get there on easy street.

Yea, I'm the PP with a big law spouse but who also works. Reading this thread was fascinating. I think the people who think it's worth it can't make their own money.

Double Biglaw for over a decade (he made partner I made counsel). I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Of course having so much money you never have to think about it is worth a lot of BS.

Ah, but you actually wanted biglaw - people who 'make' counsel basically wanted partner but didn't get it. By the way, I was biglaw too until I jumped ship - I was the associate you all hated because I was super smart, super good, and also super jack@$$-y about the fact that I wouldn't work for partners who didn't go to Ivies. I also memorized all of the associates published hours so I could tell you which dummy to bother instead of me who wasn't hitting their billables.

You sound like a badass. And what are you doing now with your Ivy League degree besides bragging on DCUM?

Making bank at one of those dream in house flex jobs. Because my end goal was never to make partner. It served me well. And to the PP recovering lawyer, what’s your issue? You have to not overwork your star people? Guess what, some of us weren’t in it to cover for white guys who shot the shit and bro-ed out all day.

“Making bank” in-house? We make the same - let’s not exaggerate. My in-house legal team is paid on the same pay scale and there are no bonuses for your fancy Ivy League degree, no one cares.

DP here. This is not usually the case - maybe you got lucky, but if you graduated last (or even first) in your bottom of the barrel barely-accredited law school, your options are usually quite limited - especially (especially) compared to ivy educated lawyers. Most every lawyer knows this.

Another DP. Most lawyers also have basic reading comprehension skills. The PP wasn't saying that lawyers from Ivies don't make more money that people from very low-regarded schools generally. They were saying that in an in-house department, no one cares which people went to an Ivy versus another school. And this is true in my experience, as someone who attended a non-Ivy. There are a very large number of well-respected law school that no one considers "bottom of the barrel barely-accredited." I've never encountered any limitations because I attended a well-regarded public law school instead of an Ivy, and in some settings I think my degree is advantageous compared to one from a place like Cornell or Penn (agree there's always a benefit to Harvard and Yale, especially in academia or at certain firms). In-house departments are largely much less pedigree focused, and at some companies, other factors are much more important (industry experience, for instance).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what you’re seeing here are spouses who’s married to biglaw and fall into 2 camps… 1 happy marriages, 2 unhappy marriages. The happy marriages find a way to maximize time at home and the unhappy marriages the biglaw partner throws in more and more time at work for possibly diminishing returns because it’s more palatable than being at home. This is supported by the claims of better work/life balance being accompanied by less unpleasant posters and the claims of bad work/life balance being accompanied by bitter, accusatory, suspicious, and unpleasant posters.

It all seems to align.

Not even close. My husband is very happy at home and miserable at work. We are saving FU money as fast as we possibly can. It think it’s the more materlistic/less materialistic divide. They happy wives are willing to up with anything just for the giant paycheck. Even if it’s “easy street” now, they didn’t get there on easy street.

Yea, I'm the PP with a big law spouse but who also works. Reading this thread was fascinating. I think the people who think it's worth it can't make their own money.

Double Biglaw for over a decade (he made partner I made counsel). I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Of course having so much money you never have to think about it is worth a lot of BS.

Ah, but you actually wanted biglaw - people who 'make' counsel basically wanted partner but didn't get it. By the way, I was biglaw too until I jumped ship - I was the associate you all hated because I was super smart, super good, and also super jack@$$-y about the fact that I wouldn't work for partners who didn't go to Ivies. I also memorized all of the associates published hours so I could tell you which dummy to bother instead of me who wasn't hitting their billables.

You sound like a badass. And what are you doing now with your Ivy League degree besides bragging on DCUM?

Making bank at one of those dream in house flex jobs. Because my end goal was never to make partner. It served me well. And to the PP recovering lawyer, what’s your issue? You have to not overwork your star people? Guess what, some of us weren’t in it to cover for white guys who shot the shit and bro-ed out all day.

“Making bank” in-house? We make the same - let’s not exaggerate. My in-house legal team is paid on the same pay scale and there are no bonuses for your fancy Ivy League degree, no one cares.

DP here. This is not usually the case - maybe you got lucky, but if you graduated last (or even first) in your bottom of the barrel barely-accredited law school, your options are usually quite limited - especially (especially) compared to ivy educated lawyers. Most every lawyer knows this.

Another DP. Most lawyers also have basic reading comprehension skills. The PP wasn't saying that lawyers from Ivies don't make more money that people from very low-regarded schools generally. They were saying that in an in-house department, no one cares which people went to an Ivy versus another school. And this is true in my experience, as someone who attended a non-Ivy. There are a very large number of well-respected law school that no one considers "bottom of the barrel barely-accredited." I've never encountered any limitations because I attended a well-regarded public law school instead of an Ivy, and in some settings I think my degree is advantageous compared to one from a place like Cornell or Penn (agree there's always a benefit to Harvard and Yale, especially in academia or at certain firms). In-house departments are largely much less pedigree focused, and at some companies, other factors are much more important (industry experience, for instance).

I'm the elitist Ivy poster. Obviously it varies based on the company and there are salary bands. The highest paying jobs definitely care about where you went to school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what you’re seeing here are spouses who’s married to biglaw and fall into 2 camps… 1 happy marriages, 2 unhappy marriages. The happy marriages find a way to maximize time at home and the unhappy marriages the biglaw partner throws in more and more time at work for possibly diminishing returns because it’s more palatable than being at home. This is supported by the claims of better work/life balance being accompanied by less unpleasant posters and the claims of bad work/life balance being accompanied by bitter, accusatory, suspicious, and unpleasant posters.

It all seems to align.

Not even close. My husband is very happy at home and miserable at work. We are saving FU money as fast as we possibly can. It think it’s the more materlistic/less materialistic divide. They happy wives are willing to up with anything just for the giant paycheck. Even if it’s “easy street” now, they didn’t get there on easy street.

Yea, I'm the PP with a big law spouse but who also works. Reading this thread was fascinating. I think the people who think it's worth it can't make their own money.

Double Biglaw for over a decade (he made partner I made counsel). I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Of course having so much money you never have to think about it is worth a lot of BS.

Ah, but you actually wanted biglaw - people who 'make' counsel basically wanted partner but didn't get it. By the way, I was biglaw too until I jumped ship - I was the associate you all hated because I was super smart, super good, and also super jack@$$-y about the fact that I wouldn't work for partners who didn't go to Ivies. I also memorized all of the associates published hours so I could tell you which dummy to bother instead of me who wasn't hitting their billables.

You sound like a badass. And what are you doing now with your Ivy League degree besides bragging on DCUM?

Making bank at one of those dream in house flex jobs. Because my end goal was never to make partner. It served me well. And to the PP recovering lawyer, what’s your issue? You have to not overwork your star people? Guess what, some of us weren’t in it to cover for white guys who shot the shit and bro-ed out all day.

“Making bank” in-house? We make the same - let’s not exaggerate. My in-house legal team is paid on the same pay scale and there are no bonuses for your fancy Ivy League degree, no one cares.

DP here. This is not usually the case - maybe you got lucky, but if you graduated last (or even first) in your bottom of the barrel barely-accredited law school, your options are usually quite limited - especially (especially) compared to ivy educated lawyers. Most every lawyer knows this.

No one cares about your degree in house. They care about Industry experience and being a good and loyal company man. They bring in BigLaw for the important work anyways.

[Anonymous]

Your carry goal is to marry a successful person?

How 1800’s!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what you’re seeing here are spouses who’s married to biglaw and fall into 2 camps… 1 happy marriages, 2 unhappy marriages. The happy marriages find a way to maximize time at home and the unhappy marriages the biglaw partner throws in more and more time at work for possibly diminishing returns because it’s more palatable than being at home. This is supported by the claims of better work/life balance being accompanied by less unpleasant posters and the claims of bad work/life balance being accompanied by bitter, accusatory, suspicious, and unpleasant posters.

It all seems to align.

Not even close. My husband is very happy at home and miserable at work. We are saving FU money as fast as we possibly can. It think it’s the more materlistic/less materialistic divide. They happy wives are willing to up with anything just for the giant paycheck. Even if it’s “easy street” now, they didn’t get there on easy street.

Yea, I'm the PP with a big law spouse but who also works. Reading this thread was fascinating. I think the people who think it's worth it can't make their own money.

Double Biglaw for over a decade (he made partner I made counsel). I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Of course having so much money you never have to think about it is worth a lot of BS.

Ah, but you actually wanted biglaw - people who 'make' counsel basically wanted partner but didn't get it. By the way, I was biglaw too until I jumped ship - I was the associate you all hated because I was super smart, super good, and also super jack@$$-y about the fact that I wouldn't work for partners who didn't go to Ivies. I also memorized all of the associates published hours so I could tell you which dummy to bother instead of me who wasn't hitting their billables.

You sound like a badass. And what are you doing now with your Ivy League degree besides bragging on DCUM?

Making bank at one of those dream in house flex jobs. Because my end goal was never to make partner. It served me well. And to the PP recovering lawyer, what’s your issue? You have to not overwork your star people? Guess what, some of us weren’t in it to cover for white guys who shot the shit and bro-ed out all day.

“Making bank” in-house? We make the same - let’s not exaggerate. My in-house legal team is paid on the same pay scale and there are no bonuses for your fancy Ivy League degree, no one cares.

DP here. This is not usually the case - maybe you got lucky, but if you graduated last (or even first) in your bottom of the barrel barely-accredited law school, your options are usually quite limited - especially (especially) compared to ivy educated lawyers. Most every lawyer knows this.

Another DP. Most lawyers also have basic reading comprehension skills. The PP wasn't saying that lawyers from Ivies don't make more money that people from very low-regarded schools generally. They were saying that in an in-house department, no one cares which people went to an Ivy versus another school. And this is true in my experience, as someone who attended a non-Ivy. There are a very large number of well-respected law school that no one considers "bottom of the barrel barely-accredited." I've never encountered any limitations because I attended a well-regarded public law school instead of an Ivy, and in some settings I think my degree is advantageous compared to one from a place like Cornell or Penn (agree there's always a benefit to Harvard and Yale, especially in academia or at certain firms). In-house departments are largely much less pedigree focused, and at some companies, other factors are much more important (industry experience, for instance).

I'm the elitist Ivy poster. Obviously it varies based on the company and there are salary bands. The highest paying jobs definitely care about where you went to school

Yes but it's not Ivy or bust. No one's Michigan or Standard law degree is holding them back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what you’re seeing here are spouses who’s married to biglaw and fall into 2 camps… 1 happy marriages, 2 unhappy marriages. The happy marriages find a way to maximize time at home and the unhappy marriages the biglaw partner throws in more and more time at work for possibly diminishing returns because it’s more palatable than being at home. This is supported by the claims of better work/life balance being accompanied by less unpleasant posters and the claims of bad work/life balance being accompanied by bitter, accusatory, suspicious, and unpleasant posters.

It all seems to align.

Not even close. My husband is very happy at home and miserable at work. We are saving FU money as fast as we possibly can. It think it’s the more materlistic/less materialistic divide. They happy wives are willing to up with anything just for the giant paycheck. Even if it’s “easy street” now, they didn’t get there on easy street.

Yea, I'm the PP with a big law spouse but who also works. Reading this thread was fascinating. I think the people who think it's worth it can't make their own money.

Double Biglaw for over a decade (he made partner I made counsel). I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Of course having so much money you never have to think about it is worth a lot of BS.

Ah, but you actually wanted biglaw - people who 'make' counsel basically wanted partner but didn't get it. By the way, I was biglaw too until I jumped ship - I was the associate you all hated because I was super smart, super good, and also super jack@$$-y about the fact that I wouldn't work for partners who didn't go to Ivies. I also memorized all of the associates published hours so I could tell you which dummy to bother instead of me who wasn't hitting their billables.

You sound like a badass. And what are you doing now with your Ivy League degree besides bragging on DCUM?

Making bank at one of those dream in house flex jobs. Because my end goal was never to make partner. It served me well. And to the PP recovering lawyer, what’s your issue? You have to not overwork your star people? Guess what, some of us weren’t in it to cover for white guys who shot the shit and bro-ed out all day.

“Making bank” in-house? We make the same - let’s not exaggerate. My in-house legal team is paid on the same pay scale and there are no bonuses for your fancy Ivy League degree, no one cares.

DP here. This is not usually the case - maybe you got lucky, but if you graduated last (or even first) in your bottom of the barrel barely-accredited law school, your options are usually quite limited - especially (especially) compared to ivy educated lawyers. Most every lawyer knows this.

Another DP. Most lawyers also have basic reading comprehension skills. The PP wasn't saying that lawyers from Ivies don't make more money that people from very low-regarded schools generally. They were saying that in an in-house department, no one cares which people went to an Ivy versus another school. And this is true in my experience, as someone who attended a non-Ivy. There are a very large number of well-respected law school that no one considers "bottom of the barrel barely-accredited." I've never encountered any limitations because I attended a well-regarded public law school instead of an Ivy, and in some settings I think my degree is advantageous compared to one from a place like Cornell or Penn (agree there's always a benefit to Harvard and Yale, especially in academia or at certain firms). In-house departments are largely much less pedigree focused, and at some companies, other factors are much more important (industry experience, for instance).

I'm the elitist Ivy poster. Obviously it varies based on the company and there are salary bands. The highest paying jobs definitely care about where you went to school

Yes but it's not Ivy or bust. No one's Michigan or Standard law degree is holding them back.

^ Stanford. Maybe if I'd gone to Harvard Law, I would make fewer typos in my DCUM posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what you’re seeing here are spouses who’s married to biglaw and fall into 2 camps… 1 happy marriages, 2 unhappy marriages. The happy marriages find a way to maximize time at home and the unhappy marriages the biglaw partner throws in more and more time at work for possibly diminishing returns because it’s more palatable than being at home. This is supported by the claims of better work/life balance being accompanied by less unpleasant posters and the claims of bad work/life balance being accompanied by bitter, accusatory, suspicious, and unpleasant posters.

It all seems to align.

Not even close. My husband is very happy at home and miserable at work. We are saving FU money as fast as we possibly can. It think it’s the more materlistic/less materialistic divide. They happy wives are willing to up with anything just for the giant paycheck. Even if it’s “easy street” now, they didn’t get there on easy street.

Yea, I'm the PP with a big law spouse but who also works. Reading this thread was fascinating. I think the people who think it's worth it can't make their own money.

Double Biglaw for over a decade (he made partner I made counsel). I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Of course having so much money you never have to think about it is worth a lot of BS.

Ah, but you actually wanted biglaw - people who 'make' counsel basically wanted partner but didn't get it. By the way, I was biglaw too until I jumped ship - I was the associate you all hated because I was super smart, super good, and also super jack@$$-y about the fact that I wouldn't work for partners who didn't go to Ivies. I also memorized all of the associates published hours so I could tell you which dummy to bother instead of me who wasn't hitting their billables.

You sound like a badass. And what are you doing now with your Ivy League degree besides bragging on DCUM?

Making bank at one of those dream in house flex jobs. Because my end goal was never to make partner. It served me well. And to the PP recovering lawyer, what’s your issue? You have to not overwork your star people? Guess what, some of us weren’t in it to cover for white guys who shot the shit and bro-ed out all day.

“Making bank” in-house? We make the same - let’s not exaggerate. My in-house legal team is paid on the same pay scale and there are no bonuses for your fancy Ivy League degree, no one cares.

DP here. This is not usually the case - maybe you got lucky, but if you graduated last (or even first) in your bottom of the barrel barely-accredited law school, your options are usually quite limited - especially (especially) compared to ivy educated lawyers. Most every lawyer knows this.

Another DP. Most lawyers also have basic reading comprehension skills. The PP wasn't saying that lawyers from Ivies don't make more money that people from very low-regarded schools generally. They were saying that in an in-house department, no one cares which people went to an Ivy versus another school. And this is true in my experience, as someone who attended a non-Ivy. There are a very large number of well-respected law school that no one considers "bottom of the barrel barely-accredited." I've never encountered any limitations because I attended a well-regarded public law school instead of an Ivy, and in some settings I think my degree is advantageous compared to one from a place like Cornell or Penn (agree there's always a benefit to Harvard and Yale, especially in academia or at certain firms). In-house departments are largely much less pedigree focused, and at some companies, other factors are much more important (industry experience, for instance).

I'm the elitist Ivy poster. Obviously it varies based on the company and there are salary bands. The highest paying jobs definitely care about where you went to school

Yes but it's not Ivy or bust. No one's Michigan or Standard law degree is holding them back.

^ Stanford. Maybe if I'd gone to Harvard Law, I would make fewer typos in my DCUM posts.

Stanford is generally ranked in the top three, so yeah. Duh. That’s kind of asinine. Also, UVA is considered a top school here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what you’re seeing here are spouses who’s married to biglaw and fall into 2 camps… 1 happy marriages, 2 unhappy marriages. The happy marriages find a way to maximize time at home and the unhappy marriages the biglaw partner throws in more and more time at work for possibly diminishing returns because it’s more palatable than being at home. This is supported by the claims of better work/life balance being accompanied by less unpleasant posters and the claims of bad work/life balance being accompanied by bitter, accusatory, suspicious, and unpleasant posters.

It all seems to align.

Not even close. My husband is very happy at home and miserable at work. We are saving FU money as fast as we possibly can. It think it’s the more materlistic/less materialistic divide. They happy wives are willing to up with anything just for the giant paycheck. Even if it’s “easy street” now, they didn’t get there on easy street.

Yea, I'm the PP with a big law spouse but who also works. Reading this thread was fascinating. I think the people who think it's worth it can't make their own money.

Double Biglaw for over a decade (he made partner I made counsel). I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Of course having so much money you never have to think about it is worth a lot of BS.

Ah, but you actually wanted biglaw - people who 'make' counsel basically wanted partner but didn't get it. By the way, I was biglaw too until I jumped ship - I was the associate you all hated because I was super smart, super good, and also super jack@$$-y about the fact that I wouldn't work for partners who didn't go to Ivies. I also memorized all of the associates published hours so I could tell you which dummy to bother instead of me who wasn't hitting their billables.

You sound like a badass. And what are you doing now with your Ivy League degree besides bragging on DCUM?

Making bank at one of those dream in house flex jobs. Because my end goal was never to make partner. It served me well. And to the PP recovering lawyer, what’s your issue? You have to not overwork your star people? Guess what, some of us weren’t in it to cover for white guys who shot the shit and bro-ed out all day.

“Making bank” in-house? We make the same - let’s not exaggerate. My in-house legal team is paid on the same pay scale and there are no bonuses for your fancy Ivy League degree, no one cares.

DP here. This is not usually the case - maybe you got lucky, but if you graduated last (or even first) in your bottom of the barrel barely-accredited law school, your options are usually quite limited - especially (especially) compared to ivy educated lawyers. Most every lawyer knows this.

Another DP. Most lawyers also have basic reading comprehension skills. The PP wasn't saying that lawyers from Ivies don't make more money that people from very low-regarded schools generally. They were saying that in an in-house department, no one cares which people went to an Ivy versus another school. And this is true in my experience, as someone who attended a non-Ivy. There are a very large number of well-respected law school that no one considers "bottom of the barrel barely-accredited." I've never encountered any limitations because I attended a well-regarded public law school instead of an Ivy, and in some settings I think my degree is advantageous compared to one from a place like Cornell or Penn (agree there's always a benefit to Harvard and Yale, especially in academia or at certain firms). In-house departments are largely much less pedigree focused, and at some companies, other factors are much more important (industry experience, for instance).

I'm the elitist Ivy poster. Obviously it varies based on the company and there are salary bands. The highest paying jobs definitely care about where you went to school

Yes but it's not Ivy or bust. No one's Michigan or Standard law degree is holding them back.

^ Stanford. Maybe if I'd gone to Harvard Law, I would make fewer typos in my DCUM posts.

Stanford is generally ranked in the top three, so yeah. Duh. That’s kind of asinine. Also, UVA is considered a top school here.

Ivy elitist here. Yea, tbh let’s go with T10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what you’re seeing here are spouses who’s married to biglaw and fall into 2 camps… 1 happy marriages, 2 unhappy marriages. The happy marriages find a way to maximize time at home and the unhappy marriages the biglaw partner throws in more and more time at work for possibly diminishing returns because it’s more palatable than being at home. This is supported by the claims of better work/life balance being accompanied by less unpleasant posters and the claims of bad work/life balance being accompanied by bitter, accusatory, suspicious, and unpleasant posters.

It all seems to align.

Not even close. My husband is very happy at home and miserable at work. We are saving FU money as fast as we possibly can. It think it’s the more materlistic/less materialistic divide. They happy wives are willing to up with anything just for the giant paycheck. Even if it’s “easy street” now, they didn’t get there on easy street.

Yea, I'm the PP with a big law spouse but who also works. Reading this thread was fascinating. I think the people who think it's worth it can't make their own money.

Double Biglaw for over a decade (he made partner I made counsel). I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Of course having so much money you never have to think about it is worth a lot of BS.

Ah, but you actually wanted biglaw - people who 'make' counsel basically wanted partner but didn't get it. By the way, I was biglaw too until I jumped ship - I was the associate you all hated because I was super smart, super good, and also super jack@$$-y about the fact that I wouldn't work for partners who didn't go to Ivies. I also memorized all of the associates published hours so I could tell you which dummy to bother instead of me who wasn't hitting their billables.

You sound like a badass. And what are you doing now with your Ivy League degree besides bragging on DCUM?

Making bank at one of those dream in house flex jobs. Because my end goal was never to make partner. It served me well. And to the PP recovering lawyer, what’s your issue? You have to not overwork your star people? Guess what, some of us weren’t in it to cover for white guys who shot the shit and bro-ed out all day.

“Making bank” in-house? We make the same - let’s not exaggerate. My in-house legal team is paid on the same pay scale and there are no bonuses for your fancy Ivy League degree, no one cares.

DP here. This is not usually the case - maybe you got lucky, but if you graduated last (or even first) in your bottom of the barrel barely-accredited law school, your options are usually quite limited - especially (especially) compared to ivy educated lawyers. Most every lawyer knows this.

Not in-house. Once you’re in, they’re all equal. No one cares.

[Anonymous]

This thread has become a PSA about the elitism and pettiness of attorneys.
I'm guessing OP isn't feeling jealous be being a big law (or law in general) spouse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what you’re seeing here are spouses who’s married to biglaw and fall into 2 camps… 1 happy marriages, 2 unhappy marriages. The happy marriages find a way to maximize time at home and the unhappy marriages the biglaw partner throws in more and more time at work for possibly diminishing returns because it’s more palatable than being at home. This is supported by the claims of better work/life balance being accompanied by less unpleasant posters and the claims of bad work/life balance being accompanied by bitter, accusatory, suspicious, and unpleasant posters.

It all seems to align.

Not even close. My husband is very happy at home and miserable at work. We are saving FU money as fast as we possibly can. It think it’s the more materlistic/less materialistic divide. They happy wives are willing to up with anything just for the giant paycheck. Even if it’s “easy street” now, they didn’t get there on easy street.

Yea, I'm the PP with a big law spouse but who also works. Reading this thread was fascinating. I think the people who think it's worth it can't make their own money.

Double Biglaw for over a decade (he made partner I made counsel). I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Of course having so much money you never have to think about it is worth a lot of BS.

Ah, but you actually wanted biglaw - people who 'make' counsel basically wanted partner but didn't get it. By the way, I was biglaw too until I jumped ship - I was the associate you all hated because I was super smart, super good, and also super jack@$$-y about the fact that I wouldn't work for partners who didn't go to Ivies. I also memorized all of the associates published hours so I could tell you which dummy to bother instead of me who wasn't hitting their billables.

You sound like a badass. And what are you doing now with your Ivy League degree besides bragging on DCUM?

Making bank at one of those dream in house flex jobs. Because my end goal was never to make partner. It served me well. And to the PP recovering lawyer, what’s your issue? You have to not overwork your star people? Guess what, some of us weren’t in it to cover for white guys who shot the shit and bro-ed out all day.

“Making bank” in-house? We make the same - let’s not exaggerate. My in-house legal team is paid on the same pay scale and there are no bonuses for your fancy Ivy League degree, no one cares.

DP here. This is not usually the case - maybe you got lucky, but if you graduated last (or even first) in your bottom of the barrel barely-accredited law school, your options are usually quite limited - especially (especially) compared to ivy educated lawyers. Most every lawyer knows this.

Another DP. Most lawyers also have basic reading comprehension skills. The PP wasn't saying that lawyers from Ivies don't make more money that people from very low-regarded schools generally. They were saying that in an in-house department, no one cares which people went to an Ivy versus another school. And this is true in my experience, as someone who attended a non-Ivy. There are a very large number of well-respected law school that no one considers "bottom of the barrel barely-accredited." I've never encountered any limitations because I attended a well-regarded public law school instead of an Ivy, and in some settings I think my degree is advantageous compared to one from a place like Cornell or Penn (agree there's always a benefit to Harvard and Yale, especially in academia or at certain firms). In-house departments are largely much less pedigree focused, and at some companies, other factors are much more important (industry experience, for instance).

I'm the elitist Ivy poster. Obviously it varies based on the company and there are salary bands. The highest paying jobs definitely care about where you went to school

Yes but it's not Ivy or bust. No one's Michigan or Standard law degree is holding them back.

^ Stanford. Maybe if I'd gone to Harvard Law, I would make fewer typos in my DCUM posts.

Stanford is generally ranked in the top three, so yeah. Duh. That’s kind of asinine. Also, UVA is considered a top school here.

Ivy elitist here. Yea, tbh let’s go with T10.

So elitist that you went to Princeton or Dartmouth for law school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what you’re seeing here are spouses who’s married to biglaw and fall into 2 camps… 1 happy marriages, 2 unhappy marriages. The happy marriages find a way to maximize time at home and the unhappy marriages the biglaw partner throws in more and more time at work for possibly diminishing returns because it’s more palatable than being at home. This is supported by the claims of better work/life balance being accompanied by less unpleasant posters and the claims of bad work/life balance being accompanied by bitter, accusatory, suspicious, and unpleasant posters.

It all seems to align.

Not even close. My husband is very happy at home and miserable at work. We are saving FU money as fast as we possibly can. It think it’s the more materlistic/less materialistic divide. They happy wives are willing to up with anything just for the giant paycheck. Even if it’s “easy street” now, they didn’t get there on easy street.

Yea, I'm the PP with a big law spouse but who also works. Reading this thread was fascinating. I think the people who think it's worth it can't make their own money.

Double Biglaw for over a decade (he made partner I made counsel). I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Of course having so much money you never have to think about it is worth a lot of BS.

Ah, but you actually wanted biglaw - people who 'make' counsel basically wanted partner but didn't get it. By the way, I was biglaw too until I jumped ship - I was the associate you all hated because I was super smart, super good, and also super jack@$$-y about the fact that I wouldn't work for partners who didn't go to Ivies. I also memorized all of the associates published hours so I could tell you which dummy to bother instead of me who wasn't hitting their billables.

You sound like a badass. And what are you doing now with your Ivy League degree besides bragging on DCUM?

Making bank at one of those dream in house flex jobs. Because my end goal was never to make partner. It served me well. And to the PP recovering lawyer, what’s your issue? You have to not overwork your star people? Guess what, some of us weren’t in it to cover for white guys who shot the shit and bro-ed out all day.

“Making bank” in-house? We make the same - let’s not exaggerate. My in-house legal team is paid on the same pay scale and there are no bonuses for your fancy Ivy League degree, no one cares.

DP here. This is not usually the case - maybe you got lucky, but if you graduated last (or even first) in your bottom of the barrel barely-accredited law school, your options are usually quite limited - especially (especially) compared to ivy educated lawyers. Most every lawyer knows this.

Another DP. Most lawyers also have basic reading comprehension skills. The PP wasn't saying that lawyers from Ivies don't make more money that people from very low-regarded schools generally. They were saying that in an in-house department, no one cares which people went to an Ivy versus another school. And this is true in my experience, as someone who attended a non-Ivy. There are a very large number of well-respected law school that no one considers "bottom of the barrel barely-accredited." I've never encountered any limitations because I attended a well-regarded public law school instead of an Ivy, and in some settings I think my degree is advantageous compared to one from a place like Cornell or Penn (agree there's always a benefit to Harvard and Yale, especially in academia or at certain firms). In-house departments are largely much less pedigree focused, and at some companies, other factors are much more important (industry experience, for instance).

I'm the elitist Ivy poster. Obviously it varies based on the company and there are salary bands. The highest paying jobs definitely care about where you went to school

Yes but it's not Ivy or bust. No one's Michigan or Standard law degree is holding them back.

^ Stanford. Maybe if I'd gone to Harvard Law, I would make fewer typos in my DCUM posts.

Stanford is generally ranked in the top three, so yeah. Duh. That’s kind of asinine. Also, UVA is considered a top school here.

Ivy elitist here. Yea, tbh let’s go with T10.

So elitist that you went to Princeton or Dartmouth for law school

Princeton for two years before they closed it down.