Elite schools/poor outcomes/bitter kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the typical troll thread started by an LAC huckster. The key is that the poster will name the National University that he/she denigrates, but never names the magical LAC/SLAC which only required an additional 3 years of law school in order to get a decent job.

Pathetic that a "top 5 law school grad" compares himself to a twenty something with just an undergraduate degree. Hard to believe that such a successful lawyer would stoop so low to promote an imaginary top 30 LAC/SLAC.

Not comparing myself to them. Just surprised:

1. How bitter they were about jobs.

2. That they flat out said they felt cheated because they had gone to vandy and ucla.

3. How they trashed my lac to my face.

That’s all.

Total BS.

And, of course, you still refuse to name the mythical LAC/SLAC.

I cannot imagine two trwentysomethings trashing the undergraduate school of a big-time lawyer in the fictional situation that you created.

That's all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the typical troll thread started by an LAC huckster. The key is that the poster will name the National University that he/she denigrates, but never names the magical LAC/SLAC which only required an additional 3 years of law school in order to get a decent job.

Pathetic that a "top 5 law school grad" compares himself to a twenty something with just an undergraduate degree. Hard to believe that such a successful lawyer would stoop so low to promote an imaginary top 30 LAC/SLAC.

Not comparing myself to them. Just surprised:

1. How bitter they were about jobs.

2. That they flat out said they felt cheated because they had gone to vandy and ucla.

3. How they trashed my lac to my face.

That’s all.

Name your school then and say what undergrad you went to. Unless name your school you continue to come off as troll bc only trashing theirs by name and insecure about your school even all these years

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the typical troll thread started by an LAC huckster. The key is that the poster will name the National University that he/she denigrates, but never names the magical LAC/SLAC which only required an additional 3 years of law school in order to get a decent job.

Pathetic that a "top 5 law school grad" compares himself to a twenty something with just an undergraduate degree. Hard to believe that such a successful lawyer would stoop so low to promote an imaginary top 30 LAC/SLAC.

Not comparing myself to them. Just surprised:

1. How bitter they were about jobs.

2. That they flat out said they felt cheated because they had gone to vandy and ucla.

3. How they trashed my lac to my face.

That’s all.

Name your school then and say what undergrad you went to. Unless name your school you continue to come off as troll bc only trashing theirs by name and insecure about your school even all these years

Huh?

[Anonymous]

I went to a T100 undergrad and a T50 law school (summa cum laude at both, though, and law review leadership) and still got an Amlaw 100 job at the highest associate salary then available, partnership, then moved to a small niche firm. I graduated with zero debt, going this route. I don't think elite schools are all that, but I would have considered them if I had the money. I can't imagine graduating from law school with hundreds of thousands in debt and not getting a big law job to pay it off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No they just majored in something that didn’t get them a job. They sound entitled and insufferable.

No they haven’t figured out that top school outcomes is all about the families who are sending the kids there, and the connections and career guidance from that background; the top schools aren’t anywhere near the stepping stone for the working/LMC students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the typical troll thread started by an LAC huckster. The key is that the poster will name the National University that he/she denigrates, but never names the magical LAC/SLAC which only required an additional 3 years of law school in order to get a decent job.

Pathetic that a "top 5 law school grad" compares himself to a twenty something with just an undergraduate degree. Hard to believe that such a successful lawyer would stoop so low to promote an imaginary top 30 LAC/SLAC.

Not comparing myself to them. Just surprised:

1. How bitter they were about jobs.

2. That they flat out said they felt cheated because they had gone to vandy and ucla.

3. How they trashed my lac to my face.

That’s all.

Yeah they did not say this. Who talks like this? “I feel cheated because I went to a good university and don’t like my job, and you went to law school (which I did not do) and get paid a lot and I attribute it all to your lesser undergrad (instead of the obvious law school) which is a sign the world is unfair.” Just, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to a T100 undergrad and a T50 law school (summa cum laude at both, though, and law review leadership) and still got an Amlaw 100 job at the highest associate salary then available, partnership, then moved to a small niche firm. I graduated with zero debt, going this route. I don't think elite schools are all that, but I would have considered them if I had the money. I can't imagine graduating from law school with hundreds of thousands in debt and not getting a big law job to pay it off.

Patent law right?

[Anonymous]

So much has been wrapped up in where one goes to college as if it's the final destination. It's just 4 years in which you learn how to learn, something pertaining to your potential future profession and transition to adulthood. It's a step on the way but not the end. Many have been sold this idea that going somewhere means the rest of their life is set. That's not remotely true.

[Anonymous]

UCLA is a public school so not that expensive in state.

A LAC is a the choice a rich UMC student makes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So much has been wrapped up in where one goes to college as if it's the final destination. It's just 4 years in which you learn how to learn, something pertaining to your potential future profession and transition to adulthood. It's a step on the way but not the end. Many have been sold this idea that going somewhere means the rest of their life is set. That's not remotely true.

Exactly, you have TWELVE years of building educational foundations and executive function and time management, and then 4 quick years where you are lucky if 5 professors ever know your name.

[Anonymous]

DCUM is triggered because they know it’s true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCUM is triggered because they know it’s true.

Lol, okay OP, thanks for chiming back in.

[Anonymous]

Where you go to undergrad doesn’t matter if it’s a half way decent school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UCLA and Vanderbilt aren’t elite schools. Good lord.

This is the only sane response. So true

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I make tons more than them.”

“They both said a person who went to a school like mine (to 30 LAC) should not be doing better than a Vanderbilt or ucla grad.”

You said they are 26 and 27, so this is extremely weird flexing unless you are also 26 or 27. In which case, why are you here?

+1 how old is OP? You already went to law school and compare yourselves with undergraduates? Doesn’t seem apples to apples.

This. Another thing to consider is major. A business major at a top 50 is likely going to make a lot more than a philosophy major at a top 20.

+1 apples to oranges comparison. They, and OP, are dumb to not realize this.