Jeff Selingo on people skipping "target schools"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Boston College is ranked 39 and BU is 42. This isn't surprising as they're both peer schools. I consider peers 5 above and 5 below. What's surprising is Tufts at 40. Tufts has traditionally been considered a higher tier than these other 2, but I don't think that's the case anymore.

When the rankings were "redone/recalibrated" last year, they basically made smaller/private schools lower ranked than the larger state schools. So places like Tufts and U Rochester fell in the rankings, to make space for the large state schools everyone has heard of. Nothing really changed, just what numbers USNWR assigned because they no longer look at class sizes and other stuff.

Yes, I tend to agree that Tufts is a step above BU and BC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear this last PP but are you saying connections cannot be had at larger schools? Like if my kid was at UCLA, Michigan, etc, wouldn't they make good connections to help with recruiting? The sheer size and abilities within those networks seem meaningful.

They can be, of course. My husband went to a huge law school, got recruited by several firms, got his first job because one partner was an alum who also taught a class at his law school. But then he entered with all the other first-years, and that's a process designed to make most fail. He did fine, but it's a hell of a way to live, watching everyone get laid off and then seeing a new crop of shiny fresh faces come in.

Some of you like that, of course. It appeals to your inner Howard Roarke.

But if you're invested in seeing life as a series of zero-sum games that you are sure you'll win, how different are you from the guy who buys a lottery ticket every day with his gas? Not as much as you think.

Connections at smaller schools can be just, if not more, meaningful. Your professors are more likely to know you. Alumni networks are a lot tighter. And opportunities, when they happen, are more tailored than cattle calls.

Succeeding in BigLaw is not at all the same as buying a winning lottery ticket. If you succeed, you got there because you worked your ass off, just like you worked your ass off in high school, undergrad, and law school. You are not there at the top by accident.

You can make connections at big schools and have professors who know you, if you are the kind of person who makes the effort to make the connection rather than just sitting in the back of the lecture hall saying nothing.

Sure, Jan. Those other associates working 90-hour-weeks were just lazy.

I get it, you're invested in your own version of yourself, the one that exists in a meritocracy.

But we've seen you argue here, so I gotta say, bless your heart.

Yes, you have competition. It is strong competition because the prize is significant. This does not mean that your victory in that competition was luck, like winning a lottery. Your argument to the contrary is hilariously stupid.

So what happened to you, anyway? You refused to compete because you knew you would lose? Or you got kicked to the curb and now you have to cope and seethe that it was pure luck that others won and you lost?

It’s a small percentage who want the big law type of life with the billable hours and the 12 hour days. And out of those who start this type of job quite a few leave on their own. It’s not considered a significant prize for everyone but you’re right, it’s usually not luck. It’s work work work.

My point: it's a lottery because there's only one winner, or a limited pool or winners. Merit? Luck? Connections? Doesn't matter, really, the goal is the same: it's just more winnowing.

“A contest where your talent intelligence and hard work strongly influences the outcome is just like a contest where the winner is randomly selected, because in both cases there is only one winner” is a hilariously stupid point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A contest where your talent intelligence and hard work strongly influences the outcome

Again, spoken by someone who's never worked in BigLaw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear this last PP but are you saying connections cannot be had at larger schools? Like if my kid was at UCLA, Michigan, etc, wouldn't they make good connections to help with recruiting? The sheer size and abilities within those networks seem meaningful.

They can be, of course. My husband went to a huge law school, got recruited by several firms, got his first job because one partner was an alum who also taught a class at his law school. But then he entered with all the other first-years, and that's a process designed to make most fail. He did fine, but it's a hell of a way to live, watching everyone get laid off and then seeing a new crop of shiny fresh faces come in.

Some of you like that, of course. It appeals to your inner Howard Roarke.

But if you're invested in seeing life as a series of zero-sum games that you are sure you'll win, how different are you from the guy who buys a lottery ticket every day with his gas? Not as much as you think.

Connections at smaller schools can be just, if not more, meaningful. Your professors are more likely to know you. Alumni networks are a lot tighter. And opportunities, when they happen, are more tailored than cattle calls.

Succeeding in BigLaw is not at all the same as buying a winning lottery ticket. If you succeed, you got there because you worked your ass off, just like you worked your ass off in high school, undergrad, and law school. You are not there at the top by accident.

You can make connections at big schools and have professors who know you, if you are the kind of person who makes the effort to make the connection rather than just sitting in the back of the lecture hall saying nothing.

Sure, Jan. Those other associates working 90-hour-weeks were just lazy.

I get it, you're invested in your own version of yourself, the one that exists in a meritocracy.

But we've seen you argue here, so I gotta say, bless your heart.

Yes, you have competition. It is strong competition because the prize is significant. This does not mean that your victory in that competition was luck, like winning a lottery. Your argument to the contrary is hilariously stupid.

So what happened to you, anyway? You refused to compete because you knew you would lose? Or you got kicked to the curb and now you have to cope and seethe that it was pure luck that others won and you lost?

+1 It’s obvious PP couldn’t hack Big Law. Her lack of critical thinking and inability to make cogent argument make it obvious she doesn’t have a law degree either.

[Anonymous]

LMAO. All this does is make it easier for the prep school kids to get into Group 3 where they will continue to have (for the most part) wealthy peers, connections and a continuation of their prep school lives. Of course the rich have no problem paying for it. Group 3 has strong Alumni connections and the wealthy will just continue to get wealthier. Those who decide to skip over the group will save money but saving money isn’t the goal for rich parents

[Anonymous]

I think Jeff Selling should look at the phenomenon of high achieving Asian-American students skipping target schools and going to state flagship for in-demand STEM majors with super generous merit scholarship.

This is a real phenomenon. "MIT or state flagship" calculus is quite common.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Jeff Selling should look at the phenomenon of high achieving Asian-American students skipping target schools and going to state flagship for in-demand STEM majors with super generous merit scholarship.

This is a real phenomenon. "MIT or state flagship" calculus is quite common.

No one cares…..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Jeff Selling should look at the phenomenon of high achieving Asian-American students skipping target schools and going to state flagship for in-demand STEM majors with super generous merit scholarship.

This is a real phenomenon. "MIT or state flagship" calculus is quite common.

+1. Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear this last PP but are you saying connections cannot be had at larger schools? Like if my kid was at UCLA, Michigan, etc, wouldn't they make good connections to help with recruiting? The sheer size and abilities within those networks seem meaningful.

They can be, of course. My husband went to a huge law school, got recruited by several firms, got his first job because one partner was an alum who also taught a class at his law school. But then he entered with all the other first-years, and that's a process designed to make most fail. He did fine, but it's a hell of a way to live, watching everyone get laid off and then seeing a new crop of shiny fresh faces come in.

Some of you like that, of course. It appeals to your inner Howard Roarke.

But if you're invested in seeing life as a series of zero-sum games that you are sure you'll win, how different are you from the guy who buys a lottery ticket every day with his gas? Not as much as you think.

Connections at smaller schools can be just, if not more, meaningful. Your professors are more likely to know you. Alumni networks are a lot tighter. And opportunities, when they happen, are more tailored than cattle calls.

Succeeding in BigLaw is not at all the same as buying a winning lottery ticket. If you succeed, you got there because you worked your ass off, just like you worked your ass off in high school, undergrad, and law school. You are not there at the top by accident.

You can make connections at big schools and have professors who know you, if you are the kind of person who makes the effort to make the connection rather than just sitting in the back of the lecture hall saying nothing.

+1. The lawyers I know from the top law schools, then inevitably the top firms, then inevitably a top equity partner (ie: not partner by title only), have worked for it. Inversely, those from the bottom law schools who barely squeaked by the LSAT, well... they are barely a lawyer for good reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Jeff Selling should look at the phenomenon of high achieving Asian-American students skipping target schools and going to state flagship for in-demand STEM majors with super generous merit scholarship.

This is a real phenomenon. "MIT or state flagship" calculus is quite common.

No one cares…..

I think the people who do not go to college, do not care. Asian Americans have a larger percentage of people who go to college and they care. Others? Yes, you are right, not so much. But, are they the target audience?

Besides, state flagships with high percentage of Asian students are rapidly climbing in ranking and becoming harder for others to attend. A good example is UMD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Boston College is ranked 39 and BU is 42. This isn't surprising as they're both peer schools. I consider peers 5 above and 5 below. What's surprising is Tufts at 40. Tufts has traditionally been considered a higher tier than these other 2, but I don't think that's the case anymore.

OMG. This shoes the sheer idiocy of trying to rank colleges. Do people really think this way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boston College is ranked 39 and BU is 42. This isn't surprising as they're both peer schools. I consider peers 5 above and 5 below. What's surprising is Tufts at 40. Tufts has traditionally been considered a higher tier than these other 2, but I don't think that's the case anymore.

When the rankings were "redone/recalibrated" last year, they basically made smaller/private schools lower ranked than the larger state schools. So places like Tufts and U Rochester fell in the rankings, to make space for the large state schools everyone has heard of. Nothing really changed, just what numbers USNWR assigned because they no longer look at class sizes and other stuff.

Yes, I tend to agree that Tufts is a step above BU and BC.

That view is 10+ years old.

BU, BC, Tufts, Northeastern all considered peers today and it's a matter of personal preference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear this last PP but are you saying connections cannot be had at larger schools? Like if my kid was at UCLA, Michigan, etc, wouldn't they make good connections to help with recruiting? The sheer size and abilities within those networks seem meaningful.

They can be, of course. My husband went to a huge law school, got recruited by several firms, got his first job because one partner was an alum who also taught a class at his law school. But then he entered with all the other first-years, and that's a process designed to make most fail. He did fine, but it's a hell of a way to live, watching everyone get laid off and then seeing a new crop of shiny fresh faces come in.

Some of you like that, of course. It appeals to your inner Howard Roarke.

But if you're invested in seeing life as a series of zero-sum games that you are sure you'll win, how different are you from the guy who buys a lottery ticket every day with his gas? Not as much as you think.

Connections at smaller schools can be just, if not more, meaningful. Your professors are more likely to know you. Alumni networks are a lot tighter. And opportunities, when they happen, are more tailored than cattle calls.

Succeeding in BigLaw is not at all the same as buying a winning lottery ticket. If you succeed, you got there because you worked your ass off, just like you worked your ass off in high school, undergrad, and law school. You are not there at the top by accident.

You can make connections at big schools and have professors who know you, if you are the kind of person who makes the effort to make the connection rather than just sitting in the back of the lecture hall saying nothing.

+1. The lawyers I know from the top law schools, then inevitably the top firms, then inevitably a top equity partner (ie: not partner by title only), have worked for it. Inversely, those from the bottom law schools who barely squeaked by the LSAT, well... they are barely a lawyer for good reasons.

What you're missing is that the skill and work to become top partner is not the skill and work required to get a top LSAT and get through a top law school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Jeff Selling should look at the phenomenon of high achieving Asian-American students skipping target schools and going to state flagship for in-demand STEM majors with super generous merit scholarship.

This is a real phenomenon. "MIT or state flagship" calculus is quite common.

Pitch this story to him!

[Anonymous]

I think Jeff Selling should look at the phenomenon of high achieving Asian-American students skipping target schools and going to state flagship for in-demand STEM majors with super generous merit scholarship. This is a real phenomenon. "MIT or state flagship" calculus is quite common.

This isn't new or interesting. Five years ago, TJ kids chose Pitt for their merit aid and moved on when that money dried up. High stat white kids have been doing the same at 'Bama for years.