Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Despite the sexism and rose colored glasses of the law hater who idolizes bankers (lol at thinking an associate in IB is a great outcome), corporate law is overrated as a career choice. I’m in my 40s, partner at a V50 (some here may scoff at that, I started at a much better firm and lateraled down twice for my marriage, I can assure you there’s a world of difference in demands). I fundraise for my boarding school class and my non-HYP Ivy, so I don’t live under a rock. A minority of my classmates are complete mess ups without any career or solid income (as in $150,000). There’s more of this than you may think if you didn’t go to an Ivy, they’re not rich either. Of the rest, many are trust fund babies who pretend to work in media or at art galleries or got a medical degree they didn’t use for more than a few years. The remainder are extremely ambitious and hard working and enter fields like finance law and tech. Without a doubt, I work longer hours and pack more in each of those hours than those in other fields. My work is more tedious, dull, and lacking in a range of responsibilities. The worst part is how hard it is to do something else. In tech you can always join a high risk start up, financiers can join a portco or a boutique or something to work less. If you’re at a big law firm you are as specialized as it gets and it’s not like you can just go join a small firm or go in house and be okay financially.

And some people just like the law and don’t like finance or engineering or computer science. Different strokes for different folks.

Go find a 100+ page PSA agreement and redline it without Claude. Corporate law and M&A law (public and private) are mind numbing fields. Almost no one enjoys it. No one from my law school class who had a real adult job beforehand would enter law again, they’d have let their previous career move forward no matter how flawed it was (and this includes teachers making 50k).

There are plenty of lawyers who don’t do that crap. I’m a litigator and I like the job. It also pays really well. Sounds like you are bitter for some reason, and I’m sorry for that, but good legal careers are possible.

No one said good legal careers are impossible. Most of the time, however, someone with a good legal career would have made more money doing something more interesting with fewer hours in a different line of white collar work.

Most big law attorneys are not litigators. Litigation, in the form of Morgan & Morgan style franchising (also known as "$hitlaw") is more interesting and compelling than what 99.999999% of white shoe litigators do. When done properly with 1-800 numbers and grey area marketing (ambulance chasing), it can be more lucrative.

Only the most senior corporate attorneys at V50 firms avoid the "crap" you refer to. They are deep in the septic tank of document turnover and answering emails on Sunday, let alone cancelling vacation plans around Christmas because of a last minute deal.

You moved the goalposts so much in this thread it’s hard to follow what you’re talking about anymore. But yes, all students should strive for easy going, low work, low stress, high paying FAANG or finance jobs that will make them rich. Tons of jobs like that out there. Lol.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Despite the sexism and rose colored glasses of the law hater who idolizes bankers (lol at thinking an associate in IB is a great outcome), corporate law is overrated as a career choice. I’m in my 40s, partner at a V50 (some here may scoff at that, I started at a much better firm and lateraled down twice for my marriage, I can assure you there’s a world of difference in demands). I fundraise for my boarding school class and my non-HYP Ivy, so I don’t live under a rock. A minority of my classmates are complete mess ups without any career or solid income (as in $150,000). There’s more of this than you may think if you didn’t go to an Ivy, they’re not rich either. Of the rest, many are trust fund babies who pretend to work in media or at art galleries or got a medical degree they didn’t use for more than a few years. The remainder are extremely ambitious and hard working and enter fields like finance law and tech. Without a doubt, I work longer hours and pack more in each of those hours than those in other fields. My work is more tedious, dull, and lacking in a range of responsibilities. The worst part is how hard it is to do something else. In tech you can always join a high risk start up, financiers can join a portco or a boutique or something to work less. If you’re at a big law firm you are as specialized as it gets and it’s not like you can just go join a small firm or go in house and be okay financially.

And some people just like the law and don’t like finance or engineering or computer science. Different strokes for different folks.

Go find a 100+ page PSA agreement and redline it without Claude. Corporate law and M&A law (public and private) are mind numbing fields. Almost no one enjoys it. No one from my law school class who had a real adult job beforehand would enter law again, they’d have let their previous career move forward no matter how flawed it was (and this includes teachers making 50k).

There are plenty of lawyers who don’t do that crap. I’m a litigator and I like the job. It also pays really well. Sounds like you are bitter for some reason, and I’m sorry for that, but good legal careers are possible.

No one said good legal careers are impossible. Most of the time, however, someone with a good legal career would have made more money doing something more interesting with fewer hours in a different line of white collar work.

Most big law attorneys are not litigators. Litigation, in the form of Morgan & Morgan style franchising (also known as "$hitlaw") is more interesting and compelling than what 99.999999% of white shoe litigators do. When done properly with 1-800 numbers and grey area marketing (ambulance chasing), it can be more lucrative.

Only the most senior corporate attorneys at V50 firms avoid the "crap" you refer to. They are deep in the septic tank of document turnover and answering emails on Sunday, let alone cancelling vacation plans around Christmas because of a last minute deal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:K-8 schools should be graded on the same scale as K-12 schools. Some of the K-8 schools prepare their kids so well that they often become top of their class in high school. People are starting to see the real benefit of K-8 and that’s one of the reasons why it was extremely competitive (especially all-boys) this year.

Which would be the “TT” K8? In terms of exmissions, academics and competitive to gain admission. I can only think of St B and maybe Buckley

St B sounds right

St Ignatius but a niche audience

Lol

They have the single largest number of boys attending Regis every year and an equivalent number going on to Exeter, Lawernceville, etc. They also have lower acceptance rates than St B's, St D's and Buckley. Does that not qualify?

It does not. Stop trying to make St. Ignatius as a TT happen. Please.

Bitter much, lol. Our TT PSD would disagree given the statistics, with the caveat that the non-connected acceptance rate is artificially low because of the price point/some other admissions policies. No horse in the race, we are at St D’s as we did not want a parish school but the truth is the truth.

Non-connected acceptance rate? You mean, like connected to St. Ignatius specifically? Like alumni or something? Real connected people in NYC do not send their kids to St. Ignatius. Lol.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Despite the sexism and rose colored glasses of the law hater who idolizes bankers (lol at thinking an associate in IB is a great outcome), corporate law is overrated as a career choice. I’m in my 40s, partner at a V50 (some here may scoff at that, I started at a much better firm and lateraled down twice for my marriage, I can assure you there’s a world of difference in demands). I fundraise for my boarding school class and my non-HYP Ivy, so I don’t live under a rock. A minority of my classmates are complete mess ups without any career or solid income (as in $150,000). There’s more of this than you may think if you didn’t go to an Ivy, they’re not rich either. Of the rest, many are trust fund babies who pretend to work in media or at art galleries or got a medical degree they didn’t use for more than a few years. The remainder are extremely ambitious and hard working and enter fields like finance law and tech. Without a doubt, I work longer hours and pack more in each of those hours than those in other fields. My work is more tedious, dull, and lacking in a range of responsibilities. The worst part is how hard it is to do something else. In tech you can always join a high risk start up, financiers can join a portco or a boutique or something to work less. If you’re at a big law firm you are as specialized as it gets and it’s not like you can just go join a small firm or go in house and be okay financially.

And some people just like the law and don’t like finance or engineering or computer science. Different strokes for different folks.

Go find a 100+ page PSA agreement and redline it without Claude. Corporate law and M&A law (public and private) are mind numbing fields. Almost no one enjoys it. No one from my law school class who had a real adult job beforehand would enter law again, they’d have let their previous career move forward no matter how flawed it was (and this includes teachers making 50k).

There are plenty of lawyers who don’t do that crap. I’m a litigator and I like the job. It also pays really well. Sounds like you are bitter for some reason, and I’m sorry for that, but good legal careers are possible.

And you are also very argumentative which is a good characteristic for a lawyer. Can we move on?