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.

+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.

They're not identical but they are probably pretty correlated.

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.

+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.

Yep. Being a rainmaker is about doing a lot of soft work and a lot of delegating. Whereas, when you're junior associate you're in a pool with a number of people who are just as bright and diligent and smart as you. What cases you're assigned, what partners you work with, the outcome of cases... Most of that isn't under your control. Quite a lot of it has to do with your future with the firm. And everyone is working hard. Everyone.

Assuming hard work and brains are the default setting, which I do at the top firms, quite a lot of the rest is your lottery ticket.

Now, it's also true that a lot of people decide they don't want to keep playing that lottery because "winning" is just more work and another round of culls.

Like I said, some of us don't want to set our kids up to play "Hunger Games" for their entire lives. Some of us raise them with other values. You don't have to understand, it's not like you have the free time to raise yours at all.

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.

Howard Roark was a figure in Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. An architect, not a lawyer, so I'm confused

Yes, dear, because you think it was a book about an architect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m Asian American and I don’t care…
But I’m also full pay and not looking for a free ride.

+1

As a parent, I thought I was paying FOR A QUALITY EDUCATION (not for "prestige"). But then again, I don't walk around the world seeking external signs of validation.

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.

+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.

The most successful lawyer I know went to Suffolk law and graduated with gentleman's Cs. His practice is basically a referral service now and he easily makes as much as any biglaw partner while working a couple of hours a week.

There are lower law schools than Suffolk!

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.

The most successful lawyer I know went to Suffolk law and graduated with gentleman's Cs. His practice is basically a referral service now and he easily makes as much as any biglaw partner while working a couple of hours a week.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m Asian American and I don’t care…
But I’m also full pay and not looking for a free ride.