theycancallyouhoju

Members
  • Content count

    244
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

theycancallyouhoju last won the day on September 14 2016

theycancallyouhoju had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

266 Good People

About theycancallyouhoju

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

361 profile views
  1. I would have thought it's just not a negroni if prosseco is used.
  2. I've seen variations called [blank] negroni on menus for a while now, prosseco usually, but even bourbon, which should be a boulevardier.
  3. I generally go with, "Wine? Are we at a brunch symposium on Pride & Prejudice? I'll take a glass of rum straight and a gin negroni on the side."
  4. That was a true story?
  5. In my year, we heard back about interviews sometime early August. OCIs were held the last week of August. Firms would invite second round-interviewees to NY either immediately thereafter or up to mid-Septemberish. The delay between second round and getting the offer is dependent on the internal hiring structure for your firm and when the relevant committee meets, but can take anywhere from a day to a couple weeks.
  6. When I was in their shoes I thought closing down the bar with my future employer increased my standing. No one ever thought "I'd love to close down the bar tonight but I'm with my client and they keep inviting me to drink so I should probably leave them alone at 10."
  7. The summer group some associates took out were also the first to leave the bar. Times change.
  8. Yo hit me up when you're internationally significant.
  9. My summer mentee ordered the second most expensive dish on the menu and then took pictures for Instagram while our food got cold. So, you know. Uriel's advice is correct, but there are reasonable limits to how hungry you should let your mentor get. Seniors can make sure the wires don't get crossed. When I have drinks or food with a woman seeking advice or stories, I'll explicitly say "you'll pick up the tab when you're the associate".
  10. I could not agree more that students should learn about the work done by lawyers before choosing to be lawyers. It's sort of a marvel that few people do that. If a corporate career looked like summer/articling for 30 years it would be a nightmare of unbearable proportions. You need to figure out if (a) you could want to be a biglaw lawyer for 5+ years, and (b) what years 3 - 7 look like (or longer, for both prongs). Law is a trade - the first bunch of time you'll be doing the boring work while someone with a much longer education does the interesting work. That's no different from being a line cook before you hit the big time.
  11. Corporate practice gets a bad rap on this front, I suspect because so many of us leave by the end of second year when most of our assignments are still more about grunt power than heavy intellectual lifting. Learning how to structure, strategize and draft deal documents are all very engaging tasks. The more a transaction requires bespoke counsel - i.e., where you're not just redoing an old structure and making sure everything works - the more creative and alert you have to be. While I'm entirely jealous of every litigator that gets to stand up in a court and do a Jimmy Stewart impression, negotiation is a wildly fun pseudo-equivalent. I enjoy every step of negotiation from prep to argument to persuasion, and a large part of that enjoyment is the feeling of being extremely focused and extremely engaged.
  12. I work for a NY shop and no one is hiring with the fantasy that any recruit is likely to make partner. Yet, when our cohort were hired, it was obvious everyone (except yours truly) was a pleasant, outgoing and entertaining person. I assume they all would have been hired on bay immediately if they hadn't gone to NY. I'm not sure anyone, on bay included, is looking for an associate who will be a hit at the client event. It's a long time and there's a lot of lawyering to do before that really matters. I think people look for good colleagues first and foremost - they find people they want to be around. There seems to be a curious assumed dichotomy on this point - I'm naturally inclined toward being antisocial and I recall others in that camp thought through the categories of "outgoing but not as clever" and "withdrawn but secretly super-talented". It doesn't seem to have panned out that way; the lawyers I work with don't appear to be predictably more or less capable based on their gregariousness.
  13. You'll take a barbri course. You probably won't attend the classes, instead watching videos of lectures and reading their materials. For the first 1/4 or so, it will seem very easy. Then the practice tests will come, a number of questions will appear incoherent, and your marks will likely be too-close-to-failure to ground confidence. You will stress about it and begin studying most of your waking hours with a few weeks left. You'll write the exam in some horrible room in Buffalo and walk out less sure that you passed than you have ever felt about an exam before. Then, in October, a few days before they said they would send your marks and while you're 5 nights deep into an 80 hour week, they will send you your pass/fail and your mark on the multiple choice. You'll pass and your score on the MBE will be so far above the passing rate that the contentment of not losing your job will fade quickly with the realization that you wasted too much of your last free summer studying for a silly exam. I think everyone I wrote with had more or less the above story. I had a US position lined up through OCIs, so I'm not much help on your other qs. I know associates who transferred to NY shops after doing biglaw in Toronto, but am not familiar with any other context for the post-grad switch.
  14. I don't think your first paragraph is entirely accurate. I obviously haven't reviewed admissions packages, but the classmates I spoke with at UT had a wide variety of grades and LSATs coming in to law school. If you haven't struggled much to get As throughout schooling and the LSAT wasn't very taxing, you might reasonably think school is just something you've got a knack for and be fairly confident. I also walked out of exams with wildly divergent takes on how I'd done, but the marks always came in around where I would have assumed before 1L began. The JD/MBA numbers are (or were) very high, both for NY and Toronto recruitment. I'm not sure how much they inflate the numbers, though - aren't there only around 15-16 JD/MBAs, 6 or so who go to NY? It would be great if UV could try to survey students before and after recruitment. The last survey (http://ultravires.ca/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Recruitment-Special.pdf) turned up 31% of students who cared about working with a "seven sister" and 41% who got a job with one of those firms. They don't tell us the overlap, but it may be the case that every one of the 31% got their dream job. That's unlikely. Presumably, students who started 1L aiming at biglaw but with rough final grades adjusted their intentions for OCI. It's probable that some students who had intended on biglaw were uncomfortable framing their outcome as disappointing on the survey and answered no to that q. Who knows. But a survey during early 1L and one after OCIs would, I think, be helpful. The lack of an articling year is big in weighing the financial implications. Good point. But, the 'less competitive' angle only applies to a few top US schools.
  15. That was a juvenile dig at America, not a juvenile dig at you. You probably shouldn't assume people who went to schools with lower admissions averages had worse marks or LSATs. That's true as a trend, but it won't be true in every case. The LSAT was not difficult for me and I'm too far out of law school now to write down my mark without feeling like being a jerk. I don't know why I didn't get into Yale, they never deigned to inform me, but in hindsight I actually think UT was a better choice for me. I was interested in Yale and Columbia because of specific niche market work they could help me learn about and because of very specific networks they opened up. Harvard didn't have people I wanted to work with in the applicable field. I got into Columbia and opted out because I just couldn't justify the price, but I'm certain that if Yale had wanted me I would have gone. As it turns out, I was able to get in touch with and build relationships with the network I cared about in the US from Toronto, though I honestly didn't predict that in advance. But let's put all that aside for a second and assume I wasn't naturally inclined toward LSAT-like problems. At the time I was preparing law school applications, I was working 6 days and 60-70 hours a week to make ends meet. I also had a commute every morning. If I hadn't been lucky enough for the LSAT to just be squarely within my skill set, I would not have had the kind of time it would require to seriously improve my mark. I was lucky. You probably imagine that every prospective law student is in your camp - has time and money to prep for law school without really weighing outside considerations, and no particular preset interests to pursue aside from the broad sense of financial benefit and interesting work. That's not always going to be true, and if you listen to enough people's back stories, you'll find a lot of compelling reasons to do one thing or the other. (None of which is to deny that many people just beeline straight toward the nearest law school, only that you're painting with far, far too broad a brush.) I also tutored the LSAT a bit. I'm not an expert on it and the fact that I came to it without much trouble likely, I think, makes my view on this rather unhelpful. That said, I got the sense that people had natural ranges within which hard work could push them. Someone who naturally scored around a 155 with a month or two of practice was never, or rarely, going to score 177 even with intensive work. Someone who got 168 on their first try was probably going to put in a month's effort and hit 175. Someone who picked up a 178 after a month's effort could fluctuate between 175 and near perfect. Finally, even if some amount of work could win you a 180 no matter who you are, you already have undergraduate grades. If your GPA was 3.2, who cares if you score a 180? Harvard is not letting you in. (I think...?) Many people worked their way out of HYS long before they thought of being law students. Anyway, the real point here is whether someone who can get into both should go to Harvard, or what factors ground the decision to pick UT. We both agree there can be extensive family and personal reasons. Let's limit it to those who are committed to going to biglaw. If you think you might well want to be a biglaw litigator, for instance, and want to leave open the possibility of coming to Toronto during your career, it still might make more sense to go to UT - I'm not clear on this, but I think it is much harder to leave an NY litigation practice for a Toronto firm than it is to leave a corporate gig for the same. If you want to be a partner at a national leading firm one day, that's significantly more possible in Canada than it is in NY. If you might want to work in Canadian government by 3-4 years out, probably it's worth building the network in Canada during those years. If you have a specific nice practice where the Canadian network is very tight-nit, you might want to start in Canada. If you're a bit cocky and fairly certain you can score top-15% grades at law school, then UT makes great sense, since you'll still have a good chance with NY shops. Frankly...even if you show up in 1L and lose that confidence, you can just sign up for the JD-MBA and once again you're in a position to buy a pretty good shot at an NY job. (That last one comes with the obvious opportunity cost of a year's salary delayed - I don't know if it works out to more or less of a cost than Harvard tuition, though I think more, but would rely on you for that comparison.) On the other hand, for a student who is very certain they want to practice in the US (or has no preference between US/Canada) or very certain they want to be an M&A (or maybe finance/securities) attorney, and who does not feel a high degree of confidence they can score top-15% marks at UT, I agree, it probably makes more sense to go to Harvard. Why not? Yes, you might change your mind during law school, but Harvard is going to open up lots of other things your mind might have been led to, and at any rate, it probably won't close many doors if any at all. It's a good decision for a lot of people.