theycancallyouhoju

Members
  • Content count

    194
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

theycancallyouhoju last won the day on September 14 2016

theycancallyouhoju had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

211 Good People

About theycancallyouhoju

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

207 profile views
  1. I didn't apply to H or S, though I was rejected by Y. I turned down the other t14s I was accepted to. Went to UT and landed in NY. Still with the firm. But your condescension is adorable. 1. Then compare apples to apples. You can't say H is 95% success because a few don't want biglaw but then pretend the whole UT class does. My experience was that there were relatively few people who wanted bay and didn't get it. It would be great if UV could try to actually figure out what percentage, though. 2. Again, it's exactly what I did, and it worked fine. As Bob said, if you're confident that you are a better student than most, then there isn't much risk to falling to the bottom 30% of UT. I appreciate that people who aren't very confident about how well they'll do in law school should just go to the place that has the highest placement rate for a gig they want - that makes good sense to me. 3. I didn't do the MBA - again, it's just buying a higher chance at a job and I felt fine about my chances. But you paid more for a higher chance at a job, so I don't really know why you're laughing at people who did the same. Finally, I've been on the other side of the hiring table with my firm. You do not need top 5% marks to get a job in NY. That's just your uninformed guess. I do appreciate the laughs, though. Sorry you overpaid, man.
  2. It seems as though the UT v. HYS conversations always neglect to mention that you can go from UT to NY. The only difference is that you have half of the debt load to pay off, making it a significantly better investment. If you can get into Harvard and UT, but are far from confident that you're actually better at school than most people, then go to Harvard. If you've got the confidence to accompany a big law career anyway, go to UT, pay less than half the cost and get the same job. Buying credentials is what you do when you aren't sure that capacity can take you somewhere. LivingInTrumplandia misses a few other obvious points, too. 1. A great deal of the UT class has no interest in bay. It is not the case that 40% of the students at UT who want a bay job get one. A significant chunk of the remaining students had no interest in that; they wanted to be Supreme Court clerks, boutique litigators, human rights lawyers, "international lawyers", military lawyers, criminal lawyers, "the kind of criminal lawyer who stands for justice, but not one who prosecutes drug users or defends guilty people...", aboriginal law lawyers, civil rights advocates, political operatives, government lawyers, professional dog walkers, etc. It's simply not the case that you're competing with the whole class. 2. While UT's over-selling itself is without question a grating and unclassy habit, it's not significantly different from the government telling me it's doing a great job, the car salesman telling me the car is perfect for me or my partner telling me she definitely remembered to water the plants this morning. People tell you things that they want you to hear. Somewhere between 10 and 24 years old, you should have figured out that you need to do your own research. As Bob said, if you haven't learned not to take someone advertising at face value by the end of undergrad, then let's all just admit that schools are a pointless waste. 3. If you do the JD-MBA at UT your chances at a bay job are, I believe, near-100% - low 90s at least. In my year more than half of the kids who came to NY were JD-MBA. The JD-MBA is still cheaper than Harvard. I'd totally forgotten about that Hahvahd kid who wrote about how very droll it was UT still email advertised to him. I can't decide if paying attention to that email was the least-Hahvahd thing ever or if writing it was the most-UT thing ever.
  3. This is important. Of the more senior attorneys I used to work with who have left to go in house, this is probably the dominant complaint. They may go home at 5:30, but their waking day is both less intellectually compelling than the firm work was and they are much more closely managed and monitored. They are employees again, after having been something like a free agent who shared a chamber with other lawyers who actually brought in work. It's hard to appreciate that difference before you quit firm life if you never had a regular job. Everything is a trade-off. If I were brilliant and wanted both healthy finances and maximal personal time, I would have had the good foresight to be born rich.
  4. Not in my experience - there simply is not enough time or attention to divide application packages into that many boxes. Some firms have hard lines re: GPA for granting interviews, some have hard lines for giving an offer. But I have never heard of a firm that values one specific course over others. Maybe a hiring committee could look at where As were achieved when considering two on-the-bubble candidates. Maybe a student with As in the core courses comes out a bit ahead of a student with As in "Reading & Writing" and "Legal Practice" or whathaveyou. I have a hard time picturing that, though, as enough other factors have been revealed by that point to make decisions on firmer grounds.
  5. I'm pretty far from the world's top expert in Amal Clooney, so I'll take your word on that. But...didn't her mom found a high level celebrity PR company? And I'm pretty sure she was attending elite schools in Britain from childhood onward, as with the people I actually know from Britain with fancy, globe trotting jobs. I'm not invested in whether Amal Clooney started from the top. She may not have. But all the people I know with those careers did. To be clear, good bloodlines alone do not a future UN celebrity make. The folks I know have legitimate talents - though often more talents with networking/navigating high society than any particular technical chops.
  6. A brief word on the Amal Clooney/Huma Abedin career trajectory. I work alongside or know ~10 people with the sort of globe trotting/face of positive change sort of careers. In each and every one of those cases, the person began life with an enormous network of privilege. I don't mean that they are all cis, straight, white males (only 4 are!), but that their parents are faculty at elite institutions, partners at towering titans of law firms, founders of companies with significant heft in their home countries, elite artists or otherwise fancy people who toast champagne more than once a month. If I remember right - Clooney's parents were both founders of successful companies. Abedin's parents are similar elites. Both attended elite schools from a young age where they hobnobbed with the children of other elites. I don't mean to knock any of their accomplishments or talents, merely to point out that the most upper of crusts is filled with people who are both talented and extremely lucky. One friend is now doing rather well at the (not doing rather well) EU at an impressively young age. He is a world-class networker, handsome, charming, has 3 degrees and practiced law for a long, arduous and devoted 18 months. He now regularly gives talks in important EU forums on rule of law, as if someone with 18 months in a capital markets practice has some particular and unique insight into that issue. He is talented, but the 15 internships of his youth arranged by parents with elite EU-related backgrounds, the letters of recommendation by Oxford professors who knew him while he was still in high school, and the $3000 suit sure as hell don't hurt.
  7. We had essay questions as well, but they were like the exam questions in a 200 level undergrad course: "Describe a problem we discussed in class and argue in favor of one interpretation/remedy". Just pick the answer your prof would pick and dismiss the other answers in the same tone they dismiss. If your prof thinks all questions are fundamentally tough, act like it was a struggle to get to their preferred answer. If they think justice compels one obvious answer, ape the same tone on your exams. Same rules as undergrad. At the time of my first exams, the fact that all of the answers had been provided to us in class led me to assume it would be much harder to get high grades - there seemed to be no way to distinguish yourself from classmates based on knowledge or understanding. I've never seen a classmate's marked exam, but judging by which classes gave me which marks, it seemed the difference was consistently a matter of clarity and structure in writing. Every time I was disappointed with a mark received I inevitably had a hard time following my own answers.
  8. That's a lot more work than we had. According to my planner, we did a total of 112 contracts cases during the year. Eyeballing it, they look to average out at 4 pages tops. That would mean that from September to March, in one of the 6 courses I had that had actual work, we only read about 500 pages. Biz org/securities are notoriously silly at U of T. I am not joking about having exam questions like "What is an OTC security?" - 2 points. I still have my maps! A few of us noticed that the prof just recycled the same list of 50 short answer questions. We spent a day prepping 2 sentence answers to each and brought those pages to the exam. We transcribed our answers.
  9. Alright, well, I take back my snide comment too, then. I did all of my reading in 1L and attended the bulk of classes. I actually found making my own maps to be the only part of the year that was instructive - passively reading/listening are not close to as productive as trying to construct a coherent account of the material yourself. Re: the above-posted reading expectations, that would have been 5-6 years ago. Before U of T transitioned to semesters. I did entire 2L/3L courses without really attending class or doing readings - it did not seem to impact my marks. Admittedly, some of that is due to certain classmates also dropping the ball.
  10. I'm open to the possibility that U of T had a lighter workload than other schools. I only attended the one. Again, I think there are many factors that make law school stressful, particularly in first year. I think people misdiagnose that stress, seeing it as a function of the work rather than a function of a brand new type of insecurity about life goals and career options and status - a series of insecurities that many students haven't confronted before 1L. I'm not trying to tell people that law school doesn't have consequences and consequences aren't scary - I'm just saying that the anxiety isn't a product of a heavy or overly challenging workload. The As are limited - at UT it's...what, 20% of a class gets an A (HH)? And 55% get either an A or B+ (H) - some combo of those two marks is fine for pursuing any sort of career you could want. All you need to do is be consistently in the top half of your class and you have a very impressive score going into the job hunt. Minimal reading, no or very few assignments, the ratios are explained to you so you never have to figure them out on your own, and all you need to do is be in the top half. The only complicating factor is that the competition around you is stronger. But OP wasn't asking how smart his classmates were going to be, he was asking how heavy the workload is, how much free time he will have and how hands-on the expectations are.
  11. I can't believe I still have my planner from that time, but here's a typical week: Torts - In re Polemis (1.5 pages), Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock & Engineering (3.5 pages), Smith v Leech Brain & Co. (3 pages), Stephenson v Waite Tillman Limited (3 pages), Hughes v Lord Advocate (3 pages). Total of 14 pages. Contracts - Payzu Limited (2 pages), Roth & Co v Taysen (2 pages), White & Carter v McGregor (7 pages), Finelli et al v Dee et al (1 page). Total of 15 pages. Crim - Dunlop and Sylvester v the Queen (6 pages), R v Jackson (3 pages), R v Heldon (6 pages), R v Palombi (4 pages). Total of 19 pages. It goes on like this.
  12. In 1L we had five courses for which there were readings per semester. Each course assigned between 3-5 cases a week. Cases were anywhere from 4 to 15 pages, with a small number of exceptions on either end. (In my 1L year, the torts group I was not in (we're broken into 2) only got through...I think 30 cases all year? Something disturbingly low.) That made up around 150 pages of reading a week - I know because my planner from that year shows the reading load for the next week on every Sunday. In undergrad courses we regularly had 50 pages of a course book to read plus ancillary journal articles 20+ pages long every week, and we took five courses per semester (at McGill). English courses often assigned an entire book for a week and my math classes had actual assignments - real thinking! - to do every week. Alternatively, I know many of my classmates didn't read all of the cases. It was openly discussed and people hid from teachers cold calling out of fear they'd have to recount the four facts of a case. First year law school gives you maybe 2 marked assignments the entire year. So... If I'm wrong, go ahead and tell me what the workload was in undergrad and what it was in law. Maybe your law school had weekly assignments for marks, but my didn't. Maybe you had 300+ pages of reading a week, but I didn't. Maybe you had papers that required 5+ weeks of research, but I didn't. I work in NY, not on Bay. I don't know what makes you think I don't take learning the law seriously. I didn't take school seriously, but those are different things. I also explicitly said I don't advocate for students to never read cases or attend class - I said law school isn't hard, there isn't much work, and there's even less work if you only want to do what's required. Frankly, since you've decided my being dismissive about the difficulty of law school grounds the suggestion that I'm an irresponsible lawyer who doesn't take their role seriously, it's not important to me whether you understand the difference. I'm sorry you found law school hard, but that doesn't mean you take better care of your professional responsibilities than I do.
  13. I don't disagree, and you're right to point out that it sounds as if I'm advocating this approach. I'm not. My purpose is to explain that panic, anxiety and worry are misplaced. I do not know how anyone can have gone to law school and report that it is more work than an undergraduate program - it is quite literally fewer hours per week of class and fewer pages per week of reading than the undergrad programs I'm familiar with and significantly less work than either the math or arts half of my undergraduate degree. We had problem sets in my undergraduate courses that took me 10 hours alone, and paper courses that required working through 4-5 books outside of the class reading list. Law school was much easier. There are other factors that may make law school feel daunting. There's a finitude to 1L marks that doesn't exist with respect to any undergraduate semester - if you want an OCI job, the 1L marks are your ticket to interviews. That's more pressure than most people have experienced before 1L. If you don't know what career you want to pursue, it can be intimidating to be around people who seem like they do. Debt hits home for the first time for many. Students pass around advice and insight from upper years as if it is the key to worldly treasures and happiness. Professors, upper year students and television all tell you that what you are doing is extremely difficult, stressful and only for the brilliant of mind and true of heart, etc. There is a true diversity of reasons that people experience law school and first year in particular as a stress rollercoaster. But having to read 3 fourteen page cases for torts in a week is not it.
  14. To be fair, I only relied solely on a map in 1 1L course and a handful of upper year courses, but it resulted in the same H/HH (...UT...) spread as the rest of my marks. Generally speaking, at least some of the extant maps contain all of the information you might want to put into an exam answer, and reading old exams tells you how a professor wants their questions answered. Nothing else is relevant. Maybe U of T is particularly easy, but we even had exams with questions that literally asked you to transcribe whatever was written in the map: "What is a short sale?" / "What is the difference between absolute and strict liability?" / "What is an OTC security?" and so on. Most of our 1L exam questions were exceedingly clear on what they were asking you: "Mrs. Pailsgiraffe is standing near a subway terminal...". I definitely worked less hard than I did in undergrad for Dean's List marks. I had more class time in undergrad and spent more time doing homework. I probably spent the same 3-4 days preparing for any given exam. Paper courses required significantly more work in undergrad than law. Law school "research" papers consisted of reading at most 5-6 cases and a few journal articles - I got an HH once for a paper that literally only discussed readings from the course pack, as if I were back in high school. In undergrad I read books for a paper.
  15. 1. This has been addressed, but it's worth noting that you might as well always have an up to date CV. Some people become very anxious during law school or OCIs and you may as well be responsible now and prep your CV. 2. Law school is almost indisputably easier than undergrad. I say almost because at least half of your classmates will talk about it as if they're training for the marine corps - this is a function of status anxiety and actually bears no relationship to the amount or difficulty of work. You will have roughly 15 hours of class a week and maybe - at the outside - 150 pages of reading. You could do none of that reading and get straight As. You could, frankly, never attend class and do none of the readings and still get straight As, since upper year students will pass down the cheat sheets used on exams. I had a job during 1L. If not for the job I had in 3L, it's very likely I would have hibernated the entire year. Everything was fine. 3. It is less hands on and demands less of your own thought. The only year in which marks matter for most students is first year. In that year, as mentioned above, cheat sheets will be circulated widely. As a general rule, professors will simply tell you the answers, i.e. What point of law to take away from each case and which elements of the reasoning that professor considers important and applicable. You could get very good marks in 1L without ever actually thinking for yourself. 4. You'll choose in 2L. Consider this question again closer to the end of 1L. You should not panic. The hardest question of all law school is why do other people describe law school as hard. It's akin to kindergarten in the sense that no one can fail - as long as you more or less accurately spell the key concepts on the exams (and remember, they let you bring in a cheat sheet), you will pass. The difference between passing and getting As is just a matter of ordering your thoughts in a mostly coherent fashion. Every student will know the same points of law and the same important modes of reasoning employed - the prof literally just spells them out for you - and, again, you bring a cheat sheet into the exam. The only piece of the puzzle for you to do on your own is read some old A exams (most schools have samples) and see how profs like answers to be structured. House cat is the right analogy. You could do nothing at all for 95% of your day and everything would still go fine. Just because the dog living next to you barks at every stupid noise outside doesn't mean you need to get startled. The more difficult part is finding a career you enjoy. You should start learning about the different types of work lawyers do and how you could get into a position to do the ones that sound most fun to you.