Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
iacoboujee

2L Summer (2019) Recruit PFOs/ITCs

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

I'm sure the people who whine about the Seven Sisters moniker are going to descend on you shortly, because Davies is absolutely a Bay street firm by any definition other than that they moved their office from Bay to Simcoe.

Sorry! I meant "Davies isn't all of bay". Of course Davies is Bay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot of weirdness on this forum, where when students are applying to law school with mediocre stats, they're told it's not all about stats, but then you show up for hiring, and people insist that it should all be about who is best on paper. That's great, but some paper candidate that has no EQ is not an ideal lawyer in a big firm environment.

I also think people here are having difficulty reading and I will absolutely stand by Bay street firms hiring some of the top candidates in the country. You tell me to look at gold medalists, and welp, a ton of them end up Bay. Leaving aside, to define "some of the top candidates" as "the gold medalists at each school" is laughable and asinine.

People with Cs do not regularly end up on Bay street at the top end firms in any large number whatsoever. Bay street firms do not just hire people who can schmooze a room but can't compete. They look for people who are both academically skilled and can also do the other things required in the large firm, client service environment.

 

 

2 hours ago, healthlaw said:

My post certainly wasn't shitting on the accomplishments of those who get hired through OCIs. I got hired through the OCI process years ago... my post certainly wasn't made to console myself. I actually enjoyed OCIs. But I stand by what I said - there are lots of average students with average grades that get hired every year. I wouldn't go as far to say they are the vast majority, but they certainly aren't a small minority either. 

Average and mediocre are synonyms now? I hope most of the people here got as many As as I did because you're telling us that mostly B+ with an occasional B is "mediocre", unless your posts are inconsistent.

 

1 hour ago, healthlaw said:

This was the premise of my argument. Thank you for stating it so succinctly. No one is disputing the fact that many (even most) of the students hired on Bay are objectively impressive. But there are a large minority of students who are pretty average - which isnt a bad thing considering the talent pool in law school in general 

The goalposts keep shifting each time you post. First it's "tons of VERY MEDIOCRE", then it's "lots of average", now it's "large minority ... who are pretty average". Each time the quantum becomes less and less meaningful. What is a "large minority" other than an oxymoron?

1 hour ago, lioness said:

Perhaps it is different in Ontario. In my province, plenty of very average students with B averages and not particularly impressive resumes got hired at big corporate firms, in my province and in other provinces. And there was some nepotism involved for more than a few of them. I remember hearing that in Toronto, you cannot hire your child into your own firm. Well, in my province, you can, and people do. Their friends also hire each other's kids. In my year, very few of the top students were interested in corporate law. A few did go to Bay or to big firms in other provinces, but most of the rest clerked, articled at competitive government places or non-profits, went to top boutiques, or went to grad school. 

I can't speak for your province but it is different in Ontario giving the timing of recruits. Alberta for instance hires a large proportion off of university grades rather than law school grades. It is a different environment. And yes, most of the big firms here have nepotism clauses.

 

Edited by Rashabon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

mostly B+ with an occasional B is "mediocre

Honestly, it's not mediocre, but it's certainly not a "top" law student. a 3.2 GPA and top 40th percentile at some ontario school not named U of T is a "top" student now? Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, pzabbythesecond said:

Honestly, it's not mediocre, but it's certainly not a "top" law student. a 3.2 GPA and top 40th percentile at some ontario school not named U of T is a "top" student now? Really?

I'm not saying that's where most candidates end up, but I'd hazard a guess a lot of the people that read this forum on the regular aren't on the honour roll and aren't straight A law students, hence why I'd suggest toning down calling these types of people "mediocre". I can assure you from having seen transcripts that most if not all the candidates we interviewed had better grades than my rough suggestion.

I graduated with honours as did a number of others in my articling class at my firm. We're not outliers. I chose not to go to NY. I chose not to pursue a clerkship because I decided earlier I wanted transactional work and didn't give a shit about being in or near a court.

My major point here is that there seems to be a rush to proclaim every Bay street hire an idiot frat boy/sorority girl that can work a room when someone who thinks of themselves as an academic star doesn't end up with a job. It happens literally year and doesn't really serve to do much other than perpetuate myths that aren't accurate.

Everyone in my year was a good academic. That was the nature of it. I'm not talking about what the mid size firms may hire. I'm talking the typical top firms around Bay street. All of them hire a vast majority of candidates who tick a lot of boxes. The academic one is ticked by just about all of them. There's apocryphal stories here and there but there's just about no evidence that the big Bay street firms (or the boutiques for that matter) are hiring anything less than top tier candidates for the majority of their open spots. It's a pretty big insult to all your (the general you, not necessarily you in particular) colleagues to assume that they couldn't have been good students because they ended up on Bay.

Edited by Rashabon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

My major point here is that there seems to be a rush to proclaim every Bay street hire an idiot frat boy/sorority girl that can work a room when someone who thinks of themselves as an academic star doesn't end up with a job. It happens literally year and doesn't really serve to do much other than perpetuate myths that aren't accurate

agreed. That was never my intention.

 

To be clear, "mediocre" isn't bad. Law students are generally very competent people, at academics anyway. I wasn't demeaning law students at all. I was just dispelling the notion that top bay firms only hire straight A students - for the sake of law students reading this who are in 1L right now and panicking about their midterms coming up.

 

edit: also, of course some top students go to bay. My point was, you don't need to be one to go there. That most people who do aren't "top" in the sense of being Deans listers/medalists.

Edited by pzabbythesecond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rashabon said:

I'm not saying that's where most candidates end up, but I'd hazard a guess a lot of the people that read this forum on the regular aren't on the honour roll and aren't straight A law students. I can assure you from having seen transcripts that most if not all the candidates we interviewed had better grades than my rough suggestion.

I graduated with honours as did a number of others in my articling class at my firm. We're not outliers. I chose not to go to NY. I chose not to pursue a clerkship because I decided earlier I wanted transactional work and didn't give a shit about being in or near a court.

My major point here is that there seems to be a rush to proclaim every Bay street hire an idiot frat boy/sorority girl that can work a room when someone who thinks of themselves as an academic star doesn't end up with a job. It happens literally year and doesn't really serve to do much other than perpetuate myths that aren't accurate.

Everyone in my year was a good academic. That was the nature of it. I'm not talking about what the mid size firms may hire. I'm talking the typical top firms around Bay street. All of them hire a vast majority of candidates who tick a lot of boxes. The academic one is ticked by just about all of them. There's apocryphal stories here and there but there's just about no evidence that the big Bay street firms (or the boutiques for that matter) are hiring anything less than top tier candidates for the majority of their open spots. It's a pretty big insult to all your (the general you, not necessarily you in particular) colleagues to assume that they couldn't have been good students because they ended up on Bay.

 But this is exactly my point. You don’t need to have be a “straight A lawstudent” or be on honour roll to be hired. There are plenty of students with only a few As... and I know of people with zero As at the firms your speak of. You’re posting as though you aren’t talking to people who literally work at those very same firms you hold in such high regard. No where did I say that’s C students end up on Bay Street in large numbers but you’re really over estimating what it takes to land one of these positions. Sorry the take home message strikes such a nerve for you 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with that and given that more than 15% of most schools ends up on Bay, clearly they can't all be straight As. But I was pretty clear focusing on top candidates and not top students. Academics are only part of the picture. Holistic evaluation isn't limited to law school. Quite the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, healthlaw said:

 But this is exactly my point. You don’t need to have be a “straight A lawstudent” or be on honour roll to be hired. There are plenty of students with only a few As... and I know of people with zero As at the firms your speak of. You’re posting as though you aren’t talking to people who literally work at those very same firms you hold in such high regard. No where did I say that’s C students end up on Bay Street in large numbers but you’re really over estimating what it takes to land one of these positions. Sorry the take home message strikes such a nerve for you 

 

You literally said this:

"There are also tons of VERY MEDIOCRE students that get hired every single year. Mediocre grades with mediocre experiences, but have the right type of personality to sell themselves."

It's just wrong. To say there are plenty of average students with interesting backgrounds that demonstrate a good EQ get hired each year is accurate. To say that shitty students that suck and have sucky backgrounds get hired constantly, but can hoodwink the hiring committees of the various firms, is wrong.

Edited by Rashabon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that our biggest socialist Bernie Bro on the board is a Bay St M&A lawyer :)

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FingersCr0ssed said:

Maybe the largest of the large (I don't know I didn't interview with them), but the firm I am going to seemed adamant about selecting "future partners". Again, it could be the coaxing of the interview process, only time will tell.

Basically every Bay Street firm says that. And they’re telling the truth, kinda. If you’re still there in a decade, they want you to be a partner. But that doesn’t mean they’re not accounting for the natural (and necessary) attrition of associates. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. I always found it funny that I was supposed to kiss up to them as where I want my career to be long term, but it was very taboo to ask about partner track. Firms are funny man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Basically every Bay Street firm says that. And they’re telling the truth, kinda. If you’re still there in a decade, they want you to be a partner. But that doesn’t mean they’re not accounting for the natural (and necessary) attrition of associates. 

That's correct. People leave, 99% of the time for no fault of the firm. I'm sure Jaggers (without meaning to put words in his mouth) would say he left of his own accord. Two superstars who were absolute, sure thing partners down the line had they stayed went in house in their 4th/5th years.

Even still, lots of firms are upping their lateral hiring because of attrition, but lateral hiring can be difficult. In certain specialized areas, finding a good lateral is tough because you're often selling them on leaving a similar firm or a boutique. So many firms prefer to just hire and retain as many candidates as they think makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Basically every Bay Street firm says that. And they’re telling the truth, kinda. If you’re still there in a decade, they want you to be a partner. But that doesn’t mean they’re not accounting for the natural (and necessary) attrition of associates. 

As a former Bay Street recruiter said when giving a presentation about the hiring process, "We know you're going to leave." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Jaggers said:

I like that our biggest socialist Bernie Bro on the board is a Bay St M&A lawyer :)

 

...who doesn’t seem to see any issues with systemic discrimination there...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

That's correct. People leave, 99% of the time for no fault of the firm. I'm sure Jaggers (without meaning to put words in his mouth) would say he left of his own accord. Two superstars who were absolute, sure thing partners down the line had they stayed went in house in their 4th/5th years.

Yup. I left because an amazing opportunity came up and was handed to me. I had not sent out a single resume before that. I was happy with the people and with the work. To an extent, I was ready for a different tradeoff between hours/demands and compensation, but it wasn't something I was desperately looking for at the time. If I had stuck around, I'd probably be a partner, which is not just speculation, as I was told by a good friend who used to run the department and was on the firm's executive committee (we weren't really good friends at the time, just colleagues with a great mentoring type relationship).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, pzabbythesecond said:

agreed. That was never my intention.

 

To be clear, "mediocre" isn't bad. Law students are generally very competent people, at academics anyway. I wasn't demeaning law students at all. I was just dispelling the notion that top bay firms only hire straight A students - for the sake of law students reading this who are in 1L right now and panicking about their midterms coming up.

 

edit: also, of course some top students go to bay. My point was, you don't need to be one to go there. That most people who do aren't "top" in the sense of being Deans listers/medalists.

Isn’t a B student the definition of mediocre? Mediocre = average. B curve =most people get Bs. Therefore Bs are average. I don’t think it’s an insult.

edit: what about the above-average to good students who don’t get hired? How do we account for that?

Edited by providence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well one of the definitions of mediocre is “barely adequate”, which is what I take it to mean. So it’s probably not a good description of a B average law student. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, providence said:

...who doesn’t seem to see any issues with systemic discrimination there...

I can't speak for other firms but my firm spends a lot of resources trying to eradicate systemic discrimination. Speakers were brought in (including Hadiya Roderique), sessions on implicit and other forms of bias, diversity, inclusion, etc. Our review panel is more diverse and the student classes we hire tend to be pretty diverse. We're not where we need to be but our firm is taking concrete steps to improve the situation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

I can't speak for other firms but my firm spends a lot of resources trying to eradicate systemic discrimination. Speakers were brought in (including Hadiya Roderique), sessions on implicit and other forms of bias, diversity, inclusion, etc. Our review panel is more diverse and the student classes we hire tend to be pretty diverse. We're not where we need to be but our firm is taking concrete steps to improve the situation.

That’s all great to hear, but really doesn’t address deeper systemic issues.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Recent Posts

    • True but nothing is guaranteed, including getting a job at a firm. I also fail to see why not getting into a government position would necessitate getting into private practice. Regardless, there are government law co-op programs here in BC along with government articling programs. You can get into those for a better chance at securing a government job later. Idk how things are in other provinces. Disagree. Instead, 0Ls should seek out their options far in advance of getting into law school and create a rough idea of what they want to do, such as what I listed above with the government jobs (for example). There's plenty to do with a law degree, and not all of it includes working like a dog in a traditional law firm.
    • I too got a poor store on this previous LSAT. It was oddly difficult, yet reading on here many people scored oddly well.  I am in your shoes as well - have multiple responsibilities beyond just academics.    One thing is for sure though: without trying again, you definitely won't do better.
    • U of T 75% OZ 100% rewrite if U of T is your dream school
    • I feel like you're definitely safe for Oz, possibly Ryerson too (it's only their second ever intake so idk). I feel like you have an above-average shot at U of T as it is given all your other factors (e.g. GPA, ECs) but if you're looking to be absolutely safe I'd suggest maybe studying over Christmas and having another go in January. 
    • Congrats Frazer 99! Can I ask when you heard from Dalhousie about your file being complete and entering assessment? Trying to get an idea of potential timeline. Thanks! 

×
×
  • Create New...