| | |
|
EarlyInterviewProgram 20 - 27 Apr 2010 - Main.NovikaIshar
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="EbenSalon" |
|---|
My question at the EIP meeting: Will we also be given information about which firms deferred CLS students? | | | -- DevinMcDougall - 25 Apr 2010 | |
>
> |
I agree on the transparency point-at least be honest. Don't tell us that 76% (or some ridiculous statistic like that) accepted at firms are Stone, Kent scholars and then tell us not to worry about grades in the same breath.
-- NovikaIshar - 27 Apr 2010 | | | |
|
|
EarlyInterviewProgram 19 - 27 Apr 2010 - Main.NonaFarahnik
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="EbenSalon" |
|---|
| |
<
< | I did not expect for Eben to be so blatantly vindicated.
-- NonaFarahnik - 23 Apr 2010 | >
> | My question at the EIP meeting: Will we also be given information about which firms deferred CLS students?
Nona | | |
Are you referring to Petal Modeste's response to your question, which I summarize as follows: "They would not be interviewing you if they did not intend to hire you." It reminded me of one of the wrong answers in an LSAT logic games section. | | | Yea, I agree with Ashley and think that firm relationships are a valid concern. | |
<
< | Kal- I think I was referring to absurdity of the whole thing, especially when I stuck around for a while afterwards. They all got really antsy around me at the end and I was shocked at how defensive they were. They also knew that I am drunk on the Eben kool aid because his name came up pretty quick. Though my question was maybe a slight shot across the bow, it wasn't so strange to ask if they had the numbers about who had been furloughed...
WHY IS IT CALLED THE OFFICE OF CAREER SERVICES????????? If it was the office of CAREER services, then Ilene and Ellen should be part of it too. The Meeting was tone deaf. I think 1Ls deserve a little affirmation and some big-picture thinking too. BLAH.
-- NonaFarahnik - 23 Apr 2010
I was also referring to Eben's characterization about the way the whole process is launched on the unsuspecting 1L. For the hour you sit in there, you forget that there are lawyers who work in other places than the law firm whose hires are 74% Kent Scholars.
-- NonaFarahnik - 23 Apr 2010 | | |
LOL @ this. My only question is : why lie to us? If you're nervous, say so. If you're not sure, say so. Tell us we need to start thinking in new ways about the field to make our mark. We know what's happening around us and I kind of find it offensive that they think we aren't "tracking" this ourselves and could even begin to believe some of the statements. "Layoffs don't indicate that firms are in economic [struggle]" (or something like that) WHAT?!?! I LOL'd at that in the meeting. It was a blatant lie. If layoffs don't indicate a firm's stability (or lack thereof)...what do they indicate? I also found it interesting how many law students who were leaving called "bullsh!t" on that whole meeting. The Kent Scholars comment was hilarity. Most of us aren't Kent Scholars...so ummm...where does that leave the rest of us?! | | | -- RorySkaggs - 23 Apr 2010 | |
<
< | @ Rory. Top 5 is important to me and I understand why they feel pressure to keep our rankings up. If the way to do that is making sure all students are employed, I don't think yesterday's meeting was successful. I am all for people getting the firm jobs that they want.
As for my "formalist" analysis, I did not realize that CAREER services was only for private law jobs until yesterday.
Anyway, it is over and I am not trying to get into an anti-EIP battle, just wanted to share my anti-EIP meeting sentiments. Finally, you misread my sentiment because I don't feel afraid.
-- NonaFarahnik - 23 Apr 2010 | | | Rory: I appreciate your point that OCS is under a lot of pressure, and that Columbia's stature is connected with its graduate employment rate. However, there's a middle ground between admitting to students that "there are no jobs left" and what happened yesterday. Saying that layoffs are often unrelated to the firm's economic performance (or whatever the metric is) -- and can even be an indicator that a firm is healthy -- was a blatant lie that offended many, many students.
Also, what's with the packet being private? |
|
|
EarlyInterviewProgram 16 - 24 Apr 2010 - Main.PeterPark
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="EbenSalon" |
|---|
I did not expect for Eben to be so blatantly vindicated.
-- NonaFarahnik - 23 Apr 2010 | | | -- DanKarmel - 24 Apr 2010 | |
>
> | Dan - how about "contempt?"
I am not sure I agree with OCS's claim that layoffs/deferrals are unrelated to the economic strength of the firm, but our calculus should be slightly more complicated than "the following firms laid a bunch of people off, therefore they are unsafe and Columbia shouldn't defend them." Every firm is a business and will not hesitate to take away your job if you are not profitable. Even though there are varying degrees of reputation/dignity-based resistence to such actions, the bottom line is clear. Therefore, that a firm resorted to layoffs and deferrals between 2007-2010 show nothing more than a combination of pre-layoff economic problems and the firm's comparative willingness to openly throw you out. That a firm did not resort to such drastic measures (yet) does not mean it's any safer - perhaps it's in a worse position as a result of the holdout, and maybe you will bear the brunt of their bad business decisions. Even in corporate firms, the only way to secure any semblence of safety is to have your own clients.
-- PeterPark - 24 Apr 2010 | | |
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |