<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. That is even more meaningful today than it was a year ago.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are so right about CC. It’s taken me a while to realize that some of the people on CC who are pushing for their children to get into HYPSM are also expecting ‘great things’ from their kids. That’s a lot of pressure. I would sure hate to be one of those kids :)</p>
<p>cartera- That is WRONG. You do not have to come from Cravath (et al) to be in-house counsel. Nowadays they do like to see SOME law firm experience (which I never had since I went directly in-house when I graduated from law school), but I’ve seen a lot of hiring in the last 6 years or so at various companies, and none of the lawyers filling the jobs came from firms like Cravath. My company’s General Counsel came from a strong northwest regional firm.</p>
<p>MomofWildChild,
True, you may not have to be at a top law firm to get a coveted in house position, but without top law school pedigree you can’t get those jobs. If this weren’t a public forum I’d elaborate, but just trust me on this. Where you go to law school will follow you for the rest of your life, unlike any other graduate school.</p>
<p>Honestly, I don’t think that’s completely true, as long as we’re not talking about Cravath, or GE, or a Supreme Court appointment. There are people at every level below that who do not have fancy law school pedigrees – and, hey, Harriet Miers almost made it all the way to the top. (But of course she’s a counterexample, too, because her law school pedigree certainly had something to do with the collective judgment in Washington that she wasn’t fit to be a Justice. The last Supreme Court Justice appointed without a fancy law school was Chief Justice Burger, who was a night-school graduate in Minneapolis. And you have to look a long way back before that to find another, except for the special case of Thurgood Marshall who was educated under segregation.)</p>
<p>LOL at the mention of Harriet Miers, whose sole qualification at the time was that she had no “NannyGate” lurking in her past!</p>
<p>But that wasn’t her only qualification! She had been counsel to the President (and to the Governor of Texas), and she had chaired a large firm in Dallas. She was, actually, a very successful lawyer with broad experience (despite the fact that many people in Washington considered her dumb, and I believe them). She had more relevant experience than William French Smith or Ed Meese had when Reagan made them the Attorney General, and in many ways that’s a scarier job than Supreme Court Justice.</p>
<p>Okay - so I exaggerated when I used Cravath as an example, but the goal of landing a good in house job these days - and I am speaking in this economy - is incredibly competitive. I have been involved in several searches over the last few months and the resumes we received typically came from those at top firms with top credentials. Clients can be so picky, they are practically telling us what Zodiac sign they want.</p>
<p>There are lots of companies and lots of in-house jobs. The jobs are hard to get. ALL jobs these days are hard to get. I can assure you that Nashville Electric Company doesn’t care about whether the applicant worked at a blue-chip NYC firm or has an Ivy degree. Yes, the degree matters to some extent, but there is a lot out there besides General Counsel of IBM. What is a “coveted” in-house job? I think the job I have is “coveted”(at least by me). I have the top degree, but no law firm experience. Our General Counsel doesn’t have a degree from a T25, but he had some law firm experience. There is SUCH a range of in-house jobs, industries, etc. that you simply can’t make the kids of broad statements that are being made in this thread.<br>
An in-house job with a railroad is going to go to someone with some relevant experience, even the applicant went to Kansas law school (not a bad law school, by any means).</p>
<p>Beating a dead horse time:</p>
<p>Harriet Miers was initially selected to replace O’Connor, then her nomination was withdrawn in part because of the view that she lacked the intellectual wherewithal for the job. Roberts (Harvard LS) was then tapped for that position but when Rehnquist died he took that slot instead and O’Connor’s position was filled by Alito (Yale LS). Hey, I don’t make the rules!</p>
<p>Here is how people at college confidential are (mainly on this section though)</p>
<p>“Hey guys I want to get into the University of Phoenix, do you think I have a chance?”</p>
<p>College Confidential parent: You are going to need the top grades and top SAT scores in order to make it in there, it will be very rough and the competition is top notch at this school. I don’t think you will make it, it won’t be a good idea to apply I say you should just pick a regular job which does not require a college education.</p>
<p>“Hey guys, I have a 3.9 GPA and a 2400 SAT score, do you think that I have a chance at Harvard?”</p>
<p>College confidential parent: No chance at all, my daughter had a 4.0 GPA and a 2400 SAT score, also she was Wonder Woman for a month. She still didn’t get into Harvard.</p>
<p>“Hey guys, I didn’t do so hot in high school, do you think I have a chance of getting into College? My gpa is a 3.5 and my SAT score is only a 2100”</p>
<p>College confidential parent: College is becoming competitive, those scores are too low for any college and I suggest you go to Community College. That is your best bet, you state university will accept you.</p>
<p>Yea I am sure a lot of the people in here who are not “parents” get what I am trying to say. I am not a ■■■■■ but honesty is honesty, people on here are too pessimistic and make it seem like getting into a top college is difficult. On the other hand, I liked some of the advice given on this thread but as always I had to put up with the same ol people saying</p>
<p>“you didn’t do so hot in high school, you won’t do so hot in college”.</p>
<p>^LOL - best post in this thread, IMHO! This place will give you a major inferiority complex. My personal opinion is apply to any and all schools you are interested in, regardless of the chances. Even the adcoms at the top schools will tell you it can be pretty subjective when all is said and done.</p>
<p>protagonist, you come across as extremely immature and naive in your posts, not to mention insulting and rude.</p>
<p>Many of the long-time posters here (who have much more knowledge and understanding of the college admission process than most guidance counselors) have given you excellent advice. For some strange reason, you apparently think that they are trying to steer you away from applying to certain schools so that you won’t be in competition with their children. Nothing could be further from the truth! In fact, many of those parents don’t even have children applying this year anyway. They’re speaking to you from experience and from the knowledge they’ve picked up by frequenting College Confidential for several years. </p>
<p>No one here is telling you that you won’t get in to a particular school. They are simply giving you the odds based on quantifiable things like Common Data Sets and other published stats. It’s up to you to figure out how to beat those odds. </p>
<p>If you don’t feel like you’re getting the help you need from this board, why do you keep returning and insulting those who’ve tried to help?</p>
<p>
And you are a more credible source because…?</p>
<p>Kids, go ahead and apply anywhere you want. All you have to lose is $75. When the stats say that only 12% of the applicants get in, you should feel free to ignore that. Those numbers don’t apply to you, they apply to all the overly pessimistic kids out there that understand statistics. If you don’t apply your chances are zero, right? And surely everyone knows that if you want to win the lottery, your best bet is to buy LOTS of lottery tickets, not just one.</p>
<p>So go ahead and apply to a bunch of places without regard to whether kids like you with your profile were admitted from your part of the country last year. Hey, you never know!</p>
<p>guys, I am not insulting anybody, I even said that I have respect for people like Thumper and others on this board. The people on the pre med forum have been more than helpful. If anything I like the fact that you guys have remained amiable despite me being immature (yes immature) at times.</p>
<p>Thing is, I ask, can’t you guys just be a bit more encouraging though?</p>
<p>I mean on the past thread all I heard was “you have next to no chance at UVA”.</p>
<p>Blossom, you make a good point, from my experience I can tell you just by watching kids at my senior class that miracles do happen.</p>
<p>“And you are a more credible source because…?”</p>
<p>Never implied that I was, then again they are not that reliable either since the fact is this is the internet and if anyone feels like it, they can write a fictional story.</p>
<p>I have seen kids with 2100 SAT scores and 3.8 GPAs get into Columbia at my school. One Asian last year from my school got into Carnegie with a 3.1 GPA and a 2310 SAT score.</p>
<p>(call that a fictional story but I knew those kids well, they got accepted into GA Tech)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lol. So sadly true. I want to be in law and frankly I don’t even want to make partner at ANY firm, let alone Cravath. Money stops mattering once you’re making $250k-$300k a year.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Clearly you’ve never had income in that range, or else you’d know how incredibly not true that statement is.</p>
<p>Protagonist111: I think it will be the parent or the children fault if they take any advice on this board too literally. Most of the time people on the board don’t know all the details of the applicant so the exact advice is not possible.
It should be up to the applicant or the parent to take all the advice from here and make a decision themselves.
It is certainly rude to call all the poster on the board as false or pessimistic. Most of the posters either have gone through this process with their children or are under the process currently.</p>