<p>IvyPBear has the pecking order wrong. In NYC, the hierarchy is Doctor>Banker>Lawyer. Bankers generally look down on us because they make substantially more and because they are half our age when they’re doing that. We also have to take orders from them, from people younger than we. </p>
<p>On the other hand, bankers don’t have as much job security.</p>
<p>“the hierarchy is Doctor>Banker>Lawyer”</p>
<p>Not if you went to YHS. The associates in investment banking and capital markets that I’ve met have a great deal of respect for lawyers, because they know that lawyers aren’t tools (compared to them). The only people that I have found to look down on lawyers are ones at Blackstone’s private equity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter whether you’ve met someone or not. You’re not a transactional attorney at a big firm, so you aren’t qualified to have an informed opinion about this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is downright dumb. No banker asks every attorney he encounters for their educational credentials. No banker cares. In the big firm world, the name of your firm carries you. If you’re a Brooklyn Law graduate and made it to Davis Polk, you are–in this context–practically indistinguishable from the HLS graduate who made it to Davis Polk.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You people do realize that outside the warped banker/lawyer universe virtually EVERYONE else looks down upon this crowd, as such this ‘debate’ is particularly hilarious. </p>
<p>If you’re talking about a deal transaction, you’re debating here about whether it’s the bankers or lawyers who ‘talk down’ to each other… in reality they both take their orders and talk downs from their clients… namely big business. </p>
<p>These execs do the talking and the lawyers bankers ultimately have to do the listening (although they like to try and provide lots of advice along the way… some of it’s useful, most of it’s self-serving crap). </p>
<p>At the end of the day, if the banker/lawyer didn’t perform a top notch job it’s the big business execs that will be doing the ‘talking down’. Those execs don’t see it as a superiority thing (most aren’t like that) but rather they’ve hired these bankers/laywers to provide a service and if that service isn’t up to snuff they’re going to say so and tell them to get back to work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As for the broader public, it sounds like you guys are living in the 1980s. The average Joe on the street would place a Goldman banker somewhere slightly above a bum in his parents basement on the prestige scale. They’d consider burger flipping more prestigious because, in their mind, at least that person is ‘working’ for a living. </p>
<p>In the smaller universe of more highly educated folks, people appreciate what such bankers do but they’re also smart enough to understand the mistakes the industry made. As such they’re no longer held in the same regard as they were 5-10 years ago.</p>
<p>As for lawyers, the broader public stopped putting most in this profession on a pedestal ages ago… </p>
<p>The ‘prestige’ landscape, if there even is such a thing, has shifted a lot over the last 10-15 years. These day’s who do you think is going to attract the most attention at your next hot shot NYC cocktail party as the ‘most prestigious and interesting guy in the room’:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>The lawyer who did a real top notch job on filling out the paperwork for that last deal</p></li>
<li><p>The banker who’s a top expert in the finer details of mezzanine debt</p></li>
<li><p>Your computer nerd friend from high school that now works for Google and just help build their latest and greatest thing</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Assuming the room has more than just bankers and lawyers in it (which it will need to otherwise nobody else will want to come to said party) it’s going to be number 3 every time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This guy isn’t often in NYC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Honestly sounds like they’re jealous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Having gone to a great school helps one get in the door at that first firm job. After that, an individual’s ability trumps where the individual attended the school. In the real world, professionals (such as lawyers, doctors, consultants, or bankers) aren’t judged by the school they went to, but their accomplishments on the job. I thought you’d know that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suppose your definition of who the average people are is quite different from that of mine. I think that you vastly underestimate the average intelligence and cultural level of an average American, to say the least. By average, I meant people earning middle class incomes, decent education (state-U grads), and decently cultured. Not some high school dropout living in a ghetto, working at a local Wendy’s restaurant.</p>
<p>In NYC, money talks, period. The guy who makes the highest average salary is in the top hierarchy. Sad, but true.</p>
<p>Doctors do not make the highest salaries, but they are never unemployed.</p>
<p>which school you went to is still very important even after you start working, like for lateraling opportunity. </p>
<p>also from what i heard it is much easier to become partner if you went to a top school. so while the brooklyn law student somehow made it into davis polk, he will still have a tougher time making partner. if you look at law firms websites this is true - while they may have several associates from lower ranked most of their partners are from top schools. of course this could be explained by saying students from lower ranked schools don’t work as hard, and them not becoming partner has nothing to do with their school but with their inablity to outperform. regardless, i thought this was an interesting statistic after i browsed several law firm websites.</p>
<p>also anyone who doesn’t believe bankers look down at lawyers should read this blog post, a quite amusing read:</p>
<p>[BigLaw</a>, BigSchmaw : The Leveraged Sell-Out](<a href=“http://www.leveragedsellout.com/2006/08/biglaw-bigschmaw/]BigLaw”>BigLaw, BigSchmaw : The Leveraged Sell-Out)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is incorrect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This may have been true in the past, but it’s no longer the case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…it could also be explained by the fact that:
(a) the number of associates from top law schools is still way higher than the number of associates from non-top schools. For example, there might be 20 HLS graduates at Davis Polk, but only 1 Brooklyn Law graduate.
(b) Non-top-law school recruiting at top firms is a relatively recent phenomenon.</p>
<p>There’s a long list of factors that go into making partner at a big elite law firm. Your school is rarely a factor; if it is, it’s very minor compared to: (a) the quality of your work product; (b) the quantity of your work product; (c) your rainmaking potential; (d) your book of business.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For lateraling opportunity, again, your accomplishments on the job as a lawyer, client contacts you build, connections, and people skills would determine your job opportunities. And, no going to a top school won’t make it any easier for you to make the partner. Mind you, the probability of any associate making partner is very slim at a large elite firm. And, nowadays, elite firms became ridiculously selective in recruiting. Around 1/3 of Harvard Law 2Ls failed to land BigLaw last year. Many firms would rather hire a Brooklyn Law student who ranks top 10% over a Harvard Law student in the bottom third of the class. Obviously going to a top school is a big plus, but your academic performance in law school, interviewing skills, and work experience would determine your fate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Corporate world doesn’t think the way the academics do. Most Fortune 500 CEOs never hold any advanced degrees besides MBA. The former CEO of Bear Sterns was a college dropout, but he now ranks as top 400 richest people in the nation. The point is that the corporate world judges people not based on academic credentials, but based on their abilities, people skills, accomplishments, etc. Going to a top undergrad or law school or whatever will only help your chances of landing the first job.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, the name brand of the law school you attended (and even the undergraduate school you attended) can absolutely have an impact on your opportunities down the road. </p>
<p>There are certainly other, more important, factors at play later in an attorney’s career, such as references, work experience, reputation, etc., but for many jobs, particularly where the hiring decision-makers include people who did not attend law school (such as management team, sales leaders, etc.), having name brand schools on your resume can certainly set you apart. I’ve received calls over the years for jobs where, not only am I being recruited primarily because of the schools on my resume in combination with my experience, but a prerequisite for obtaining the job would be submission of my SAT and LSAT scores. For some employers, those credentials always matter, no matter how many years an attorney has been out of school.</p>
<p>Not seeing why this post was made.</p>
<p>Do litigation attorneys tell consultants at McKinsey/BCG and other consulting firms that do economic consulting what to do?</p>
<p>What is the exact point of this thread?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We could tell.</p>
<p>Great thread, by the way.</p>