Friday, April 21, 2006
A student from one of the schools I mentioned at the end of yesterday's post, the University of Tennessee-Knoxville, took the time to send me a delightful e-mail.
"Regarding your post that you won’t look at the resume of a UTK student... that’s okay. I don’t need you to look at my resume. I might be just a UTK student, who’s not good enough for you and your firm, but that didn’t stop the other big national firms from making me job offers. Your loss (assuming I would even want to work for your firm... which I don’t)."
I'm not being sarcastic. It's delightful to know that my colleagues at "other big national firms" are wasting slots on students at schools ranked below number 3 in the U.S. News rankings. If only they start offering jobs to women, minorities, students with outside interests, older students with families, students who balanced law school with jobs and thus didn't have time to be on law review, students who screwed up in one of their classes despite being otherwise well-qualified, and students with glasses, I'll have our target demographic all to myself and be able to turn this firm into the powerhouse I know it should be.
I forgot to rant about this yesterday, but I think it's pretty shameful that U.S. News couldn't make up its mind about what school to rank #8 and had three schools tie for the spot. Just like in the pre-lockout National Hockey League, I hate ties. Make up your mind, U.S. News, even if it's based on nothing. I want a complete rank ordering. No ties. After all, there's no room for ties when we're deciding which associates to give a bonus to at the end of the year. Even if we have to draw names out of a hat, we're putting some people on the right side of the line, and some people on the wrong side. You want your bonus? Don't tie with your colleagues. Do better. By whatever measure we choose to use, even if we don't tell you advance what it is.
One year we decided, on a whim, that anyone who didn't use direct deposit wouldn't get a bonus just because we didn't want to have to print more checks. Why would we make a decision like that? Because we can.
"Regarding your post that you won’t look at the resume of a UTK student... that’s okay. I don’t need you to look at my resume. I might be just a UTK student, who’s not good enough for you and your firm, but that didn’t stop the other big national firms from making me job offers. Your loss (assuming I would even want to work for your firm... which I don’t)."
I'm not being sarcastic. It's delightful to know that my colleagues at "other big national firms" are wasting slots on students at schools ranked below number 3 in the U.S. News rankings. If only they start offering jobs to women, minorities, students with outside interests, older students with families, students who balanced law school with jobs and thus didn't have time to be on law review, students who screwed up in one of their classes despite being otherwise well-qualified, and students with glasses, I'll have our target demographic all to myself and be able to turn this firm into the powerhouse I know it should be.
I forgot to rant about this yesterday, but I think it's pretty shameful that U.S. News couldn't make up its mind about what school to rank #8 and had three schools tie for the spot. Just like in the pre-lockout National Hockey League, I hate ties. Make up your mind, U.S. News, even if it's based on nothing. I want a complete rank ordering. No ties. After all, there's no room for ties when we're deciding which associates to give a bonus to at the end of the year. Even if we have to draw names out of a hat, we're putting some people on the right side of the line, and some people on the wrong side. You want your bonus? Don't tie with your colleagues. Do better. By whatever measure we choose to use, even if we don't tell you advance what it is.
One year we decided, on a whim, that anyone who didn't use direct deposit wouldn't get a bonus just because we didn't want to have to print more checks. Why would we make a decision like that? Because we can.
# posted by Anonymous @ 10:16 AM 
