- Member for
- 6 years 47 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|1 week 5 days ago||This is such a ridiculous red||
This is such a ridiculous red herring (I don't really personally mean that against you, but I'm so sick of hearing that it's not that bad because at least it's not outside). It's a shit hole, period. Of course no one wants to sit outside in 95 degrees in Houston or Miami, yet they don't have a spectacularly awful dome in either of those cities as we do here. Hands down the worst place I have ever seen a sporting event of any type, and that includes a lot of really old small town ice "arenas".
|9 weeks 1 day ago||There is a reason that the||
There is a reason that the well known negotiation book is called "Getting to Yes", not "Getting to No". If you were truly looking at it as "one side has to get to no first" this was doomed to fail (at some point) and the recruiter probably (almost certainly) saw that clearly.
|9 weeks 2 days ago||"but I had more leverage than||
"but I had more leverage than they did and I knew that."
If they subsequently filled the position, you actually didn't.
I want to be clear, though, that I admire your attitidue on self worth. Unfortunately, that's a tough position in a commoditized profession that treats its professionals as virtually interchangeable.
|9 weeks 2 days ago||The tone of this email didn't||
The tone of this email didn't do you any favors, I'm willing to bet. In my experience, quoting the contract in a written correspondence like that never reads the way you intend it to. The word you used in your summation (I know it was not part of the email) was "firm", but how it reads is that you're playing hardball. If they had another qualified candidate no surprise they'd move on and roll the dice that the other candidate won't do the same thing.
|9 weeks 2 days ago||"they just didn't want to b/c||
"they just didn't want to b/c of $5-8k? b/c the HR mgr didn't "feel like it?" b/c the 2nd choice would for sure take it no questions asked? pretty lame reasons if you're a parent in that district payin 6-8k in taxes every year."
For a public district, where money is tight (a safe assumption), that's the decision they are going to make every single time when the difference isn't substantial between candidate 1 and candidate 2. That's $5-$8k they can allocate elsewhere in their budget and a decision the typical voter will support every time. Unfortunately, that's the big downside about working in a commoditized profession (which every union poaition is).
|9 weeks 3 days ago||Most all of the comments here||
Most all of the comments here are along the lines of "consider yourself lucky", etc., but the reality is that's exactly how the company most likely feels about you. At the risk of sounding like a complete asshole (a risk I knowingly run often), what happened here is really obvious: you showed that you didn't understand the industry or that you didn't care (neither is really worse than the other). As others have said, in union settings salary negotiation just doesn't really ever happen (and in fact the recruiter told you this, too). By attempting to negotiate you basically told the recruiter that you didn't understand the nature of the hiring process in the employer's field (or didn't care), and that's a big red flag. While it's true what others have said, and that you have thoroughly read in books and online that salary negation is commonplace, that is only the general rule and there will always be situations (and entire industries, in fact) where the general rule doesn't apply. There is nothing wrong with negotiating IF it's right for situation/industry/employer to which you are trying to gain employment, but when that isn't the practice of the situation/industry/employer and you do it anyway, that's almost always game over no matter how qualified you are and how well the interview process went up until that point. Long answer short: if you seek advice in books and on the Internet be sure it applies to your industry/situation/employer/location.
|15 weeks 4 days ago||The Jets? Really? Based on||
The Jets? Really? Based on what, exactly?
|15 weeks 5 days ago||"Either way, winning game one||
"Either way, winning game one on the road in the NHL playoffs is almost impossible."
|15 weeks 5 days ago||Can't remember the last time||
Can't remember the last time both game one starters had zero playoff starts.
|15 weeks 6 days ago||What matchup would have been||
What matchup would have been better?
|15 weeks 6 days ago||The Montreal-Ottawa series||
The Montreal-Ottawa series will be incredible.
|16 weeks 7 min ago||"Tampa's been desperately||
"Tampa's been desperately trying to make sure Wings fans don't get those tickets."
|16 weeks 10 min ago||Best matchup possible for the||
Best matchup possible for the wings. Everyone is acting like they are scared of Tampa, but Tampa isn't built for the playoffs. Weak, inexperienced defense and completely playoff unproven forwards.
|16 weeks 4 hours ago||No doubt that's the team that||
No doubt that's the team that should be the clear winner in this thread.
|16 weeks 2 days ago||Yeah, not so much. Pretty||
Yeah, not so much. Pretty much that whole team had the mumps this year. Making the playoffs would be a hell of an accomplishment for them, frankly.
|16 weeks 2 days ago||I find it far more||
I find it far more interesting how some people can make (almost) any topic political. This is one of those topics that is only "political" if you make it so.
|16 weeks 2 days ago||I suspect this may come as a||
I suspect this may come as a shock, but it's not necessary to bring politics into this discussion at all. Like the "no politics" rule? Don't talk about politics.
|16 weeks 2 days ago||"As the face of Michigan||
"As the face of Michigan Football, Jim probably has to sacrifice his personal expression."
|17 weeks 6 days ago||No such thing on the app,||
No such thing on the app, FWIW...
|17 weeks 6 days ago||Eh... It's possible. I only||
Eh... It's possible. I only use the iPhone mobile app to access this site and can't see votes and can't vote (to the point that I really don't even know what it means).
|18 weeks 1 hour ago||Morris is the QB for the team||
Morris is the QB for the team run by the OC. That says more to me than who was drafted first.
|18 weeks 8 hours ago||Stakes||
|18 weeks 1 day ago||I find it really surprising||
I find it really surprising that this is something recent, just considering the size and scope of the university.
|18 weeks 1 day ago||Enjoy Bolivia...||
|18 weeks 3 days ago||They've done a sort of good||
They've done a sort of good job in recent years in ensuring that more goes into ensuring that new ABA law schools are oriented in the right direction (eg UC Irvine, Florida International), but in part their hands are tied because you don't need ABA accreditation to open a law school. Central Michigan could open up a law school (if the MI Supreme Court approved it) and not seek ABA accreditation. The consequence would be that their graduates could only sit for the bar exam in Michigan. This is part of what causes the "lawyer glut" - it's actually not that there are two many graduates (DOL numbers really don't bear that out - at least not in most states , but rather there are too many unqualified graduates entering the market place. This is why the state supreme courts are the ones who fault really falls back on - don't approve low quality schools and make the bar exams harder - at the quality of legal education (and outcomes) completely changes.
|18 weeks 3 days ago||That ranking logic only holds||
That ranking logic only holds up if you're interested in those particular paths. That said, if a prospective student isn't interested in those options (eg if thy want to be a prosecutor), they probably should be choosing their school on completely different criteria anyway. Basically, the rankings are not one size fits all; it comes down to individual fit.
|18 weeks 3 days ago||That is an absolute shame.||
That is an absolute shame. I'm sorry to hear that. The CSO is such an easy (and obvious) thing for schools to ensure has proper resources and why they don't is beyond me. My law school experience with CSO was somewhat like you describe, but that's exactly what motivated me to do it different when I made the jump back from private practice. It just can't be done effectively by hiring an alum that just needs a job; just can't. It requires a legit skill set (either in place or that can developed). The thing about focuses only on OCI students is awful, too. Just makes no sense. Honestly, what I will say, though, is that the whole "network network network" thing actually does work. The problem, though, is no one wants to hear that because (1) it isn't necessarily easy and (2) it just sounds like really cheap advice. It's PART of an effective search strategy, but it can't be the only part (nor can it be presented to a student/graduate that way).
|18 weeks 3 days ago||I don't disagree with you in||
I don't disagree with you in any way about oversight and credentialing of new schools (the ABA and state supreme courts are a big part of the problem there), but that's an entirely separate issue from the outcomes data collection protocol. I also don't disagree that some (emphasis on some) schools in the past absolutely did inflate outcomes data. Really about the only way to "inflate" outcomes now, though, is through generous bridge to practice fellowship programs (to the point the positions are university funded full time for more than one year), but even those positions get a special line item on the ABA employment outcome report for each school (I'm talking the new one that hasn't been released yet, but will be public for next year - the current report actually has an entirely separate box grid for these positions) and they have a significant negative weighting now with US News. That said, even these programs aren't all to "inflate" - some/many schools use them to help transition graduates into incredibly competitive (in the post-PSLF era) "public service" jobs by defeating the organization's cost (which is very important for non-profits and budget restricted government entities). My point in saying this is that this last part is that even those have nuanced meaning on the outcomes report. This isn't the old era anymore where schools can just make stuff up and submit it to NALP. There are real consequences for failing your audit.
|18 weeks 3 days ago||You've actually got this all||
You've actually got this all wrong (at least with how it works practically). If you're making anywhere in the range you stated, you wouldn't ever gave a loan payment remotely that high (especially if you have dependents). I'm guessing you graduated law school pre-2010?
|18 weeks 3 days ago||I explained in my prior post||
I explained in my prior post (to which you responded) what I do and from where my perspective comes. I'm not shilling, but rather just have no problem stating that it's more likely than not that he didn't utilize his CSO properly. If someone ever says "they just out emails" or "they just told me to go network" it's a dead giveaway that they didn't utilize everything they paid for. I say "willing to bet" because most likely it's true (and you didn't provide anything to refute it), as there is a strong correlation between those who complain loudest about the quality of a CSO and those who underutilized their CSO. That said, and this is somewhat altered by another of his posts below (or above? - I'm on the app), his experience with the CSO at Michigan is dated (and may not, at all, reflect the nature of their CSO today). If it is untrue, I'm sorry that he (and it appears you, as well) went to a school that didn't have adequate support for you and you classmates. I've done this for quite awhile now, and to great impact, and I can absolutely tell you that the value of the CSO can absolutely make or break the quality of outcomes.