z******3
发帖数: 12 | 1 路过，看到大家都在讨论LSAT分数的重要性，只是好奇，想问一下：即使分数高，即使
能进T14，如果不会Social，是不是找工作的时候一样被动一样郁闷？感觉做律师，聪
明重要，成绩重要，social和networking的能力更加重要----相比较读商科PhD而言，
对于混人际关系的能力，做律师要求要高很多，是这样吗？ |
i****y
发帖数: 5184 | 2 我觉得是这样的，LSAT只是敲门砖，并不决定以后的成败。当然，敲门砖意义也很大，
决定了你能进哪个学校，和什么样的人成为同学。只是如果两个人一个160，一个170，
都能进了同一学校，那么他们以后如何就和LSAT无关了。
【在 z******3 的大作中提到】
: 路过，看到大家都在讨论LSAT分数的重要性，只是好奇，想问一下：即使分数高，即使
: 能进T14，如果不会Social，是不是找工作的时候一样被动一样郁闷？感觉做律师，聪
: 明重要，成绩重要，social和networking的能力更加重要----相比较读商科PhD而言，
: 对于混人际关系的能力，做律师要求要高很多，是这样吗？
|
s**d
发帖数: 142 | 3 One can't "learn" how to social. It's about reading people and figuring out
what they want. No one can teach you how to read people.
The stuff one could pick up though, is only social protocols, which don't
really matter.
And if you don't know what I'm talking about, don't bother. Just be a good
work horse, the reward is still sweet. |
y*******y
发帖数: 71 | 4 展开说说“social protocols don't really matter”？我觉得关系很大啊。感觉中国
人察言观色的能力还是很强的，但融入文化就很难了。
out
good
【在 s**d 的大作中提到】
: One can't "learn" how to social. It's about reading people and figuring out
: what they want. No one can teach you how to read people.
: The stuff one could pick up though, is only social protocols, which don't
: really matter.
: And if you don't know what I'm talking about, don't bother. Just be a good
: work horse, the reward is still sweet.
|
s**d
发帖数: 142 | 5 靠察言观色是永远出不了头的。
“察言观色”这句话本身，就把已经把自己放倒了。
“融入文化”，既不是必要条件，也不是充分条件。
【在 y*******y 的大作中提到】
: 展开说说“social protocols don't really matter”？我觉得关系很大啊。感觉中国
: 人察言观色的能力还是很强的，但融入文化就很难了。
:
: out
: good
|
y*******y
发帖数: 71 | 6 高明，不过未免太玄。鄙人资质驽钝，还望明示。所谓不破不立，驳过鄙人谬论，能否
正面阐述一下你的观点？鄙人洗耳
恭听。
看过你以前的贴子，颇有收获，有些值得思考，还有些就失之偏颇了。比如关于中国业
务的重要性，现在几乎已经是业内
共识了吧（特别是金融危机发生后），虽然说是否是昙花一现还在未定之天。或许你不
在biglaw已经很多年，又或是故为
偏激之言，以动视听。而且尊贴似乎观点多于解释。本来在网上没有谁愿意心平气和地
讲道理，不过既然尊驾要出惊人之
语，又不加以解释，难免给人以哗众取宠的印象。比如泡白妞与拉客户论。
【在 s**d 的大作中提到】
: 靠察言观色是永远出不了头的。
: “察言观色”这句话本身，就把已经把自己放倒了。
: “融入文化”，既不是必要条件，也不是充分条件。
|
y*******y
发帖数: 71 | 7 想了一下，再说两句。
你说：“It's about reading people and figuring out what they want. ” 请问翻
成中文是不是“察言观色”？
又说：“The stuff one could pick up though, is only social protocols, which
don't really matter.”这话未免太偏颇。
试想你连social protocols都不知道，你是如何“reading people and figuring out
what they want”的？惶论这之后如何
正确应对的问题。
不是故意找碴，就事论事，请教一下。
【在 s**d 的大作中提到】
: 靠察言观色是永远出不了头的。
: “察言观色”这句话本身，就把已经把自己放倒了。
: “融入文化”，既不是必要条件，也不是充分条件。
|
s**d
发帖数: 142 | 8 As I said before, the legal market in China is inherently limited. This is
largely due to the lack of judicial independence, which means that the
importance of lawyers will never reach the same level as in the US. It's
much cheaper to bribe some government officials than to pay $500/hour to a
team of lawyers to structure a deal or litigate a case. So, until China has
it's own Marbury v. Madison, the so called "legal market" in China will
remain an illusion.
I am simply telling you guys the wa
【在 y*******y 的大作中提到】
: 高明，不过未免太玄。鄙人资质驽钝，还望明示。所谓不破不立，驳过鄙人谬论，能否
: 正面阐述一下你的观点？鄙人洗耳
: 恭听。
: 看过你以前的贴子，颇有收获，有些值得思考，还有些就失之偏颇了。比如关于中国业
: 务的重要性，现在几乎已经是业内
: 共识了吧（特别是金融危机发生后），虽然说是否是昙花一现还在未定之天。或许你不
: 在biglaw已经很多年，又或是故为
: 偏激之言，以动视听。而且尊贴似乎观点多于解释。本来在网上没有谁愿意心平气和地
: 讲道理，不过既然尊驾要出惊人之
: 语，又不加以解释，难免给人以哗众取宠的印象。比如泡白妞与拉客户论。
|
s**d
发帖数: 142 | 9 Dude, social protocol is something that goes without saying. If you can't
even figure that out, why bother with law school in the first place?
Don't be argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative. You want
some tips for junior associates? There you go.
which
out
【在 y*******y 的大作中提到】
: 想了一下，再说两句。
: 你说：“It's about reading people and figuring out what they want. ” 请问翻
: 成中文是不是“察言观色”？
: 又说：“The stuff one could pick up though, is only social protocols, which
: don't really matter.”这话未免太偏颇。
: 试想你连social protocols都不知道，你是如何“reading people and figuring out
: what they want”的？惶论这之后如何
: 正确应对的问题。
: 不是故意找碴，就事论事，请教一下。
|
W*********l
发帖数: 624 | 10 i thought the Chinese JDs are just like Chinese MBAs - they are the channels
of bribing gov officials. isn't that so?
your main job is not practicing law but networking and bribing.
is
has
wants
【在 s**d 的大作中提到】
: As I said before, the legal market in China is inherently limited. This is
: largely due to the lack of judicial independence, which means that the
: importance of lawyers will never reach the same level as in the US. It's
: much cheaper to bribe some government officials than to pay $500/hour to a
: team of lawyers to structure a deal or litigate a case. So, until China has
: it's own Marbury v. Madison, the so called "legal market" in China will
: remain an illusion.
: I am simply telling you guys the wa
|
