Top Law Schools

TUP wrote:

Lude000 wrote:My experience for 1L summer hiring was that firms and corporations generally looked fondly on CPA experience. Every single interviewer talked about my work experience and I'm pretty sure it was a strong consideration in granting me interviews in the first place. Two things held constant across all interviews: 1) So...you are interested in transactional work, right? 2) Why did you leave accounting?

Are you saying a former CPA might be pigeon-holed? Based on my big 4 experience, transactional corporate law is the one area I know I'm definitely NOT interested in (as a 0L).

I'm saying you will very likely be pigeon-holed. But that is just a matter of first impressions based on a resume. The simple solution would be to correct an interviewer. Even before an interview, you could address the concern through your cover letter or resume. At the end of the day, it will likely be a common assumption. I believe it is a valid assumption and an assumption that can easily be corrected should it be wrong.

I guess there is really no way to tell whether it is a game changer or not, other than from your own opinion.

What I am trying to say that if you went to Harvard and had friends at Boston College and noone knew exactly relative quality/prestige of law schools and I asked you whether you felt that Harvard was better than BC you would have probably stated that going to Harvard is not a game changer because plenty of your friends got same jobs from BC. Your statements just appear to be unbased personal opinions somewhat affected by the role of work XP in the law school admission process.

APHill wrote:I guess there is really no way to tell whether it is a game changer or not, other than from your own opinion.

What I am trying to say that if you went to Harvard and had friends at Boston College and noone knew exactly relative quality/prestige of law schools and I asked you whether you felt that Harvard was better than BC you would have probably stated that going to Harvard is not a game changer because plenty of your friends got same jobs from BC. Your statements just appear to be unbased personal opinions somewhat affected by the role of work XP in the law school admission process.

Well IF everything else was held equal (GPA, journals, etc.) and the only thing changed was the school (Harvard or BC) and the same percentage of people from both groups got comparable offers, would you say that going to Harvard was a game changer with respect to landing an initial job? I sure wouldn't.

Also, asking a question like this on a forum is only going to get you these type of answers. My point is that there are things that have traditionally truly mattered and will continue to matter in the world of law firm recruiting. Off the top of my head those things would be School Attended, GPA, and Participation on Journals/Moot Court. Although I would love to live in a world where my work experience had the top firms knocking down my door, that just isn't the case. The recruiting model has not required it in the past nor does it require it now.

Well, I guess I appreciate your honest opinion, but in the end the answer I got is that you really dont know whether work xp is a significant factor, thats all.