emory (10k p/y) vs gw Forum

[bk1]

i venture to say that any student in t30 will have at least a job, maybe not their dream job, by nine months. its not the end of the world.

This is an overestimation. For the regional schools I'd say that at least 10% will be unemployed, employed part time, or employed non-legal. It's probably worse than that now depending on the region the school is in.

Your recommendations in this thread have been incredibly shortsighted up until these last two posts. Regional schools are "great schools" and everyone has debt, but that doesn't mean that OP should be stupid too and take the $150,000+ plunge at these schools. With a high likelihood of ending up with a job that pays 60k at best, I can see no reason why someone should pay much more than $100,000 for either GW or Emory. You say it has to be financially feasible, but for the majority of kids at Emory/GW, sticker price is not financially feasible. You say working hard is important, this sweat equity that you talk about, and it is. But you can't even come close to guaranteeing you will do better than your classmates at these schools considering they will be working just as hard as you so it is foolish to make that presumption.

[drummerboy]

but some are naturally more gifted in the art of bullshitting and connection making. this cant be taught. a supernerd from yale if hes not in the top half of his class , 50 percent wont be, is unlikely to stimulate the interest of would be employers if hes socially inept. law after all is a socially related field. unless of course you go into research and academics. hence, intangibles do matter. its only human nature to pick those you like or those that are most convincing. imo.

[Magnolia]

but some are naturally more gifted in the art of bullshitting and connection making. this cant be taught. a supernerd from yale if hes not in the top half of his class , 50 percent wont be, is unlikely to stimulate the interest of would be employers if hes socially inept. law after all is a socially related field. unless of course you go into research and academics. hence, intangibles do matter. its only human nature to pick those you like or those that are most convincing. imo.

I don't think using Yale as your example really makes your case, because employers will hire below-median kids just based on the Yale name, even if they're socially inept. I understand your point, though, and yes, interpersonal skills are important. People like to hire pleasant people because they like to work with pleasant people.

However, don't overestimate the importance of being personable. A winning smile in an interview might get you the job, but it's your grades and your school that will get you the interview to begin with. You could be the best interviewer in your class, but if you don't have the grades to back it up, it won't do much good. Employers aren't going to hire someone with bad grades just because they like their personality, just like employers in other industries don't hire unqualified people based on their personality. At the end of the day, the employers need someone that they trust can do the work a helluva lot more than they need someone they'll enjoy going drinking with.

tl;dr: Social skills are necessary but not sufficient.

[drummerboy]

agreed but top of wustl should get picked over the bottom ,not median ,from yale. i think this can be said of most tier 1 students( t15 to t50 ) when comparing them to (t14 students at the bottom of their class).

[sportsguy88]

but some are naturally more gifted in the art of bullshitting and connection making. this cant be taught. a supernerd from yale if hes not in the top half of his class , 50 percent wont be, is unlikely to stimulate the interest of would be employers if hes socially inept. law after all is a socially related field. unless of course you go into research and academics. hence, intangibles do matter. its only human nature to pick those you like or those that are most convincing. imo.

I don't think using Yale as your example really makes your case, because employers will hire below-median kids just based on the Yale name, even if they're socially inept. I understand your point, though, and yes, interpersonal skills are important. People like to hire pleasant people because they like to work with pleasant people.

However, don't overestimate the importance of being personable. A winning smile in an interview might get you the job, but it's your grades and your school that will get you the interview to begin with. You could be the best interviewer in your class, but if you don't have the grades to back it up, it won't do much good. Employers aren't going to hire someone with bad grades just because they like their personality, just like employers in other industries don't hire unqualified people based on their personality. At the end of the day, the employers need someone that they trust can do the work a helluva lot more than they need someone they'll enjoy going drinking with.

tl;dr: Social skills are necessary but not sufficient.

Bad news about the way the world works: the vast majority of people in law (and all fields) are essentially replaceable. There are bad lawyers, there excellent lawyers, but the vast majority have essentially the same skills. I don't mean to dehumanize, because one's work will certainly be different, but it won't necessarily be better. Unless you are a star, your personality and your networking is what is going to carry you in this field. People have to like working with you, or you will have a bad job or no jobs.

[Magnolia]

Bad news about the way the world works: the vast majority of people in law (and all fields) are essentially replaceable. There are bad lawyers, there excellent lawyers, but the vast majority have essentially the same skills. I don't mean to dehumanize, because one's work will certainly be different, but it won't necessarily be better. Unless you are a star, your personality and your networking is what is going to carry you in this field. People have to like working with you, or you will have a bad job or no jobs.

I'm not sure how this is at odds with what I said. Yes, you will need to interview well when you apply for any job, unless you've already proven yourself to be a rockstar. Kids with good grades are a dime a dozen, so, especially ITE, firms can afford to be picky when it comes to personality. But having a great personality isn't going to make up for subpar work. No biglaw firm is going to hire a kid at the bottom of the class at Emory just because they're charming. If you don't already have the grades, your personality isn't going to make up for that. It's because everyone is basically replaceable that social skills are necessary but not sufficient.

[bk1]

but some are naturally more gifted in the art of bullshitting and connection making. this cant be taught. a supernerd from yale if hes not in the top half of his class , 50 percent wont be, is unlikely to stimulate the interest of would be employers if hes socially inept. law after all is a socially related field. unless of course you go into research and academics. hence, intangibles do matter. its only human nature to pick those you like or those that are most convincing. imo.

Bad news about the way the world works: the vast majority of people in law (and all fields) are essentially replaceable. There are bad lawyers, there excellent lawyers, but the vast majority have essentially the same skills. I don't mean to dehumanize, because one's work will certainly be different, but it won't necessarily be better. Unless you are a star, your personality and your networking is what is going to carry you in this field. People have to like working with you, or you will have a bad job or no jobs.

To both of you: the vast majority of people will have roughly the same interpersonal skills. People like to think that they are somehow socially more adept than everybody else but this is rarely true. The vast majority have sufficient skill in this area to do just fine and most of them do not drastically differ (think of it like a bell curve). Firms seriously care about grades and prestige since these things often do drastically differ in far greater magnitudes than interpersonal skills ever do.

[sportsguy88]

but some are naturally more gifted in the art of bullshitting and connection making. this cant be taught. a supernerd from yale if hes not in the top half of his class , 50 percent wont be, is unlikely to stimulate the interest of would be employers if hes socially inept. law after all is a socially related field. unless of course you go into research and academics. hence, intangibles do matter. its only human nature to pick those you like or those that are most convincing. imo.

Bad news about the way the world works: the vast majority of people in law (and all fields) are essentially replaceable. There are bad lawyers, there excellent lawyers, but the vast majority have essentially the same skills. I don't mean to dehumanize, because one's work will certainly be different, but it won't necessarily be better. Unless you are a star, your personality and your networking is what is going to carry you in this field. People have to like working with you, or you will have a bad job or no jobs.

To both of you: the vast majority of people will have roughly the same interpersonal skills. People like to think that they are somehow socially more adept than everybody else but this is rarely true. The vast majority have sufficient skill in this area to do just fine and most of them do not drastically differ (think of it like a bell curve). Firms seriously care about grades and prestige since these things often do drastically differ in far greater magnitudes than interpersonal skills ever do.

You may be correct for your first job, depending on the firm and the market, but that's it. Social adeptness is not relatively equal, unlike one's ability in the law. I'm not saying you have to be a gregarious politician-type, in fact that probably hurts you some in a business, but you have to be able to make and establish good relationships with people. Not everyone is capable or willing to do that. The rub is that not everyone necessarily earns these connections either. You can be socially retarded but if you have familial connections you're probably set.

[bk1]

You may be correct for your first job, depending on the firm and the market, but that's it. Social adeptness is not relatively equal, unlike one's ability in the law. I'm not saying you have to be a gregarious politician-type, in fact that probably hurts you some in a business, but you have to be able to make and establish good relationships with people. Not everyone is capable or willing to do that. The rub is that not everyone necessarily earns these connections either. You can be socially retarded but if you have familial connections you're probably set.

I'm not saying that everyone is capable of doing it well, I am saying that most people are relatively equal at their proficiency in that regard (whatever level of proficiency that might be).

[tea_drinker]

OP: A lot of advice that were given are all correct. If you graduate at the top of your class, you will have some good job offers, if you do not, then the huge amount of debt will put you in dire situations. Also, because the chance you will graduate at the top of your class is small, a majority of people will advise you not go to these law schools.

However, since you are not listing retake/reapply as an option or what other career alternatives you have if you don't go to law school, I suggest emory as it will give you the least amount of debt. But if you have either or both of the aforementioned options, consider all your options again.

Personally, I don't think either one of these schools is bad, just don't put your hope into getting high salary right after graduate and be prepared to live a frugal life.

Good luck!

[drummerboy]

not a question of charm its the ability to network properly to secure a job independent of oci.

[Magnolia]

not a question of charm its the ability to network properly to secure a job independent of oci.

Networking is only helpful in securing employment to the extent that someone may put in a good word for you if (and only if) you're already being considered for the job. Going to a firm's event demonstrates interest that can give you a leg up over a similar applicant who hasn't shown any interest in the firm. But all the networking in the world isn't going to overshadow your resume. Even outside of OCI, networking will only help you get jobs for which you're already qualified. It's not going to do anything for you if your grades aren't up to par.

[FGCUguy123]

not a question of charm its the ability to network properly to secure a job independent of oci.

Networking is only helpful in securing employment to the extent that someone may put in a good word for you if (and only if) you're already being considered for the job. Going to a firm's event demonstrates interest that can give you a leg up over a similar applicant who hasn't shown any interest in the firm. But all the networking in the world isn't going to overshadow your resume. Even outside of OCI, networking will only help you get jobs for which you're already qualified. It's not going to do anything for you if your grades aren't up to par.

Drummerboy wasn't not saying that. If someone puts in a good word for you, do you think it matters what your resume looks like (more specifically, whether or not you are in the top 20%)? And before you decide to refute that...think about whether or not you truly believe, without a doubt, that a student who is, let's say, top 43% of the class (yet who goes to several symposiums and lectures from a specific law firm and, further, is very amicable) would be less likely to get a job at that specific firm then a student who is at the top 20% of the class who never showed interest. Remember what drummerboy said..."independent of OCI." Obviously if you aren't qualified for OCI jobs, you won't get them. There are other opportunities to meet future employers and secure lawyer jobs at Emory, however, for those students not qualified for OCI. For example, Emory has a program called EPIC (Emory Public Interest Committee). EPIC, essentially, is a clinic. They also have vast amounts of fundraising events where students have one-on-one time with attorneys. This is NOT OCI nor is it reserved for the top of the class. Do you REALLY believe that a student in the top 20% who never met any of the lawyers or firms involved with EPIC has a better shot at a job with them over a student who is in the top 43% yet has been at every event and is friendly with all the aiding attorneys? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

[Magnolia]

not a question of charm its the ability to network properly to secure a job independent of oci.

Networking is only helpful in securing employment to the extent that someone may put in a good word for you if (and only if) you're already being considered for the job. Going to a firm's event demonstrates interest that can give you a leg up over a similar applicant who hasn't shown any interest in the firm. But all the networking in the world isn't going to overshadow your resume. Even outside of OCI, networking will only help you get jobs for which you're already qualified. It's not going to do anything for you if your grades aren't up to par.

Drummerboy wasn't not saying that. If someone puts in a good word for you, do you think it matters what your resume looks like (more specifically, whether or not you are in the top 20%)? And before you decide to refute that...think about whether or not you truly believe, without a doubt, that a student who is, let's say, top 43% of the class (yet who goes to several symposiums and lectures from a specific law firm and, further, is very amicable) would be less likely to get a job at that specific firm then a student who is at the top 20% of the class who never showed interest. Remember what drummerboy said..."independent of OCI." Obviously if you aren't qualified for OCI jobs, you won't get them. There are other opportunities to meet future employers and secure lawyer jobs at Emory, however, for those students not qualified for OCI. For example, Emory has a program called EPIC (Emory Public Interest Committee). EPIC, essentially, is a clinic. They also have vast amounts of fundraising events where students have one-on-one time with attorneys. This is NOT OCI nor is it reserved for the top of the class. Do you REALLY believe that a student in the top 20% who never met any of the lawyers or firms involved with EPIC has a better shot at a job with them over a student who is in the top 43% yet has been at every event and is friendly with all the aiding attorneys? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

I believe that every firm/government agency/PI org/etc. has hiring standards. I don't think that they all have the same hiring standards, they don't all require you to be top 20%, but they all have standards.

I'll use your example of the 43% student vs. the 20% student. If being top 43% at Emory meets a certain employer's hiring standards, then yes, a student in the top 43% who attends events and meets partners could have a leg up over the student who is top 20%. But if being top 43% doesn't meet their hiring standards, then I don't believe any amount of networking will change the fact that the student is unqualified by that employer's metrics. This applies whether we're talking about OCI, EPIC, resume drops, cold calling, etc. Until your qualifications have met the minimum threshold, networking doesn't mean a thing.

FTR, I'm not arguing that this is Emory-specific. This is the case at everywhere.

[FGCUguy123]

not a question of charm its the ability to network properly to secure a job independent of oci.

Networking is only helpful in securing employment to the extent that someone may put in a good word for you if (and only if) you're already being considered for the job. Going to a firm's event demonstrates interest that can give you a leg up over a similar applicant who hasn't shown any interest in the firm. But all the networking in the world isn't going to overshadow your resume. Even outside of OCI, networking will only help you get jobs for which you're already qualified. It's not going to do anything for you if your grades aren't up to par.

Drummerboy wasn't not saying that. If someone puts in a good word for you, do you think it matters what your resume looks like (more specifically, whether or not you are in the top 20%)? And before you decide to refute that...think about whether or not you truly believe, without a doubt, that a student who is, let's say, top 43% of the class (yet who goes to several symposiums and lectures from a specific law firm and, further, is very amicable) would be less likely to get a job at that specific firm then a student who is at the top 20% of the class who never showed interest. Remember what drummerboy said..."independent of OCI." Obviously if you aren't qualified for OCI jobs, you won't get them. There are other opportunities to meet future employers and secure lawyer jobs at Emory, however, for those students not qualified for OCI. For example, Emory has a program called EPIC (Emory Public Interest Committee). EPIC, essentially, is a clinic. They also have vast amounts of fundraising events where students have one-on-one time with attorneys. This is NOT OCI nor is it reserved for the top of the class. Do you REALLY believe that a student in the top 20% who never met any of the lawyers or firms involved with EPIC has a better shot at a job with them over a student who is in the top 43% yet has been at every event and is friendly with all the aiding attorneys? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

I believe that every firm/government agency/PI org/etc. has hiring standards. I don't think that they all have the same hiring standards, they don't all require you to be top 20%, but they all have standards.

I'll use your example of the 43% student vs. the 20% student. If being top 43% at Emory meets a certain employer's hiring standards, then yes, a student in the top 43% who attends events and meets partners could have a leg up over the student who is top 20%. But if being top 43% doesn't meet their hiring standards, then I don't believe any amount of networking will change the fact that the student is unqualified by that employer's metrics. This applies whether we're talking about OCI, EPIC, resume drops, cold calling, etc. Until your qualifications have met the minimum threshold, networking doesn't mean a thing.

FTR, I'm not arguing that this is Emory-specific. This is the case at everywhere.

That is where we disagree. This might sound slightly metaphysical...but the nature of this world and, more specifically, our future profession is as much who you know as what you know. I am going to use a hypothetical, however, it will illustrate well what I'm saying. Let's say, for instance, you go out your first year and find out where a bunch of attorneys drink after work. You start building a rapport with them (aka networking) and they, in general, like you a lot. Now, the time comes where you need a job. Oh crap...you aren't within their hiring bracket. Luckily, law is a business. Businesses need to sell their product or service or else, as I'm sure you know, the business fails. Firms are looking for lawyers who they feel will fit this criteria. Further, and it has already been touched on, people want to work with people they LIKE. That means, those hiring partners won't give a flying F if you were 12th in your class if, when you interview with them (on or off campus), you remind them of Rain-main. Because those people liked you, you may get the job despite not being up to par with their hiring standards. An awesome example is in the show Boston Legal (which I love btw). There is this dude with Asperger's Syndrome. His name in the show is Jerry Espenson. Now Jerry has an MBA/JD from Harvard but, since he's so freaking awkward (and though he has been working at the firm for many years), they refuse to make him partner. Obviously he already had the job at the firm, yet the message is similar. Just as he was overlooked for partner, so will some people in law school be overlooked for jobs. The more personable you are, the more likely your resume will be overlooked. It's not that it's necessary but not sufficient, it's that the probability of getting hired out of a specific "range" greatly increases, insofar as law IS a business, with your affability.

[bk1]

That is where we disagree. This might sound slightly metaphysical...but the nature of this world and, more specifically, our future profession is as much who you know as what you know. I am going to use a hypothetical, however, it will illustrate well what I'm saying. Let's say, for instance, you go out your first year and find out where a bunch of attorneys drink after work. You start building a rapport with them (aka networking) and they, in general, like you a lot. Now, the time comes where you need a job. Oh crap...you aren't within their hiring bracket. Luckily, law is a business. Businesses need to sell their product or service or else, as I'm sure you know, the business fails. Firms are looking for lawyers who they feel will fit this criteria. Further, and it has already been touched on, people want to work with people they LIKE. That means, those hiring partners won't give a flying F if you were 12th in your class if, when you interview with them (on or off campus), you remind them of Rain-main. Because those people liked you, you may get the job despite not being up to par with their hiring standards. An awesome example is in the show Boston Legal (which I love btw). There is this dude with Asperger's Syndrome. His name in the show is Jerry Espenson. Now Jerry has an MBA/JD from Harvard but, since he's so freaking awkward (and though he has been working at the firm for many years), they refuse to make him partner. Obviously he already had the job at the firm, yet the message is similar. Just as he was overlooked for partner, so will some people in law school be overlooked for jobs. The more personable you are, the more likely your resume will be overlooked. It's not that it's necessary but not sufficient, it's that the probability of getting hired out of a specific "range" greatly increases, insofar as law IS a business, with your affability.

The personality traits that help you get a job are the same whether you go to Harvard or you go to Emory. The abilities that help you get good grades are the same whether you go to Harvard or Emory. The thing about these things is that you don't know how good they are until you are actually in the situation. You don't know for a fact that you will be able to outnetwork 90% of your classmates or get better grades than 90% of your classmates and that's where the problem lies.

What you do know is that the majority of kids from Emory/GW do not get jobs that make repaying $150,000-$200,000 in debt feasible. Since that is the only piece of information you have, you don't pay that kind of money to go to GW/Emory since you don't know whether you can outwork for grades or outnetwork for jobs in relation to everybody else. Maybe you can, but it seems kind of foolish to bet an insane amount of money on something that you cannot guarantee. This is especially true in regards to biglaw (aka the jobs that make repaying that kind of debt feasible) since they almost exclusively recruit through OCI and your chances of getting a job there through any other means is quite slim.

[FGCUguy123]

That is where we disagree. This might sound slightly metaphysical...but the nature of this world and, more specifically, our future profession is as much who you know as what you know. I am going to use a hypothetical, however, it will illustrate well what I'm saying. Let's say, for instance, you go out your first year and find out where a bunch of attorneys drink after work. You start building a rapport with them (aka networking) and they, in general, like you a lot. Now, the time comes where you need a job. Oh crap...you aren't within their hiring bracket. Luckily, law is a business. Businesses need to sell their product or service or else, as I'm sure you know, the business fails. Firms are looking for lawyers who they feel will fit this criteria. Further, and it has already been touched on, people want to work with people they LIKE. That means, those hiring partners won't give a flying F if you were 12th in your class if, when you interview with them (on or off campus), you remind them of Rain-main. Because those people liked you, you may get the job despite not being up to par with their hiring standards. An awesome example is in the show Boston Legal (which I love btw). There is this dude with Asperger's Syndrome. His name in the show is Jerry Espenson. Now Jerry has an MBA/JD from Harvard but, since he's so freaking awkward (and though he has been working at the firm for many years), they refuse to make him partner. Obviously he already had the job at the firm, yet the message is similar. Just as he was overlooked for partner, so will some people in law school be overlooked for jobs. The more personable you are, the more likely your resume will be overlooked. It's not that it's necessary but not sufficient, it's that the probability of getting hired out of a specific "range" greatly increases, insofar as law IS a business, with your affability.

The personality traits that help you get a job are the same whether you go to Harvard or you go to Emory. The abilities that help you get good grades are the same whether you go to Harvard or Emory. The thing about these things is that you don't know how good they are until you are actually in the situation. You don't know for a fact that you will be able to outnetwork 90% of your classmates or get better grades than 90% of your classmates and that's where the problem lies.

What you do know is that the majority of kids from Emory/GW do not get jobs that make repaying $150,000-$200,000 in debt feasible. Since that is the only piece of information you have, you don't pay that kind of money to go to GW/Emory since you don't know whether you can outwork for grades or outnetwork for jobs in relation to everybody else. Maybe you can, but it seems kind of foolish to bet an insane amount of money on something that you cannot guarantee. This is especially true in regards to biglaw (aka the jobs that make repaying that kind of debt feasible) since they almost exclusively recruit through OCI and your chances of getting a job there through any other means is quite slim.

I agree 100%. To the OP, since retake/reapply isn't an option apparently, you have a tough choice. Both schools are great schools, however, as Magnolia stated: the hardship of employment is a systemic problem. ATL has a very manageable COL. When you factor that in with the fact that tuition would be cheaper AND factor both those in conjunction with the fact that any negative employment variables are systemic, it is, IMO, the better choice to choose Emory over GW. That being said, I am in a different position then OP. For all intents and purposes, I have slightly over half my tuition paid for at Emory and COL isn't an issue for me. I am very lucky in this regard and do not have to, pardon my expression, shit bricks over getting a BigLaw job right out of Law School. OP, you must remember, $100,000+ interest is a ridiculously large amount of money. You need to strongly consider whether or not you are willing to make the gamble. I love Emory, I truly do, however, on the basis of the crappy legal market, it would be most unfair of me to tell you that everything will be fine for you coming out of Emory with $100,000+ debt. Actually, the opposite is true. You will have a very difficult time. I also agree that, while being personable will help you get a leg on the competition, it is as previously mentioned, a variable that you simply CANNOT determine prior to actually being in the thick of law school. Therefore, it is my opinion that networking and personality, while invaluable in the profession, should not be variables considered when you are looking at amassing that much debt.

[drummerboy]

very well said fgcu guy. the sad about this whole spectrum of responses is that the situation does suck. no one can deny that. i think everyone is really trying to make sense of a very complex scenario with too many variables. thus, i agree that at least we can agree that one should try to control the debt so that one is not immediately forced into an employment situation that one can not handle or feel overwhelming stress if your first job offer is not ideal.in reality, like in all professions, although it would be nice to land a superjob right out of school, it makes more sense to get what you can and hopefully evolve into the coveted well paying dream position. you dont want massive debt to preclude you from taking this piecemeal approach. imo.

[bk1]

To the OP, since retake/reapply isn't an option apparently, you have a tough choice.

I don't necessarily agree that it is that tough a choice. I think the choices are pretty easy:

1. Retake/reapply - Since OP has a sub3 GPA, the only real shot at a school worth paying sticker for would be NU. So ideally the plan would be to get 2 years work exp, a 172+ LSAT and go to NU. If that isn't possible then retake/reapply and aim for schools that give large scholarships with minimal strings. These definitely exist and may require dipping into the T2 but going to a T2/T3 with a full ride would be far better than Emory/GW at sticker (or close to sticker).

2. Go to GW/Emory, drop out after the first year if grades aren't good enough to get a job that could pay back the debt - This is a risky proposition but it won't actually be nearly as bad as staying for 3 years. At least the risk is only 50k-70k. If grades don't work out then drop out and go get a job using the undergrad degree. If grades are top 20% or so then stick it out.

[Magnolia]

retracted.

[Always Credited]

ITT: I lol at 0L's who think they understand law school employment.

[FGCUguy123]

Hey Magnolia, are you an attorney? I'm curious.

[FGCUguy123]

ITT: I lol at 0L's who think they understand law school employment.

((good timing))

[FGCUguy123]

Oh, you aren't. Well Vandy is a great school congrats. For future reference, I wouldn't be so dogmatic about something you have no experience in first hand. You may be right on most counts, however, you don't want to come off like a prick or else nobody will care if you're right or wrong. That IS just my opinion, of course.

[Magnolia]

Oh, you aren't. Well Vandy is a great school congrats. For future reference, I wouldn't be so dogmatic about something you have no experience in first hand. You may be right on most counts, however, you don't want to come off like a prick or else nobody will care if you're right or wrong. That IS just my opinion, of course.

//