Tulsa vs Texas Tech

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
b.gump81
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 4:03 pm

Re: Tulsa vs Texas Tech

Postby b.gump81 » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:41 pm

nouseforaname123 wrote:
TLS's emphasis on biglaw is reasonable. Of private practitioners in Texas, 60% are either solo practitioners or in small firms (2-5 attorneys). Solo practice is generally not wise for a new grad, and small firms don't generally hire new grads. After that, 19% of all private practitioners are in firms with 41+ attorneys. Those three firm categories (solo, 2-5 attorneys, 41+ attorneys) account for nearly 80% of all private practitioners in the state. The emphasis on biglaw, while certainly flawed, is generally reasonable. Note, the distribution of attorneys by firm size skews in favor of big law once you only take the major metro areas into consideration (i.e., the five cities where Tech grads end up).


In this economy, Biglaw is not reasonable because every school is having problems placing students in these positions. What is the percentage in firms with 100+ attorneys? I dont know the figure, but I would be surprised if it is more than 7% in Texas. I can see an argument that the emphasis is "generally reasonable," but it represents a very small percentage of what most law students do upon graduation or even want to do with their law degree. By the way, most Tech graduates end up in small to mid sized firms.


The LST Policy Director posting in the Dean Perez thread also raised some very valid concerns about Tech's employment data. Dean Perez, unfortunately, declined to address those concerns.


Dean Perez did address those concerns. Read his post. Schools (not just Tech) didnt really have a strong incentive to spend valuable resources tracking down non-responsive graduates. But I think with the new rules, we will see a change in this from every school. Tech isn't some anomaly in reporting employment data. Every school has similar shortcomings, but I think it is more indicative of the lack of a mandatory reporting system (which will hopefully be changed with these new regulations) and not of the individual school itself.

Jwb0711 wrote: There is no hard evidence that Tech does well in Houston... if you look up Lawyers by county in Texas... Tech is not well represented in Harris County.

I want to be clear. I am not saying Texas Tech is a bad school, it is probably one of the better investments. I had not even considered a stipulation on the Tulsa scholarship... in that case i would probably chose Tech. I even considered even going there as a TX resident. Tech makes fine litigators from what I am told. I will give you credit... you are right I do not know one single Tech Law grad. But that is corporate stuff that I was involved in (BakerBotts, Big 4 Accounting Tax). None of any friends/acquaintances (that work for small law) that I know who are lawyers are from Tech or have Tech Law grads working for them. That was a big sign for me, that maybe Tech is not so smart for Houston. ( I have since decided I don't want to really end up in Texas anyway)

OP-I, along with several others in this thread still recommend against it. I am not big law biased... I am not T14 or bust. I am not saying Texas Tech is a bad school. I am saying it would be unwise to believe the mystique that Texas Tech Law tries to portray that they have amazing employment all over Texas. It is a regional school. You should be ok with working in West Texas.


just to summarize your post, you are basing your opinion that Tech does not do well in Houston because you don't happen to know any Tech grads in Houston.

I'm sorry, but that just isn't a good basis for any advice whatsoever.

Tech has only been a school since the 70s, and it only graduates about 150-200 per year (this number has increased in the past two years). So the fact that it has nearly as many graduates in Harris County as Baylor (founded in 1857) and SMU (founded in 1925 and graduates about 300 per year) should be indicative of its ability to give you a decent competitive shot at anywhere in the state of Texas (even a location that is 500+ miles away from Lubbock), especially considering these schools are higher ranked.

Also. it only places behind SMU, UT and Baylor (only by by 71 graduates according to State Bar website) in Dallas. It has more than TX Wes and has twice as many as UH.

It has the same percentage for Tarrant County as SMU and Baylor, and is only behind Tx Wes and UT.

For Austin, it is only slightly behind St. Mary's and UH, and every school is significantly behind UT. In Travis County, it is ahead or even with Baylor and SMU.

Does Tech has some sort of strangle hold on any of these major markets? No, but that is not what we were saying. We were just saying it can give you a competitive shot throughout the state. If an applicant is dead set on a specific market, then they should consider the cost of attending the schools located in that market and decide if the extra costs of attendance and debt upon graduation is worth the benefit of having that (sometimes marginal, depending if they want Biglaw) extra shot in that market.

User avatar
b.gump81
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 4:03 pm

Re: Tulsa vs Texas Tech

Postby b.gump81 » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:42 pm

edit: double post

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11720
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: Tulsa vs Texas Tech

Postby kalvano » Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:34 pm

All I got from that is how terrible Texas Wesleyan is. It never ceases to amaze me. Employers in Dallas would rather go 300 miles to Tech than 40 miles to Wesleyan.

nouseforaname123
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 12:32 pm

Re: Tulsa vs Texas Tech

Postby nouseforaname123 » Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:56 pm

b.gump81 wrote:In this economy, Biglaw is not reasonable because every school is having problems placing students in these positions.


EVERY school is having problems placing students in ALL positions. Its not like midsize/small firm hiring hasn't taken a hit ITE (whatever that hiring may have been to begin with). That goes for PI and Gov't employment as well.

What is the percentage in firms with 100+ attorneys? I dont know the figure, but I would be surprised if it is more than 7% in Texas. I can see an argument that the emphasis is "generally reasonable," but it represents a very small percentage of what most law students do upon graduation or even want to do with their law degree.


12% of all private practitioners in Texas work for for firms with more than 101+ attorneys.

More importantly, in four of the destination markets for Tech grads, large firm employment is relevant; especially in Tech's #1 market:

Dallas County: 22% of all private practitioners work for firms 101+ attorneys.
Harris County: 16%
Tarrant County: 4% (11% if you count firms with 61+ attorneys).
Travis County: 15%

By the way, most Tech graduates end up in small to mid sized firms.


First, please define what you are calling "small to mid sized firms." Second, I would love to believe your claim, but the truth is that Tech doesn't make that type of information available to the public. Can you substantiate that claim with support from a source other than TTU SOL?


Dean Perez did address those concerns. Read his post. Schools (not just Tech) didnt really have a strong incentive to spend valuable resources tracking down non-responsive graduates. But I think with the new rules, we will see a change in this from every school. Tech isn't some anomaly in reporting employment data. Every school has similar shortcomings, but I think it is more indicative of the lack of a mandatory reporting system (which will hopefully be changed with these new regulations) and not of the individual school itself.


No, Dean Perez did not address those concerns. Please see the following post, which remains unanswered by Dean Perez: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=175385&p=5204704#p5204704

Tech is an anomaly when it comes to reporting data: First, from the LST poster:
observationalist wrote:As someone else alluded to in a question, the most recent Tech data reported to U.S. News (for the Class of 2009) in our Data Clearinghouse shows that in that year only 35% of Tech graduates in the private sector reported a salary. This is one of the lowest reporting rates in the country.
Second, Tech declined to report employment data to USNWR for the 2011 law school rankings. UT, SMU, UH, & Baylor chose to report data. If the employment data at Tech is as strong as you want us to believe it is, why not report it to USNWR? FTR, I'm not claiming USNWR is a good clearinghouse for such data. If Tech, however, isn't willing to release employment data to third-parties, it certainly makes it an anomaly among the stronger Texas schools.

EDIT TO ADDRESS SECOND PORTION OF YOUR POST:

b.gump81 wrote:Tech has only been a school since the 70s, and it only graduates about 150-200 per year (this number has increased in the past two years). So the fact that it has nearly as many graduates in Harris County as Baylor (founded in 1857) and SMU (founded in 1925 and graduates about 300 per year) should be indicative of its ability to give you a decent competitive shot at anywhere in the state of Texas (even a location that is 500+ miles away from Lubbock), especially considering these schools are higher ranked.


Whoa there math major. You're jumping to some pretty wild conclusions.

1) Comparing raw numbers is a flawed methodology. The PT-program with lots of working professionals is going to badly skew SMU's data right off the bat. The state bar data doesn't account for individuals who are not practicing; individuals who sought non-legal opportunities, etc.... The only thing that data tells us is where bar members are physically located.

2) As you've made it clear numerous times, self-selection is in play here. A Tech grad working for Brian Loncar in Houston is not the same thing as a STCL grad working for a big firm. Not all jobs are equal and to argue one school is competitive in a market without really narrowing down to the types of jobs people are working in. For example, I could get a job working ID in NYC; that doesn't mean that SMU is competitive in NYC.

Does Tech has some sort of strangle hold on any of these major markets? No, but that is not what we were saying. We were just saying it can give you a competitive shot throughout the state.


Competitive shot at what? A job? What type of job? Without knowing what types of jobs those Tech grads are working in we really can't make any value judgment on the quality of Tech placement, right? For all we know, Tech grads are moving to Dallas and starting solo or small firms. That's hardly quality "placement."

User avatar
b.gump81
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 4:03 pm

Re: Tulsa vs Texas Tech

Postby b.gump81 » Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:41 pm

nouseforaname123 wrote:
EVERY school is having problems placing student in ALL positions. Its not like midsize/small firm hiring hasn't taken a hit ITE (whatever that hiring may have been to begin with). That goes for PI and Gov't employment as well.


Biglaw is taking a bigger hit relative to every other sector. Sure every law job is harder to get now, but Biglaw is less reasonable than the other types of jobs you just listed.


12% of all private practitioners in Texas work for for firms with more than 101+ attorneys.

More importantly, in four of the destination markets for Tech grads, large firm employment is relevant; especially in Tech's #1 market:

Dallas County: 22% of all private practitioners work for firms 101+ attorneys.
Harris County: 16%
Tarrant County: 4% (11% if you count firms with 61+ attorneys).
Travis County: 15%


Thanks for the info. I am surprised, but these figures are for the percentage of private practitioners. I still stand by my earlier claim that an emphasis on Biglaw is reasonable, but Biglaw still isn't what most graduates do and isn't what most graduates want to do. But yes, it should definitely be considered if that is truly what a student wants to be doing after graduation.

First, please define what you are calling "small to mid sized firms." Second, I would love to believe your claim, but the truth is that Tech doesn't make that type of information available to the public. Can you substantiate that claim with support from a source other than TTU SOL?


looking at the numbers for 2010, most tech grads went to firms that had 2-10 attorneys. 15% that went into private practice went to firms with 16-25. 12% went to 26-50. 2% went to 51-100. 3.7% went to 101-250. 2.8% went to 251-500. And 7.4% went to 500+. Albeit this is from a document made by the CSO, but I believe it for what it is worth. Granted, I, like you, would love to have more transparency, and I can't speak for the CSO (neither can Dean Perez), but when he says they are working on the new numbers for 2011 and will have them out per the new regulations, I believe that they are. We will just have to wait and see, I guess.

By small to midsize, I meant 2-50.


No, Dean Perez did not address those concerns. Please see the following post, which remains unanswered by Dean Perez: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=175385&p=5204704#p5204704


Dean Perez replies in the very next post, and he had already answered the same general question in a post before observationalist's question.



1) Comparing raw numbers is a flawed methodology. The PT-program with lots of working professionals is going to badly skew SMU's data right off the bat. The state bar data doesn't account for individuals who are not practicing; individuals who sought non-legal opportunities, etc.... The only thing that data tells us is where bar members are physically located.

2) As you've made it clear numerous times, self-selection is in play here. A Tech grad working for Brian Loncar in Houston is not the same thing as a STCL grad working for a big firm. Not all jobs are equal and to argue one school is competitive in a market without really narrowing down to the types of jobs people are working in. For example, I could get a job working ID in NYC; that doesn't mean that SMU is competitive in NYC.


Sure, but again, I am not talking biglaw here. I am talking placement. Yes, you are right in that these numbers dont indicate if they are all in legal jobs, but they are the best facts we have to go off of. And the fact that it doesn't account for type of employment applies to every school, not just Tech. Not accounting for SMU's part-time program isn't going to "badly" skew their data. The part time program is nearly half of the full-time program, and not all the students there are working professionals. I'd argue a large percentage of them are students that wanted SMU but just didn't have the numbers for the full-time program. And how else would you argue competitiveness for a particular market other than looking at the "raw numbers" first?



Competitive shot at what? A job? What type of job? Without knowing what types of jobs those Tech grads are working in we really can't make any value judgment on the quality of Tech placement, right? For all we know, Tech grads are moving to Dallas and starting solo or small firms. That's hardly quality "placement."


Making an assumption that most Tech grads are unemployed or solo practitioners if they happen to be in Houston is just as large of a jump as me saying most have quality legal employment. Is this the best sort of data? of course not, but it is the best we have to show that Tech grads are in these counties across the state. Please direct me to something you think would be a better indicator of how well Tech travels in the state.

edit: for clarity about the percentage of grads at firm sizes
Last edited by b.gump81 on Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.

nouseforaname123
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 12:32 pm

Re: Tulsa vs Texas Tech

Postby nouseforaname123 » Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:06 pm

b.gump81 wrote:Biglaw is taking a bigger hit relative to every other sector.


What? Please provide a source for that. The federal government has a near hiring freeze going on right now. State agencies are shedding jobs, not hiring new grads. As bad as biglaw hiring got ITE, it never went to a near hiring freeze.

looking at the numbers for 2010, most tech grads went to firms that had 2-10 attorneys. 15% went to firms with 16-25. 12% went to 26-50. 2% went to 51-100. 3.7% went to 101-250. 2.8% went to 251-500. And 7.4% went to 500+. Albeit this is from a document made by the CSO, but I believe it for what it is worth.


I don't believe that data for one second (without knowing the methodology). Take a look at the NLJ Go To Law School list that used c/o 2010 data. W&L ranked 50th on that list by placing 10.57% of its c/o 2010 grads into NLJ250 firms. The smallest NLJ 250 firm had 160 attorneys.

At minimum, according to the Tech OCS data, Tech placed 10.20% of its grads into NLJ250 firms (2.8% + 7.4%). If just .38% of c/o 2010 Tech grads went to firms with 161-250 attorneys, Tech would have outplaced W&L and cracked the top 50 of the NLJ Go To Law Schools list. Without knowing the distribution of that 3.7% I can't say anything definitive. But I find it very hard to believe that TTU got so close to cracking the Go To Law Schools list and didn't b/c of some anomaly in the distribution of that 3.7% of students we don't know about (a normal distribution of firm size for that 3.7% easily puts Tech on the Go To Law Schools list).

Something isn't adding up here.

Source for smallest NLJ 250 firm: http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/6037 ... eclining/#

NLJ 250 Go To Law Schools: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... 2483173162

User avatar
b.gump81
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 4:03 pm

Re: Tulsa vs Texas Tech

Postby b.gump81 » Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:11 pm

those percentages were for the number of grads that went to private practice, not the overall percentage of all tech grads

zanzbar
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 9:14 pm

Re: Tulsa vs Texas Tech

Postby zanzbar » Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:28 pm

So OP your options are pretty much to believe tech is a sinking pile of shit or you have pretty decent prospects of being employed. Personally I am leaning towards b. gump since I think the economy is going to be better in the texas legal market, but I'm only a lowly Economics major from Tech so I may be biased. The other guy, and I'm not really sure why, is trying awfully hard to discourage you from going so good luck in your decision. Personally I would go tech but only because I like Texas over Oklahoma.

nouseforaname123
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 12:32 pm

Re: Tulsa vs Texas Tech

Postby nouseforaname123 » Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:45 pm

b.gump81 wrote:those percentages were for the number of grads that went to private practice, not the overall percentage of all tech grads


That's an important qualification, don't you think?

Anyhow, now we're getting somewhere:

So, for c/o 2010, Tech grads going into private practice.

114 went into private practice. The following numbers are slightly off due to rounding issues. Of those 114:

8 went to firms with 500+ attorneys.

3 to firms with 251-500 attorneys.

4 to firms with 101--250 attorneys.

2 to firms with 51-100 attorneys.

14 to firms with 26-50 attorneys.

17 to firms with 16-25 attorneys.

48 out of the 114 grads who went into private practice went to the type of firm that we would generally think of as having the stability to hire and develop new attorneys and (hopefully) pay a decent salary with benefits. I'm not suggesting all small firms (15 or fewer attorneys) are bad gigs. I'm sure there are some decent jobs in that employer category, but there are going to be a lot of low paying, no benefits jobs in that category as well. For comparison, SMU placed 42 grads in the c/o 2010 in firms with 160+ attorneys; UH placed 33.

Just 17 TTU grads at firms with more than 50 attorneys? I don't see that as a good number, especially when your grads are flocking to the major MSA's.

The distribution of the 31 grads at firms with 16-50 attorneys would be interesting to know as well. This is pure conjecture on my part but I suspect many of those are in places like Lubbock, Amarillo, EP, and NM. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't think that helps promote the idea that Tech grads are competing with Baylor/SMU/UH grads in the major Texas markets.

User avatar
b.gump81
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 4:03 pm

Re: Tulsa vs Texas Tech

Postby b.gump81 » Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:30 pm

Again, I never once said Tech is competitive for Biglaw against UH and SMU in their respective markets. Also, both of those schools have larger class sizes, so the raw numbers are going to be misrepresentative in that sense. For 2010, about 200 SMU grads went into private practice (nearly all in Dallas), so that 42 represents about 21% of that total that went into private practice. The 15 for Tech represents about 13% of those that went into private practice. Is an 8% difference worth an extra $100,000 in debt? And as to your last paragraph, if your conjecture was wrong and many were in fact in Dallas, Austin, Houston, and Fort Worth (like other posters and I have stated is where most Tech graduates end up), that would mean exactly what we have been saying all along: Tech is competitive in these markets, just not for biglaw. If a student is dead set on biglaw in a specific market, they should seriously consider going to the local school. But even then, biglaw from UH or SMU isn't some sort of lock. Sure the chances are higher (never contended that) but so is the cost, and a student must determine if that higher cost is worth the extra chance.

nouseforaname123
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 12:32 pm

Re: Tulsa vs Texas Tech

Postby nouseforaname123 » Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:06 pm

b.gump81 wrote:For 2010, about 200 SMU grads went into private practice (nearly all in Dallas), so that 42 represents about 21% of that total that went into private practice. The 15 for Tech represents about 13% of those that went into private practice.


Slow down math major. Your comparison is off:

42 SMU grads went to firms with 160+ attorneys. 15 Tech grads went to firms with 101+ attorneys. Hence, I bolded 160+ attorneys in my first post. The Tech measure is more inclusive and still very underwhelming compared to SMU.

Is an 8% difference worth an extra $100,000 in debt?


Again, your comparison is off. Also, why would you assume that, aside from biglaw, the employment outcomes between the two schools are competitive? What leads you to believe that SMU's advantage in biglaw placement doesn't also translate to other employers?

And as to your last paragraph, if your conjecture was wrong and many were in fact in Dallas, Austin, Houston, and Fort Worth (like other posters and I have stated is where most Tech graduates end up), that would mean exactly what we have been saying all along: Tech is competitive in these markets, just not for biglaw. If a student is dead set on biglaw in a specific market, they should seriously consider going to the local school.


I don't believe my conjecture is off. The only reason I made that observation is that I was able to find 3 of those 31 grads in Amarillo and Lubbock without doing any kind of in depth search. Either I hit lucky search results that led me to 10% of those 31 grads or we are indeed going to find many of those 31 grads in places like Lubbock, NM, Amarillo, EP, etc.... Stated another way, you're already conceding that SMU is better for biglaw. Using you definition for midlaw, Tech placed a maximum --a maxiumum!-- of 28 students from the c/o 2010 in midsize positions in Houston, DFW, and Austin. That's less than 15% of the class, and about 25% of the class that went into private practice. Is that really being competitive in those markets? Fully acknowledging that there will be some outliers at small firms, I refuse to believe that going to work as a solo practitioner or for firms with less than 15 attorneys is a desirable outcome for the vast majority of law students.

More importantly, for your conclusion to be true (Tech is competitive with SMU/UH in the major MSA's) you have to assume that Tech isn't competitive for biglaw but it somehow closes the gap with UH/SMU when it comes to midsize firms. I'm not sure that you have shown any evidence to indicate that Tech's placement in those positions is similar to SMU/UH's (either by raw numbers, percentage of the class, or percentage that went into private practice).

Edit to add observation.

texas man
Posts: 169
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:59 pm

Re: Tulsa vs Texas Tech

Postby texas man » Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:59 pm

nouseforaname123 wrote:TLS's emphasis on biglaw is reasonable. Of private practitioners in Texas, 60% are either solo practitioners or in small firms (2-5 attorneys). Solo practice is generally not wise for a new grad, and small firms don't generally hire new grads. After that, 19% of all private practitioners are in firms with 41+ attorneys. Those three firm categories (solo, 2-5 attorneys, 41+ attorneys) account for nearly 80% of all private practitioners in the state. The emphasis on biglaw, while certainly flawed, is generally reasonable. Note, the distribution of attorneys by firm size skews in favor of big law once you only take the major metro areas into consideration (i.e., the five cities where Tech grads end up).


I'm not claiming that an emphasis on biglaw is reasonable or unreasonable--if someone is interested in biglaw, that's fine. I am claiming that biglaw does not equal legal employment (that is, employment with bar passage as a prerequisite); so, if someone is trying to gauge job prospects, it's helpful to distinguish between biglaw prospects and prospects at mid-size or small firms.

Also, I agree that solo practice is generally not wise for a new grad, but I'm not sure that small firms don't generally hire new grads. Depending on the year, I believe close to 40% of Texas Tech grads get jobs at small firms (2-10 attorneys). Also, from my experience, small firms have generally shown more interest in hiring than big firms. I think this is simply a consequence of supply and demand; i.e., at big firms there are typically hundreds of applicants competing for perhaps a handful of summer positions; at small firms there are far fewer applicants competing for a few positions (depending on how busy the firm is).

I'm not sure what to make of that data without more context. Salary data would be nice, but employer type broken down by size of employer would be even nicer. Regardless, if Tech's employment outcomes are really as strong as that data suggests, why does Tech continue to withhold employment data from USNWR? I hate USNWR. I am not suggesting it is a good data clearinghouse, but it is at least a data clearinghouse. Tech's self-published data would be a lot more trustworthy if Tech was releasing that data to an outside clearinghouse.


I agree that, for private practice, firms broken down by size would be nice (do any other law schools post this information on their sites?). I'm not as concerned about median or average salary data because this doesn't tell me much--if I'm interested in salary data, I'll look at market pay in a specific city or area for small, mid, and big-sized firms; then, the data breaking down grads by firm size is more meaningful (and even more meaningful if filtered by the cities where most grads end up). Still, I think the information on the site is informative. For the class of 2010, out of 210 grads (all reporting), 93.8% had jobs within 9 months and 3.3% were enrolled in a full-time degree program (LLM, MBA, etc.). So, 2.9% (or 6 grads) are unemployed and, I assume, are looking for work. Also, importantly, 80.8% of the jobs (78.2% being full-time) require bar passage, and a JD is preferred at 11.4%. When looking at these numbers in the context of job sectors (private practice, government, business, PI, etc.), they make sense (and almost match up). I also think it's interesting that 84.4% work in Texas (15.6% outside of Texas).

I think the accusation that Tech is "withholding" employment data from USNWR is unfounded. Tech reports their recieved data to NALP every year (from the NALP Employment Report: http://www.law.ttu.edu/career/2011GraduateSurveyANDFAQs_Oct11.pdf). Career Services can't force grads to report their salaries or other information--it is voluntary. USNWR has different report requirements. Then, there is also data reported to the ABA. This isn't just "self-published" data. If there were some contradiction in data (as compared to data sent to NALP/ABA/USNWR) then there might be an issue with its "trustworthiness."



It would help these 0L's if you could provide more context. What type of employment is your first-half employment? Second-half? Your class rank? LR/Moot Court? How did you land these job offers (OCI/OCS/mass mail/fair)? Were these your first choice jobs or were there other jobs you applied for you would have taken over the these job offers? Likelihood of permanent employment from either of these employers? Market pay? Please don't out yourself, but, if you can, provide these 0L's with relevant information that better informs them.


I don't think my individual information actually helps 0L's; it might even be misleading because my results are based upon my personal characteristics, interests, and background (everyone responds a little differently in interviews, has different goals, etc.). It's really better to look at the big picture, and just do the best you can in law school and follow your interests. But, if you're personally interested in me--take this all with a grain of salt--after the first year, I was in the top 15%. I have participated in some Board of Barristers competitions (I recommend this to all incoming students). For the first half of the summer, I'll be working for a PI firm in Austin (currently, my goal is not to work at a PI firm after graduation, but I'm very interested in the work this firm does, and I couldn't pass it up). For the second half, I'm (probably) going to work at a small firm in Houston where all of the practice areas match my interests (and all of the attorneys are very friendly). The pay in Houston is market for small firms (which is better than small firm pay in Austin). The Houston job came from just calling the firm, talking to the hiring partner, and a follow-up interview. They indicated that they are looking to hire (and plan on hiring in the future)--I interpreted this as a good likelihood of permanent employment. I got several interviews from OCI (big/mid/small firms); I didn't get anything through mass mailings. I didn't think about the beginning phases of the job search in terms of first choice, second choice, etc. (that would probably drive me crazy)--I just kept plugging away until I had options (then I thought about it in terms of choices).

Once again, this is my experience. I don't think you can look at information like this for one person and determine your chances of achieving your goals (and, as I said, it might actually be misleading). There are some people at the top of my class who don't have jobs, and there are some people at the bottom who do. Nevertheless, looking at the overall employment statistics, there is a very good chance we will have jobs, but in the end it comes down to the individual.
Last edited by texas man on Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
b.gump81
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 4:03 pm

Re: Tulsa vs Texas Tech

Postby b.gump81 » Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:02 pm

nouseforaname123 wrote:

I don't believe my conjecture is off. The only reason I made that observation is that I was able to find 3 of those 31 grads in Amarillo and Lubbock without doing any kind of in depth search. Either I hit lucky search results that led me to 10% of those 31 grads or we are indeed going to find many of those 31 grads in places like Lubbock, NM, Amarillo, EP, etc....


All I know is that most Tech grads ended up in Dallas, followed by Lubbock, Austin, Houston, and Fort Worth. Then it is Amarillo, El Paso, and Midland. How many of the 31 went where? I don’t know, but I would say that the chances of many of them being in one of those cities over Amarillo, NM, and EP are pretty good, just based on the odds.

Stated another way, you're already conceding that SMU is better for biglaw. Using you definition for midlaw, Tech placed a maximum --a maxiumum!-- of 28 students from the c/o 2010 in midsize positions in Houston, DFW, and Austin. That's less than 15% of the class, and about 25% of the class that went into private practice. Is that really being competitive in those markets? Fully acknowledging that there will be some outliers at small firms, I refuse to believe that going to work as a solo practitioner or for firms with less than 15 attorneys is a desirable outcome for the vast majority of law students.


Considering what you have already stated (that 60% of all private practitioners in the state of Texas are in solo practice or 2-5 attorney firms), i'd say it should at least be a realistic outcome for students at every Texas school, including SMU and not just for Tech students. And all the above numbers dont account for the other 45% of the entire class at Tech that didn't go into private practice. I'd argue Tech is as competitive for those jobs as well.

More importantly, for your conclusion to be true (Tech is competitive with SMU/UH in the major MSA's) you have to assume that Tech isn't competitive for biglaw but it somehow closes the gap with UH/SMU when it comes to midsize firms. I'm not sure that you have shown any evidence to indicate that Tech's placement in those positions is similar to SMU/UH's (either by raw numbers, percentage of the class, or percentage that went into private practice).


I would think it would be common sense that non-biglaw jobs require less school prestige. Class rank, journal, and experience are going to be bigger factors than where the student went to school

tigger22
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:18 pm

Re: Tulsa vs Texas Tech

Postby tigger22 » Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:33 pm

zanzbar wrote:So OP your options are pretty much to believe tech is a sinking pile of shit or you have pretty decent prospects of being employed. Personally I am leaning towards b. gump since I think the economy is going to be better in the texas legal market, but I'm only a lowly Economics major from Tech so I may be biased. The other guy, and I'm not really sure why, is trying awfully hard to discourage you from going so good luck in your decision. Personally I would go tech but only because I like Texas over Oklahoma.


This became a debate about Tech itself rather than Tulsa vs Tech.
I am leaning toward Tech, just because if I have to stuck in somewhere for a long time, I'd rather be in Dallas than Tulsa.

Guys while you guys are debating, what about Florida specifically Stetson? Are they any better? Thanks

nouseforaname123
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 12:32 pm

Re: Tulsa vs Texas Tech

Postby nouseforaname123 » Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:20 pm

texas man, thank you for the response.

OP, sorry for the hijack. I would go Tech.

b.gump81 wrote:Considering what you have already stated (that 60% of all private practitioners in the state of Texas are in solo practice or 2-5 attorney firms), i'd say it should at least be a realistic outcome for students at every Texas school, including SMU and not just for Tech students.


You continue to mix up your samples. The private practitioner data includes all attorneys. There's a difference between a new grad and an experienced attorney with an established book of business. I have no problem with experienced attorneys starting a solo practice or going to a small firm. I do not believe small practices are favorable outcomes for new grads. As I've said earlier, some of those jobs are going to be decent jobs. From the job postings I've seen, however, a lot of those jobs are low pay, no benefit jobs. Some of those jobs are even contract work. Something is better than nothing, but I don't think most 0L's envision themselves in that type of job role after three years of professional school.

b.gump81 wrote: And all the above numbers dont account for the other 45% of the entire class at Tech that didn't go into private practice. I'd argue Tech is as competitive for those jobs as well.


We don't know what those jobs are. Not all jobs within a give job category are the same. For example, DA vs. USAO are two jobs that are captured by the "government employer category," but I would never suggest that SMU is competitive with Harvard just because an SMU kid gets a DA job and the Harvard grad gets USAO. How is that in any way competing? The same goes for the 45% of the Tech class that didn't go into private practice. Without specifically knowing what jobs the SMU/Tech/Baylor/Houston grads are going into there is no way to definitively say which schools are competitive which schools. To use an absurd example: A Houston grad will be hired by a market-paying lit boutique in Houston this year. A Harvard/Yale/Stanford grad will by hired by Susan Godfrey's Houston office this year. Both of these grads will be hired by the same type of employer (midsize, litigation-focused firm), but nobody would dream of suggesting these two are competing with each other for the same jobs....

b.gump81 wrote:All I know is that most Tech grads ended up in Dallas, followed by Lubbock, Austin, Houston, and Fort Worth. Then it is Amarillo, El Paso, and Midland. How many of the 31 went where? I don’t know, but I would say that the chances of many of them being in one of those cities over Amarillo, NM, and EP are pretty good, just based on the odds.


And what I'm saying to you is that using your definition of midlaw, at most, for the c/o 2010, TTU placed 28 students in midlaw positions in DFW, Austin, and Houston. I just don't see that as being competitive in those markets. When you claim that Tech is competitive in DFW, Houston, and Austin, what are you really saying?

b.gump81 wrote:I would think it would be common sense that non-biglaw jobs require less school prestige.


What evidence do you have support this? Your "common sense" is contrary to the practice of many non-biglaw employers. When it comes to hiring new grads, many non-biglaw employers care about pedigree. Clerkships, academia, the DOJ honors program, the USAO, litigation boutiques, many corporate in-house employers, consulting businesses that hire LS grads, IB's and other financial firms that hire LS grads, and many NGO's are just as prestige-obsessed as biglaw. In fact, there are many midlaw firms in DFW that hire from a small pool of schools. Some of them exclude SMU from that pool.

I suppose my point to you is that I find it somewhat disingenuous to essentially claim that since Tech grads are working in Dallas, Tech is therefore competitive with other schools in Dallas. Sure, a Tech student can get a job in Dallas, but without knowing the quality/desirability of that job, a 0L can't possibly make a value judgment on how competitive Tech is in Dallas.

texas man
Posts: 169
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:59 pm

Re: Tulsa vs Texas Tech

Postby texas man » Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:05 am

Everyone who might be interested:

A while back, someone sent me a pm asking my opinion about job prospects and getting a biglaw position coming from Texas Tech.

Specifically, the person's question was, ". . . how do you feel about the career prospects at TTU. . . . I understand that it's difficult out there, but what are the odds of an individual landing a 160k market pay big law salary? Is it absolutely zero or is there hope?"

Considering the discussion, I thought my response to the question might be informative to some.

Here's my response (with the questioner's consent); keep in mind that these are my opinions that have developed from my experiences and observations (others may have had different experiences, and hence, different opinions):

First, I think career prospects at Texas Tech are great. But, there are a couple of things to realize: 1) career prospects does not equal "big law," and 2) getting a job is a long and arduous journey--getting a job just doesn't happen, it requires a LOT of work; this rule probably applies to any law schools outside the top, top schools.

Most of the info (that I've read) on TLS about getting jobs is either mildly or grossly inaccurate. Getting a job is a long process with many pieces (or gates), and it is important to understand the process. I have been through this process, so I'll do my best to briefly explain.

Posts on TLS generally give the impression that if you get great grades, you are golden. This is not true. Grades are just one of the criteria that are considered at the first "gate." As you will discover during OCI, most firms (mid to big) have a class-percentage ranking requirement. If you meet this requirement, then they will look at your cover letter and resume (and sometimes a writing sample) -- these have to be outstanding (you can be first in your class and not get an interview due to a bad cover letter or resume). Then, based on an applicant's total impression, they will decide who looks good on paper, and fill up their interview slots (usually 10-20). These are candidates that they consider qualified (on paper) to work at the firm.

The remaining gates are rounds of interviews (and any other communications with the firm): the first interview with a couple of attorneys; the follow-up emails and phone calls; the fly-back interviews (which usually include an interview with every partner at a firm's office -- so, often over 20 interviews in a day). Through these interviews, the firm is trying to get a sense of you as a person and if you "fit" with the culture of the firm. Then, finally, the firm might make offers to 2-4 applicants. This is just the OCI process; then you have independent applications, judicial internship applications, public interest firm applications, etc.

So, what are the odds? Assuming you get an interview, it then depends on you as a person--your personality, attitude, and ability to speak cogently about yourself and anything else an interviewer asks of you.

For Texas Tech, almost all big law firms in Texas require a 10-15% class ranking. You should apply to any firms where you are within 5% of their cut-off. I am in the top 15%, but I got an interview at a big firm that had a top 10% requirement. I don't know if these are the odds, or if it is even possible to compute them, but these are solid numbers firms use to decide if you are good on paper. Then, of course, you have to be a really great clerk (competing against the other great clerks) to get an offer. Also, it might be helpful to know that generally, 10 to 20 grads from Texas Tech end up at big firms (so, 5-10 percent?).

Second, I think it is dangerous to decide to go to law school with the intention of working at a big law firm. After talking to many attorneys at small, medium, and big firms, the attorneys at the smaller firms are generally the happiest. Life isn't about a 160k starting salary. And, fortunately, Texas Tech isn't a school that costs so much that you need a higher paying job to pay back your debt (if you have any). I think having a great life where I started at 100K is infinitely better than having a not so great life where I started at 160K.

So, my point here is that your hope should not be a dollar figure, but a job where you are satisfied/happy with you work, you are financially stable, and you are able to do other things in your life that are important.

Oh, and what do I think about Texas Tech as a law school? It is a great, great, great law school.

Hope that helps.

Lord Randolph McDuff
Posts: 1587
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: Tulsa vs Texas Tech

Postby Lord Randolph McDuff » Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:39 pm

Tech and I don't think its close. TU is a nice school but the economy in TX is so much stronger than in OK. Tech has got to be the best TTT out there-- 30% of 2010 placed in firms of 16 attorneys or more. This is T1 status in the current environment.

FWIW my family is in Tulsa and I think its a thousand times better than lubbock. However, as has been said, Tech can get you small law in Dallas/Austintonio area, and probably Houston if you network. With the right personality and work ethic, I think Tech takes you a lot further than TU.

User avatar
b.gump81
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 4:03 pm

Re: Tulsa vs Texas Tech

Postby b.gump81 » Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:11 pm

You continue to mix up your samples. The private practitioner data includes all attorneys. There's a difference between a new grad and an experienced attorney with an established book of business. I have no problem with experienced attorneys starting a solo practice or going to a small firm. I do not believe small practices are favorable outcomes for new grads. As I've said earlier, some of those jobs are going to be decent jobs. From the job postings I've seen, however, a lot of those jobs are low pay, no benefit jobs. Some of those jobs are even contract work. Something is better than nothing, but I don't think most 0L's envision themselves in that type of job role after three years of professional school.


I think you’re misunderstanding what I said. I was just saying that that 60% applies to all lawyers in Texas (like you yourself said) and not just exclusively to Tech; therefore, the outcome of being a solo practitioner or in a 2-5 attorney firm should be a factor for every Texas student to consider, no matter where they go to school because the vast majority of private practitioners are in this category. On top of that, I personally don’t think being in a small firm is as bad as you are making it out to be (I do agree that a recent grad shouldn’t go solo). Many people would prefer smaller firms because they provide a more relaxed atmosphere. Sure, they don’t get paid as much, but they also don’t work 90+ hours a week, and to many, it is important to have a family and not live in their office. So, I think you are making a mistake by even grouping solo and small firm together because they are worlds apart.


We don't know what those jobs are. Not all jobs within a give job category are the same. For example, DA vs. USAO are two jobs that are captured by the "government employer category," but I would never suggest that SMU is competitive with Harvard just because an SMU kid gets a DA job and the Harvard grad gets USAO. How is that in any way competing? The same goes for the 45% of the Tech class that didn't go into private practice. Without specifically knowing what jobs the SMU/Tech/Baylor/Houston grads are going into there is no way to definitively say which schools are competitive which schools. To use an absurd example: A Houston grad will be hired by a market-paying lit boutique in Houston this year. A Harvard/Yale/Stanford grad will by hired by Susan Godfrey's Houston office this year. Both of these grads will be hired by the same type of employer (midsize, litigation-focused firm), but nobody would dream of suggesting these two are competing with each other for the same jobs....


first of all, the USAO doesn’t hire grads out of law school, so that argument fails right there. Secondly, schools (none that I have seen at least) even provide for such a break down, so you are basically saying my argument is speculation by arguing speculation of your own. The employment data I have seen breaks down the information to large categories such as government, academia, clerkship, private, etc., but besides breaking down the size of the firms, I haven’t seen employment data provide too much more in detail. If you have the break down of how many SMU grads went to the USAO or a litigation boutique out of the gate, then I would love to see that. Also, comparing the data for class of 2008, there isn’t much of a difference between the schools in most of these main overall categories. SMU had 2% for clerkships, 3% for academia, 4.9% for government, 1% for public interest, and 22.7% business. Tech had 4.5% clerkships, .5% for academia, 20.6% for government, 2.5% for public interest, and 17.1% business. I see your argument that we can’t really compare without knowing the exact jobs, but until you provide that information (which I don’t think many, if any, schools provide) then it is the best we have to go off of and calling my arguments speculation doesn’t change that.


When you claim that Tech is competitive in DFW, Houston, and Austin, what are you really saying?


Exactly the way it sounds: you can get an interview in these cities if you are high enough in the class. Sure, you may have to be higher in the class than someone at a higher ranked school, but I am arguing it is not that much of a substantial difference. If top 10-15% at Tech get the same interviews as the top 20-25% of SMU, a prospective student just has to weigh the cost versus the benefits when deciding which school to attend. Is it really worth the extra $100,000 in tuition for a 10% increase in getting Biglaw? Additionally, (and this is just me speculating) I would think it would be just as hard, if not harder, to get top 20% at SMU as it is to get top 10% at Tech. This is just simply because you’re going to have more people gunning for Biglaw at SMU, which has more students and has a part-time program meaning more non-traditional students, which I personally believe are more dedicated to their studies. You could also argue there are more "higher caliber" students at SMU if you believe LSAT and GPA indicate caliber beyond 1L year.


What evidence do you have support this? Your "common sense" is contrary to the practice of many non-biglaw employers. When it comes to hiring new grads, many non-biglaw employers care about pedigree. Clerkships, academia, the DOJ honors program, the USAO, litigation boutiques, many corporate in-house employers, consulting businesses that hire LS grads, IB's and other financial firms that hire LS grads, and many NGO's are just as prestige-obsessed as biglaw. In fact, there are many midlaw firms in DFW that hire from a small pool of schools. Some of them exclude SMU from that pool.


I’ll give you that academia and DOJ Honors are largely prestige based. But as for litigation boutiques, the USAO, in-house, and consultants, I disagree somewhat. Clerkships can be prestige based the more prestigious the court, however, the lower you get in the judicial system the more it is based on journal experience and grades. Furthermore, it also depends in large part on where the judge went to school, as he or she is more likely to hire clerks from his or her alma mater. Additionally, do you know how many more clerks SMU has had on the 5th Circuit than Tech in that past three years? Just one (--LinkRemoved--). And even then, I know that one recent Tech grad is already going to be clerking with Justice Elrod next year, after he finishes his year clerking on the Texas Supreme Court (it's the student that scored the highest on the most recent bar than any other student from a Texas school, if you want to verify that...I wont give his name, but it is easy to verify this if you just google it.) Also, as a side note while we are talking about the Bar: if Tech has more students pass the par than SMU (like it has consistently) wouldnt that make the ones that passed more competitive for jobs that require a license? That's a no-brainer. You have to pass the bar to even apply.

Litigation and USAO aren’t based on prestige; they are based on experience and dedication to be a litigator. There are tons of forums on this website that talk about this. In-house, like clerkships, is going to depend on the company. Sure some companies may like a certain school, yet I would argue a large majority would want someone that is familiar with the company (interned with them or has worked for them as an employee before) over someone just because they went to SMU. The only other big field that I can think of that is prestige based is the national PI sector (like ACLU); however, even then a strong showing of dedication to public service and desire for the field may weigh more than where you went to school. Again, this is all also based on class rank largely. I think even you wouldn’t argue that someone at the middle of their class at SMU has a better shot at a job over someone in top 15% at Tech with all else being equal, solely because they went to SMU. I think offers like that are the exception rather than the rule, and they point more to a situation like the judge hiring a clerk from their alma mater than it points to prestige hiring.

I suppose my point to you is that I find it somewhat disingenuous to essentially claim that since Tech grads are working in Dallas, Tech is therefore competitive with other schools in Dallas. Sure, a Tech student can get a job in Dallas, but without knowing the quality/desirability of that job, a 0L can't possibly make a value judgment on how competitive Tech is in Dallas.


Again, youre attacking my claims as speculation with speculation of your own. Until you can give me a detailed breakdown of Texas schools, then we will never know. I also guess our ideas of what “competitive” means may be different, but I wouldn’t say I was being disingenuous. I was just providing the best information available and interpreting it the best I could, while I was also studying for class

Also, for what it’s worth, I just realized the stats I put up about the firm breakdown, weren’t for 2010. I assumed they were because they were on the CSO website, but they weren’t the most recent data. So I just wanted to clarify that, but I dont think it would change much because the numbers in this economy have largely stayed the same. We can keep going back and forth, but I don't really see us getting anywhere.

nouseforaname123
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 12:32 pm

Re: Tulsa vs Texas Tech

Postby nouseforaname123 » Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:22 am

texas man wrote:Here's my response (with the questioner's consent); keep in mind that these are my opinions that have developed from my experiences and observations (others may have had different experiences, and hence, different opinions):

Most of the info (that I've read) on TLS about getting jobs is either mildly or grossly inaccurate. Getting a job is a long process with many pieces (or gates), and it is important to understand the process. I have been through this process, so I'll do my best to briefly explain.

Posts on TLS generally give the impression that if you get great grades, you are golden. This is not true. Grades are just one of the criteria that are considered at the first "gate." As you will discover during OCI, most firms (mid to big) have a class-percentage ranking requirement. If you meet this requirement, then they will look at your cover letter and resume (and sometimes a writing sample) -- these have to be outstanding (you can be first in your class and not get an interview due to a bad cover letter or resume). Then, based on an applicant's total impression, they will decide who looks good on paper, and fill up their interview slots (usually 10-20). These are candidates that they consider qualified (on paper) to work at the firm.


I suppose this is where different experiences inform different opinions. Everybody on TLS who has been through OCI acknowledges the importance of the other "gates" you mention.

Based on my experience and observations, IMHO, some people at OCI will be "golden," others will have a relatively easy time, others will have to put in some decent work, others will sweat it out but land something, and, finally, some won't land anything at all. Fit, personality, cover letters, and writing samples are necessary conditions for any legal position. Perhaps you'll agree that all other things being equal, the majority of the time, higher grades at a higher ranked school will win out?

b.gump81 wrote:On top of that, I personally don’t think being in a small firm is as bad as you are making it out to be (I do agree that a recent grad shouldn’t go solo).



Acknowledging there are some great small firm gigs for new grads, based on my experience working with small firms, on balance, I don't think a small firm is a favorable destination for a new grad. It isn't big and mid-size firms posting $10/hr, contract attorney positions on job boards. You're also missing the fact that many of those new grads heading to small firms are in fact starting firms with classmates. A 2-5 attorney firm full of new grads is no better

b.gump81 wrote:first of all, the USAO doesn’t hire grads out of law school, so that argument fails right there. Secondly, schools (none that I have seen at least) even provide for such a break down, so you are basically saying my argument is speculation by arguing speculation of your own. The employment data I have seen breaks down the information to large categories such as government, academia, clerkship, private, etc., but besides breaking down the size of the firms, I haven’t seen employment data provide too much more in detail. If you have the break down of how many SMU grads went to the USAO or a litigation boutique out of the gate, then I would love to see that. Also, comparing the data for class of 2008, there isn’t much of a difference between the schools in most of these main overall categories. SMU had 2% for clerkships, 3% for academia, 4.9% for government, 1% for public interest, and 22.7% business. Tech had 4.5% clerkships, .5% for academia, 20.6% for government, 2.5% for public interest, and 17.1% business. I see your argument that we can’t really compare without knowing the exact jobs, but until you provide that information (which I don’t think many, if any, schools provide) then it is the best we have to go off of and calling my arguments speculation doesn’t change that.



1. An unsubstantiated conclusion is an unsubstantiated conclusion. It isn't somehow strengthened b/c you are going off of the best information available.

2. You are not going off of the best information available.

LST paints a clearer picture than the broad job categories you are using. Take clerkships. For c/o 2008, SMU claims 2.2% in clerkships, while Tech claims 4.5%. This would seem to suggest the schools are competing with each other; indeed, you could argue Tech is better. But then you go to LST and realize that SMU placed 2.2% of its class in art. III clerkship and Tech isn't reporting that data. Check out c/o 2009. I'm not going to bother to look it up, but I'm sure the broad job category of "clerkships" suggests that Tech and SMU are competing with each other. But, when you drill down in the data, SMU placed 4% of the class in art. III clerkships while Tech placed 1% of the class in art. III clerkships (12 to 2 in favor of SMU). Comparing the job category of "clerkships" it seems like Tech and SMU are competing with each. Once you actually compare the clerkships involved, it doesn't seem that way. That's why I'm telling you that taking broad job categories and the location of practicing attorneys is not enough to conclude that one school is competing with the other. Without knowing the jobs the students are actually going into, you can't possibly make an accurate judgment as to what is happening. That you're dealing with imperfect data should serve as a caution to drawing broad conclusions, not a justification for the conclusions b/c its the "best" you can do.

You can also use LST to paint a clearer picture of the private law firm job category as well. I'm not going to find the data, but I'll concede that Tech and SMU are placing a similar percentage of the class with private firms. Using the broad job category and bar data, I'm guessing you would want to argue that Tech and SMU are competing. But the salary data on LST paints a different picture.

Using LST c/o 2009 data, we can conclude that Tech had at least 33 grads in the private sector with a salary equal to or greater than $58,000/year. (206*.214*.75). On a side note, this data is consistent with the information you provided for c/o of 2010. 2010 saw just 48 Tech grads at firms with 16+ attorneys. Some of the midsize firms those 48 students ended up at are likely to pay around $50k a year. Although the LST c/o 2009 salary data is incomplete, I do think it paints a fairly accurate picture once you take the c/o 2010 data into account.

Using LST c/o 2009 data, we can conclude that SMU had at least 155 grads in the private sector with a salary equal to or greater than $75,000/year. (306*.674*.75).

Does any of this conclusively prove that SMU and Tech are not competitive with each other? Absolutely not. That data is insufficient for that conclusion. On the other hand, the data does cast serious doubt on the idea that SMU and Tech are competing with each other for jobs. From the salary and art. III data, it seems plausible to me that SMU and Tech grads are ending up in different types of jobs, even though the jobs may be grouped under the same broad job category (yes, a certain percentage of the Tech class will end up in the same jobs as a much larger percentage of the SMU class). I also believe the salary data suggests SMU grads are, on average, landing more desirable jobs.

This is why I am telling you that without knowing more information, you can't possibly use broad job categories and state bar data on the location of bar members to conclude that Tech is or is not competitive with any school. The only conclusion the data you are citing supports is that Tech grads have jobs in certain locations. As to whether that makes Tech grads competitive with [fill in the blank] grads, nobody can make that assertion without access to much better data.

b.gump81 wrote:Exactly the way it sounds: you can get an interview in these cities if you are high enough in the class.


As an SMU student I can get an interview in the same cities as a UT student for mostly the same jobs (I know b/c I ran into countless UT students on my callbacks). According to the NLJ Go to Law Schools list, UT placed just 10% more of its students in NLJ250 firms than SMU did. Using your logic SMU competes with UT, right?

I'm not trying to be an ass here. As much as I love SMU, I wouldn't use broad job categories and/or state bar data to suggest that SMU is competing with UT. I'm sure the overall job categories of the two schools look similar, and it appears that the difference in biglaw placement between UT/SMU is roughly the same as the difference between SMU/TTU biglaw placement. I, however, do not believe this suggests that SMU and UT are competing, mostly because the quality of the jobs open to UT students is, on balance, superior to the quality of jobs open to SMU students. Do you believe SMU is competitive with UT or do you believe that UT is clear a notch above SMU?

In fact, when you look at LST for context to the employment data, it becomes very clear that UT is clearly superior to SMU.

b.gump81 wrote:I’ll give you that academia and DOJ Honors are largely prestige based.

...

I think offers like that are the exception rather than the rule, and they point more to a situation like the judge hiring a clerk from their alma mater than it points to prestige hiring.


You missed the point: earlier, you said "non-biglaw jobs require less school prestige." I gave you examples of nonbiglaw jobs that care about prestige, and you seem to agree that there are non-biglaw jobs that care about school prestige. Your prior assertion was clearly wrong.

b.gump81 wrote:Again, youre attacking my claims as speculation with speculation of your own. Until you can give me a detailed breakdown of Texas schools, then we will never know. I also guess our ideas of what “competitive” means may be different, but I wouldn’t say I was being disingenuous. I was just providing the best information available and interpreting it the best I could, while I was also studying for class


I'm pointing out to you that the very limited data you are relying on does not support your conclusion. Not only that, there is some data out there (LST) that casts serious doubt on your conclusion.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11720
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: Tulsa vs Texas Tech

Postby kalvano » Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:27 am

This is the most mind-numbing argument on this board. Good grief.

Unless you want to work for Legal Aid for $41K a year, SMU is always the correct answer for Dallas. Barring that, Tech isn't an awful school, it's just not great. But it is cheap. OP, go to Tech.

ineptimusprime
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Tulsa vs Texas Tech

Postby ineptimusprime » Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:53 am

What I've learned/relearned from this thread.

(A) If a third tier school is the subject of a post, it will turn into a flame war
(B) One man's competitive is another man's shitlaw.

Cool story.

OP, like I stated earlier, take into account scholarship stipulations and from there, decide whether you'd rather work in Lubbock or Amarillo, or Tulsa, OK.

tigger22
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:18 pm

Re: Tulsa vs Texas Tech

Postby tigger22 » Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:49 pm

ineptimusprime wrote:What I've learned/relearned from this thread.

(A) If a third tier school is the subject of a post, it will turn into a flame war
(B) One man's competitive is another man's shitlaw.

Cool story.

OP, like I stated earlier, take into account scholarship stipulations and from there, decide whether you'd rather work in Lubbock or Amarillo, or Tulsa, OK.



So true. So true. Especially for (B) and that goes further than just law.
So, Dallas fell off from the equation?

FloridaCoastalorbust
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:43 pm

Re: Tulsa vs Texas Tech

Postby FloridaCoastalorbust » Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:56 pm

Tulsa market is better than prospects from Tech. Oklahoma legal industry isn't terribly oversaturated and Tulsa is a nice town. Obv you'll get beat out by OU, SMU, UT, UH, but Tulsa>Tech

Lord Randolph McDuff
Posts: 1587
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: Tulsa vs Texas Tech

Postby Lord Randolph McDuff » Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:20 pm

Above poster needs to be careful with that. The TX economy has more attorneys, but is growing at a base that absolutely dwarfs oklahoma. Attorneys in OK have it really tough right now-- I don't think OU has ever struggled so much.

Look at the employment stats for TU. They are terrifying.

Compare with Tech:

For 2009, Tech had something like 85% employment with 82% of employed grads in full time bar required work.
Tulsa had something like 94% (shady) employment with 57% in full time bar required work.

Tech had a way higher median salary and is not in a more expensive area of the country than Tulsa, trust me. 35% of Tech grades employed full time in the private sector reported
Tulsa had a low median salary, and only 14% of its grads employed full time in the private sector reported.


They are both bad, but wow one is markedly worse.


Oklahoma legal market is very poor. Go to a Texas school.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], carlos_danger, Google Adsense [Bot] and 4 guests