The reason people dissuade applicants from these schools isn't because of some notion of "T14 elitism." It's because people who go to schools like these have no better than a coin flip shot at ever getting a legal job
. I hope you will try to internalize this reality, OP. Good luck.
Citing data for "schools like these" that exclude the schools in question, when numbers for those places are readily available is borderline mendacious.
So, let's evaluate your claim that the original poster has "no better than a coin flip at ever getting a legal job" by looking at the numbers for say, St. John's. I'll even do you one better. I'll brazenly double, or even triple-count all sorts of employment deficiencies, therefore representing the single most intellectually dishonest, and uncharitable numbers one can possibly concoct for St. John's Law graduates, significantly reducing their actual employment numbers.
So, 256 out of 292 members of the class of 2010 reported being employed, or not seeking employment. The NALP data list one person as not seeking employment. Although this person may not have been seeking employment for any number of reasons other than the job market, we'll lop them off. 255/292. 87%.
Now, let's disregard all work not requiring (including work that prefers- where a full 11% of the class is employed full-time with, and 7% part-time) a JD. That brings our number of graduates reporting jobs requiring a JD degree down to 202/292. 69%.
Now, let's knock off those with work requiring a JD who were working part-time, because we all know that those working part time "have no better than a coin flip" of ever working full time. 5 people. 197/292. 67%.
Okay - St. John's cheated! They employ graduates themselves! 14 of them! This isn't really employment (even for the one of them working long-term)! And these people will obviously never ever find work outside of St. John's protective cocoon. And let's also make the apocryphal assumption that every single one of these graduates were working full-time in positions requiring JDs, so we know we're not double-counting them. 179/292. 61%.
Okay. Those working on a short-term basis, or potentially short-term basis (37) don't count either! Again let's assume that all of these people were working full-time at a position requiring a JD, and were not employed by St. John's. Let's even disregard the point that this is one of the few instances where the data do actually show this to be demonstrably wrong, as the ABA placement numbers list 13 of those employed by St. John's (4.4% of the class) to be working part-time. 142/292. 49%. (Honest evaluation -156/292. 53.4%.)
So, okay. If we count every single person who reported back who was working part-time at a position requiring a JD, at short-term jobs (of which many if not most likely didn't require a JD degree, but we'll assume they all did, and we're not double-counting them), or was employed by St. John's, we have a total of 56 people - 19% of the class. (If we're truthful, and subtract the 13 short-term people known to have been employed by St. John's, we have 43 graduates - 15% of the class.) In order to reach the 49% - the "coin flip shot" at not "ever getting a legal job," we must count all these people (many of them likely multiple times) in your tally.
Again, this all of course disregards the 18% of the class working at positions (overwhelmingly full-time) preferring a JD. And (dubiously) assumes that everybody not in the tally will never transition to it, despite the fact that 20% of people reporting job offers from St. John's got them after bar passage, which a good number of people may not have had 9 months after graduation. Let’s also remember the 2010 numbers came directly following potentially the worst year for markets in the last 70 years. While the situation isn’t great now, it likely has nowhere to go but up.
Furthermore, your line of reasoning completely disregards one of the most compelling motivations many likely have for seeking a JD - they want to be a lawyer, and having a career they enjoy goes beyond cold number crunching. Yes, happiness is more than just dollars and cents. Even if this poster makes $50k a year for their whole career - let's just disregard the fact that salaries rise with seniority - and must wait 20 years before their degree is profitable (which, considering they have about a half-scholarship, and would presumably not pay rent may be a lot shorter than the actual time it takes), who is anybody to tell them that's an "objectively bad" - an oxymoronic term by the way - idea? While I probably wouldn't make that decision, I have my own circumstances, and what makes sense for one person doesn't make sense for others. Do you know how much money this person makes now, and could be on track to make? Do you know their prospects if they don’t go to law school? Do you know if they’re even employed? Comparing this decision to a smack in the face with a rusty, nail-studded 2x4 is nasty, immature, presumptuous, and un-judicious.