Would most people agree T-14 are the only national schools? Would it be a terrible idea for someone from the Midwest to go to UCLA, intending to live in LA? How about someone from Cali going to Fordham?

If the second largest city in the country is insular and parochial, then no one is ever moving anywhere, and fuck everything.

I think UCLA and UT are a little blurry since UT is a superregional (not quite national) and UCLA is a highly regarded school in a somewhat open (though in a lot of trouble ITE) market.

Also, Fordham falls into the NYC exception, though you shouldn't be going there with under 60K

Sorry--I think the OP actually answered this question. What I mean, would it be a bad idea for someone from the Midwest to go to UCLA because it was the best school they got into/one they like the most, even though they're not sure where they want to end up. I'm thinking it wouldn't be.

So I guess I'm wondering what the list of schools it's fine to move across the country for, even if you have no interest in that geographic location or ties to it. Would you advise someone from LA to go out to Vanderbilt, intending to come back to Cali?

why would a ms law firm get a yale or harvard grad when they could just get a grad from the harvard of the south, ole miss.

The thing I've never understood about parochial markets is that obviously the people there think they are great places to live, why don't they think other people do too?

It's not a good idea to go to any school if you have no idea where you'd want to end up. Going to a T14 gives you your home market and NYC as options (and to a lesser extent, depending on the school, DC, and whatever local markets the T14 feeds into). It doesn't magically open doors up wherever you want.

I agree. What does an employer care whether you were born and raised in the area or whether a prospect has relatives? To the extent that an absence of the typical types of "ties" might predict in an applicant a higher likelihood of relocating after a few years, an employer may have some cause for concern. But those concerns should be outweighed by the attractiveness of a candidate and the fact that high attrition is normal in the industry.

And consider schools like Notre Dame, Tulane, WUSTL and a few others. There are certain schools at which employers recruit knowing full well that a large percentage of the student body has "relocated for law school". But I will concede that those are top schools, whereas romothesavior mentions T2/T3. Still, I know many people who have located to Florida to attend T2 schools like Florida State and done fine. I know people who have relocated just to attend S'western and are working at firms of varied sizes, or as in-house entertainment lawyers or talent/sports agents.

Are these people who relocate to attend a regional school just ill-prepared to address their lack of ties in interviews? I don't understand how it could be that hard to develop a well-crafted "Why X city" that could be competitive with a local's answer that consists of "my family lives here/I've always lived here."

And when you don't get a job, the administration and much of the faculty will then blame you for "not being willing to look beyond (the area in which the school is located)."

Wish I were kidding.

Professor Campos, I know you are tenured but don't you think some of your remarks on here are borderline unprofessional? I agree with your message but I am not sure if you are very effective when you lower yourself to this level.

What level is that? The level at which people say true things in a straightforward way?

I agree that in the context of legal academia doing so often constitutes unprofessional behavior.

This thread is not relevant to my interests

Psh, the last guy to start this thread goes to any Ivy; why should we listen to you if we didn't listen to him, Romo?

No, they are not. Lack of ties, no matter what you do in an interview, can screw you over. Does this mean that you will completely strike out? No. But what it means is that you are going to have a much much much more difficult time at OCI if they think you are going to leave. It is not really about interviewing skills----as a matter of fact--the local guy whose family lives there is much more likely to stay-----they base their decision on that and not well how you can answer why X City. The best WHY X answer possible, is still insufficient for many firms in these regions that care.--

.

.

You seem to hold your own bullshit in high esteem. Some markets just aren't having it, no matter how clever you think you're being.

The rage-inducing "Marquette rulez for sports lawls" thread was the impetus for this thread. That and scrolling down the "Choosing a Law School" page and seeing multiple threads where people are seriously contemplating between three or four regional schools in completely different regions of the country. Definitely tso maddening.

I wouldn't even call the T14 all that national. It's hard to draw a firm line as to where "national" ends and "regional" begins. It is more of a spectrum I wouldn't go to Cornell if I weren't at least content with winding up in NY. I wouldn't go to GULC if I weren't at least content with ending up in D.C. or on the East Coast. Those schools certainly can place people in other parts of the country, but the majority of the doors they open are local.

OP's advice is super 100% credited. I want to tell every 0L to stay home and go to their local state school if they can't crack the T14. Law School definitely is not the time to decide you want to live elsewhere... it's just too risky, IMO.

I do think if you go to a national school (i.e. T14) and have top grades AND are an awesome interviewer, you can get a job in a region you've never been before (I know people who cracked Boston and SF and Chicago without ties), but I think those situations are rare (minus NYC of course; you don't need ties to NYC).

Even as a 0L this seems so obvious but judging by the number of threads proposing the same dumb plan apparently it's not. This isn't unique to law school, it's just like any other job. Unless you're mid-career with unique skills and clients (at which point you go through a headhunter anyway), you're going to be working uphill just to get your resume pulled out of a stack of locals' if you're coming in from outside the area. Since most regional schools are full of locals, good luck being the out of towner, even if you have great grades.

It seems like a lot of these threads are started by people in undergrad who just want to avoid having to get a job because it's hard, not realizing they're just pushing the problem a year or two down the line and making it way, way harder.

I wouldn't go quite that far, and I don't even think "national" breaks neatly along T14/non-T14 lines. There is sort of an interplay of factors involved. I'd call my own school fairly national (almost everyone I know is splintering off into different direction), but our firm placement is poor. On the other hand, Cornell kicks ass at firm placement NYC, but as a wise man named Grizz once said, its a one-trick pony that does a great job at that one trick.

In any event, your overall point is definitely TCR. Going to the local school is usually a far better idea than going to the "higher ranked" school 2,000 miles away.

I think it's possible to get a job in markets without ties from a national school, but if you're not going there for personal reasons, you better have a helluva sales pitch for your desire to be there for professional reasons (e.g. IP in CA).

.