rayiner wrote:I think your argument is that more people from regional schools would get local big law if they didn't gun for big national firms, is that correct? I think the fact that's undermining that possibility is that there just aren't very many jobs in the smaller regions that don't have a T14+UT/Vandy/UCLA/USC school.
It's been a while since NALP has published a freely-available list of hiring at all NALP firms, but taking a look at this list from 2003 is illustrative: http://www.nalp.org/2004aprpatterespractices. Out of the 7,700 entry level associate positions in 2002, the vast majority, about 85-90% in my estimation, were in regions dominated by a T18 school. The places that aren't, like Miami, Denver, Seattle, etc, have 50-80 jobs apiece, not nearly enough for the hundreds of students at their regional schools.
Note also that the data above is in the middle of the last recession. Hiring during the last boom peaked at 8,250 during 2001 and dropped to an expected 6,800 in 2004: http://www.nalp.org/2005entry-levelhiring. Note that this is for all 600 NALP firms, not just what you might consider national or regional big law.
Thanks, you've covered the better part of my dilemma. I kind of lost track of my original argument.
Conclusion: If I want BigLaw, regional or otherwise, I have to shoot for a T18.