Duke @ Sticker? Forum

[JCougar]

Your T10 cutoff is also a head-scratcher. So you'd be fine with MVP with scholarship, but Duke or Northwestern or Cornell? NOPE.

I agree w/ this: if MVPB is worth sticker, so is DNC. But I don't think any schools outside the T6 are worth sticker (at least to me).

T10 is just a rough estimate. Depending on where you want to work, etc., you could make a case for any number of schools being worth it with a decent scholarship. But I think T10 is somewhere in the ballpark of what I'd consider it smart to attend at this point, generally speaking.

[jym_dawg]

Your T10 cutoff is also a head-scratcher. So you'd be fine with MVP with scholarship, but Duke or Northwestern or Cornell? NOPE.

I agree w/ this: if MVPB is worth sticker, so is DNC. But I don't think any schools outside the T6 are worth sticker (at least to me).

Dat subtle GULC trollin'

[sinfiery]

I'm just arguing that school rank isn't really all that strong of a job-getting tool once OCI is over. Biglaw/clerkships are pathologically obsessed with grades/rank "prestige," but the other law jobs out there are far more nonplussed. Connections is probably #1 outside OCI/Biglaw/clerkships. Fit/interest in the firm's practice areas is #2. Grades might be third or fourth, and school rank is probably a factor, but one of the least important ones. Going to a better school only really helps you as far as their OCI can help you with Biglaw.

Past connections being number 1, I don't believe you.
You sound like a TTT dean. Unless the employment data I've seen is a lie, I can't imagine how you can say this without providing any proof at all with a straight face.
Your move.

You totally missed about five of my points.

The point of my post is that you provide absolutely no proof for your assertions.

[beachbum]

Biglaw/clerkships are pathologically obsessed with grades/rank "prestige,"

Completely agree.

but the other law jobs out there are far more nonplussed. Connections is probably #1 outside OCI/Biglaw/clerkships. Fit/interest in the firm's practice areas is #2. Grades might be third or fourth, and school rank is probably a factor, but one of the least important ones. Going to a better school only really helps you as far as their OCI can help you with Biglaw. It's not going to help you get small law/midlaw.

[Need source]

[BigZuck]

JCougar- I get that this is your schtick and all but I'm having a hard time believing that you actually know happy smalllaw lawyers and unhappy biglaw lawyers in any sort of numbers that could be anywhere close to representative.

[JCougar]

JCougar- I get that this is your schtick and all but I'm having a hard time believing that you actually know happy smalllaw lawyers and unhappy biglaw lawyers in any sort of numbers that could be anywhere close to representative.

Did I ever claim that I knew about this in numbers that were close to representative?

I'm just going by what I hear anecdotally.

Also, there was a study done recently about depression in the legal industry, and Biglaw associates were just as depressed as anyone else. I'll try to dig it up for you.

[JCougar]

Past connections being number 1, I don't believe you.
You sound like a TTT dean. Unless the employment data I've seen is a lie, I can't imagine how you can say this without providing any proof at all with a straight face.
Your move.

How does the employment data refute this?

[sinfiery]

How does the employment data refute this?

First, you say:

Biglaw/clerkships are pathologically obsessed with grades/rank "prestige," but the other law jobs out there are far more nonplussed.

So the first step is to remove these factors from the equation. Looking at employment statistics, we can see that once you get outside of the ~T20, the chances of obtaining either of these are next to zero.

Second:

Connections is probably #1 outside OCI/Biglaw/clerkships. Fit/interest in the firm's practice areas is #2. Grades might be third or fourth, and school rank is probably a factor, but one of the least important ones. Going to a better school only really helps you as far as their OCI can help you with Biglaw. It's not going to help you get small law/midlaw.

Things that have no correlation with a persons LSAT and GPA (Which I think we can agree dictates where you goto LS almost always):
Connections
Fit/interest in a firm's practice area
How well you perform on LS exams and thus your grades/ranking
Probably anything else you can think of that isn't specifically related to what the ranking of the school you attend is



So past the ~T20 all the way to the ~#200 ranked school, where OCI related biglaw/Clerkships don't exist, the expected job outcome would be an almost uniform distribution between the schools within the this very, very large bracket. At least according to what you believe.


So tell me, is that what you see when you analyze the employment statistics that are available? Because I do not.

[JCougar]

So past the ~T20 all the way to the ~#200 ranked school, where OCI related biglaw/Clerkships don't exist, the expected job outcome would be an almost uniform distribution between the schools within the this very, very large bracket. At least according to what you believe.

So tell me, is that what you see when you analyze the employment statistics that are available? Because I do not.

It's actually pretty similar, as if you subtract the Biglaw/Clerkships out of the equation, close to the same percentage of students are employed as you go down the list. The change is only very gradual, and only noticeable if you're comparing a TTTT scam school with something like a top 30 or so.

I'm not saying it has no effect, I'm just saying the effect is minimal. The only reason to pay more to go to a top school is to get access to their OCI. If you don't get good enough grades to significantly participate, the advantage of going to that top school is close to nil, especially given the increased debt.

[JCougar]

Also, I have no idea why you think I sound like a TTT dean. Of course going to a TTT is a horrible idea in general. But I do know a few people with good industry connections that did it, are working in small law, and are generally very happy because they have zero debt and their small law firms aren't just cut n' paste schlock work.

Plus, any TTT dean wouldn't benefit if the only students to matriculate were those with full scholarships. So I'm not sure how you come to the conclusions you do.

[sinfiery]

It's actually pretty similar, as if you subtract the Biglaw/Clerkships out of the equation, close to the same percentage of students are employed as you go down the list. The change is only very gradual, and only noticeable if you're comparing a TTTT scam school with something like a top 30 or so.

I'm not saying it has no effect, I'm just saying the effect is minimal. The only reason to pay more to go to a top school is to get access to their OCI. If you don't get good enough grades to significantly participate, the advantage of going to that top school is close to nil, especially given the increased debt.

I'll use two Texas schools as I am from the area and can tell you there is a definite difference in how the average person in Texas considers the prestiege of the two.
Baylor vs Texas Wesleyan
http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=baylor
http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=texaswesleyan

Neither get biglaw, neither get clerkships. There is a very significant difference between employment prospects. This should not be the case if what you say is true.

Being from the area, I can tell you that my first impression to explain the difference would be from the difference in assumed prestige people here have of these schools.

Also, I have no idea why you think I sound like a TTT dean. Of course going to a TTT is a horrible idea in general. But I do know a few people with good industry connections that did it, are working in small law, and are generally very happy because they have zero debt and their small law firms aren't just cut n' paste schlock work.

Plus, any TTT dean wouldn't benefit if the only students to matriculate were those with full scholarships. So I'm not sure how you come to the conclusions you do.

Only in 1 aspect do you sound similar, that being TTT deans say out of HYS, it doesn't matter about prestige at all. It matters about where you want to work and the rankings mean nothing in the real world. So we are doing nothing wrong telling students to come to Golden Gate University because you want to work in CA.

[BruceWayne]

I mean, I don't think anyone is arguing that the above-median TTT student with no debt and family connections to a local midlaw shop is worse off than the bottom third Duke student with massive debt and no connections. But that's a dumb comparison. I mean, the Chiefs are just as good as the Patriots, if the Patriots don't have Belichick and Brady and Gronkowski and everything else that makes the Patriots good. Damn dude.

Your T10 cutoff is also a head-scratcher. So you'd be fine with MVP with scholarship, but Duke or Northwestern or Cornell? NOPE.

I'm just arguing that school rank isn't really all that strong of a job-getting tool once OCI is over. Biglaw/clerkships are pathologically obsessed with grades/rank "prestige," but the other law jobs out there are far more nonplussed. Connections is probably #1 outside OCI/Biglaw/clerkships. Fit/interest in the firm's practice areas is #2. Grades might be third or fourth, and school rank is probably a factor, but one of the least important ones. Going to a better school only really helps you as far as their OCI can help you with Biglaw. It's not going to help you get small law/midlaw.

This is something that really needs to be repeated more often on here. The truth is that once you miss the biglaw fed clerkship boat school rank just isn't all that important. To be quite honest it's something that's frustrated me, and others I know, that didn't get great grades (but who attend top schools). Non biglaw type employers really don't care all that much about where you went to law school--they care about how well you did when you were there and what experience you have.

[JCougar]

Someone also did a study on this. They asked firms what the most important factors are in hiring, and sorted the results by Biglaw/non-biglaw firm jobs. It confirmed exactly what I just said. I can't remember where I read the study, but it was released at least a year ago. They had some bar charts accompanying it. It might have been in the ABA journal or something. For midlaw/small law firms, "fit" was the number one factor, not grades or school rank. These firms are looking for people to stick around for a while, and can't afford to hire the "disposable associate" and keep re-training people year after year.

Going to a better school is simply a matter of "buying in" to their OCI. Pay to play.

[WhatOurBodiesAreFor]

Bumping this thread, as I will likely be facing a similar dilemma.

Firstly, I really wish those who are against T-14 at sticker would also speak to their own opportunity cost. Should an ivy undergrad who landed a sweet analyst job in NYC pay Cornell sticker? Should a humanities grad from a shit rural state school who has been waiting tables for the past 3 years pay Cornell sticker?

My opportunity cost is not extremely small, but at the same time I'm probably not qualified at this point for a job I'd be happy with. I've kind of been gearing for law school for the past several years. I've been acquiring some skills and doing some cool things, but, like I said, I really don't think I could land a job that would match my self-worth considering my rather humble background.

So, at the end of the cycle, I'll probably have 3-4 T-14 options at sticker and several $100K+ offers at mid T1s. I'm inclined at this point to choose one of the T-14 options because I want to open some doors. But I will be on TLS until summer mulling over this.

[BruceWayne]

Bumping this thread, as I will likely be facing a similar dilemma.

Firstly, I really wish those who are against T-14 at sticker would also speak to their own opportunity cost. Should an ivy undergrad who landed a sweet analyst job in NYC pay Cornell sticker? Should a humanities grad from a shit rural state school who has been waiting tables for the past 3 years pay Cornell sticker?

My opportunity cost is not extremely small, but at the same time I'm probably not qualified at this point for a job I'd be happy with. I've kind of been gearing for law school for the past several years. I've been acquiring some skills and doing some cool things, but, like I said, I really don't think I could land a job that would match my self-worth considering my rather humble background.

So, at the end of the cycle, I'll probably have 3-4 T-14 options at sticker and several $100K+ offers at mid T1s. I'm inclined at this point to choose one of the T-14 options because I want to open some doors. But I will be on TLS until summer mulling over this.

I was in the same position as you when I took my current top 14 at sticker (couldn't get any job outside of retail etc.) and I am currently seriously doubting my decision. I don't think avoiding law school period would have been the right choice. But I am realizing that I probably should have went to my strong in state regional for free or close to it. Sticker at a top 14 is just a bad idea unless you're talking HYS.

[bk1]

Bumping this thread, as I will likely be facing a similar dilemma.

Firstly, I really wish those who are against T-14 at sticker would also speak to their own opportunity cost. Should an ivy undergrad who landed a sweet analyst job in NYC pay Cornell sticker? Should a humanities grad from a shit rural state school who has been waiting tables for the past 3 years pay Cornell sticker?

My opportunity cost is not extremely small, but at the same time I'm probably not qualified at this point for a job I'd be happy with. I've kind of been gearing for law school for the past several years. I've been acquiring some skills and doing some cool things, but, like I said, I really don't think I could land a job that would match my self-worth considering my rather humble background.

So, at the end of the cycle, I'll probably have 3-4 T-14 options at sticker and several $100K+ offers at mid T1s. I'm inclined at this point to choose one of the T-14 options because I want to open some doors. But I will be on TLS until summer mulling over this.

Like BruceWayne, I was also in a similar position pre law school. I took a T14 at sticker over $100k+ offers to mid T1s (e.g. GW/WUSTL). Both BW's and my opinions are clouded by our outcomes. Things have worked out for me so far and so I'm happy with my decision. That being said, I don't think it's a slam dunk either way. You're facing large risks whether you take the lower ranked school on a scholly or the higher ranked school at sticker. With the lower ranked school, you're facing a large chance of not even getting the chance to be a lawyer. With the higher ranked school, you're facing a large chance of having to use IBR to cover your debt for 20 years while working in a poor or mediocre legal job. What really sold it for me was the fact that even with a $100k+ scholly, I would have been over $120k in debt coming out of the lower ranked schools that were my options. It might make a difference if the $100k+ scholly covers all or almost all of tuition for you and the school is in a low CoL area.

In the end, you have to pick the kind of risk you are willing to accept because they are both quite risky albeit with very different kinds of risk.

[beachbum]

Like BruceWayne, I was also in a similar position pre law school. I took a T14 at sticker over $100k+ offers to mid T1s (e.g. GW/WUSTL). Both BW's and my opinions are clouded by our outcomes. Things have worked out for me so far and so I'm happy with my decision. That being said, I don't think it's a slam dunk either way. You're facing large risks whether you take the lower ranked school on a scholly or the higher ranked school at sticker. With the lower ranked school, you're facing a large chance of not even getting the chance to be a lawyer. With the higher ranked school, you're facing a large chance of having to use IBR to cover your debt for 20 years while working in a poor or mediocre legal job. What really sold it for me was the fact that even with a $100k+ scholly, I would have been over $120k in debt coming out of the lower ranked schools that were my options. It might make a difference if the $100k+ scholly covers all or almost all of tuition for you and the school is in a low CoL area.

In the end, you have to pick the kind of risk you are willing to accept because they are both quite risky albeit with very different kinds of risk.

Credited, though no post on an online forum is ever going to fully capture the cost/benefit analysis here - which is why sweeping statements on the value of a T14 degree aren't very useful. There are just too many variables at play - including opportunity cost, long-term goals (personal and professional), and a whole host of factors that may increase or decrease your chances of hitting Biglaw.

[bizzybone1313]

Over time, I bet Duke becomes more solidly ranked in the 7-8 range and Michigan continues to plummet. Michigan seems to be going downhill. Maybe Duke will pay off at sticker in the long run, but the money involved at sticker seems to be simply too much in this economy.

[dabbadon8]

Over time, I bet Duke becomes more solidly ranked in the 7-8 range and Michigan continues to plummet. Michigan seems to be going downhill. Maybe Duke will pay off at sticker in the long run, but the money involved at sticker seems to be simply too much in this economy.

True. The value of a school clearly fluctuates proportionally to its USNWR ranking. Heck, if duke even made it into the top 10 that could be an 800k boon over the course of a career.