Top Law Schools

boblawlob wrote: DO NOT interpret that as me saying that nont14 and tier3/4 is good and will get you jobs for sure (especially tier 3/4). Hell, even going to a marginal t14 could be bad for a person if they place bottom of the class and have 0 social skills.

Well said.

Ben Franklin wrote:

boblawlob wrote: DO NOT interpret that as me saying that nont14 and tier3/4 is good and will get you jobs for sure (especially tier 3/4). Hell, even going to a marginal t14 could be bad for a person if they place bottom of the class and have 0 social skills.

Well said.

Point 1: Non-T14 people and non-tier 3/4 people are not guaranteed jobs
Point 2: Lower ranked T14s might be bad if the person places in the bottom of the class and has zero social skills

Very novel breakthrough we're working on here.

boblawlob wrote: And I'm not saying not having an "it factor" explains for the lack of jobs. You mistakenly negated my statement. Having an "it" factor is something no one realizes they have just like people not knowing if they will do well in law school or not.

I think that this is a major contributing factor to the dearth of employment among law grads. People mistake being able to get into/graduate from law school with being able to be an attorney. Just because you can pass law school and pass the bar doesn't mean you will be a good attorney. Learning law and practicing law are two very different things, and plenty of people go to law school who have no business being there. But yet because they maintained a good GPA in undergrad and did well on a standardized test, there they are. Because law schools are so quick to accept individuals who meet the requirement on paper, we have an abundance of graduates that just couldn't hack it practicing law once they get out. Period. Thus leading to the high unemployment numbers.

Ben Franklin wrote:

boblawlob wrote: And I'm not saying not having an "it factor" explains for the lack of jobs. You mistakenly negated my statement. Having an "it" factor is something no one realizes they have just like people not knowing if they will do well in law school or not.

I think that this is a major contributing factor to the dearth of employment among law grads. People mistake being able to get into/graduate from law school with being able to be an attorney. Just because you can pass law school and pass the bar doesn't mean you will be a good attorney. Learning law and practicing law are two very different things, and plenty of people go to law school who have no business being there. But yet because they maintained a good GPA in undergrad and did well on a standardized test, there they are. Because law schools are so quick to accept individuals who meet the requirement on paper, we have an abundance of graduates that just couldn't hack it practicing law once they get out. Period. Thus leading to the high unemployment numbers.

There's a big difference between not being able to hack practicing law and NOT BEING ABLE TO GET A JOB IN THE FIRST PLACE BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ENOUGH JOBS.

A. Nony Mouse wrote: There's a big difference between not being able to hack practicing law and NOT BEING ABLE TO GET A JOB IN THE FIRST PLACE BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ENOUGH JOBS.

Touché. But if people would stop applying to law school because it looks cool on TV, and if law schools stopped accepting every swinging dick and sweaty slit that has "the numbers", we wouldn't be in this position.

Ben Franklin wrote:

boblawlob wrote: And I'm not saying not having an "it factor" explains for the lack of jobs. You mistakenly negated my statement. Having an "it" factor is something no one realizes they have just like people not knowing if they will do well in law school or not.

I think that this is a major contributing factor to the dearth of employment among law grads. People mistake being able to get into/graduate from law school with being able to be an attorney. Just because you can pass law school and pass the bar doesn't mean you will be a good attorney. Learning law and practicing law are two very different things, and plenty of people go to law school who have no business being there.

You're missing a step. There's the getting into law school part, there's the being an attorney part, but you forget about the oh-so-important getting a job part. Plenty of the un- and under-employed folks out there might make awesome lawyers, but they'll never get the chance because they can't find meaningful employment. Reasonable Man, a TTT graduate who has done awesome things outside of the biglaw realm, has a great post on what he calls "the club." If you don't get into the club, you're pretty much out of it forever. You basically seem to think "Well the cream always rises to the top" or some boomer bullshit, but in this law school game we play, some of the cream never even makes it in the cup.

And even if what you're saying is true, there's no way to know if you have "it" going into law school. Most everyone thinks they have what it takes, and most everyone thinks they'll get at least decent grades, but not everyone does. People should make this decision based on what will happen if they're an average student with average prospects from their school.

Honestly, this is a fairly offensive argument designed to blame the people who couldn't get jobs for being inept losers. I could form a line a mile long of recent graduates and current students, all of them bright and motivated and good people, who can't find jobs or who were no-offered or who got Lathamed. I love how you trudge in here with calls of "ELITISM!" like the other "rah rah fight the TLS power" turds, but I can't think of a more snobbish and douchey approach than to tell all the un- and under-employeds "You guys just don't have the it." You're not just talking about a bunch of faceless nobodies; you're talking about my friends and many of the people here on TLS.

Ben Franklin wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote: There's a big difference between not being able to hack practicing law and NOT BEING ABLE TO GET A JOB IN THE FIRST PLACE BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ENOUGH JOBS.

Touché. But if people would stop applying to law school because it looks cool on TV, and if law schools stopped accepting every swinging dick and sweaty slit that has "the numbers", we wouldn't be in this position.

I don't get this. First, we wouldn't be in this problem if there hadn't been a global contraction in the legal profession due to the crappy economy. Second, how is schools accepting students that have "the numbers" the problem, rather than bottom-feeding schools that accept everyone who has a pulse and can sign their name to the LSAT?

Yes but would you agree that, if we eliminated the say 40% or so of individuals that enter law school with no business being there, that there might be more jobs to go around? A drop in enrollment of 40% would even out 3 years down the line, and with 40% less graduates hitting the market, job prospects would be better. I don't blame those qualified individuals that cannot find jobs, rather the schools that accept the unqualified individuals in masses simply based on GPA and LSAT. Unfortunately I too know plenty of qualified people that cannot find jobs, through no fault of their own. My point the entire time has been that people go to law school who have no business being there.

Ben Franklin wrote:Yes but would you agree that, if we eliminated the say 40% or so of individuals that enter law school with no business being there, that there might be more jobs to go around? A drop in enrollment of 40% would even out 3 years down the line, and with 40% less graduates hitting the market, job prospects would be better. I don't blame those qualified individuals that cannot find jobs, rather the schools that accept the unqualified individuals in masses simply based on GPA and LSAT. Unfortunately I too know plenty of qualified people that cannot find jobs, through no fault of their own. My point the entire time has been that people go to law school who have no business being there.

Yes, if only there was a 40% drop in law school applications across the board...

...oh wait.

I said a 40% drop in enrollment. Read closer. Applications and enrollment are two different things.

My stab at the "elitism" stems from those who say that if one cannot get into a T14 school, they shouldn't go to law school. But if someone graduates from a state school, or a "TTT" as TLS like to refer to them as, with $75k in debt for their three year education ($25k/yr) and a monthly student loan payment of right around $850, this is a debtload that can be more than managed on even a $45k/yr salary.

Ben Franklin wrote:Yes but would you agree that, if we eliminated the say 40% or so of individuals that enter law school with no business being there, that there might be more jobs to go around? A drop in enrollment of 40% would even out 3 years down the line, and with 40% less graduates hitting the market, job prospects would be better. I don't blame those qualified individuals that cannot find jobs, rather the schools that accept the unqualified individuals in masses simply based on GPA and LSAT. Unfortunately I too know plenty of qualified people that cannot find jobs, through no fault of their own. My point the entire time has been that people go to law school who have no business being there.

You're not likely to get an even 40% drop across the board. What will happen is law schools will close, and enrollment will still be based on GPA and LSAT. I guess I'm not sure how your "there are way too many people going to law school" thing coexists with your "TLS is full of snobs who wrongly think non-T14s suck" thing. I mean, you're basically asking schools to get more selective.

,

Ben Franklin wrote:My stab at the "elitism" stems from those who say that if one cannot get into a T14 school, they shouldn't go to law school. But if someone graduates from a state school, or a "TTT" as TLS like to refer to them as, with $75k in debt for their three year education ($25k/yr) and a monthly student loan payment of right around $850, this is a debtload that can be more than managed on even a $45k/yr salary.

I don't care what Jim says, that is not the real Ben Franklin. I am 99% sure.

Ben Franklin wrote:I said a 40% drop in enrollment. Read closer. Applications and enrollment are two different things.

Many (most?) schools have seen drops in enrollment of 10, 20, even 25%. The current 1L class at WUSTL is about 25% of what it was my year. It'll help, but it really doesn't address the root issue, which is the fact that that there are very few "good outcome" entry-level jobs right now.

Your "solution" (just slash class sizes and make schools change their admissions criteria) is unworkable for a number of reasons, mostly because 1) it doesn't change the fact that the majority of entry-level lawyer jobs out there are way too shitty (both in the pay and in the work) to justify the cost of law school, and 2) there's really no feasible way to gauge the "it" factor, or the "whether someone should be here" factor that you're talking about.

Ben Franklin wrote:My stab at the "elitism" stems from those who say that if one cannot get into a T14 school, they shouldn't go to law school. But if someone graduates from a state school, or a "TTT" as TLS like to refer to them as, with $75k in debt for their three year education ($25k/yr) and a monthly student loan payment of right around $850, this is a debtload that can be more than managed on even a $45k/yr salary.

Except that's not what we're saying. Your point seems to be "LOL ur all a bunch of elitists T-14 or bust jerks!" just because we don't think the opportunity to make 40-50k in a crummy firm is worth 100-200k+ in debt from a lower ranked school. You've set up quite a straw man for the TLS conventional wisdom. Did you notice that the community pretty much called OP an idiot for his "HYS or don't go" schtick?

I think the message and the tone here is very measured, and the approach very reasonable: almost no school is worth sticker and there are some never worth going to even for free, people should shoot for the best score they possibly can on the LSAT even if it means taking a year or two off, then they should go to a T14 on a scholarship if they can, and if they can't do that, they should go to a reputable regional in the area where they want to practice/have ties to on a big scholarship. That's pretty much the TLS message in a nutshell.

romothesavior wrote:

Ben Franklin wrote:My stab at the "elitism" stems from those who say that if one cannot get into a T14 school, they shouldn't go to law school. But if someone graduates from a state school, or a "TTT" as TLS like to refer to them as, with $75k in debt for their three year education ($25k/yr) and a monthly student loan payment of right around $850, this is a debtload that can be more than managed on even a $45k/yr salary.

Except that's not what we're saying. Your point seems to be "LOL ur all a bunch of elitists T-14 or bust jerks!" just because we don't think the opportunity to make 40-50k in a crummy firm is worth 100-200k+ in debt from a lower ranked school. You've set up quite a straw man for the TLS conventional wisdom. Did you notice that the community pretty much called OP an idiot for his "HYS or don't go" schtick?

I think the message and the tone here is very measured, and the approach very reasonable: almost no school is worth sticker and there are some never worth going to even for free, people should shoot for the best score they possibly can on the LSAT even if it means taking a year or two off, then they should go to a T14 on a scholarship if they can, and if they can't do that, they should go to a reputable regional in the area where they want to practice/have ties to on a big scholarship. That's pretty much the TLS message in a nutshell.

This is a great summary of TLS. I would add: drop out after 1L if you are below median ( or some bottom percentage of your class - though this isn't TLS advice that is often given) ; not going at all is a viable option thr should be seriously considered, and don't listen to advice from boomers or clueless pre-law advisors. Also, believe nothing schools tell you regarding jobs. Always verify as best you can with outside sources.

romothesavior wrote: And even if what you're saying is true, there's no way to know if you have "it" going into law school. Most everyone thinks they have what it takes, and most everyone thinks they'll get at least decent grades, but not everyone does. People should make this decision based on what will happen if they're an average student with average prospects from their school.

This was my point all along. I just brought up the "it" factor stuff to just agree with Ben Franklin that there are certainly outliers.

A. Nony Mouse wrote: I guess I'm not sure how your "there are way too many people going to law school" thing coexists with your "TLS is full of snobs who wrongly think non-T14s suck" thing. I mean, you're basically asking schools to get more selective.

Because TLSers, in my opinion, wrongly connect unemployment with people who didn't graduate from a top 14 school. Subsequently they tell people that if they can't get into a top 14 school, they should not go to law school at all! Why? Because they won't be able to find a job. Since there is a shortage of jobs, why encourage someone to take on 3x the amount of student loans by going to these more expensive schools? I'd rather be unemployed owing $75k vs. being unemployed and owing $200k.

The bottom line is schools accept way too many people, we know this, but the snobbery comes in when people encourage others to only go to the best law schools in the country, when in reality some of the most prominent attorneys in this country went to schools out of the top 14, and graduating from a T14 doesn't guarantee any more chance of employment vs lower ranked schools. If someone wants to go to a lower ranked school, hats off to them. They are making a wiser decision to take on less debt, and shouldn't be chastised and belittled for doing so.

Ben Franklin wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote: I guess I'm not sure how your "there are way too many people going to law school" thing coexists with your "TLS is full of snobs who wrongly think non-T14s suck" thing. I mean, you're basically asking schools to get more selective.

Because TLSers, in my opinion, wrongly connect unemployment with people who didn't graduate from a top 14 school. Subsequently they tell people that if they can't get into a top 14 school, they should not go to law school at all! Why? Because they won't be able to find a job. Since there is a shortage of jobs, why encourage someone to take on 3x the amount of student loans by going to these more expensive schools? I'd rather be unemployed owing $75k vs. being unemployed and owing $200k.

The bottom line is schools accept way too many people, we know this, but the snobbery comes in when people encourage others to only go to the best law schools in the country, when in reality some of the most prominent attorneys in this country went to schools out of the top 14, and graduating from a T14 doesn't guarantee any more chance of employment vs lower ranked schools. If someone wants to go to a lower ranked school, hats off to them. They are making a wiser decision to take on less debt, and shouldn't be chastised and belittled for doing so.

There is a lot of data that shows this to be wrong.

So Ben Franklin, how does it feel to have founded the university, Penn STTTate, that is now associated with Sandusky?

As far as I am concerned, it feels great to be Bizzy Bone, one-fifth of the grammy award winning legendary group Bone Thugs-N-Harmony. We have sold 40 million albums worldwide. That is how we do in the rap game.

Clearlynotstefan wrote:

Ben Franklin wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote: I guess I'm not sure how your "there are way too many people going to law school" thing coexists with your "TLS is full of snobs who wrongly think non-T14s suck" thing. I mean, you're basically asking schools to get more selective.

Because TLSers, in my opinion, wrongly connect unemployment with people who didn't graduate from a top 14 school. Subsequently they tell people that if they can't get into a top 14 school, they should not go to law school at all! Why? Because they won't be able to find a job. Since there is a shortage of jobs, why encourage someone to take on 3x the amount of student loans by going to these more expensive schools? I'd rather be unemployed owing $75k vs. being unemployed and owing $200k.

The bottom line is schools accept way too many people, we know this, but the snobbery comes in when people encourage others to only go to the best law schools in the country, when in reality some of the most prominent attorneys in this country went to schools out of the top 14, and graduating from a T14 doesn't guarantee any more chance of employment vs lower ranked schools. If someone wants to go to a lower ranked school, hats off to them. They are making a wiser decision to take on less debt, and shouldn't be chastised and belittled for doing so.

There is a lot of data that shows this to be wrong.

No, there isn't. I said GUARANTEE any more chance of employment, which no school can do. Top ranked schools might have a higher proportion of graduates employed, but this is by no means guaranteed. Bottom line is you run the risk of being unemployed 9 mos out of graduation no matter where you go, and where you get your JD from can never GUARANTEE employment.

Ben Franklin wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote: I guess I'm not sure how your "there are way too many people going to law school" thing coexists with your "TLS is full of snobs who wrongly think non-T14s suck" thing. I mean, you're basically asking schools to get more selective.

Because TLSers, in my opinion, wrongly connect unemployment with people who didn't graduate from a top 14 school. Subsequently they tell people that if they can't get into a top 14 school, they should not go to law school at all! Why? Because they won't be able to find a job. Since there is a shortage of jobs, why encourage someone to take on 3x the amount of student loans by going to these more expensive schools? I'd rather be unemployed owing $75k vs. being unemployed and owing $200k.

The bottom line is schools accept way too many people, we know this, but the snobbery comes in when people encourage others to only go to the best law schools in the country, when in reality some of the most prominent attorneys in this country went to schools out of the top 14, and graduating from a T14 doesn't guarantee any more chance of employment vs lower ranked schools. If someone wants to go to a lower ranked school, hats off to them. They are making a wiser decision to take on less debt, and shouldn't be chastised and belittled for doing so.

No one has said to go into more debt than necessary. Less debt is good. But you still need to get a job that will service your debt. These jobs hire primarily from top schools so your chances of getting one is greatly increased. You can not legitimately claim this isn't true.

My solution would be for schools to lower tuition drastically. I know this is not going to happen. But if people weren't required to pay a fortune to go, based in a large part on false employment expectations spread by a schools for decades, then the debt slavery wouldn't be an issue. Even if debt were dischargable in bankruptcy after a reasonable time period, it would be ok. The cost makes the risk of not getting a job too high.

Edit: Christ is Ben Franklin an 0L? Why am I even engaging in this?

,

Clearlynotstefan wrote:

Ben Franklin wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote: I guess I'm not sure how your "there are way too many people going to law school" thing coexists with your "TLS is full of snobs who wrongly think non-T14s suck" thing. I mean, you're basically asking schools to get more selective.

Because TLSers, in my opinion, wrongly connect unemployment with people who didn't graduate from a top 14 school. Subsequently they tell people that if they can't get into a top 14 school, they should not go to law school at all! Why? Because they won't be able to find a job. Since there is a shortage of jobs, why encourage someone to take on 3x the amount of student loans by going to these more expensive schools? I'd rather be unemployed owing $75k vs. being unemployed and owing $200k.

The bottom line is schools accept way too many people, we know this, but the snobbery comes in when people encourage others to only go to the best law schools in the country, when in reality some of the most prominent attorneys in this country went to schools out of the top 14, and graduating from a T14 doesn't guarantee any more chance of employment vs lower ranked schools. If someone wants to go to a lower ranked school, hats off to them. They are making a wiser decision to take on less debt, and shouldn't be chastised and belittled for doing so.

There is a lot of data that shows this to be wrong.

I think Ben Franklin was trying to say graduating from a T14 doesn't guarantee employment over a lower ranked school.


If that was not what Ben Franklin meant, then I disagree with him. Certainly it does guarantee more chances of employment because more firms will be at OCIs at a t14 than a nont14 generally speaking.