. Forum

[20141023]

.

[lupecuny2015]

Yeah,

With acknowledgement that those numbers as reported by the schools are skewed, I still think there are some pretty reasonable extrapolations that can be made of this data (FYI: good compilation). First off, it seems that the pro quo salary of 160 is fairly steady throughout the top 15 or so. The % of people making it to that median drops slightly, but only variably, amongst the top 20. With that said, I think there are a baseline of ‘top’ law schools that make eligible a student body for 'BigLaw' or just 'BigEmployment'. Further, I contend, that the metrics used by individuals of whom say GULC (for example) is a cow manure settlement are just plain wrong. It’s frankly a matter of the individual; that is to say the ‘top’ law student, not the ‘top’ law school, per se. Granted, there is a networking factor that comes into play when you enter the upper tier, but the university contained on the degree of a former law student is not merely as significant as their ability as an individual and, as an individual to excel at the opportunities that naturally present themselves to all students within all ‘top’ schools. If you go look at some of the ‘top’ law firms, you’ll see a variety of law schools represented; often times you won’t see a majority of any such 'top' school. There is no discrimination one way or another at many of these ‘top’ firms. The fact is, those that are at the very top schools have already groomed themselves for success so it is a mere correlation that more of them are represented in large firms, not a cause. That is to say, they have succeeded already, and will continune to succeed. But if someone who has the numbers of a typical HLS student chooses to goto GULC because they get to go for free, it won't make that big of a difference because they will do what they have done. Conclusively, I remark, be financially wise about your decision and have a plan of action so you can prosper despite what ‘lower tier’ school you may end up at.

[20141023]

.

[PepperJack]

Yes, you're right. The current fed clerkship plus big law statistic LST has seems fine. Maybe add in fellowships for the public service bound as a non-negligible amount of above median students don't want big law.

[NYstate]

Yeah,

With acknowledgement that those numbers as reported by the schools are skewed, I still think there are some pretty reasonable extrapolations that can be made of this data (FYI: good compilation). First off, it seems that the pro quo salary of 160 is fairly steady throughout the top 15 or so. The % of people making it to that median drops slightly, but only variably, amongst the top 20. With that said, I think there are a baseline of ‘top’ law schools that make eligible a student body for 'BigLaw' or just 'BigEmployment'. Further, I contend, that the metrics used by individuals of whom say GULC (for example) is a cow manure settlement are just plain wrong. It’s frankly a matter of the individual; that is to say the ‘top’ law student, not the ‘top’ law school, per se. Granted, there is a networking factor that comes into play when you enter the upper tier, but the university contained on the degree of a former law student is not merely as significant as their ability as an individual and, as an individual to excel at the opportunities that naturally present themselves to all students within all ‘top’ schools. If you go look at some of the ‘top’ law firms, you’ll see a variety of law schools represented; often times you won’t see a majority of any such 'top' school. There is no discrimination one way or another at many of these ‘top’ firms. he fact is, those that are at the very top schools have already groomed themselves for success so it is a mere correlation that more of them are represented in large firms, not a cause. That is to say, they have succeeded already, and will continune to succeed. But if someone who has the numbers of a typical HLS student chooses to goto GULC because they get to go for free, it won't make that big of a difference because they will do what they have done. Conclusively, I remark, be financially wise about your decision and have a plan of action so you can prosper despite what ‘lower tier’ school you may end up at.

What are you talking about? That isn't at all why firms hire from certain schools. I don't understand your point.

[Crowing]

Yeah,

With acknowledgement that those numbers as reported by the schools are skewed, I still think there are some pretty reasonable extrapolations that can be made of this data (FYI: good compilation). First off, it seems that the pro quo salary of 160 is fairly steady throughout the top 15 or so. The % of people making it to that median drops slightly, but only variably, amongst the top 20. With that said, I think there are a baseline of ‘top’ law schools that make eligible a student body for 'BigLaw' or just 'BigEmployment'. Further, I contend, that the metrics used by individuals of whom say GULC (for example) is a cow manure settlement are just plain wrong. It’s frankly a matter of the individual; that is to say the ‘top’ law student, not the ‘top’ law school, per se. Granted, there is a networking factor that comes into play when you enter the upper tier, but the university contained on the degree of a former law student is not merely as significant as their ability as an individual and, as an individual to excel at the opportunities that naturally present themselves to all students within all ‘top’ schools. If you go look at some of the ‘top’ law firms, you’ll see a variety of law schools represented; often times you won’t see a majority of any such 'top' school. There is no discrimination one way or another at many of these ‘top’ firms. he fact is, those that are at the very top schools have already groomed themselves for success so it is a mere correlation that more of them are represented in large firms, not a cause. That is to say, they have succeeded already, and will continune to succeed. But if someone who has the numbers of a typical HLS student chooses to goto GULC because they get to go for free, it won't make that big of a difference because they will do what they have done. Conclusively, I remark, be financially wise about your decision and have a plan of action so you can prosper despite what ‘lower tier’ school you may end up at.

What are you talking about? That isn't at all why firms hire from certain schools. I don't understand your point.

Yeah I don't understand that at all. Where is the evidence? If that statement is true then everybody should just go to the T14 that gives them the most money; aka nobody should go to HYS.

[PepperJack]

They hire from top schools because they think the students are smarter there. That's why grades matter. If not then top 11 percent (out of law review) would not beat bottom of the class.