.

[Mack.Hambleton]

the majority of students do not land biglaw from UT, and those who do of course include people who are IP, URM, good work experience etc (ie so you're not safe just because you're in the top 40% or top third).

If you're fine working at a smaller firm or local DA/PD stuff in Texas then go for it, its by far the best school in Texas at least.

If you want to work in biglaw I would definitely not bet three years on my life on a under fifty percent chance of making it (especially compared to the 70%+ lower T14s like duke and cornell place).

[kalvano]

If you're fine working at a smaller firm or local DA/PD stuff in Texas then go for it, its by far the best school in Texas at least.

That's kind of misleading for UT. Your job prospects coming out of UT are much better than that.

[BVest]

You made a good decision. I'd say the same if you'd chosen the other way. And Hambleton's post is misleading to the point of being hogwash.

[edited]

[Mack.Hambleton]

what are all the UT grads in 2-25 size firms, business industry, and govnt doing then?

ETA: UT's BL+FC has been in the low forties for the past few years (though only 31% for c/o 2011), so I'd like to know what other options are available to ~60% of a regional schools class that doesn't get BLFC.

ETA2: 28% of the class is in either the non-employed, school funded, or non bar passage required categories. and this is from c/o 2014 which is probably the best year in recent years

[BVest]

First of all, your implication that URM/IP is going to eat up all the BL slots and bump folks who are in the top of the class out is crap. It doesn't work that way (and the IP folks tend to be close to the top of the class anyway, with some limited exceptions).

As far as what other grads are doing, a significant number of them are in state government (the AG's office alone is about 600-700 attorneys, all in Texas), which is very different from local DA/PD work. Not to mention that you'd be hard-pressed to end up as a PD in this state since we've historically not cared about that (Houston finally opened a PD shop a couple years ago. I think it's one of fewer than 20 in the state; many if not most counties rely on appointed local counsel.) And lumping in all firms from 2-25 attorneys is just ignorant about the differences in work between truly small firms and the small boutiques that tend to fill the upper end of that range.

And LOL at pointing to 2011 data for, well, anything.

[kalvano]

There are multiple small boutique firms in Texas that do fairly high-level work that will only hire or give strong preference to UT grads.

[Tiago Splitter]

There are multiple small boutique firms in Texas that do fairly high-level work that will only hire or give strong preference to UT grads.

That's just such a small portion of the class that I don't think it moves the needle much.

Duke crushes Texas for biglaw. But you've made your decision and kept your debt down so go stomp 1L and you'll be good to go.

[unlicensedpotato]

The Texas people seem to be implying that you should take UT over Cornell or Duke at the same cost. I would not agree with that at all.

I chose UT with a decent scholarship over two of the lower T14s at sticker. It worked out fine for me but the fact is that UT's employment numbers are just not that good and aren't even close to those of the other schools mentioned. UT only becomes a strong choice by comparison once you factor in cost. If COA is close at all, I would take the better school.

As to OP, don't worry though. The ball is totally in your court and people who do well don't have a problem getting big law. Just study hard so you don't leave it up to chance.

[BigZuck]

I think I'm pretty realistic about what the jobs prospects are like out of UT, and I'm a little more aligned with Kalvano and Bvest here

Without thinking about it too deeply, this: http://www.utexas.edu/law/career/prospe ... alary.html
seems pretty good. 87% reporting salary, median of 100K. I'm tired though, maybe there's some flawed reasoning there or manipulative math that I'm missing (the 80+ people in government is kind of shocking to me, no way is that true. Is that including school funded? I'm too lazy to pull up LST right now)

Of course though this is absolutely true:

Duke crushes Texas for biglaw.

All else being equal I'd roll with Duke if I wanted TX big law (and especially big law anywhere else), but that would depend on a bunch of things like cost.

None of this really matters for the OP though of course (but maybe lurkers)

[BigZuck]

The Texas people seem to be implying that you should take UT over Cornell or Duke at the same cost.

eh...like I said I'm tired so maybe I'm the tater tot but I don't think you're utilizing your reading/critical thinking skillz very well right now my man

[Hikikomorist]

.

[BigZuck]

re: your edit I think this is way too much of an overstatement:

people who do well don't have a problem getting big law.

Unless you're defining "well" to be a pretty narrow band of super human law reviewers. People in the top 1/4-1/3 can often struggle. It happens.

[BVest]

The Texas people seem to be implying that you should take UT over Cornell or Duke at the same cost. I would not agree with that at all.

I only said that because OP wants Texas and BL and doesn't yet have Texas ties at all. One can get Texas ties at UT, but not at a school outside Texas. Absent the current scenario, obviously UT vs Duke or Cornell at equal price would not make sense for most.

[unlicensedpotato]

Alright, if I misunderstood what everyone was saying, then I apologize.

This was the sequence of posts I saw (and the general perspective I've heard from everyone at UT for three years): Texas people said to choose UT if you want TX big law -> Hambleton points out that Duke and UT's employment numbers are not even comparable -> Texas people deride his post as "hogwash" and "misleading"

I only wanted to support the point that the employment numbers, if we're accepting BL + FC as the gold standard, are very different. UT at $75k is a great deal. Ties probably do make it a lot easier to land TX big law. But it wasn't really explained that this was why Hambleton's point was wrong for OP (who by the way said that big law was more important than TX big law).

[kalvano]

To be clear, the post I was responding to made it seem like your chances coming from UT aren't great. I am in no way saying UT is better than Duke for Biglaw, merely that going to UT in Texas means you have a good chance at a legal job that isn't bad at all. That doesn't necessarily mean Biglaw, it just means that dismissing UT as bad for Biglaw and saying that you'll only get small firms or DA/PD work otherwise is misleading at best in the tone and implication.

[BigZuck]

Alright, if I misunderstood what everyone was saying, then I apologize.

This was the sequence of posts I saw (and the general perspective I've heard from everyone at UT for three years): Texas people said to choose UT if you want TX big law -> Hambleton points out that Duke and UT's employment numbers are not even comparable -> Texas people deride his post as "hogwash" and "misleading"

I only wanted to support the point that the employment numbers, if we're accepting BL + FC as the gold standard, are very different. UT at $75k is a great deal. Ties probably do make it a lot easier to land TX big law. But it wasn't really explained that this was why Hambleton's point was wrong for OP (who by the way said that big law was more important than TX big law).

Like Kalvano said I don't think you were clearly following the series of posts ITT

The "Best school for 1000 miles, I'm fixinta pick it over Harvard ya'll!!!" refrain you hear IRL is very different from what TLS says about UT (well, one glaring exception of a thread from 2 years ago notwithstanding)

As for the OP- If you don't have ties to TX but for some reason are TX big law or bust then UT for like 80K less makes a lot more sense than Duke to me

(That's not me saying that either decision was a wise one, of course. I'm not touching that)