Top Law Schools

Mce252 wrote:I think I've received all the opinion I need for the time being. Thanks for the help. Anecdotal or not, I can fend for myself. Thanks everyone.

K, mwhid.

kalvano wrote:

Mce252 wrote:

How about a nice range?

155-165

Ridiculous concerns about revealing it aside, if it's closer to the upper end, you're in at SMU and probably UofH with money.

Houston doesn't give people money anymore.

Sorry, saw this late and had to add it in.

TCS wrote: Advocating SMU over any school would be rankings whoring. That was what I was referring to, primarily. Secondarily, I was referring to those who were choosing Houston simply because they understand it to be the highest-ranked school in the regional market... without considering the particular circumstances of this individual.

Really? You would never advocate SMU over Texas Wesleyan School of Law? Oklahoma City University for practicing in the metroplex? Your logic: it confuses me.

Even when "considering the particular circumstances of this individual," UH is the right choice. Anecdotally, picking a legal specialty before actually going to law school is like expecting your first choice of major subject in undergrad to be what you end up getting a degree in. Does it happen? Sure. Is it a safe bet? Hardly.

patrickd139 wrote:

TCS wrote: Advocating SMU over any school would be rankings whoring. That was what I was referring to, primarily. Secondarily, I was referring to those who were choosing Houston simply because they understand it to be the highest-ranked school in the regional market... without considering the particular circumstances of this individual.

Really? You would never advocate SMU over Texas Wesleyan School of Law? Oklahoma City University for practicing in the metroplex? Your logic: it confuses me.

Advocating SMU over any school in question on this thread, for the OP's objective would probably be an opinion based on rankings whoring. Thanks for misinterpreting a sentence that a five year old could have worked out the meaning of. I had no idea you'd already passed the bar.

Even when "considering the particular circumstances of this individual," UH is the right choice. Anecdotally, picking a legal specialty before actually going to law school is like expecting your first choice of major subject in undergrad to be what you end up getting a degree in. Does it happen? Sure. Is it a safe bet? Hardly.

I'm sorry that you have a B.A. in English. You're going to law school; it's OK now.

TCS wrote:

patrickd139 wrote:

TCS wrote: Advocating SMU over any school would be rankings whoring. That was what I was referring to, primarily. Secondarily, I was referring to those who were choosing Houston simply because they understand it to be the highest-ranked school in the regional market... without considering the particular circumstances of this individual.

Really? You would never advocate SMU over Texas Wesleyan School of Law? Oklahoma City University for practicing in the metroplex? Your logic: it confuses me.

Advocating SMU over any school in question on this thread, for the OP's objective would probably be an opinion based on rankings whoring. Thanks for misinterpreting a sentence that a five year old could have worked out the meaning of. I had no idea you'd already passed the bar.

Even when "considering the particular circumstances of this individual," UH is the right choice. Anecdotally, picking a legal specialty before actually going to law school is like expecting your first choice of major subject in undergrad to be what you end up getting a degree in. Does it happen? Sure. Is it a safe bet? Hardly.

I'm sorry that you have a B.A. in English. You're going to law school; it's OK now.

1) You wrote the sentence, buddy. I quoted the entire portion, unedited.
2) Your name-calling and attempts to insult me are a great way to avoid actually responding to the substance of my argument. (It's history, btw. Ass. )
2b) (since this numbering system seems to be your thing; also, where was 2a in your list?) You're advocating the OP turn down a nationally recognized school (UofH), which still places extremely well in the exact job the OP wants, on the whim that the OP (a 0L, for the record) thinks they want to be a prosecutor?

patrickd139 wrote:

TCS wrote:

patrickd139 wrote:

TCS wrote: Advocating SMU over any school would be rankings whoring. That was what I was referring to, primarily. Secondarily, I was referring to those who were choosing Houston simply because they understand it to be the highest-ranked school in the regional market... without considering the particular circumstances of this individual.

Really? You would never advocate SMU over Texas Wesleyan School of Law? Oklahoma City University for practicing in the metroplex? Your logic: it confuses me.

Advocating SMU over any school in question on this thread, for the OP's objective would probably be an opinion based on rankings whoring. Thanks for misinterpreting a sentence that a five year old could have worked out the meaning of. I had no idea you'd already passed the bar.

Even when "considering the particular circumstances of this individual," UH is the right choice. Anecdotally, picking a legal specialty before actually going to law school is like expecting your first choice of major subject in undergrad to be what you end up getting a degree in. Does it happen? Sure. Is it a safe bet? Hardly.

I'm sorry that you have a B.A. in English. You're going to law school; it's OK now.

1) You wrote the sentence, buddy. I quoted the entire portion, unedited.
2) Your name-calling and attempts to insult me are a great way to avoid actually responding to the substance of my argument. (It's history, btw. Ass. )
2b) (since this numbering system seems to be your thing; also, where was 2a in your list?) You're advocating the OP turn down a nationally recognized school (UofH), which still places extremely well in the exact job the OP wants, on the whim that the OP (a 0L, for the record) thinks they want to be a prosecutor?

At no point have I said that UH would be a bad choice. It would be a good, even excellent choice--but based on what the OP wrote, that he wants to be a DA in Houston, I think STCL would give him as good a chance as any school, better even Houston perhaps, to achieve his goals.

Now, if it's a choice between sticker at STCL and a scholly at UH (assuming they ever give a scholarship of more than 2K a semester to anyone ever again), then by all means UH makes more sense. UH's trial advocacy program is not awful... it's just not one of the best in the nation, with a ludicrous record of high finishes in competition, as well as having strong representation in the Harris County DA's office. All things being equal, if I (speaking as the OP) were sure of my career objectives, then I would have to give STCL a fair shake. To this point I have no reason to believe the OP to be delusional.

TCS wrote:At no point have I said that UH would be a bad choice. It would be a good, even excellent choice--but based on what the OP wrote, that he wants to be a DA in Houston, I think STCL would give him as good a chance as any school, better even Houston perhaps, to achieve his goals.

Now, if it's a choice between sticker at STCL and a scholly at UH (assuming they ever give a scholarship of more than 2K a semester to anyone ever again), then by all means UH makes more sense. UH's trial advocacy program is not awful... it's just not one of the best in the nation, with a ludicrous record of high finishes in competition, as well as having strong representation in the Harris County DA's office. All things being equal, if I (speaking as the OP) were sure of my career objectives, then I would have to give STCL a fair shake. To this point I have no reason to believe the OP to be delusional.

Can you justify this position? Because really it sounds like you're being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. There's no reason that I have seen to think that South Texas would do better at placing someone into the Harris County DA than the U of H would. Not only that, but U of H would offer OP other options if prosecutorial work ends up not being their thing, which is a possibility.

Clearly the OP is giving STCL a "fair shake" by seeking opinions on where to go. However, recommending them is a whole different matter than simply evaluating them. Both U of H and STCL are well-represented in the Harris County DA's office, and U of H (as I mentioned earlier) has both clinics and externships that can put you into the Harris County DA's office while you're still in law school, giving OP the chance to get a foot in the door. STCL can at best match that, and given that U of H wins otherwise, it gets the tiebreaker even if STCL has "equal" opportunity with the Harris County DA's office (which, again, I haven't seen evidence of yet).

TCS wrote:Advocating SMU over any school would be rankings whoring. That was what I was referring to, primarily.

I'd advocate SMU if he receives a substantial scholarship, which he will depending on his LSAT. SMU requires a little work to place in Houston, but it's possible. And if SMU will cover 70%-80% of tuition...

kalvano wrote:

TCS wrote:Advocating SMU over any school would be rankings whoring. That was what I was referring to, primarily.

I'd advocate SMU if he receives a substantial scholarship, which he will depending on his LSAT. SMU requires a little work to place in Houston, but it's possible. And if SMU will cover 70%-80% of tuition...

I would agree with this only because OP said he already has a connection with the Harris County DA, which makes being local far less important.

Prosecutors don't make much money. At sticker, I wouldn't attend SMU/Baylor. Your loan repayment will end up being more than your salary.

Prosecutors do OK in Texas in the bigger cities.

kalvano wrote:Prosecutors do OK in Texas in the bigger cities.

+1. Almost $58k starting in Harris County, in fact.
http://app.dao.hctx.net/Documents/Caree ... ngInfo.doc

Brinson wrote:Prosecutors don't make much money. At sticker, I wouldn't attend SMU/Baylor. Your loan repayment will end up being more than your salary.

You do realize what IBR is right?

kalvano wrote:Prosecutors do OK in Texas in the bigger cities.

This is true, if you can get a job there.

vanwinkle wrote:

kalvano wrote:Prosecutors do OK in Texas in the bigger cities.

This is true, if you can get a job there.

It's not a walk in the park, but it's not like going for the New York City's DA office.

kalvano wrote:It's not a walk in the park, but it's not like going for the New York City's DA office.

ITE, with fewer jobs even in the Dallas/Houston markets, it's a lot more competitive than usual. People need to be aware of that. It's a lot harder than it was; being a prosecutor in any big city is decent pay and job stability, and that's attracting a lot of interest that didn't used to be there.

vanwinkle wrote:

kalvano wrote:It's not a walk in the park, but it's not like going for the New York City's DA office.

ITE, with fewer jobs even in the Dallas/Houston markets, it's a lot more competitive than usual. People need to be aware of that. It's a lot harder than it was; being a prosecutor in any big city is decent pay and job stability, and that's attracting a lot of interest that didn't used to be there.

Yes, but you're comparing today's economy with three years from now.

Going to a good school and making grades and doing the right internship, it shouldn't be terribly difficult to get the job. Not saying it will be as easy as slapping down a resume and throwing up your feet, but it's not a far-fetched dream.

kalvano wrote:Yes, but you're comparing today's economy with three years from now.

I don't believe in planning on a rapid recovery. Granted, I'm hoping one happens and believe it's possible things will be that much better in just three years, but that's different from planning on one. Also, this bubble may have changed enough people's minds that even if law firm hiring picks up to old levels there may be more people wanting jobs like this more because of how stable they are and how much easier IBR makes taking them.

TCS wrote:

kalvano wrote:

Mce252 wrote:

How about a nice range?

155-165

Ridiculous concerns about revealing it aside, if it's closer to the upper end, you're in at SMU and probably UofH with money.

Houston doesn't give people money anymore.

Sorry, saw this late and had to add it in.

They gave me 15K per year with a 166, 3.53. I'm taking the June LSAT to see if I can hit 170 and have a shot at getting off the UT waitlist. If no dice, I'll probably go to SMU (22k) per year.

Just for reference, anyone have any decent figures on SMU's big law placement? I hear about it's great placement in Dallas, but what percentages are what talking about here?

Cactus wrote:Just for reference, anyone have any decent figures on SMU's big law placement? I hear about it's great placement in Dallas, but what percentages are what talking about here?

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... oginloop=o

Ranked #26, placing 23%.

kalvano wrote:

Cactus wrote:Just for reference, anyone have any decent figures on SMU's big law placement? I hear about it's great placement in Dallas, but what percentages are what talking about here?

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... oginloop=o

Ranked #26, placing 23%.

Thank you sir. Do you have any knowledge of these mysterious Dallas firms that lie outside of the NLJ250, but still pay big law market starting salary (or close to it) to incoming associates? Total myth, or based in some truth?

Cactus wrote:

kalvano wrote:

Cactus wrote:Just for reference, anyone have any decent figures on SMU's big law placement? I hear about it's great placement in Dallas, but what percentages are what talking about here?

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... oginloop=o

Ranked #26, placing 23%.

Thank you sir. Do you have any knowledge of these mysterious Dallas firms that lie outside of the NLJ250, but still pay big law market starting salary (or close to it) to incoming associates? Total myth, or based in some truth?

There are lots of boutique law firms in Dallas. I don't think you're going to find many paying $160K, but I believe a lot start around $80K - $100K, and that goes a hell of a lot further in Dallas than in most other major cities.

kalvano wrote:

Cactus wrote:

kalvano wrote:

Cactus wrote:Just for reference, anyone have any decent figures on SMU's big law placement? I hear about it's great placement in Dallas, but what percentages are what talking about here?

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... oginloop=o

Ranked #26, placing 23%.

Thank you sir. Do you have any knowledge of these mysterious Dallas firms that lie outside of the NLJ250, but still pay big law market starting salary (or close to it) to incoming associates? Total myth, or based in some truth?

There are lots of boutique law firms in Dallas. I don't think you're going to find many paying $160K, but I believe a lot start around $80K - $100K, and that goes a hell of a lot further in Dallas than in most other major cities.

Thanks for the reply. I've been trying to get to the bottom of this anomalous notion of high-paying Texas mid law.

High-paying is relative.