AngryAvocado wrote: Fark-o-vision wrote:
AngryAvocado wrote:You guys realize that the very notion of the top 14 exists because the schools at the top have remained remarkably consistent over the years, right?
Just making sure.
Thank you for reminding us. Your wisdom is good.
No problem. Now, if you'll pardon my interruption, please continue debating whether Michigan is doomed to TTT oblivion thanks to a struggling "home market" (where it sends a whopping <10% of it's students).
Thank you. Your input was meaningful and welcome.
olanderp wrote:The LA and SF markets are way too small to uphold so many law schools. The problem with the UC law schools is that a lot fewer NYC/DC/Chicago offices recruit from there, which are the major markets, and the top three financial/legal sectors in the U.S. It's a lot harder rising in the corporate world when you have a limited reach to these three markets.
I turned down UCLA/USC with $$ to go elsewhere because of their limited market reach, and I don't regret it one bit. I can't see those schools rising any time soon, especially given how the California markets are right now.
Stanford isn't in the same boat as the UCs, because it's essentially like HY, with wide international reach. A lot of offices from NYC/DC/Chicago that do not recruit at Berkeley/UCLA/USC, recruit at Stanford.
Lol at LA being a small market when it has fewer meaningful law schools competing than Chicago. La: Some Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, USC, Loyola, Pepperdine, Southwestern.
Chicago: Some Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Chicago, Northwestern, DePaul, Loyola, UIUC, Bloomington, et. al. You can keep Chicago. Thanks for your time.