bk1 wrote:digifly wrote:Well stated. And I think it's true that an unfortunate amount of people take the LSAT, get a mediocre score, go to a poor school, and end up disappointed. To me it seems that all the hubbub over the depressed legal market really only applies to "those" lawyers. People who get into T14 schools and who graduate in the top 50% of their class have a great shot at employment. Good lawyers will always be needed.
This is a terrible way to look at things. Half of the T14 end up below median, many of them with 3.8+ GPAs and 170+ LSATs. People above median at T14s strike out. "Good lawyer" is also a relatively useless term. Getting a 168 vs a 170 on the LSAT (the difference between UVA and WUSTL) doesn't make you a good lawyer. Getting high grades in law school doesn't make you a good lawyer.
Looking at the situation as if it doesn't apply to you - it only applies to those other people - is ridiculous hubris. Will going to a good school give you a better shot at being employed? Of course, but it isn't even close to a guarantee. Especially once you factor in the amount of debt that many people take out for top schools.
What I meant was this: many firms (it seems) objectively classify students at the top schools and in the tops of their classes as better candidates for employment. They will consider these candidates likely to be "good lawyers." These candidates will always be in demand. This is in response to the "holy shit the market is so saturated" arguments.