DF Thread Forum

[Anonymous User]

My school alone got me like a million lateral interviews, so yeah, it matters.

How do you know that it was your school alone that got you the lateral interviews?

bc i'm unremarkable otherwise

Not to diminish the value of your school—I'm sure it helps—but you don't have to be all that remarkable to get a lateral interview. Or lots of lateral interviews.

i agree, but how do you think they are handed out on first glance?

In the order of stuff that matters, I'd say it goes something like Law Firm You're At > Class Year > Law School > Law School Grades

well, i agree with you on grades.

Is this true even for early laterals?

I am at a "prestigious" firm in NYC, but looking to lateral early. I definitely out performed my grades in terms of landing this job, though.

[Anonymous User]

Look, all of these things are obviously pretty employer-specific. There are definitely employers who care about employee "pedigree" even late into an associate's career. Enough posters have confirmed that on this thread that I think it's now safe to say. There are also definitely employers who never care much about where you went to law school (or who stop caring pretty immediately after a prospective applicant has had a chance to prove herself in the real world). This too has been confirmed. I'm not sure if anyone on this thread has the right perspective to say what the majority approach is--e.g., whether it's most common for employers to care a little or care a very little--and I'm sure that what the majority approach is varies a lot depending on what sort of legal jobs you're looking at. (Although intuitively, it would seem that what an earlier anon advocated -- that as a prospective employee gains more experience, pedigree matters proportionally less -- makes the most sense.)

As a consequence, the "safest" route here is obviously to build the most sterling pedigree possible. That's obviously also not always or even usually going to be the "best" choice--because optimizing job outcomes is not the only consideration for most prospective students. At what point (economically or otherwise) it makes sense to choose the safest rout is a difficult question not posed in this thread (and it's probably impossible to evaluate the impact of later-career pedigree in this choice given the many unknown variables).

For purposes of this thread, though, I think the answer HAS to be that yes, where you went to law school CAN matter even later in your career--but most likely it won't matter nearly as much as other things (such as what you've done in the intervening years).

[Desert Fox]

It's not even employer by employer but interviewer by interviewer. My boss went to a regional public school with a big sports fan network. He'll support his down over HYS every day of the week and three times on Saturday. My midlevel is a striver who went to an elite school, and she'll push for someone with her type of degree.

I wasn't really asking whether it was a good soft factor. But whether its such a bonus that you never have to worry about a high paying job. Which occasionally people say.

[SamuelDanforth]

I wasn't really asking whether it was a good soft factor. But whether its such a bonus that you never have to worry about a high paying job. Which occasionally people say.

The answer to this question is obviously "no", but I don't think it's the right question to ask. Ryan Leaf had so little money by his early thirties that he was forced to rob a Montana house in search of pain killers (apparently). But it would be silly to claim that being the 2nd pick in the NFL draft isn't an excellent path to immense wealth.

The better question is whether HYS is more likely to result in high paying jobs throughout one's working life than other law schools.

And even if they do, on average, one might further ask whether that is due to a selection effect or a treatment effect.

[abl]

I wasn't really asking whether it was a good soft factor. But whether its such a bonus that you never have to worry about a high paying job. Which occasionally people say.

The answer to this question is obviously "no", but I don't think it's the right question to ask. Ryan Leaf had so little money by his early thirties that he was forced to rob a Montana house in search of pain killers (apparently). But it would be silly to claim that being the 2nd pick in the NFL draft isn't an excellent path to immense wealth.

The better question is whether HYS is more likely to result in high paying jobs throughout one's working life than other law schools.

And even if they do, on average, one might further ask whether that is due to a selection effect or a treatment effect.

I agree 100%. (Although, and this is nit-picking, I actually think the question should be whether HYS is more likely to result in *better* jobs over the course of a career -- as the highest paying jobs aren't always the best jobs. It's probably also worth asking: as compared to what? Are we comparing HYS to CCN here, or HYS to "average T14" here, or HYS to "tier-1 schools?")

[Foghornleghorn]

It seems like, to some extent, it will depend on where you fell / what you did. HYS is going to have a much larger presence at CSW WLRK, etc. Attorneys from there tend to have deal sheets that look very attractive for GC track positions/ DOJ / unicornish stuff.

It's not a guarantee, but in terms of legal hunger gamez, the odds seem to play in your favor. Never discount an in-house GC dinging some Yale duffer whose experience amounts to a research fellowship regarding kinship custom regarding divorces in East Timor.