Top Law Schools

lawman84 wrote:

Catsinthebag wrote:

lawman84 wrote:

Catsinthebag wrote:Look out now, here's some nuance, because on the other hand, if you're worth getting hired with a law degree, you're going to be hired. If not, you whine on these boards about how nobody should go to law school.

There's really no nuance to what you're saying. It's simply insulting conjecture. But you can go on thinking every law student who is worth being hired gets a real legal job if it helps you sleep better at night. However, I recommend you meet some of the people working as contract attorneys if you truly believe this.

Despite your mischaracterization, I'll take it every day over the self-victimization that's running rampant in this and other threads.

I'm actually not seeing any self-victimization here. I'm seeing people warning the OP not to go to a law school with poor job statistics (American). I'd call that good advice.

If you're good, you find work.

Anyone can practice international law, just file amicus briefs

Catsinthebag wrote:

lawman84 wrote:

Catsinthebag wrote:

lawman84 wrote:

Catsinthebag wrote:Look out now, here's some nuance, because on the other hand, if you're worth getting hired with a law degree, you're going to be hired. If not, you whine on these boards about how nobody should go to law school.

There's really no nuance to what you're saying. It's simply insulting conjecture. But you can go on thinking every law student who is worth being hired gets a real legal job if it helps you sleep better at night. However, I recommend you meet some of the people working as contract attorneys if you truly believe this.

Despite your mischaracterization, I'll take it every day over the self-victimization that's running rampant in this and other threads.

I'm actually not seeing any self-victimization here. I'm seeing people warning the OP not to go to a law school with poor job statistics (American). I'd call that good advice.

If you're good, you find work.

This is way simplistic, and insulting to the people struggling to find work. Probably one of the biggest problems with this idea is that you can't show you're good unless you get a job, particularly because previous experience doesn't usually translate directly into law.

Catsinthebag wrote: If you're good, you find work.

Why do you think so many American grads are not good?

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

Catsinthebag wrote:

lawman84 wrote:

Catsinthebag wrote:

lawman84 wrote:

Catsinthebag wrote:Look out now, here's some nuance, because on the other hand, if you're worth getting hired with a law degree, you're going to be hired. If not, you whine on these boards about how nobody should go to law school.

There's really no nuance to what you're saying. It's simply insulting conjecture. But you can go on thinking every law student who is worth being hired gets a real legal job if it helps you sleep better at night. However, I recommend you meet some of the people working as contract attorneys if you truly believe this.

Despite your mischaracterization, I'll take it every day over the self-victimization that's running rampant in this and other threads.

I'm actually not seeing any self-victimization here. I'm seeing people warning the OP not to go to a law school with poor job statistics (American). I'd call that good advice.

If you're good, you find work.

This is way simplistic, and insulting to the people struggling to find work. Probably one of the biggest problems with this idea is that you can't show you're good unless you get a job, particularly because previous experience doesn't usually translate directly into law.

Well, of course It's simplistic. I've learned to meet people where they're at. It's a fifth grader / Donald Trump fan level of discourse in these parts. Not talking about you here, by the way. Your criticisms are fair, inoffensive, and based on something other than what some law bro saw another law bro post so gotta be true!

What's offensive is a) a group of largely nameless/faceless know-nothings attacking a school based in large part on a ranking system they simultaneously argue is flawed or corrupt or irrelevant or whatever suits their interest in bringing others down at that particular time; and b) even at 50-some percent employment, that's still 600-700 people who went and got jobs, so how is it okay to cut down their various levels of skills and abilities?

Your last part only proves my point. A student has ample opportunity to Demonstrate competency through summer and/or semester in/externships. If one isn't aware enough or able to walk out of there at the end with least one writing sample and a few talking points to use in subsequent interviews, that person doesn't deserve much sympathy.

Just as importantly as writing samples (and thia further proves my point) is you're supposed to make connections with your colleagues / supervisors during those employment opportunities. Find a mentor. That will lead to a job as often or more often than your writing sample.

Which of course brings us to the final point / harsh reality these sniffling whiners don't understand or can't emotionally handle. No firm, agency, etc owes you a damn thing. Grow up. If you go to a law school not "ranked" as highly as those the law bros on the InterWebz fetishize in some sick ritual of self stimulation or self flagellation depending on their own educational background, you either hustle and get what you want out of school and life or you amass hundreds of posts around here flaming me.

End of the day, choice is yours and this is life.

You're missing the point. It's not about rankings. No one cares what American is ranked, except to the extent that people feel its ranking suggests to people it's a better option than it is. It's about employment opportunities and cost. If you're fine with both of those things, that's great. There are reasons why not everyone would be.

And again, your point that people don't get jobs because they're aren't good is unfair. Some people who don't get jobs do so because they're not good. But plenty of people who are good - or just as good as people who do get jobs - don't get jobs because there's an over supply of lawyers and not everyone is going to get a job.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:You're missing the point. It's not about rankings. No one cares what American is ranked, except to the extent that people feel its ranking suggests to people it's a better option than it is. It's about employment opportunities and cost. If you're fine with both of those things, that's great. There are reasons why not everyone would be.

And again, your point that people don't get jobs because they're aren't good is unfair. Some people who don't get jobs do so because they're not good. But plenty of people who are good - or just as good as people who do get jobs - don't get jobs because there's an over supply of lawyers and not everyone is going to get a job.

Yep, this sums it up well. It's market forces (along with American's reputation) that are causing such a high percentage of American grads to be unemployed. A below median American grad could be a far better lawyer than one of the worst students at Harvard but that Harvard student will receive far more opportunities because he or she is at Harvard while that American student may never receive an opportunity.

Catsinthebag wrote:Which of course brings us to the final point / harsh reality these sniffling whiners don't understand or can't emotionally handle. No firm, agency, etc owes you a damn thing. Grow up. If you go to a law school not "ranked" as highly as those the law bros on the InterWebz fetishize in some sick ritual of self stimulation or self flagellation depending on their own educational background, you either hustle and get what you want out of school and life or you amass hundreds of posts around here flaming me.

Gotta chuckle at this desperate superiority shtick. The people "flaming" you aren't unemployed American grads. They're people who have done quite well for themselves. But people need to be warned of the realities of law school and this board never hesitates to do that.

Also, it's not the firm, agency, etc. that owes you anything. It's the law school that owes you good odds of finding a job.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:You're missing the point. It's not about rankings. No one cares what American is ranked, except to the extent that people feel its ranking suggests to people it's a better option than it is. It's about employment opportunities and cost. If you're fine with both of those things, that's great. There are reasons why not everyone would be.

And again, your point that people don't get jobs because they're aren't good is unfair. Some people who don't get jobs do so because they're not good. But plenty of people who are good - or just as good as people who do get jobs - don't get jobs because there's an over supply of lawyers and not everyone is going to get a job.

Fine. Your second paragraph rebuts the argument that AU is such a horrible school.

lawman84 wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:You're missing the point. It's not about rankings. No one cares what American is ranked, except to the extent that people feel its ranking suggests to people it's a better option than it is. It's about employment opportunities and cost. If you're fine with both of those things, that's great. There are reasons why not everyone would be.

And again, your point that people don't get jobs because they're aren't good is unfair. Some people who don't get jobs do so because they're not good. But plenty of people who are good - or just as good as people who do get jobs - don't get jobs because there's an over supply of lawyers and not everyone is going to get a job.

Yep, this sums it up well. It's market forces (along with American's reputation) that are causing such a high percentage of American grads to be unemployed. A below median American grad could be a far better lawyer than one of the worst students at Harvard but that Harvard student will receive far more opportunities because he or she is at Harvard while that American student may never receive an opportunity.

Catsinthebag wrote:Which of course brings us to the final point / harsh reality these sniffling whiners don't understand or can't emotionally handle. No firm, agency, etc owes you a damn thing. Grow up. If you go to a law school not "ranked" as highly as those the law bros on the InterWebz fetishize in some sick ritual of self stimulation or self flagellation depending on their own educational background, you either hustle and get what you want out of school and life or you amass hundreds of posts around here flaming me.

Gotta chuckle at this desperate superiority shtick. The people "flaming" you aren't unemployed American grads. They're people who have done quite well for themselves. But people need to be warned of the realities of law school and this board never hesitates to do that.

Also, it's not the firm, agency, etc. that owes you anything. It's the law school that owes you good odds of finding a job.

My "desperate superiority shtick" is what hardworking people who haven't had and/or don't expect everything handed to them and instant success for going through the motions or instant gratification for accomplishing the bare minimum to qualify call "life." Or perhaps more accurately, "life in the American workforce."

Catsinthebag wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:You're missing the point. It's not about rankings. No one cares what American is ranked, except to the extent that people feel its ranking suggests to people it's a better option than it is. It's about employment opportunities and cost. If you're fine with both of those things, that's great. There are reasons why not everyone would be.

And again, your point that people don't get jobs because they're aren't good is unfair. Some people who don't get jobs do so because they're not good. But plenty of people who are good - or just as good as people who do get jobs - don't get jobs because there's an over supply of lawyers and not everyone is going to get a job.

Fine. Your second paragraph rebuts the argument that AU is such a horrible school.

The argument is that a significant percentage of AU grads end up with poor employment outcomes. Over the past 10 years, the legal job market has changed, resulting in an over supply of lawyers. Is that AU's fault alone? Of course not. But AU has continued to admit large class sizes, and has substantially increased tuition, despite worse outcomes, overall, for its graduates.

I think it's more than fair to criticize AU (and other law schools like it) for continuing to admit a large number of students while charging high tuition. Your argument, I take it, is some version of caveat emptor. Fine. In fact, that's the point of the anti-AU sentiment ITT: to educate prospective "buyers" so that they're sufficiently wary of making the high-risk choice to attend AU.

Catsinthebag wrote:

lawman84 wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:You're missing the point. It's not about rankings. No one cares what American is ranked, except to the extent that people feel its ranking suggests to people it's a better option than it is. It's about employment opportunities and cost. If you're fine with both of those things, that's great. There are reasons why not everyone would be.

And again, your point that people don't get jobs because they're aren't good is unfair. Some people who don't get jobs do so because they're not good. But plenty of people who are good - or just as good as people who do get jobs - don't get jobs because there's an over supply of lawyers and not everyone is going to get a job.

Yep, this sums it up well. It's market forces (along with American's reputation) that are causing such a high percentage of American grads to be unemployed. A below median American grad could be a far better lawyer than one of the worst students at Harvard but that Harvard student will receive far more opportunities because he or she is at Harvard while that American student may never receive an opportunity.

Catsinthebag wrote:Which of course brings us to the final point / harsh reality these sniffling whiners don't understand or can't emotionally handle. No firm, agency, etc owes you a damn thing. Grow up. If you go to a law school not "ranked" as highly as those the law bros on the InterWebz fetishize in some sick ritual of self stimulation or self flagellation depending on their own educational background, you either hustle and get what you want out of school and life or you amass hundreds of posts around here flaming me.

Gotta chuckle at this desperate superiority shtick. The people "flaming" you aren't unemployed American grads. They're people who have done quite well for themselves. But people need to be warned of the realities of law school and this board never hesitates to do that.

Also, it's not the firm, agency, etc. that owes you anything. It's the law school that owes you good odds of finding a job.

My "desperate superiority shtick" is what hardworking people who haven't had and/or don't expect everything handed to them and instant success for going through the motions or instant gratification for accomplishing the bare minimum to qualify call "life." Or perhaps more accurately, "life in the American workforce."

Nah, the desperate superiority shtick was you trying to label every person who challenged your biased viewpoints as unemployed whiners. But it's good to know that you've ignored Nony's point and are continuing to claim that people who can't find jobs out of law school are just not working hard enough. Oh and then there's your justification of "that's life."

I really hope you're just trolling.

Catsinthebag wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:You're missing the point. It's not about rankings. No one cares what American is ranked, except to the extent that people feel its ranking suggests to people it's a better option than it is. It's about employment opportunities and cost. If you're fine with both of those things, that's great. There are reasons why not everyone would be.

And again, your point that people don't get jobs because they're aren't good is unfair. Some people who don't get jobs do so because they're not good. But plenty of people who are good - or just as good as people who do get jobs - don't get jobs because there's an over supply of lawyers and not everyone is going to get a job.

Fine. Your second paragraph rebuts the argument that AU is such a horrible school.

Except that the distribution of lawyers who don't get jobs isn't equal across all law schools. People can and do strike out from any school, but far fewer do at, say, Columbia than at a lot of other schools, including American.

To be fair, I believe American offers a perfectly fine legal education. It's not a horrible school in that respect. But more employers are more willing to hire students from Columbia than American. So it's worse at getting students jobs, for a variety of reasons, many of which can probably be chalked up to elitism or equally invalid things, but that doesn't make them any less real.

And I hate the idea that people who are trying to promote education about the outcomes from different schools are being characterized as expecting everything to be handed to them.

rpupkin wrote:

Catsinthebag wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:You're missing the point. It's not about rankings. No one cares what American is ranked, except to the extent that people feel its ranking suggests to people it's a better option than it is. It's about employment opportunities and cost. If you're fine with both of those things, that's great. There are reasons why not everyone would be.

And again, your point that people don't get jobs because they're aren't good is unfair. Some people who don't get jobs do so because they're not good. But plenty of people who are good - or just as good as people who do get jobs - don't get jobs because there's an over supply of lawyers and not everyone is going to get a job.

Fine. Your second paragraph rebuts the argument that AU is such a horrible school.

The argument is that a significant percentage of AU grads end up with poor employment outcomes. Over the past 10 years, the legal job market has changed, resulting in an over supply of lawyers. Is that AU's fault alone? Of course not. But AU has continued to admit large class sizes, and has substantially increased tuition, despite worse outcomes, overall, for its graduates.

I think it's more than fair to criticize AU (and other law schools like it) for continuing to admit a large number of students while charging high tuition. Your argument, I take it, is some version of caveat emptor. Fine. In fact, that's the point of the anti-AU sentiment ITT: to educate prospective "buyers" so that they're sufficiently wary of making the high-risk choice to attend AU.

Dude, after all this back and forth, you wind up here? If you would've began with something like this (reasonable, grounded in reality, not besmirching an school and/or student body) that would've been fair enough. I won't push back on those arguments. Blanket statements telling people you know one or two data points about (GPA and LSAT) that if they attend this school, they're destined to unemployment forevermore, I will.

This started with OP mentioning AU as an option that existed. A few people shrieked NOOOOO it will ruin your life. Because OP expressed interest in international law, international org work, and DC, I said well same here and it's been good to me, and then:

lawman84 wrote:

Catsinthebag wrote:

lawman84 wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:You're missing the point. It's not about rankings. No one cares what American is ranked, except to the extent that people feel its ranking suggests to people it's a better option than it is. It's about employment opportunities and cost. If you're fine with both of those things, that's great. There are reasons why not everyone would be.

And again, your point that people don't get jobs because they're aren't good is unfair. Some people who don't get jobs do so because they're not good. But plenty of people who are good - or just as good as people who do get jobs - don't get jobs because there's an over supply of lawyers and not everyone is going to get a job.

Yep, this sums it up well. It's market forces (along with American's reputation) that are causing such a high percentage of American grads to be unemployed. A below median American grad could be a far better lawyer than one of the worst students at Harvard but that Harvard student will receive far more opportunities because he or she is at Harvard while that American student may never receive an opportunity.

Catsinthebag wrote:Which of course brings us to the final point / harsh reality these sniffling whiners don't understand or can't emotionally handle. No firm, agency, etc owes you a damn thing. Grow up. If you go to a law school not "ranked" as highly as those the law bros on the InterWebz fetishize in some sick ritual of self stimulation or self flagellation depending on their own educational background, you either hustle and get what you want out of school and life or you amass hundreds of posts around here flaming me.

Gotta chuckle at this desperate superiority shtick. The people "flaming" you aren't unemployed American grads. They're people who have done quite well for themselves. But people need to be warned of the realities of law school and this board never hesitates to do that.

Also, it's not the firm, agency, etc. that owes you anything. It's the law school that owes you good odds of finding a job.

My "desperate superiority shtick" is what hardworking people who haven't had and/or don't expect everything handed to them and instant success for going through the motions or instant gratification for accomplishing the bare minimum to qualify call "life." Or perhaps more accurately, "life in the American workforce."

Nah, the desperate superiority shtick was you trying to label every person who challenged your biased viewpoints as unemployed whiners. But it's good to know that you've ignored Nony's point and are continuing to claim that people who can't find jobs out of law school are just not working hard enough. Oh and then there's your justification of "that's life."

I really hope you're just trolling.

I really hope reality treats you with kid gloves when you finally get acquainted with it.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

Catsinthebag wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:You're missing the point. It's not about rankings. No one cares what American is ranked, except to the extent that people feel its ranking suggests to people it's a better option than it is. It's about employment opportunities and cost. If you're fine with both of those things, that's great. There are reasons why not everyone would be.

And again, your point that people don't get jobs because they're aren't good is unfair. Some people who don't get jobs do so because they're not good. But plenty of people who are good - or just as good as people who do get jobs - don't get jobs because there's an over supply of lawyers and not everyone is going to get a job.

Fine. Your second paragraph rebuts the argument that AU is such a horrible school.

Except that the distribution of lawyers who don't get jobs isn't equal across all law schools. People can and do strike out from any school, but far fewer do at, say, Columbia than at a lot of other schools, including American.

To be fair, I believe American offers a perfectly fine legal education. It's not a horrible school in that respect. But more employers are more willing to hire students from Columbia than American. So it's worse at getting students jobs, for a variety of reasons, many of which can probably be chalked up to elitism or equally invalid things, but that doesn't make them any less real.

And I hate the idea that people who are trying to promote education about the outcomes from different schools are being characterized as expecting everything to be handed to them.

Oh man. C'mon! I agree with you 100% until you contradict it all at the end. Nobody saying anything on here other than perhaps you has said anything resembling promoting education based on outcomes. This conflates the process of education someone with a job recruitment service for one thing. Other than that, if you can see just easily as I can the backwardness, elitism, and Professional self preservation associated with this ranking thing then why perpetuate it by screaming about lives ruined and destined to be jobless?! I'm not saying encourage every Joe to go to any law school. On a case by case basis, though, especially where, like OP, the person expresses interest in something the potential destination school is actually good at, and someone from that school says hey those are my interests and that's my school and I'm doing what you wanna do no problem (nothing more - I never Even said go to AU over UVA), then at least have sense enough to be able to disagree without calling the person all sorts of names and talking about stuff you don't know about (btw, again, not you specifically Anony).

Edit : I beg forgiveness for a few typos above!

Catsinthebag wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

Catsinthebag wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:You're missing the point. It's not about rankings. No one cares what American is ranked, except to the extent that people feel its ranking suggests to people it's a better option than it is. It's about employment opportunities and cost. If you're fine with both of those things, that's great. There are reasons why not everyone would be.

And again, your point that people don't get jobs because they're aren't good is unfair. Some people who don't get jobs do so because they're not good. But plenty of people who are good - or just as good as people who do get jobs - don't get jobs because there's an over supply of lawyers and not everyone is going to get a job.

Fine. Your second paragraph rebuts the argument that AU is such a horrible school.

The argument is that a significant percentage of AU grads end up with poor employment outcomes. Over the past 10 years, the legal job market has changed, resulting in an over supply of lawyers. Is that AU's fault alone? Of course not. But AU has continued to admit large class sizes, and has substantially increased tuition, despite worse outcomes, overall, for its graduates.

I think it's more than fair to criticize AU (and other law schools like it) for continuing to admit a large number of students while charging high tuition. Your argument, I take it, is some version of caveat emptor. Fine. In fact, that's the point of the anti-AU sentiment ITT: to educate prospective "buyers" so that they're sufficiently wary of making the high-risk choice to attend AU.

Dude, after all this back and forth, you wind up here? If you would've began with something like this (reasonable, grounded in reality, not besmirching an school and/or student body) that would've been fair enough. I won't push back on those arguments. Blanket statements telling people you know one or two data points about (GPA and LSAT) that if they attend this school, they're destined to unemployment forevermore, I will.

This started with OP mentioning AU as an option that existed. A few people shrieked NOOOOO it will ruin your life. Because OP expressed interest in international law, international org work, and DC, I said well same here and it's been good to me, and then:

Dude. Suggesting to prospective applicants and matriculants that attending American University for law school under any circumstances is a cardinal sin, both on this board and in life. Just stop.

Catsinthebag wrote:Dude, after all this back and forth, you wind up here? If you would've began with something like this (reasonable, grounded in reality, not besmirching an school and/or student body) that would've been fair enough. I won't push back on those arguments. Blanket statements telling people you know one or two data points about (GPA and LSAT) that if they attend this school, they're destined to unemployment forevermore, I will.

This started with OP mentioning AU as an option that existed. A few people shrieked NOOOOO it will ruin your life. Because OP expressed interest in international law, international org work, and DC, I said well same here and it's been good to me, and then:

You mentioned American, not the OP.(unless I missed it) The OP mentioned UVA, GW, and BU.

Catsinthebag wrote:I really hope reality treats you with kid gloves when you finally get acquainted with it.

It never does. But I got lucky and ended up with a good outcome despite not making sound choices prior to law school.

jbagelboy wrote:

Catsinthebag wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

Catsinthebag wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:You're missing the point. It's not about rankings. No one cares what American is ranked, except to the extent that people feel its ranking suggests to people it's a better option than it is. It's about employment opportunities and cost. If you're fine with both of those things, that's great. There are reasons why not everyone would be.

And again, your point that people don't get jobs because they're aren't good is unfair. Some people who don't get jobs do so because they're not good. But plenty of people who are good - or just as good as people who do get jobs - don't get jobs because there's an over supply of lawyers and not everyone is going to get a job.

Fine. Your second paragraph rebuts the argument that AU is such a horrible school.

The argument is that a significant percentage of AU grads end up with poor employment outcomes. Over the past 10 years, the legal job market has changed, resulting in an over supply of lawyers. Is that AU's fault alone? Of course not. But AU has continued to admit large class sizes, and has substantially increased tuition, despite worse outcomes, overall, for its graduates.

I think it's more than fair to criticize AU (and other law schools like it) for continuing to admit a large number of students while charging high tuition. Your argument, I take it, is some version of caveat emptor. Fine. In fact, that's the point of the anti-AU sentiment ITT: to educate prospective "buyers" so that they're sufficiently wary of making the high-risk choice to attend AU.

Dude, after all this back and forth, you wind up here? If you would've began with something like this (reasonable, grounded in reality, not besmirching an school and/or student body) that would've been fair enough. I won't push back on those arguments. Blanket statements telling people you know one or two data points about (GPA and LSAT) that if they attend this school, they're destined to unemployment forevermore, I will.

This started with OP mentioning AU as an option that existed. A few people shrieked NOOOOO it will ruin your life. Because OP expressed interest in international law, international org work, and DC, I said well same here and it's been good to me, and then:

Dude. Suggesting to prospective applicants and matriculants that attending American University for law school under any circumstances is a cardinal sin, both on this board and in life. Just stop.

Gotta love when a relatively innocent but painfully unwitting dolt begins muttering words he heard one time in a movie and then grins with a genuine feeling of accomplishment as he mashes his paw across the mousey to hit submit.

Law school is a job recruitment service. It's a professional program. It's a requirement to get licensed to enter a profession and there's no reason to attend if that's not what you're looking for. For an intellectual experience, go get a PhD in polisci/sociology/philosophy/history or any of the other fields that let you study law as an academic subject.

I'd still like to hear more evidence about how American is a good place for international law. What kinds of international law jobs are recent alumni getting? How many of them get those jobs? What kind of international job do you have lined up (I presume you mean permanent job for after graduation)?

Catsinthebag wrote:Gotta love when a relatively innocent but painfully unwitting dolt begins muttering words he heard one time in a movie and then grins with a genuine feeling of accomplishment as he mashes his paw across the mousey to hit submit.

Well, at least you're self-aware.

rpupkin wrote:

Catsinthebag wrote:Gotta love when a relatively innocent but painfully unwitting dolt begins muttering words he heard one time in a movie and then grins with a genuine feeling of accomplishment as he mashes his paw across the mousey to hit submit.

Well, at least you're self-aware.

Dude's a second semester 1L or a second semester 2L and he's telling freaking Worldtraveler how international law hiring works. He can't answer direct questions. He's defaulting to Holier Than Thou schtick. And you guys are still engaging.

Stop feeding the troll guys

(Don't really though)

Bump