Here to answer any questions about all things Texas Law

A forum for applicants and admitted students to ask law students and graduates about law school and the practice of law.
utlaw2007
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:49 pm

Re: Here to answer any questions about all things Texas Law

Postby utlaw2007 » Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:41 pm

Those numbers you refer to do not make distinctions among midlaw and smallLaw firms that practice different areas of law. Nor do they make distinctions in pay. You are approaching this as a one size fits all approach. Are you a law student or aspiring law student?
Last edited by utlaw2007 on Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Jeremyl
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:47 am

Re: Here to answer any questions about all things Texas Law

Postby Jeremyl » Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:48 pm

utlaw2007 wrote:Just in case anyone is wondering, SMU Dedman School of Law and the University of Houston Law Center are far superior law schools to Baylor. SMU and U of H teach theory like UT Law as opposed to the blackletter rule of law. There is a HUGE difference. The bar exam is blackletter all the way. In practice, thoery is much more important.


Could you please go into more detail how a theoretical approach prepares a student for practice upon graduation more than a practical education approach? I'm genuinely interested.

utlaw2007
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:49 pm

Re: Here to answer any questions about all things Texas Law

Postby utlaw2007 » Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:49 pm

@Jermyl. You will learn, provided you get to the point of becoming a lawyer, that there are not stats that show hiring practices of law firms that practice different areas or stats that illustrate the curriculum taught at a given law school. If you think that bar passage rate actually has anything to do with the quality of your legal education or law practice against a good lawyer, you are wrong and very unaware of what the profession entails. I'm not saying this to be mean, I'm only saying it because this is truth.

Mal Reynolds
Posts: 12630
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:16 am

Re: Here to answer any questions about all things Texas Law

Postby Mal Reynolds » Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:54 pm

OU is an objectively better school. HTH

Jeremyl
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:47 am

Re: Here to answer any questions about all things Texas Law

Postby Jeremyl » Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:07 am

utlaw2007 wrote:@Jermyl. You will learn, provided you get to the point of becoming a lawyer...


utlaw2007 wrote:Are you a law student or aspiring law student?


You're right I may never become a lawyer. But if i were a ut law student, i would have the same percentage/chance of not getting a full time legal job as much as my chance of getting biglaw

utlaw2007 wrote:If you think that bar passage rate actually has anything to do with the quality of your legal education or law practice against a good lawyer, you are wrong and very unaware of what the profession entails. I'm not saying this to be mean, I'm only saying it because this is truth.


I know you're mad at me for bringing in numbers and facts, but I really would like to hear some explanation for this. I don't want to derail the thread more than I already have, so I'll stop after this. But I would think knowing how to file, research, write an answer/complaint, write a motion, write a brief, serve process, etc would be more beneficial to a new graduate solo than theoretical theory about some obscure point of law

utlaw2007
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:49 pm

Re: Here to answer any questions about all things Texas Law

Postby utlaw2007 » Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:08 am

I'll answer your question if you are generally interested. I do not mean to offend or trash anyone's school. I harbor some resentment towards Baylor for other reasons unrelated to law. But that is another story for another day.

The blackletter approach is good for the less complex areas of law. Bankruptcy is one of them to me. Any administrative law is going to be another one, I assume because I know very little about admin law, that is good for blackletter law. Blackletter approach to teaching law school is a system that teaches rules of law. It focuses on procedure at a basic level. Basically, it teaches you how to hit the ground running a lot more than a theoretical approach.

When a school teaches theory, it teaches the students how to think through the feasibility of all laws. It teaches them how to more harshly critic certain laws. It teaches the students how to better assess whether case law on a given matter is good law that was rightly decided or poor law that was badly decided. Basically, theory teaches one how to compose better arguments for overturning a case with precedent because more attention is paid to those academic issues that may arise. However, theory is rarely needed for many areas of law that happen to be a bit less complex. But those are areas of law that do need to be protected by gate keepers (lawyers) because society needs them to function. The more complex areas of law rely on theory more. Torts and criminal can both can be practiced without an ounce of theory that's used to teach them. However, they can be highly theoretical areas of law.

In my experience as a trial lawyer, I find that a theoretical approach gives one an advantage when applying the law to the facts because it allows for a lawyer to do it in a much more creative way that suits the clients needs better.

That being said, a transactional practice doesn't need theoretical approaches unless there is much research and interpretation of the law that needs to be done. This theoretical approach is one reason why big law firms mainly hire from top law schools. Generally, the better the academic reputation of a school, the more theory is taught. Yale is supposed to be the king of theory. However, Chicago relies on theory a lot, too. All top law schools do, but Chicago and Yale do more.

@Jermyl. Forgive me for my fiery disposition. I apologize if I have offended you in any way.
Last edited by utlaw2007 on Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:38 am, edited 3 times in total.

utlaw2007
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:49 pm

Re: Here to answer any questions about all things Texas Law

Postby utlaw2007 » Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:16 am

I don't have written facts that show that, but I have had discussions with the former dean, now University of Texas president, Bill Powers, career services, and dean of admissions, Monica Ingram. If there has been a dip in the numbers, it's because of the economy which tanked after I graduated. But that is a temporary thing. And I do know the young woman who took my advice and went to UT Law over Vanderbilt Law for this academic school year has received a 1L summer clerkship at BigLaw which is somewhat common at UT Law.
Last edited by utlaw2007 on Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.

utlaw2007
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:49 pm

Re: Here to answer any questions about all things Texas Law

Postby utlaw2007 » Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:32 am

To put it bluntly, blackletter won't teach you how to write a STRONG petition or complaint. It won't teach you how to OBJECT very effectively. It won't teach you how to use the rules of civil procedure to your advantage. It won't teach you how to plead jurisdiction effectively. And if you can't do that, you always run the risk of getting your case dismissed before it gets started. Yes, it'll teach you how to do these things, but it won't teach you how to do these things very well. And if the trial court disagrees with you, blackletter DEFINITELY won't teach you how to effectively argue your case on appeal. That's super important because a good lawyer is ALWAYS going to raise legal issues that may have to be argued on appeal. Learning theory helps with ALL of these things. Learning blackletter law does not.
Last edited by utlaw2007 on Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:29 pm, edited 3 times in total.

utlaw2007
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:49 pm

Re: Here to answer any questions about all things Texas Law

Postby utlaw2007 » Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:55 am

I will also say that the law firm jobs that aren't biglaw jobs that UT Law grads get pay more than Baylor jobs. Look up the median starting salaries for the two schools on any report. You will see that Texas grads get paid more than Baylor law grads. It is not $160,000 or bust. There are still handsome salaries to be made if you don't make a biglaw salary. 120 grand is still a lot of money. Heck, 110 grand is still a lot of money. Baylor grads do not make these salaries to start, and these are not biglaw salaries.
Last edited by utlaw2007 on Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

utlaw2007
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:49 pm

Re: Here to answer any questions about all things Texas Law

Postby utlaw2007 » Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:10 am

You say I didn't back up my facts with stats. Apparently you didn't see my link. I did back it up. Here's the link one more time. Look at Baylor's median salary. Then look at UT's median salary.

Texas Law
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandr ... -law-03155

Baylor Law
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandr ... sity-03148

These numbers are completely different than the numbers you posted. The bad state of the economy is not permanent. The economy cycles. To make a decision about law school based on a snapshot of one or two years is a foolish way to flush money down the toilet.

User avatar
Richie Tenenbaum
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:17 am

Re: Here to answer any questions about all things Texas Law

Postby Richie Tenenbaum » Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:36 am

Jeremyl wrote:I like how you "know" all this stuff and don't back it up. I on the other hand am using facts from neutral third parties, and you think I'm the one that is being irrational? You say Uh and smu run circles around Baylor, and you don't address the FACT that Baylor places only 5% less in full time legal jobs than ut. So what does that mean about uh and smu's relation to ut's full-time legal job numbers, if they run circles around a school that only places 5% less in full time legal jobs than ut?


Hi Jeremyl,

While OP might be too optimistic when it comes to job prospects in general ITE, you need to realize that you don't have much of an argument about how Baylor is only lagging slightly behind UT. UT crushes baylor in terms of placement numbers. I suspect baylor would lose out by a decent margin to both SMU and Houston as well, but you can put together those numbers if you want. Below I've provided some numbers comparing UT and Baylor for class of 2010. I followed Rayiner's format that he's done in another thread* with a slight alteration (instead of only federal courts I did all clerkships since baylor doesn't specify). (If you want to calculate to compare Baylor with SMU and UH, go dig up the placement numbers into 100+ firms and times that by the employment rate and then do the same for clerkship numbers.)

For 2010:
Baylor: 7.20% biglaw (100+ firms) + 4.32% (state+fed clerkships) = 11.52%
UT: 28% biglaw (100+ firms) + 13.26 (state+fed clerkships)= 41.26%

2010 was an awful year in general (and so was 2011). Class of 2012 avoided the brunt of the market collapse and hiring for 2013 seems to have picked up more (assuming no future collapse).

* viewtopic.php?f=1&t=181415

Void
Posts: 857
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:56 am

Re: Here to answer any questions about all things Texas Law

Postby Void » Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:45 am

Question about Texas law: why do you guys seem to enjoy executing people so much? Have you noticed that it doesn't seem to have much of a deterrent effect? Is it like an Old Testament revenge fetish type of a thing? Thanx.

User avatar
Richie Tenenbaum
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:17 am

Re: Here to answer any questions about all things Texas Law

Postby Richie Tenenbaum » Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:48 am

Void wrote:Question about Texas law: why do you guys seem to enjoy executing people so much? Have you noticed that it doesn't seem to have much of a deterrent effect? Is it like an Old Testament revenge fetish type of a thing? Thanx.


I would say it is definitely more influenced by retributivism than by any form of consequentialism.

utlaw2007
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:49 pm

Re: Here to answer any questions about all things Texas Law

Postby utlaw2007 » Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:52 am

For 2010:
Baylor: 7.20% biglaw (100+ firms) + 4.32% (state+fed clerkships) = 11.52%
UT: 28% biglaw (100+ firms) + 13.26 (state+fed clerkships)= 41.26%


@Richie T. Thanks for those numbers. It's like you actually read my mind. I was just coming to my computer to add this info. I always forget about judicial clerkships. I was going to say that you can add another 15% to those numbers because of judicial clerkships that UT Law grads get that Baylor grads don't. Getting these clerkships are more difficult than getting BigLaw offers. So anyone at UT Law who gets one chooses these 2 year clerkships over BigLaw job offers. Many times, getting a clerkship allows for one to get a signing bonus when they accept a BigLaw job offer. Every UT Law grad I have known to get a clerkship has chosen their clerkship over BigLaw temporarily.

Just in the last two years, we have had two grads clerk for the US Supreme Court. I guarantee you that Baylor top grads are nowhere in consideration. Here's the link below about the US Supreme Court clerks out of UT Law for the past two years.

http://www.utexas.edu/law/magazine/2010 ... urt-clerk/

This rate of US Supreme Court clerk placement does not compete with Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Michigan, Chicago, or Columbia, but it certainly competes with Duke, Northwestern, Georgetown, and outdoes Cornell, Penn, and Vanderbilt.

Below, is a list of law schools' US Supreme Court clerk placement through 2000-2010.

http://www.leiterrankings.com/new/2010_ ... ment.shtml
Last edited by utlaw2007 on Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:47 am, edited 5 times in total.

utlaw2007
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:49 pm

Re: Here to answer any questions about all things Texas Law

Postby utlaw2007 » Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:38 am

I just wanted to ask that you guys forgive me for not backing up my assertions with stats. I mainly use my personal experiences and the personal experiences of the many UT Law grads I know since I went there. I do take a peek at stats every now and then. But I have a case load AND a business to run. I don't have time to gather stats and it would be silly for me to try because that is time that needs to be spent doing something else on my cases and business.

All of my cases are difficult. As a practical matter, learning blackletter alone will NOT help you take the cases I have. Every last one of my cases except for two have been cases that were turned down by other attorneys and law firms. Receiving a theoretical legal education from a top school makes that possible to work them. Now they are cases that I can win and possibly receive very large sums of money in the process. And I put emphasis on "I."

The main benefit to theory is that you may have a case with superficially different facts. Learning blackletter will only teach that the respective law that is favorable to your case doesn't apply to your facts. Learning theory helps you to see that although your facts are different superficially, they are conceptually the same as those facts that are applicable to that favorable law for your client. Thus, you can make something out of nothing which I continually do, time and time again, with God's help, of course.
Last edited by utlaw2007 on Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:55 am, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
FlanAl
Posts: 1474
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:53 pm

Re: Here to answer any questions about all things Texas Law

Postby FlanAl » Sun Apr 15, 2012 9:41 am

Do you think you could talk at all about working in the legal field in Texas in general? I've heard a lot about NYC (long hours, so many lawyers that people are dicks because they know they'll never have to see you again, etc. etc.) but not that much about Texas. I'd imagine its better, but maybe thats just wishful thinking.

utlaw2007
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:49 pm

Re: Here to answer any questions about all things Texas Law

Postby utlaw2007 » Sun Apr 15, 2012 3:48 pm

Do you think you could talk at all about working in the legal field in Texas in general? I've heard a lot about NYC (long hours, so many lawyers that people are dicks because they know they'll never have to see you again, etc. etc.) but not that much about Texas. I'd imagine its better, but maybe thats just wishful thinking.


It really depends on the practice area or industry you practice. Many of the Texas based large firms practice law in major construction areas as part of their multi faceted practice. They oversee projects costing hundreds of millions or a few billion dollars. This area of practice is non existent in New York and Chicago. However, securities, are not as big here in Texas as they are in New York. They are there, but not as big, obviously. There are other financial areas that are big here since we have the most fortune 500 companies based here second to New York. IP is big here, but not as large as it is in California. And, of course, oil and gas is HUGE here along with bio science related and hospital issues because we are home to the largest medical center in the world. Every large firm around the country handles mergers and acquisitions. And all of biglaw is national and some international. Sidley Austin (Chicago based biglaw international firm) has finally opened up an office here so they can get in on the action in Texas moreso than they were doing before. My point is that every practice/industry area is different in that regard. It might be a cultural thing based on that region of the country. Everyone is pretty nice here. Not everyone, but many people are in a professional sense, so if you behave rudely, you'll find yourself unable to attract business no matter who you are or what you do. Big firms down here put a LOT of stock in how likable you are. After each OCI interview, there is always a reception. When you work a summer clerkship, it is a chance to not just show the quality of your work, but it's a chance to show how likable you are. If you are an unlikable person, you will NOT get a job here with a big firm. It doesn't matter if you went to Harvard or Yale and graduated top of the class. That's not to say that being a nice guy will get you in at biglaw if you went to a tier 4 law school, because it won't. But you do want to be likable and smart and not just smart.

That being said, that is the culture of biglaw. Working as a trial lawyer around other trial lawyers is a whole different ball game. I currently have a lawsuit pending against a major manufacturer. The lead counsel for them is a very nice guy. But that is not always the case in litigation. Sometimes, lawyers, especially the not so good ones, try to intimidate and be cut throat. I always am nice back because that is how I am. It doesn't matter how intimidating or mean you are because it's not going to win a case for you. Sme of those lawyers don't seem to understand this. But many are nice and professional.

However, family law produces many mean lawyers. Maybe it's because they mainly do many divorces and intense child custody battles. Either way, I hate family law and will NEVER practice it. But that is just my preference.
Last edited by utlaw2007 on Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:51 am, edited 6 times in total.

utlaw2007
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:49 pm

Re: Here to answer any questions about all things Texas Law

Postby utlaw2007 » Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:00 pm

Do you think you could talk at all about working in the legal field in Texas in general? I've heard a lot about NYC (long hours, so many lawyers that people are dicks because they know they'll never have to see you again, etc. etc.) but not that much about Texas. I'd imagine its better, but maybe thats just wishful thinking.


Were you talking about client dispositions? Clients can be demanding. I actually have had to fire a client because that client wasn't professional and was very rude. However, most of my clients are really nice and professional. I can't really comment, in detail, on large corporate clients. If you do go biglaw, you won't ever have to meet these clients unless you make partner one day. I do know that they can be very demanding sometimes.

utlaw2007
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:49 pm

Re: Here to answer any questions about all things Texas Law

Postby utlaw2007 » Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:05 am

This is also an important thing to consider when reviewing placement numbers. Most Texas Law grads would rather stay in Texas, even if that meant taking a firm job that paid considerably lower than a biglaw job out of state. Unlike some other top law school grads, most UT Law grads love Texas and are NOT leaving, myself included! Money goes so much further here because the cost of living is so cheap and because there is no state income tax. You can buy a castle of a house, that looks INCREDIBLY nice, for a fraction of the price of what you would have to pay in New York, Chicago, DC, or California. Houston (4th largest city and 6th largest metro area in US) and Dallas (6th largest city and 4th largest metro area in US) are tremendously large metropolitan areas that have a ton to offer. And Austin is a very popular place to live in it's own right, especially among UT Law grads.

utlaw2007
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:49 pm

Re: Here to answer any questions about all things Texas Law

Postby utlaw2007 » Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:35 am

Here's a blog from a lawyer on the east coast who received a judicial clerkship and is now working biglaw. This blog entry is about his observations that LSAT score has little to do (it matters somewhat, obviously, but not as much as some people here think) with your performance in law school or your practice of law. I'm posting because I agree with him.

http://eastcoastlawyer.blogspot.com/200 ... chool.html

Many prospects on this site put way too much stock in LSAT score when it comes to where they think they might rank in their class. It's totally fine to pay so much attention to the LSAT when attempting to gain admission into an elite law school. But there is only a .4 correlation between first year law school success and GPA with LSAT. So while there is some truth to the LSAT's and GPA's ability to predict, it's far from perfect at .4. I also say this because I saw a few people who scored in the 170 range get outdone, grade wise, by people who scored in the 160 range in school all the time. It's more than just work ethic. It has a little to do with the fact that there is no testing of how well you craft and articulate arguments on the LSAT like there is in law school or actual practice. Also, those little logical reasoning questions are child's play compared to the actual legal concepts and issues that are learned in law school. Also, the LSAT is tightly timed. My brother, who is a licensed psychologist and has his doctorate degree in psychology, says that this tightly timed component takes away some effectiveness of the scores' ability to measure what they purport to measure. I know I was never pressed for time in law school. I know that's a sample size of one so it doesn't mean a whole lot by itself. But for what it's worth, most classmates I knew were never pressed for time on exams, either. And in law practice, you have even more time to think through issues. Sure, you are pressed for time, but not in the same sense you are on a law school exam and even in a smaller sense than what you find on the LSAT.

To make a long story short, while the LSAT does a decent job of testing an applicant on basic skills needed for law school, those skills are still basic and not really analogous to what's needed for law school work and concepts learned. I'm sure this comment may spark a prospective top law school student to respond in opposition to what I say, telling me what law school is like and what the practice of law is like having never experienced both. I refuse to engage in such silly debates. But I don't want people thinking they will waltz into law school because they received a 75th percentile score to the school of their choice and will automatically receive 75th percentile or even median law school grades.

Below is a link to Vanderbilt Law's website that shows, in part, the national viability of each law school. Keep in mind that Texas, Berkeley, Columbia, and NYU, have a high degree of self selection happening. They choose their respective home states because they prefer to live in those states. USC and UCLA have placing power into California, but they don't have national placing power. Look at the "geographic dispersion" graph.

http://law.vanderbilt.edu/prospective-s ... index.aspx

User avatar
fruitoftheloom
Posts: 395
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 10:38 pm

Re: Here to answer any questions about all things Texas Law

Postby fruitoftheloom » Wed Apr 18, 2012 8:24 pm

@UTLaw: I was accepted to U of H with a nice scholarship. How is their reputation in the area? How do you think their placement is? I think I could get into UT if I wait and reapply next year, but I think it would cost substantially more, and I'm not sold on BigLaw.

Also - how is the Houston legal market doing?

(My goal is civil litigation defense/trial lawyer.)

User avatar
spacepenguin
Posts: 533
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:17 am

Re: Here to answer any questions about all things Texas Law

Postby spacepenguin » Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:25 pm

utlaw2007 wrote:
Below is a link to Vanderbilt Law's website that shows, in part, the national viability of each law school. Keep in mind that Texas, Berkeley, Columbia, and NYU, have a high degree of self selection happening. They choose their respective home states because they prefer to live in those states. USC and UCLA have placing power into California, but they don't have national placing power. Look at the "geographic dispersion" graph.

http://law.vanderbilt.edu/prospective-s ... index.aspx


I'm really confused by this argument. Texas, Berkeley, Columbia, and NYU have a high degree of self-selection which limits there geographic dispersion but nonetheless have national placing power? Yet, USC and UCLA, who also have a high degree of self-selection which limits there geographic dispersion don't have national placing power?

Or is your argument simply: Despite self-selection, UT still has strong national placing power relative to other schools that also suffer from self-selection.

utlaw2007
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:49 pm

Re: Here to answer any questions about all things Texas Law

Postby utlaw2007 » Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:48 am

I'm really confused by this argument. Texas, Berkeley, Columbia, and NYU have a high degree of self-selection which limits there geographic dispersion but nonetheless have national placing power? Yet, USC and UCLA, who also have a high degree of self-selection which limits there geographic dispersion don't have national placing power?


Sorry for the confusion. I did not elaborate on USC's and UCLA's degree of placement. Now this is not science, but I have glanced at stats that illustrate that USC and UCLA don't really have national placement power like those other schools. Plus, everyone I know that attended those schools worked biglaw in California, nowhere else. But again, that's just an observation. It's not scientific by any means. Take all the above information with a grain of salt. At some point, you really don't know where self selection ends and hitting a wall when trying to penetrate other markets begins. Texas doesn't have the national placement power like Columbia or NYU. But it does have national placement power. We do have quite a few grads in other major markets. Another observation of mine that is not scientific, I know Texas grads who obtained positions in Boston, New York, and DC. However, I don't know how well they did academically to obtain such positions. Texas mainly suffers from East coast bias. It's the same bias that our cities in Texas suffer from. From my experience, again this is not scientific, I felt that Texas grads had a much easier time penetrating the California market than the Chicago or New York market. And I felt that we had an easier time penetrating New York than Chicago. That was what it was like when I was there. Again, these are just personal observations. But making biglaw in our own Texas market is pretty easy. I don't know how much the bad economy has effected this. But biglaw jobs in the Texas market seem to be pretty obtainable for Texas grads even in this economy.

My cousin attended Harvard Law. He also considered NYU and Columbia because he got into both. Again, this is just an observation, he said he did not want to attend NYU or Columbia because he felt that the degree from those schools would tether someone to New York. I don't know if that's true, that was just an observation. This was some time ago, as well. He probably was comparing NYU's and Columbia's national reach compared to Harvard's and Stanford's. He got in there as well. He ended up choosing Harvard over Stanford.

utlaw2007
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:49 pm

Re: Here to answer any questions about all things Texas Law

Postby utlaw2007 » Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:07 am

Or is your argument simply: Despite self-selection, UT still has strong national placing power relative to other schools that also suffer from self-selection.


I think this is more apt.

The problem is that I really can't comment on how hard the economy has made it on Texas grads to place in very competitive markets. Before, it was fairly easy to go where you wanted to go as long as you made good grades. The few grads we had that attempted to penetrate other markets seem to do so, provided they had the grades to do so. And most everyone around the median got biglaw in Texas and California. But now, I just don't know.

User avatar
Richie Tenenbaum
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:17 am

Re: Here to answer any questions about all things Texas Law

Postby Richie Tenenbaum » Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:21 am

utlaw2007 wrote:
I'm really confused by this argument. Texas, Berkeley, Columbia, and NYU have a high degree of self-selection which limits there geographic dispersion but nonetheless have national placing power? Yet, USC and UCLA, who also have a high degree of self-selection which limits there geographic dispersion don't have national placing power?


Sorry for the confusion. I did not elaborate on USC's and UCLA's degree of placement. Now this is not science, but I have glanced at stats that illustrate that USC and UCLA don't really have national placement power like those other schools. Plus, everyone I know that attended those schools worked biglaw in California, nowhere else. But again, that's just an observation. It's not scientific by any means. Take all the above information with a grain of salt. At some point, you really don't know where self selection ends and hitting a wall when trying to penetrate other markets begins. Texas doesn't have the national placement power like Columbia or NYU. But it does have national placement power. We do have quite a few grads in other major markets. Another observation of mine that is not scientific, I know Texas grads who obtained positions in Boston, New York, and DC. However, I don't know how well they did academically to obtain such positions. Texas mainly suffers from East coast bias. It's the same bias that our cities in Texas suffer from. From my experience, again this is not scientific, I felt that Texas grads had a much easier time penetrating the California market than the Chicago or New York market. And I felt that we had an easier time penetrating New York than Chicago. That was what it was like when I was there. Again, these are just personal observations. But making biglaw in our own Texas market is pretty easy. I don't know how much the bad economy has effected this. But biglaw jobs in the Texas market seem to be pretty obtainable for Texas grads even in this economy.

My cousin attended Harvard Law. He also considered NYU and Columbia because he got into both. Again, this is just an observation, he said he did not want to attend NYU or Columbia because he felt that the degree from those schools would tether someone to New York. I don't know if that's true, that was just an observation. This was some time ago, as well. He probably was comparing NYU's and Columbia's national reach compared to Harvard's and Stanford's. He got in there as well. He ended up choosing Harvard over Stanford.


UT, Vandy, and UCLA are peer schools in terms of placement power. None are really more "national" than the others. And none of these schools are as "national" as NYU, Berkeley, or Columbia. That said, the concept of a national school is overrated. Berkeley does better in California than it will do on the east coast. NYU is better at placing grads in NYC than CA.




Return to “Ask a Law Student / Graduate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests