vamedic03 wrote:TyrionLannister wrote:utlaw2007 wrote:I will say that schools like South Texas and Baylor have a huge advantage over schools like Yale, Chicago, etc... because Baylor and South Texas actually put an emphasis on trial law. At a top law school, trial law is a huge after thought. In that sense, I will admit that South Texas and Baylor trial lawyers would run circles around a Harvard or Stanford grad who ends up doing litigation after having never done it in school. And this advantage is kept throughout one's entire career. It just is. I'm partnered with a South Texas trial lawyer on a products liability case and he is very good. I also have a high school classmate that went to South Texas, and he's also very good. I'm sure that Baylor grads are very similar.
My thing is that UT Law puts a fair amount of emphasis on trial law for a school ranked as high as it is. Trial law is an after thought at UT Law mostly, just as it is at all the law schools ranked ahead of it. It's an after thought at UT because the school does not highlight it as a point of emphasis. But if a student DECIDES to pursue an education in advocacy at UT, the program is really great.
I have a V15 senior associate contact that brought up that same opinion of Harvard grads. He mentioned how they lack practical skills found in those hired from lower ranked schools. Also said that OCI @ Harvard is different than at other schools. At Harvard, the school selects who interviews with the firm, instead of the firm selecting students to interview. Harvard feels that, since they are Harvard, everyone there is a worthy candidate.
FYI - all the T14, save UVA (which uses a combination of preselects and lottery), use a lottery system for OCI - this isn't unique to Harvard.
Did not know that, thank you. Our conversation was very UCLA/USC-centric, considering that I have two kids and am pretty locked in to the SoCal area.