Better to go to tier 1 out of state or tier 3 in state Forum

[dkalinow]

I am from socal and I hope to practice here after law school. Is it more beneficial to attend a tier 1 out of state, even as far as the east coast? Or is it more beneficial to attend a local tier 3? And by beneficial I mean ideal to secure a career after law school. Clearly, it is important to attend the school in the state one wishes to practice, but does a tier 1 look that much better than a tier 3?

Hope this makes sense and thanks for the help.

[zanda]

Generally the answer is to go in state. If we're talking not just T1 but T14 (or 15, or 19, or 10, or 6,or 3... people draw the line at different places) it has the potential to change the calculus a bit, but if we're talking schools in the 30-50 range, usually the answer is to go in state. There are other relevant considerations, like scholarship money, the legal market in that state (including the culture), and how many superior or equivalent law schools there are in the state, but you get the general idea.

[EMZE]

tier 1 is better than tier 3. Graduated from tier 3 schools often still have to fight for jobs in their region, as there are usually many better regional schools in the area.

If you live in the boonies where there is no other better law school for 300 miles and no reasonable expectation that anyone from a tier 1 would go there to practice, you might find work. With that in mind though, if you want a job there must be some kind of a legal market. Otherwise you will probably have to start your own practice doing family law type stuff.

If you live in a major city and want to attend a tier 3 in that city, you are setting yourself up for failure. Prime example would be NYLS. That school is competiting to place graduated with every T14 and Fordham, plus several other better schools in NY.

But there is a big difference between schools even within the tier 1. Going to American is a big risk because there are other much better schools in DC, as well as a legal market that pulls in grads from top schools. And to try and find a job in say California or in the mountain states might prove very challenging.

Where I live (CO), there are 2 local law schools, CU and DU, ranked 47 and 70, respectively. The absence of a legal market that sucks in swarms of graduates from the T14 makes them both decent options for local employment opportunities, and I know many graduated from those schools in desireable jobs both private and government.

So, to really give you a good answer, we would need a little bit more specifics as to the tier 1 and tier 3 you are talking about. Because honestly, the tier 1 you are asking about might not really be a great option either.

[Grizz]

Tier 1 is such a broad categorization. Vanderbilt? Yeah I'd do that. UGA? No. But I wouldn't go to a TTT in general.

[srfngdd6]

.

[NYC Law]

Neither. Retake to get into a better school in state.

[Grizz]

Neither. Retake to get into a better school in state.

TCR. And for Cali I wouldn't go below Davis/Hastings.

[crumpetsandtea]

Neither. Retake to get into a better school in state.

TCR. And for Cali I wouldn't go below Davis/Hastings.

+1.

[romothesavior]

Neither. Retake to get into a better school in state.

TCR. And for Cali I wouldn't go below Davis/Hastings.

Yep, all credited. It really depends on the state. Oversaturated state with a lot of law schools? Go to a tier 1 in-state with money or don't go at all.

IMO, a T3 is only an okay move when 1) you are from the state it is located in, 2) you have a full ride, and 3) the state isn't oversaturated or dominated by better schools.

[CanadianWolf]

Typically the better choice would be the Tier One law school over an in-state Tier Three, but it really depends upon the particular circumstances of your situation. In short, need more information.

P.S. However, with your numbers (3.78/150), the issue is moot as you are not likely to be admitted to any Tier One law school.

[NYC Law]

Neither. Retake to get into a better school in state.

TCR. And for Cali I wouldn't go below Davis/Hastings.

Yep, all credited. It really depends on the state. Oversaturated state with a lot of law schools? Go to a tier 1 in-state with money or don't go at all.

IMO, a T3 is only an okay move when 1) you are from the state it is located in, 2) you have a full ride, and 3) the state isn't oversaturated or dominated by better schools.

I was actually just about to say something along those lines.

A local T3 in Bumfuck, Montana is an okay idea.

But California is the worst possible state for legal employment right now. Berkeley, UCLA, and USC students are struggling right now, so to attempt to find CA employment coming from a T3 or an out of state T1 is a death wish for your career (or you'll just end up accepting the fact you have to work in another region/industry).

[dkalinow]

All of your feedback helps a great deal. I will be retaking the LSAT. Not quite sure how one of you discovered my stats, but I assume you just looked up my past posts and found I did the "What are my chances."

I've been interested in law for a while, however I am a rookie when it comes to understanding law school hierarchy. This is why I ask this question. And NYC Law, I am fully aware that I may need to consider launching in a different region as my passion to be a successful lawyer overwhelms my passion for sunny California. It just seems odd to me to decide, not on a whim, to start off in a region in which you have no familiarity with.

And after I retake my LSAT, which I am pretty confident I will boost up at least 6 points, my best bet is getting into CA Tier 2/3 schools, such as Loyola, Hastings, Chapman, Southwestern, Pepperdine, and maybe USD. For those who wanted specifics, how would these schools compare to Washington and Lee, Emory, Northeastern. Read an article a while back about how out of state CA schools may be more liberal on an applicant's numbers if the applicant is from CA.

Once again, thanks for all the replies.

[dkalinow]

And by comparison between the above schools... it relates to my initial post. How do these schools compare in terms of securing a job on the west coast. Obviously, with the economy and competition, it seems no matter where you go will be difficult.

Thanks again.

[romothesavior]

And by comparison between the above schools... it relates to my initial post. How do these schools compare in terms of securing a job on the west coast. Obviously, with the economy and competition, it seems no matter where you go will be difficult.

Thanks again.

Do not go to any of the schools you just listed, with the exception of possibly Hastings with $$$$. Don't even consider going to Northeastern, Emory, or W&L for Cali. Just a terrible idea all the way around. And those other CA schools you listed are being dominated in the state by dozens of other schools.

[c3pO4]

And by comparison between the above schools... it relates to my initial post. How do these schools compare in terms of securing a job on the west coast. Obviously, with the economy and competition, it seems no matter where you go will be difficult.

Thanks again.

Do not go to any of the schools you just listed, with the exception of possibly Hastings with $$$$. Don't even consider going to Northeastern, Emory, or W&L for Cali. Just a terrible idea all the way around. And those other CA schools you listed are being dominated in the state by dozens of other schools.

Wrong. Emory is OK if you are from California and swing decent grades. 2% of the class ends up finding work on the West Coast, roughly close to the % that enrolls from the west coast.

[romothesavior]

Wrong. Emory is OK if you are from California and swing decent grades. 2% of the class ends up finding work on the West Coast, roughly close to the % that enrolls from the west coast.

Your logic is terrible.

[crumpetsandtea]

Wrong. Emory is OK if you are from California and swing decent grades. 2% of the class ends up finding work on the West Coast, roughly close to the % that enrolls from the west coast.

Your logic is terrible.

[c3pO4]

Wrong. Emory is OK if you are from California and swing decent grades. 2% of the class ends up finding work on the West Coast, roughly close to the % that enrolls from the west coast.

Your logic is terrible.

Look, about 2% of Emory kids are from the West Coast.

About 2% of Emory kids want jobs on the West Coast.

About 2% of Emory kids end up back home on the West Coast.

WTF don't you understand.

edit: In case you decide to ignorantly blast me some more, the 2% who want jobs on the West Coast are generally from there already. FACT not assumption.

[crumpetsandtea]

Wrong. Emory is OK if you are from California and swing decent grades. 2% of the class ends up finding work on the West Coast, roughly close to the % that enrolls from the west coast.

Your logic is terrible.

Look, about 2% of Emory kids are from the West Coast.

About 2% of Emory kids want jobs on the West Coast.

About 2% of Emory kids end up back home on the West Coast.

WTF don't you understand.

Are you seriously this dense?

1) How can you say with confidence that exactly 2% of Emory kids want jobs on the West Coast
2) How is it even logical to assume that just because 2% of kids CAME from the W Coast, the 2% getting jobs there are the same people? It's totally possible that the 2% from the west coast ended up median or below and are now stuck in the South, while 2% of the top quartile of students, all from the south, left their home region to work in Los Angeles or San Francisco in a biglaw firm.

I can't believe I even need to explain that. God help you when you actually get to law school and need to apply your logical skills.

[crumpetsandtea]

edit: In case you decide to ignorantly blast me some more, the 2% who want jobs on the West Coast are generally from there already. FACT not assumption.

LOLOLOL okay I'm convinced you have to be a troll, from this + your other posts.

[c3pO4]

Wrong. Emory is OK if you are from California and swing decent grades. 2% of the class ends up finding work on the West Coast, roughly close to the % that enrolls from the west coast.

Your logic is terrible.

Look, about 2% of Emory kids are from the West Coast.

About 2% of Emory kids want jobs on the West Coast.

About 2% of Emory kids end up back home on the West Coast.

WTF don't you understand.

Are you seriously this dense?

1) How can you say with confidence that exactly 2% of Emory kids want jobs on the West Coast
2) How is it even logical to assume that just because 2% of kids CAME from the W Coast, the 2% getting jobs there are the same people? It's totally possible that the 2% from the west coast ended up median or below and are now stuck in the South, while 2% of the top quartile of students, all from the south, left their home region to work in Los Angeles or San Francisco in a biglaw firm.

I can't believe I even need to explain that. God help you when you actually get to law school and need to apply your logical skills.

Maybe because I talked to OCS about it? Jeez. They have stats on who looks for jobs where, and where they end up, and where they are from.

Nice insult at the end, but I'm already in LS and doing just fine, thank you.

Sure what you said is possible but that's not how it works. Only way you can say I'm wrong is if you think OCS lied.

[romothesavior]

Wrong. Emory is OK if you are from California and swing decent grades. 2% of the class ends up finding work on the West Coast, roughly close to the % that enrolls from the west coast.

Your logic is terrible.

Look, about 2% of Emory kids are from the West Coast.

About 2% of Emory kids want jobs on the West Coast.

About 2% of Emory kids end up back home on the West Coast.

WTF don't you understand.

edit: In case you decide to ignorantly blast me some more, the 2% who want jobs on the West Coast are generally from there already. FACT not assumption.

I can guaran-frickin-tee you that far more than 2% of Emory's class wants to end up on the West Coast.

Also, your logic still sucks. And you suck.

[c3pO4]

Wrong. Emory is OK if you are from California and swing decent grades. 2% of the class ends up finding work on the West Coast, roughly close to the % that enrolls from the west coast.

Your logic is terrible.

Look, about 2% of Emory kids are from the West Coast.

About 2% of Emory kids want jobs on the West Coast.

About 2% of Emory kids end up back home on the West Coast.

WTF don't you understand.

edit: In case you decide to ignorantly blast me some more, the 2% who want jobs on the West Coast are generally from there already. FACT not assumption.

I can guaran-frickin-tee you that far more than 2% of Emory's class wants to end up on the West Coast.

Also, your logic still sucks. And you suck.

Ok...

[NYC Law]

Why are you guys still entertaining the troll?

[c3pO4]

Why are you guys still entertaining the troll?

Wutever. Your claim above that aiming for CA from an out of state T1 = kiss career goodbye is wrong, that's all I'm saying. The rumors of Cali's legal market decline are greatly exxagerated. Someone who would've been qualified for a job out of UCLA (actual pre-law school ties) could go to an out of state T1 and it wouldnt negatively affect them so long as their relative GPA ended up the same.