You guys (hibiki, dingbat, and BruceWayne) are rather obviously talking past each other.
dingbat wrote:But if you have a specific location in mind, why create extra work for yourself, why limit your options?
…because the options you're presented aren't equitable.
Moreover, you didn't show that the options are limited. I agree that self selection exists, but the previous assertion was the standard TLS line that it is "easier" to get a job in that market. If all you mean is that the firms come to you, sure, great, that should be obvious.
It seems like you (and people before you) are asserting more. You seem to be claiming that firms would prefer a student from that area over a well-qualified candidate from another T14 outside the area. That seems…odd to me. I was wondering if anyone had some data or even anecdotes
about this. I haven't gone through the law hiring/interview process and you haven't either.
So, I'll repeat what I said above, I'd like some data that shows the "regional school is better even in a major market" statement is valid
. TLS is full of half-truths and untruths. This line just reminds me of Chicago exceptionalism ("Offices all over the country are more likely to hire Chi grads because Chi is smaller and they want students from a diverse group of schools!") or "Sixigan" or other assertions that have turned out laughably wrong.
TL;DR I don't get why TLS makes assertions like this when folks can't/don't prove
what they're saying.
dingbat wrote:Firms have a preference to hire people from a school that's supplied a lot of students to them in the past and has a proven track record.
Beyond that, I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's just creating more work for yourself. If you want to work in a particular market, look for the schools that feed well into that market, because it is the easiest way to get there. Sure, someone from Duke should be able to find a job in California (if they're not too close to the bottom of the class), but it'd require a lot more work than someone at Berkeley.
BruceWayne wrote:Trying to work in a market outside of the region where your school is located, without high grades, is a headache period. Firms are just very accustomed to hiring from a set group of schools (usually in their region) and they don't like going outside of that unless the candidate has stellar credentials. Quite frankly this is true even for people FROM the area where the firm is. I'm not saying that you won't or can't get hired from a firm located out of your school's market. But in this economy it's not a good idea to go into law school planning on that. Firms are just in a mindset right now where they are only trying to hire people who fit the exact mold they are looking for, and who they don't have to go through any extra hurdles/work to hire.
dingbat wrote:you don't need exposure to an echo chamber to be capable of logical deductive reasoning (especially when whatever data is available backs it up)
All hibiki seems to be looking for is data
(anecdotal or otherwise) to support the proposition that firms prefer to (and as a matter of fact do) hire students from law schools in their region over similarly ranked students at similar law schools outside of their region. dingbat, you're treating that claim as a given (e.g., "it's just creating more work for yourself"), but hibiki appears to want that justified in the very first
As for me, I'm inclined to agree
with you, but I'd feel more comfortable placing a higher credence on that proposition being true if there were more supporting it than my mere intuition
. In fact, it may not even be possible in practice for there to be good enough data--due to self-sampling and the general lack of hard data--but then it'd be useful to state that such a claim does not actually turn on data but on intuition/whatever-else-you-call-it.