How bad of a choice is going to a T4 law school.. Forum

[rayiner]

A top-4 is generally a good idea. You should be safe out of HYSC even ITE.

[rondemarino]

A top-4 is generally a good idea. You should be safe out of HYSC even ITE.

[de5igual]

A top-4 is generally a good idea. You should be safe out of HYSC even ITE.

ITE? ITE? below median at H and S is already going to be struggling, C is just a death sentence

[Cara]

A top-4 is generally a good idea. You should be safe out of HYSC even ITE.

Rabid Columbia troll.

[You Gotta Have Faith]

She's making $70K? I feel like that is below the poverty line in NYC?

But again, I feel like if people realize they would be saving $30-50K, what other motivation would you need to study hard for the LSAT. The test isn't difficult to do well on and it quite learnable.

I think the LSAT tests if you have the ability to dedicate yourself to something. The fact that you can study for months for one result is similar to law school tests, and the Bar for that matter. Really if you cant commit yourself to doing well on the LSAT, you will probably find law school and practice difficult as well. I really don't think there is any reason to go to a school out of the Top 100, and below 50 in certain situations. There's just no reason to take that kind of risk.

Yikes! In all fairness, the LSAT is a specific type of test that assesses a specific type of thing. Some folks who ace the LSAT could study for years and years and would fail if the entire exam was framed as a series of written arguments.

I often wonder why they don't just nut up and score the writing section. It's a bit unfair to those who have verbal, writing, and arguing strengths but suck at logic games.

70k isn't below the poverty line in NYC!

...Depending on what neighborhood you live in and what your lifestyle is...

I tend to agree with your argument here other than the scoring bit; scoring the writing sample fairly would be tremendously difficult. Different people often write and argue quite effectively... in sometimes very differing ways from each other. How could they go about scoring the section with that in mind? Even on the SAT's decisions to do this, I think, it is flawed in certain ways. Pay attention to grammar? Certainly. But you could have a grammatically perfect piece with certain key words that is a marginal argument. By the same token, someone could make a very effective argument that is far from mistake free.

Logic Games and the Writing Section were, I believe, my strongest points. And I think I benefitted from the writing sample at most of the schools that admitted me too. I'm not a URM and my numbers aren't ridiculously impressive given the places I've gotten into. Even so, I think I'm better off letting the adcomms read my writing sample themselves (the good schools generally do) rather then having them look at a "score" of my writing. Many, with their work load, would be tempted to look at that score without ever reading the piece. How often, for example, do they actually check the LSAT to see which section was your strongest/weakest? I'm sure this ranges from rarely to never.

Many schools look at the writing sample because it is an indicator of what one is capable of when they are writing under the constraint of time. Furthermore, it is the only essay that is 100% guaranteed to have been written by you. It is generally assumed that the personal statement is written by you (and this is the case with me), but there are still the few people for whom there is a great disparity between the personal statement and the writing sample. And the adcomms notice when it happens.

I guess the idea here is that scoring a writing sample creates other problems that I don't want to deal with. I think I actually benefitted from the schools being forced to read my sample rather than look at a score.

[Mark71121]

i am top 25% at t14 with $$$ and i am worried as hell about getting (and keeping) a job after law school. do not go to a t4. things are BRUTAL right now.

[dresden doll]

A top-4 is generally a good idea. You should be safe out of HYSC even ITE.

I like how rayiner tightens the belt each time. T14 used to be okay; then it shrank to T10; then he told me HYSCCN would still do okay; now only HYSC is safe. Soon enough, S and C will drop out of his analysis.

Ah, well, he already doomed me with that last cut off.

[wendyone]

I tend to agree with your argument here other than the scoring bit; scoring the writing sample fairly would be tremendously difficult. Different people often write and argue quite effectively... in sometimes very differing ways from each other. How could they go about scoring the section with that in mind? Even on the SAT's decisions to do this, I think, it is flawed in certain ways. Pay attention to grammar? Certainly. But you could have a grammatically perfect piece with certain key words that is a marginal argument. By the same token, someone could make a very effective argument that is far from mistake free.

Logic Games and the Writing Section were, I believe, my strongest points. And I think I benefitted from the writing sample at most of the schools that admitted me too. I'm not a URM and my numbers aren't ridiculously impressive given the places I've gotten into. Even so, I think I'm better off letting the adcomms read my writing sample themselves (the good schools generally do) rather then having them look at a "score" of my writing. Many, with their work load, would be tempted to look at that score without ever reading the piece. How often, for example, do they actually check the LSAT to see which section was your strongest/weakest? I'm sure this ranges from rarely to never.

Many schools look at the writing sample because it is an indicator of what one is capable of when they are writing under the constraint of time. Furthermore, it is the only essay that is 100% guaranteed to have been written by you. It is generally assumed that the personal statement is written by you (and this is the case with me), but there are still the few people for whom there is a great disparity between the personal statement and the writing sample. And the adcomms notice when it happens.

I guess the idea here is that scoring a writing sample creates other problems that I don't want to deal with. I think I actually benefitted from the schools being forced to read my sample rather than look at a score.

It would definitely be laborious and not really a reasonable expectation, I suppose. It sucks that writing isn't a significant determining factor (even if they scrutinize your sample, they won't even glance at it if your index number doesn't make the cut) considering how highly writing skills are valued in the legal profession.

No test is perfect though. I'm glad they take the writing sample at all

[A'nold]

I know many people who went to Touro and John Marshall which are the bottom schools of the NY and Chicago market respectively. Anecdotely the people who benefited the most are those who often shouldn't have been there in the first place. They typically are only going to a T4 for reasons of cost or geography or b/c they made an impulsive decision instead of doing the research.

For instance, a friend of mine scored 167 went to Touro on a scholarship (wanted to stay close to home, and I did not ask her why she did not go to Hofstra instead) and now has an elder law practice at around 70K. Still, she regrets going to Touro since she feels the degree limits her tremendously. A divorcee' of a successful Doctor who I met at the dentist's office wants to work but still collect her alimony. Solution: get a cheap (b/c of scholarship) degree at John Marshall and work PI in her hometown of Madison WI.

Every other T4 grad I have met hopes to get a local/state gov't job of some sort. None of them has one yet, but they all did internships and all were applying. They struck me as not stupid by any means - but very ordinary blue-collar folk. The first questions I ask myself after talking to a lawyer/law student is "Would I want this person representing me as my lawyer? Can I imagine this guy/gal as a Lawyer?"

I am sorry, the answer for these students is no.

LOL! I am going to a t3 and I am so uncertain as to whether or not I'll be able to represent a client!

[DOS]

I wouldn't necessarily worry. The problem with lower ranked schools is not that the people are 'inferior', but that the admissions process is not a strong screen. Thus the people I have met who go to T3s and T4s vary widely in demeanor, knowledge, interests, backgrounds and goals. So I have found that you have to take it on a case by case basis whether they are good.

Think of it this way, imagining we were talking about accounting. The local business school lets in anybody who possesses certain minimum grades. Since accounting has a core set of non-fudgable skills there are going to be people who get it and some get who do not. So since the only barrier for low ranked schools is the bar exam and most pass that -- So you never know till you talk to people.

[Pearalegal]

Okay so I don't know Wendy that well, but she seems like a fine person, but you talk shit on Ddoll and ESPECIALLY pearalegal and those are fighting words.

WHOOOO

[Advocate]

US News Rankings tend to indicate a school's national reputation. But not all low ranking schools are hopeless. Some of them effectively feed niche markets. For example, Widener, a tier 4 school, seems to be very effective at getting its graduates employed in Delaware. Go to any firm or courthouse in Delaware, and you'll see Widener grads arguing every type of case.

On the other hand, many low ranking schools are in crowded legal markets where their graduates must compete against thousands of higher tier grads. For example, look at the Florida legal market. I imagine the Nova Southeastern grads have a terrible time competing for jobs with Miami, FSU, and Florida graduates (not to mention grads from the other 3-4 rival T3/4 schools in Florida). Anyway, if you must go to a tier 4, do some research and go to one that is at least respected in its home market.

[James Bond]

US News Rankings tend to indicate a school's national reputation. But not all low ranking schools are hopeless. Some of them effectively feed niche markets. For example, Widener, a tier 4 school, seems to be very effective at getting its graduates employed in Delaware. Go to any firm or courthouse in Delaware, and you'll see Widener grads arguing every type of case.

On the other hand, many low ranking schools are in crowded legal markets where their graduates must compete against thousands of higher tier grads. For example, look at the Florida legal market. I imagine the Nova Southeastern grads have a terrible time competing for jobs with Miami, FSU, and Florida graduates (not to mention grads from the other 3-4 rival T3/4 schools in Florida). Anyway, if you must go to a tier 4, do some research and go to one that is at least respected in its home market.

Have you ever seen Widener's facilities outside of Philly? They look like a period piece from the 50's.

[superfrodo]

Thank you, wendyone!!

Give me a freaking break. I know people who went to law schools that weren't even ABA accredited and became very successful in their life and work as lawyers. One is in the process of building a goddamn mansion for himself and his family. Rankings aren't everything. Many T3 and T4 schools have good local job markets. Not to mention I'd much rather go to a school I liked in an area I liked and enjoy myself rather to become a slave to a reputation and a name.

I'm not going to a T1 school (used to be, but isn't anymore), but you can bet your ass that I will be successful after graduation.

Plus Annapolis Group has a shitty survey system anyway, one which they have received criticism for (yes, even from schools like Stanford) for many, many years.

Unless you're looking for a job in big law, going to a t14, or even T1 school isn't that big of a deal. Plus there are plenty of lower ranked state schools with reasonable tuition.

[Advocate]

Thank you, wendyone!!

Unless you're looking for a job in big law, going to a t14, or even T1 school isn't that big of a deal.

Don't overstate the case. Tier 4 schools might not all totally suck, but you should generally go to the most prestigious school that you can. The prestige-mongering is petty, but it has significance to hiring managers, as evidenced by the comparative attendance of law firms (not just the big ones) at OCI programs.

[bumblebeetoona]

US News Rankings tend to indicate a school's national reputation. But not all low ranking schools are hopeless. Some of them effectively feed niche markets. For example, Widener, a tier 4 school, seems to be very effective at getting its graduates employed in Delaware. Go to any firm or courthouse in Delaware, and you'll see Widener grads arguing every type of case.

On the other hand, many low ranking schools are in crowded legal markets where their graduates must compete against thousands of higher tier grads. For example, look at the Florida legal market. I imagine the Nova Southeastern grads have a terrible time competing for jobs with Miami, FSU, and Florida graduates (not to mention grads from the other 3-4 rival T3/4 schools in Florida). Anyway, if you must go to a tier 4, do some research and go to one that is at least respected in its home market.

Have you ever seen Widener's facilities outside of Philly? They look like a period piece from the 50's.

I think Advocate chose a bad example with Widener. But the bolded part of his answer is credited. There are some tier four schools in rural areas that place just fine, as long as you don't plan on moving. Something to think about.

[Cara]

Give me a freaking break. I know people who went to law schools that weren't even ABA accredited and became very successful in their life and work as lawyers.

And I can name billionaires who don't have college degrees. Does it follow that going to college doesn't increase your chances of a well-paying job?

[LawDog3]

Your upbringing, humble or otherwise, is not relevant to your GPA or LSAT, which is how you will get into or be rejected from schools. Additionally, there are schools in between Yale/Harvard and Nova Southeastern University which vary greatly in terms of job prospects.

TITCR.

TITCR? What?!$^&*$^&$(

TINTCR...AT ALL!! TITMRR! This Is The Most Retarded Response. Your roots have everything to do with academic performance and test scores. Only a stupid, elitist spoiled brat would make or believe that statement. Talk about Bevis and Butthead.

[LawDog3]

Give me a freaking break. I know people who went to law schools that weren't even ABA accredited and became very successful in their life and work as lawyers.

And I can name billionaires who don't have college degrees. Does it follow that going to college doesn't increase your chances of a well-paying job?

The answer to that question is obviously "no". But, let us not confuse "sufficient" with "necessary" here, as you appear to be arguing that one needs to attend a top law school in order to reach his goals. A college degree is a sufficient condition for $ucce$$, not a necessary one. And attending a top law school is, similarly, nothing more than a sufficient condition (albeit a highly one) for $ucce$$.

[LawDog3]

You guys read and listen to too much Morse. I'm not buying that argument completely. The firms like the rankings because rankings save them time, effort and money. Recruiters can make what appear to be educated decisions and not have to be accountable for hiring idiots from top schools and missing hidden gems from lower-ranked schools. Part of this equation is sheer laziness and fugality. Like I said, I have seen the stooges Harvard and Penn are turning out...and too many of them are getting their asses kicked in court (by supposedly inferior attorneys, according to the general TLS logic) for this process to be so elitist.

perhaps you could provide a more accurate and cost-beneficial approach to finding the hidden gems and weeding out the idiots?

Correct me if i'm wrong but your entire critique of my argument is one anecdotal case of three lawyers. If you came up with an all-inclusive study or an extensive survey of the effectiveness of trial lawyers (one area of law mind you), and showed that the t14 had minuscule to no advantage post-collegiately then I would be much more persuaded by your proposition.

Ahh...the flaw in your reasoning is that you dismiss, outright, my "unrepresentative sample" simply on the basis that it is unrepresentative. It is an illustration of a general point, i.e., that such scenarios play themselves out every day and everywhere. And besides, I think the elitists who invented, subscribe to, and live and die by "T-14 Theory" (we all know what it's based on, but it has taken on a life of its own) carry the burden of formulating case studies proving that we should have gotten involved in this (arbitrary) mess in the first place.

Harvard is the greatest law school on the planet because...it has always been the greatest law school on the planet, namely because...back when it was the greatest law school on the planet, it was the greatest law school on the planet.

Hence, those who teach at the greatest law school on the planet, which has always been the greatest law school on the planet, namely because...back when it was the greatest law school on the planet, it was the greatest law school on the planet, must be the greatest teachers on the planet.

And those who are taught by those teachers, who must be must be the greatest law teachers on the planet, because they teach at what is the greatest law school on the planet, because it has always been the greatest law school on the planet, namely because...back when it was the greatest law school on the planet, it was the greatest law school on the planet...must be the greatest law students on the planet.

Man, I would have finished my thesis in two days if I could have convinced my research committee that a couple of data points illustrate a trend. I can't wait for law school!

I don't think the Barron is using three attorneys to "prove" his argument or demonstrate a "trend" (he doesn't say that ALL lawyers from these schools suck), I think he merely cites those three lawyers as cases in point that illustrate the ridiculousness of the rankings, etc.

The Harvard thing is cute...a little extreme, but clever. It portrays the self-fullfilling prophesy that arises from the long histories of schools like Harvard. This is a good way of saying that if people stopped buying into these prophesies we would see, once and for all, that schools are not as far apart qualitatively as they are made out to be. I agree with his arguments.

[A'nold]

Give me a freaking break. I know people who went to law schools that weren't even ABA accredited and became very successful in their life and work as lawyers.

And I can name billionaires who don't have college degrees. Does it follow that going to college doesn't increase your chances of a well-paying job?

UGH! No offense, but I hate when people use this example; it has become the cliche' TLS rebuttle to anecdotal evidence of success from lower-ranked schools. Let's put this into perspective: These are not even close to the same thing. I would guarantee you that the % of t3/4 grads that become successful lawyers is MUCH higher (so much higher than it is ridiculous to even muse about) than the % of self-made millionairs/billionaires that don't have a high school diploma.

If you stay in the business long enough, most lawyers make it if they are at all competent from what I have seen.

[LawDog3]

More to consider from Alexander Hamilton, JD

The particular subject matter of the following quote emanates from a slightly off-topic point of reference, but its relevance resides in its response to grading patterns at top schools. I believe Hamilton's arguments support what Z'Barron and I, as well as a few others in this thread, are saying, namely that qualitative differences between schools are grossly exaggerated but have real consequences in the world outside of the sphere of legal education. Those consequences have, in turn, yielded outcomes in the modern era of legal education (as well as the legal profession), that have turned fantasy into reality. This is a self-fulfilling prophesy; it is cyclical and will not be broken until the public finally refuses to buy into it.

The study in question is that of UCLA Law Professor Richard Sander, who posits that Blacks are intellectually overmatched at top law schools, and, thus, would be better-off if not admitted to top schools. Alexander Hamilton (the respondent below) is also critical of studies that bolster such argements with statistical evidence citing Black attrition rates from BigLaw firms.

Again, any discussion of AA would be "off-topic" and should not be injected here. It is simply the context in which Hamilton's comments, which are relevant to the topic at-hand (comparing lower-tiered schools to others) arose.

The problem with this analysis is that the research question is counterintuitive and presupposes that validity of grades as a legitimate predictor of legal knowledge and career trajectory. There are tons of studies that analyze the faulty nature of using GPAs and standardized test scores as valid predictors for career success and competency. Since this study grounds its conclusions on the faulty thesis of grade induced predictors, it highly probably that the merits of its arguments are also faulty. This does not even take into account grade inflation that has been widely reported in the more selective law schools.

The grades argument falters for the Ivies, and other selected law schools are considered because many of them do not assign traditional grades (i.e., A,B, C, D or F) but, instead, Pass or Fail (P/F). Most law firms essentially assume that if you went to Harvard or Yale, you are automatically more competent than someone who went to a lower-tiered law school, or someone whose law school assigned real grades. I know many individuals from the Ivy League who ranked higher in their graduating class, but failed the bar exam several times. Grades give law students, in general, false impressions of themselves.

Likewise many law firms buy into grade-based arguments for minority failure because 1) they themselves were hired under that system; 2) it makes their selection and hiring process easier by requiring less of an investment of time and resources to development more comprehensive hiring strategies, and 3) homo-social reproduction or natural discrimination. By homo-social reproduction, I mean the natural inclination of human beings to reproduce individuals in their image. As a consequence, natural discrimination occurs by partners’ unconscious willingness to promote individuals who resemble their culture’s qualities.

We see this in many more organizations than just law firms. However, a lot of this is grounded in white male privilege that often discriminates against women similarly, which explains why ABA research shows a gap even in the promotion of white women to partner. Hopefully, this critique will add to the rich dialogue surrounding this topic.

— Alexander Hamilton, Ph.D., J.D., M.B.A.

[Cara]

The answer to that question is obviously "no". But, let us not confuse "sufficient" with "necessary" here, as you appear to be arguing that one needs to attend a top law school in order to reach his goals.

No I am not arguing such a ridiculous position. I don't know how you drew that from what I wrote but I guess it gave you an easy strawman to knock down.

What I was responding to by giving that example is the argument that being able to point to outlier results (the rich and successful lawyer who graduated from a non-ABA school) somehow disproves the contention that it is greatly advantageous to attend a T14 over a T4.

If success were simply a matter of personal qualities like drive and determination etc then T4 grads should succeed at the same rate as T14 grads. The fact that they don't leads us to the conclusion that:

- T4 grads are lacking in drive, determination etc; or

- there is an advantage to attending a T14 that is independent of personal qualities.

I believe its the latter. Attending a T4 doesn't guarantee failure nor does attending a T14 guarantee success. What the T14 degree does is greatly increase your prospects of success and avoiding failure.

[D. H2Oman]

Give me a freaking break. I know people who went to law schools that weren't even ABA accredited and became very successful in their life and work as lawyers.

And I can name billionaires who don't have college degrees. Does it follow that going to college doesn't increase your chances of a well-paying job?

UGH! No offense, but I hate when people use this example; it has become the cliche' TLS rebuttle to anecdotal evidence of success from lower-ranked schools. Let's put this into perspective: These are not even close to the same thing. I would guarantee you that the % of t3/4 grads that become successful lawyers is MUCH higher (so much higher than it is ridiculous to even muse about) than the % of self-made millionairs/billionaires that don't have a high school diploma.

If you stay in the business long enough, most lawyers make it if they are at all competent from what I have seen.

Most T4 law grads are not able to "stay in the business" Cara's example is a little over the top as you said, but she is on track, you are not.

We all know people can be successful out of T3/T4 schools. No one is making any sort of valid agruement saying otherwise.

That being said when T3/T4 schools literally produce tens of thousands of new lawyers every single year, the fact that we can find succesful ones, or even many succesful ones does not tell us anything, other than the fact that a T3/T4 legal education doesn't permanetly hanidcap every single graduate to poverty. Big deal, we all know that.

When determining if law school is the right, choice statistics from the aggregate are helpful, random examples are not.

[thiagorocks]

Give me a freaking break. I know people who went to law schools that weren't even ABA accredited and became very successful in their life and work as lawyers.

And I can name billionaires who don't have college degrees. Does it follow that going to college doesn't increase your chances of a well-paying job?

UGH! No offense, but I hate when people use this example; it has become the cliche' TLS rebuttle to anecdotal evidence of success from lower-ranked schools. Let's put this into perspective: These are not even close to the same thing. I would guarantee you that the % of t3/4 grads that become successful lawyers is MUCH higher (so much higher than it is ridiculous to even muse about) than the % of self-made millionairs/billionaires that don't have a high school diploma.

If you stay in the business long enough, most lawyers make it if they are at all competent from what I have seen.

Most T4 law grads are not able to "stay in the business" Cara's example is a little over the top as you said, but she is on track, you are not.

We all know people can be successful out of T3/T4 schools. No one is making any sort of valid agruement saying otherwise.

That being said when T3/T4 schools literally produce tens of thousands of new lawyers every single year, the fact that we can find succesful ones, or even many succesful ones does not tell us anything, other than the fact that a T3/T4 legal education doesn't permanetly hanidcap every single graduate to poverty. Big deal, we all know that.

When determining if law school is the right, choice statistics from the aggregate are helpful, random examples are not.

That’s a plausible rationalization on the theories being illustrated in this topic. Conversely, they both lack vital information and facts that are essential on knowing what the right track, as you said before, may be.

Being that said, I think both theories are flawed unless proven otherwise, by means of more sound information or facts supporting the arguments being displayed on this topic. Therefore, we can further analyze the argument itself and come up with a reasonable explanation and a final decision for the true and only theory or explanation needed for this situation.

If the above is not done properly, we will waste valuable time making myriad theories that may not be right, due to the nature of how human minds can think and predict things incorrectly (a good example of that would be when Bolivia went to war with Chile in the 1870's. They lost their Pacific coastline which I am sure has hurt their economy badly).