Question on direction of law school choices. Forum

[timbs4339]

Did you just come here to ask your questions but ignore all of the advice?

If you doubt the people telling you concentrations are useless (again, if that's the case why are you here?), why don't you look at lawschooltransparency.com. If these high-ranking specialties schools were really the go-to place for their respective specialties, don't you think their employment stats would be a little higher? Why does American, #5 in International Law (!!!!!) only put 44% of its graduates into lawyer positions?

According to the illustrious US News and World Report, the top 4 "health care law" specialty schools are:
University of Maryland (Carey)
St. Louis University
Case Western Reserve University
Loyola University Chicago

Does any of this look ok to you?

Even if you're just getting a JD as a "credential" and don't want an attorney position, don't you think you should listen to the people on the forum you came to ask for help? Law school information has come a long way. Don't sit back and take the word of people who haven't even seen a law school since before the bottom fell out of the legal market.

I agree, thanks for calling me out. I just didn't like the way some of it was approached. Also, I haven't focused on top health law programs. I've tried to correlate national rank with the health rank. I was just making the point that these centers exist, where people basically told me I was completely off. Also, yeah I should listen to those in the heat of law school now; however, those who practice law have a good bering on the future potential of a JD and should not be completely written off.

Some of us do practice law and we went through law school during the crisis.

[Pragmatic Gun]

I can understand OP's stubborness. This forum has high snarkiness levels (nothing compared to xoxo, though). However, everyone here really only wants to help you avoid misery, and it seems like you're shocked that what you've been told about law school isn't accurate.

[Ricky-Bobby]

Yeah, no worries OP. TLS as a community can be a little like an emotionally-distant father. Constant berating and sarcasm occasionally give way to genuine, heart-felt advice, and for that you love it. At least until it turns around and calls you an ignorant turd for not hanging the clothes on the line properly and then kicks your dog.

Great community. Just a fantastic place.

Good luck with your school choice.

[sambeber]

For example, the CEO of CVS is a MD/JD.

The CEO of CVS Caremark has neither an MD nor a JD.

[worldtraveler]

The best schools for health law are the same as the best schools for any other law.

[jbagelboy]

The problem is exactly that you've only been talking to people that have been out of school for 10+ years. Ten years ago, people graduating from regional law schools were being hunted down to work in biglaw, tuition was less than half of what it is today, and jobs like the ones you're describing were readily available for people with JD/MDs because both degrees were just so damn flexible.

That said, if you want to be a professional student (which is okay), then make sure you go with as little debt as physically possible. I would definitely do UM on a full ride, though Boston University and GWU offer full rides to their accepted ED applicants as well. I think you can actually have your cake and eat it too if you ED to GWU PT for the full ride and work during the day in DC.

Hunted down is a bit of an exaggeration, even in boom; top firms always catered to the elite schools (which is why partner numbers are still hierarchical, albeit less so). But GWU certainly would have been a relatively safe choice for a career in government or biglaw in the past.

[midwest17]

Schools talk about specializations because it's an effective way to market themselves. It doesn't mean that there will be an actual difference in your education.

Your analogy between specializations and undergraduate majors is illuminating, because a law school education is very different than a bachelors (or a medical degree). You are not learning specific laws that will impact your career, you are learning methods that will be useful in all fields. Some schools are honest about that, some try to sell the specialities crap.

Now, all else equal, is it better to learn those methods in classes relevant to your interests? Sure. You'll be more engaged and will get better grades, and you might pick up a little helpful black letter law along the way. But if you're going to make a decision on that basis you need a lot more information: how many electives do you get to take, and what specific courses are available at X that are not available at Y? "Georgetown specializes in health law" is not a helpful statement, which is why people have been responding to you the way they have.

[shcmike]

Thank you guys for clearing that up for me. I guess I am not used to the marketing ploys of law schools. I have heard that it is a business, which could equate to some of the poor ability to acquire employment upon completion. Medicine is very different in that regard. One thing I will say, is that I think there is a disconnect here with some of my motives. I am not interested in working with "big law", or obtaining a career upon completion of law school. I am going to be a physician first and foremost. I would be an MD 1st, and JD 2nd. As I have stated, it is more for credentials and the ability to understand law to shape policy. My questions lean more toward that, in terms of my JD training. Would a T14 still be my best bet for shaping policy, would a "health concentration" JD be more beneficial, or would any law school suffice? I know in medicine, name carries a lot of weight in terms of ability to get jobs in academics and career advancement. Is the same true for law? If a Yale JD and UAlabama were competing, would the Yale person take precedence because of rank and prestige of the school or is law based on ability to perform in the courtroom, firm, etc.? Also, with the same question, would presage of law degree have any bearing on how well you can perform in shaping policy? I know with health policy, it can be difficult if you lack an MD. My colleague found that out the hard way, and decided to get the MD to be more effective. I am unsure if national recognition of your degree has any bearing on how colleagues view you in law, especially on a national scale.

I honestly am pretty oblivious to how law as a career works, as some of you point out. I honestly need to gain as much knowledge as I can, because it is difficult to find MD/JDs to speak to. However, even more difficult, is finding MD/JDs that meaningfully marry the two degrees. Thank you all for the posts.

[HRomanus]

I am going to be a physician first and foremost. I would be an MD 1st, and JD 2nd. As I have stated, it is more for credentials and the ability to understand law to shape policy. [...] ...because it is difficult to find MD/JDs to speak to. However, even more difficult, is finding MD/JDs that meaningfully marry the two degrees.

This being true, I still don't understand why would you waste time and money on a JD. The benefits are so marginal and unlikely. You are in a very desirable career track as a physician.

[NYSprague]

Law school is completely different than medical school. You don't leave law school knowing how to create policy.You don't learn the skills you need, unlike medical school.

[midwest17]

Your best bet is to get the MD and start working. If you hit an actual, real career hurdle that the JD would help you overcome, you can go back to law school at that point.

[jbagelboy]

Thank you guys for clearing that up for me. I guess I am not used to the marketing ploys of law schools. I have heard that it is a business, which could equate to some of the poor ability to acquire employment upon completion. Medicine is very different in that regard. One thing I will say, is that I think there is a disconnect here with some of my motives. I am not interested in working with "big law", or obtaining a career upon completion of law school. I am going to be a physician first and foremost. I would be an MD 1st, and JD 2nd. As I have stated, it is more for credentials and the ability to understand law to shape policy. My questions lean more toward that, in terms of my JD training. Would a T14 still be my best bet for shaping policy, would a "health concentration" JD be more beneficial, or would any law school suffice? I know in medicine, name carries a lot of weight in terms of ability to get jobs in academics and career advancement. Is the same true for law? If a Yale JD and UAlabama were competing, would the Yale person take precedence because of rank and prestige of the school or is law based on ability to perform in the courtroom, firm, etc.? Also, with the same question, would presage of law degree have any bearing on how well you can perform in shaping policy? I know with health policy, it can be difficult if you lack an MD. My colleague found that out the hard way, and decided to get the MD to be more effective. I am unsure if national recognition of your degree has any bearing on how colleagues view you in law, especially on a national scale.

I honestly am pretty oblivious to how law as a career works, as some of you point out. I honestly need to gain as much knowledge as I can, because it is difficult to find MD/JDs to speak to. However, even more difficult, is finding MD/JDs that meaningfully marry the two degrees. Thank you all for the posts.

Law is more prestige driven than medicine. The name/grades combination is 90% of the gig. The Yale JD wins every time, not because they are "better in the courtroom" - few entry level attorneys ever see or have ever seen court, and I wouldn't be surprised if local schools actually produced better courtroom lawyers since many yale students don't even aim to practice. For your goals, an elite JD can still serve as useful signaling. There are few professions more conscious of pedigree than law.

I'm still doubtful of the value of the degree at all for your career (especially if you're taking out any loans for it - if this is a Buster from AD type situation then carry on). Nonetheless, for policy and gov't work, a T14 JD would at least provide a mild boost. Again this is not related to what you learned at one school vis a vis another or any "centers" (lol), it's about the name signaling, the alumni network, your professors, and other resources that you're paying $55k/year to gain some access to.

[apples89]

Thank you guys for clearing that up for me. I guess I am not used to the marketing ploys of law schools. I have heard that it is a business, which could equate to some of the poor ability to acquire employment upon completion. Medicine is very different in that regard. One thing I will say, is that I think there is a disconnect here with some of my motives. I am not interested in working with "big law", or obtaining a career upon completion of law school. I am going to be a physician first and foremost. I would be an MD 1st, and JD 2nd. As I have stated, it is more for credentials and the ability to understand law to shape policy. My questions lean more toward that, in terms of my JD training. Would a T14 still be my best bet for shaping policy, would a "health concentration" JD be more beneficial, or would any law school suffice? I know in medicine, name carries a lot of weight in terms of ability to get jobs in academics and career advancement. Is the same true for law? If a Yale JD and UAlabama were competing, would the Yale person take precedence because of rank and prestige of the school or is law based on ability to perform in the courtroom, firm, etc.? Also, with the same question, would presage of law degree have any bearing on how well you can perform in shaping policy? I know with health policy, it can be difficult if you lack an MD. My colleague found that out the hard way, and decided to get the MD to be more effective. I am unsure if national recognition of your degree has any bearing on how colleagues view you in law, especially on a national scale.

I honestly am pretty oblivious to how law as a career works, as some of you point out. I honestly need to gain as much knowledge as I can, because it is difficult to find MD/JDs to speak to. However, even more difficult, is finding MD/JDs that meaningfully marry the two degrees. Thank you all for the posts.

I know Duke actually offers a joint MD/JD program for people like you. However, I do not know if those will help you get into a high enough position to make a difference in policy right after graduation.

[shcmike]

Schools talk about specializations because it's an effective way to market themselves. It doesn't mean that there will be an actual difference in your education.

Your analogy between specializations and undergraduate majors is illuminating, because a law school education is very different than a bachelors (or a medical degree). You are not learning specific laws that will impact your career, you are learning methods that will be useful in all fields. Some schools are honest about that, some try to sell the specialities crap.

Now, all else equal, is it better to learn those methods in classes relevant to your interests? Sure. You'll be more engaged and will get better grades, and you might pick up a little helpful black letter law along the way. But if you're going to make a decision on that basis you need a lot more information: how many electives do you get to take, and what specific courses are available at X that are not available at Y? "Georgetown specializes in health law" is not a helpful statement, which is why people have been responding to you the way they have.

Thank you for clearing that up. I am glad that I understand that now. Undergrad majors may have been a stretch of comparison. Maybe I should have used like MPH concentrations or something. I was a little leery because of lack of concentrations, and my lack of knowledge about law training in general. I was not sure if concentration of JD had any bearing on the type of law you practice, but it seems that it would not.

[TheSpanishMain]

So you're going to finish med school/your MPH, then go to law school, then pass the bar, then go to residency?

The benefits of you getting a JD are incredibly marginal and are certainly not worth the 3 years, not to mention trying to pick medicine back up after a three year hiatus. This is silly.

[shcmike]

Law school is completely different than medical school. You don't leave law school knowing how to create policy.You don't learn the skills you need, unlike medical school.

You learn virtually nothing from medical school. It is residency where you learn things, so it is very similar. It is "real world experience" where you learn medicine.

[shcmike]

So you're going to finish med school/your MPH, then go to law school, then pass the bar, then go to residency?

The benefits of you getting a JD are incredibly marginal and are certainly not worth the 3 years, not to mention trying to pick medicine back up after a three year hiatus. This is silly.

I would take off 3rd year of medical school, then go back for 4th year after my JD. I would apply to residency in 4th year, and start it after that. People to similar things often, i.e. research years, MD/ PhD, MD/MBA, MD/JD programs etc. It is not uncommon.

[shcmike]

Thank you guys for clearing that up for me. I guess I am not used to the marketing ploys of law schools. I have heard that it is a business, which could equate to some of the poor ability to acquire employment upon completion. Medicine is very different in that regard. One thing I will say, is that I think there is a disconnect here with some of my motives. I am not interested in working with "big law", or obtaining a career upon completion of law school. I am going to be a physician first and foremost. I would be an MD 1st, and JD 2nd. As I have stated, it is more for credentials and the ability to understand law to shape policy. My questions lean more toward that, in terms of my JD training. Would a T14 still be my best bet for shaping policy, would a "health concentration" JD be more beneficial, or would any law school suffice? I know in medicine, name carries a lot of weight in terms of ability to get jobs in academics and career advancement. Is the same true for law? If a Yale JD and UAlabama were competing, would the Yale person take precedence because of rank and prestige of the school or is law based on ability to perform in the courtroom, firm, etc.? Also, with the same question, would presage of law degree have any bearing on how well you can perform in shaping policy? I know with health policy, it can be difficult if you lack an MD. My colleague found that out the hard way, and decided to get the MD to be more effective. I am unsure if national recognition of your degree has any bearing on how colleagues view you in law, especially on a national scale.

I honestly am pretty oblivious to how law as a career works, as some of you point out. I honestly need to gain as much knowledge as I can, because it is difficult to find MD/JDs to speak to. However, even more difficult, is finding MD/JDs that meaningfully marry the two degrees. Thank you all for the posts.

Law is more prestige driven than medicine. The name/grades combination is 90% of the gig. The Yale JD wins every time, not because they are "better in the courtroom" - few entry level attorneys ever see or have ever seen court, and I wouldn't be surprised if local schools actually produced better courtroom lawyers since many yale students don't even aim to practice. For your goals, an elite JD can still serve as useful signaling. There are few professions more conscious of pedigree than law.

I'm still doubtful of the value of the degree at all for your career (especially if you're taking out any loans for it - if this is a Buster from AD type situation then carry on). Nonetheless, for policy and gov't work, a T14 JD would at least provide a mild boost. Again this is not related to what you learned at one school vis a vis another or any "centers" (lol), it's about the name signaling, the alumni network, your professors, and other resources that you're paying $55k/year to gain some access to.

Perfect, thats what I needed to know. I mean, I would attend if I rock the LSAT and get some money. I am not blindly paying 55k for law school, I don't care where it is. At least I am better versed on how law school, and the legal profession work through this. I appreciate it.

[TheSpanishMain]

I really can't see the added value of the JD here, and I'm married to a resident and my sister in law has both an MD and a JD. (Does not use her JD in any way, shape or form.) Your JD may provide some marginal benefit if you decide to get into "policy" but not enough to justify the lost time and cost. The juice just ain't worth the squeeze, man.

[shcmike]

Your best bet is to get the MD and start working. If you hit an actual, real career hurdle that the JD would help you overcome, you can go back to law school at that point.

That is where I am now. I am not sure if I want to to the JD now, or wait to see what happens. I know it will be beneficial for my goals; however, I still have 3 years of medical school and 7 of residency. The 2-3 extra for a JD could be worth it, but are a little daunting. Thats one reason why I am trying to learn more about the career, and my prospects.

[shcmike]

I really can't see the added value of the JD here, and I'm married to a resident and my sister in law has both an MD and a JD. (Does not use her JD in any way, shape or form.) Your JD may provide some marginal benefit if you decide to get into "policy" but not enough to justify the lost time and cost. The juice just ain't worth the squeeze, man.

Yeah, I totally understand. Its interesting because some people marry the degrees well, and others do not. My ability to use the degree would be more after residency anyway, so my JD training at that point would probably be meaningless.

[shcmike]

For what its worth, here is part of one of the email's I have received about advice, and where I got the idea about focus of T14:

"The only real issue that I think you would need to consider before signing up for law school is that you would need to go to a top school to truly benefit your plans. Here is the issue: most state schools tend to be more about training lawyers to practice in their state. In other words, they are mainly teaching what is called "black letter law," i.e., in Florida there are 4 types of alimony, yada yada. At a top tier school where many graduates leave the state, they teach theory and analysis of federal laws because (a) there is no point in teaching the state's law because many students won't benefit when they leave the state upon graduation and (b) they assume you can learn the "black letter law" on your own when you study for the state bar you chose to take. The University of Chicago is known for their economics & law focus. The University of Michigan, where I went, has a focus on law & public interest topics. So, you would really need to do some homework into what types of classes are offered at the law schools you apply to. I really don't think you would get enough bang for your buck going to your local state law school that is focused on churning out basic lawyers."

[jbagelboy]

For what its worth, here is part of one of the email's I have received about advice, and where I got the idea about focus of T14:

"The only real issue that I think you would need to consider before signing up for law school is that you would need to go to a top school to truly benefit your plans. Here is the issue: most state schools tend to be more about training lawyers to practice in their state. In other words, they are mainly teaching what is called "black letter law," i.e., in Florida there are 4 types of alimony, yada yada. At a top tier school where many graduates leave the state, they teach theory and analysis of federal laws because (a) there is no point in teaching the state's law because many students won't benefit when they leave the state upon graduation and (b) they assume you can learn the "black letter law" on your own when you study for the state bar you chose to take. The University of Chicago is known for their economics & law focus. The University of Michigan, where I went, has a focus on law & public interest topics. So, you would really need to do some homework into what types of classes are offered at the law schools you apply to. I really don't think you would get enough bang for your buck going to your local state law school that is focused on churning out basic lawyers."

damn I haven't heard of someone drinking so much kool-aid in a while. I guess that's how michigan has been selling their shitty numbers these past few years... a "focus on law & public interest topics".. just lol

[beepboopbeep]

I really can't see the added value of the JD here, and I'm married to a resident and my sister in law has both an MD and a JD. (Does not use her JD in any way, shape or form.) Your JD may provide some marginal benefit if you decide to get into "policy" but not enough to justify the lost time and cost. The juice just ain't worth the squeeze, man.

Can't agree more. I don't really know the health side of stuff, obviously, but I do know from friends who have left big firms to try to get policy jobs that the JD often isn't enough. An MPP might be the better extra credential here if MD/MPH isn't enough to get you where you want to go. It's also two years instead of three, and there are a lot more joint MD/MPP programs out there from, best I can tell.

To be fair bagel, that's been their reputation for some time now. The quoted post is pretty silly, though. "Theory and analysis of federal laws..." lol

[A. Nony Mouse]

For what its worth, here is part of one of the email's I have received about advice, and where I got the idea about focus of T14:

"The only real issue that I think you would need to consider before signing up for law school is that you would need to go to a top school to truly benefit your plans. Here is the issue: most state schools tend to be more about training lawyers to practice in their state. In other words, they are mainly teaching what is called "black letter law," i.e., in Florida there are 4 types of alimony, yada yada. At a top tier school where many graduates leave the state, they teach theory and analysis of federal laws because (a) there is no point in teaching the state's law because many students won't benefit when they leave the state upon graduation and (b) they assume you can learn the "black letter law" on your own when you study for the state bar you chose to take. The University of Chicago is known for their economics & law focus. The University of Michigan, where I went, has a focus on law & public interest topics. So, you would really need to do some homework into what types of classes are offered at the law schools you apply to. I really don't think you would get enough bang for your buck going to your local state law school that is focused on churning out basic lawyers."

Yeah, this really isn't true. I went to a state school in the lower T1. You learn exactly what you learn anywhere else. The course offerings are pretty much the same everywhere. I did take one class that focused on the state law (local government), but it wasn't required and everyone who took it was interested in working for the state's government.

I mean, law is completely prestige-driven and there are a lot of reasons to go to a top-ranked school (i.e. not mine), but the quality of the education and what you learn isn't one of them.