University of Tulsa has risen from 150+ to 72 in 5 years Forum

[Nova]

ignore USNWR

[bizzike]

I would not go to Tulsa unless you have specific connections to a legal office in Oklahoma already set up. Without that, it's going to be very difficult to find someone to interview for, much less work for, no matter what its ranking is.

Why do you say that?

Oklahoma is mostly rural and is one of the most sparsely populated states in the country. There is so little demand for legal work that it's prohibitively risky to vie for a job in the state. Firms from Dallas or Houston aren't coming up to Tulsa to interview the city's law students. If you don't get a job in Tulsa itself, with literally one or two firm options that exist in the city, then you're pretty much screwed, unless: (a) your game plan was to join a family/friend's shop before you even went to school; or (b) start your own firm right after graduation.

This doesn't seem consistent with the research I've done. Tulsa is an oil & gas stronghold nationally and the metropolitan area is knocking on the door of a million people in population. Why would only 1 or 2 of the city's firms offer a good landing spot for employment of a TU grad?

Oil and gas biglaw is dominated by Houston and Dallas firms. There are a long list of (T14, UT, SMU, UH, Baylor, etc. etc.) of schools fighting for recruitment there, all of which are in front of tulsa.

[TatteredDignity]

4.) They are okay making a small salary ($40000-$50000, chances of 6 figures are 0%)

It's best to avoid talking out of your ass. The big Tulsa firms (big in a relative sense, at least) start right around $100k. And several smaller firms do, too. I work with several recent TU grads who are making six figs. I'm not saying OP should count on that--just that it's not impossible.

[Nova]

ignore USNWR

[MistakenGenius]

Post removed.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

What I see is that the number of current graduates who are hired in firms of 101 attorneys or more is 0. That's easily shown in LST.

Uhm that is because there are only TWO firms in the state of oklahoma have more than 100 attorneys. In fact, I'm pretty sure those same two firms are the only two firms that have more than 50 attorneys. Crowe and McAfee. Because Oklahoma is not unusual compared to the rest of the country, and in fact has larger firms than many states, there is a lot of push back on setting a nationwide rubric for determining "good" outcomes from law school. Where I live in Colorado, there are many firms in the 10-25 range that pay high salaries and offer great training and advancement. People like you, I assume, would not consider these to be good outcomes.

As for the guy who asked about my insular comment, I have family in Oklahoma. I hesitate to call Oklahoma the South, but they think they are, and they do share many characteristics with the typical south. The belief in states' rights is alive and well there, and out of staters are all viewed as different people. I'm not saying they'd reject someone from Kansas without knowing his credentials, but they're going to view them more skeptically, and all else being equal, will more likely give the nod to someone from the state.

So you have family in Oklahoma, and you have spent what, a couple weekends there over the last twenty years? Am I far off? And now you are making sweeping statements about an entire state, some three million plus, based on your weekend trips and your opinion of your auntie and her poor dog with the gimp leg?

You are a troll. I have spent most of my life in the state. The general population is welcoming and accepting, unless of course you are gay or an outspoken atheist. Not great, but certainly not as you describe. More importantly, well educated upper middle class people that would actual hire a TU grad, ya know, other lawyers, are usually nothing like the general population. This is of course generally true all over the country, not just in Oklahoma.

If OP can play nice and get along with everybody in Tulsa, they have the same shot of employment as 95% of the rest of the class, everyone save the few kiddos that actually have iron clad connections and guaranteed employment.

But as everyone else has said, employment will probably look like 45k a year at a small firm willing to give you a shot to learn a niche area. Also, ignore USNEWS.

[Tanicius]

Uhm that is because there are only TWO firms in the state of oklahoma have more than 100 attorneys. In fact, I'm pretty sure those same two firms are the only two firms that have more than 50 attorneys. Crowe and McAfee.

That is exactly the problem.

Because Oklahoma is not unusual compared to the rest of the country, and in fact has larger firms than many states, there is a lot of push back on setting a nationwide rubric for determining "good" outcomes from law school.

It's not elitist or snotty to consider only "firms that are large enough to hire annually" as a rubric of success.

Where I live in Colorado, there are many firms in the 10-25 range that pay high salaries and offer great training and advancement. People like you, I assume, would not consider these to be good outcomes.

I would not consider "many firms in the 10-25 range" a reasonable playing field for producing "good outcomes," even if all of those firms "pay high salaries and offer great training and advancement." If they don't have enough business to expand beyond 10-25 attorneys, by definition that means they aren't going to be hiring you absent special circumstances. If you get the job at one of these firms, then congratulations -- you've won. But without having a solid guarantee that these firms actually hire a sizable portion of U-Tulsa's class, you're basically just saying that the lottery is worth playing simply because if you win you stand to win big. There's more than one variable at play in a region's economic viability. The high salary of a firm, or its high chances of advancing within the firm, means nothing if you only have a 1-2% chance of actually getting hired there.

[nouseforaname123]

LRM, What are considered "high salaries" in your part of CO?

[killer133]

Tanicius - If you change the percentage from 0% to less than 1%, the argument would be valid and sound. Saying 0% is wrong, as semi proven by your the Exception person (I dont know how much that person earns but good chance he will make 6 figure). Just saying. This argument is getting interesting.

[star fox]

Just a reminder, these law schools in rural states aren't really the "problem" with legal education. Tulsa had 83 starting 1Ls last year. There's going to be some need for attorneys in these types of places. Doesn't mean you should take out a ton of debt (the ones who do get jobs likely won't be starting at a high salary) or go there without some sort of ties to maximize employment prospects in the area. The fact that so many grads from places like Tulsa aren't getting jobs is likely the fault of these places flooding out 400+ JDs each year onto the market.

[MistakenGenius]

Post removed.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

Just a reminder, these law schools in rural states aren't really the "problem" with legal education. Tulsa had 83 starting 1Ls last year. There's going to be some need for attorneys in these types of places. Doesn't mean you should take out a ton of debt (the ones who do get jobs likely won't be starting at a high salary) or go there without some sort of ties to maximize employment prospects in the area. The fact that so many grads from places like Tulsa aren't getting jobs is likely the fault of these places flooding out 400+ JDs each year onto the market.

+1

By TLS standards, no one should practice law in over 50% of our country because there are no 100+ law firms. Its LOL worthy. Same sad story repeated. People who think they are clever cannot escape seeing life through their own very narrow lens, cannot understand why people would have different goals and desires, and assume everyone different from them must be less capable. You see this in all aspects of life, TLS is just another example.

Do they consider that the average debt out of Tulsa is probably 50% less than a T14 student, and that Tulsa graduates begin their careers in an area of the country where you can buy a brand new 2000 sq. foot home in a nice neighborhood for 200k? Couldn't find a great website with up to date debt figures for school, because I didn't really look very hard, but this link from last year shows that schools in that region have much lower debt load. Kansas Law was 40k, Nebraska Law was 50k. http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... kings.html. I'm sure OU and TU aren't too much higher than that-- ignore sticker price when talking about debt, ignoring the effect of scholarships is just silly.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

Uhm that is because there are only TWO firms in the state of oklahoma have more than 100 attorneys. In fact, I'm pretty sure those same two firms are the only two firms that have more than 50 attorneys. Crowe and McAfee.

That is exactly the problem.

No. The suggested problem was the TU grads couldn't attain a good outcome from law school. The only people in this thread who said anything about big law were people like you, who attend schools aimed at big law filled with students who wanted big law. No one is talking about big law here… It's irrelevant.

My point, that you either missed or ignored, was that a nationwide rubric measuring good outcomes from all law schools is completely impossible, and TLS threads about U of Idaho trolled by T14 students with statistics about NLJ firms are useless.

It's not elitist or snotty to consider only "firms that are large enough to hire annually" as a rubric of success.

Dude, again, what does that matter? If you have 1000 small firms in Oklahoma, but only 10% can afford to add an associate during any given year, then that is still 100 new jobs each year…. Who cares that not all firms want to or are able to expand each year?

[TatteredDignity]

As I said, I looked at the 20 biggest firms in Tulsa, and the story remains the same. If anything your statement seems to be support for my claim that Tulsa grads should expect lower salaries than 6 figures. Or are you suggesting that there are countless 10 man boutiques in Tulsa paying new grads 6 figures (In which case, please get me their names, cause I'd love to apply)?

You're embarrassing yourself. Just stop. Your main point is well taken--a TU grad does not have a high chance of earning six figures at graduation. That's true for an OU grad, too. But there are plenty of Tulsa firms that pay six figures starting. No, they aren't on NALP. If they were, you never would have pretended to know what you're talking about.

Ignore USNEWS

Also this.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

LRM, let me try to clear this up, since apparently I'm just trolling Tulsa. You say the reason there isn't anyone going directly into Biglaw from there is that there are only 2 Biglaw firms in Oklahoma. Since I've already looked both of them up, and found one associate from Tulsa (hired right out of school) between the two of them, that seems to say Biglaw is not a realistic goal. After all, I doubt a Tulsa grad could easily crack DC or New York in this economy. As I said, I looked at the 20 biggest firms in Tulsa, and the story remains the same. If anything your statement seems to be support for my claim that Tulsa grads should expect lower salaries than 6 figures. Or are you suggesting that there are countless 10 man boutiques in Tulsa paying new grads 6 figures (In which case, please get me their names, cause I'd love to apply)?

Genius, no one said anything about big law… do you think TU students go to TU wanting big law? Most don't even really know what that is… making six figures out the door? This is all a straw man.

Do you know how cheap it is to live in Tulsa, or what the average "adjusted for scholarship" tuition is at TU Law?

Now, you might be from Oklahoma, but that doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. I never said people in Oklahoma were not nice but pleasantness is irrelevant to the discussion. If you ask Oklahomans, the overwhelming majority consider themselves part of the South. The South values ties more than any other region of the country. It's not enough to say you're from a nearby state, they prefer ties to the state itself. If you're not from Oklahoma, you are going to be viewed as more of a flight risk, and it will be your job to completely convince them that you truly want to spend your life in Oklahoma. If it's not 100% convincing, they are more likely to choose a native if everything else is equal. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. It would be bad business sense to hire someone who might bail when they decide they hate the climate or something else. A native already knows what living in Oklahoma entails.

Cool demonstration of typing skilz.

[nouseforaname123]

You're embarrassing yourself. Just stop. Your main point is well taken--a TU grad does not have a high chance of earning six figures at graduation. That's true for an OU grad, too. But there are plenty of Tulsa firms that pay six figures starting.

Why does everybody speak in vague terms in this thread?

1. Can you please state the number of firms in Tulsa that pay six figures for first-year associates? "Plenty of firms" can mean different things to different people.

2. Can anybody quantify a"high salary" for 10-25 lawyer firms in Colorado?

[Tanicius]

Uhm that is because there are only TWO firms in the state of oklahoma have more than 100 attorneys. In fact, I'm pretty sure those same two firms are the only two firms that have more than 50 attorneys. Crowe and McAfee.

That is exactly the problem.

No. The suggested problem was the TU grads couldn't attain a good outcome from law school. The only people in this thread who said anything about big law were people like you, who attend schools aimed at big law filled with students who wanted big law. No one is talking about big law here… It's irrelevant.

I could care less about biglaw. I have never practiced biglaw and have no desire to enter that field. The salary of the firm is not an issue that matters, and it is not one I have raised. What matters is the likelihood that a firm will hire new grads. A firm of over 100 people, no matter how elite or low-paying, offers better opportunities than a firm of five people, because the firm with 100 people has the ability to hire new attorneys.

It's not elitist or snotty to consider only "firms that are large enough to hire annually" as a rubric of success.

Dude, again, what does that matter? If you have 1000 small firms in Oklahoma, but only 10% can afford to add an associate during any given year, then that is still 100 new jobs each year…. Who cares that not all firms want to or are able to expand each year?

There are not 100 (10% of 1,000) firms in Tulsa (small or large) that hire 1+ associates each year. The Law School Transparency statistics make short work of that hypothetical.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

Uhm that is because there are only TWO firms in the state of oklahoma have more than 100 attorneys. In fact, I'm pretty sure those same two firms are the only two firms that have more than 50 attorneys. Crowe and McAfee.

That is exactly the problem.

No. The suggested problem was the TU grads couldn't attain a good outcome from law school. The only people in this thread who said anything about big law were people like you, who attend schools aimed at big law filled with students who wanted big law. No one is talking about big law here… It's irrelevant.

I could care less about biglaw. I have never practiced biglaw and have no desire to enter that field. The salary of the firm is not an issue that matters, and it is not one I have raised. What matters is the likelihood that a firm will hire new grads. A firm of over 100 people, no matter how elite or low-paying, offers better opportunities than a firm of five people, because the firm with 100 people has the ability to hire new attorneys.

It's not elitist or snotty to consider only "firms that are large enough to hire annually" as a rubric of success.

Dude, again, what does that matter? If you have 1000 small firms in Oklahoma, but only 10% can afford to add an associate during any given year, then that is still 100 new jobs each year…. Who cares that not all firms want to or are able to expand each year?

There are not 100 (10% of 1,000) firms in Tulsa (small or large) that hire 1+ associates each year. The Law School Transparency statistics make short work of that hypothetical.

I feel as though you are working extra hard to miss the point.

[HRomanus]

MG isn't an idiot and he doesn't necessarily believe "BigLaw or Bust." His native state's flagship is almost a TTT, but he understands that it dominates the state market and is a great choice for certain people. In fact, in percentage of employed graduates it is comparable with lower-half T1 schools. But nearly all graduates remain in-state, meaning low medan salary and little flexibility. Likewise for Tulsa. The point is why invest in law school (3 years + lost income + tuition) for a median salary of $60k?

[Tanicius]

I feel as though you are working extra hard to miss the point.

There is no point except that paying money for a less than 50% shot at paying legal work is a bad decision.

I'm not from a big area with lots of legal work. There is one law school with good employment prospects in my home state, and three others that don't have worthwhile employment prospects. If I hadn't gotten into that flagship school or an out-of-state school elsewhere, I would not have gone to law school. That isn't because I have blinders for biglaw or some kind of prestigious public interest job. It's because I just wanted a legal job. This issue has nothing to do with bias against flyover states or a failure to understand that lower-paying markets also come with lower costs of living. The only issue that matters is whether the University of Tulsa gives you decent prospects of winning a job that actually requires a law degree. The answer, across the board, no matter where you choose to live, no matter how inexpensive your car's gas or house payments, is no.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

MG isn't an idiot and he doesn't necessarily believe "BigLaw or Bust." His native state's flagship is almost a TTT, but he understands that it dominates the state market and is a great choice for certain people. In fact, in percentage of employed graduates it is comparable with lower-half T1 schools. But nearly all graduates remain in-state, meaning low medan salary and little flexibility. Likewise for Tulsa. The point is why invest in law school (3 years + lost income + tuition) for a median salary of $60k?

Because, uh, you want to be a lawyer?

Entering any profession only to make money is a bad recipe for happiness. Why are you going to LS Romanus?

EDIT: also, considering the average debt load from TU may not be much higher than 60k, your hypo might receiving the blessing from many economists too, considering salaries go up, not down.

EDIT 2: I bet the actual median from TU is like 45k.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

I feel as though you are working extra hard to miss the point.

There is no point except that paying money for a less than 50% shot at paying legal work is a bad decision.

I'm not from a big area with lots of legal work. There is one law school with good employment prospects in my home state, and three others that don't have worthwhile employment prospects. If I hadn't gotten into that flagship school or an out-of-state school elsewhere, I would not have gone to law school. That isn't because I have blinders for biglaw or some kind of prestigious public interest job. It's because I just wanted a legal job. This issue has nothing to do with bias against flyover states or a failure to understand that lower-paying markets also come with lower costs of living. The only issue that matters is whether the University of Tulsa gives you decent prospects of winning a job that actually requires a law degree. The answer, across the board, no matter where you choose to live, no matter how inexpensive your car's gas or house payments, is no.

I can see from your photo that you went to UT. The difference in student ambition and work ethic between UT and TU is massive. Had you gone to TU, your chances at paid legal work, assuming you wanted to obtain paid legal work, would have been 95%.

Half of the students at TU in any given year might be sufficiently bright, maybe, but absent of any well thought out plan to obtain any if their goals, assuming, and this is actually a big assumption, that they have any stated goals.

You'd have killed it at TU, Tanicius.

[Tanicius]

I can see from your photo that you went to UT. The difference in student ambition and work ethic between UT and TU is massive. Had you gone to TU, your chances at paid legal work, assuming you wanted to obtain paid legal work, would have been 95%.

Half of the students at TU in any given year might be sufficiently bright, maybe, but absent of any well thought out plan to obtain any if their goals, assuming, and this is actually a big assumption, that they have any stated goals.

You'd have killed it at TU, Tanicius.

You're wrong here on pretty much every count, from the school I attended to your assumption that someone who gets into a higher-ranked school can reasonably be expected to do well at a lower-ranked school. I didn't "kill it" at the school I did attend, and you have no basis to say I'd "kill it" at Tulsa. And this is hardly limited to my own experience. This is probably, above all others, the most harmful myth students at the lower end of the law school rankings often buy into.

But for a moment, let's entertain the idea that work ethic and intelligence means you'll have a statistically significant chance of out-doing most of your classmates at a school like Tulsa. Even then, you're not in the clear. Work ethic and "killing it" in law school only gets you so far when there are not enough employers in your school's main feeder city to interview you. It also doesn't mean a lot to have great work ethic and fantastic grades and other resume boosters if all of the other employers outside of that main feeder city won't even read your resume once they see the school name.

Since you keep ignoring the actual empirical evidence from LST, maybe some anecdotes will help illustrate my point. As an example, I have friends that are smarter and more hard-working than me who go to the non-flagship law schools in my over-saturated home state. They're top 5%. One of them has a moot court national championship title under his belt and got interviews at the capital city's biglaw firms. He's entering 3L this August without even one offer -- from anything. No small firm, no DA office, no PD office, and no biglaw office was ultimately interested enough to take him. He is the textbook example of someone who went to a lower-ranked school on a very reasonable scholarship and "killed it" better in law school than I ever could. His results so far are nill because of the inflexibility of his law degree; he cannot find work in the city area, and he also cannot leave the city area and expect to find work anywhere else in the country. He may have gone to law school practically for free -- and that certainly helps! -- but in the end it's gotten him nothing. Three years of his life and earning potential, gone. Statistically speaking, that is the fate that awaits the majority of students -- even the majority of students near the top of their class -- at Tulsa Law.

[HRomanus]

MG isn't an idiot and he doesn't necessarily believe "BigLaw or Bust." His native state's flagship is almost a TTT, but he understands that it dominates the state market and is a great choice for certain people. In fact, in percentage of employed graduates it is comparable with lower-half T1 schools. But nearly all graduates remain in-state, meaning low medan salary and little flexibility. Likewise for Tulsa. The point is why invest in law school (3 years + lost income + tuition) for a median salary of $60k?

Because, uh, you want to be a lawyer?

Entering any profession only to make money is a bad recipe for happiness. Why are you going to LS Romanus?

EDIT: also, considering the average debt load from TU may not be much higher than 60k, your hypo might receiving the blessing from many economists too, considering salaries go up, not down.

EDIT 2: I bet the actual median from TU is like 45k.

For a summer and winter during my undergrad, I worked as a NPS ranger at a unique historic site and absolutely loved it. My flat hat hangs on my apartment wall, and I am certain it was the best job I'll ever have. But I would never make it a career. The costs associated with it (5+ years of unstable seasonal work to become permanent) totally outweighed the return: a great job at a pitifully low salary.

I have to view law school primarily as an investment. Yes, I want to practice law as a career and, in my limited 0L experience, enjoy law. But a career is primarily about making money to support yourself and a family. And especially because law school entails such significant cost, I can't view it apart from its financial ROI.

[Nelson]

Average indebtedness from Tulsa is 100k+ with 70% taking debt. Only 69 out of 112 people were employed as lawyers 9 mos after graduation. That's a fucking terrible deal. No matter what McDuff says.