No Jobs for You Forum

[Matthies]

OP's Argument: Don't go to shit schools because you won't get hired.

Your Argument: I know some people who go to lower ranked schools and got jobs.

Am I missing something? Just because your friends exist doesn't disprove his point. Like this: "I know somebody who won the lottery. Therefore you should go out and buy a lotto ticket." It's poor logic.

So if you go to a "good" school and not have a job what does that prove?

How about just saying don't go to ANY law school and EXPECT to have a job. That covers everyone, those that go to shit schools who do, and those that go to great schools and don't. Everyone happy now about predicting the future of strangers on the interwebs?

[pugalicious]

OP's Argument: Don't go to shit schools because you won't get hired.

Your Argument: I know some people who go to lower ranked schools and got jobs.

Am I missing something? Just because your friends exist doesn't disprove his point. Like this: "I know somebody who won the lottery. Therefore you should go out and buy a lotto ticket." It's poor logic.

OP's point was that no one (not that most people don't, that NOT ONE PERSON) outside the top tier has a chance of getting a job. So, if one person from outside the top tier does get a job, that does disprove his point.

so if argument 1: Nobody wins the lottery. Don't even bother to buy a ticket.

Arugment 2: I heard of one person once winning the lottery, so it is not true that not one person wins the lottery.

It disproves that argument that the lottery is unwinnable, but it does not negate the second part - it is still pretty unwise to invest in lotto tickets expecting to win.

[pugalicious]

OP's Argument: Don't go to shit schools because you won't get hired.

Your Argument: I know some people who go to lower ranked schools and got jobs.

Am I missing something? Just because your friends exist doesn't disprove his point. Like this: "I know somebody who won the lottery. Therefore you should go out and buy a lotto ticket." It's poor logic.

So if you go to a "good" school and not have a job what does that prove?

How about just saying don't go to ANY law school and EXPECT to have a job. That covers everyone, those that go to shit schools who do, and those that go to great schools and don't. Everyone happy now about predicting the future of strangers on the interwebs?

In my experience of lurking and sometimes posting, I have to say Matthies = alwaysTCR

[maxm2764]

Now I don't like it as much.

[bk1]

@Matthies: I understand it takes work to get a job, I'm not trying to argue otherwise. My relative who graduated from Loyola-LA has a nice clerkship because he worked his ass off for it. But to be honest I think even hard work doesn't make this likely coming out of Loyola, it takes a bit of luck. What I'm saying is that arguing from anecdote is poor because circumstances vary in the extreme. I don't expect people who won't put effort forth to get jobs even if they graduated top of their class at a T14, it does take some trying. I've lost myself here in trying to respond to both your responses to my posts and basically want to say something along the lines of "I both agree and disagree with you."

@pug/zeth: While the OP may have said that nobody coming out of a low ranked school has a job, I think it is unreasonable to take it at face value. The OP is obviously exaggerating (to what extent is up for debate). While his firm (or biglaw firms in general) may not hire U of D or Cooley grads under any circumstances, it would be foolish to try and argue the point that nobody out of a sub-T1 school has a job (a simple Google search disproves this in seconds when looking at the profile pages for certain firms). I understand what the OP literally wrote, but that seems like an easy way to attack the argument by undermining his literal meaning without dealing with the general logic behind it (which I believe has merit along the lines of your chances at a job at lower schools are worse than at higher schools).

[zeth006]

OP's Argument: Don't go to shit schools because you won't get hired.

Your Argument: I know some people who go to lower ranked schools and got jobs.

Am I missing something? Just because your friends exist doesn't disprove his point. Like this: "I know somebody who won the lottery. Therefore you should go out and buy a lotto ticket." It's poor logic.

OP's point was that no one (not that most people don't, that NOT ONE PERSON) outside the top tier has a chance of getting a job. So, if one person from outside the top tier does get a job, that does disprove his point.

so if argument 1: Nobody wins the lottery. Don't even bother to buy a ticket.

Arugment 2: I heard of one person once winning the lottery, so it is not true that not one person wins the lottery.

It disproves that argument that the lottery is unwinnable, but it does not negate the second part - it is still pretty unwise to invest in lotto tickets expecting to win.

Well said, and yes. I've met and talked to a few 2008/2009 Loyola grads who're now employed, though whether gainfully, that's completely debatable. Now I'm not saying that just because I've had coffee breaks and dinners with 5 Loyola grads that the OP is completely wrong in his (re-interpreted) assessment that job prospects are kinda shitty. I just don't take flat out exaggerations at face value. Pass me the salt, please.

[Matthies]

@Matthies: I understand it takes work to get a job, I'm not trying to argue otherwise. My relative who graduated from Loyola-LA has a nice clerkship because he worked his ass off for it. But to be honest I think even hard work doesn't make this likely coming out of Loyola, it takes a bit of luck. What I'm saying is that arguing from anecdote is poor because circumstances vary in the extreme. I don't expect people who won't put effort forth to get jobs even if they graduated top of their class at a T14, it does take some trying. I've lost myself here in trying to respond to both your responses to my posts and basically want to say something along the lines of "I both agree and disagree with you."

Fair enough. But to the above bolded underlined part that is where we disagree. I base my assumptions on what can and cannot be done by knowing people who have actually done or not done it, and what has or has not worked for them (or me). Anecdote may be to you, a poor arguement theory to make, but to me its much more belivable becuase I have seen it done with my own eyes. I don't know anything about what the pople did or did not do who don't have jobs at graduation from Loyala. I do know what my freinds did (and did not do) who both have jobs and don't ahve jobs who graduated with me from Denver.

Now I don't know everyone of course, but if I'm going to take advice, or emluate somome its going to be somome I know personally, and its going to be somome I know who got a job not the wones who didn't or tell me it can;'t be done. The fact that many in my class did not, that I don't know anything about, or how they looked for a job means nothing to my personal job search, becuase well, if I'm going to pick somome to get advice from about how to get a legal job from a T2 school I'm going to pick somome I actually know whose actually done it.

Hence I don't give much credeance to ayynous posters on the internet with 3 respoonses telling em soemthing can't ever be done that I and my frainds have personally done. Call it anecdotal, but I'm going with what I've done/seen over what has happend to the masses I don't know, have not seen, and have no idea what they have done to land a job. That's bascilly my point, its either anecdote that you know one or two people who have done it or anecdote that you don't know those who graduated w/o jobs from Loyala. Its still the same arguemnt, I'm just naming particualr people, your just naming a group, but for one, at least one of use does know the cercostamnces of the people involved.

[bk1]

Fair enough. But to the above bolded underlined part that is where we disagree. I base my assumptions on what can and cannot be done by knowing people who have actually done or not done it, and what has or has not worked for them (or me). Anecdote may be to you, a poor arguement theory to make, but to me its much more belivable becuase I have seen it done with my own eyes. I don't know anything about what the pople did or did not do who don't have jobs at graduation from Loyala. I do know what my freinds did (and did not do) who both have jobs and don't ahve jobs who graduated with me from Denver.

Now I don't know everyone of course, but if I'm going to take advice, or emluate somome its going to be somome I know personally, and its going to be somome I know who got a job not the wones who didn't or tell me it can;'t be done. The fact that many in my class did not, that I don't know anything about, or how they looked for a job means nothing to my personal job search, becuase well, if I'm going to pick somome to get advice from about how to get a legal job from a T2 school I'm going to pick somome I actually know whose actually done it.

Hence I don't give much credeance to ayynous posters on the internet with 3 respoonses telling em soemthing can't ever be done that I and my frainds have personally done. Call it anecdotal, but I'm going with what I've done/seen over what has happend to the masses I don't know, have not seen, and have no idea what they have done to land a job. That's bascilly my point, its either anecdote that you know one or two people who have done it or anecdote that you don't know those who graduated w/o jobs from Loyala. Its still the same arguemnt, I'm just naming particualr people, your just naming a group, but for one, at least one of use does know the cercostamnces of the people involved.

To me, your argument "for" anecdotes seems to invalidate anything one would read online. Posts on TLS are all pretty much anonymous (emphasis on pretty much), so it is hard to value anecdotes because we don't have the personal connection that the poster of the anecdote has to evaluate whether that person's situation can be extrapolated to others.

I agree that it is at least possible for people outside of the top schools to get good jobs. But I think it would be shortsighted (as I noted in my post responding to pug/zeth) to merely evaluate the OP's argument as literal and not infer that he is exaggerating.

[zeth006]

Fair enough. But to the above bolded underlined part that is where we disagree. I base my assumptions on what can and cannot be done by knowing people who have actually done or not done it, and what has or has not worked for them (or me). Anecdote may be to you, a poor arguement theory to make, but to me its much more belivable becuase I have seen it done with my own eyes. I don't know anything about what the pople did or did not do who don't have jobs at graduation from Loyala. I do know what my freinds did (and did not do) who both have jobs and don't ahve jobs who graduated with me from Denver.

Now I don't know everyone of course, but if I'm going to take advice, or emluate somome its going to be somome I know personally, and its going to be somome I know who got a job not the wones who didn't or tell me it can;'t be done. The fact that many in my class did not, that I don't know anything about, or how they looked for a job means nothing to my personal job search, becuase well, if I'm going to pick somome to get advice from about how to get a legal job from a T2 school I'm going to pick somome I actually know whose actually done it.

Hence I don't give much credeance to ayynous posters on the internet with 3 respoonses telling em soemthing can't ever be done that I and my frainds have personally done. Call it anecdotal, but I'm going with what I've done/seen over what has happend to the masses I don't know, have not seen, and have no idea what they have done to land a job. That's bascilly my point, its either anecdote that you know one or two people who have done it or anecdote that you don't know those who graduated w/o jobs from Loyala. Its still the same arguemnt, I'm just naming particualr people, your just naming a group, but for one, at least one of use does know the cercostamnces of the people involved.

To me, your argument "for" anecdotes seems to invalidate anything one would read online. Posts on TLS are all pretty much anonymous (emphasis on pretty much), so it is hard to value anecdotes because we don't have the personal connection that the poster of the anecdote has to evaluate whether that person's situation can be extrapolated to others.

I agree that it is at least possible for people outside of the top schools to get good jobs. But I think it would be shortsighted (as I noted in my post responding to pug/zeth) to merely evaluate the OP's argument as literal and not infer that he is exaggerating.

No sane person denies that job prospects are a bit more difficult the further down you go the T100 ranking ladder. It's generally agreed that rank is still roughly 30% of your entire resume unless you hail from HSY. But at the end of the day, the rest of the battle becomes a matter of how well you do in terms of grades and networking. When you remove's OP's exaggerations and read it "how it's meant to be read," he's simply using some variation of the "T14 or bust" argument. Nothing new. Funny how easy it is to spread negativity and alarmism just to drum up attention, isn't it?


Though I understand the reasoning and agree there is at least a shred of truth to the two lines of thought just mentioned, even in this recession, your job prospects are still a product of how you play your own cards. If I were a hypothetical 1L at Loyola, I would keep in touch with my Loyola alumni friends/acquaintances and solicit advice on how to secure a stable job upon graduation and what mistakes to avoid--not listen to some guy with a username "nojob" who does what bitter law school dropouts do, which is spread overbloated FUD on an internet forum. Sorry bro, but just as anecdotal evidence has limited verifiability on the interwebz, doom n' gloom threads aren't anymore helpful. I would argue they're less so and contribute absolutely nothing.

[AJRESQ]

There are jobs available depending on your region and expectations. In LA, D.C., NYC, Chicago, you are going to have trouble finding a high paying job, let alone any job. In less saturated areas like Pennsylvania, it's not too hard to find something that pays $60k a year, bonus, and benefits. For example, I have said several times on this board that I would attend Widener over Seton Hall and Brooklyn. Why? Because the Delaware bar is fairly exclusive, Widener has a good name in Delaware, and there are alums all over PA, NJ, and DE. You can go to a "good" school, do all the "right" things and still end up doing doc review or unemployed. Why? Because life isn't fair. It's dictated by economics. Yes, a T4 grad in a less saturated market has an advantage over a T2 grad in a saturated market. That's just life.

However, don't expect to attend a T4 and be deciding between Sullivan Cromwell and Cravath during your 2L summer. Temper your expectations, and know you are going to struggle your first few years out learning the trade. If you want to be a lawyer, go to law school. If you just want a super liberal arts degree, do something else, because the degree isn't enough -- it takes a lot of struggling. A JD is great in the sense that you can't even read the paper without some basic knowledge of how the law works. However, the financial benefit of a JD is another story -- it rarely "compliments" your existing career, or makes you "employable in every field." Go to law school if you have a burning desire to be a lawyer and you're willing to struggle for awhile to finally get there.

I have said this several times, and no one wants to hear it... but where you go to law school is exaggerated on this forum and on JDU. Some T4 grads are very good, some T1 grads are very bad. I haven't noticed any difference, honestly... at least with people who are eager to learn the law. A few years out and most people don't care where you went -- it's more about practice areas, book of business, network, etc. A degree doesn't generate cash flow.

[romothesavior]

No sane person denies that job prospects are a bit more difficult the further down you go the T100 ranking ladder. It's generally agreed that rank is still roughly 30% of your entire resume unless you hail from HSY.

Where in god's name are you getting this stuff?

A "bit" more difficult? You mean you go from 30-50% biglaw prospects in the T10 to 10-15% in the T30? You call that "a bit" more difficult?

And who generally agrees that it is 30%? I have spent a lot of time on TLS (more than I care to think about) and I have never heard that, nor have I heard it in any discussions with CSOs or practicing attorneys. So were are you getting that?

[northwood]

I have said this several times, and no one wants to hear it... but where you go to law school is exaggerated on this forum and on JDU. Some T4 grads are very good, some T1 grads are very bad. I haven't noticed any difference, honestly... at least with people who are eager to learn the law. A few years out and most people don't care where you went -- it's more about practice areas, book of business, network, etc. A degree doesn't generate cash flow.[/quote]


totally agree... the important thing is not where you went to school, but how you are able to take the information you learned and apply it, your networking abilities, your work ethic, and research on places to work, avenues of law to study... You cant bet on alumni networks to help you land a job, nor can you rely on anyone or anything helping you, except you.

listen, all this ecnomy thing is importnat to take into consideration when you make the decision to go to law school. Once you are committed to it, the economy is a secondary factor to success, you are the primary cause of becoming successful or not. Blaming the economy for your failures in law school or getting a legal job wont cut it, you just have to work harder, and be willing to take a crappier job than you expected to get experience before moving up the ladder.

[zeth006]

No sane person denies that job prospects are a bit more difficult the further down you go the T100 ranking ladder. It's generally agreed that rank is still roughly 30% of your entire resume unless you hail from HSY.

Where in god's name are you getting this stuff?

A "bit" more difficult? You mean you go from 30-50% biglaw prospects in the T10 to 10-15% in the T30? You call that "a bit" more difficult?

And who generally agrees that it is 30%? I have spent a lot of time on TLS (more than I care to think about) and I have never heard that, nor have I heard it in any discussions with CSOs or practicing attorneys. So were are you getting that?

I probably should've reworded my sentence. For clarity, I originally phrased it that way so it would just mean that as you go down ranks, outside of the Ivies, your job prospects gradually decrease. In case you didn't read the second sentence, I cited "HYS" as an example of schools whose names alone confer more than the typical 30% figure cited. I figured at least that much would be clear.

As for the 30% number, I've on several occasions seen an unproven formula posted on TLS for figuring job prospects:

Grades/Class Rank=60%
Class Rank=30%*
Everything Else=10%

*Once again, many schools in the T14 may wield a disproportionately higher amount of clout by virtue of their name, but I would argue that outside that, all other schools are almost strictly regional with big law jobs not being as largely attainable as they would for a decently ranked Berkeley grad.

I too tend to hang around the admissions and employment threads.

As for "bit," perhaps I should've considered my diction more closely so I wouldn't offend any sensibilities. If it pleases you, I will amend that sentence:

No sane person denies that job prospects tend to become more difficult the further down you go the T100 ranking ladder.

or how about for brevity:

Job prospects decline going down the T100 ranking ladder.

Debating whether I should be sentenced to life in prison for a bad choice of word, "bit," isn't exactly my cup of tea. But I'm open for discussion of OP's post.

[AR75]

If you want any chance at a job, avoid anything below a T50. An obvious exception to this would be if you got a free ride.

I have been a lawyer for three years. I have to say that graduates of lower-tiered schools are sub par in abilities to say the least. They can't write a decent brief to save their lives nor do they have the ability to spot issues. Forget about research skills. My firm, in MI, won't touch a Cooley or U of D grad. In fact, we think that schools like Cooley are bringing down the profession. How good can a school be that invents its own rating system? Think about it.

What is more troubling is the debt you will incur. You can wind up six figures in the hole without the prospect of any legal employment. A lot of people I know are working at places like WalMart or temping or going into the military. These are very bright people from very good schools. There are too many of us, and the jobs just don't exist. You are also overqualified for most jobs, and I know of some people who have to take law school off their resume to get work.

Reconsider your decision to attend. Going to law school could be the worst thing that ever happened to you. I have no reason to lie to you unlike an admissions officer.

Sorry life dealt you the hand of being a moron. Best wishes with your handicap.

No dumbs*t, I have a job. Read the post. Since it appears your reading comprehension skills are lacking, you should avoid the law. But then again, you can be one of those retard lawyers I get sanctions from. As a matter of fact, I strongly encourage this person to attend.

I am trying to keep people like you from making a big mistake. I have seen far too many good people suffer.

Sorry that apparently neither of us can read. Oh wait, I can, and it seems that you missed the part where mentioned you didn't have a job. YOu know why? I didn't. I do appreciate your attempt to help people like me--law graduates with jobs waiting. Keep swinging there, champ. YOu'll catch a good one some day.

[Regionality]

No sane person denies that job prospects are a bit more difficult the further down you go the T100 ranking ladder. It's generally agreed that rank is still roughly 30% of your entire resume unless you hail from HSY.

Where in god's name are you getting this stuff?

A "bit" more difficult? You mean you go from 30-50% biglaw prospects in the T10 to 10-15% in the T30? You call that "a bit" more difficult?

And who generally agrees that it is 30%? I have spent a lot of time on TLS (more than I care to think about) and I have never heard that, nor have I heard it in any discussions with CSOs or practicing attorneys. So were are you getting that?

I probably should've reworded my sentence. For clarity, I originally phrased it that way so it would just mean that as you go down ranks, outside of the Ivies, your job prospects gradually decrease. In case you didn't read the second sentence, I cited "HYS" as an example of schools whose names alone confer more than the typical 30% figure cited. I figured at least that much would be clear.

As for the 30% number, I've on several occasions seen an unproven formula posted on TLS for figuring job prospects:

Grades/Class Rank=60%
Class Rank=30%*
Everything Else=10%

*Once again, many schools in the T14 may wield a disproportionately higher amount of clout by virtue of their name, but I would argue that outside that, all other schools are almost strictly regional with big law jobs not being as largely attainable as they would for a decently ranked Berkeley grad.

I too tend to hang around the admissions and employment threads.

As for "bit," perhaps I should've considered my diction more closely so I wouldn't offend any sensibilities. If it pleases you, I will amend that sentence:

No sane person denies that job prospects tend to become more difficult the further down you go the T100 ranking ladder.

or how about for brevity:

Job prospects decline going down the T100 ranking ladder.

Debating whether I should be sentenced to life in prison for a bad choice of word, "bit," isn't exactly my cup of tea. But I'm open for discussion of OP's post.

You know how I know you have no idea what you're talking about?

"down ranks, outside of the Ivies, your job prospects gradually decrease." Ivies is not a classification anyone uses for law schools. The 3rd best law school in the country is not an Ivy League...and 9 out of 14 of the T14's are not Ivies either.

You know how else I know you have no idea what you're talking about?

"I should have considered my diction more closely" Diction means pronunciation, and no one is pronouncing anything on a web forum.

You know how else?

"Grades/Class Rank=60%
Class Rank=30%*
Everything Else=10%"

So class rank is both 60% and 30%? What the hell are you talking about?

I could go on. But basically you're an idiot.

[zeth006]

"I should have considered my diction more closely" Diction means pronunciation, and no one is pronouncing anything on a web forum.

You know how else?

"Grades/Class Rank=60%
Class Rank=30%*
Everything Else=10%"

So class rank is both 60% and 30%? What the hell are you talking about?

I could go on. But basically you're an idiot.

Bro, calm down. Let's do a bit of fact-checking on the word "diction." I don't wish to sound pedantic, but here are the definitions of "diction" for your amusement:

dic·tion

–noun
1. style of speaking or writing as dependent upon choice of words: good diction.
2. the accent, inflection, intonation, and speech-sound quality manifested by an individual speaker, usually judged in terms of prevailing standards of acceptability; enunciation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diction

My junior year high school English teacher was somewhat of a real PITA who stressed the finer points of "diction" when writing a basic essay. I'm more than just slightly confident he knew what he was talking about. Pronunciation is but another definition and one I was clearly unconcerned with. I think from this we can agree there's nothing more to discuss.

Grades/Class Rank=60%
School Rank=30%
Everything Else=10%

Sorry bro, made a mistake. Fixed it by replacing "class" with "school."

Again, this metric is just something I came across while roaming the TLS employment boards, but one I personally consider to be fairly accurate though admittedly debatable under circumstances I already noted.


BTW, I never said all T14 schools are Ivies. I referred to "HYS" and "Ivies" as examples of schools within T14 that wield a lot of weight from their reputation.


Word of advice: If you're going to call someone an idiot, make sure you've done a bit of fact-checking facts lest you look like the idiot. Also, even on an internet forum, don't let your hemorrhoids flare up from the misplacement of a simple word.


I'm not a big fan of internet flames BTW.

[DustyfootPhilospher]

Wow. I actually agree with RadLaw for once. The OP is justified in what he says with a couple of exceptions. T20~s/top school for the region is a must in this economy or think long and hard about your choice. Some regional schools are ranked low but are great if you want to stay local. For example U of Miami and FSU are outside of the top 50 but if you want to practice in Miami UM is great and FSU is strong for most of the rest of the state.

And flhealth your post “wait...if i dont go to a T50 school i wont get a job unless i get a full ride, then i will get a job...makes sense” Is a complete misreading of what the OP was saying. He says go to a T50 because you will be much more prepared to get a job and excel and is a reasonable choice even with some debt. If you don’t get into a T50 but get a full ride you may have a tougher time getting a job but you don’t have much at stake because you have no debt. In other word it’s financially justifiable to go to a T50 with some debt but unjustifiable to go to anything less with any debt at all.

[GATORTIM]

Bro, calm down. Let's do a bit of fact-checking on the word "diction." I don't wish to sound pedantic, but here are the definitions of "diction" for your amusement:

dic·tion

–noun
1. style of speaking or writing as dependent upon choice of words: good diction.
2. the accent, inflection, intonation, and speech-sound quality manifested by an individual speaker, usually judged in terms of prevailing standards of acceptability; enunciation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diction

My junior year high school English teacher was somewhat of a real PITA who stressed the finer points of "diction" when writing a basic essay. I'm more than just slightly confident he knew what he was talking about. Pronunciation is but another definition and one I was clearly unconcerned with. I think from this we can agree there's nothing more to discuss.

Grades/Class Rank=60%
School Rank=30%
Everything Else=10%

Sorry bro, made a mistake. Fixed it by replacing "class" with "school."

Again, this metric is just something I came across while roaming the TLS employment boards, but one I personally consider to be fairly accurate though admittedly debatable under circumstances I already noted.


BTW, I never said all T14 schools are Ivies. I referred to "HYS" and "Ivies" as examples of schools within T14 that wield a lot of weight from their reputation.


Word of advice: If you're going to call someone an idiot, make sure you've done a bit of fact-checking facts lest you look like the idiot. Also, even on an internet forum, don't let your hemorrhoids flare up from the misplacement of a simple word.


I'm not a big fan of internet flames BTW.

I found this ironic, given what followed

[taxguy]

Although the original poster means well, he is over generalizing.

Yes, it will be much harder to get a job with Big Law going to a T50+ school. However, there are plenty of jobs that don't require a T20 school For example, if you take a lot of tax law, you could get a job with either an accounting firm or the government or even a small to midsize firm. In fact, many smaller firms and government jobs are filled with grads from many schools.

I know that everyone here seems to be looking at the top 100 vault firms. Maybe the advice of the OP is correct regarding the top 100 or even 200 firms,but there are other opportunities for those
that have expanded vision and bold enough to make their own opportunities.

However, I will admit that times are tough for everyone including lawyers.

[Grizz]

Wow. I actually agree with RadLaw for once. The OP is justified in what he says with a couple of exceptions. T20~s/top school for the region is a must in this economy or think long and hard about your choice. Some regional schools are ranked low but are great if you want to stay local. For example U of Miami and FSU are outside of the top 50 but if you want to practice in Miami UM is great and FSU is strong for most of the rest of the state.

We don't quite agree haha.

Best school in S. FL is a tie between Miami and UF. Since UF has better statewide prospects, Miami doesn't travel well, and Miami is glutted with other grads (T13, Emory, Nova, FIU), I'd go to UF any day. I probably wouldn't go to Miami unless I got something resembling a full ride.

[AJRESQ]

Wow. I actually agree with RadLaw for once. The OP is justified in what he says with a couple of exceptions. T20~s/top school for the region is a must in this economy or think long and hard about your choice. Some regional schools are ranked low but are great if you want to stay local. For example U of Miami and FSU are outside of the top 50 but if you want to practice in Miami UM is great and FSU is strong for most of the rest of the state.

And flhealth your post “wait...if i dont go to a T50 school i wont get a job unless i get a full ride, then i will get a job...makes sense” Is a complete misreading of what the OP was saying. He says go to a T50 because you will be much more prepared to get a job and excel and is a reasonable choice even with some debt. If you don’t get into a T50 but get a full ride you may have a tougher time getting a job but you don’t have much at stake because you have no debt. In other word it’s financially justifiable to go to a T50 with some debt but unjustifiable to go to anything less with any debt at all.

Ehhhh... not really. It assumes that every T-50 school is better than every lower ranked school regardless of the market.

Again, a T4 like Widener (the ONLY law school in Delaware) gives you a decent shot to get a job in Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Grads from Brooklyn Law or Seton Hall aren't as competitive in Delaware as Widener grads. Why? Who wants to go to school in New York City and then move to Delaware?

Same with PA -- there are 7 law schools for a huge state. Firms from Western PA aren't going to recruit from the higher ranked schools simply because they're higher ranked -- they are going to recruit from the local schools and hire grads with ties to the area. It's not like "Well, we really liked this guy from Dickinson, who grew up in Western PA, but we got applications from Brooklyn Law, a T2, so we didn't consider anyone from Dickinson." Doesn't work like that.

There is a huge assumption that all firms consider tier of school over everything else and that just isn't the case. It's more about region, ties to the area, etc.

[NoJob]

No dumbs*t, I have a job. Read the post. Since it appears your reading comprehension skills are lacking, you should avoid the law. But then again, you can be one of those retard lawyers I get sanctions from.

You have been out of law school for three years and you got sanctions, with an S? WTF dood why you getting sanctioned? Rule 11 shit? Unethical shit? Dumb shit?

Buddy, you will be amazed at how stupid some lawyers are. For example, filing suit where the act you alleged occurred in your Complaint can in fact be disproved beyond a shadow of a doubt and hoping that I will settle to avoid litigation. Or, trying to limit the right of the press to publish information contained in public records. This is a sampling of the headaches these fuckos give me. The list goes on and on. And, don't even get me started on the shifting of attorneys' fees for frivolous discovery objections.

What's the common thread among these dumbshits? It's the law school they attended: the Thomas M. Cooley Law School.

By sanctions, I mean shifting costs and attorneys fees for wasting my time. I have never been disciplined by the AGC or had Rule 11 or the MCR equivalent imposed against me.

[Matthies]

No dumbs*t, I have a job. Read the post. Since it appears your reading comprehension skills are lacking, you should avoid the law. But then again, you can be one of those retard lawyers I get sanctions from.

You have been out of law school for three years and you got sanctions, with an S? WTF dood why you getting sanctioned? Rule 11 shit? Unethical shit? Dumb shit?

Buddy, you will be amazed at how stupid some lawyers are. For example, filing suit where the act you alleged occurred in your Complaint can in fact be disproved beyond a shadow of a doubt and hoping that I will settle to avoid litigation. Or, trying to limit the right of the press to publish information contained in public records. This is a sampling of the headaches these fuckos give me. The list goes on and on. And, don't even get me started on the shifting of attorneys' fees for frivolous discovery objections.

Oh i agree, I'm amazezed at some of the this shit I have seen alwyers do. I have not seen any trand in schools though, cuase wll, that's not what i research when I resreach oppsoing coucial, but yea people do stupid shit. It was the sanctions use that threw me off. The worst i have seen so far is domestic cases, some of those lawyers really do abide by thier cleints wishes and try to get the other guys head on a stake in front of thier office.

[paratactical]

.

[NoJob]

No dumbs*t, I have a job. Read the post. Since it appears your reading comprehension skills are lacking, you should avoid the law. But then again, you can be one of those retard lawyers I get sanctions from.

You have been out of law school for three years and you got sanctions, with an S? WTF dood why you getting sanctioned? Rule 11 shit? Unethical shit? Dumb shit?

Buddy, you will be amazed at how stupid some lawyers are. For example, filing suit where the act you alleged occurred in your Complaint can in fact be disproved beyond a shadow of a doubt and hoping that I will settle to avoid litigation. Or, trying to limit the right of the press to publish information contained in public records. This is a sampling of the headaches these fuckos give me. The list goes on and on. And, don't even get me started on the shifting of attorneys' fees for frivolous discovery objections.

Oh i agree, I'm amazezed at some of the this shit I have seen alwyers do. I have not seen any trand in schools though, cuase wll, that's not what i research when I resreach oppsoing coucial, but yea people do stupid shit. It was the sanctions use that threw me off. The worst i have seen so far is domestic cases, some of those lawyers really do abide by thier cleints wishes and try to get the other guys head on a stake in front of thier office.

I have not done any domestic myself. So, I can't speak to that.

This is not to say that all Cooley grads are stupid. There are some good ones, but is it really worth taking on that amount of debt to find out how good of a lawyer/law student you might be? Especially from those places.

I've noticed that grads from better schools tend to put up a better fight than lawyers from places like Cooley. Also, they are better to negotiate with when it comes time to settle.

My purpose in the starting this thread was to make sure that the 0Ls are aware of the risks and the debt that they take on in the hopes of getting a job and practicing. Not just Biglaw but any legal job after you graduate. Remember, you can't discharge student loan debt through bankruptcy.

I want to address some of the other comments on this thread. But, I will have to get back to you. I want to enjoy my vaca time and not think about the law.