SMU v UT for Dallas Forum

[traehekat]

From what I have heard, UT dominates Austin, obviously, and SMU does fairly well in Dallas, but I imagine they have to face at least SOME competition from UT grads, so I am just wondering how much.

[DallasCowboy]

This should be in a different forum, but a lot of UT grads want to go to Dallas, and BigLaw goes deeper into UT than SMU. However, SMU does okay traditionally in Dallas, just not as well as UT. I just don't think SMU is worth the $$$ these days.

[traehekat]

Oops, thought I was still in the choosing a law school forum. Feel free to move mods. Thanks for response DC.

[kalvano]

SMU does fine in Dallas.

UT people don't get to do the internships with Dallas firms like SMU students do, because of location.

It would really come down to which school made the most financial sense.

UT will do better nationally.

[OasisFan]

I'm at SMU right now, and I'd love to hear more input on this subject if anyone has anything.

[catharsis]

in my OPINION, i'd say Texas dominates Texas ENTIRELY.

SMU does next best in Dallas (and does great). Houston does well in Houston. Baylor gets whatever else is left and the other T3/T4 schools get the leftovers.

[insidethetwenty]

If it was SMU with a full ride vs. Texas at sticker, then you might consider SMU if your only ambition was to work in Dallas. Also, if you had compelling family/personal reasons to be in Dallas then SMU would be your pick. Outside of these two scenarios, I think Texas is the obvious choice. Texas rules Texas absolutely; and it can carry to most of the country if you should decide to seek work outside of Texas.

[reasonable_man]

Go to UT.

[Esc]

If it was SMU with a full ride vs. Texas at sticker, then you might consider SMU if your only ambition was to work in Dallas. Also, if you had compelling family/personal reasons to be in Dallas then SMU would be your pick. Outside of these two scenarios, I think Texas is the obvious choice. Texas rules Texas absolutely; and it can carry to most of the country if you should decide to seek work outside of Texas.

This.

[JazzOne]

I love UT. Never been to SMU though.

[reasonable_man]

UT is nearly T14. SMU is fucking St John's on steroids. There should be no question here.

[Aberzombie1892]

From what I have heard, UT dominates Austin, obviously, and SMU does fairly well in Dallas, but I imagine they have to face at least SOME competition from UT grads, so I am just wondering how much.

\

According to the 2005 NLJ composite, UT places about 9% more of their class into Big Law.

SMU and UT with a 9% difference in Big Law essentially makes them "peers."

True, Texas essentially dominates the state.

However if you know you want Dallas and are looking at a decent scholarship to SMU, it's far from a poor choice.

Also you can think of it this way:

If you end up a median, would you be better off finishing law school in Dallas (where you want to work) or Austin (where a "better" school is) but now where you want to work?

At median Big Law employers wouldn't hire you from either school, but you would have more opportunities in Dallas.

By opportunities I mean not only to work in Dallas during the summer, but also to get a school term legal job your second year there (if you decide not to work on a journal your second year).

[vanwinkle]

According to the 2005 NLJ composite, UT places about 9% more of their class into Big Law.

This may have been true in 2005, but it's certainly not now. ITE everyone's cutting back hiring, and they're cutting back by not hiring nearly so much from lesser-ranked schools. UT is just outside T14 and is the premier law school in the state; it's going to continue placing well. Firms will grab up more UT grads than SMU grads.

However:

If it was SMU with a full ride vs. Texas at sticker, then you might consider SMU if your only ambition was to work in Dallas. Also, if you had compelling family/personal reasons to be in Dallas then SMU would be your pick. Outside of these two scenarios, I think Texas is the obvious choice. Texas rules Texas absolutely; and it can carry to most of the country if you should decide to seek work outside of Texas.

TITCR. There are a couple scenarios where SMU is the right choice, but this is only 1) if you really love the city of Dallas, 2) have a HUGE scholarship (full ride or close to it) from SMU, and 3) are willing to work your ass off interning/networking in Dallas while you're at SMU to increase your odds of finding a job when you graduate.

Otherwise, go to UT, hands down.

[Aberzombie1892]

According to the 2005 NLJ composite, UT places about 9% more of their class into Big Law.

This may have been true in 2005, but it's certainly not now. ITE everyone's cutting back hiring, and they're cutting back by not hiring nearly so much from lesser-ranked schools. UT is just outside T14 and is the premier law school in the state; it's going to continue placing well. Firms will grab up more UT grads than SMU grads.

However:

If it was SMU with a full ride vs. Texas at sticker, then you might consider SMU if your only ambition was to work in Dallas. Also, if you had compelling family/personal reasons to be in Dallas then SMU would be your pick. Outside of these two scenarios, I think Texas is the obvious choice. Texas rules Texas absolutely; and it can carry to most of the country if you should decide to seek work outside of Texas.

TITCR. There are a couple scenarios where SMU is the right choice, but this is only 1) if you really love the city of Dallas, 2) have a HUGE scholarship (full ride or close to it) from SMU, and 3) are willing to work your ass off interning/networking in Dallas while you're at SMU to increase your odds of finding a job when you graduate.

Otherwise, go to UT, hands down.

I agree employers are scaling back. But clearly UT was never at 38% Big Law (the 2008 chart for Big Law).

However I will say that it is difficult to come to definitive conclusions until we have the information for Big Law outcomes for the class of 2009.

You have to understand that there are many, many SMU grads in Dallas.

Why is that important?

Over time, they reach hiring positions.

For example let's look at the firm Jones Day:

There are 38 SMU grads that work for Jones Day in Dallas
There are 39 UT grads that work for Jones Day in Dallas

Another example, Baker Botts:

31 SMU in Dallas
32 UT in Dallas

Another example, Haynes and Boone:

38 SMU in Dallas
14 UT in Dallas

Another example, Thompson & Knight:

14 SMU in Dallas
51 UT in Dallas

Another example, Sidley Austin:

7 SMU in Dallas
6 UT in Dallas

My point is that for Dallas (specifically), you would be doing yourself a disservice for going out-of-your-way to attend UT especially with a 1/2 scholarship at SMU.

Facts people. Facts (i.e. statistical data).

[vanwinkle]

I agree employers are scaling back. But clearly UT was never at 38% Big Law (the 2008 chart for Big Law).

However I will say that it is difficult to come to definitive conclusions until we have the information for Big Law outcomes for the class of 2009.

You have to understand that there are many, many SMU grads in Dallas.

Why is that important?

Over time, the reach hiring positions.

For example let's look at the firm Jones Day:

There are 38 SMU grads that work for Jones Day in Dallas
There are 39 UT grads that work for Jones Day in Dallas

Another example, Baker Botts:

31 SMU in Dallas
32 UT in Dallas

Another example, Haynes and Boone:

38 SMU in Dallas
14 UT in Dallas

Another example, Thompson & Knight:

14 SMU in Dallas
51 UT in Dallas

Another example, Sidley Austin:

7 SMU in Dallas
6 UT in Dallas

My point is that for Dallas (specifically), you would be doing yourself a disservice for going out-of-your-way to attend UT especially with a 1/2 scholarship at SMU.

Facts people. Facts (i.e. statistical data).

Facts mean nothing by themselves. In this case, these facts mean nothing without considering where those who aren't going to Dallas law firms are going.

Where were the UT grads going? A lot of them were going to NYC, or Atlanta, or Houston. They weren't going to Dallas because they didn't want Dallas. However, in this economy, NYC isn't hiring nearly so much and there are just as many T14s wanting in there. Dallas is a safety market for UT grads and they'll continue to go there, perhaps in greater numbers with fewer NYC jobs available to them than before.

Where were all those SMU grads going? Not where the UT grads were going, that's for sure. SMU doesn't reach well to Houston, let alone NYC. And if NYC firms are cutting back, that means more UT grads than before are going to have to look to the Dallas market (since the Dallas economy is stronger) which will mean Dallas firms that are still hiring strongly will have lots of UT grads to choose from, and will likely do so.

Anyone who tries to equate UT and SMU is just outright an idiot. They're on totally different levels. UT gives you options that SMU doesn't, and the reason that so many UT grads didn't end up in Dallas before is that they self-selected elsewhere. SMU grads simply do not have that option. They didn't before the economy bottomed out and they certainly don't now.

[Aberzombie1892]

I agree employers are scaling back. But clearly UT was never at 38% Big Law (the 2008 chart for Big Law).

However I will say that it is difficult to come to definitive conclusions until we have the information for Big Law outcomes for the class of 2009.

You have to understand that there are many, many SMU grads in Dallas.

Why is that important?

Over time, the reach hiring positions.

For example let's look at the firm Jones Day:

There are 38 SMU grads that work for Jones Day in Dallas
There are 39 UT grads that work for Jones Day in Dallas

Another example, Baker Botts:

31 SMU in Dallas
32 UT in Dallas

Another example, Haynes and Boone:

38 SMU in Dallas
14 UT in Dallas

Another example, Thompson & Knight:

14 SMU in Dallas
51 UT in Dallas

Another example, Sidley Austin:

7 SMU in Dallas
6 UT in Dallas

My point is that for Dallas (specifically), you would be doing yourself a disservice for going out-of-your-way to attend UT especially with a 1/2 scholarship at SMU.

Facts people. Facts (i.e. statistical data).

Facts mean nothing by themselves. In this case, these facts mean nothing without considering where those who aren't going to Dallas law firms are going.

Where were the UT grads going? A lot of them were going to NYC, or Atlanta, or Houston. They weren't going to Dallas because they didn't want Dallas. However, in this economy, NYC isn't hiring nearly so much and there are just as many T14s wanting in there. Dallas is a safety market for UT grads.

Where were all those SMU grads going? Not where the UT grads were going, that's for sure. SMU doesn't reach to NYC, let alone Houston. And if NYC firms are cutting back, that means more UT grads than before are going to have to look to the Dallas market (since the Dallas economy is stronger) which will mean Dallas firms that are still hiring strongly will have lots of UT grads to choose from, and will likely do so.

Anyone who tries to equate UT and SMU is just outright an idiot. They're on totally different levels. UT gives you options that SMU doesn't, and the reason that so many UT grads didn't end up in Dallas before is that they self-selected elsewhere. SMU grads simply do not have that option. They didn't before the economy bottomed out and they certainly don't now.

This is mostly speculation.

Everyone generally knows the "inclusiveness" of the Texas employers.

If you need evidence of that, simply attend an out of state school and try to get a job there without connections.

I'm not arguing the portability of UT - I never did and I don't know W(here)TF that came from.

All I stated was that if you know you want Dallas, automatically looking over SMU simply because you are accepted into UT is a poor decision.

I really don't want to veer wwwwwwwaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy off topic like your post did, so I won't comment on the rest of it.

[Thirteen]

Facts mean nothing by themselves. In this case, these facts mean nothing without considering where those who aren't going to Dallas law firms are going.

Where were the UT grads going? A lot of them were going to NYC, or Atlanta, or Houston. They weren't going to Dallas because they didn't want Dallas. However, in this economy, NYC isn't hiring nearly so much and there are just as many T14s wanting in there. Dallas is a safety market for UT grads.

Where were all those SMU grads going? Not where the UT grads were going, that's for sure. SMU doesn't reach well to Houston, let alone NYC. And if NYC firms are cutting back, that means more UT grads than before are going to have to look to the Dallas market (since the Dallas economy is stronger) which will mean Dallas firms that are still hiring strongly will have lots of UT grads to choose from, and will likely do so.

Anyone who tries to equate UT and SMU is just outright an idiot. They're on totally different levels. UT gives you options that SMU doesn't, and the reason that so many UT grads didn't end up in Dallas before is that they self-selected elsewhere. SMU grads simply do not have that option. They didn't before the economy bottomed out and they certainly don't now.

Credited

SMU is a great school if you are sure you want to work in Dallas (it is my #1 target school since I know I want Dallas), but UT owns it everywhere else.

[Thirteen]

Another example, Haynes and Boone:

38 SMU in Dallas
14 UT in Dallas

Facts people. Facts (i.e. statistical data).

Haynes and Boone was founded by a SMU Law professor and his student, who was a graduate of SMU Law.

[vanwinkle]

I'm not arguing the portability of UT - I never did and I don't know W(here)TF that came from.

All I stated was that if you know you want Dallas, automatically looking over SMU simply because you are accepted into UT is a poor decision.

I really don't want to veer wwwwwwwaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy off topic like your post did, so I won't comment on the rest of it.

So, you're incapable of understanding how self-selection affects UT grad job placement? It should be abundantly clear where it came from if you get anything about self-selection and what it is. What it means is that UT and SMU grads being the same numbers in Dallas does not mean you have the same odds of employment graduating from either school.

In prior years, the same number of UT grads went to Dallas as the number of SMU grads. BUT a lot of UT grads also went to BigLaw jobs in other markets that were more desirable, which means that the people who went to Dallas weren't necessarily very highly ranked because a lot of the highest-ranked UT grads were going to UT/Atlanta/Houston/wherever else they wanted to go.

However, SMU has nowhere else to self-select to. This means that the people who got BigLaw in Dallas from SMU were more likely the best people in their class.

Thus it was, even in the pre-ITE years you were discussing, potentially much harder to get into the Dallas BigLaw market from SMU than it was from UT. They would have to go deeper into the class at UT to pick the same number of people to work in Dallas as the number of SMU grads they picked.

This is one reason that UT is better than SMU. The other is that even if you can't find a job in Dallas the UT degree gives you much better options finding jobs outside of Dallas. You might not want to work in Houston, but UT gives you that as at least another possibility, when SMU doesn't.

None of this is off-topic. In fact it's very on-topic, and the fact that you can't see that does not speak well for you.

[vanwinkle]

Credited

SMU is a great school if you are sure you want to work in Dallas (it is my #1 target school since I know I want Dallas), but UT owns it everywhere else.

I would not try to dissuade you from attending SMU. You know where things stand and you're making a fully informed decision. I wish you luck.

[im_blue]

I'm not arguing the portability of UT - I never did and I don't know W(here)TF that came from.

All I stated was that if you know you want Dallas, automatically looking over SMU simply because you are accepted into UT is a poor decision.

I really don't want to veer wwwwwwwaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy off topic like your post did, so I won't comment on the rest of it.

So, you're incapable of understanding how self-selection affects UT grad job placement? It should be abundantly clear where it came from if you get anything about self-selection and what it is. What it means is that UT and SMU grads being the same numbers in Dallas does not mean you have the same odds of employment graduating from either school.

In prior years, the same number of UT grads went to Dallas as the number of SMU grads. BUT a lot of UT grads also went to BigLaw jobs in other markets that were more desirable, which means that the people who went to Dallas weren't necessarily very highly ranked because a lot of the highest-ranked UT grads were going to UT/Atlanta/Houston/wherever else they wanted to go.

However, SMU has nowhere to self-select from. This means that the people who got BigLaw in Dallas from SMU were more likely the best people in their class.

Thus it was, even in the pre-ITE years you were discussing, potentially much harder to get into the Dallas BigLaw market from SMU than it was from UT. They would have to go deeper into the class at UT to pick the same number of people to work in Dallas as the number of SMU grads they picked.

This is one reason that UT is better than SMU. The other is that even if you can't find a job in Dallas the UT degree gives you much better options finding jobs outside of Dallas. You might not want to work in Houston, but UT gives you that as at least another possibility, when SMU doesn't.

None of this is off-topic. In fact it's very on-topic, and the fact that you can't see that does not speak well for you.

QFT

[Aberzombie1892]

Haynes and Boone was founded by a SMU Law professor and his student, who was a graduate of SMU Law.

So Haynes and Boone is less credible because it was founded by people with ties to SMU?

If that's not what you are saying, why was this necessary?

I mean if someone just sat there and went through all of the Texas firms, it would be fine.

But to select the one of the randomly selected firms (I used an NALPdirectory.com advanced search and randomly picked) that shows a preference for SMU, and trying to discredit it seems a little......

If someone did all of the offices in Dallas, this would be fine though.

[Aberzombie1892]

Oh well.

I'm tired of providing information/arguments to people other than the OP.

OP PM me if you have any other information and would like an unbiased opinion.

[vanwinkle]

Oh well.

I'm tired of providing information/arguments to people other than the OP.

OP PM me if you have any other information and would like an unbiased opinion.

OP, do not trust this guy or anything he says, he is totally clueless. The fact that he's no longer willing to share his views with you in public where they have to stand up to scrutiny should indicate how poor his advice will be.

If anyone in this thread wants solid and accurate advice, they are free to either PM me privately or ask publically in this or another thread. Unlike this guy, I'm not afraid to put my advice in public where it can be criticized.

[kalvano]

Jesus Christ.

As someone who grew up in the legal community in Dallas, if and only if your wish is to be in Dallas for a while, SMU can't be beat.

UT is certainly the school in Texas, but SMU pretty much dominates the Dallas legal market.

Not saying SMU is on par with UT, just that if you wish to be in Dallas (not Houston, not Austin, and not anywhere outside the state line), then SMU is the way to go. A massive chunk of the Dallas legal world went to SMU, Texas is very "clannish" about its hiring, and SMU students are afforded opportunities in Dallas that UT students are not due to simple geography.

However, SMU won't get you too far outside of Dallas, and the degree is not very portable. UT opens a lot of doors all over the USA.

And I have done my research - spoken to hiring partners in firms, many currently practicing Dallas attorneys, a few judges, and the Dallas DA's office.