Study: Don't sweat your school's status. Forum

[BrownBears09]

The LSAT exists because of the inherent information asymmetry in the admissions process; schools don't know who the most capable prospective students are, so the LSAT was invented as a proxy for your overall ability. Legal employers have the same information asymmetry when hiring law students; new hires are an investment and they can only afford to hire the best, but they have little information about you other than your grades and where you went to school. So they use both of those factors to estimate your potential. Implicit is the assumption that law schools are selective and a higher school ranking correlates with higher quality students.

So, indirectly your LSAT does sort of follow you, if only because it probably determined where you went to school in the first place.

Using this reasoning, your SAT score and high school GPA will "indirectly" follow you around.

[Ragged]

The LSAT exists because of the inherent information asymmetry in the admissions process; schools don't know who the most capable prospective students are, so the LSAT was invented as a proxy for your overall ability. Legal employers have the same information asymmetry when hiring law students; new hires are an investment and they can only afford to hire the best, but they have little information about you other than your grades and where you went to school. So they use both of those factors to estimate your potential. Implicit is the assumption that law schools are selective and a higher school ranking correlates with higher quality students.

So, indirectly your LSAT does sort of follow you, if only because it probably determined where you went to school in the first place.

Using this reasoning, your SAT score and high school GPA will "indirectly" follow you around.

Not really because where you go to undergrad doesn't affect where you go to law school. You could say that your UGPA follows you around though.

[IamAskier]

I believe this is the general feeling regarding the LSAT (though I hope its not entirely true):

High LSAT ---> Highly ranked law school

Highly ranked law school ---> Large salary

Therefore:

High LSAT ---> Large Salary

[Borhas]

I believe this is the general feeling regarding the LSAT (though I hope its not entirely true):

High LSAT ---> Highly ranked law school

Highly ranked law school ---> Large salary

Therefore:

High LSAT ---> Large Salary

It's actually:
Highly ranked law school ---> High LSAT or URM or 3.86+ GPA

[FMaze]

I thought the distinct benefit of enrolling at a top 10 law school was the prospect of being interviewed by an extremely large number of law firms conducting on-campus interviews. Having law firms potentially pursuing me certainly seems advantageous―compared to knocking on doors.

Would someone here explain how does the on-campus interviewing process work? I assume the process is not meaningful for 1Ls, since the suitors are focused on grads, right?

[romothesavior]

I thought the distinct benefit of enrolling at a top 10 law school was the prospect of being interviewed by an extremely large number of law firms conducting on-campus interviews. Having law firms potentially pursuing me certainly seems advantageous―compared to knocking on doors.

Would someone here explain how does the on-campus interviewing process work? I assume the process is not meaningful for 1Ls, since the suitors are focused on grads, right?

OCI: Interviewers come to your school in the late summer/early fall of your 2L year to interview students for summer associateships for the next summer. You will interview on campus (hence the name), and if they like you, you'll get a callback and fly out to the firm and meet with more attorneys throughout the day and/or have some sort of meal with other prospectives. Each firm does it a bit differently, but that's the general idea. Then if you get a job for the summer and do well, you get an offer to work after graduation (or at least this was how it worked pre-ITE). Then ???, then profit.

You are correct that a huge benefit of being at a top 10 school is the prospect of being interviewed by a lot more firms at OCI. However, the other huge benefit of being at a top school is that firms will dip lower into the class for students. At my school, for example, we have a lot of firms that come (relative to our rank), but they are only interested in students within certain percentiles or certain backgrounds. The higher ranked school you go to, the deeper (generally) firms will be willing to dip into the class to hire people. Having a boatload of firms at your school obviously increases your odds, but it doesn't make up for 1) having great grades or 2) being at a school where firms will dip farther into the class.

[FMaze]

. . . the other huge benefit of being at a top school is that firms will dip lower into the class for students.

Thank you so much―your response is like receiving a great late Christmas gift! Especially the part where the suitors tended to go deeper―great to know, just in case my Plan A goes sideways! On one thread I saw the OCI schedules of a couple of firms and Michigan was on their list.

I was under the impression that after the first year the 1Ls would possibly be working in the summer (the thread I saw indicated that it was not uncommon to receive $1K a week). So, I take it summer jobs are through the school, or local area, and not through an OCI.

Again, thanks! And happy holidays!

[romothesavior]

I was under the impression that after the first year the 1Ls would possibly be working in the summer (the thread I saw indicated that it was not uncommon to receive $1K a week). So, I take it summer jobs are through the school, or local area, and not through an OCI.

Again, thanks! And happy holidays!

1. Yes, 1Ls work in the summer. It is very important to work the summer after your 1L. What you actually do is not that important, so long as it is legal work.
2. It is extremely, extremely uncommon for a 1L to make $1K per week or anywhere near that. Wherever you heard that 1K per week is common is completely wrong. I'd estimate that the vast majority of 1Ls (I'd estimate 3/4s or more) won't even get paid, and most of the ones that do will be getting smaller pay (just enough to get by). At my school, those who work unpaid PI gigs get 3K from the school for the entire summer. Only the tippy top of the class and URMs will get a firm job and make big money as a 1L.
3. There is no 1L OCI. You basically just apply for 1L summer positions like you would for any other job; send in your cover letter and resume and use your networking.
4. Happy holidays to you too.

[bigkahuna2020]

Do law students really depend on OCI that much? That might be the source of the problem. There are a shitton of decent law firms that do not do a ton of OCI interviews. Obviously not as lucrative as BigLaw but here in NJ/NYC there are a lot of firms with 25-75 lawyers, and a lot of them are booming. Connections are key, though, and really should be made when in law school, even if it is just picking their brains/buying some lunch and talking.

[bigkahuna2020]

Where is this firm choosing between #1 Hastings and below median Stanford? If it's in New York, Hastings is toast. If it's in San Francisco, I don't think Stanford stands a chance. If it's in L.A. things probably start to even out. It's the concept that 20% of people in Cardozza go to biglaw. Even though they're there, you never see them. They do slave work in the back until they burn out and change their careers.

Though I can agree that moving laterally into biglaw is a nonoption. There's one way into Biglaw, and many many ways out. Excepting some kind of Andrew Carnegie story where you shoot up from the bottom, I highly doubt you can move in. Their aim is to wring as many hours from you as they can before they toss you aside like a dish rag. Only the toughest and smartest move up. (Those don't all go to Stanford though.)

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... kings.html

Not corrected for class size, IP boutiques etc, and only 5, true, but Hastings=27 partners in BigLaw, Stanford 14

This assumption that ANYTHING but the business you bring and the quality of your work matters for making partner at ANY law firm is just...garbage

I would be interested to see the changes as it works down the 245 others, but I would say it will tilt even more to schools like Hastings, Cardozo, Fordham etc

[IAFG]

Where is this firm choosing between #1 Hastings and below median Stanford? If it's in New York, Hastings is toast. If it's in San Francisco, I don't think Stanford stands a chance. If it's in L.A. things probably start to even out. It's the concept that 20% of people in Cardozza go to biglaw. Even though they're there, you never see them. They do slave work in the back until they burn out and change their careers.

Though I can agree that moving laterally into biglaw is a nonoption. There's one way into Biglaw, and many many ways out. Excepting some kind of Andrew Carnegie story where you shoot up from the bottom, I highly doubt you can move in. Their aim is to wring as many hours from you as they can before they toss you aside like a dish rag. Only the toughest and smartest move up. (Those don't all go to Stanford though.)

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... kings.html

Not corrected for class size, IP boutiques etc, and only 5, true, but Hastings=27 partners in BigLaw, Stanford 14

This assumption that ANYTHING but the business you bring and the quality of your work matters for making partner at ANY law firm is just...garbage

I would be interested to see the changes as it works down the 245 others, but I would say it will tilt even more to schools like Hastings, Cardozo, Fordham etc

lol this metric is super retarded

[bigkahuna2020]

I agree. The metric of how many are partners is wholly unrelated to the concept of a school being relegated to "non partner track positions"

[IAFG]

I agree. The metric of how many are partners is wholly unrelated to the concept of a school being relegated to "non partner track positions"

Baker & McKenzie (Chicago, New York)
dla piper (Chicago, New York)
Jones Day (New York, Washington)
White & Case (New York, Washington)
Skadden Arps (New York, Washington)

these aren't really the cream of the crop

[romothesavior]

Do law students really depend on OCI that much? That might be the source of the problem. There are a shitton of decent law firms that do not do a ton of OCI interviews. Obviously not as lucrative as BigLaw but here in NJ/NYC there are a lot of firms with 25-75 lawyers, and a lot of them are booming. Connections are key, though, and really should be made when in law school, even if it is just picking their brains/buying some lunch and talking.

I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree here. Students do over-rely on OCI, there is no doubt about that. I think a lot of this comes from the pre-ITE boom, and some of it comes from how much easier OCI makes things for students at the top. But there are not a "shit ton" of decent law firms, if by decent you mean "well-paying." The vast majority of law firms pay under 60k, and a lot of them only pay 30-40. If you have a lot of debt and you just spent 7 years (or more) getting a law degree, that just doesn't cut it, and I would personally prefer to work a PI gig and get 10 year IBR if I was only going to make that much in a private firm. Honestly, my biggest concern is no unemployment, but underemployment.

As you noted, cracking into the "network" is often what it takes, and that is not as easy as it sounds. It takes a whole heck of a lot of luck. I came into law school planning to be Mr. Networking, and I've gone to almost every event I can go to during my first semester. I think of myself as a pretty good networker, and I've made a whopping one contact (maybe two others who would be decent), and I don't think he is someone who would be able to help me get a job.

And finally, those "booming" 25-75 person firms might take on, what, like 1-2 freshly minted JDs at the very most each year? So even if we assume that in NYC/NJ there are a few hundred of these firms, and each one takes on two freshly minted JDs (which they are not, since many of these smaller firms want experienced lawyers), that is no where near enough to absorb the rest of the grads.

So again, while I agree with your point that students over-rely on OCI, I think doing the things you mention are a lot more difficult

[bigkahuna2020]

I agree. The metric of how many are partners is wholly unrelated to the concept of a school being relegated to "non partner track positions"

Baker & McKenzie (Chicago, New York)
DLA Piper (Chicago, New York)
Jones Day (New York, Washington)
White & Case (New York, Washington)
Skadden Arps (New York, Washington)

these aren't really the cream of the crop

Er, ok. They are pretty damned huge, and they will be working their way down later on. Obviously none of us have great data, but I still say the concept of hiring firms segregating Cardozo and T14 grads into separate streams based on the school rather than their work a few years in to be, frankly, ridiculous

[bigkahuna2020]

Do law students really depend on OCI that much? That might be the source of the problem. There are a shitton of decent law firms that do not do a ton of OCI interviews. Obviously not as lucrative as BigLaw but here in NJ/NYC there are a lot of firms with 25-75 lawyers, and a lot of them are booming. Connections are key, though, and really should be made when in law school, even if it is just picking their brains/buying some lunch and talking.

I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree here. Students do over-rely on OCI, there is no doubt about that. I think a lot of this comes from the pre-ITE boom, and some of it comes from how much easier OCI makes things for students at the top. But there are not a "shit ton" of decent law firms, if by decent you mean "well-paying." The vast majority of law firms pay under 60k, and a lot of them only pay 30-40. If you have a lot of debt and you just spent 7 years (or more) getting a law degree, that just doesn't cut it, and I would personally prefer to work a PI gig and get 10 year IBR if I was only going to make that much in a private firm. Honestly, my biggest concern is no unemployment, but underemployment.

As you noted, cracking into the "network" is often what it takes, and that is not as easy as it sounds. It takes a whole heck of a lot of luck. I came into law school planning to be Mr. Networking, and I've gone to almost every event I can go to during my first semester. I think of myself as a pretty good networker, and I've made a whopping one contact (maybe two others who would be decent), and I don't think he is someone who would be able to help me get a job.

And finally, those "booming" 25-75 person firms might take on, what, like 1-2 freshly minted JDs at the very most each year? So even if we assume that in NYC/NJ there are a few hundred of these firms, and each one takes on two freshly minted JDs (which they are not, since many of these smaller firms want experienced lawyers), that is no where near enough to absorb the rest of the grads.

So again, while I agree with your point that students over-rely on OCI, I think doing the things you mention are a lot more difficult

I'm not saying it is easy, just necessary. I also think people not also looking at ADA office work and the like are doing themselves a disservice. BigLaw or bust becomes a reality when you really buy into it---I would rather have a 95% change at a job paying 55k than a 15% chance at a job paying 160k, but I don't exactly consider myself an average TLS poster

[romothesavior]

I'm not saying it is easy, just necessary. I also think people not also looking at ADA office work and the like are doing themselves a disservice. BigLaw or bust becomes a reality when you really buy into it---I would rather have a 95% change at a job paying 55k than a 15% chance at a job paying 160k, but I don't exactly consider myself an average TLS poster

I think this is a false dichotomy, but I agree that being biglaw or bust is dumb. My mentality is, "Biglaw would be great if it happens, but I'm not planning on it." I am really gunning for becoming a prosecutor, and while I am hoping for biglaw, I know it isn't likely.

[bigkahuna2020]

I'm not saying it is easy, just necessary. I also think people not also looking at ADA office work and the like are doing themselves a disservice. BigLaw or bust becomes a reality when you really buy into it---I would rather have a 95% change at a job paying 55k than a 15% chance at a job paying 160k, but I don't exactly consider myself an average TLS poster

I think this is a false dichotomy, but I agree that being biglaw or bust is dumb. My mentality is, "Biglaw would be great if it happens, but I'm not planning on it." I am really gunning for becoming a prosecutor, and while I am hoping for biglaw, I know it isn't likely.

While not prosecution, I feel I am going to look at some state level agencies and some so-called "shitlaw" firms, and also state clerkships. I, however, seem to have a bit less avarice than many on TLS

Obviously it was a false dichotomy, but I was just trying to make a point

BigLaw or bust...into a legal job that most lawyers have...

[plum]

Law firms are businesses, and at the end of the day someone competent who grinds out billables is going to make you more $ than someone brilliant who doesn't work very hard.

yeah but as a business you can impress your clients more with the fancy HYS degrees and that probably makes them feel like they've hired the best.

[FMaze]

. . . . .but I agree that being biglaw or bust is dumb. My mentality is, "Biglaw would be great if it happens, but I'm not planning on it."

Obviously, no matter the choice there is always a roll-of-the-dice factor involved. Perhaps excluding, H/Y/S, are you implying it would have been either safer, or smarter, to have accepted a near free ride at a U Miami, W&L, Ohio State, etc. than to pay [near] sticker at a top 6-10 law school?

[IAFG]

I agree. The metric of how many are partners is wholly unrelated to the concept of a school being relegated to "non partner track positions"

Baker & McKenzie (Chicago, New York)
DLA Piper (Chicago, New York)
Jones Day (New York, Washington)
White & Case (New York, Washington)
Skadden Arps (New York, Washington)

these aren't really the cream of the crop

Er, ok. They are pretty damned huge, and they will be working their way down later on. Obviously none of us have great data, but I still say the concept of hiring firms segregating Cardozo and T14 grads into separate streams based on the school rather than their work a few years in to be, frankly, ridiculous

it isn't that I think you're wrong, your data is just shitty for what you're trying to prove. Not a lot of SLS partners over at dla piper? lol not surprised.

[bigkahuna2020]

Yea I concede I was trying to find evidence to prove what should have been obvious, but when arguing it is a little out there to just say "this is obviously wrong!"

Anyway

[romothesavior]

. . . . .but I agree that being biglaw or bust is dumb. My mentality is, "Biglaw would be great if it happens, but I'm not planning on it."

Obviously, no matter the choice there is always a roll-of-the-dice factor involved. Perhaps excluding, H/Y/S, are you implying it would have been either safer, or smarter, to have accepted a near free ride at a U Miami, W&L, Ohio State, etc. than to pay [near] sticker at a top 6-10 law school?

No, I wouldn't say that.

[rayiner]

This study is utterly retarded.

Code: Select all

Consider, for example, a hypothetical law student with a 3.25 – 3.5 grade point average (GPA) at forty-seventh-ranked University of Florida. Under the authors' analysis, if that student had attended twentieth-ranked George Washington University, her grades would likely slip to the 2.75 – 3.0 range, and her salary would be 22 percent lower, if all other factors held constant. Had that student landed at seventh-ranked University of California at Berkeley, her grades would drop to the 2.5 – 2.75 range, and her salary would dip 7 percent. 

UF's median is 3.15, so we're talking about someone who is probably top 1/3 at UF. This person will not get biglaw at UF, and the projection supposes that she'd probably be dead-fucking-last at Berkeley to have that GPA. That's just unbelievable.

[romothesavior]

This study is utterly retarded.

Code: Select all

Consider, for example, a hypothetical law student with a 3.25 – 3.5 grade point average (GPA) at forty-seventh-ranked University of Florida. Under the authors' analysis, if that student had attended twentieth-ranked George Washington University, her grades would likely slip to the 2.75 – 3.0 range, and her salary would be 22 percent lower, if all other factors held constant. Had that student landed at seventh-ranked University of California at Berkeley, her grades would drop to the 2.5 – 2.75 range, and her salary would dip 7 percent. 

UF's median is 3.15, so we're talking about someone who is probably top 1/3 at UF. This person will not get biglaw at UF, and the projection supposes that she'd probably be dead-fucking-last at Berkeley to have that GPA. That's just unbelievable.

+1, its absolutely horrible.