Looking back at the school you decided on... Forum

[fragged]

It is still such a small fraction of the attorneys that graduate from that school though. The other problem is that you don't even know whether you will be in a position where you want to move down the line. Since you can't predict how you will be in X years, looking at the path of the average kid from a given school is about the best thing you can do to decide whether that school is a good idea.

I concur - looking at the average path is probably the safest thing to do. Unfortunately, the safest thing is not always the most desirable thing (unless you're at HYS). It's a shame that firms hire the way they do, but then again firms are staffed by attorneys, so I guess we do it to ourselves.

[fragged]

I made no assertions about how frequently people from T2s go on to practice out of region. I was just backing up BK's general proposition that you should plan on what is most likely to happen while rejecting your point that planning on what is most likely to happen is analogous to not trying to get the best possible outcome.

Is this an LSAT question?

[swc65]

I made no assertions about how frequently people from T2s go on to practice out of region. I was just backing up BK's general proposition that you should plan on what is most likely to happen while rejecting your point that planning on what is most likely to happen is analogous to not trying to get the best possible outcome.

Is this an LSAT question?

hahahaha. Lifted straight from LSAC!

[Stringer Bell]

I concur - looking at the average path is probably the safest thing to do. Unfortunately, the safest thing is not always the most desirable thing (unless you're at HYS). It's a shame that firms hire the way they do, but then again firms are staffed by attorneys, so I guess we do it to ourselves.

How do you want firms to hire associates?

[Mick Haller]

I concur - looking at the average path is probably the safest thing to do. Unfortunately, the safest thing is not always the most desirable thing (unless you're at HYS). It's a shame that firms hire the way they do, but then again firms are staffed by attorneys, so I guess we do it to ourselves.

How do you want firms to hire associates?

I'd like to see an articling system similar to that in Canada. There's no good reason to pay people who know next to nothing $160k per year based solely on the degree on their wall. Pay them $50k per year (plus some loan assistance perhaps) for 2 years, and if they perform well, offer them the real job.

[Stringer Bell]

I'd like to see an articling system similar to that in Canada. There's no good reason to pay people who know next to nothing $160k per year based solely on the degree on their wall. Pay them $50k per year (plus some loan assistance perhaps) for 2 years, and if they perform well, offer them the real job.

So instead of having law firms pay associates 160k+ for a couple of years before they run them off, you would rather them pay 50k instead?

[Mick Haller]

I'd like to see an articling system similar to that in Canada. There's no good reason to pay people who know next to nothing $160k per year based solely on the degree on their wall. Pay them $50k per year (plus some loan assistance perhaps) for 2 years, and if they perform well, offer them the real job.

So instead of having law firms pay associates 160k+ for a couple of years before they run them off, you would rather them pay 50k instead?

50k might be extreme. But 65-70k or so is adequate. I'd only support this if it means more people get a chance to get their foot in the door at a large firm. If it's just the same group of people at a lower wage, then there's not much point.

[Redsgomarchingon]

I'd like to see an articling system similar to that in Canada. There's no good reason to pay people who know next to nothing $160k per year based solely on the degree on their wall. Pay them $50k per year (plus some loan assistance perhaps) for 2 years, and if they perform well, offer them the real job.

So instead of having law firms pay associates 160k+ for a couple of years before they run them off, you would rather them pay 50k instead?

50k might be extreme. But 65-70k or so is adequate. I'd only support this if it means more people get a chance to get their foot in the door at a large firm. If it's just the same group of people at a lower wage, then there's not much point.

large firms are able to claim they are "the best" because they hire students from the best law schools. Billion dollar clients aren't going to hire firms full of TT grads

wages are this high because reputations are staked on what school's grads you can pull, since getting big clients will more than cover losses from salary

[fragged]

How do you want firms to hire associates?

Like dis:
--LinkRemoved--

[pelkin000]

1. Debt.
2. Is this a region you want to work in for possibly the rest of your life? (Assuming not t14 school)
3. How much competition does your school realistically get in that region?
4. How is the legal market in that region?

I would also add that it depends on what your career goals are. The factors most important to you will vary somewhat if you want to work in NYC BigLaw vs. small town PI work vs. West Coast IP.

Edit: I'm also a 1L in a LTR. I moved to Boston for LS, he's in NYC still. It's certainly sucked for both of us, but I chose Boston over a higher ranked school in the Midwest. My SO wasn't THE deciding factor, but it certainly made a difference. I'm glad I ended up where I am. I can't imagine having been a plane ride away from him. It definitely would have added to my stress. We're going strong (together for 3 years going into LS, lived together for 2 years in NYC). We're now working on being in the same city next year, either Boston or NYC.

So if you're SURE about your SO, you can get through just about anything. And don't discount how having their support/being close will make a difference to you in LS. It will.

Awesome! thank you so much for all that info! I know these issues aren't new at all. But like I said before, there is just so much to consider that I feel like I've been loosing sight of the key issues that'll matter most to me in 2, 4, 6, +++ years down the road. Am I really going to care more about how the campus does its landscaping compared to tens of thousands of dollars of debt? Probably not... But I can't say that for sure, which is why I am asking those of you that are 2+ years further down the path than me.

This thread certainly got off track quickly. So I'll do a quick bump with the original question: Looking back after 3 years, what were the factors you wish you had used to choose a school, and which were the factors that really just amounted to noise?

Ideally, have some experience, not just speculation, and def mention if you have any thoughts on being in a long term relationship going into law school. Thanks!