Top Law Schools

I witnessed a compelling anecdote today that convinced me that it doesn't matter where you attend law school. I hired an attorney who graduated in the top 10 percent of his class, from a T1 law school, at $250/hour in a civil matter. The opposing party hired a lawyer who graduated from a so-called TTT for $100/hour. My lawyer was woefully unprepared and stumbled over his words. The lawyer from the TTT handed him his lunch.

There is not a facepalm.jpg big enough

e: just in case you're serious. The reason for going to a good school is getting a job after graduation. It has little to do with how good a lawyer you will be afterwards.

Not trolling. Just typing my opinions/frustrations that all. Forget that I mentioned it.

Ludovico Technique wrote:There is not a facepalm.jpg big enough

e: just in case you're serious. The reason for going to a good school is getting a job after graduation. It has little to do with how good a lawyer you will be afterwards.

Actually, I was unaware of that reason. So one can be a crappy student T1 student and get a better job than a TTT student who is brilliant? If that is true, then something seems inherently wrong.

Again, not trolling. It's not my style.

uh1999 wrote:

Ludovico Technique wrote:There is not a facepalm.jpg big enough

e: just in case you're serious. The reason for going to a good school is getting a job after graduation. It has little to do with how good a lawyer you will be afterwards.

Actually, I was unaware of that reason. So one can be a crappy student T1 student and get a better job than a TTT student who is brilliant. If that is true, then something seems inherently wrong.

Again, not trolling. It's not my style.

No that's not how it works. Of course a brilliant TTT student with great grades has a chance of getting a good job and someone at the bottom of the class at a T1 is probably fucked. But the median T1 student has a much better chance of getting a job than the median TTT student. And when you're choosing a law school, you don't want to choose thinking you will be brilliant and at the top of your class.

uh1999 wrote: My lawyer was woefully unprepared and stumbled over his words. The lawyer from the TTT handed him his lunch.

uh1999 wrote: Just typing my opinions/frustrations that all.

--ImageRemoved--

But seriously...

Ludovico Technique wrote: The reason for going to a good school is getting a job after graduation. It has little to do with how good a lawyer you will be afterwards.

uh1999 wrote:I witnessed a compelling anecdote today that convinced me that it doesn't matter where you attend law school. I hired an attorney who graduated in the top 10 percent of his class, from a T1 law school, at $250/hour in a civil matter. The opposing party hired a lawyer who graduated from a so-called TTT for $100/hour. My lawyer was woefully unprepared and stumbled over his words. The lawyer from the TTT handed him his lunch.

I think the key here is that the T1 was "woefully unprepared." I'm sure that no matter how good you are or where you graduated from, not being prepared is an individual mistake and anyone who isn't prepared is likely to have the floor mopped with them by someone who is.

Great sample size there buddy

Ludovico Technique wrote:

uh1999 wrote:

Ludovico Technique wrote:There is not a facepalm.jpg big enough

e: just in case you're serious. The reason for going to a good school is getting a job after graduation. It has little to do with how good a lawyer you will be afterwards.

Actually, I was unaware of that reason. So one can be a crappy student T1 student and get a better job than a TTT student who is brilliant. If that is true, then something seems inherently wrong.

Again, not trolling. It's not my style.

No that's not how it works. Of course a brilliant TTT student with great grades has a chance of getting a good job and someone at the bottom of the class at a T1 is probably fucked. But the median T1 student has a much better chance of getting a job than the median TTT student. And when you're choosing a law school, you don't want to choose thinking you will be brilliant and at the top of your class.

Bolded sections, /thread

uh1999 wrote:I witnessed a compelling anecdote today that convinced me that it doesn't matter where you attend law school. I hired an attorney who graduated in the top 10 percent of his class, from a T1 law school, at $250/hour in a civil matter. The opposing party hired a lawyer who graduated from a so-called TTT for $100/hour. My lawyer was woefully unprepared and stumbled over his words. The lawyer from the TTT handed him his lunch.

Hmmm... it seems like even in this very specific story, the T1 grad wins out in some arguably important sense...

I know you said you weren't trolling, but you should probably rethink that strategy.

uh1999 wrote:
Actually, I was unaware of that reason. So one can be a crappy student T1 student and get a better job than a TTT student who is brilliant? If that is true, then something seems inherently wrong.

It's true. Look at how much they were getting paid.

Here's an idea- look at the average salaries of Harvard grads, compare to the average salary of Cooley grads, 5, 10, 15 years out and tell me what you find. One anecdote doesn't mean that the school you go to doesn't matter.

HBK wrote:Here's an idea- look at the average salaries of Harvard grads, compare to the average salary of Cooley grads, 5, 10, 15 years out and tell me what you find. One anecdote doesn't mean that the school you go to doesn't matter.

Salary =/= skill as an attorney

dr123 wrote:

HBK wrote:Here's an idea- look at the average salaries of Harvard grads, compare to the average salary of Cooley grads, 5, 10, 15 years out and tell me what you find. One anecdote doesn't mean that the school you go to doesn't matter.

Salary =/= skill as an attorney

The statement was "T1 or TTTT: It doesn't matter." My argument is that it does matter.

Sure, a lot of great litigators are TTT because they came out of school and the only job they could find was at a shitlaw litigation firm doing criminal defense, med/mal, car wrecks, asbestos, etc. They got a lot of experience doing shitlaw. But I'd still rather hire the Baker Botts or V&E T14 grad to handle my corporate litigation or mergers, etc.

HBK wrote:

dr123 wrote:

HBK wrote:Here's an idea- look at the average salaries of Harvard grads, compare to the average salary of Cooley grads, 5, 10, 15 years out and tell me what you find. One anecdote doesn't mean that the school you go to doesn't matter.

Salary =/= skill as an attorney

The statement was "T1 or TTTT: It doesn't matter." My argument is that it does matter.

Sure, a lot of great litigators are TTT because they came out of school and the only job they could find was at a shitlaw litigation firm doing criminal defense, med/mal, car wrecks, asbestos, etc. They got a lot of experience doing shitlaw. But I'd still rather hire the Baker Botts or V&E T14 grad to handle my corporate litigation or mergers, etc.

This is almost as asinine as the original post.

Anecdotes, by definition, shouldn't be compelling to you.

"I heard some anecdotal evidence today that totally changed my opinion on X!"

See the problem?

uh1999 wrote:I witnessed a compelling anecdote today that convinced me that it doesn't matter where you attend law school. I hired an attorney who graduated in the top 10 percent of his class, from a T1 law school, at $250/hour in a civil matter. The opposing party hired a lawyer who graduated from a so-called TTT for $100/hour. My lawyer was woefully unprepared and stumbled over his words. The lawyer from the TTT handed him his lunch.

A flaw in the above reasoning is that the poster

A) Neglects to consider the possibility that the sample is unrepresentative of the population of attorneys

B) Neglects to consider the possibility that the schools attended by the attorneys offered unequal courses in the relevant specialty, while the higher-ranked school provided a more holistic education in other areas of the law

C) Assumes without justification that the lower-ranked school did not concentrate a larger proportion of its resources on the relevant specialty while neglecting its training in other specialties

D) Neglects to consider the possibility that the attorney who graduated from the lower-ranked school did not already possess superior natural skills to those of the other attorney; that the graduate from the lower-ranked school could have attended a higher-ranked school had he chosen to

E) Assumes without warrant that no personal issues affected the performance of the attorney who graduated from the higher-ranked school

F) All of the above

For the record, I believe many graduates of lower-tiered schools are superior performers and receive better practical training. That does not, however, make the lower-tiered schools "better"; nor do the average earnings of graduates from higher-tiered schools make those schools necessarily better. There are questions of "fit" and "opportunity" that each student must consider.

You just now realized that law school is an elaborate credentialing scam?

reasonable_man wrote:

HBK wrote:

dr123 wrote:

HBK wrote:Here's an idea- look at the average salaries of Harvard grads, compare to the average salary of Cooley grads, 5, 10, 15 years out and tell me what you find. One anecdote doesn't mean that the school you go to doesn't matter.

Salary =/= skill as an attorney

The statement was "T1 or TTTT: It doesn't matter." My argument is that it does matter.

Sure, a lot of great litigators are TTT because they came out of school and the only job they could find was at a shitlaw litigation firm doing criminal defense, med/mal, car wrecks, asbestos, etc. They got a lot of experience doing shitlaw. But I'd still rather hire the Baker Botts or V&E T14 grad to handle my corporate litigation or mergers, etc.

This is almost as asinine as the original post.

So what you're saying is you would hire an attorney who does corporate litigation, mergers, etc. regularly over an attorney who does not/has not. Wow, no way.

Grizz wrote:You just now realized that law school is an elaborate credentialing scam?

LOL. This is honestly what it feels like sometimes. Law school is one hell of a racket.

Nightrunner wrote:

dr123 wrote: So what you're saying is you would hire an attorney who does corporate litigation, mergers, etc. regularly over an attorney who does not/has not. Wow, no way.

No, what he's saying is that there are plenty of reasons why someone who graduated from a TTT might end up being a damn good attorney*.

* Or, at least, definitely more than the single "well, I guess a few might be good litigators, since they're so experienced from arguing all those traffic tickets and shit" reason provided in the post he was mocking.

I understand what he was getting at, but the way he phrased it was absolutely retarded. Of course you're not going to hire a small time general litigator to do a corporate merger, they've probably never done that before. But that doesn't really speak to their skills as an attorney.

On the flipside, you're not going to want a Corporate litigator to do your divorce, but that doesn't mean they aren't a good attorney.