Every aspiring lawyer should read this. Forum

[Anonimo]

If you are feeling lazy, read it from page 21.

http://www.econ.wisc.edu/workshop/selective.pdf

The Returns to Attending a Prestigious Law School by Paul Oyeryand Scott Schaeferz.

[gobuffs10]

I only read the beginning, but it appears that the point is go T10, possibly 11-20, past that not at all, because the people from better schools will make more than you. Did I miss anything?

[Anonimo]

because the people from better schools will make more than you.

Where is this mentioned or implied?

[Lasers]

because the people from better schools will make more than you.

Where is this mentioned or implied?

srsly? i literally read the first two sentences...

"In 2002, those lawyers that went to top 10 law schools made, on average, 25% more than those that went to schools ranked 11-20 and over 50% more than those that went to schools ranked 21-100."

[cahwc12]

This was published four years ago, and two years before http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/ existed.

It also says it's very preliminary, but there hasn't been an update since.

[Anonimo]

because the people from better schools will make more than you.

Where is this mentioned or implied?

srsly? i literally read the first two sentences...

"In 2002, those lawyers that went to top 10 law schools made, on average, 25% more than those that went to schools ranked 11-20 and over 50% more than those that went to schools ranked 21-100."

Ops forgot to include an important phrase on the quote. ''past that not at all" Where does it imply that you shouldn't attend lower ranked law schools because people will be making more money than you at top schools. Honest question.

[Lasers]

because the people from better schools will make more than you.

Where is this mentioned or implied?

srsly? i literally read the first two sentences...

"In 2002, those lawyers that went to top 10 law schools made, on average, 25% more than those that went to schools ranked 11-20 and over 50% more than those that went to schools ranked 21-100."

Ops forgot to include an important phrase on the quote. ''past that not at all" Where does it imply that you shouldn't attend lower ranked law schools because people will be making more money than you at top schools. Honest question.

i didn't read the article, but i don't think anyone is saying not to attend lower ranked schools just because others may be making more than you.

i think common sentiment is that you should avoid lower ranked schools because of their troubling employment numbers/placement when compared to their higher ranked counterparts.

[suralin]

Contrary to my expectations, OP's linked article is relatively interesting and informative--albeit from before the current recession, so grain of salt and all that.

On page 21:
"Column 1 of Table 10 shows that, given these assumptions, our lawyer's expected income with
her LSAT of 163 is just over $4 million if she does not discount future income streams, $2.4 million
if she discounts at 5%, and $1.54 million if she discounts at 10%. Column 2 shows that our
lawyers chances of getting into a Top 10 or Top 20 school and, therefore, her income are enhanced
significantly if she can increase her LSAT scores by 5 points. If she does not discount, five LSAT
points are worth over $700,000 in expectation and nearly $300,000 if she discounts by the full 10%.
The increases are smaller ($200,000 without discounting and $80,000 with 10% discounting) for a
further increase in LSAT scores from 168 to 173. Even taking our lowest estimates and allowing for
some noise in our estimates, these estimates suggest that such actions as LSAT preparation classes,
spending time refining admissions essays, and even studying hard in relevant undergraduate classes
in hopes of improving grades all have a significant positive return for aspiring lawyers."

^ TLS conventional wisdom upheld. Study for dat LSAT, people.

[romothesavior]

This was published four years ago, and two years before http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/ existed.

It also says it's very preliminary, but there hasn't been an update since.

I imagine the difference in pay is even more stark as a result of ITE.

[eleemosynary2]

I didn't read this, but can it be condensed to "retake"?

[DocHawkeye]

"In 2002, those lawyers that went to top 10 law schools made, on average, 25% more than those that went to schools ranked 11-20 and over 50% more than those that went to schools ranked 21-100."

[/quote]

Hmm. Ten year old data. Very useful.

Also, is earning potential the only useful metric in measuring the value of a legal education?

[dingbat]

"In 2002, those lawyers that went to top 10 law schools made, on average, 25% more than those that went to schools ranked 11-20 and over 50% more than those that went to schools ranked 21-100."

Hmm. Ten year old data. Very useful.

Also, is earning potential the only useful metric in measuring the value of a legal education?[/quote]
No, but it is a very important metric; apart from that, the lawyers eligible for the best-paying jobs are also competitive for very prestigious jobs that pay less (judges, D.A.s, etc.)

Contrary to my expectations, OP's linked article is relatively interesting and informative--albeit from before the current recession, so grain of salt and all that.

On page 21:
"Column 1 of Table 10 shows that, given these assumptions, our lawyer's expected income with
her LSAT of 163 is just over $4 million if she does not discount future income streams, $2.4 million
if she discounts at 5%, and $1.54 million if she discounts at 10%. Column 2 shows that our
lawyers chances of getting into a Top 10 or Top 20 school and, therefore, her income are enhanced
significantly if she can increase her LSAT scores by 5 points. If she does not discount, five LSAT
points are worth over $700,000 in expectation and nearly $300,000 if she discounts by the full 10%.
The increases are smaller ($200,000 without discounting and $80,000 with 10% discounting) for a
further increase in LSAT scores from 168 to 173. Even taking our lowest estimates and allowing for
some noise in our estimates, these estimates suggest that such actions as LSAT preparation classes,
spending time refining admissions essays, and even studying hard in relevant undergraduate classes
in hopes of improving grades all have a significant positive return for aspiring lawyers."

^ TLS conventional wisdom upheld. Study for dat LSAT, people.

Yeah, I did my own financial analysis of a few schools and it makes a huge difference

[mh33]

I think we are trying to make too much out of something that merely states a conventional wisdom that we already accept (max your LSAT). Obviously any basic regression is going to show that people in better ranked schools, on the whole, make more than people in lower ranked ones. Boiling it down literally to saying t-10 or t-20 is the cutoff is silly. For example, if you are in Boston, obviously Harvard grads will make more than BC/BU grads. Yet, BC/BU grads definitely outperform higher ranked schools in other regions whether it is because there is more competition there or a smaller market.

I find it somewhat funny that with the relatively high stats of most of the people on here, they freak out about all sorts of concerns for entering the legal field that wouldn't apply to someone attending a T-14 or a T-50 regional powerhouse at a discount (which is the majority of the people on here). It's great that we all have done our homework, but I think we can all relax a bit.

[suralin]

I think we are trying to make too much out of something that merely states a conventional wisdom that we already accept (max your LSAT). Obviously any basic regression is going to show that people in better ranked schools, on the whole, make more than people in lower ranked ones. Boiling it down literally to saying t-10 or t-20 is the cutoff is silly. For example, if you are in Boston, obviously Harvard grads will make more than BC/BU grads. Yet, BC/BU grads definitely outperform higher ranked schools in other regions whether it is because there is more competition there or a smaller market.

I find it somewhat funny that with the relatively high stats of most of the people on here, they freak out about all sorts of concerns for entering the legal field that wouldn't apply to someone attending a T-14 or a T-50 regional powerhouse at a discount (which is the majority of the people on here). It's great that we all have done our homework, but I think we can all relax a bit.

Your first point is a given. But your second--most posters here can relax because most of us go to top schools--is questionable. For example, just look at the many threads on this very site where posters, some above median with LR at T-14 schools, have quite a bit of trouble finding a legal job, let alone a job that allows one to comfortably pay off the loans many of us have.

Yes, it's true that on average students at top law schools don't need to worry (as much), but why risk it? The legal market is so shitty right now I'd want as much of a margin for error as possible. Better safe than sorry, etc.

[BarbellDreams]

I think we are trying to make too much out of something that merely states a conventional wisdom that we already accept (max your LSAT). Obviously any basic regression is going to show that people in better ranked schools, on the whole, make more than people in lower ranked ones. Boiling it down literally to saying t-10 or t-20 is the cutoff is silly. For example, if you are in Boston, obviously Harvard grads will make more than BC/BU grads. Yet, BC/BU grads definitely outperform higher ranked schools in other regions whether it is because there is more competition there or a smaller market.

I find it somewhat funny that with the relatively high stats of most of the people on here, they freak out about all sorts of concerns for entering the legal field that wouldn't apply to someone attending a T-14 or a T-50 regional powerhouse at a discount (which is the majority of the people on here). It's great that we all have done our homework, but I think we can all relax a bit.

Your first point is a given. But your second--most posters here can relax because most of us go to top schools--is questionable. For example, just look at the many threads on this very site where posters, some above median with LR at T-14 schools, have quite a bit of trouble finding a legal job, let alone a job that allows one to comfortably pay off the loans many of us have.

Yes, it's true that on average students at top law schools don't need to worry (as much), but why risk it? The legal market is so shitty right now I'd want as much of a margin for error as possible. Better safe than sorry, etc.

This.

0L's often times don't get the simple concept. Seriously, unless HYS you are NEVER safe attending ANYTHING. You certainly have more freedom to not be at the top of the class as median at CCN will likely be just fine and even MVP median has a solid shot at big law. If you are a 0L you absolutely do not know what it is like until you're here when it comes to job hunting. The real problem I see is that all 0L's, no matter how much they read or how rational they are, have the "special snowflake syndrome" going until they actually get 1L grades back. At best they are thinking that median is the bare minimum they will achieve and somewhere around top 25% sounds about right for them, at worst they think top 10% should be set but they'll be "ok with" top 20. Worst yet, basically all 0Ls believe that a student at a school like WUSTL, Fordham, ND, etc. with top 20% grades is safe and will get a job. Sorry, no, you're not out of the woods by a long shot. Telling people to "relax" should be a C&F failure.

[suralin]

I think we are trying to make too much out of something that merely states a conventional wisdom that we already accept (max your LSAT). Obviously any basic regression is going to show that people in better ranked schools, on the whole, make more than people in lower ranked ones. Boiling it down literally to saying t-10 or t-20 is the cutoff is silly. For example, if you are in Boston, obviously Harvard grads will make more than BC/BU grads. Yet, BC/BU grads definitely outperform higher ranked schools in other regions whether it is because there is more competition there or a smaller market.

I find it somewhat funny that with the relatively high stats of most of the people on here, they freak out about all sorts of concerns for entering the legal field that wouldn't apply to someone attending a T-14 or a T-50 regional powerhouse at a discount (which is the majority of the people on here). It's great that we all have done our homework, but I think we can all relax a bit.

Your first point is a given. But your second--most posters here can relax because most of us go to top schools--is questionable. For example, just look at the many threads on this very site where posters, some above median with LR at T-14 schools, have quite a bit of trouble finding a legal job, let alone a job that allows one to comfortably pay off the loans many of us have.

Yes, it's true that on average students at top law schools don't need to worry (as much), but why risk it? The legal market is so shitty right now I'd want as much of a margin for error as possible. Better safe than sorry, etc.

This.

0L's often times don't get the simple concept. Seriously, unless HYS you are NEVER safe attending ANYTHING. You certainly have more freedom to not be at the top of the class as median at CCN will likely be just fine and even MVP median has a solid shot at big law. If you are a 0L you absolutely do not know what it is like until you're here when it comes to job hunting. The real problem I see is that all 0L's, no matter how much they read or how rational they are, have the "special snowflake syndrome" going until they actually get 1L grades back. At best they are thinking that median is the bare minimum they will achieve and somewhere around top 25% sounds about right for them, at worst they think top 10% should be set but they'll be "ok with" top 20. Worst yet, basically all 0Ls believe that a student at a school like WUSTL, Fordham, ND, etc. with top 20% grades is safe and will get a job. Sorry, no, you're not out of the woods by a long shot. Telling people to "relax" should be a C&F failure.

Agreed, of course. I'd just like to note that I'm actually a 0L. I've just spent a lot of time on this board, so I fully realize the danger of thinking that I'll be a "special snowflake." (Although, maybe I am a special snowflake for realizing I'm not a special snowflake as a 0L.)

[finnandjake2]

I think we are trying to make too much out of something that merely states a conventional wisdom that we already accept (max your LSAT). Obviously any basic regression is going to show that people in better ranked schools, on the whole, make more than people in lower ranked ones. Boiling it down literally to saying t-10 or t-20 is the cutoff is silly. For example, if you are in Boston, obviously Harvard grads will make more than BC/BU grads. Yet, BC/BU grads definitely outperform higher ranked schools in other regions whether it is because there is more competition there or a smaller market.

I find it somewhat funny that with the relatively high stats of most of the people on here, they freak out about all sorts of concerns for entering the legal field that wouldn't apply to someone attending a T-14 or a T-50 regional powerhouse at a discount (which is the majority of the people on here). It's great that we all have done our homework, but I think we can all relax a bit.

Your first point is a given. But your second--most posters here can relax because most of us go to top schools--is questionable. For example, just look at the many threads on this very site where posters, some above median with LR at T-14 schools, have quite a bit of trouble finding a legal job, let alone a job that allows one to comfortably pay off the loans many of us have.

Yes, it's true that on average students at top law schools don't need to worry (as much), but why risk it? The legal market is so shitty right now I'd want as much of a margin for error as possible. Better safe than sorry, etc.

This.

0L's often times don't get the simple concept. Seriously, unless HYS you are NEVER safe attending ANYTHING. You certainly have more freedom to not be at the top of the class as median at CCN will likely be just fine and even MVP median has a solid shot at big law. If you are a 0L you absolutely do not know what it is like until you're here when it comes to job hunting. The real problem I see is that all 0L's, no matter how much they read or how rational they are, have the "special snowflake syndrome" going until they actually get 1L grades back. At best they are thinking that median is the bare minimum they will achieve and somewhere around top 25% sounds about right for them, at worst they think top 10% should be set but they'll be "ok with" top 20. Worst yet, basically all 0Ls believe that a student at a school like WUSTL, Fordham, ND, etc. with top 20% grades is safe and will get a job. Sorry, no, you're not out of the woods by a long shot. Telling people to "relax" should be a C&F failure.

This seems accurate... I would add that ITE even HYS is no guarantee of a job (let alone one that will make it possible to pay off loans.)

[mh33]

I agree with everything that is being said. By no means have I ignored the fact that I may not finish as high as I hope in my class or that I still may be searching for a job if I do finish in the top 10%. "Special Snowflake" syndrome or not, we are all absorbing the fact that in this challenging legal market, there will be some people left at that wayside, even from top schools. The fact remains that there is no such thing as a true guarantee ever, period. Obviously, those who have already experienced the process firsthand know best. I am simply saying that based on the published statistics we all have seen, speaking with hiring partners at some BigLaw firms, and speaking with current and recently graduated law students, it's not unreasonable for students at good schools to believe that they have a legitimate shot at corporate/BigLaw when they graduate.

[nygrrrl]

0L's often times don't get the simple concept. Seriously,unless HYS you are NEVER safe attending ANYTHING.

Reality? There are no guarantees. Period.

[sadsituationJD]

On this note, have the mods/owners of the site ever considered limiting the website to strictly Top 14 discussions(i.e, truly "top" law schools) discussions? It's kinda hilarious to click a site called "top-law-schools" and see kids doing the Drexel v. Temple comparison or Brooklyn v. 'Bozo or other laughable TTTToilets that really don't even qualify as legitimate educational institutions. Anyone today considering anything outside the T-14 really isn't worth having a discussion with anyway. Yet the site is contaminated with fools proclaiming "in at GW!" and "Rutgers-Newark Class of 2015" and other nonsense. For most non Top 14s. the chance of Biglaw is laughably slim, and we all know and acknowledge that absent scoring Biglaw the entire lawschool process was a comical and utter waste of time.

Campos has a nice piece here about "trap schools" like Fordham which have some lay prestige and masquerade as 'real' schools, when in effect they are slightly tarted-up TTTToilets:

http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot. ... hools.html

[BeenDidThat]

On this note, have the mods/owners of the site ever considered limiting the website to strictly Top 14 discussions(i.e, truly "top" law schools) discussions? It's kinda hilarious to click a site called "top-law-schools" and see kids doing the Drexel v. Temple comparison or Brooklyn v. 'Bozo or other laughable TTTToilets that really don't even qualify as legitimate educational institutions. Anyone today considering anything outside the T-14 really isn't worth having a discussion with anyway. Yet the site is contaminated with fools proclaiming "in at GW!" and "Rutgers-Newark Class of 2015" and other nonsense. For most non Top 14s. the chance of Biglaw is laughably slim, and we all know and acknowledge that absent scoring Biglaw the entire lawschool process was a comical and utter waste of time.

Campos has a nice piece here about "trap schools" like Fordham which have some lay prestige and masquerade as 'real' schools, when in effect they are slightly tarted-up TTTToilets:

http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot. ... hools.html

So, not only are you a loser, but you're an asshole to boot? Go away.

[ndirish2010]

Nah, he's just extremely bitter. So are a lot of people on this site.

[dingbat]

On this note, have the mods/owners of the site ever considered limiting the website to strictly Top 14 discussions(i.e, truly "top" law schools) discussions? It's kinda hilarious to click a site called "top-law-schools" and see kids doing the Drexel v. Temple comparison or Brooklyn v. 'Bozo or other laughable TTTToilets that really don't even qualify as legitimate educational institutions. Anyone today considering anything outside the T-14 really isn't worth having a discussion with anyway. Yet the site is contaminated with fools proclaiming "in at GW!" and "Rutgers-Newark Class of 2015" and other nonsense. For most non Top 14s. the chance of Biglaw is laughably slim, and we all know and acknowledge that absent scoring Biglaw the entire lawschool process was a comical and utter waste of time.

Campos has a nice piece here about "trap schools" like Fordham which have some lay prestige and masquerade as 'real' schools, when in effect they are slightly tarted-up TTTToilets:

http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot. ... hools.html

What about people with a big scholarship? What about people looking to attend the local flagship at in-state rate? Are you saying no one should attend Alabama, or take a full ride to WUSTL? Hell, the "trap schools" listed (USC/GW/Fordham) are all incredibly good if one can attend at even a moderate scholarship. Hell, if someone is deadset on working in LA, USC is a better option than DCNG, if not MVP as well.

Besides, quite a few "drexel v temple" questions lead to a discussion of the merits of the school and the enhanced options of a retake

[BarbellDreams]

I think we are trying to make too much out of something that merely states a conventional wisdom that we already accept (max your LSAT). Obviously any basic regression is going to show that people in better ranked schools, on the whole, make more than people in lower ranked ones. Boiling it down literally to saying t-10 or t-20 is the cutoff is silly. For example, if you are in Boston, obviously Harvard grads will make more than BC/BU grads. Yet, BC/BU grads definitely outperform higher ranked schools in other regions whether it is because there is more competition there or a smaller market.

I find it somewhat funny that with the relatively high stats of most of the people on here, they freak out about all sorts of concerns for entering the legal field that wouldn't apply to someone attending a T-14 or a T-50 regional powerhouse at a discount (which is the majority of the people on here). It's great that we all have done our homework, but I think we can all relax a bit.

Your first point is a given. But your second--most posters here can relax because most of us go to top schools--is questionable. For example, just look at the many threads on this very site where posters, some above median with LR at T-14 schools, have quite a bit of trouble finding a legal job, let alone a job that allows one to comfortably pay off the loans many of us have.

Yes, it's true that on average students at top law schools don't need to worry (as much), but why risk it? The legal market is so shitty right now I'd want as much of a margin for error as possible. Better safe than sorry, etc.

This.

0L's often times don't get the simple concept. Seriously, unless HYS you are NEVER safe attending ANYTHING. You certainly have more freedom to not be at the top of the class as median at CCN will likely be just fine and even MVP median has a solid shot at big law. If you are a 0L you absolutely do not know what it is like until you're here when it comes to job hunting. The real problem I see is that all 0L's, no matter how much they read or how rational they are, have the "special snowflake syndrome" going until they actually get 1L grades back. At best they are thinking that median is the bare minimum they will achieve and somewhere around top 25% sounds about right for them, at worst they think top 10% should be set but they'll be "ok with" top 20. Worst yet, basically all 0Ls believe that a student at a school like WUSTL, Fordham, ND, etc. with top 20% grades is safe and will get a job. Sorry, no, you're not out of the woods by a long shot. Telling people to "relax" should be a C&F failure.

Agreed, of course. I'd just like to note that I'm actually a 0L. I've just spent a lot of time on this board, so I fully realize the danger of thinking that I'll be a "special snowflake." (Although, maybe I am a special snowflake for realizing I'm not a special snowflake as a 0L.)

You have my "favorite 0L poster" crown right now.

Reality? There are no guarantees. Period.

Even ITE, I personally think that assuming you want A job and are cool with DA/PD/Legal Aid/ small law/ whatever else HYS is very safe. Assuming biglaw, nothing is really safe, though I have heard of HYS kids who got destroyed by finals land biglaw over a ton of MVP candidates. I would feel completely comfortable going to HYS with intentions of being a DA. But again, this is easily debatable, so just my own opinion of course.

it's not unreasonable for students at good schools to believe that they have a legitimate shot at corporate/BigLaw when they graduate.

Two things:

1. Define "good schools".

2. Saying "Its not unreasonable" is a lot different than telling people they will be fine and need to relax like you did earlier. I agree with the former, not the latter, which was what my post originally responded to.

So, not only are you a loser, but you're an asshole to boot? Go away.

He has been spewing this in the Legal Employment forum for a while now. Here, let me give you the cliff notes: Everything sucks, everyone sucks, no one will ever get a job, you're all working at starbucks, you'll all never pay off your loans, you all will never work in any legal profession, you will all sit around spamming craigslist, you will all hate your life, you will all regret your "education", there are no jobs, there are no jobs, there are no jobs, (insert link to data showing lack of jobs).

There, I saved you some time from reading any of his posts in the future. They will all just keep repeating the above.

[dingbat]

^that's sadsituation in a nutshell