Top Law Schools

Narrowing choices. Understand from my previous post that the schools don't provide a "great" chance of a clerkship or big law.

For me, I do want to practice in Hawaii. However, I would also like a federal clerkship (if possible). I see myself in public interest in the long term. Ok in big/medium firm for short term to pay off debt load (again if possible/necessary).

EDIT: Should add that if not practicing in Hawaii, CA would be my second choice

Down to:

Irvine seems to have solid clerkship numbers. Hastings seems to still have a good reputation in the legal community. Hawaii my only "regional" choice (being the only school in the state).

Better to save money at Hawaii, secure stronger regional ties, and land a position after school making 35k-50k (Hawaii places high in state clerkships/government for obvious reasons).

EDIT: Irvine also has LRAP program (however, uncertain of long-term sustainability of program and anticipate them switching from being an open program to selective one)

Take on more debt for Hastings/Irvine for better clerkship opportunities/reputation in legal community. Or would the debt be too much with little prospects for big payoffs (big/medium law).

ADD:

Estimated Debt-
Hawaii-$105k
Irvine-$170K (Hoping they get back to me with more money)
Hastings-$200k+ (Still waiting on aid offers)
Illinois-$140k

I'd say Hawaii, hands down:

Irvine is a new school and is untested. It managed to pull some great numbers for its inaugural class because it was a very small class and the dean (and other staff members) called in every favor they could to obtain the best possible outcomes for their initial classes (not to mention the novelty factor). You don't know how the school will fare now that class sizes have gotten larger and you don't know when the goodwill will run out. Honestly, there's no reason to believe that they will continue to do as well long-term (and good reason to believe that percentage wise their placement statistics will drop significantly as they ramp up class size).

in 2010, Hawaii managed to place 1 person (out of 80 students) into a federal clerkship, Hastings 4 (out of 421 students)
in 2011, Hawaii managed to place 2 person (out of 101 students) into a federal clerkship, Hastings 8 (out of 411 students)
This means that, as a percentage, Hastings places no better than Hawaii

On the employment side, Hastings places into larger firms, with approximately 19% of class of 2010 going to firms 50+, versus only about 8% at Hawaii. However, for that same year, only 55% of hastings grads were employed, compared to 78% at Hawaii.
LawSchoolTransparency gives them about equal employment scores (45.3% for hastings, 47.5% at hawaii) but gives Hastings a significantly lower underemployment score (43.1% vs 26.7%)

Basically, while Hastings will place a somewhat higher percentage of graduates into firms (35% vs 24%) and these firms are generally larger (because firms in Hawaii tend to be smaller), that is the only advantage that Hastings has.
Hawaii places proportionally the same into federal clerkships, but has significantly better placement in state clerkships (30% vs 1%), does better when looking at overall employment (a dubious statistic), and has similar percentages for full time JD required jobs

Put simply, a breakdown of employment statistics shows no advantage for Hastings other than if you want to work in a larger firm. Better to stay in Hawaii where you will be able to network for local jobs.

edit: I've noticed that for some stats I used class of 2010 stats, and other times 2011 (though always the same year from each school). The difference is negligible

.

dingbat wrote:I'd say Hawaii, hands down:

Irvine is a new school and is untested. It managed to pull some great numbers for its inaugural class because it was a very small class and the dean (and other staff members) called in every favor they could to obtain the best possible outcomes for their initial classes (not to mention the novelty factor). You don't know how the school will fare now that class sizes have gotten larger and you don't know when the goodwill will run out. Honestly, there's no reason to believe that they will continue to do as well long-term (and good reason to believe that percentage wise their placement statistics will drop significantly as they ramp up class size).

in 2010, Hawaii managed to place 1 person (out of 80 students) into a federal clerkship, Hastings 4 (out of 421 students)
in 2011, Hawaii managed to place 2 person (out of 101 students) into a federal clerkship, Hastings 8 (out of 411 students)
This means that, as a percentage, Hastings places no better than Hawaii

On the employment side, Hastings places into larger firms, with approximately 19% of class of 2010 going to firms 50+, versus only about 8% at Hawaii. However, for that same year, only 55% of hastings grads were employed, compared to 78% at Hawaii.
LawSchoolTransparency gives them about equal employment scores (45.3% for hastings, 47.5% at hawaii) but gives Hastings a significantly lower underemployment score (43.1% vs 26.7%)

Basically, while Hastings will place a somewhat higher percentage of graduates into firms (35% vs 24%) and these firms are generally larger (because firms in Hawaii tend to be smaller), that is the only advantage that Hastings has.
Hawaii places proportionally the same into federal clerkships, but has significantly better placement in state clerkships (30% vs 1%), does better when looking at overall employment (a dubious statistic), and has similar percentages for full time JD required jobs

Put simply, a breakdown of employment statistics shows no advantage for Hastings other than if you want to work in a larger firm. Better to stay in Hawaii where you will be able to network for local jobs.

edit: I've noticed that for some stats I used class of 2010 stats, and other times 2011 (though always the same year from each school). The difference is negligible

Thanks ALOT for this feedback. Very useful

nickb285 wrote:Also, if you do wind up missing out on a job, I'd rather be unemployed in Hawaii than in southern California.

True that.

Although Honolulu was ranked 8th meanest city "based on the number of anti-homeless laws." Though, its quite friendly if your not homeless haha.

The Irvine and Hastings offers are really bad and potentially life ruinous. Definitely would not go to either if you want Hawaii.

The Hawaii offer sounds bad and very real chance of never working as a lawyer but if I had a gun to my head I would choose that one.

Since there is no gun to my head if I had these three choices I would not go to law school, period. Staying in my current career or working whatever bad job is open to those of us with BAs nowadays is preferential to being debt-pwned IMO. Simply wanting to be a lawyer is not enough if every option is terrible. And these are all bad.

If you want a federal clerkship, retake until you get into Yale.

BigZuck wrote:The Hawaii offer sounds bad

why does it sound bad?

dingbat wrote:

BigZuck wrote:The Hawaii offer sounds bad

why does it sound bad?

How does around 100k+ debt for a school that places less than half its students in LT/FT lawyer jobs not sound bad?

bk187 wrote:

dingbat wrote:

BigZuck wrote:The Hawaii offer sounds bad

why does it sound bad?

How does around 100k+ debt for a school that places less than half its students in LT/FT lawyer jobs not sound bad?

Thing is, it's the only law school in Hawaii, so if OP wants to practice in Hawaii there's not a lot of choice. Yep, it's only a 50/50 shot at practicing law, but then, people going sticker to the lower T14 are in a similar boat of only having a 50/50 shot at paying it back.

It's not a good option, but it's the least bad (short of getting HYS)

I think your goals are out of sync with these schools. A clerkship is not likely.
Moreover, you say that would be ok with a big or medium sized firm. Do you realize that this is an unlikely outcome that students at these schools would kill for?

ImNoScar wrote:I think your goals are out of sync with these schools. A clerkship is not likely.
Moreover, you say that would be ok with a big or medium sized firm. Do you realize that this is an unlikely outcome that students at these schools would kill for?

Yup

sonny wrote:

ImNoScar wrote:I think your goals are out of sync with these schools. A clerkship is not likely.
Moreover, you say that would be ok with a big or medium sized firm. Do you realize that this is an unlikely outcome that students at these schools would kill for?

Yup

If you realize that, why would you go to any of these schools? Serious question.
Also, LRAP eligible PI can be harder to get than big law.

dingbat wrote:

bk187 wrote:

dingbat wrote:

BigZuck wrote:The Hawaii offer sounds bad

why does it sound bad?

How does around 100k+ debt for a school that places less than half its students in LT/FT lawyer jobs not sound bad?

Thing is, it's the only law school in Hawaii, so if OP wants to practice in Hawaii there's not a lot of choice. Yep, it's only a 50/50 shot at practicing law, but then, people going sticker to the lower T14 are in a similar boat of only having a 50/50 shot at paying it back.

It's not a good option, but it's the least bad (short of getting HYS)

I appreciate the feedback. Here's my two cents, subjective and possibly overly optimistic but hopefully not devoid of all reason.

I understand both points, but I do feel that one has to look into the numbers a little more. I know many 1/2/3Ls (since each class is around/less than 100 and typically filled with people from Hawaii), so I have tried to also gauge which students do find jobs. I feel that with my educational background/field (BAs & MA) as well as WE with nonprofits and currently in the court system, I feel hopeful about my job prospects in general.

Also recognize that UH typically hosts non-traditional students. This includes those with families, with WE, other commitments. etc. I mention this because I know students who have voluntarily taken time off directly after school to focus on other commitments temporarily or spent the year after law school traveling just to take a break. Moreover, many graduate end up working in the legislature (many even entering law school with that intention). Most of these are not full-time and not long-term. With such a small class, these factors easily effect the numbers. Maybe not accounting for all of the numbers, but in conjunction with my previous paragraph my HOPE is that this puts a more hopeful light on my situation.

While I'm generally derisive of low ranked law schools, I always make an exception when it's the only law school in the state with in-state rate, which makes it a very different proposition

ImNoScar wrote:

sonny wrote:

ImNoScar wrote:I think your goals are out of sync with these schools. A clerkship is not likely.
Moreover, you say that would be ok with a big or medium sized firm. Do you realize that this is an unlikely outcome that students at these schools would kill for?

Yup

If you realize that, why would you go to any of these schools? Serious question.
Also, LRAP eligible PI can be harder to get than big law.

I understand where you're coming from. To clarify big law isn't really my goal. Including it was meant as a possible means of paying off Hastings/Irvine. Understanding that my chances are slim, I mainly wanted insight as to whether having Hastings/Irvine in my back pocket over Hawaii justified the risk. From the feedback so far, I'm beginning to think no. Ultimately I do want to end up in the public interest/nonprofit area, however I'm somewhat hesitant jumping into Hawaii given its geographic limitations.

[/quote]

ImNoScar wrote:Also, LRAP eligible PI can be harder to get than big law.

This is what worries me. Even more, Irvine currently makes no promise of its continued availability for all students as it is dependent upon available funding. This worries me more.

dingbat wrote:

BigZuck wrote:The Hawaii offer sounds bad

why does it sound bad?

I'm not firmly convinced that a USC/UCLA/Vandy/UT school is worth 100k. Still a big time chance of not getting a lawyer job at all and 100k sounds like you would need a high paying job to pay it off.

I can't fathom paying the same amount to go to a school that is significantly worse than these. Even if it is the only one in the state.

sonny wrote:I understand where you're coming from. To clarify big law isn't really my goal. Including it was meant as a possible means of paying off Hastings/Irvine. Understanding that my chances are slim, I mainly wanted insight as to whether having Hastings/Irvine in my back pocket over Hawaii justified the risk. From the feedback so far, I'm beginning to think no. Ultimately I do want to end up in the public interest/nonprofit area, however I'm somewhat hesitant jumping into Hawaii given its geographic limitations.

UCH/UCI are categorically not worth it for you. They are going to cost around 200k for UCH and more than 200k for UCI. No question, don't go to either especially when you don't even primarily want CA.

The question then is whether UH for 100k+ is worth it. It's true that you really don't have another option (they don't really give scholly money and there is no better school). Honestly I don't think that changes things except that if UH isn't worth it then you just don't go to law school at all rather than retake/reapply for a better school. Honestly I don't think UH for 100k+ is worth it. At around 50-70k I think it would be reasonable, but it just seems way too expensive for terrible employment stats. I understand you feel like you have a leg up, but you are seriously competing for something like 50ish opening spots. Those kind of odds can screw you by simple randomness. That being said, I don't think UH would be terrible, though it would be pretty bad imo.

dingbat wrote:While I'm generally derisive of low ranked law schools, I always make an exception when it's the only law school in the state with in-state rate, which makes it a very different proposition

This is a pretty common fallacy on TLS. Low ranked state schools that dominate their states do not tend to have any better outcomes than other low ranked schools. Even at the in-state sticker rate, these schools often cost well over 100k (UH is currently 120k+ at sticker). Compared to getting a scholarship at a low ranked school where the stips have been negotiated away, I do not think the propositions are any different.

I will grant you the fact that for schools like UH, there isn't necessarily a better option; whereas for someone going to Hastings aiming for CA, you can always tell them to go to Berkeley instead. That doesn't make the option to go any different, it just means alternative options are limited.

bk187 wrote:

dingbat wrote:While I'm generally derisive of low ranked law schools, I always make an exception when it's the only law school in the state with in-state rate, which makes it a very different proposition

This is a pretty common fallacy on TLS. Low ranked state schools that dominate their states do not tend to have any better outcomes than other low ranked schools. Even at the in-state sticker rate, these schools often cost well over 100k (UH is currently 120k+ at sticker). Compared to getting a scholarship at a low ranked school where the stips have been negotiated away, I do not think the propositions are any different.

Actually, for the most part I assume I know nothing about small insular markets, which may have other factors I can't consider, so I'm not as quick to be derisive. Cost v. outcome is always a concern, and whether or not the cost is justifiable is generally more specific than I care to calculate.
For example, state clerkships in many states are not a particularly good outcome, but in some smaller states they're a great springboard. Another factor is that some attendees might use law school as a springboard into politics, or there could be a particular business/industry that hires law school graduates directly (because unlike NY, there aren't a lot of biglaw associates looking to lateral out)
The main thing is that small markets require local knowledge to be able to provide meaningful comments

dingbat wrote:For example, state clerkships in many states are not a particularly good outcome, but in some smaller states they're a great springboard. Another factor is that some attendees might use law school as a springboard into politics, or there could be a particular business/industry that hires law school graduates directly (because unlike NY, there aren't a lot of biglaw associates looking to lateral out)
The main thing is that small markets require local knowledge to be able to provide meaningful comments

State clerkships are included in FT/LT/BPR jobs. Granted, I don't know about local politics, but I question this idea about other jobs. These low ranked state schools often have atrocious unemployment numbers (Maine = 30%, Idaho = 20%, Hawaii = 15%). While people might go to these schools for non-legal jobs, they often come out of them without any job at all. These markets are just incredibly small and lack jobs generally.

bk187 wrote: State clerkships are included in FT/LT/BPR jobs.

(why was I mistaken about this?)

OP, are you from Hawaii or better yet, are you Native Hawaiian? If not, I'd be very careful about UH. The legal market there prioritizes as follows:

Native/From Hawaii + prestigious school > Native/From Hawaii + UH > Native/From Hawaii + decent school >>>>>> Not from Hawaii/native + UH >>> Not from Hawaii/native + prestigious school >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not from Hawaii/native + random school

dingbat wrote:

bk187 wrote: State clerkships are included in FT/LT/BPR jobs.

(why was I mistaken about this?)

LT = at least a year. So even if it ends after 1 year, it is still considered LT.

Smumps wrote:OP, are you from Hawaii or better yet, are you Native Hawaiian? If not, I'd be very careful about UH. The legal market there prioritizes as follows:

Native/From Hawaii + prestigious school > Native/From Hawaii + UH > Native/From Hawaii + decent school >>>>>> Not from Hawaii/native + UH >>> Not from Hawaii/native + prestigious school >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not from Hawaii/native + random school

Yes, URM, not NHwn though.

Prestigious as in T7? T14? T35?

I wonder how local firms/agencies would view Hastings/Irvine? Some local attorneys I talk to say definitely go to UH, others say definitely go away. Given UCH's drop in rankings, they're reputation is still strong.

sonny wrote:

Smumps wrote:OP, are you from Hawaii or better yet, are you Native Hawaiian? If not, I'd be very careful about UH. The legal market there prioritizes as follows:

Native/From Hawaii + prestigious school > Native/From Hawaii + UH > Native/From Hawaii + decent school >>>>>> Not from Hawaii/native + UH >>> Not from Hawaii/native + prestigious school >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not from Hawaii/native + random school

Yes, URM, not NHwn though.

Prestigious as in T7? T14? T35?

I wonder how local firms/agencies would view Hastings/Irvine? Some local attorneys I talk to say definitely go to UH, others say definitely go away. Given UCH's drop in rankings, they're reputation is still strong.

URM is irrelevant, NH is all that really matters. If I were you, I'd try to contact some associates at Hawaii firms (like Carlsmith Ball) and see if you could get a read on what the hiring partners think regarding different schools. I ended up choosing Chicago because employers were steadfast that NH/growing up there + UoC would do wonders.

I will say that without roots, not native, and going to LS on mainland --> almost zero chance you land a good legal job in Hawaii.

Smumps wrote:

sonny wrote:

Smumps wrote:OP, are you from Hawaii or better yet, are you Native Hawaiian? If not, I'd be very careful about UH. The legal market there prioritizes as follows:

Native/From Hawaii + prestigious school > Native/From Hawaii + UH > Native/From Hawaii + decent school >>>>>> Not from Hawaii/native + UH >>> Not from Hawaii/native + prestigious school >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not from Hawaii/native + random school

Yes, URM, not NHwn though.

Prestigious as in T7? T14? T35?

I wonder how local firms/agencies would view Hastings/Irvine? Some local attorneys I talk to say definitely go to UH, others say definitely go away. Given UCH's drop in rankings, they're reputation is still strong.

URM is irrelevant, NH is all that really matters. If I were you, I'd try to contact some associates at Hawaii firms (like Carlsmith Ball) and see if you could get a read on what the hiring partners think regarding different schools. I ended up choosing Chicago because employers were steadfast that NH/growing up there + UoC would do wonders.

I will say that without roots, not native, and going to LS on mainland --> almost zero chance you land a good legal job in Hawaii.

Did you chose UoC over any other T7 schools? Waiting to hear from 2 more so that may change things. I'll try ask around more. Seems like Hastings still has a very strong rep in Hawaii (of course no T7), of course not sure if they realize how much the rankings have changed over the years.