Top Law Schools

0L here, from a undergrad in the Northeast. I have no ties whatsoever to TX. The COL in Texas paired with BigLaw salary interests me. So, what's the best strategy for getting TX BigLaw? Would it be to work two years as a paralegal in TX and then enroll w/in-state tuition at UT? Would that constitute sufficient ties? Thanks!

Get into UT. Get good grades. That is by far the easiest path. If you are in big law the 50k tuition difference will not matter.

Good grades as in... top 25%? Top 15%? Is that sufficient w/o ties to the region?

If you're going to move to manufacture ties I'd probably also focus on which city you want to end up in. Paralegal in Houston for 2 years and then attending UT probably won't cut it for getting a job anywhere in TX other than Houston.

I'd probably move to Texas first just to see if you can live there long term. That's not even taking into consideration the creating ties thing. If you're in your early 20s the idea of cheap cost of living and making dem big $$$$$ probably sounds really appealing but that's kind of short-sighted IMO. Figure out what you want to do and where you want to do it. You might not be able to do that as a college senior. If it means taking a few years off to get a job using your UG major or even just to work a menial job or something then by all means do that. You might even find out that law school isn't really something you want. Who knows.

I went to UT. For my class, out of staters around top 15% tended to do ok, below that it was iffier. But I do know out of staters who got TX big law when they were around top 1/3ish. I think anything below top 1/3 is pretty dicey for people who are from out of state. On the other hand, I know Texans who got big law around median. Granted, all of that is anecdotal. Also, it's not particularly easy to get top 1/3 at UT (believe me) and you can't just will yourself to top 15%. There's a good amount of luck involved (even if all that luck is is whether or not you happen to be good at law school exams, which is impossible to predict before law school).

Feel free to PM me if you have questions about UT or getting big law from UT as an out of state student.

joeyc328 wrote:Get into UT. Get good grades. That is by far the easiest path. If you are in big law the 50k tuition difference will not matter.

This helps immensely. I was out of state (Midwest) and had absolutely no ties to TX. I got into UT and now in TX biglaw. You can still get $$ being out of state, and the school often gives out in-state tuition waivers to out of staters. People did still question my ties when looking for biglaw in Dallas/Houston, but it didn't take more than I chose UT to be in TX and I've enjoyed living here for ~1-2 years over other areas of country that I've been in. People also like hearing about why TX is great (cost of living, people, weather, etc.) vs. other places like NYC or San Francisco. It may sound cliche but people get it.

To go along with Bigzuck a little, I found that regardless of in state/out of state, top 25% UT were pretty safe for biglaw. Top 1/3 had a good shot, top 1/2 was dicey and you get a lot of stories of people below median getting it while people at or slightly above striking out.

If you go to an out of state law school and trying to get into TX, it's harder.

jstanhope14 wrote:0L here, from a undergrad in the Northeast. I have no ties whatsoever to TX. The COL in Texas paired with BigLaw salary interests me. So, what's the best strategy for getting TX BigLaw? Would it be to work two years as a paralegal in TX and then enroll w/in-state tuition at UT? Would that constitute sufficient ties? Thanks!

Just go to the best law school you get into (better be at least T14 if not UT). Texas biglaw is a lot less insular than it used to be as non-Texas firms have started to flow in. But it's a good idea to spend some time in Texas- try to spend at least a summer there before recruiting season.

Would you still consider living in TX even if you did not get big law? Schools like SMU and UH still do very well in TX and are still excellent choices.

PrezRand wrote:Would you still consider living in TX even if you did not get big law? Schools like SMU and UH still do very well in TX and are still excellent choices.

Not at sticker prices.

PrezRand wrote:Would you still consider living in TX even if you did not get big law? Schools like SMU and UH still do very well in TX and are still excellent choices.

Let's be careful how we define "very well" and "excellent choices." I think this should be based on expectations and the type of employment the prospective student hopes to have upon graduation. SMU has respectable placement in Dallas and UH has the same for Houston. SMU placed 23% and UH placed 18% of their class in BL+FC last year. That said, median grades (something each student should expect entering law school) at either of these schools will not cut it for these outcomes. If you wish to work at a smaller firm or in govt' (something the OP has not mentioned) upon graduation, then you best have attended these schools with a full-tuition scholarship, or very close to it. And last I checked, SMU has a stupid top 1/3 stipulation for their full-tuition scholarship and the next best thing is their $30,000 scholarship without stipulations, but their tuition is around 50k pear year.

To answer OP's original question: if you want TX big law, attend T8 or UT. Schools like Cornell, Northwestern, and Georgetown will not give you a leg up on UT students. Also, because you have no ties, you better have a good answer to "why Texas" in interviews. If you want to invest some time, I suppose living in Texas for a year or two could only help. But I think the return would be marginal relative to the commitment. On the other hand, living in Texas for a year to get the in-state tuition would definitely be worth it, as that would save you about 50k plus interest.

nealric wrote:

PrezRand wrote:Would you still consider living in TX even if you did not get big law? Schools like SMU and UH still do very well in TX and are still excellent choices.

Not at sticker prices.

True, but I was referring to how well they do in TX in general.

A@M_or_bust wrote:

PrezRand wrote:Would you still consider living in TX even if you did not get big law? Schools like SMU and UH still do very well in TX and are still excellent choices.

Let's be careful how we define "very well" and "excellent choices." I think this should be based on expectations and the type of employment the prospective student hopes to have upon graduation. SMU has respectable placement in Dallas and UH has the same for Houston. SMU placed 23% and UH placed 18% of their class in BL+FC last year. That said, median grades (something each student should expect entering law school) at either of these schools will not cut it for these outcomes. If you wish to work at a smaller firm or in govt' (something the OP has not mentioned) upon graduation, then you best have attended these schools with a full-tuition scholarship, or very close to it. And last I checked, SMU has a stupid top 1/3 stipulation for their full-tuition scholarship and the next best thing is their $30,000 scholarship without stipulations, but their tuition is around 50k pear year.

To answer OP's original question: if you want TX big law, attend T8 or UT. Schools like Cornell, Northwestern, and Georgetown will not give you a leg up on UT students. Also, because you have no ties, you better have a good answer to "why Texas" in interviews. If you want to invest some time, I suppose living in Texas for a year or two could only help. But I think the return would be marginal relative to the commitment. On the other hand, living in Texas for a year to get the in-state tuition would definitely be worth it, as that would save you about 50k plus interest.

This is all true. When I said SMU and UH were excellent choices, I was not referring to BigLaw in TX. I asked OP if he would still consider TX even if he would not get big law because SMU and UH are still excellent choices if you want to stay in TX. By excellent, I was referring to the fact TX has a strong midlaw market which can still get you a six figure salary once you graduate. 160k+ is great, but Texas has a very low COL compared to other larger markets which are appealing. SMU's median for 2013 and 2014 were 115k and 100k respectively, while the mean was about 111k and 112k. You would have to calculate the data yourself for UH, but considering they are peer schools in two large markets that practically dominate their cities, I would assume the same could be said for UH or something similar.

A@M_or_bust wrote:

PrezRand wrote:Would you still consider living in TX even if you did not get big law? Schools like SMU and UH still do very well in TX and are still excellent choices.

To answer OP's original question: if you want TX big law, attend T8 or UT. Schools like Cornell, Northwestern, and Georgetown will not give you a leg up on UT students. Also, because you have no ties, you better have a good answer to "why Texas" in interviews. If you want to invest some time, I suppose living in Texas for a year or two could only help. But I think the return would be marginal relative to the commitment. On the other hand, living in Texas for a year to get the in-state tuition would definitely be worth it, as that would save you about 50k plus interest.

I have a very difficult time believing that Texas firms treat the "T8" as distinct from the rest of the T14. Are you suggesting that a Penn or Boalt student without Texas ties would be in good shape? My understanding has always been that T14 with ties is a great spot to be, and that it's very difficult to get a Texas SA, even from the T14 without ties.

I'd be surprised if GULC bros don't have a leg up on UT bros when it comes to big firm hiring (assuming both sets of bros ties are sufficiently spiffy).

existentialcrisis wrote:

A@M_or_bust wrote:

PrezRand wrote:Would you still consider living in TX even if you did not get big law? Schools like SMU and UH still do very well in TX and are still excellent choices.

To answer OP's original question: if you want TX big law, attend T8 or UT. Schools like Cornell, Northwestern, and Georgetown will not give you a leg up on UT students. Also, because you have no ties, you better have a good answer to "why Texas" in interviews. If you want to invest some time, I suppose living in Texas for a year or two could only help. But I think the return would be marginal relative to the commitment. On the other hand, living in Texas for a year to get the in-state tuition would definitely be worth it, as that would save you about 50k plus interest.

I have a very difficult time believing that Texas firms treat the "T8" as distinct from the rest of the T14. Are you suggesting that a Penn or Boalt student without Texas ties would be in good shape? My understanding has always been that T14 with ties is a great spot to be, and that it's very difficult to get a Texas SA, even from the T14 without ties.

This is something that I want to know as well. Are there any T14 schools that do not give a significant advantage for practicing biglaw in TX?

PrezRand wrote:

nealric wrote:

PrezRand wrote:Would you still consider living in TX even if you did not get big law? Schools like SMU and UH still do very well in TX and are still excellent choices.

Not at sticker prices.

True, but I was referring to how well they do in TX in general.

A@M_or_bust wrote:

PrezRand wrote:Would you still consider living in TX even if you did not get big law? Schools like SMU and UH still do very well in TX and are still excellent choices.

Let's be careful how we define "very well" and "excellent choices." I think this should be based on expectations and the type of employment the prospective student hopes to have upon graduation. SMU has respectable placement in Dallas and UH has the same for Houston. SMU placed 23% and UH placed 18% of their class in BL+FC last year. That said, median grades (something each student should expect entering law school) at either of these schools will not cut it for these outcomes. If you wish to work at a smaller firm or in govt' (something the OP has not mentioned) upon graduation, then you best have attended these schools with a full-tuition scholarship, or very close to it. And last I checked, SMU has a stupid top 1/3 stipulation for their full-tuition scholarship and the next best thing is their $30,000 scholarship without stipulations, but their tuition is around 50k pear year.

To answer OP's original question: if you want TX big law, attend T8 or UT. Schools like Cornell, Northwestern, and Georgetown will not give you a leg up on UT students. Also, because you have no ties, you better have a good answer to "why Texas" in interviews. If you want to invest some time, I suppose living in Texas for a year or two could only help. But I think the return would be marginal relative to the commitment. On the other hand, living in Texas for a year to get the in-state tuition would definitely be worth it, as that would save you about 50k plus interest.

This is all true. When I said SMU and UH were excellent choices, I was not referring to BigLaw in TX. I asked OP if he would still consider TX even if he would not get big law because SMU and UH are still excellent choices if you want to stay in TX. By excellent, I was referring to the fact TX has a strong midlaw market which can still get you a six figure salary once you graduate. 160k+ is great, but Texas has a very low COL compared to other larger markets which are appealing. SMU's median for 2013 and 2014 were 115k and 100k respectively, while the mean was about 111k and 112k. You would have to calculate the data yourself for UH, but considering they are peer schools in two large markets that practically dominate their cities, I would assume the same could be said for UH or something similar.

So I jumped the gun a bit by incorrectly disregarding your qualified statement of "if you don't get big law." For that, I apologize. As for the statistics you shared for median and mean salaries from SMU, I can confirm that I have seen those on the SMU's website. But I must say that I have been a bit skeptical of these numbers, particularly the alleged median salary numbers. 2015's graduating class: 74 attorneys in small law (25 attorneys or less), 36 in business and industry, 18 unemployed, 18 in govt., 4 pursuing another degree, and 2 in education. That amounts to 150 out of the 259 graduates. And in 2014, there were 160 out of 254 were in these positions. Though there may be a few outliers, first-year attorneys with this kind of employment, or lack thereof, generally speaking, do not make 100k or 115k.

As for mid-sized law, SMU doesn't place well in this area. Now I know that "mid-sized" is a relative term, but in 2014 & 2015 SMU placed only 12 and 17 respectively in firms that range from 51-250 lawyers.

Also, these schools are strictly regional. So ties to the respective areas are very important, something OP doesn't have at this point.

In short, these schools could be good choices, but variables like price, ties, and expectations are extremely determinative.

existentialcrisis wrote:

A@M_or_bust wrote:

PrezRand wrote:Would you still consider living in TX even if you did not get big law? Schools like SMU and UH still do very well in TX and are still excellent choices.

To answer OP's original question: if you want TX big law, attend T8 or UT. Schools like Cornell, Northwestern, and Georgetown will not give you a leg up on UT students. Also, because you have no ties, you better have a good answer to "why Texas" in interviews. If you want to invest some time, I suppose living in Texas for a year or two could only help. But I think the return would be marginal relative to the commitment. On the other hand, living in Texas for a year to get the in-state tuition would definitely be worth it, as that would save you about 50k plus interest.

I have a very difficult time believing that Texas firms treat the "T8" as distinct from the rest of the T14. Are you suggesting that a Penn or Boalt student without Texas ties would be in good shape? My understanding has always been that T14 with ties is a great spot to be, and that it's very difficult to get a Texas SA, even from the T14 without ties.

You make a good point. I may have been forgetting about the OP's lack of ties to TX. But for what it's worth, I have heard from big law attorneys saying that students at UT are viewed more favorably than students coming out of Georgetown, Northwestern, and Cornell. Maybe because attending these schools shows less of a commitment to TX?

A@M_or_bust wrote:

PrezRand wrote:

nealric wrote:

PrezRand wrote:Would you still consider living in TX even if you did not get big law? Schools like SMU and UH still do very well in TX and are still excellent choices.

Not at sticker prices.

True, but I was referring to how well they do in TX in general.

A@M_or_bust wrote:

PrezRand wrote:Would you still consider living in TX even if you did not get big law? Schools like SMU and UH still do very well in TX and are still excellent choices.

Let's be careful how we define "very well" and "excellent choices." I think this should be based on expectations and the type of employment the prospective student hopes to have upon graduation. SMU has respectable placement in Dallas and UH has the same for Houston. SMU placed 23% and UH placed 18% of their class in BL+FC last year. That said, median grades (something each student should expect entering law school) at either of these schools will not cut it for these outcomes. If you wish to work at a smaller firm or in govt' (something the OP has not mentioned) upon graduation, then you best have attended these schools with a full-tuition scholarship, or very close to it. And last I checked, SMU has a stupid top 1/3 stipulation for their full-tuition scholarship and the next best thing is their $30,000 scholarship without stipulations, but their tuition is around 50k pear year.

To answer OP's original question: if you want TX big law, attend T8 or UT. Schools like Cornell, Northwestern, and Georgetown will not give you a leg up on UT students. Also, because you have no ties, you better have a good answer to "why Texas" in interviews. If you want to invest some time, I suppose living in Texas for a year or two could only help. But I think the return would be marginal relative to the commitment. On the other hand, living in Texas for a year to get the in-state tuition would definitely be worth it, as that would save you about 50k plus interest.

This is all true. When I said SMU and UH were excellent choices, I was not referring to BigLaw in TX. I asked OP if he would still consider TX even if he would not get big law because SMU and UH are still excellent choices if you want to stay in TX. By excellent, I was referring to the fact TX has a strong midlaw market which can still get you a six figure salary once you graduate. 160k+ is great, but Texas has a very low COL compared to other larger markets which are appealing. SMU's median for 2013 and 2014 were 115k and 100k respectively, while the mean was about 111k and 112k. You would have to calculate the data yourself for UH, but considering they are peer schools in two large markets that practically dominate their cities, I would assume the same could be said for UH or something similar.

So I jumped the gun a bit by incorrectly disregarding your qualified statement of "if you don't get big law." For that, I apologize. As for the statistics you shared for median and mean salaries from SMU, I can confirm that I have seen those on the SMU's website. But I must say that I have been a bit skeptical of these numbers, particularly the alleged median salary numbers. 2015's graduating class: 74 attorneys in small law (25 attorneys or less), 36 in business and industry, 18 unemployed, 18 in govt., 4 pursuing another degree, and 2 in education. That amounts to 150 out of the 259 graduates. And in 2014, there were 160 out of 254 were in these positions. Though there may be a few outliers, first-year attorneys with this kind of employment, or lack thereof, generally speaking, do not make 100k or 115k.

As for mid-sized law, SMU doesn't place well in this area. Now I know that "mid-sized" is a relative term, but in 2014 & 2015 SMU placed only 12 and 17 respectively in firms that range from 51-250 lawyers.

Also, these schools are strictly regional. So ties to the respective areas are very important, something OP doesn't have at this point.

In short, these schools could be good choices, but variables like price, ties, and expectations are extremely determinative.

Fair enough. I was also skeptical of the mean and median numbers for SMU and UH.

A@M_or_bust wrote:
You make a good point. I may have been forgetting about the OP's lack of ties to TX. But for what it's worth, I have heard from big law attorneys saying that students at UT are viewed more favorably than students coming out of Georgetown, Northwestern, and Cornell. Maybe because attending these schools shows less of a commitment to TX?

I interviewed from GULC in Texas and didn't find this to be the case. The only think about UT is that Texas firms tend to spend a lot of time and energy recruiting there. But in some ways that makes it more competitive.

nealric wrote:

A@M_or_bust wrote:
You make a good point. I may have been forgetting about the OP's lack of ties to TX. But for what it's worth, I have heard from big law attorneys saying that students at UT are viewed more favorably than students coming out of Georgetown, Northwestern, and Cornell. Maybe because attending these schools shows less of a commitment to TX?

I interviewed from GULC in Texas and didn't find this to be the case. The only think about UT is that Texas firms tend to spend a lot of time and energy recruiting there. But in some ways that makes it more competitive.

Yeah I've heard young T14 grads (some at GULC specifically) who were median students say that they would have never got the big law job they did if they had gone to UT because firms dip lower for T14 students.

BigZuck wrote:

nealric wrote:

A@M_or_bust wrote:
You make a good point. I may have been forgetting about the OP's lack of ties to TX. But for what it's worth, I have heard from big law attorneys saying that students at UT are viewed more favorably than students coming out of Georgetown, Northwestern, and Cornell. Maybe because attending these schools shows less of a commitment to TX?

I interviewed from GULC in Texas and didn't find this to be the case. The only think about UT is that Texas firms tend to spend a lot of time and energy recruiting there. But in some ways that makes it more competitive.

Yeah I've heard young T14 grads (some at GULC specifically) who were median students say that they would have never got the big law job they did if they had gone to UT because firms dip lower for T14 students.

I'm assuming those Georgetown students were from Texas though, or at least had strong ties?

existentialcrisis wrote:

BigZuck wrote:

nealric wrote:

A@M_or_bust wrote:
You make a good point. I may have been forgetting about the OP's lack of ties to TX. But for what it's worth, I have heard from big law attorneys saying that students at UT are viewed more favorably than students coming out of Georgetown, Northwestern, and Cornell. Maybe because attending these schools shows less of a commitment to TX?

I interviewed from GULC in Texas and didn't find this to be the case. The only think about UT is that Texas firms tend to spend a lot of time and energy recruiting there. But in some ways that makes it more competitive.

Yeah I've heard young T14 grads (some at GULC specifically) who were median students say that they would have never got the big law job they did if they had gone to UT because firms dip lower for T14 students.

I'm assuming those Georgetown students were from Texas though, or at least had strong ties?

Yeah that's why I said this:

BigZuck wrote:I'd be surprised if GULC bros don't have a leg up on UT bros when it comes to big firm hiring (assuming both sets of bros ties are sufficiently spiffy).

Anecdotally though I do know T14ers without TX ties who got TX big law. It's going to be firm/grade/individual/luck dependent but it happens. I wouldn't count on it, but it happens.

existentialcrisis wrote:

BigZuck wrote:

nealric wrote:

A@M_or_bust wrote:
You make a good point. I may have been forgetting about the OP's lack of ties to TX. But for what it's worth, I have heard from big law attorneys saying that students at UT are viewed more favorably than students coming out of Georgetown, Northwestern, and Cornell. Maybe because attending these schools shows less of a commitment to TX?

I interviewed from GULC in Texas and didn't find this to be the case. The only think about UT is that Texas firms tend to spend a lot of time and energy recruiting there. But in some ways that makes it more competitive.

Yeah I've heard young T14 grads (some at GULC specifically) who were median students say that they would have never got the big law job they did if they had gone to UT because firms dip lower for T14 students.

I'm assuming those Georgetown students were from Texas though, or at least had strong ties?

Most people interviewing in the first place are from Texas though. One thing you get from GULC or the T14 is non pre-screen interviews. That can help a bit on the margins. You can also benefit from the fact that firms won't be as familiar with grade practices. They may say they only take "top quarter", but they don't actually know where top quarter begins- they probably have a much better sense from UT where they interview half the student body.

nealric wrote:

existentialcrisis wrote:

BigZuck wrote:

nealric wrote:

A@M_or_bust wrote:
You make a good point. I may have been forgetting about the OP's lack of ties to TX. But for what it's worth, I have heard from big law attorneys saying that students at UT are viewed more favorably than students coming out of Georgetown, Northwestern, and Cornell. Maybe because attending these schools shows less of a commitment to TX?

I interviewed from GULC in Texas and didn't find this to be the case. The only think about UT is that Texas firms tend to spend a lot of time and energy recruiting there. But in some ways that makes it more competitive.

Yeah I've heard young T14 grads (some at GULC specifically) who were median students say that they would have never got the big law job they did if they had gone to UT because firms dip lower for T14 students.

I'm assuming those Georgetown students were from Texas though, or at least had strong ties?

Most people interviewing in the first place are from Texas though. One thing you get from GULC or the T14 is non pre-screen interviews. That can help a bit on the margins. You can also benefit from the fact that firms won't be as familiar with grade practices. They may say they only take "top quarter", but they don't actually know where top quarter begins- they probably have a much better sense from UT where they interview half the student body.

I might be misinterpreting what you wrote but UT OCI isn't all preselect. My year it was 70/30 preselect/lottery and I believe they changed that this year to make it more lottery.

Isn't GULC a mix of preselect and lottery as well?

BigZuck wrote:

nealric wrote:

existentialcrisis wrote:

BigZuck wrote:

nealric wrote:

A@M_or_bust wrote:
You make a good point. I may have been forgetting about the OP's lack of ties to TX. But for what it's worth, I have heard from big law attorneys saying that students at UT are viewed more favorably than students coming out of Georgetown, Northwestern, and Cornell. Maybe because attending these schools shows less of a commitment to TX?

I interviewed from GULC in Texas and didn't find this to be the case. The only think about UT is that Texas firms tend to spend a lot of time and energy recruiting there. But in some ways that makes it more competitive.

Yeah I've heard young T14 grads (some at GULC specifically) who were median students say that they would have never got the big law job they did if they had gone to UT because firms dip lower for T14 students.

I'm assuming those Georgetown students were from Texas though, or at least had strong ties?

Most people interviewing in the first place are from Texas though. One thing you get from GULC or the T14 is non pre-screen interviews. That can help a bit on the margins. You can also benefit from the fact that firms won't be as familiar with grade practices. They may say they only take "top quarter", but they don't actually know where top quarter begins- they probably have a much better sense from UT where they interview half the student body.

I might be misinterpreting what you wrote but UT OCI isn't all preselect. My year it was 70/30 preselect/lottery and I believe they changed that this year to make it more lottery.

Isn't GULC a mix of preselect and lottery as well?

GULC was all lottery when I was there. As a practical matter, someone who wanted Texas could interview with every firm that came to campus because most Texas offices didn't require high bids to get an interview. Granted, it has been 8 years since I did OCI, so I suppose something could have changed.