big law in houston? t-14 vs ut Forum

[uhwrestler]

how do the lower t14 place in houston compared to UT

from what i understand the t14 are diffrent because they have national reach in big law

how would a cornell or georgetown grad do in houston biglaw?

cornell has ivy league prestige and georgetown is also well known
i know UT is king in texas but can lower t14 also get big law in houston?

[RedPurpleBlue]

From what I understand, if you're Texas practice or bust, you should go to UT.

Yes, the T14 has a "national" reach, but national generally means LA/Chicago/NYC/DC. Markets like Texas, Atlanta, Denver, etc. are still very hard for schools with national reach to get into. In quite a few cases, schools in that region/state will do as well as or better than T14 graduates with no ties. However, if you go into a T14 school with strong Texas ties, then you've probably got an equal chance at landing biglaw as from Texas (maybe even a slightly higher chance at some T14 schools). Overall, my point is that if you're focusing on Texas, you can't really go wrong with UT, and you won't get much more from a T14 in terms of Texas employability. Now, if you want other backup options, like DC/NY/Chicago/LA, then you should probably consider a T14 school, as Texas will have lower overall placement in those markets in addition to Texas.

Also: biglaw employers don't care that Cornell is an Ivy or that Georgetown has lay prestige

[rpupkin]

I don't work in a Texas market, but my sense is that if you already have texas ties (e.g., grew up in Texas and went to UT for undergrad), then you're probably slightly better off going to a T14 for law school.

[future liT1g4tor]

From what I understand, if you're Texas practice or bust, you should go to UT.

Yes, the T14 has a "national" reach, but national generally means LA/Chicago/NYC/DC. Markets like Texas, Atlanta, Denver, etc. are still very hard for schools with national reach to get into. In quite a few cases, schools in that region/state will do as well as or better than T14 graduates with no ties. However, if you go into a T14 school with strong Texas ties, then you've probably got an equal chance at landing biglaw as from Texas (maybe even a slightly higher chance at some T14 schools). Overall, my point is that if you're focusing on Texas, you can't really go wrong with UT, and you won't get much more from a T14 in terms of Texas employability. Now, if you want other backup options, like DC/NY/Chicago/LA, then you should probably consider a T14 school, as Texas will have lower overall placement in those markets in addition to Texas.

Also: biglaw employers don't care that Cornell is an Ivy or that Georgetown has lay prestige

Would the main idea here be that someone that went to say Columbia and just wants to go work in TX might not be serious enough for the firm in terms of he might not like it or may want to try something different, etc and the firms in these type of markets want attorneys that want to stay in the respective market. As for the LA/CHI/NYC/DC, I am sure they can care less about laterals to different markets.

[RedPurpleBlue]

From what I understand, if you're Texas practice or bust, you should go to UT.

Yes, the T14 has a "national" reach, but national generally means LA/Chicago/NYC/DC. Markets like Texas, Atlanta, Denver, etc. are still very hard for schools with national reach to get into. In quite a few cases, schools in that region/state will do as well as or better than T14 graduates with no ties. However, if you go into a T14 school with strong Texas ties, then you've probably got an equal chance at landing biglaw as from Texas (maybe even a slightly higher chance at some T14 schools). Overall, my point is that if you're focusing on Texas, you can't really go wrong with UT, and you won't get much more from a T14 in terms of Texas employability. Now, if you want other backup options, like DC/NY/Chicago/LA, then you should probably consider a T14 school, as Texas will have lower overall placement in those markets in addition to Texas.

Also: biglaw employers don't care that Cornell is an Ivy or that Georgetown has lay prestige

Would the main idea here be that someone that went to say Columbia and just wants to go work in TX might not be serious enough for the firm in terms of he might not like it or may want to try something different, etc and the firms in these type of markets want attorneys that want to stay in the respective market. As for the LA/CHI/NYC/DC, I am sure they can care less about laterals to different markets.

Firms like any other business want to reduce turnover. So, in a regional/smaller market like Texas, firms are going to prefer people who 1) went to school in the area 2) have ties to the area (e.g. grew up there) or 3) presented some compelling reason why they wanted to work there versus other markets. LA/CHI/NYC/DC are much more attractive metros to most people, so there is less of a worry that people are going to uproot to move to a bigger and better city. Also, the markets (but mainly just NYC) are much much bigger, meaning that firms can't be as picky when it comes to displayed interest.

[future liT1g4tor]

.

[Big Red]

I got the strong sense that the more recent TX transplant offices of the NY/Chi firms, in Houston especially, don't really care that much about TX ties

[PrezRand]

Some TX law firms don't even recruit from certain t14s based on NALP.

[favabeansoup]

If you are committed to Houston biglaw, 100% go to UT over lower T-14 schools like Cornell or Georgetown.

UT places very well in all Texas cities, and Houston is where majority of biglaw people end up as it's the biggest. School has fantastic connections with firms and recruiting partners in the city, many of whom went to UT. Median kids often can get biglaw in Houston from UT, but not guaranteed obviously.

Texas ties are still important, but becoming less so. I was out of state and had no ties, but I went to UT and got biglaw. I got asked about it and somewhat grilled, but most people didn't care much.


As to why UT is better than somewhere like Cornell or Georgetown if you are going for Houston.

(1) Cost. If you got into lower T-14, you probably have a halfway decent scholarship at UT, which already has a lower price tag than most schools. Cost of living in Austin, while pricey, is still much less expensive than D.C. too.

(2) Lower T14 does have more national reach than UT, but that doesn't apply to Houston/Texas. Median at UT will beat out a median at Cornell or GULC for Houston biglaw spots. Now Cornell and GULC can much more easily place kids in CA, NY, DC, Chicago, but just not TX. Kids can get TX from those two, it's just not as easy as it is from UT.

(3) lots more networking opportunities for TX biglaw if you are the type of person to utilize those.

If you are actually committed to houston, go to UT if you get a decent scholarship. If you are considering other markets, I'd go to lower T-14.

[Dr. Nefario]

I got the strong sense that the more recent TX transplant offices of the NY/Chi firms, in Houston especially, don't really care that much about TX ties

This is particularly true. I know several people I ran into at callbacks who had never stepped foot in Texas until that morning.

[Mullens]

If you are committed to Houston biglaw, 100% go to UT over lower T-14 schools like Cornell or Georgetown.

UT places very well in all Texas cities, and Houston is where majority of biglaw people end up as it's the biggest. School has fantastic connections with firms and recruiting partners in the city, many of whom went to UT. Median kids often can get biglaw in Houston from UT, but not guaranteed obviously.

Texas ties are still important, but becoming less so. I was out of state and had no ties, but I went to UT and got biglaw. I got asked about it and somewhat grilled, but most people didn't care much.


As to why UT is better than somewhere like Cornell or Georgetown if you are going for Houston.

(1) Cost. If you got into lower T-14, you probably have a halfway decent scholarship at UT, which already has a lower price tag than most schools. Cost of living in Austin, while pricey, is still much less expensive than D.C. too.

(2) Lower T14 does have more national reach than UT, but that doesn't apply to Houston/Texas. Median at UT will beat out a median at Cornell or GULC for Houston biglaw spots. Now Cornell and GULC can much more easily place kids in CA, NY, DC, Chicago, but just not TX. Kids can get TX from those two, it's just not as easy as it is from UT.

(3) lots more networking opportunities for TX biglaw if you are the type of person to utilize those.

If you are actually committed to houston, go to UT if you get a decent scholarship. If you are considering other markets, I'd go to lower T-14.

How certain are you about "median at UT will beat out a median at Cornell or GULC for Houston biglaw spots?" All the data and anecdata I know about indicates the opposite. Kids at median at UT struggle to get biglaw I know people from lower T-14 that have done well in Houston at median. There's a lot less competition at the T-14 for Texas jobs.

[BigZuck]

If you are committed to Houston biglaw, 100% go to UT over lower T-14 schools like Cornell or Georgetown.

UT places very well in all Texas cities, and Houston is where majority of biglaw people end up as it's the biggest. School has fantastic connections with firms and recruiting partners in the city, many of whom went to UT. Median kids often can get biglaw in Houston from UT, but not guaranteed obviously.

Texas ties are still important, but becoming less so. I was out of state and had no ties, but I went to UT and got biglaw. I got asked about it and somewhat grilled, but most people didn't care much.


As to why UT is better than somewhere like Cornell or Georgetown if you are going for Houston.

(1) Cost. If you got into lower T-14, you probably have a halfway decent scholarship at UT, which already has a lower price tag than most schools. Cost of living in Austin, while pricey, is still much less expensive than D.C. too.

(2) Lower T14 does have more national reach than UT, but that doesn't apply to Houston/Texas. Median at UT will beat out a median at Cornell or GULC for Houston biglaw spots. Now Cornell and GULC can much more easily place kids in CA, NY, DC, Chicago, but just not TX. Kids can get TX from those two, it's just not as easy as it is from UT.

(3) lots more networking opportunities for TX biglaw if you are the type of person to utilize those.

If you are actually committed to houston, go to UT if you get a decent scholarship. If you are considering other markets, I'd go to lower T-14.

How certain are you about "median at UT will beat out a median at Cornell or GULC for Houston biglaw spots?" All the data and anecdata I know about indicates the opposite. Kids at median at UT struggle to get biglaw I know people from lower T-14 that have done well in Houston at median. There's a lot less competition at the T-14 for Texas jobs.

Yeah, median GULC is likely to beat out median at UT (all other things being equal) all day every day and twice on Sundays.

T14 is a MUCH better choice if you want Houston big law IMO, all things being equal. I don't think it's particularly close. Are all things ever equal? Nah. But it's going to be much easier to snag a TX firm as a T14er than as a UTer.

[genericwit]

Hihi. 1L from UT here. I went to biglaw receptions over winter break in Houston and Dallas, and it was overwhelmingly my cohort. I saw a sprinkling of other T14s and maybe one or two from lower ranked schools (mostly from local schools like SMU). During my interviews over winter break, I will say that in the waiting rooms I encountered again, mostly classmates. At one particular one, I had someone in my section, someone in another section, and one person from Duke.

During callbacks, it was also impossible to not notice that most associates and partners had a big fat UT Law Class of whatever stamped on their CVs. During receptions in particular, I had so many great conversations with people about school. I had a hiring partner at a biglaw firm have literally every single professor I had last semester, and the person standing next to me from Chicago was left in the dust as we spent a good half hour just talking about the quirks of the professors we shared and class experiences. I don't know if that was one of the reasons I got called up to interview soon after, but... it doesn't hurt.

Plus, the added benefit is that tuition is cheap/free because of generous financial aid. Compared to the literally nothing that schools like Columbia and Chicago offered me, I have no regrets about going to UT, since I plan to stick around.

Edit:

tl;dr: In my practical experiences interviewing and trying for biglaw, there are a lot more of us than other T14s, on both sides of the desk.

[rpupkin]

tl;dr: In my practical experiences interviewing and trying for biglaw, there are a lot more of us than other T14s, on both sides of the desk.

I can believe that's true. But it's entirely consistent with the notion that a median T14 student will do better in the Houston market than a median UT student.

[BigZuck]

I'm sure there's way more UT big lawyers in TX than any one T14 school. I wouldn't be shocked if there's more UT big lawyers in TX than all T14 schools combined (actually Harvard is pretty big, maybe that would be shocking)

Anyway, just because there are tons of UT grads doesn't mean it's easier for a UT kid to get a SA job than a T14 kid.

Also, if you're basing things off of like 1L receptions and the people firms put in front of you there could be reasons you see UT more well represented beyond simply "We'd rather hire a Longhorn than a Dukie."

[Big Red]

If you want to get into Texas w/o ties, you should definitely go to UT - esp. if the alternative is GULC or Cornell where you're going to have a lot of downside risk regardless. If you are from here, and have interest in NYC or DC, you can make a compelling case for going to one of those other schools. Without knowing debt loads I won't try to dissuade you from anything, but if you're from here, in a vacuum, I would tell you to do what you want.

Re Texas Biglaw: I was surprised by the number of Baylor/Houston etc. grads I was running into. Expected some SMU sprinkled amongst UT, but hiring does seem a little more egalitarian here (v. NYC/DC)

[favabeansoup]

How certain are you about "median at UT will beat out a median at Cornell or GULC for Houston biglaw spots?" All the data and anecdata I know about indicates the opposite. Kids at median at UT struggle to get biglaw I know people from lower T-14 that have done well in Houston at median. There's a lot less competition at the T-14 for Texas jobs.

Yeah, median GULC is likely to beat out median at UT (all other things being equal) all day every day and twice on Sundays.

T14 is a MUCH better choice if you want Houston big law IMO, all things being equal. I don't think it's particularly close. Are all things ever equal? Nah. But it's going to be much easier to snag a TX firm as a T14er than as a UTer.

All things being equal, maybe you guys are right. I just personally think median at Cornell/GULC would really only be getting biglaw in NYC/DC, rather than that reaching all the way down to Houston successfully. Geographic closeness of UT, significant alumni ties, and historic placement levels just seem to me that UT medians would do better in the specific Houston market.

I think BigZuck is right though. All things are rarely equal. Chances are fairly high that an in at Cornell would mean a somewhat substantial scholarship at UT, which opens up a whole other can of worms on the cost/benefit ratio.

[Roy McAvoy]

If you want to get into Texas w/o ties, you should definitely go to UT - esp. if the alternative is GULC or Cornell where you're going to have a lot of downside risk regardless. If you are from here, and have interest in NYC or DC, you can make a compelling case for going to one of those other schools. Without knowing debt loads I won't try to dissuade you from anything, but if you're from here, in a vacuum, I would tell you to do what you want.

Re Texas Biglaw: I was surprised by the number of Baylor/Houston etc. grads I was running into. Expected some SMU sprinkled amongst UT, but hiring does seem a little more egalitarian here (v. NYC/DC)

SMU doesn't do a whole lot outside of Dallas. We have a Houston OCI, but as far as I know we only have a handful of people going to Houston next summer for 2L SA's. Almost everyone is staying in DFW. I'm not sure how much of this is intentional - most people come here with the intention of staying in the area.

[malibustacy]

Median at UT will find it difficult to find Biglaw work in Houston. Only a third of the class finds Biglaw work of any kind, anywhere. (100+ lawyers). Median at a lower T14 will find it difficult to break into Texas as well.

The difference is that at a T14, it is much easier to fall back on a Biglaw job with median grades in a big national market and possibly lateral back with some experience.

[PrezRand]

The t-14 is objectively better at placing students in TX biglaw if you have ties or a compelling reason to work there. UT is my second choice for school but I am seriously worried about going there because there is a strong possibility I would not get biglaw. I think most people would say, HYS>UVA/Duke/Chicago>T14>UT.

[rpupkin]

The t-14 is objectively better at placing students in TX biglaw if you have ties or a compelling reason to work there. UT is my second choice for school but I am seriously worried about going there because there is a strong possibility I would not get biglaw. I think most people would say, HYS>UVA/Duke/Chicago>T14>UT.

The bolded strikes me as a weird grouping. I don't buy the notion that, say, a CLS or Michigan student is worse off than a UVA/Duke student in the major Texas markets.

[BigZuck]

The t-14 is objectively better at placing students in TX biglaw if you have ties or a compelling reason to work there. UT is my second choice for school but I am seriously worried about going there because there is a strong possibility I would not get biglaw. I think most people would say, HYS>UVA/Duke/Chicago>T14>UT.

The bolded strikes me as a weird grouping. I don't buy the notion that, say, a CLS or Michigan student is worse off than a UVA/Duke student in the major Texas markets.

Nothing I love more than a pro-Michigan troll post.

WELL PLAYED SIR

(I think firms like Baker Botts have receptions and stuff at Duke but not at, like, Cornell so that might be where the Duke/UVA thing comes from. I think the Chicago thing is just well placed propaganda by notorious UChi shills that populate these fora)

[rpupkin]

The t-14 is objectively better at placing students in TX biglaw if you have ties or a compelling reason to work there. UT is my second choice for school but I am seriously worried about going there because there is a strong possibility I would not get biglaw. I think most people would say, HYS>UVA/Duke/Chicago>T14>UT.

The bolded strikes me as a weird grouping. I don't buy the notion that, say, a CLS or Michigan student is worse off than a UVA/Duke student in the major Texas markets.

Nothing I love more than a pro-Michigan troll post.

WELL PLAYED SIR

(I think firms like Baker Botts have receptions and stuff at Duke but not at, like, Cornell so that might be where the Duke/UVA thing comes from. I think the Chicago thing is just well placed propaganda by notorious UChi shills that populate these fora)

Well, sure. But I thought we were talking about T14 law schools, not "T14" law schools.

[PrezRand]

The t-14 is objectively better at placing students in TX biglaw if you have ties or a compelling reason to work there. UT is my second choice for school but I am seriously worried about going there because there is a strong possibility I would not get biglaw. I think most people would say, HYS>UVA/Duke/Chicago>T14>UT.

The bolded strikes me as a weird grouping. I don't buy the notion that, say, a CLS or Michigan student is worse off than a UVA/Duke student in the major Texas markets.

More Southern biglaw firms recruit at Duke and UVA than the other t14 schools. More southern biglaw firms recruit at Chicago than Columbia and NYU. You could potentially make the argument that there are southern biglaw firms that do not try to recruit from HYS which could counter my claim about Columbia and NYU, but I highly doubt it would not be easier to get biglaw at any firm from HYS, regardless of if they recruit there.

[BigZuck]

The t-14 is objectively better at placing students in TX biglaw if you have ties or a compelling reason to work there. UT is my second choice for school but I am seriously worried about going there because there is a strong possibility I would not get biglaw. I think most people would say, HYS>UVA/Duke/Chicago>T14>UT.

The bolded strikes me as a weird grouping. I don't buy the notion that, say, a CLS or Michigan student is worse off than a UVA/Duke student in the major Texas markets.

More Southern biglaw firms recruit at Duke and UVA than the other t14 schools. More southern biglaw firms recruit at Chicago than Columbia and NYU. You could potentially make the argument that there are southern biglaw firms that do not try to recruit from HYS which could counter my claim about Columbia and NYU, but I highly doubt it would not be easier to get biglaw at any firm from HYS, regardless of if they recruit there.

I think if firms are going to be more physically present at one school opposed to another then I'd lean toward that school (that's why I generally suggest people maybe lean toward Duke/UVA than say Northwestern/Michigan if all else is equal). But I don't think someone would be at a huge disadvantage if they went to a non-southern T14. I bet the cutoffs are exactly the same. They're probably just going to the sourthern schools because more southerners/Texans tend to gravitate there, not because they prefer those schools.

Except for Cornell. Has anyone actually met a lawyer that went to Cornell? I sure haven't. I'm not sure that's even a real school.