Strong regional School but returning to a different market Forum

[qwerfg]

Hello,

Say you have the numbers to get into a t15-30 school, strong regional school, is it possible to then go to another region to practice big law if you can prove ties.

Example: I'm probably not getting into UT, but likely I'll be able to get into Boston University or Boston College, good schools with good outcomes for big law. Much better than the next alternative to UT in Texas, UH and SMU.

I am from Texas, have a house here, family is from here, could I move to Boston or another area with a strong regional school and be able to move back to TX if I have a compelling story/ties?

Is it better going to UH instead?

Thanks,

[crazywafflez]

So I wouldn't say that schools ranked 15-30 are comparable. In my opinion, after UT, Vandy, UCLA, WashU and USC, there's quite a big drop off and Minnesota, Arizona, Emory and BC etc are not peer schools with those above.
I think you should look around LST, cause perhaps my info is a little dated, but generally, I consider anything after around T20-T60 or so largely regional (sure, there are differences between them- i.e. Washington & Lee is a bit better than U of Richmond, but we are pulling hairs here- it isn't so much better so as to add 30k more in fees etc).
Look, as a Texan, you could get back to Houston with a BC degree. I just don't really see the point though. I think you'd be in a way better spot getting a fullride from UH/SMU, especially if you've got a house in Houston or Dallas, and you want to practice there- saving 60k on living expenses is so much better and BC doesn't really have the pull in Dallas that it does in New England.
I think you'd just be in a much better spot for networking, expenses, etc., by going to SMU or UH.
I'll tell me- I had a similar offer/ comparison of a T20 (Vandy/UT/UCLA) vs. a "T30" school like Emory/GWU with a partial scholarship vs. a fullride to a T1 in the same region; I chose the T1 on fullride and am extremely happy with my decision.
If you were happy to be in Boston for the start of your career and felt comfortable with your gamble on debt level, I'd consider BC (it is a fine school)- but for your goals of wanting to be back in Texas, it isn't any better than SMU (and I'd venture, it is actually worse) for placing in Dallas.
Here's SMU's placement: https://www.lstreports.com/schools/smu
Here's BC's: https://www.lstreports.com/schools/bc
I'd guess Houston's placements are a bit lower (as it doesn't dominate Houston the way SMU dominates Dallas- but I'd still take UH over SMU if I had a house in Houston and knew I wanted to be in Houston, at equal costs).
Sorry for the long post- but I'd really urge you not to take BC unless you'd be happy in Boston and the debt levels are appropriate.

[CalF123]

BU and BC are both good schools with good biglaw placement. BU is the better of the two and has better national placement.

It is true that both are ‘regional’ in the sense that they place mainly in New England (primarily by far in Boston).

Part of the reason for that may be that their reputation is not so strong outside New England.

But I strongly suspect a big factor is simply that both schools are the main pipelines for applicants who are not getting into Harvard and are either from Boston/NE who want to work there or from elsewhere looking to work in Boston.

Personally I would take either with a decent scholly package.

[Prudent_Jurist]

Here's my tale. While I don't think the firm I'll be doing my SA at is considered "big law," it's a strong regional firm with 250+ attorneys. The specific office I'll be working at is in a medium-sized CA market. New grads tend to use that market to gain easy experience (e.g., most first-year lit associates will see a courtroom-- or Zoom courtroom-- within 6-12 months after being licensed) and lateral to LA/SF. I have very strong ties to that market.

I went to a school in the mid T-20s (last I checked) out of state, mostly due to a full-ride offer. I knew I wouldn't be making big-law bucks; so, I needed to minimize debt to compensate for lower (though still six-figure) pay. I went in for an 2-hour interview this last July and walked out with a SA offer in hand. Obviously your mileage may vary. I think these things are very person and market specific.

However, if you know the market you're looking at struggles to retain attorneys long-term, and you can show that you have strong ties and would remain there, I think you'll be fine going out of state. But you need to know your market as well as the firm(s) you're looking at.

You mentioned "big law." I'm also assuming you're talking about Houston. If you're talking about true big law firms in Houston (i.e., firms with national or international reach who can hire from the T-14 for their Houston office), then I think going to a better school for big law like BU/BC is better. If what you're aiming for instead is a large regional firm in a market that values personal connections, then look to minimize costs, whatever that means for you. Hopefully this helps!

[Wubbles]

If you want to do biglaw in Texas, the floor for seeking that is going to UT. What are your stats? You may want to consider retaking the LSAT so that your goals line up with the schools you can get into.

[qwerfg]

If you want to do biglaw in Texas, the floor for seeking that is going to UT. What are your stats? You may want to consider retaking the LSAT so that your goals line up with the schools you can get into.

Thanks. UT is off the table because I got a very low LSAT 2.66, personal reasons blah blah, but its super low.

I'm hoping my URM status (MA) and an LSAT in the mid 170s will offset it (PT are from 172-180).

UT has a floor for GPA, I think? So unless I am missing something its off the cards, right?

Thanks

[qwerfg]

So I wouldn't say that schools ranked 15-30 are comparable. In my opinion, after UT, Vandy, UCLA, WashU and USC, there's quite a big drop off and Minnesota, Arizona, Emory and BC etc are not peer schools with those above.
I think you should look around LST, cause perhaps my info is a little dated, but generally, I consider anything after around T20-T60 or so largely regional (sure, there are differences between them- i.e. Washington & Lee is a bit better than U of Richmond, but we are pulling hairs here- it isn't so much better so as to add 30k more in fees etc).
Look, as a Texan, you could get back to Houston with a BC degree. I just don't really see the point though. I think you'd be in a way better spot getting a fullride from UH/SMU, especially if you've got a house in Houston or Dallas, and you want to practice there- saving 60k on living expenses is so much better and BC doesn't really have the pull in Dallas that it does in New England.
I think you'd just be in a much better spot for networking, expenses, etc., by going to SMU or UH.
I'll tell me- I had a similar offer/ comparison of a T20 (Vandy/UT/UCLA) vs. a "T30" school like Emory/GWU with a partial scholarship vs. a fullride to a T1 in the same region; I chose the T1 on fullride and am extremely happy with my decision.
If you were happy to be in Boston for the start of your career and felt comfortable with your gamble on debt level, I'd consider BC (it is a fine school)- but for your goals of wanting to be back in Texas, it isn't any better than SMU (and I'd venture, it is actually worse) for placing in Dallas.
Here's SMU's placement: https://www.lstreports.com/schools/smu
Here's BC's: https://www.lstreports.com/schools/bc
I'd guess Houston's placements are a bit lower (as it doesn't dominate Houston the way SMU dominates Dallas- but I'd still take UH over SMU if I had a house in Houston and knew I wanted to be in Houston, at equal costs).
Sorry for the long post- but I'd really urge you not to take BC unless you'd be happy in Boston and the debt levels are appropriate.

Great break down, thanks.

The reason why I chose those Boston schools is, is because I wouldn't mind ending up in Boston in the long run. I'd prefer big law in Texas, but I'd be happy in the NE too.

Thanks again!

[qwerfg]

Here's my tale. While I don't think the firm I'll be doing my SA at is considered "big law," it's a strong regional firm with 250+ attorneys. The specific office I'll be working at is in a medium-sized CA market. New grads tend to use that market to gain easy experience (e.g., most first-year lit associates will see a courtroom-- or Zoom courtroom-- within 6-12 months after being licensed) and lateral to LA/SF. I have very strong ties to that market.

I went to a school in the mid T-20s (last I checked) out of state, mostly due to a full-ride offer. I knew I wouldn't be making big-law bucks; so, I needed to minimize debt to compensate for lower (though still six-figure) pay. I went in for an 2-hour interview this last July and walked out with a SA offer in hand. Obviously your mileage may vary. I think these things are very person and market specific.

However, if you know the market you're looking at struggles to retain attorneys long-term, and you can show that you have strong ties and would remain there, I think you'll be fine going out of state. But you need to know your market as well as the firm(s) you're looking at.

You mentioned "big law." I'm also assuming you're talking about Houston. If you're talking about true big law firms in Houston (i.e., firms with national or international reach who can hire from the T-14 for their Houston office), then I think going to a better school for big law like BU/BC is better. If what you're aiming for instead is a large regional firm in a market that values personal connections, then look to minimize costs, whatever that means for you. Hopefully this helps!

This is very helpful, thanks you. I was indeed talking about Houston primarily, I live in Austin, but know its a smaller market and UT dominated, so I'd say its likely off the cards for me.

BU and BC are both good schools with good biglaw placement. BU is the better of the two and has better national placement.

It is true that both are ‘regional’ in the sense that they place mainly in New England (primarily by far in Boston).

Part of the reason for that may be that their reputation is not so strong outside New England.

But I strongly suspect a big factor is simply that both schools are the main pipelines for applicants who are not getting into Harvard and are either from Boston/NE who want to work there or from elsewhere looking to work in Boston.

Personally I would take either with a decent scholly package.

Good take, hopefully, I get admitted and get a good package. Thanks!

[cavalier1138]

If you want to do biglaw in Texas, the floor for seeking that is going to UT. What are your stats? You may want to consider retaking the LSAT so that your goals line up with the schools you can get into.

Thanks. UT is off the table because I got a very low LSAT 2.66, personal reasons blah blah, but its super low.

I'm hoping my URM status (MA) and an LSAT in the mid 170s will offset it (PT are from 172-180).

UT has a floor for GPA, I think? So unless I am missing something its off the cards, right?

Thanks

2.66 is a low GPA, but if you can crack 170, I definitely don't think UT would be off the table (especially as a URM).

[qwerfg]

If you want to do biglaw in Texas, the floor for seeking that is going to UT. What are your stats? You may want to consider retaking the LSAT so that your goals line up with the schools you can get into.

Thanks. UT is off the table because I got a very low LSAT 2.66, personal reasons blah blah, but its super low.

I'm hoping my URM status (MA) and an LSAT in the mid 170s will offset it (PT are from 172-180).

UT has a floor for GPA, I think? So unless I am missing something its off the cards, right?

Thanks

2.66 is a low GPA, but if you can crack 170, I definitely don't think UT would be off the table (especially as a URM).

k interestante!

I just read anecdotal stuff on this board and across the web that it's off the cards, I am definitely going to apply.

Do you know if "networking" with admissions advisers, professors etc would help, or is that pretty futile?

[laanngo]

k interestante!

I just read anecdotal stuff on this board and across the web that it's off the cards, I am definitely going to apply.

Do you know if "networking" with admissions advisers, professors etc would help, or is that pretty futile?

Probably would help if done correctly. It shows interest and ambition.

[nixy]

k interestante!

I just read anecdotal stuff on this board and across the web that it's off the cards, I am definitely going to apply.

Do you know if "networking" with admissions advisers, professors etc would help, or is that pretty futile?

Probably would help if done correctly. It shows interest and ambition.

I mean, not really. Interest and ambition don't mean much without scores to back them up, and I don't think adcomms want to encourage the hundreds of applicants to try to create personal relationships with them. More helpful if someone is trying to get off a waitlist and show genuine interest.

[laanngo]

I mean, not really. Interest and ambition don't mean much without scores to back them up, and I don't think adcomms want to encourage the hundreds of applicants to try to create personal relationships with them. More helpful if someone is trying to get off a waitlist and show genuine interest.

Of course it's not a primary factor in admissions, but probably makes a difference at the margins.

[nixy]

I mean, not really. Interest and ambition don't mean much without scores to back them up, and I don't think adcomms want to encourage the hundreds of applicants to try to create personal relationships with them. More helpful if someone is trying to get off a waitlist and show genuine interest.

Of course it's not a primary factor in admissions, but probably makes a difference at the margins.

Based on?

[laanngo]

Based on?

Suppose you're down to the last 2 candidates and can admit 1 more. they look similar on paper, but one of them has emailed before expressing their interest in the law school's unique opportunities and their pride for their state, for which the school is a flagship. Who do you admit?

[nixy]

Based on?

Suppose you're down to the last 2 candidates and can admit 1 more. they look similar on paper, but one of them has emailed before expressing their interest in the law school's unique opportunities and their pride for their state, for which the school is a flagship. Who do you admit?

You write that in a "why law school X" essay as part of your application, you don't add to a busy adcomm's inbox.

[Wubbles]

Based on?

Suppose you're down to the last 2 candidates and can admit 1 more. they look similar on paper, but one of them has emailed before expressing their interest in the law school's unique opportunities and their pride for their state, for which the school is a flagship. Who do you admit?

You write that in a "why law school X" essay as part of your application, you don't add to a busy adcomm's inbox.

Maybe adcomms are different than us, but yeah if I was one I would reject whoever the most eager applicant was blowing me up everyday.

[laanngo]

Maybe adcomms are different than us, but yeah if I was one I would reject whoever the most eager applicant was blowing me up everyday.

I meant emailing them once not everyday