Tier 2, tier 3, and even tier 4 law schools are good options for many law students
Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2022 2:19 pm
Allow me to play the devils advocate and present the opposing point of view. While I agree with the assertion often made that low-ranking law schools are often exploitive, I disagree that these schools are worthless or that 0Ls should never consider going to them. I wholeheartedly agree with the strategy (pointing out the exploitation and the need for cost/benefit analysis) but I disagree with the tactics of strongly discouraging 0Ls from even considering attending low-ranking schools. Instead I would argue that better educating 0Ls of all the pitfalls and the benefits from attending such institutions and letting them decide.
Allow me to preface this by stating that I am not a practicing attorney; in fact, I am a physics professor whose daughter is a 0L. I am not a shill for law schools, but just feel that some of the advice being given often misses the point.
There are many practicing attorneys in this forum who generously offer wisdom for free to 0Ls. For those 0Ls that wish to follow in their footsteps, and to profit handsomely from doing so, they are doing a great service. However, all too often, they can unintentionally come across as condescending and elitist by making blanket statements that most low-ranked law schools are worthless scams. Their counsel is excellent for those 0Ls that desire to make lots of money via law. However, their advice is often poor for those 0Ls that don’t have the ability to go to an elite school. I proffer a few points in support of attending a low-ranked school; even a Tier 4 law school. Criticism and debate are welcome but attacking the messenger is not helpful.
1. Law school does more than just teach law. Law school teaches students how to think through difficult problems, how to make a persuasive argument, etc. These are SKILLS that can be useful in a wide variety of careers tangential to and even outside of law. To argue that a low-level school is worthless because you have a small chance of a well-paying career ignores the skills law school develops in students that can be useful in all aspects of life, even your love life.
2. Students that truly love the law will enjoy law school. Yes, many view law school as just a hurdle to jump over to get to the promised land, but many other students find education to be worthwhile on its own (I often have senior citizens in many of my classes who have no intention of rejoining the workforce). In addition, there is a social aspect to law school that some students appreciate, whether it is networking or making friends or meeting a significant other.
3. It should not be understated how some students take pride in becoming a law school graduate, even if they don’t use the degree directly in their future career. Many will argue this is a bad reason to invest large amounts of time and money, but we all know people who have invested large amounts of time and money with other pursuits in life that often yielded something less tangible.
4. While it is true that many students will improve their LSAT score upon retake, to argue that all students with ‘low’ scores should simply retake the LSAT is often bad advice. Often students have already taken multiple LSAT prep classes, spent hundreds of hours studying, taken the LSAT multiple times, and still don’t achieve higher than a 152 (which it should be noted is the 50% point in the curve. Just because some did much higher; to be dismissive of an average score is condescending. A 152 is not a ‘bad’ score as half those that took it scored below that). To naively assume that an additional year will usually result in a significantly higher LSAT score ignores the situation of the student. If they only took it once and barely studied, then yes, a student will likely see a significant increase assuming they devote lots to time and resources to study (note that many students will not invest enough time and money even if they know it is in their best interest despite how often they are told). However, those students that have already invested significant time and resources into preparation are unlikely to see a significant rise. Perhaps a few points, but will that be enough to counteract the cost of taking an additional year or two off? There is a cost to doing that as you reduce your peak earning years when you do that and significantly reduce lifetime income.
5. I can picture many of the practicing attorneys in this forum attending a high school basketball game and screaming from the stands that everyone playing in the game should just give up all the hard practices, weightlifting, video reviews, etc., because the likelihood they will ever make a decent living in basketball is insignificant. While this fact is true, who are you to tell someone not to pursue their dream. Law students attending low ranking law schools are almost always aware that their chances for becoming filthy rich are small, but perhaps that may not be their goal.
6. There are many people that can live a very satisfying life in law without making much money. Maybe they just want to save whales, or help the poor, or something, which may actually be more satisfying to them than working for some large firm taking on cases that may not appeal to them anyway.
7. The fact is that everyone will make over a million dollars in income, even a minimum wage earner. Assume someone works for $10 an hour, 2000 hours a year (40 hours for 50 weeks), for 50 years and you get a million (in today’s dollars; ignore inflation). Most will earn two or three million in their lifetime; some much more. Thus, spending $100K to attend law school is not such a shocking sum to pursue a dream. In fact, I am willing to bet that many of the practicing attorneys in this forum drive cars or boats that cost that much. To some a law school education is worth more than a fancy car.
8. Instead of just trying to persuade 0Ls with low LSAT scores to drop their dream rather than go to law school, perhaps that same argument should be applied to those students with 180 LSAT and 4.0 GPA. Unless those high performing students REALLY want to do law, there are many other careers that are very lucrative and perhaps they would be better served to get an MBA or MD or DDS or something else. If money is the driving concern, they may get disillusioned after a decade of working very long hours in a law office. A strong desire for money should be matched with a strong desire for the law to be successful in big law.
9. A lot of the same arguments being made to try to convince 0Ls not to attend low ranking law schools could apply to any number of other scenarios. For example, how about undergraduate students studying some humanity or social science for which there is little chance of a well-paying career. I suspect you’d make the same argument, that these students should not go to college but instead just become plumbers or waitresses and not assume all the debt that goes with college. Again, this misses the point of a lot of what is learned at college. My auto mechanic when I lived in Boston graduated from Harvard. My girlfriend at the time had a Masters degree from Harvard and was a low level travel agent in an exotic travel company. However, even though neither worked in anything even remotely close to their degree, they learned ways of thinking that allowed them to be more successful in their new careers and they were satisfied to have spent the time and money to get a Harvard degree.
10. Job satisfaction is more than just income. I was fortunate to get a tenured position, but I know adjunct faculty that earn a fraction of my pay, perhaps $40K, but they are satisfied with their lot in life. They love their work, have pride and satisfaction, and have adapted to life with a low salary. Believe it or not, you can be happy without a million dollars in the bank; not everyone needs to have a new car every couple years.
11. Here is a hypothetical. Student graduates from a regional university with a BA in political science and finds no real job opportunity. Always interested in law, decides to become a paralegal. The student could take a year of courses at the local technical school to get a paralegal certificate, or they could get a JD at a low-ranking law school. Upon graduation with the JD, the student becomes a paralegal, but finds a slightly better position at a better firm due to having the JD and earns an extra $3 per hour. Over a lifetime, that extra $3 per hour equates to $300K, more than enough to pay for the cost of two additional years of school and the lost income during those two years. Again, this is just a hypothetical.
12. Remember the movie “The Rainmaker”? Danny Devito played a character who I believe graduated from a low-level law school and was having trouble passing the bar (and thus could not argue any cases in court). Nonetheless, he was involved in cases and enjoyed his life. A fictional character, and definitely no guarantee of what a low-ranking school can expect, but these types of low pay legal careers are a potential.
13. While many low-level law schools are very high priced, and could legitimately be called exploitive, there are many that are actually a good value, particularly state schools. Examples include the University of Arkansas, University of South Dakota, University of Montana, University of Nebraska, University of Mississippi. All have annual tuition for residents of approximately $15,000 or less and were ranked in the top 25 nationally in a paper on ‘Best Value Law Schools’ published in the National Jurist that considered not only cost but also employment rate and bar passage rate. Typically, 0Ls can become residents of these within a year or less. I am not advocating that students should flock to these schools, but if these are the best schools they can reach, and if they are aware of employment issues, these are good choices even at sticker price even though some are borderline tier 4.
14. Often I see COA numbers thrown around instead of the actual cost of the tuition and fees. While it is true that you will be paying COA, it is a bit misleading as you have to pay COL expenses whether you are in law school or not, so it is not an added expense of going to law school. Furthermore, COL expenses are something 0Ls can control and the costs will vary significantly; some will choose to slum it with many roommates and eat ramen while others will live high on the hog. Finally, some students have the option of living at home or with relatives.
15. While I agree it is not wise to attend a low-ranking school with the expectation to transfer to a high-ranking school, it is nonetheless a route taken by many students.
16. As shown by the ABA employment data, not all graduates from a T14 school land a Bar Passage required position, so a lot of the same arguments being made to anyone considering a low-level school should be made to 0Ls pondering a T14 school.
What I think would be very useful for 0Ls is a representation of the typical types of jobs that can be expected for ‘average’ students graduating from a Tier 3 or Tier 4 law school. The practicing attorneys frequenting this forum have done an exceptional job of conveying the types of low-level positions in law firms that are low paid and often permanent for low-level law school graduates (and even some high-level law school graduates). But what about JD advantage type jobs; things like corporate contracts administrator, alternative dispute resolution specialist, government regulatory analyst, FBI agent, and accountant, or even things where a JD is underutilized like legal temp agency, law clerks, paralegals. Many 0Ls would benefit from knowing of other options out there. Also, ABA data seems to focus more on what graduates find soon after graduation, but where are they ten years later and how much did they benefit from their JD?
Flame away.
Allow me to preface this by stating that I am not a practicing attorney; in fact, I am a physics professor whose daughter is a 0L. I am not a shill for law schools, but just feel that some of the advice being given often misses the point.
There are many practicing attorneys in this forum who generously offer wisdom for free to 0Ls. For those 0Ls that wish to follow in their footsteps, and to profit handsomely from doing so, they are doing a great service. However, all too often, they can unintentionally come across as condescending and elitist by making blanket statements that most low-ranked law schools are worthless scams. Their counsel is excellent for those 0Ls that desire to make lots of money via law. However, their advice is often poor for those 0Ls that don’t have the ability to go to an elite school. I proffer a few points in support of attending a low-ranked school; even a Tier 4 law school. Criticism and debate are welcome but attacking the messenger is not helpful.
1. Law school does more than just teach law. Law school teaches students how to think through difficult problems, how to make a persuasive argument, etc. These are SKILLS that can be useful in a wide variety of careers tangential to and even outside of law. To argue that a low-level school is worthless because you have a small chance of a well-paying career ignores the skills law school develops in students that can be useful in all aspects of life, even your love life.
2. Students that truly love the law will enjoy law school. Yes, many view law school as just a hurdle to jump over to get to the promised land, but many other students find education to be worthwhile on its own (I often have senior citizens in many of my classes who have no intention of rejoining the workforce). In addition, there is a social aspect to law school that some students appreciate, whether it is networking or making friends or meeting a significant other.
3. It should not be understated how some students take pride in becoming a law school graduate, even if they don’t use the degree directly in their future career. Many will argue this is a bad reason to invest large amounts of time and money, but we all know people who have invested large amounts of time and money with other pursuits in life that often yielded something less tangible.
4. While it is true that many students will improve their LSAT score upon retake, to argue that all students with ‘low’ scores should simply retake the LSAT is often bad advice. Often students have already taken multiple LSAT prep classes, spent hundreds of hours studying, taken the LSAT multiple times, and still don’t achieve higher than a 152 (which it should be noted is the 50% point in the curve. Just because some did much higher; to be dismissive of an average score is condescending. A 152 is not a ‘bad’ score as half those that took it scored below that). To naively assume that an additional year will usually result in a significantly higher LSAT score ignores the situation of the student. If they only took it once and barely studied, then yes, a student will likely see a significant increase assuming they devote lots to time and resources to study (note that many students will not invest enough time and money even if they know it is in their best interest despite how often they are told). However, those students that have already invested significant time and resources into preparation are unlikely to see a significant rise. Perhaps a few points, but will that be enough to counteract the cost of taking an additional year or two off? There is a cost to doing that as you reduce your peak earning years when you do that and significantly reduce lifetime income.
5. I can picture many of the practicing attorneys in this forum attending a high school basketball game and screaming from the stands that everyone playing in the game should just give up all the hard practices, weightlifting, video reviews, etc., because the likelihood they will ever make a decent living in basketball is insignificant. While this fact is true, who are you to tell someone not to pursue their dream. Law students attending low ranking law schools are almost always aware that their chances for becoming filthy rich are small, but perhaps that may not be their goal.
6. There are many people that can live a very satisfying life in law without making much money. Maybe they just want to save whales, or help the poor, or something, which may actually be more satisfying to them than working for some large firm taking on cases that may not appeal to them anyway.
7. The fact is that everyone will make over a million dollars in income, even a minimum wage earner. Assume someone works for $10 an hour, 2000 hours a year (40 hours for 50 weeks), for 50 years and you get a million (in today’s dollars; ignore inflation). Most will earn two or three million in their lifetime; some much more. Thus, spending $100K to attend law school is not such a shocking sum to pursue a dream. In fact, I am willing to bet that many of the practicing attorneys in this forum drive cars or boats that cost that much. To some a law school education is worth more than a fancy car.
8. Instead of just trying to persuade 0Ls with low LSAT scores to drop their dream rather than go to law school, perhaps that same argument should be applied to those students with 180 LSAT and 4.0 GPA. Unless those high performing students REALLY want to do law, there are many other careers that are very lucrative and perhaps they would be better served to get an MBA or MD or DDS or something else. If money is the driving concern, they may get disillusioned after a decade of working very long hours in a law office. A strong desire for money should be matched with a strong desire for the law to be successful in big law.
9. A lot of the same arguments being made to try to convince 0Ls not to attend low ranking law schools could apply to any number of other scenarios. For example, how about undergraduate students studying some humanity or social science for which there is little chance of a well-paying career. I suspect you’d make the same argument, that these students should not go to college but instead just become plumbers or waitresses and not assume all the debt that goes with college. Again, this misses the point of a lot of what is learned at college. My auto mechanic when I lived in Boston graduated from Harvard. My girlfriend at the time had a Masters degree from Harvard and was a low level travel agent in an exotic travel company. However, even though neither worked in anything even remotely close to their degree, they learned ways of thinking that allowed them to be more successful in their new careers and they were satisfied to have spent the time and money to get a Harvard degree.
10. Job satisfaction is more than just income. I was fortunate to get a tenured position, but I know adjunct faculty that earn a fraction of my pay, perhaps $40K, but they are satisfied with their lot in life. They love their work, have pride and satisfaction, and have adapted to life with a low salary. Believe it or not, you can be happy without a million dollars in the bank; not everyone needs to have a new car every couple years.
11. Here is a hypothetical. Student graduates from a regional university with a BA in political science and finds no real job opportunity. Always interested in law, decides to become a paralegal. The student could take a year of courses at the local technical school to get a paralegal certificate, or they could get a JD at a low-ranking law school. Upon graduation with the JD, the student becomes a paralegal, but finds a slightly better position at a better firm due to having the JD and earns an extra $3 per hour. Over a lifetime, that extra $3 per hour equates to $300K, more than enough to pay for the cost of two additional years of school and the lost income during those two years. Again, this is just a hypothetical.
12. Remember the movie “The Rainmaker”? Danny Devito played a character who I believe graduated from a low-level law school and was having trouble passing the bar (and thus could not argue any cases in court). Nonetheless, he was involved in cases and enjoyed his life. A fictional character, and definitely no guarantee of what a low-ranking school can expect, but these types of low pay legal careers are a potential.
13. While many low-level law schools are very high priced, and could legitimately be called exploitive, there are many that are actually a good value, particularly state schools. Examples include the University of Arkansas, University of South Dakota, University of Montana, University of Nebraska, University of Mississippi. All have annual tuition for residents of approximately $15,000 or less and were ranked in the top 25 nationally in a paper on ‘Best Value Law Schools’ published in the National Jurist that considered not only cost but also employment rate and bar passage rate. Typically, 0Ls can become residents of these within a year or less. I am not advocating that students should flock to these schools, but if these are the best schools they can reach, and if they are aware of employment issues, these are good choices even at sticker price even though some are borderline tier 4.
14. Often I see COA numbers thrown around instead of the actual cost of the tuition and fees. While it is true that you will be paying COA, it is a bit misleading as you have to pay COL expenses whether you are in law school or not, so it is not an added expense of going to law school. Furthermore, COL expenses are something 0Ls can control and the costs will vary significantly; some will choose to slum it with many roommates and eat ramen while others will live high on the hog. Finally, some students have the option of living at home or with relatives.
15. While I agree it is not wise to attend a low-ranking school with the expectation to transfer to a high-ranking school, it is nonetheless a route taken by many students.
16. As shown by the ABA employment data, not all graduates from a T14 school land a Bar Passage required position, so a lot of the same arguments being made to anyone considering a low-level school should be made to 0Ls pondering a T14 school.
What I think would be very useful for 0Ls is a representation of the typical types of jobs that can be expected for ‘average’ students graduating from a Tier 3 or Tier 4 law school. The practicing attorneys frequenting this forum have done an exceptional job of conveying the types of low-level positions in law firms that are low paid and often permanent for low-level law school graduates (and even some high-level law school graduates). But what about JD advantage type jobs; things like corporate contracts administrator, alternative dispute resolution specialist, government regulatory analyst, FBI agent, and accountant, or even things where a JD is underutilized like legal temp agency, law clerks, paralegals. Many 0Ls would benefit from knowing of other options out there. Also, ABA data seems to focus more on what graduates find soon after graduation, but where are they ten years later and how much did they benefit from their JD?
Flame away.