Tier 2, tier 3, and even tier 4 law schools are good options for many law students Forum

[cavalier1138]

Really? Every lawyer I've talked to said their works is boring and stressful. They stuck with it because of the salary.

My work is not boring, and it's rarely stressful. I love it. I'd never even consider leaving what I do for biglaw, despite making about a third to a quarter of what I'd make there.

lawyers who enjoy their job are in the minority, no?

I wouldn't say that at all. You have to keep in mind that lawyers in biglaw are overrepresented on this forum, especially discontent ones. But most lawyers aren't in biglaw, and most people I know enjoy what they do.

[nixy]

The problem with ND and Emory etc placement is that there are too many law grads and not enough jobs, not that employers think ND and Emory law grads are dumb.

Pretty sure biglaw looks as favorably on the top of the class at ND as any T19. The median and lower struggle significantly more. I'm guessing some employers see them as people who peaked in undergrad. I'm serious - I think those 2 schools generally produce high quality graduates in most fields, but law is particularly elitist and saturated.

Okay, now you’re moving the goalposts. You previously said that employers don’t hire from these schools because they can’t even be confident their grads are capable of being lawyers. Now you say that employers have plenty of respect for the top of the class. Those two statements are contradictory. You also said that going to a lower-ranked school than a T20 is personally and financially ruinous. But now you’re acknowledging that even under your artificial parameters for law school success (biglaw and biglaw alone), ND grads have success. Those two statements are also contradictory.

For the millionth time, my point wasn’t that everyone who goes to a state flagship (which neither ND nor Emory are, so that’s more moving the goal posts - you’re the one who came up with the wildly artificial T19) was guaranteed a good outcome. It was that some people who go to those schools *do have* good outcomes, especially depending on what they consider a good outcome, which you’ve now acknowledged (but didn’t previously).

The problem with *choosing* these schools is that you can’t know ahead of time whether you’ll be the one who turns out okay or whether you’ll be at the bottom of the class (who might also be fine if you're focusing on jobs that don’t care about grades, but we’ll assume that means you’re screwed for the sake of the hypo).

The range of outcomes and the fact that you can’t know your outcome ahead of time makes choosing to go to them riskier than higher-ranked schools. But it doesn’t mean that good outcomes don’t exist (especially when you define those outcomes more broadly than “only biglaw”). And to bring it back to the original point, for a lot of regional schools, the rankings aren’t always a great way to evaluate the potential outcomes. Dividing the 200-ish law schools out there into “T19” and “not T19” is really reductive and not helpful for anyone trying to decide on a law school.

(And the reason I’m ranting about this so much is that most of the people on this board can give nuanced advice until they’re blue in the face, but posts like yours give people like the OP of this thread ammunition to say, “see?? TLS is just elitist! I’m going to pay sticker at Washburn and pay it off with a biglaw job in LA and I’ll be just fine!”)

[nixy]

I wouldn't say that at all. You have to keep in mind that lawyers in biglaw are overrepresented on this forum, especially discontent ones. But most lawyers aren't in biglaw, and most people I know enjoy what they do.

Coda to agree with this. My practice area is filled with attorneys who love their jobs.

[Amelorn]

The problem with ND and Emory etc placement is that there are too many law grads and not enough jobs, not that employers think ND and Emory law grads are dumb.

Pretty sure biglaw looks as favorably on the top of the class at ND as any T19. The median and lower struggle significantly more. I'm guessing some employers see them as people who peaked in undergrad. I'm serious - I think those 2 schools generally produce high quality graduates in most fields, but law is particularly elitist and saturated.

Okay, now you’re moving the goalposts. You previously said that employers don’t hire from these schools because they can’t even be confident their grads are capable of being lawyers. Now you say that employers have plenty of respect for the top of the class. Those two statements are contradictory. You also said that going to a lower-ranked school than a T20 is personally and financially ruinous. But now you’re acknowledging that even under your artificial parameters for law school success (biglaw and biglaw alone), ND grads have success. Those two statements are also contradictory.

For the millionth time, my point wasn’t that everyone who goes to a state flagship (which neither ND nor Emory are, so that’s more moving the goal posts - you’re the one who came up with the wildly artificial T19) was guaranteed a good outcome. It was that some people who go to those schools *do have* good outcomes, especially depending on what they consider a good outcome, which you’ve now acknowledged (but didn’t previously).

The problem with *choosing* these schools is that you can’t know ahead of time whether you’ll be the one who turns out okay or whether you’ll be at the bottom of the class (who might also be fine if you're focusing on jobs that don’t care about grades, but we’ll assume that means you’re screwed for the sake of the hypo).

The range of outcomes and the fact that you can’t know your outcome ahead of time makes choosing to go to them riskier than higher-ranked schools. But it doesn’t mean that good outcomes don’t exist (especially when you define those outcomes more broadly than “only biglaw”). And to bring it back to the original point, for a lot of regional schools, the rankings aren’t always a great way to evaluate the potential outcomes. Dividing the 200-ish law schools out there into “T19” and “not T19” is really reductive and not helpful for anyone trying to decide on a law school.

(And the reason I’m ranting about this so much is that most of the people on this board can give nuanced advice until they’re blue in the face, but posts like yours give people like the OP of this thread ammunition to say, “see?? TLS is just elitist! I’m going to pay sticker at Washburn and pay it off with a biglaw job in LA and I’ll be just fine!”)

Can we create a term "constructive trolling" for how laanngo ruined this thread? We had the chance to have an interesting thread on often-overlooked public law schools and regional markets + why they might be the right choice for given certain motives.

Instead we got stuck on pointless BS (for this thread) like hair-splitting on "state flagship" definitions, meaningless technicalities, and the useless truism that JDs from outside the T-14 don't have a realistic chance as legal academia. As I've said before, I am studying in a one law school state. Neither my classmates nor I are gunning to be professors.

[laanngo]

Okay, now you’re moving the goalposts. You previously said that employers don’t hire from these schools because they can’t even be confident their grads are capable of being lawyers. Now you say that employers have plenty of respect for the top of the class. Those two statements are contradictory. You also said that going to a lower-ranked school than a T20 is personally and financially ruinous. But now you’re acknowledging that even under your artificial parameters for law school success (biglaw and biglaw alone), ND grads have success. Those two statements are also contradictory.

They do hire, but not BL/FC at median. Knowing nothing else, it's unadvisable to go at sticker. You shouldn't expect a high salary with a scholarship either, since most students don't get the high paying, highly coveted jobs.

For the millionth time, my point wasn’t that everyone who goes to a state flagship (which neither ND nor Emory are, so that’s more moving the goal posts - you’re the one who came up with the wildly artificial T19) was guaranteed a good outcome. It was that some people who go to those schools *do have* good outcomes, especially depending on what they consider a good outcome, which you’ve now acknowledged (but didn’t previously).

T19 is not something I came up with. A law degree is not a bachelor's. It's not the fun experience of a bachelor's. You're much less likely to meet your spouse there. You can't trade connections across industries because everyone is competing for the same jobs.

The range of outcomes and the fact that you can’t know your outcome ahead of time makes choosing to go to them riskier than higher-ranked schools. But it doesn’t mean that good outcomes don’t exist (especially when you define those outcomes more broadly than “only biglaw”). And to bring it back to the original point, for a lot of regional schools, the rankings aren’t always a great way to evaluate the potential outcomes. Dividing the 200-ish law schools out there into “T19” and “not T19” is really reductive and not helpful for anyone trying to decide on a law school.

Cutoffs do exist. T14 is a thing. So is T6 and T19, marking gulfs in outcomes. Not the whole story but it's difficult to get more nuanced without delving into the nuances of a student's background. On a forum where most participants are not posters but readers, it's preferably to spew general advice, not highly situational and unstakeable bets.

[laanngo]

To get further into the question of nuance, I think playing D1 in undergrad makes you much more hireable as a lawyer, and former work experience as a teacher gives you knowledge of jury instruction and crowd management that is useful as a lawyer. It's a good idea to avoid blurring the lines between who is applying, and the average applicant. Law is very much about who you know. Conflating 'who' can be disastrous.

[laanngo]

Instead we got stuck on pointless BS (for this thread) like hair-splitting on "state flagship" definitions, meaningless technicalities, and the useless truism that JDs from outside the T-14 don't have a realistic chance as legal academia. As I've said before, I am studying in a one law school state. Neither my classmates nor I are gunning to be professors.

Even if it's not an official state flagship (which it statutorily is), TAMU is a powerful brand all over TX and to a lesser degree the SW.
But go on, under what circumstances other than full scholarship + good enough connections to guarantee a job + known career plans is a low ranked state flagship a good risk at median? Is that a good outcome? To trap your job mobility in a jurisdiction, pigeonhole yourself into a saturated market that pays a fraction of what your friends and family think you should be making, and working more than the 9-5. If you want to be a lawyer, yes. To the average law school applicant, no.

[nixy]

laango, you're either purposely trolling, or incapable of grasping what anyone in this thread is saying because you're projecting your own issues everywhere.

[laanngo]

laango, you're either purposely trolling, or incapable of grasping what anyone in this thread is saying because you're projecting your own issues everywhere.

I am not purposefully trolling. I am a 0L and don't understand the whole situation. Still, a fair warning for those who might end up being the 75% of law school grads who can't get a job as a lawyer.
I've done a whole lot more research on this than most 0Ls. This probably bodes poorly for most other applicants.

[nixy]

laango, you're either purposely trolling, or incapable of grasping what anyone in this thread is saying because you're projecting your own issues everywhere.

I am not purposefully trolling. I am a 0L and don't understand the whole situation. Still, a fair warning for those who might end up being the 75% of law school grads who can't get a job as a lawyer.
I've done a whole lot more research on this than most 0Ls. This probably bodes poorly for most other applicants.

The last thing I will say is that 71% of the class of 2020 got jobs as lawyers. https://data.lawschooltransparency.com/ ... e=national

Now, whether they’re the jobs that every grad wanted, with the salaries that they wanted, is an entirely different question. But that’s not what you said. Stop making things up.

[laanngo]

laango, you're either purposely trolling, or incapable of grasping what anyone in this thread is saying because you're projecting your own issues everywhere.

I am not purposefully trolling. I am a 0L and don't understand the whole situation. Still, a fair warning for those who might end up being the 75% of law school grads who can't get a job as a lawyer.
I've done a whole lot more research on this than most 0Ls. This probably bodes poorly for most other applicants.

The last thing I will say is that 71% of the class of 2020 got jobs as lawyers. https://data.lawschooltransparency.com/ ... e=national

Now, whether they’re the jobs that every grad wanted, with the salaries that they wanted, is an entirely different question. But that’s not what you said. Stop making things up.

I was misinformed.

[The Lsat Airbender]

I've done a whole lot more research on this than most 0Ls.

This is true actually; here's the footage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsCul1sp4hQ