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

[Amelorn]

Some notes:

The LSAT rewards prep and practice, which in turn rewards those with time and resources. When I worked in a demanding niche of the service industry that evolved to feature "13 days on, 1 off" scheduling, I bottled up a lot of frustration with "take a $1500 prep course and maybe volunteer a bit" advice from professionals who thought I was a high school junior. I was 31. $1500 was 10 days of gross pay, and in my industry, choosing non-emergency commitments over work would lead to firings (esp problematic with employer-provided housing). I barely had time to physically rest let alone work for free. The luxury to schedule classes or a recreational activity (e.g. Master's swimming) was unfathomable.

I agree that the ranking system is extremely unfair to the various state law schools. The U of State law schools have great locks on their local market and can work out well factoring in job placements, scholarships, and (esp in the Midwest) lower overall CoL during school and beyond graduation.

[laanngo]

I agree that the ranking system is extremely unfair to the various state law schools. The U of State law schools have great locks on their local market and can work out well factoring in job placements, scholarships, and (esp in the Midwest) lower overall CoL during school and beyond graduation.

UMass, UND and UNH aren't very good. I don't think U@B or Rutgers are highly respected in their closest mid to big market either.

[nixy]

I agree that the ranking system is extremely unfair to the various state law schools. The U of State law schools have great locks on their local market and can work out well factoring in job placements, scholarships, and (esp in the Midwest) lower overall CoL during school and beyond graduation.

UMass, UND and UNH aren't very good. I don't think U@B or Rutgers are highly respected in their closest mid to big market either.

First, cherry picking a few schools doesn’t undermine the overall proposition, especially since the poster above you referenced scholarships and COL and emphasized the Midwest.

But also, I think you’re overlooking how much this all depends on career goals. If you’re from ND *and want to stay in ND,* going to UND makes a lot of sense. There aren’t other law schools around and the local legal market will be full of UND grads. You’re also by definition not interested in biglaw or most of the name-conscious kinds of jobs because they’re not located in ND. If you want to get out of ND and work a fancy biglaw job in NYC or LA, on the other hand, obviously you’re not going to want to go to UND. That doesn’t make UND a bad school over all, just bad for that purpose.

The same is less true for UMass and UNH (which are pretty much in the same market) because they’re in a really oversaturated law school market - there are tons of law schools in the area to compete with, mostly (but not all) better ranked. (That said, UNH still might not be terrible for a NH local who wants to stay local. If you’re trying to work in NH you’re not aiming for biglaw. If you want to get into biglaw in Boston, UNH is a dicier proposition, of course.) Rutgers suffers somewhat from the same phenomenon - lots of better schools in the area. But it’s perfectly respectable, probably especially for small-mid local NJ law.

I don’t know what school U@B is.

(I think UMass doesn’t really fit in the “state school” category being discussed here, even though it technically is, because it’s only been around for 10 years as the legacy of a fairly bad private law school. And I think the reason you didn’t have a strong state law school before that is because you already had Harvard, BC, BU, Northeastern, Suffolk, and maybe others I’m forgetting. Again, different from something like UND.)

So I think the poster you’re referring to is overall correct, especially in the sense that’s often discussed here that once you get past a certain point, rankings aren’t helpful at all. If you want to live and work in North Dakota, the fact that UND is in USNWR’s bottom, un-ranked tier (147-193) isn’t a reason to go to a school ranked 126 or 97 just because those schools are ranked higher. There might be higher-ranked schools that *do* make better sense than UND under a specific given set of facts, especially involving costs, but the rankings in a vacuum aren’t helpful.

(It’s true that people can change their minds and if halfway through their ND degree, someone who thought they wanted to live in ND forever becomes obsessed with the idea of moving to LA, yeah, ND won’t open a lot of doors for them at some point. But there’s only so far you can keep all your options open and you have to decide on a law school based on the information available to you at that time. Obviously, if your choice is between UND and, like, Chicago, that’s one thing. If your choice is between UND and, say, Washburn or Creighton, though, that’s another.)

[Quichelorraine]

UMass, UND and UNH aren't very good. I don't think U@B or Rutgers are highly respected in their closest mid to big market either.

With Rutgers, are you thinking of NYC/Philly as the big markets? If yes, while you may technically be correct (although Rutgers does OK in Philly), Rutgers/Seton Hall have a stranglehold on NJ, and NJ has a market all its own. Gibbons, Sills, McCarter, etc., all hire heavily from the local powerhouses.

Assuming U@B = Buffalo: upstate New York is weird. The "local" schools all have a lot of placement power, despite having iffy stats overall. I would never advise anybody to go to Albany over Buffalo, for instance, but Albany is awash in Albany grads.

[Amelorn]

I agree that the ranking system is extremely unfair to the various state law schools. The U of State law schools have great locks on their local market and can work out well factoring in job placements, scholarships, and (esp in the Midwest) lower overall CoL during school and beyond graduation.

UMass, UND and UNH aren't very good. I don't think U@B or Rutgers are highly respected in their closest mid to big market either.

First, cherry picking a few schools doesn’t undermine the overall proposition, especially since the poster above you referenced scholarships and COL and emphasized the Midwest.

But also, I think you’re overlooking how much this all depends on career goals. If you’re from ND *and want to stay in ND,* going to UND makes a lot of sense. There aren’t other law schools around and the local legal market will be full of UND grads. You’re also by definition not interested in biglaw or most of the name-conscious kinds of jobs because they’re not located in ND. If you want to get out of ND and work a fancy biglaw job in NYC or LA, on the other hand, obviously you’re not going to want to go to UND. That doesn’t make UND a bad school over all, just bad for that purpose.

The same is less true for UMass and UNH (which are pretty much in the same market) because they’re in a really oversaturated law school market - there are tons of law schools in the area to compete with, mostly (but not all) better ranked. (That said, UNH still might not be terrible for a NH local who wants to stay local. If you’re trying to work in NH you’re not aiming for biglaw. If you want to get into biglaw in Boston, UNH is a dicier proposition, of course.) Rutgers suffers somewhat from the same phenomenon - lots of better schools in the area. But it’s perfectly respectable, probably especially for small-mid local NJ law.

I don’t know what school U@B is.

(I think UMass doesn’t really fit in the “state school” category being discussed here, even though it technically is, because it’s only been around for 10 years as the legacy of a fairly bad private law school. And I think the reason you didn’t have a strong state law school before that is because you already had Harvard, BC, BU, Northeastern, Suffolk, and maybe others I’m forgetting. Again, different from something like UND.)

So I think the poster you’re referring to is overall correct, especially in the sense that’s often discussed here that once you get past a certain point, rankings aren’t helpful at all. If you want to live and work in North Dakota, the fact that UND is in USNWR’s bottom, un-ranked tier (147-193) isn’t a reason to go to a school ranked 126 or 97 just because those schools are ranked higher. There might be higher-ranked schools that *do* make better sense than UND under a specific given set of facts, especially involving costs, but the rankings in a vacuum aren’t helpful.

(It’s true that people can change their minds and if halfway through their ND degree, someone who thought they wanted to live in ND forever becomes obsessed with the idea of moving to LA, yeah, ND won’t open a lot of doors for them at some point. But there’s only so far you can keep all your options open and you have to decide on a law school based on the information available to you at that time. Obviously, if your choice is between UND and, like, Chicago, that’s one thing. If your choice is between UND and, say, Washburn or Creighton, though, that’s another.)

Thank you for spelling out my exact thoughts.

My logic particularly applied to the Universities of Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska (yes, I threw the Mountain West and Hawaii in there as well, but certain key considerations remain the same).

Fun fact: I attend one of the above. I'm a NY native that transplanted from another state to my current state with a scholarship. I went in eyes-wide-open about the geographic mobility (basically: my state plus some of my contiguous neighbors).

I considered staying in my former state or returning to NY. I ran the debt (tuition + CoL) against the average new grad salary and projected expenses on graduation. It was painful. Here, I will be able to have a life and home (rental to myself, then purchase perhaps). Not so much on the east coast.

I'm OK with my choice. I have lived around the world. Some hobbies are harder to indulge out here (decent pools for lap swimming exist, but are rare) while others are easier (target shooting). I have friends. I have found delicious Japanese, regional Chinese, Indian, and Ethiopian restaurants here. I have easy access to my professors, who are largely T20 educated. The firms (our "big" firms are "boutique midlaw" by coastal standards) do interesting work in a variety of practice areas. I can walk to campus from a 1bdrm apartment that I rent, bills included, for a $600/month. More critically, I have been building connections in the legal community via networking and pro bono volunteering.

There are a few classmates I worry about though. They're trying to port the degree back to Far Away State and don't attempt to participate in the local/regional scene.

Rankings aren't that particularly noteworthy out here as geography and ties. This effect is particularly extreme in Hawaii and Wyoming - very slightly less so in MT. SD, IA, and NE overlap, though a given firm is going to be 85% from the local state's school(s). ND and MN grads appear in both states (Minneapolis-St Paul is a regional 'destination market' for legal and non-legal professionals that want a, relatively speaking, bigger city life).

[laanngo]

Assuming U@B = Buffalo: upstate New York is weird. The "local" schools all have a lot of placement power, despite having iffy stats overall. I would never advise anybody to go to Albany over Buffalo, for instance, but Albany is awash in Albany grads.

Yes, that's what I meant by U@B. Other than SUNY, no other University is 'at' and not 'of. I'm assuming the local placement power is because everyone wants to work in NYC?

First, cherry picking a few schools doesn’t undermine the overall proposition, especially since the poster above you referenced scholarships and COL and emphasized the Midwest.

Yes it does. The exceptions prove the rule. When people think of law school, they think it's lucrative, implicitly matching Harvard (legally blonde) or NYU (NYC) to the legal profession despite the many counter-examples. They're generally wrong. To prevent financial catastrophe, it would be a good idea to whitelist/spotlight the flagships that are good values, such as OSU.
In midwest, I don't think UIUC, IU, and Mizzou have quite the lock on their major markets, either.

But also, I think you’re overlooking how much this all depends on career goals. If you’re from ND *and want to stay in ND,* going to UND makes a lot of sense. There aren’t other law schools around and the local legal market will be full of UND grads. You’re also by definition not interested in biglaw or most of the name-conscious kinds of jobs because they’re not located in ND. If you want to get out of ND and work a fancy biglaw job in NYC or LA, on the other hand, obviously you’re not going to want to go to UND. That doesn’t make UND a bad school over all, just bad for that purpose.

UND is still a questionable financial proposition at sticker, plus cost of living. I doubt many UND law grads are making much of a dent in their debt.

I think UMass doesn’t really fit in the “state school” category being discussed here, even though it technically is, because it’s only been around for 10 years as the legacy of a fairly bad private law school. And I think the reason you didn’t have a strong state law school before that is because you already had Harvard, BC, BU, Northeastern, Suffolk, and maybe others I’m forgetting. Again, different from something like UND.

UNH, UIC, TAMU law schools are all flagship law schools less than a decade old. Other than TAMU, which will probably beat SMU soon, I don't think these schools are advisable.

[laanngo]

So I think the poster you’re referring to is overall correct, especially in the sense that’s often discussed here that once you get past a certain point, rankings aren’t helpful at all. If you want to live and work in North Dakota, the fact that UND is in USNWR’s bottom, un-ranked tier (147-193) isn’t a reason to go to a school ranked 126 or 97 just because those schools are ranked higher. There might be higher-ranked schools that *do* make better sense than UND under a specific given set of facts, especially involving costs, but the rankings in a vacuum aren’t helpful.

This country is graduating around 400% of the lawyers it needs. Unranked UND provides networking opportunities in ND whereas higher ranked Creighton and St. John don't have much of that kind of market cornering. I doubt the state of ND is purposefully malfeasant in operating a law school - I'm more inclined to believe that schools with bad opportunities should be shut down, such as NIU, SIU, Campbell, Elon, OkCU, TU, Creighton, Washburn.

Rankings aren't that particularly noteworthy out here as geography and ties. This effect is particularly extreme in Hawaii and Wyoming - very slightly less so in MT. SD, IA, and NE overlap, though a given firm is going to be 85% from the local state's school(s). ND and MN grads appear in both states (Minneapolis-St Paul is a regional 'destination market' for legal and non-legal professionals that want a, relatively speaking, bigger city life).

^^Creighton, St. Thomas, and Mitchell Hamline have little reason to exist. Private school tuition, disrespected in their home markets, questionable brands, not portable to other markets.

[nixy]

First, cherry picking a few schools doesn’t undermine the overall proposition, especially since the poster above you referenced scholarships and COL and emphasized the Midwest.

Yes it does. The exceptions prove the rule. When people think of law school, they think it's lucrative, implicitly matching Harvard (legally blonde) or NYU (NYC) to the legal profession despite the many counter-examples. They're generally wrong. To prevent financial catastrophe, it would be a good idea to whitelist/spotlight the flagships that are good values, such as OSU.
In midwest, I don't think UIUC, IU, and Mizzou have quite the lock on their major markets, either.

But also, I think you’re overlooking how much this all depends on career goals. If you’re from ND *and want to stay in ND,* going to UND makes a lot of sense. There aren’t other law schools around and the local legal market will be full of UND grads. You’re also by definition not interested in biglaw or most of the name-conscious kinds of jobs because they’re not located in ND. If you want to get out of ND and work a fancy biglaw job in NYC or LA, on the other hand, obviously you’re not going to want to go to UND. That doesn’t make UND a bad school over all, just bad for that purpose.

UND is still a questionable financial proposition at sticker, plus cost of living. I doubt many UND law grads are making much of a dent in their debt.

I think UMass doesn’t really fit in the “state school” category being discussed here, even though it technically is, because it’s only been around for 10 years as the legacy of a fairly bad private law school. And I think the reason you didn’t have a strong state law school before that is because you already had Harvard, BC, BU, Northeastern, Suffolk, and maybe others I’m forgetting. Again, different from something like UND.

UNH, UIC, TAMU law schools are all flagship law schools less than a decade old. Other than TAMU, which will probably beat SMU soon, I don't think these schools are advisable.

First, I don’t think that’s what “the exceptions prove the rule” means.

Second, you haven’t responded at all to the idea that whether these schools are good options depends on your goals. I said numerous times that if you want a fancy biglaw job, don’t go to most of these schools. Contrary to your assertion, not everyone assumes that all law schools are Harvard or will get you a lucrative job in a big city. Obviously someone who thinks that shouldn’t go to UND, but that doesn’t make UND a bad school for what it offers.

I also didn’t mention attending at sticker because the person you were responding to already said “depending on scholarships.” (Also, you didn’t consider cost. UND tuition for a resident looks to run about $16,000 a year. Even with cost of living - because it’s ND - that’s actually going to be relatively manageable debt even if you attend at sticker, which I wasn’t assuming.)

Your distinction between OSU (good value) and UIUC, UI, or Mizzou (apparently not good values?) is weird. Sure, there are other higher-ranked schools in the latter states. But if you want to be in some part of Illinois that’s not Chicago, UIUC could be a good option (and it does still feed into Chicago, with a significantly lower COA than the Chicago schools). Notre Dame isn’t designed to feed grads into the local Indiana market in the same way that UI is. Wash U is full of students trying to go to NY or Chicago or other major metros rather than stay in Missouri. (People don’t go to Wash U because they want to work in Missouri, same way that people don’t go to Michigan because they want to work in Michigan, and they certainly don’t go to Cornell because they want to work in Ithaca.) If someone wants to work in local government in Missouri, I’d tell them to take Mizzou at a good discount over Wash U at sticker. OSU is the highest ranked Ohio school so sure, it’s probably the best bet for someone who wants to stay in Ohio (I haven’t compared the employment stats for the Ohio schools), but OSU at sticker still isn’t going to be a good bet for someone who thinks that any law school automatically opens the doors to being rich in NYC, either.

I never claimed any state flagships had a lock on its local market, such that no other grads could get jobs there. I’m addressing whether they can be good schools for the right person. Obviously that depends also on your options as well as your goals, but as I already noted, UND vs UChicago is completely different from UND v Washburn. I don’t think anyone is saying that flagships are equally good options for everyone.

And, no, UIC and UNH aren’t less than 10 years old. They changed their names, but are otherwise the same schools that have been around since 1899 and 1973. TAMU is more like UMass, in that one school that never had a law school bought a law school, but I’m not convinced it’s going to outpace SMU. But TAMU also isn’t the state flagship - UT Austin is. (UMass Dartmouth isn’t really a flagship either - the flagship campus is UMass Amherst - but it is the only state law school, so I guess close enough.)

I think really we’re talking past each other. You want to divide schools into “good” or “bad” in a vacuum. I’m saying it’s necessary to consider what someone wants out of the degree (and how much it will cost). I don’t think really any of the state flagships are *bad* schools. NY and MA “flagships”suffer from having tons of prestigious private universities, so I don’t think the state flagships in those states really serve the same function that they do in other states and I probably wouldn’t recommend them for many people. But in a lot of the rest of the country this is much less the case, even if those flagships aren’t right for everyone. There *are* schools I’d say *no one* should attend, but I don’t think most state flagships fall into that category. (I’ll admit UMass Dartmouth might come close, for me, though, because I don’t think it offers the historical community and network that most state flagships do.)

[nixy]

So I think the poster you’re referring to is overall correct, especially in the sense that’s often discussed here that once you get past a certain point, rankings aren’t helpful at all. If you want to live and work in North Dakota, the fact that UND is in USNWR’s bottom, un-ranked tier (147-193) isn’t a reason to go to a school ranked 126 or 97 just because those schools are ranked higher. There might be higher-ranked schools that *do* make better sense than UND under a specific given set of facts, especially involving costs, but the rankings in a vacuum aren’t helpful.

This country is graduating around 400% of the lawyers it needs. Unranked UND provides networking opportunities in ND whereas higher ranked Creighton and St. John don't have much of that kind of market cornering. I doubt the state of ND is purposefully malfeasant in operating a law school - I'm more inclined to believe that schools with bad opportunities should be shut down, such as NIU, SIU, Campbell, Elon, OkCU, TU, Creighton, Washburn.

Rankings aren't that particularly noteworthy out here as geography and ties. This effect is particularly extreme in Hawaii and Wyoming - very slightly less so in MT. SD, IA, and NE overlap, though a given firm is going to be 85% from the local state's school(s). ND and MN grads appear in both states (Minneapolis-St Paul is a regional 'destination market' for legal and non-legal professionals that want a, relatively speaking, bigger city life).

^^Creighton, St. Thomas, and Mitchell Hamline have little reason to exist. Private school tuition, disrespected in their home markets, questionable brands, not portable to other markets.

What does this have to do with the rankings undervaluing state flagships? I wasn’t and I don’t think Amelorn was defending those schools.

(That said, I’m not sure that “disrespected in their home markets” is exactly accurate. There are still lots of alums from those schools in their general regions. I probably wouldn’t recommend those schools to many people because of the balance between cost and job opportunities, but I’m not sure disrespect is really the right term. I work in a market with a lot of law schools that have widely divergent rankings, and while the T6+ school on a resume certainly makes people perk up and go “oooh, shiny,” people don’t, like, look at the lower-ranked schools and automatically disrespect that person. Because anyone working out here has worked with smart alums from all of those schools.)

[laanngo]

First, I don’t think that’s what “the exceptions prove the rule” means.

I meant *disprove the rule. Sorry.

[laanngo]

I also didn’t mention attending at sticker because the person you were responding to already said “depending on scholarships.” (Also, you didn’t consider cost. UND tuition for a resident looks to run about $16,000 a year. Even with cost of living - because it’s ND - that’s actually going to be relatively manageable debt even if you attend at sticker, which I wasn’t assuming.)

COL in Grand Forks per the law school's calculator (assuming most students are from other parts of the state) is around 14.5k a year. That's nearly 6 figures in debt at sticker. Why list sticker if not to charge some students that price? Generally, students should be warned of the risks.

I think really we’re talking past each other. You want to divide schools into “good” or “bad” in a vacuum. I’m saying it’s necessary to consider what someone wants out of the degree (and how much it will cost). I don’t think really any of the state flagships are *bad* schools. NY and MA “flagships”suffer from having tons of prestigious private universities, so I don’t think the state flagships in those states really serve the same function that they do in other states and I probably wouldn’t recommend them for many people. But in a lot of the rest of the country this is much less the case, even if those flagships aren’t right for everyone. There *are* schools I’d say *no one* should attend, but I don’t think most state flagships fall into that category. (I’ll admit UMass Dartmouth might come close, for me, though, because I don’t think it offers the historical community and network that most state flagships do.)

No, I've stated state flagships have respectable brands and ought to have respectable placement. They have strong undergrad/professional school alumni networks and able administrations. The sad reality of the legal profession is elitist, opaque, and frivolous. The saturation doesn't help - too many résumés to comb through, which is why most job applications never get past alma mater/GPA. If we shut down law schools like Pacific and American that have no good reason to exist, state flagships will have less wrongful competition.
Schools will be divided into good and bad by recruiters and the profession. I'm acknowledging schools outside the top 20 lack admissions standards and have to depend on networking and proximity to a local market. Schools like UND, Vermont and Ave Maria don't have much of a market to begin with.

I think UMass doesn’t really fit in the “state school” category being discussed here, even though it technically is, because it’s only been around for 10 years as the legacy of a fairly bad private law school. And I think the reason you didn’t have a strong state law school before that is because you already had Harvard, BC, BU, Northeastern, Suffolk, and maybe others I’m forgetting. Again, different from something like UND.

Notre Dame isn’t designed to feed grads into the local Indiana market in the same way that UI is. Wash U is full of students trying to go to NY or Chicago or other major metros rather than stay in Missouri. (People don’t go to Wash U because they want to work in Missouri, same way that people don’t go to Michigan because they want to work in Michigan, and they certainly don’t go to Cornell because they want to work in Ithaca.) If someone wants to work in local government in Missouri, I’d tell them to take Mizzou at a good discount over Wash U at sticker.

Others, like PSU to IU, are not first in the queue for their target mid-large market. Students will have to scramble harder to get jobs over Penn or Notre Dame students with ties to the area.

Your distinction between OSU (good value) and UIUC, UI, or Mizzou (apparently not good values?) is weird. Sure, there are other higher-ranked schools in the latter states. But if you want to be in some part of Illinois that’s not Chicago, UIUC could be a good option (and it does still feed into Chicago, with a significantly lower COA than the Chicago schools).

Most practicing lawyers will admit their job is boring and stressful, coveted yet despised, vacuous yet salaried. A good career is more than salary or even job stability. Even if you want to be a lawyer, many law schools leave their graduates dirty. You're right, OSU=good, UIUC/IU/MU=questionable is wrong. The law life is not for many, even those who have dreamed of it since childhood. Going to law schools is personally and financially disastrous outside of the top 19 unless you have a full tuition scholarship and bought a house.

And, no, UIC and UNH aren’t less than 10 years old. They changed their names, but are otherwise the same schools that have been around since 1899 and 1973. TAMU is more like UMass, in that one school that never had a law school bought a law school, but I’m not convinced it’s going to outpace SMU. But TAMU also isn’t the state flagship - UT Austin is. (UMass Dartmouth isn’t really a flagship either - the flagship campus is UMass Amherst - but it is the only state law school, so I guess close enough.)

https://twitter.com/tamu/status/1326555 ... 36?lang=en
Most states have up to 2 flagships. PA and NY kind of have 4. It's #53 where SMU is #52. Still not a good choice if you can get into UT, but on its way to 2nd in its market.

[nixy]

I’m really confused by your post and where you’re going with most of this.

COL in Grand Forks per the law school's calculator (assuming most students are from other parts of the state) is around 14.5k a year. That's nearly 6 figures in debt at sticker. Why list sticker if not to charge some students that price? Generally, students should be warned of the risks.

That total cost is less than 1/3 your standard major metro schools. But more importantly, absolutely no one has said that students shouldn’t be warned of the risks. Saying that the rankings aren’t a good way to evaluate state flagships doesn’t mean telling everyone to rush out and go to those schools.

No, I've stated state flagships have respectable brands and ought to have respectable placement. They have strong undergrad/professional school alumni networks and able administrations. The sad reality of the legal profession is elitist, opaque, and frivolous. The saturation doesn't help - too many résumés to comb through, which is why most job applications never get past alma mater/GPA. If we shut down law schools like Pacific and American that have no good reason to exist, state flagships will have less wrongful competition.
Schools will be divided into good and bad by recruiters and the profession. I'm acknowledging schools outside the top 20 lack admissions standards and have to depend on networking and proximity to a local market. Schools like UND, Vermont and Ave Maria don't have much of a market to begin with.

Re bolded, 1) where have you said that?
2) what on earth do you mean by saying schools outside the top 20 lack admissions standards? That’s just not true.
3) why are you talking about Vermont and Ave Maria? They’re not state flagships. No one has said to go to them. I agree that ND doesn’t have a big legal market, but if you’re in it, UND isn’t a terrible place to go. It’s tiny and cheap and is going to have a lot of local alums.

Others, like PSU to IU, are not first in the queue for their target mid-large market. Students will have to scramble harder to get jobs over Penn or Notre Dame students with ties to the area.

Sure, to some extent. I doubt a lot of students go to Penn to work in central/western PA or to ND to work in rural Indiana, though.

Going to law schools is personally and financially disastrous outside of the top 19 unless you have a full tuition scholarship and bought a house.

I mean this is also just not true. Obviously people need to do a lot of research about placement and costs and soul-searching about what outcome they want and how much they want to risk. But such a dogmatic statement doesn’t help people do that.

Most states have up to 2 flagships. PA and NY kind of have 4. It's #53 where SMU is #52. Still not a good choice if you can get into UT, but on its way to 2nd in its market.

No, I mean flagship as the best state school in the market. Just because TAMU wants to call itself the flagship doesn’t make it one.

[laanngo]

That total cost is less than 1/3 your standard major metro schools. But more importantly, absolutely no one has said that students shouldn’t be warned of the risks. Saying that the rankings aren’t a good way to evaluate state flagships doesn’t mean telling everyone to rush out and go to those schools.

Still not a wise financial choice. I think you're right that we don't know why we're disagreeing.

Re bolded, 1) where have you said that?
2) what on earth do you mean by saying schools outside the top 20 lack admissions standards? That’s just not true.
3) why are you talking about Vermont and Ave Maria? They’re not state flagships. No one has said to go to them. I agree that ND doesn’t have a big legal market, but if you’re in it, UND isn’t a terrible place to go. It’s tiny and cheap and is going to have a lot of local alums.

1. not sure, but I certainly mean it.
2. You need a high GPA to get into USC. With schools ranked lower, it's unclear who they're letting in the gate.
3. They're not state flagships, but they have problems shared by flagships.

I mean this is also just not true. Obviously people need to do a lot of research about placement and costs and soul-searching about what outcome they want and how much they want to risk. But such a dogmatic statement doesn’t help people do that.

Most states have up to 2 flagships. PA and NY kind of have 4. It's #53 where SMU is #52. Still not a good choice if you can get into UT, but on its way to 2nd in its market.

No, I mean flagship as the best state school in the market. Just because TAMU wants to call itself the flagship doesn’t make it one.

Outside of the T19, median does not make biglaw, which is necessary to pay back sizable debt.
TAMU is Tx's 2nd flagship. They have 2. Wyoming has 1. NY has 4 (5?). VA has 3.

[nixy]

2. You need a high GPA to get into USC. With schools ranked lower, it's unclear who they're letting in the gate.

Except it absolutely is, though. You can go look up the LSAT and UGPA for people admitted to schools below the top 20 and know exactly who they’re letting in, with regard to academic qualifications, same as the top 20 schools. There *are* schools where admission standards are low enough that you can say they have no standards, but they don’t start at rank #21.

Outside of the T19, median does not make biglaw, which is necessary to pay back sizable debt.

This is a gross oversimplification, but it also doesn’t mean that law school outside the T19 is personally and financially ruinous unless you have a full scholarship and own a house (???). 1) not everyone who goes to law school ends up at median; 2) people outside the T19 can get biglaw; 3) not everyone who goes to law school outside the t19 takes on sizable debt (which isn’t the same as “has a full scholarship and owns a house”); 4) not everyone needs biglaw to pay down debt.

Now, it’s correct that someone deciding where to go to law school isn’t going to know whether they’ll end up at median or will get biglaw or whatever. So sure, people need to look at the median outcome when figuring out whether and where to go to law school, before the fact. That doesn’t mean that every person outside the T-whatever arbitrary number you’ve come up with who doesn’t have a full scholarship and a house (this sounds like 3 acres and a mule) is going to be ruined. (So if you go to BU you’re fine but if you go to UF or UMN you’re doomed? What happens if BU and UF swap places in the rankings?)

A flagship is generally a singular thing. It’s not just all public schools. PA and NY don’t have four flagships. VA doesn’t have 3. I’m not saying the other schools are necessarily bad, I’m just talking about one specific category of schools here.

Have you applied to and attended law school?

[nixy]

Like this whole argument is dumb because there are too many law schools and too many law grads and a lot of applicants do make bad decisions based on a lack of understanding of the reality of hiring in the legal profession. But to go to the other extreme and say that schools below the top 20 have no admissions standards and are personally and financially ruinous is just silly.

[laanngo]

This is a gross oversimplification, but it also doesn’t mean that law school outside the T19 is personally and financially ruinous unless you have a full scholarship and own a house (???). 1) not everyone who goes to law school ends up at median; 2) people outside the T19 can get biglaw; 3) not everyone who goes to law school outside the t19 takes on sizable debt (which isn’t the same as “has a full scholarship and owns a house”); 4) not everyone needs biglaw to pay down debt.

Yes, oversimplified - I'm talking about average inputs, outputs, satisfaction, and hours. Taking no other information into account you can expect the average.

Except it absolutely is, though. You can go look up the LSAT and UGPA for people admitted to schools below the top 20 and know exactly who they’re letting in, with regard to academic qualifications, same as the top 20 schools. There *are* schools where admission standards are low enough that you can say they have no standards, but they don’t start at rank #21.

I don't literally mean "admission standards," but a standard of admission high enough to sieve out the grossly or questionably qualified. Certainly there are law students at lower ranked schools who would make promising attorneys, and they have a shot at biglaw. At #20 and worse, it's unclear if the average student even belongs in law school at all. That's why after USC you see not only a big drop in outcomes, but it going worse than about median.

Now, it’s correct that someone deciding where to go to law school isn’t going to know whether they’ll end up at median or will get biglaw or whatever. So sure, people need to look at the median outcome when figuring out whether and where to go to law school, before the fact. That doesn’t mean that every person outside the T-whatever arbitrary number you’ve come up with who doesn’t have a full scholarship and a house (this sounds like 3 acres and a mule) is going to be ruined. (So if you go to BU you’re fine but if you go to UF or UMN you’re doomed? What happens if BU and UF swap places in the rankings?)

Not immediately ruined, but still a bad value proposition, for the average student. This isn't that reductionist. Outside of Yale, students can expect much worse of odds of making academia. Outside of YSHCCN, students are not functionally guaranteed biglaw. Outside of T14, students are not guaranteed a biglaw interview. Outside of T19, the majority of students will not land biglaw. Law is full of deceivers and narcisists. It's hard to assess who would actually perform well after enrolling.

A flagship is generally a singular thing. It’s not just all public schools. PA and NY don’t have four flagships. VA doesn’t have 3. I’m not saying the other schools are necessarily bad, I’m just talking about one specific category of schools here.

A state hangs multiple flags at its capitol. NY has SBU, BU, U@B, U@A, and parts of Cornell. PA has PSU, UPitt, TU, and LU. Virginia has UVa, W&M (in the vein of colonial colleges like Rutgers), and VCU. I have never heard anyone say TAMU is not a flagship. The

The U of State law schools

are not always the best public law/school in the state. Ohio State University > Ohio University. Louisiana State University > University of Louisiana. OU and ULL don't even have law schools!

Have you applied to and attended law school?

I wanted to growing up, but having read much of the pessimism on this board, I'm inclined to agree.

[nixy]

Yes, oversimplified - I'm talking about average inputs, outputs, satisfaction, and hours. Taking no other information into account you can expect the average.

Yes, you have to expect the median outcome when picking schools. That doesn’t mean that everyone who attends without a scholarship and a house ends up personally and financially ruined.

I don't literally mean "admission standards," but a standard of admission high enough to sieve out the grossly or questionably qualified. Certainly there are law students at lower ranked schools who would make promising attorneys, and they have a shot at biglaw. At #20 and worse, it's unclear if the average student even belongs in law school at all.

Again, no. This is just demonstrably false, and laughable.

Outside of YSHCCN, students are not functionally guaranteed biglaw. Outside of T14, students are not guaranteed a biglaw interview. Outside of T19, the majority of students will not land biglaw.

You know there are other jobs than biglaw, right? That people want to do? And manage to make a living doing? I’m not saying that biglaw placement isn’t a proxy for employment power - it is - I’m saying that people can go to these state schools and have a satisfactory outcome without going to biglaw.

Law is full of deceivers and narcisists. It's hard to assess who would actually perform well after enrolling.

Uh what

And I don’t agree with you about flagships. Schools fight about who is the flagship, but it means the top state school. (The metaphor isn’t about flags at the capital.)

[laanngo]

Yes, you have to expect the median outcome when picking schools. That doesn’t mean that everyone who attends without a scholarship and a house ends up personally and financially ruined.

They won't if the have the savings or wealth. Still a bad idea outside the T19.

Again, no. This is just demonstrably false, and laughable.

Then why doesn't Emory law place better? Its parent brand certainly suggests better. Why can't Notre Dame place more in biglaw? In the face of saturation, a law school must signal clear over-qualification of its entire student body. That's why there's a cliff after USC. That being said, I don't see why it would be the sole reason why after it, median doesn't land biglaw.

You know there are other jobs than biglaw, right? That people want to do? And manage to make a living doing? I’m not saying that biglaw placement isn’t a proxy for employment power - it is - I’m saying that people can go to these state schools and have a satisfactory outcome without going to biglaw.

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

And I don’t agree with you about flagships. Schools fight about who is the flagship, but it means the top state school. (The metaphor isn’t about flags at the capital.)

That's not settled on. https://www.city-data.com/forum/college ... state.html

[nixy]

The reason I asked if you’d applied for or gone to law school school is that I have, and I work with lawyers, and they’ve all gone to a really huge range of schools. Many of them from all those schools are both happy with their job and financially/personally doing just fine. That’s absolutely not a reason to tell someone who is just now considering law school that therefore they, too, will be happy and successful regardless of where they attend; there are still better and worse choices among law schools, and applicants obviously need to choose the school that maximizes their opportunities. It just doesn’t mean that everyone who did end up going to a school outside the top 20 is homeless or living a life of quiet desperation, dead inside (not even excluding people who didn’t have to take out debt).

There are lots of (historical) reasons why schools like Emory and Notre Dame don’t place better, but it’s not because employers think there’s no way to tell
if their graduates are capable of tying their shoes, let alone reading a case or a contract.

[The Lsat Airbender]

First, I don’t think that’s what “the exceptions prove the rule” means.

I meant *disprove the rule. Sorry.

ah so you misunderstand the idiom on an even deeper level

[laanngo]

The reason I asked if you’d applied for or gone to law school school is that I have, and I work with lawyers, and they’ve all gone to a really huge range of schools. Many of them from all those schools are both happy with their job and financially/personally doing just fine. That’s absolutely not a reason to tell someone who is just now considering law school that therefore they, too, will be happy and successful regardless of where they attend; there are still better and worse choices among law schools, and applicants obviously need to choose the school that maximizes their opportunities. It just doesn’t mean that everyone who did end up going to a school outside the top 20 is homeless or living a life of quiet desperation, dead inside (not even excluding people who didn’t have to take out debt).

There are lots of (historical) reasons why schools like Emory and Notre Dame don’t place better, but it’s not because employers think there’s no way to tell
if their graduates are capable of tying their shoes, let alone reading a case or a contract.

Yes, but opportunities have really dried up since the great recession?

First, I don’t think that’s what “the exceptions prove the rule” means.

I meant *disprove the rule. Sorry.

ah so you misunderstand the idiom on an even deeper level

I won't say I have a lot of insider baseball.

[nixy]

The reason I asked if you’d applied for or gone to law school school is that I have, and I work with lawyers, and they’ve all gone to a really huge range of schools. Many of them from all those schools are both happy with their job and financially/personally doing just fine. That’s absolutely not a reason to tell someone who is just now considering law school that therefore they, too, will be happy and successful regardless of where they attend; there are still better and worse choices among law schools, and applicants obviously need to choose the school that maximizes their opportunities. It just doesn’t mean that everyone who did end up going to a school outside the top 20 is homeless or living a life of quiet desperation, dead inside (not even excluding people who didn’t have to take out debt).

There are lots of (historical) reasons why schools like Emory and Notre Dame don’t place better, but it’s not because employers think there’s no way to tell if their graduates are capable of tying their shoes, let alone reading a case or a contract.

Yes, but opportunities have really dried up since the great recession?

Holy non sequitur.

I’m talking about people who’ve graduated in/since the great recession, not boomers.

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.

[lavarman84]

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.

[laanngo]

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.

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.

Estate planning?

[laanngo]

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?