Actually, a T3 school is not a dead end. Forum

[mpj_3050]

Case in point: I worked at a medium-sized Richmond law firm last summer that has always hired the majority of its attorneys from Richmond and W&L and a little from William & Mary. Since the economy crashed, the firm gets dozens of applications from T6 schools every year, but it's not interested in those students just because they're supposedly "better," as vanwinkle would have it. It's not going to change its hiring model or turn its back on long-built loyalties for a bunch of T6 students for whom Richmond is probably an 8th, 9th, or 10th choice market. This is true even where the T6 students have higher class ranks than the local students.

Maybe true, but you have to consider Richmond's class size vs. the size of the legal market. There are nowhere near enough jobs for that market to absorb even a significant minority of the students there. Hell, I was just reading the other day in the "Richmond Student Taking Qs" thread a post by a Richmond student/grad advising students to go to a better school.

This isn't to say that T3s are always a bad choice. Taking out little debt for a T3 in a market you have ties to and have an interest in staying in can be a decent decision. But you'd better be real aware of how hard things will be for you, and realize right away that the oddsmakers say that you'll be facing low pay or unemployment after three years.

Romo, you definitely have a point here, and it is something that weighs heavily one me. I mentioned I am considering Arkansas-Little Rock with total debt after 3 years of probably 30-40k, 40 being high end. And yes, the school does produce way too many grads for a small market and a number of them will be screwed, just depends on how many. But Romo, there is some ambiguity with the low pay thing. I know the break even figure for a starting salary is the oft cited 65k, but really would 40-50k be that bad in a low cost area with relatively speaking low debt burden? At a school like this you can evaluate your odds after 1L and cut losses if things get bad, and with savings I would not be out a horrible amount of money. Everything is relative so the good job thing is kind of up in the air. However, I am in no way questioning that the bottom of the class in the best cast scenario at least will be in trouble. I am open to any type of employment in the government or in a law firm, or even a JD preferred position. I definitely respect your opinions, as well as others who are currently going through the grind.

Edit: Again if you say the top 40% are the only ones who ever land legal employment I would not debate the figure, it just depends on the risks I am willing to take. I am at about 50/50 go to law school/don't go right now.

[DoubleChecks]

We'll cycle it; point first to VW post, and then if there is a response like omg's, refer to my earlier post. Specific questions will get specific answers. When we're talking in generalities, the comments will only be what is true in general. I just don't get why when people speak "in general," a person will run in with a specific example that counters it lol. Of course there are situations where some person could go to his T3/T4 and it would make perfect sense. Bahh just refer to my post at the bottom of pg. 6 lol. I get tired of repeatedly typing the same thing in different threads.

Sorry to waste your precious time, but I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to vanwinkle, who was not speaking only in generalities. He said that, unless it's a market that's so obscure that T14 students would never apply there, employers are essentially always going to want "better" students over "worse" ones. This just isn't the case for many, many regional firms out there, mine being just one example.

First off, apology accepted.

Second off, his post sounded like it was speaking in generalities to me. Also, do you mean this paragraph?

Given that, you have to look in advance at how those that are hiring do hire. Almost universally, degree prestige plays a role. Even places that traditionally hired T3/T4 students would often rather fill their ranks with students from top schools; they didn't before because those students weren't interested in those kind of jobs then. Grads from top schools are interested now, because shit jobs are better than no jobs. So they get those jobs right now, even though the T3/T4 grads used to. Treating those kind of jobs as though they're reserved for grads from the bottom schools is naive, because like anywhere else in the world, the employers would take better if they could get better. And thanks to the economic climate, now they can.

couldn't your local market example just have been slotted into that little opening he gave? Once again, of course exceptions exist, but I don't know why people keep feeling the need to point out exceptions to the rule when the original comment/topic was not meant to be specific in the first place (or even all encompassing). If vanwinkle had meant that at EVERY firm in EVERY market, there would be a preference for the graduate from the better school, then I imagine almost EVERYONE would disagree.

[omg]

No, I was referring to this quote from vanwinkle's earlier post:

"Unless you have personal connections to an employer or you're in a market so obscure that nobody from better schools would even think to seek work there, you're screwed right now, and that's true whether a bunch of people on the Internet are 'elitists' or not."

My point is that this is not necessarily true even for markets that are not "so obscure that nobody from better schools would even think to seek work there," as I would not consider Richmond one of those markets. I believe that it is not only not necessarily true (specifics) but also very often not true (generalities). (I know that last sentence was like a triple negative, but you get my point.)

[romothesavior]

But Romo, there is some ambiguity with the low pay thing. I know the break even figure for a starting salary is the oft cited 65k, but really would 40-50k be that bad in a low cost area with relatively speaking low debt burden?

This is really a personal call, and it depends on a lot of factors (location, do you have kids, do you have a spouse bringing in an income, etc.) Where I come from, 40-50k is enough to get by on, even with a few grand going towards IBR. I have no kids and don't plan to have them anytime soon, and I came from a modest middle class family, so I can handle not being showered by riches. Personally, I want to be a lawyer so bad that I was willing to take out some debt to do it, and I think I could get by on 40-50k where I come from. But its a personal call.

The one thing to keep in mind, however, is that these 40-50k jobs aren't just lying around to be scooped up either. Even before the recession, a small firm might only hire one new grad every couple of years. These jobs are difficult to find in this economy and the competition is as fierce as ever.

And thanks for the kind words. I just try (hopefully somewhat effectively, but who knows) to help people in the same way that so many of the current 2Ls and 3Ls helped me when I went through the process. TLS has been absolutely invaluable for this entire process. I have no idea where I'd have ended up without it.

[DoubleChecks]

No, I was referring to this quote from vanwinkle's earlier post:

"Unless you have personal connections to an employer or you're in a market so obscure that nobody from better schools would even think to seek work there, you're screwed right now, and that's true whether a bunch of people on the Internet are 'elitists' or not."

My point is that this is not necessarily true even for markets that are not "so obscure that nobody from better schools would even think to seek work there," as I would not consider Richmond one of those markets. I believe that it is not only not necessarily true (specifics) but also very often not true (generalities). (I know that last sentence was like a triple negative, but you get my point.)

I must say then that your response and quote of vanwinkle's OTHER post is quite misleading. I don't often quote one comment when I am referring to another.

I think the problem people fail to understand is that the legal community itself is elitist. It's certainly not the students that make it this way; if I had my choice of what to do, I'd go to the cheapest law school in the country and use good grades and prior work experience to get me a job. But it doesn't work that way at all. In good times there were enough jobs that a number of T3/T4 students (though not all) could still find some kind of work, but we're not in good times now. We're coming off a recession that spawned over 20,000 legal layoffs in two years, while law schools kept graduating students at a total rate of 40,000 per year. Simple math says there aren't enough jobs to go around, and while there's always some hiring going on to overcome movement and attrition, it's not nearly enough to soak up all or even most of the current grads each year.

Given that, you have to look in advance at how those that are hiring do hire. Almost universally, degree prestige plays a role. Even places that traditionally hired T3/T4 students would often rather fill their ranks with students from top schools; they didn't before because those students weren't interested in those kind of jobs then. Grads from top schools are interested now, because shit jobs are better than no jobs. So they get those jobs right now, even though the T3/T4 grads used to. Treating those kind of jobs as though they're reserved for grads from the bottom schools is naive, because like anywhere else in the world, the employers would take better if they could get better. And thanks to the economic climate, now they can.

That's the thing people often don't get. We're not elitists, we're repeating what legal employees themselves do. Most legal employers consider grads from higher-tier schools to be "better" than grads from lower-tier schools when hiring. It's not the only factor, and someone with top grades from a T3 still might beat out a T1 or T2 grad with mediocre grades, but let's face it, most T3 grads don't have top grades at their school either. If only the top 30% or 20% or 10% is getting hired, that means going in you have a 70% or 80% or 90% chance of being unemployed.

Going, "oh, TLS is elitist" doesn't make this problem go away. It doesn't change how legal hiring is done or the fact that every employer will judge you based on where you got your JD, and that in a depressed hiring market you're competing with so many grads from better schools that you're practically unemployable. Unless you have personal connections to an employer or you're in a market so obscure that nobody from better schools would even think to seek work there, you're screwed right now, and that's true whether a bunch of people on the Internet are "elitists" or not.

As I'm sure vanwinkle will admit, this is not unequivocally true everywhere. It's especially wide of the mark, I think, for the local employment markets for graduates from solid regional schools--even for cities that are not so in the middle of nowhere that no T14 students will apply there.

Case in point: I worked at a medium-sized Richmond law firm last summer that has always hired the majority of its attorneys from Richmond and W&L and a little from William & Mary. Since the economy crashed, the firm gets dozens of applications from T6 schools every year, but it's not interested in those students just because they're supposedly "better," as vanwinkle would have it. It's not going to change its hiring model or turn its back on long-built loyalties for a bunch of T6 students for whom Richmond is probably an 8th, 9th, or 10th choice market. This is true even where the T6 students have higher class ranks than the local students.

PS: Looking back at the title of this thread, I am certainly not claiming that Richmond, W&M, or W&L are T3 schools. Simply that "T14 or bust" is not always as necessary of a mentality as vanwinkle suggests, even ITE.

TL; DR: If you know you would be comfortable practicing in a certain region, you may be safer going to a solid regional school with longstanding ties to firms there than some on TLS would have you believe.

I may argue with you on the last point in your most recent post (of even in local markets it is very often not true), but sure, I get your point if his earlier post is what you were actually referring to.

[rundoxierun]

TL; DR: If you know you would be comfortable practicing in a certain region, you may be safer going to a solid regional school with longstanding ties to firms there than some on TLS would have you believe.

I was told by a managing partner at a medium sized Baltimore firm straight up that they wouldn't hire me out of Michigan and that they only hire people from U Balt, UMD, and, occasionally, Harvard. While that is all well and good, it doesn't mean that people from UB and UMD have great job prospects but rather that they have better job prospects in one particular market at one particular firm. Of course, graduating with no debt might make a tier 2 or 3 school a better choice but it s pretty hard to imagine when it would be worth it at sticker.

I rarely trust what people say when it seems extreme until I actually see evidence. One of the strangest phenomenons in life is the conflict between stated preferences and expressed preferences.

[omg]

No, I was referring to this quote from vanwinkle's earlier post:

"Unless you have personal connections to an employer or you're in a market so obscure that nobody from better schools would even think to seek work there, you're screwed right now, and that's true whether a bunch of people on the Internet are 'elitists' or not."

My point is that this is not necessarily true even for markets that are not "so obscure that nobody from better schools would even think to seek work there," as I would not consider Richmond one of those markets. I believe that it is not only not necessarily true (specifics) but also very often not true (generalities). (I know that last sentence was like a triple negative, but you get my point.)

I must say then that your response and quote of vanwinkle's OTHER post is quite misleading. I don't often quote one comment when I am referring to another.

I think the problem people fail to understand is that the legal community itself is elitist. It's certainly not the students that make it this way; if I had my choice of what to do, I'd go to the cheapest law school in the country and use good grades and prior work experience to get me a job. But it doesn't work that way at all. In good times there were enough jobs that a number of T3/T4 students (though not all) could still find some kind of work, but we're not in good times now. We're coming off a recession that spawned over 20,000 legal layoffs in two years, while law schools kept graduating students at a total rate of 40,000 per year. Simple math says there aren't enough jobs to go around, and while there's always some hiring going on to overcome movement and attrition, it's not nearly enough to soak up all or even most of the current grads each year.

Given that, you have to look in advance at how those that are hiring do hire. Almost universally, degree prestige plays a role. Even places that traditionally hired T3/T4 students would often rather fill their ranks with students from top schools; they didn't before because those students weren't interested in those kind of jobs then. Grads from top schools are interested now, because shit jobs are better than no jobs. So they get those jobs right now, even though the T3/T4 grads used to. Treating those kind of jobs as though they're reserved for grads from the bottom schools is naive, because like anywhere else in the world, the employers would take better if they could get better. And thanks to the economic climate, now they can.

That's the thing people often don't get. We're not elitists, we're repeating what legal employees themselves do. Most legal employers consider grads from higher-tier schools to be "better" than grads from lower-tier schools when hiring. It's not the only factor, and someone with top grades from a T3 still might beat out a T1 or T2 grad with mediocre grades, but let's face it, most T3 grads don't have top grades at their school either. If only the top 30% or 20% or 10% is getting hired, that means going in you have a 70% or 80% or 90% chance of being unemployed.

Going, "oh, TLS is elitist" doesn't make this problem go away. It doesn't change how legal hiring is done or the fact that every employer will judge you based on where you got your JD, and that in a depressed hiring market you're competing with so many grads from better schools that you're practically unemployable. Unless you have personal connections to an employer or you're in a market so obscure that nobody from better schools would even think to seek work there, you're screwed right now, and that's true whether a bunch of people on the Internet are "elitists" or not.

As I'm sure vanwinkle will admit, this is not unequivocally true everywhere. It's especially wide of the mark, I think, for the local employment markets for graduates from solid regional schools--even for cities that are not so in the middle of nowhere that no T14 students will apply there.

Case in point: I worked at a medium-sized Richmond law firm last summer that has always hired the majority of its attorneys from Richmond and W&L and a little from William & Mary. Since the economy crashed, the firm gets dozens of applications from T6 schools every year, but it's not interested in those students just because they're supposedly "better," as vanwinkle would have it. It's not going to change its hiring model or turn its back on long-built loyalties for a bunch of T6 students for whom Richmond is probably an 8th, 9th, or 10th choice market. This is true even where the T6 students have higher class ranks than the local students.

PS: Looking back at the title of this thread, I am certainly not claiming that Richmond, W&M, or W&L are T3 schools. Simply that "T14 or bust" is not always as necessary of a mentality as vanwinkle suggests, even ITE.

TL; DR: If you know you would be comfortable practicing in a certain region, you may be safer going to a solid regional school with longstanding ties to firms there than some on TLS would have you believe.

I may argue with you on the last point in your most recent post (of even in local markets it is very often not true), but sure, I get your point if that is what you were actually referring to.

This is the most ridiculous argument. I quoted vanwinkle's entire post earlier, not one isolated comment when I was referring to another. Whatevs. The comment I was referring to was the conclusion of the entire post I quoted. RC fail.

[DoubleChecks]

This is the most ridiculous argument. I quoted vanwinkle's entire post earlier, not one isolated comment when I was referring to another. Whatevs. The comment I was referring to was the conclusion of the entire post I quoted. RC fail.

No, I was referring to this quote from vanwinkle's earlier post:

"Unless you have personal connections to an employer or you're in a market so obscure that nobody from better schools would even think to seek work there, you're screwed right now, and that's true whether a bunch of people on the Internet are 'elitists' or not."

lulwut? why you keep trying to confuse me our quotes were actually from the same vanwinkle post; seems to be some RC fail on your part as well

but okay, i think i finally at least know what you're talking about. you mean you were referring to the conclusion of vanwinkle's post..the one in question, not an earlier one. two things: 1) it has to be read in context, and given the context, it is speaking in general; 2) Richmond could qualify as an obscure market lol...in my mind, primary markets are NYC/DC/LA/maybe Chicago? Secondary markets that first come up would be TX/FL/Atlanta/SF...im missing a few, but honestly i had never put Richmond on that list. I could be wrong, and it could be something that comes to mind when ppl think of that secondary list -- if so, could some TLSers let me know? (not being facetious here)

[northwood]

What is everyones opinion about going to a TTT in the region( to be more specific in the city) you want to work on a full scholarship, as opposed to a T1 in the same region( state or neighboring state-wthin a 6 hour drive) as the city you want to work in?

[romothesavior]

What is everyones opinion about going to a TTT in the region( to be more specific in the city) you want to work on a full scholarship, as opposed to a T1 in the same region( state or neighboring state-wthin a 6 hour drive) as the city you want to work in?

How expensive is the T1? If it is expensive (see: private school, OOS, or expensive state school), I'd say I'd take the T3. Or more likely, I'd retake.

[DoubleChecks]

What is everyones opinion about going to a TTT in the region( to be more specific in the city) you want to work on a full scholarship, as opposed to a T1 in the same region( state or neighboring state-wthin a 6 hour drive) as the city you want to work in?

i guess it depends a lot on the region and the strength of the TTT vs. the T1 in that specific city. some schools are quite strong in x city, and if that is where you want to work, then it might work out. no idea what market area you're talking about though, so i believe it depends. also, how much money is the T1 costing you?

[northwood]

To keep from outing myself completely on this website, the cost of the T1 is State Public School, plus cost of living ( 18k + COL). The TTT is the only law school within 100 miles of the city. The city in question is the place of residence for my entire family, and since my family ties are strong, I want to stay as close as possible to them. ( thank you italian heritage). From doing unpaid legal internships many lawyers that I have talked to have told me that rankings aside, the school has a solid reputation in the city, even though its rankings would state otherwise ( TTT ranking). Even in this economy they like the quality of the canidates that they have hired, and would hire more canidates from the school. A lawyer from a small firm told me that they dont like to hire t14 grads b/c they are fearful that they will leave as soon as they get trained for better pastures. ( this makes me wonder if the reason that they like the TTT is because they know the degree wont travel far, and the TTT applicant is "stuck" in that city. Being stuck forever in this city actually sounds great to me, as i have no intenions of ever leaving. ( have traveled a bit, and know this is where i want to live).
Does that clear things up, or just make it more confusing? I dont want to turn this into a discussion about me in this thread, so if you want Pm me.

[DoubleChecks]

To keep from outing myself completely on this website, the cost of the T1 is State Public School, plus cost of living ( 18k + COL). The TTT is the only law school within 100 miles of the city. The city in question is the place of residence for my entire family, and since my family ties are strong, I want to stay as close as possible to them. ( thank you italian heritage). From doing unpaid legal internships many lawyers that I have talked to have told me that rankings aside, the school has a solid reputation in the city, even though its rankings would state otherwise ( TTT ranking). Even in this economy they like the quality of the canidates that they have hired, and would hire more canidates from the school. A lawyer from a small firm told me that they dont like to hire t14 grads b/c they are fearful that they will leave as soon as they get trained for better pastures. ( this makes me wonder if the reason that they like the TTT is because they know the degree wont travel far, and the TTT applicant is "stuck" in that city. Being stuck forever in this city actually sounds great to me, as i have no intenions of ever leaving. ( have traveled a bit, and know this is where i want to live).
Does that clear things up, or just make it more confusing? I dont want to turn this into a discussion about me in this thread, so if you want Pm me.

if i were you, id like to hear from some ppl who knows some things about that city/region and what their experiences have been when it comes to hiring. but if you dont want to out that city, i can see that being a problem. that being said, sounds like you did your research, and the TTT does not sound like a bad choice given your goals. the question is, however, is it a better choice than the T1? 54k + COL of debt for law school is not nearly as bad as the 150, 200k you hear about elsewhere. how do lawyers in the city take to the T1 vs the TTT? top % cutoffs for both? dont you have to pay for COL anyways in the current city?

[omg]

but okay, i think i finally at least know what you're talking about. you mean you were referring to the conclusion of vanwinkle's post..the one in question, not an earlier one. two things: 1) it has to be read in context, and given the context, it is speaking in general; 2) Richmond could qualify as an obscure market lol...in my mind, primary markets are NYC/DC/LA/maybe Chicago? Secondary markets that first come up would be TX/FL/Atlanta/SF...im missing a few, but honestly i had never put Richmond on that list. I could be wrong, and it could be something that comes to mind when ppl think of that secondary list -- if so, could some TLSers let me know? (not being facetious here)

While I agree with your classification of primary and secondary markets, there are plenty of markets that are neither primary, secondary, nor obscure. Vanwinkle was referring to markets so obscure that very few T14s would ever apply there--maybe, who knows, Lincoln, NE. I certainly wouldn't classify Richmond in that list, and I believe my example shows that, indeed, many T14 grads are applying to Richmond firms, thus by definition removing it from vanwinkle's classification of "so obscure" markets. I never claimed that Richmond was a secondary market, though. Other markets in line with Richmond might be Baltimore, Charlotte, etc.--again, markets that are neither primary, secondary, nor obscure.

[quidestveritas]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HifU89T8_Wo

[romothesavior]

I never claimed that Richmond was a secondary market, though. Other markets in line with Richmond might be Baltimore, Charlotte, etc.--again, markets that are neither primary, secondary, nor obscure.

I don't want to get into this whole debate, but I'll just say that Richmond is absolutely a secondary market. The primary markets are pretty much NYC, Chicago, DC, and LA. Beyond that, you're a secondary market. You can probably break down secondaries into "major secondary" and "small secondary." Think Dallas/Atlanta/San Fran/etc. (aka the ones a lot of people shoot for) v. St. Louis/Indianapolis/Charlotte/Orlando/etc.

[omg]

I never claimed that Richmond was a secondary market, though. Other markets in line with Richmond might be Baltimore, Charlotte, etc.--again, markets that are neither primary, secondary, nor obscure.

I don't want to get into this whole debate, but I'll just say that Richmond is absolutely a secondary market. The primary markets are pretty much NYC, Chicago, DC, and LA. Beyond that, you're a secondary market. You can probably break down secondaries into "major secondary" and "small secondary." Think Dallas/Atlanta/San Fran/etc. (aka the ones a lot of people shoot for) v. St. Louis/Indianapolis/Charlotte/Orlando/etc.

Thanks, that's def true Doublechecks had just made it sound like if you're not a major secondary, you're obscure, which is just not the case. I don't understand why there's a debate about this going on in the first place, haha. O wait, I do...we're on the interwebz

[ResolutePear]

Orlando

Orlando's a market?

[romothesavior]

Orlando

Orlando's a market?

Ha, I guess I dunno much about Orlando. Maybe Tampa would have been a better example.

[ResolutePear]

Orlando

Orlando's a market?

Ha, I guess I dunno much about Orlando. Maybe Tampa would have been a better example.

I was just grasping straws here, they probably are a secondary market - but I'd also agree that Tampa seems to be better market than Orlando or Miami.

[Grizz]

Orlando

Orlando's a market?

Ha, I guess I dunno much about Orlando. Maybe Tampa would have been a better example.

I was just grasping straws here, they probably are a secondary market - but I'd also agree that Tampa seems to be better market than Orlando or Miami.

Miami has more biglaw jerbs. Tampa seems more parochial; Miami seems more open to outsiders.

[ResolutePear]

Orlando's a market?

Ha, I guess I dunno much about Orlando. Maybe Tampa would have been a better example.

I was just grasping straws here, they probably are a secondary market - but I'd also agree that Tampa seems to be better market than Orlando or Miami.

Miami has more biglaw jerbs. Tampa seems more parochial; Miami seems more open to outsiders.

I know a couple people working in big law down here. One of them exclusively works 50/50 between Miami and NYC.

People are not kidding when they say that you give your life when you work in a law firm.. and it's for the long haul. This particular attorney is a partner.. so it's not one of those: "Do your time now, and easy times later" type of deals.

[DoubleChecks]

I never claimed that Richmond was a secondary market, though. Other markets in line with Richmond might be Baltimore, Charlotte, etc.--again, markets that are neither primary, secondary, nor obscure.

I don't want to get into this whole debate, but I'll just say that Richmond is absolutely a secondary market. The primary markets are pretty much NYC, Chicago, DC, and LA. Beyond that, you're a secondary market. You can probably break down secondaries into "major secondary" and "small secondary." Think Dallas/Atlanta/San Fran/etc. (aka the ones a lot of people shoot for) v. St. Louis/Indianapolis/Charlotte/Orlando/etc.

Thanks, that's def true Doublechecks had just made it sound like if you're not a major secondary, you're obscure, which is just not the case. I don't understand why there's a debate about this going on in the first place, haha. O wait, I do...we're on the interwebz

Uh, no, i did not say that at all. dont straw man the situation.

"Richmond could qualify as an obscure market lol...in my mind, primary markets are NYC/DC/LA/maybe Chicago? Secondary markets that first come up would be TX/FL/Atlanta/SF...im missing a few, but honestly i had never put Richmond on that list. I could be wrong, and it could be something that comes to mind when ppl think of that secondary list -- if so, could some TLSers let me know? (not being facetious here)"

if we're going to classify all markets as secondary markets, then the ones i have in my mental list are "major" secondary markets and the rest are considered "small" secondary markets. i dont know if small secondary markets = obscure market or not, but Richmond certainly isnt a major secondary market it seems.

and looking back at your original post, you yourself even realized that vanwinkle was talking about T3/T4 schools...which your example does not cover. i still believe that prestige of degree matters, and he himself even qualified it by saying "most employers..."

my whole point is, why bother coming up with a specific example of something to refute a general statement that pretty much isnt even talking about your specific example, especially when the general statement is qualified enough times that it allows for your situation?

vanwinkle is saying T3/T4 not a good choice, esp. ITE because now these firms will hire grads from higher schools. that doesnt mean T14 necessarily, as W&L, etc. as you mentioned could fit the bill. the point was they arent going to dip into the TTTs for those spots (in most cases). i dont see vanwinkle espousing in his post T14 or bust in all situations either.

[omg]

haha wowza. i'm out of here.

[vanwinkle]

Good lord this shit got lulzy fast.

I'll say this: There are local firms everywhere that hire from local schools regularly and do prefer local folks to folks coming in from random parts of the country. But based on everything I've heard, 1) even in good times these employers couldn't soak up the majority of T3/T4 grads overall, 2) their hiring has gone down just like everywhere else, and 3) I keep hearing stories about T14 students and even HYS students who are from that region dropping in and poaching jobs back home because they struck out in NYC/DC/whatever else they wanted.

Using Richmond as a great example... Do I expect folks who have never been in VA before to get a job there from CCN? No. Lots of local markets have a regional bias and that's true now more than ever. But the kid from Richmond who goes to CCN and claims he's trying to come back home? If he exists, you bet he's getting interviews and probably offers for jobs from somebody in the region, when in past years he would've found work in one of the major markets and never even tried going back home before. Even if some of the Richmond firms won't consider him, if he finds a single place that will, that still reduces the number of total jobs in the market by one. Each job filled increases competition for the remaining jobs.

After that there's the UVA students who are in-state, who hoped to get DC and got shut out, and settled on jobs in Richmond and elsewhere in the state. I know more than one UVA student who graduated last year and took a job in a local VA market, who would have rather found something in DC or another big market. Same for the W&M and W&L students near the top who in better times might have cashed in their high class rank for a DC/NYC job. Then there's all the W&M and W&L students who aren't near the top and go behind those top students when looking for jobs.

It's a domino effect. Places will still hire from the local T3/T4, but not as much as they did before, both because they're hiring less and because they can get more high-quality students from higher-ranked local schools than years past. And even in good times, not all Richmond Law grads were finding work. Some still do now, but that doesn't make going there a wise choice.

That's my point. It's certainly not "T14 or bust". Hell, I commented that even some T14 students are struggling to find work, any work. For them it's T14 and bust, which is a reality people need to be aware of. My point was that it's risky for everyone right now, and the further you go down the rankings the riskier it gets. There are still people hiring everywhere, and still people finding jobs even from T3/T4 schools, but it's not a question of whether, it's a question of how often.