Top Law Schools

Dont plan on going to a t1 school I wouldn't be happy graduating from..but what would chances of getting certain bigfed positions (high end legal work for senate committees, DOJ, etc) increase by getting good grades at a t14 after transferring?

Probably a decent amount. But come on, this is completely hypothetical and unanswerable, and not what you should be planning on.

The title of this post alone has more internal contradictions than the Bible.

Don't matriculate to a school if you know that it doesn't give you a realistic shot at your career goals.

cavalier1138 wrote:The title of this post alone has more internal contradictions than the Bible.

Don't matriculate to a school if you know that it doesn't give you a realistic shot at your career goals.

Niceeee

objctnyrhnr wrote:

cavalier1138 wrote:The title of this post alone has more internal contradictions than the Bible.

Don't matriculate to a school if you know that it doesn't give you a realistic shot at your career goals.

Niceeee

Maybe not my top career goals, but it would still fit my. Basic career goals..which is still to be a lawyer..

nixy wrote:Probably a decent amount. But come on, this is completely hypothetical and unanswerable, and not what you should be planning on.

I guess transferring may not be necessary ..in that case, I guess I was just wanting to ask if one gets good enough grades at a t1 to transfer(I.g. top.10-15%) would that person have a similar shot at those non-clerkship federal jobs as a t14 kid...

Also sorry , but just wanted to clarify what I said earlier:

- dream job is still bigfed, and the reason I would still attend a t1 school for it is because I wouldn't be losing anything by doing so( most likely would be going with minimal debt thanx to parents ).
- nothing wrong with trying to secure a dream job if you aren't going into debt in the process, and if you're content rather than not with the outcome you'd get if you don't obtain it.

nicole1994 wrote:Also sorry , but just wanted to clarify what I said earlier:

- dream job is still bigfed, and the reason I would still attend a t1 school for it is because I wouldn't be losing anything by doing so( most likely would be going with minimal debt thanx to parents ).
- nothing wrong with trying to secure a dream job if you aren't going into debt in the process, and if you're content rather than not with the outcome you'd get if you don't obtain it.

I mean, you'd be losing three years of your life and potentially the chance at the career path you really want. But I guess if you have to go to law school right this very minute, there's no other option.

cavalier1138 wrote:

nicole1994 wrote:Also sorry , but just wanted to clarify what I said earlier:

- dream job is still bigfed, and the reason I would still attend a t1 school for it is because I wouldn't be losing anything by doing so( most likely would be going with minimal debt thanx to parents ).
- nothing wrong with trying to secure a dream job if you aren't going into debt in the process, and if you're content rather than not with the outcome you'd get if you don't obtain it.

I mean, you'd be losing three years of your life and potentially the chance at the career path you really want. But I guess if you have to go to law school right this very minute, there's no other option.

I mean, I kinda get it, really. Way back when I was an excited, wide-eyed 0L, sitting in on classes at ASW one sunny spring day, I really, really wished I could just stay on campus and start law school right then and there. Why did I have to wait an additional half year before starting law school in the fall?! I wasn't getting any younger. Time was a'wastin'!

So I understand it's painful to delay a cycle. But it's so worth it. What would you prefer: Delaying law school for a year, or never ever achieving your dream career?

The issue isnt delaying a cycle ..trust me..I'm already delaying it to put myself in a comfortable position to apply. Lmao I'm getting a little too comfy with that ...

I was simply referring to the fact that I believe law school is my only option to get that dream job.
I mean, I wouldn't necessarily say that the only reason I'm interested in law is get big fed, as i' ve been. Super interested in being a lawyer since middle school.

Ideally, I would MAYBE consider Hill work before applying , but I left an ivy undergrad to attend a non ivy, which means that the Hill really isn't an option 4 me anymore.

I dont mind going to law school, as doing so would allow me. To tackle two of my. Greatest ambitions: shot at big fed+ law degree.

Took 3 con law classes, enjoyed reading the cases, got 96 and above on the essay based exams that asked us to apply judicial reasoning(from supreme court cases) to hypothetical fact situations. But obviously that was still just one undergrad class, and law school will be like 4 times that (4 classes at once) plus many more cases to remember for the finals.

Aside from big fed, killing it in law school itself is another personal ambition. Killing it would also get me bigfed. While I can't predict what will happen, it would give an opportunity to open the door to big fed, a door that is closed to me right now with just a bachelor's and no connections. If I perform mediocre at best in law school, I would still get satisfaction from it as the fundamental nature of the work done by lawyers very similar with the work that legislative directors on the Hill do..

quote="QContinuum"]

cavalier1138 wrote:

nicole1994 wrote:Also sorry , but just wanted to clarify what I said earlier:

- dream job is still bigfed, and the reason I would still attend a t1 school for it is because I wouldn't be losing anything by doing so( most likely would be going with minimal debt thanx to parents ).
- nothing wrong with trying to secure a dream job if you aren't going into debt in the process, and if you're content rather than not with the outcome you'd get if you don't obtain it.

I mean, you'd be losing three years of your life and potentially the chance at the career path you really want. But I guess if you have to go to law school right this very minute, there's no other option.

I mean, I kinda get it, really. Way back when I was an excited, wide-eyed 0L, sitting in on classes at ASW one sunny spring day, I really, really wished I could just stay on campus and start law school right then and there. Why did I have to wait an additional half year before starting law school in the fall?! I wasn't getting any younger. Time was a'wastin'!

So I understand it's painful to delay a cycle. But it's so worth it. What would you prefer: Delaying law school for a year, or never ever achieving your dream career?[/quote]

nicole1994 wrote:If I perform mediocre at best in law school, I would still get satisfaction from it as the fundamental nature of the work done by lawyers very similar with the work that legislative directors on the Hill do.

That is 100% not true for most lawyers.

But most lawyers aren't looking to go into law as a substitute for politics ...... The reason I say that I find the work that lawyers do as comparable with what goes on at the hill has nothing to do with the title of the job, but the comparable skillset involved.

For ex: legislative directors(LD's) / hill ppl have to read a lot of legislation. Legislation= law or draft of the law. Similarly, lawyers obviously have to read law, but also at a depper level which there's nothing wrong with. LD's give suggestions about what bills should be proposed ..lawyers also serve as advocates for the laws by arguing how a specific law should be interpreted. LD'S serve the public indirectly (under discretion of senator) , whereas lawyers directly advocate for clients/issues which I find most appealing.

cavalier1138 wrote:

nicole1994 wrote:If I perform mediocre at best in law school, I would still get satisfaction from it as the fundamental nature of the work done by lawyers very similar with the work that legislative directors on the Hill do.

That is 100% not true for most lawyers.

nicole1994 wrote:But most lawyers aren't looking to go into law as a substitute for politics ...... The reason I say that I find the work that lawyers do as comparable with what goes on at the hill has nothing to do with the title of the job, but the comparable skillset involved.

For ex: legislative directors(LD's) / hill ppl have to read a lot of legislation. Legislation= law or draft of the law. Similarly, lawyers obviously have to read law, but also at a depper level which there's nothing wrong with. LD's give suggestions about what bills should be proposed ..lawyers also serve as advocates for the laws by arguing how a specific law should be interpreted. LD'S serve the public indirectly (under discretion of senator) , whereas lawyers directly advocate for clients/issues which I find most appealing.

What kind of law are you thinking of when you envision this kind of practice? Have you observed/talked to lawyers in that field?

The only real overlap between LDs and lawyers (aside from a number of LDs probably being lawyers) is that they need to know how to read the law. But practicing law is a very different experience that (outside of a few exceptions) doesn't involve much policy work.

cavalier1138 wrote:

nicole1994 wrote:But most lawyers aren't looking to go into law as a substitute for politics ...... The reason I say that I find the work that lawyers do as comparable with what goes on at the hill has nothing to do with the title of the job, but the comparable skillset involved.

For ex: legislative directors(LD's) / hill ppl have to read a lot of legislation. Legislation= law or draft of the law. Similarly, lawyers obviously have to read law, but also at a depper level which there's nothing wrong with. LD's give suggestions about what bills should be proposed ..lawyers also serve as advocates for the laws by arguing how a specific law should be interpreted. LD'S serve the public indirectly (under discretion of senator) , whereas lawyers directly advocate for clients/issues which I find most appealing.

What kind of law are you thinking of when you envision this kind of practice? Have you observed/talked to lawyers in that field?

The only real overlap between LDs and lawyers (aside from a number of LDs probably being lawyers) is that they need to know how to read the law. But practicing law is a very different experience that (outside of a few exceptions) doesn't involve much policy work.

Additionally, to the degree they are similar experiences I think it fits more to the work of a high tier appellate lawyer. Graduating from U of H isn't going to give you that much more than it will big fed. You might get a decent gig but it will be doing fairly rote and repetitive cases likely, not deep dives into policy and the statutes.

but I believe if you work as general counsel for a senator or Senate committee there is overlap in policy and law, which I have seen based on linked in job descriptions. Even for higher positions in politics such as policy analysts, many of them have law degrees and masters degrees...so the law degree would serve as a marketing tool , which i would also want to use to do substantive legal work in politics such as by working for a federal or state committee counsel. would like to do counsel for committees, or appellate work ...

cavalier1138 wrote:

nicole1994 wrote:But most lawyers aren't looking to go into law as a substitute for politics ...... The reason I say that I find the work that lawyers do as comparable with what goes on at the hill has nothing to do with the title of the job, but the comparable skillset involved.

For ex: legislative directors(LD's) / hill ppl have to read a lot of legislation. Legislation= law or draft of the law. Similarly, lawyers obviously have to read law, but also at a depper level which there's nothing wrong with. LD's give suggestions about what bills should be proposed ..lawyers also serve as advocates for the laws by arguing how a specific law should be interpreted. LD'S serve the public indirectly (under discretion of senator) , whereas lawyers directly advocate for clients/issues which I find most appealing.

What kind of law are you thinking of when you envision this kind of practice? Have you observed/talked to lawyers in that field?

The only real overlap between LDs and lawyers (aside from a number of LDs probably being lawyers) is that they need to know how to read the law. But practicing law is a very different experience that (outside of a few exceptions) doesn't involve much policy work.

Yeah..after doing more research, havent been thinking of UH compared to other schools .

Appellate work sounded interesting, would be awesome to do it at the federal level but if you know anything about doing this kind of work at the state level , that would be cool tol

quote="Auxilio"]

cavalier1138 wrote:

nicole1994 wrote:But most lawyers aren't looking to go into law as a substitute for politics ...... The reason I say that I find the work that lawyers do as comparable with what goes on at the hill has nothing to do with the title of the job, but the comparable skillset involved.

For ex: legislative directors(LD's) / hill ppl have to read a lot of legislation. Legislation= law or draft of the law. Similarly, lawyers obviously have to read law, but also at a depper level which there's nothing wrong with. LD's give suggestions about what bills should be proposed ..lawyers also serve as advocates for the laws by arguing how a specific law should be interpreted. LD'S serve the public indirectly (under discretion of senator) , whereas lawyers directly advocate for clients/issues which I find most appealing.

What kind of law are you thinking of when you envision this kind of practice? Have you observed/talked to lawyers in that field?

The only real overlap between LDs and lawyers (aside from a number of LDs probably being lawyers) is that they need to know how to read the law. But practicing law is a very different experience that (outside of a few exceptions) doesn't involve much policy work.

Additionally, to the degree they are similar experiences I think it fits more to the work of a high tier appellate lawyer. Graduating from U of H isn't going to give you that much more than it will big fed. You might get a decent gig but it will be doing fairly rote and repetitive cases likely, not deep dives into policy and the statutes.[/quote]