"Where you got your degree doesn't matter after 1st job..." Forum

[Z3RO]

T17 totally exists

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=t14

No mention of T17 there.

Well they mention 18, but rankings have shaken around a little since then.

[A'nold]

Sigh. I wish I had never even mentioned anything with the number 17 in it. Thanks Vanwinkle for getting the point, at least someone does.

We understand that you're not already attending a school in the T17. It can still be prestige-milking if you're implying that you have a clear-cut option to attend one of those schools, even if you don't know which one yet.

WTF? Referring to the group of schools you're applying to is "prestige-milking"? How would you prefer people state they're applying to the top 17 schools in a way that doesn't "milk the prestige" of doing so? The whole point of transferring in a way is trying to "milk the prestige" of attending a higher-ranked school, but then you're criticizing the very idea of transferring up as a concept, which isn't that bright and ignores compelling reasons to do so.

I'd hope that most people on here can understand that someone is saying "I'm applying to the T17" to mean those are the schools they're applying to, nothing more, nothing less. It lets them look at the rankings, see what schools are 1-17, and go, "Oh, he's applying to those schools." For the rest, who try to read something else into it, they appear to just be pretty sad people.

Thank God for Vanwinkle, WOW. Anyway...........oh yeah, and romothesavior, I knew you understood and thanks for the comment.

Does anyone get the feeling that talking to t14scholly in person would actually make you want to throw him off a bridge?

[vanwinkle]

Does anyone get the feeling that talking to t14scholly in person would actually make you want to throw him off a bridge?

Talking to him on here makes me want to throw him off a bridge, so probably, yes.

[Fark-o-vision]

It seems like the horror stories I've heard have all involved transfer students. Most of them were on these boards. It seems like you may be taking a more immediate risk, even if having Harvard at the top of your diploma helps you out in the long wrong.

Is it still anecdotal if every Harvard transfer you've run into (real life, or online) finds themselves in that rare "t14 and jobless" category? Probably, since I think I've only heard of three. Still worth considering. Something I heard, and made a lot of sense (although I have no experience to back it up), is that firms will essentially view you as a student at X law school, instead of your t14, during 2L OCI because that is essentially what you are. If they wanted a student from X law school, why wouldn't they just hire there? You've also given up the alumni network of the school you transfered out of. The only people who really have any incentive to get you a job are the career service people at your school, but in this economy, and with the way numbers can clearly be fudged, even they don't have much to offer.

[A'nold]

It seems like the horror stories I've heard have all involved transfer students. Most of them were on these boards. It seems like you may be taking a more immediate risk, even if having Harvard at the top of your diploma helps you out in the long wrong.

Is it still anecdotal if every Harvard transfer you've run into (real life, or online) finds themselves in that rare "t14 and jobless" category? Probably, since I think I've only heard of three. Still worth considering. Something I heard, and made a lot of sense (although I have no experience to back it up), is that firms will essentially view you as a student at X law school, instead of your t14, during 2L OCI because that is essentially what you are. If they wanted a student from X law school, why wouldn't they just hire there? You've also given up the alumni network of the school you transfered out of. The only people who really have any incentive to get you a job are the career service people at your school, but in this economy, and with the way numbers can clearly be fudged, even they don't have much to offer.

Thanks for the post. The Harvard part made me smile. I would likely pay 500k a year to attend Harvard (then do IBR for 10 years). Anyway, you lost me on the part where you started in on the whole: "why would employers want to hire someone when they could have just come to your school" part. I think the answer to that is obvious.

[polycom01]

I asked an attorney this very same question this week. Unfortunately, his answer was that it can matter.

He mentioned that a graduate in the top of their class from a TTT may end up being a better lawyer than a graduate in bottom 1/3 of T14, but there is always the potential that a hiring partner will pass on you because of the school you went to, and this can follow you around your entire career.

It makes sense - think of the elitism on this board. There is a good chance that one of the people constantly mocking TTT's on this site will one day be a hiring manager. Think their opinions will have changed much over the years? Unlikely.

Having said that, I personally think it makes more sense to stick with a TTT if you are on a large/full scholarship and are in the top of your class. People underestimate the burden of $200k in debt.

[A'nold]

I asked an attorney this very same question this week. Unfortunately, his answer was that it can matter.

He mentioned that a graduate in the top of their class from a TTT may end up being a better lawyer than a graduate in bottom 1/3 of T14, but there is always the potential that a hiring partner will pass on you because of the school you went to, and this can follow you around your entire career.

It makes sense - think of the elitism on this board. There is a good chance that one of the people constantly mocking TTT's on this site will one day be a hiring manager. Think their opinions will have changed much over the years? Unlikely.

Having said that, I personally think it makes more sense to stick with a TTT if you are on a large/full scholarship and are in the top of your class. People underestimate the burden of $200k in debt.

Thanks.

[Fark-o-vision]

It seems like the horror stories I've heard have all involved transfer students. Most of them were on these boards. It seems like you may be taking a more immediate risk, even if having Harvard at the top of your diploma helps you out in the long wrong.

Is it still anecdotal if every Harvard transfer you've run into (real life, or online) finds themselves in that rare "t14 and jobless" category? Probably, since I think I've only heard of three. Still worth considering. Something I heard, and made a lot of sense (although I have no experience to back it up), is that firms will essentially view you as a student at X law school, instead of your t14, during 2L OCI because that is essentially what you are. If they wanted a student from X law school, why wouldn't they just hire there? You've also given up the alumni network of the school you transfered out of. The only people who really have any incentive to get you a job are the career service people at your school, but in this economy, and with the way numbers can clearly be fudged, even they don't have much to offer.

Thanks for the post. The Harvard part made me smile. I would likely pay 500k a year to attend Harvard (then do IBR for 10 years). Anyway, you lost me on the part where you started in on the whole: "why would employers want to hire someone when they could have just come to your school" part. I think the answer to that is obvious.

I think the answer would usually be obvious, but in this economy there is (supposedly) an abundance of grads at even the top schools so employers have little incentive to work with transfers. Other people are probably more knowledgeable, though.

[A'nold]

It seems like the horror stories I've heard have all involved transfer students. Most of them were on these boards. It seems like you may be taking a more immediate risk, even if having Harvard at the top of your diploma helps you out in the long wrong.

Is it still anecdotal if every Harvard transfer you've run into (real life, or online) finds themselves in that rare "t14 and jobless" category? Probably, since I think I've only heard of three. Still worth considering. Something I heard, and made a lot of sense (although I have no experience to back it up), is that firms will essentially view you as a student at X law school, instead of your t14, during 2L OCI because that is essentially what you are. If they wanted a student from X law school, why wouldn't they just hire there? You've also given up the alumni network of the school you transfered out of. The only people who really have any incentive to get you a job are the career service people at your school, but in this economy, and with the way numbers can clearly be fudged, even they don't have much to offer.

Thanks for the post. The Harvard part made me smile. I would likely pay 500k a year to attend Harvard (then do IBR for 10 years). Anyway, you lost me on the part where you started in on the whole: "why would employers want to hire someone when they could have just come to your school" part. I think the answer to that is obvious.

I think the answer would usually be obvious, but in this economy there is (supposedly) an abundance of grads at even the top schools so employers have little incentive to work with transfers. Other people are probably more knowledgeable, though.

Yeah, of course, if that is what you meant then I would tend to agree, although hopefully this year will be better for transfers? Definitely a risk and one I am weighing.

[BradyToMoss]

You people still can't be seriously trying to make a distinction at 17. If you want to draw your ridiculous lines, at least put one in a place that makes sense. The difference in career prospects between a Texas or UCLA and USC is negligible at best. Note all the other classifications (T3, T6, T14) at least provide some kind of meaningful distinction.

[vanwinkle]

You people still can't be seriously trying to make a distinction at 17. If you want to draw your ridiculous lines, at least put one in a place that makes sense. The difference in career prospects between a Texas or UCLA and USC is negligible at best. Note all the other classifications (T3, T6, T14) at least provide some kind of meaningful distinction.

It's a meaningful distinction if it's indicating where OP is applying.

[T14_Scholly]

You people still can't be seriously trying to make a distinction at 17. If you want to draw your ridiculous lines, at least put one in a place that makes sense. The difference in career prospects between a Texas or UCLA and USC is negligible at best. Note all the other classifications (T3, T6, T14) at least provide some kind of meaningful distinction.

It's a meaningful distinction if it's indicating where OP is applying.

But it's also meaningful in another way according to you right?

[legalease9]

It seems like the horror stories I've heard have all involved transfer students. Most of them were on these boards. It seems like you may be taking a more immediate risk, even if having Harvard at the top of your diploma helps you out in the long wrong.

Is it still anecdotal if every Harvard transfer you've run into (real life, or online) finds themselves in that rare "t14 and jobless" category? Probably, since I think I've only heard of three. Still worth considering. Something I heard, and made a lot of sense (although I have no experience to back it up), is that firms will essentially view you as a student at X law school, instead of your t14, during 2L OCI because that is essentially what you are. If they wanted a student from X law school, why wouldn't they just hire there? You've also given up the alumni network of the school you transfered out of. The only people who really have any incentive to get you a job are the career service people at your school, but in this economy, and with the way numbers can clearly be fudged, even they don't have much to offer.

Thanks for the post. The Harvard part made me smile. I would likely pay 500k a year to attend Harvard (then do IBR for 10 years). Anyway, you lost me on the part where you started in on the whole: "why would employers want to hire someone when they could have just come to your school" part. I think the answer to that is obvious.

Be careful though. You have to pay tax on the forgiven debt!

[vanwinkle]

But it's also meaningful in another way according to you right?

Pardon?

[A'nold]

It seems like the horror stories I've heard have all involved transfer students. Most of them were on these boards. It seems like you may be taking a more immediate risk, even if having Harvard at the top of your diploma helps you out in the long wrong.

Is it still anecdotal if every Harvard transfer you've run into (real life, or online) finds themselves in that rare "t14 and jobless" category? Probably, since I think I've only heard of three. Still worth considering. Something I heard, and made a lot of sense (although I have no experience to back it up), is that firms will essentially view you as a student at X law school, instead of your t14, during 2L OCI because that is essentially what you are. If they wanted a student from X law school, why wouldn't they just hire there? You've also given up the alumni network of the school you transfered out of. The only people who really have any incentive to get you a job are the career service people at your school, but in this economy, and with the way numbers can clearly be fudged, even they don't have much to offer.

Thanks for the post. The Harvard part made me smile. I would likely pay 500k a year to attend Harvard (then do IBR for 10 years). Anyway, you lost me on the part where you started in on the whole: "why would employers want to hire someone when they could have just come to your school" part. I think the answer to that is obvious.

Be careful though. You have to pay tax on the forgiven debt!

Not for PI.

[kilgore_trout]

With the NFL draft coming up tomorrow, I think that provides a pretty good analogy to what we're all looking at when it comes to law school rankings, lay prestige, etc.

Obviously players coming from the traditional powerhouse programs (i.e. Alabama, USC, Florida, Ohio State, Texas, etc.) are going to have more recognition when scouts are looking at them. Seriously, if you can start for Alabama, it's safe to assume you're one of the best athletes in the country. It makes drafting a lot safer and easier when you take someone that has proven themselves at a big-time school. Theses players are going to make up 85% of the first round draft picks, and if you look at any NFL roster, it's a majority of SEC, Big 10, and PAC 10 players.

After a couple years in the league, though, it doesn't matter where you're from. Jared Allen played at Idaho State University. Terrell Owens went to University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Brett Favre played at Southern Miss. None of them were drafted in the first round (mainly because of their school and lack of recognition) but after a couple years in the league they became some of the highest paid, most sought out players.

Honestly, do you think someone is going to turn down Jared Allen now because they don't know anything about Idaho State University, or because it wasn't ranked in the T25?

So, I guess this just recaps what everyone says about law school. T14 schools are going to make up the majority of the rosters of biglaw, high-ranking government positions, etc. Name recognition of the T14 is naturally going to open doors, but that doesn't mean those same doors are completely shut to someone from T2-T4 schools, they just aren't open as wide. If you can squeeze through with good grades, involvement in different organizations, networking, and a little luck, the only thing people will care about in the end is how you perform.

[vanwinkle]

Be careful though. You have to pay tax on the forgiven debt!

Not for PI.

While I'm a big fan of IBR in general, I believe this is incorrect. As far as I understand it, the way IBR is set up, the amount of loan forgiveness at the end of the term is treated as a form of income by the IRS and subject to income tax, whether it's after the 10-year PI period or the 25-year general period. This could mean that you're subject to income tax on $200,000 of "income" the year your debt is forgiven, which would give you a fairly hefty bill.

Two thoughts on that, though:
1) Congress may fix this in the next decade. Whether they will or not is anyone's guess.
2) Paying income tax on $200K is still a lot better than having to pay back $200K. You're just going to end up with a brand new loan at the end of your IBR period, except this one will be set up by the IRS.

I would love for someone to prove that I am wrong here (or that Congress has already fixed the problem). I welcome such proof if it exists.

[XxSpyKEx]

Be careful though. You have to pay tax on the forgiven debt!

Not for PI.

While I'm a big fan of IBR in general, I believe this is incorrect. As far as I understand it, the way IBR is set up, the amount of loan forgiveness at the end of the term is treated as a form of income by the IRS and subject to income tax, whether it's after the 10-year PI period or the 25-year general period. This could mean that you're subject to income tax on $200,000 of "income" the year your debt is forgiven, which would give you a fairly hefty bill.

Two thoughts on that, though:
1) Congress may fix this in the next decade. Whether they will or not is anyone's guess.
2) Paying income tax on $200K is still a lot better than having to pay back $200K. You're just going to end up with a brand new loan at the end of your IBR period, except this one will be set up by the IRS.

I would love for someone to prove that I am wrong here (or that Congress has already fixed the problem). I welcome such proof if it exists.

No.... the tax bill only applies to the 25 year plan. FWIW, Obama's new plan is 10% of income for 20 years, which applies to loans taken out after 2014 (I think). I have no idea what they did with income tax thing, but there wasn't anything about that on the stuff that was released so far.

[vanwinkle]

No.... the tax bill only applies to the 25 year plan.

Aha, I found proof!

A new public service loan forgiveness program will discharge the remaining debt after 10 years of full-time employment in public service. Unlike the 25-year forgiveness, the 10-year forgiveness is tax-free due to a 2008 IRS ruling. The borrower must have made 120 payments as part of the Direct Loan program in order to obtain this benefit.

http://www.finaid.org/loans/ibr.phtml

One case where I'm very glad I was wrong.

[legalized]

0L here, but here are my thoughts:

I think it really depends on your career aspirations. If your goal is to work for the most prestigious firm possible or clerk for a federal judge etc., then you should probably transfer.

If you’re just concerned with making a comfortable living as an attorney in the area you’re attending school, then I’d say stay at your current T3. I’m sure your school has enough successful alumni to see that their top graduates don’t starve.
Personally, I would stay, but I am not concerned with the most prestigious anything. I would love to be hired by a respectable firm and grind it out. Build up a client list and possibly open my own practice or something along those lines down the road, create my own path in the legal industry. I’ve always looked at the attorneys with smaller practices hauling in the cash as cool, not partners at huge vault firms- just my opinion.

Plus, I feel like you should have some loyalty. I’m assuming your LSAT wasn’t super impressive, and your T3 gave you a chance to prove the schools that passed on you wrong. The T3 needs people like you to succeed and give back.

I like this.

[legalized]

You people still can't be seriously trying to make a distinction at 17. If you want to draw your ridiculous lines, at least put one in a place that makes sense. The difference in career prospects between a Texas or UCLA and USC is negligible at best. Note all the other classifications (T3, T6, T14) at least provide some kind of meaningful distinction.

It's a meaningful distinction if it's indicating where OP is applying.

I ran into this same hardheadedness when I made distinctions in the thread on where I would pay sticker.

It was amazing how people immediately translated the very specific to that topic listing into "these are the only places to which legalized would apply and she thinks all the other schools are worthless."

smh. Never mind that I am actually fine with going to a ttt if it's got strong regional pull in a location I would like to work (and I did not get into a top school with enough $$$ to afford to go). I somehow answered a specific question and got labelled an extreme prestige-whore. ROFL

Now that it's happening with someone else I can look back and laugh about it. At the time I wondered what the hell was wrong with people's eyes/computers/brains.