Top Law Schools

Just wondering if anyone know which markets (other than NY & DC) don't require very strong ties for getting employment and/or 2L SA? I've heard Texas is becoming more relaxed on requiring ties from T14 grads, is there any truth to this? Let's assume median at T14, no ties to the following markets, would one be shut out?

Texas
N. Carolina
S. Carolina
Alabama
Virginia

tag.

Texas - apparently Austin requires strong ties, Dallas and Houston not so much
N. Carolina - need strong ties
S. Carolina - need strong ties
Alabama - need strong ties but a few Birmingham firms like to snatch top students from UVA and Duke regardless of ties
Virginia - Richmond requires strong VA ties, but DC/NoVA doesn't

For most of the country, the strength for ties seems to correlate with (a) the size of the market, and (b) the objective desirability of the market.

Markets like Portland, San Diego, Austin, and Miami are all known for being very difficult if you don't have significant ties - they are smallish markets and desirable places to live. By comparison, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, and Philadelphia are all bigger markets and probably easier.

RVP11 wrote:Texas - apparently Austin requires strong ties, Dallas and Houston not so much
N. Carolina - need strong ties
S. Carolina - need strong ties
Alabama - need strong ties but a few Birmingham firms like to snatch top students from UVA and Duke regardless of ties
Virginia - Richmond requires strong VA ties, but DC/NoVA doesn't

Not sure about the rest, but Austin's selectivity is not due to a need for strong ties to the area. It has more to do with the 400 UT graduates each year who want to stay in Austin and a myriad of T14 grads who want to come back because they went to UG at UT. It's more akin to D.C.: competition is just that intense.

.

patrickd139 wrote:

RVP11 wrote:Texas - apparently Austin requires strong ties, Dallas and Houston not so much
N. Carolina - need strong ties
S. Carolina - need strong ties
Alabama - need strong ties but a few Birmingham firms like to snatch top students from UVA and Duke regardless of ties
Virginia - Richmond requires strong VA ties, but DC/NoVA doesn't

Not sure about the rest, but Austin's selectivity is not due to a need for strong ties to the area. It has more to do with the 400 UT graduates each year who want to stay in Austin and a myriad of T14 grads who want to come back because they went to UG at UT. It's more akin to D.C.: competition is just that intense.

So your point is that Austin firms are selective. That doesn't really go against what I said.

What I'm saying is that their selectivity results in them being even more stringent on requirement of local ties (meaning just having gone to UT might not be sufficient).

RVP11 wrote:Markets like Portland, San Diego, Austin, and Miami are all known for being very difficult if you don't have significant ties - they are smallish markets and desirable places to live.

The small market part is undoubtedly accurate, but I feel like employers in places that are "objectively desirable to live" are less likely to demand ties because they have less incentive to worry that recent hires will want to move on after only a few years. On the other hand employers here in Saint Louis tend to demand ties because they don't believe anyone actually wants to live in Saint Louis. I personally have only been asked about ties when applying for jobs in areas that are random and/or shitty, and I've applied all over the country.

RVP11 wrote:So your point is that Austin firms are selective. That doesn't really go against what I said.

What I'm saying is that their selectivity results in them being even more stringent on requirement of local ties (meaning just having gone to UT might not be sufficient).

My point was that their selectivity has nothing to do with ties to the area, everything to do with being more competitive in other aspects (UT grad, at very top of class at other tier schools or T14 grad).

For example: a median UT/T14 grad from Iowa would likely beat out a top 5% OU grad from Westlake.

RVP11 wrote:Texas - apparently Austin requires strong ties, Dallas and Houston not so much
N. Carolina - need strong ties
S. Carolina - need strong ties
Alabama - need strong ties but a few Birmingham firms like to snatch top students from UVA and Duke regardless of ties
Virginia - Richmond requires strong VA ties, but DC/NoVA doesn't

For most of the country, the strength for ties seems to correlate with (a) the size of the market, and (b) the objective desirability of the market.

Markets like Portland, San Diego, Austin, and Miami are all known for being very difficult if you don't have significant ties - they are smallish markets and desirable places to live. By comparison, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, and Philadelphia are all bigger markets and probably easier.

Ill agree with SC being really insular (only 2 LS in the entire state), but you need ties in NC to a much lesser extent in comparison

seatown12 wrote:

RVP11 wrote:Markets like Portland, San Diego, Austin, and Miami are all known for being very difficult if you don't have significant ties - they are smallish markets and desirable places to live.

The small market part is undoubtedly accurate, but I feel like employers in places that are "objectively desirable to live" are less likely to demand ties because they have less incentive to worry that recent hires will want to move on after only a few years. On the other hand employers here in Saint Louis tend to demand ties because they don't believe anyone actually wants to live in Saint Louis. I personally have only been asked about ties when applying for jobs in areas that are random and/or shitty, and I've applied all over the country.

You're right, it does cut that way, too.

On the one hand you have much greater competition from people who have strong ties and want to return to the area (because it's desirable), but on the other hand you have employers who are probably more willing to believe you are coming to stay (because it's desirable).

But even then, I've found that California firms are skeptical because, even though California is objectively a very nice place, it has some major downsides that might turn you off after a few years if you've never lived there before. More than a few east coasters run back to northeast after experiencing the major negatives of California for a while.

Stonewall wrote:

RVP11 wrote:Texas - apparently Austin requires strong ties, Dallas and Houston not so much
N. Carolina - need strong ties
S. Carolina - need strong ties
Alabama - need strong ties but a few Birmingham firms like to snatch top students from UVA and Duke regardless of ties
Virginia - Richmond requires strong VA ties, but DC/NoVA doesn't

For most of the country, the strength for ties seems to correlate with (a) the size of the market, and (b) the objective desirability of the market.

Markets like Portland, San Diego, Austin, and Miami are all known for being very difficult if you don't have significant ties - they are smallish markets and desirable places to live. By comparison, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, and Philadelphia are all bigger markets and probably easier.

Ill agree with SC being really insular (only 2 LS in the entire state), but you need ties in NC to a much lesser extent in comparison

It's possible, but this post assumes someone is getting a job at big NC firms these days. I haven't met that person.

even if TX is starting to require fewer ties to get biglaw there, i think interviewees still need to convey their interest in moving to and staying in TX. a strong reason for wanting to go there. all im saying is, in all my CBs, why houston/future TX plan questions were asked over and over again -- and I'm from TX btw.

I'm actually really interested in any information/anecdotal evidence regarding Dallas firms. A poster (Stanford4Me, I think) was discussing selectivity and ties to Texas in another thread, and he made it seem much easier to get a Texas Biglaw job than I would've thought. Can anyone discuss/dispute this?

I'm attending a southern (if that means anything) T14. I have no ties to Texas, but would certainly be open to living in Dallas and, to a lesser extent, Houston.

beachbum wrote:I'm attending a southern (if that means anything) T14. I have no ties to Texas, but would certainly be open to living in Dallas and, to a lesser extent, Houston.

lol we all know you're going to Duke broski.

Anyway, carry on.

DoubleChecks wrote:even if TX is starting to require fewer ties to get biglaw there, i think interviewees still need to convey their interest in moving to and staying in TX. a strong reason for wanting to go there. all im saying is, in all my CBs, why houston/future TX plan questions were asked over and over again -- and I'm from TX btw.

Firms in every non-DC/NY market ask that question. And even the DC/NY firms sometimes do.

Obviously, no matter how strong your ties, you need to be able to articulate a reason to be in a certain city.

Upton Sinclair wrote:

beachbum wrote:I'm attending a southern (if that means anything) T14. I have no ties to Texas, but would certainly be open to living in Dallas and, to a lesser extent, Houston.

lol we all know you're going to Duke broski.

Anyway, carry on.

Yeah, I dunno why I don't mention it by name in some of my posts. I guess here I just wanted to emphasize its presence in the south? Who knows. I'm very mysterious when I post.

DoubleChecks wrote:
even if TX is starting to require fewer ties to get biglaw there, i think interviewees still need to convey their interest in moving to and staying in TX. a strong reason for wanting to go there. all im saying is, in all my CBs, why houston/future TX plan questions were asked over and over again -- and I'm from TX btw.


Firms in every non-DC/NY market ask that question. And even the DC/NY firms sometimes do.

Obviously, no matter how strong your ties, you need to be able to articulate a reason to be in a certain city.

I got this question interviewing with firms in Baltimore, when I'm from, and go to LS, in the DC area and went to college in Maryland. I think to a certain extent the ties question is just another way for firms with small classes to separate between similarly situated candidates. For example, you have two students who are top whatever percent and law review at fungible schools, both neither blew away nor bombed the interview, may as well pick the one with more ties.

beachbum wrote:I'm actually really interested in any information/anecdotal evidence regarding Dallas firms. A poster (Stanford4Me, I think) was discussing selectivity and ties to Texas in another thread, and he made it seem much easier to get a Texas Biglaw job than I would've thought. Can anyone discuss/dispute this?

I'm attending a southern (if that means anything) T14. I have no ties to Texas, but would certainly be open to living in Dallas and, to a lesser extent, Houston.

I'm a 2L at Duke and working in Dallas biglaw this summer with no ties. Dallas competition was fairly stiff at Duke this year (I think mostly just a fluke that a bunch of us focused primarily on Dallas, whereas other years most people wanting Texas wanted Houston). Feel free to PM me if you have specific questions.

RVP11 wrote:

DoubleChecks wrote:even if TX is starting to require fewer ties to get biglaw there, i think interviewees still need to convey their interest in moving to and staying in TX. a strong reason for wanting to go there. all im saying is, in all my CBs, why houston/future TX plan questions were asked over and over again -- and I'm from TX btw.

Firms in every non-DC/NY market ask that question. And even the DC/NY firms sometimes do.

Obviously, no matter how strong your ties, you need to be able to articulate a reason to be in a certain city.

of course small markets do -- i didnt mean to say TX was particularly more selective, i just meant that even for dallas/houston, there is still some level of selectivity above NYC standards.

edit: and by selectivity, i meant some form of ties...although it is not always necessary as evidenced by (some) people who break into the market with no ties

and i am only referring to biglaw, not small or midlaw

RVP11 wrote:

Stonewall wrote:

RVP11 wrote:Texas - apparently Austin requires strong ties, Dallas and Houston not so much
N. Carolina - need strong ties
S. Carolina - need strong ties
Alabama - need strong ties but a few Birmingham firms like to snatch top students from UVA and Duke regardless of ties
Virginia - Richmond requires strong VA ties, but DC/NoVA doesn't

For most of the country, the strength for ties seems to correlate with (a) the size of the market, and (b) the objective desirability of the market.

Markets like Portland, San Diego, Austin, and Miami are all known for being very difficult if you don't have significant ties - they are smallish markets and desirable places to live. By comparison, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, and Philadelphia are all bigger markets and probably easier.

Ill agree with SC being really insular (only 2 LS in the entire state), but you need ties in NC to a much lesser extent in comparison

It's possible, but this post assumes someone is getting a job at big NC firms these days. I haven't met that person.

lol

(although, incidentally, one of my buddies at school is working at a large NC firm this summer without NC ties)

I'm not trying to be argumentative and I'm not really doubting that you guys are correct. But is bidding on a city without ties to it a strategy that has been proven to fail by people you know, or is it just a dogma that's probably true getting repeated without any real evidence to back it up?

Virginia doesn't require ties, but the market is saturated by the abundance of T1 schools in the area. UVA, W&M, W&L, GULC, GWU, American, etc. etc.

Stringer Bell wrote:I'm not trying to be argumentative and I'm not really doubting that you guys are correct. But is bidding on a city without ties to it a strategy that has been proven to fail by people you know, or is it just a dogma that's probably true getting repeated without any real evidence to back it up?

Proven to fail by people I know. Though the sample of people doing it probably gets smaller every year because career services tries to dissuade everyone.

Since this is on topic I'll ask this here: is a 1L summer job enough for somewhere like Houston? What about other markets that are more insular? I figure it might show a genuine interest to live there if someone goes out of their way to establish ties but I'm not sure.

Dallas and Houston are becoming much more open to people who don't have connections because their legal markets are expanding and they are each trying to meet the demands of their clients. From the information I have received so far, it seems like they just want to know that you are excited and interested in working in their market.

I don't know if I would say working in Houston during your 1L summer is "enough" in the sense that it would guarantee you employment there during 2L summer, but it definitely is a huge boost and will make your interest in the city appear much more legitimate.