Top Law Schools

.

I don't think this is worth worrying about. I can't speak to if clerkships would help your long-term partnership prospects, but there are plenty of T1, TT, and TTT grads at V100 firms, including Cravath. You obviously did very well at your T1 school and probably even have latin honors/coif on your profile; that's impressive enough. Other things, like hours, work quality, partner relationships, potential for business generation, etc. - some of which are completely of your control - will be much more important in determining partnership prospects.

Once you’ve been working, no one will care (and most will have no idea) where you went to school.

There are a few firms that will care, but the vast majority won’t. I think Gibson is the only one where it seems like everyone went to a T14 or graduated valedictorian. And even there there are many people who didn’t graduate with high honors from non-T14 schools.

you can't change it anyway, so this is all kinda besides the point, but.

to your question about the undergrad making up for it - like, absolutely not lol. The people who are gonna be assholes about where you went to law school are gonna look at your HYS admissions and think "uh how did someone who went to HYS for undergrad fail to get into a single T14 law school. must've been a recruited athlete/paid someone to take his SATs/legacy/etc."

Others may disagree, but in lit at a NY V5 law firm, most people (associates, partners, etc) are from T14 schools. if you're at a low T1, aren't on the law review (no one cares about secondary journals), and don't have a clerkship, you're probably one of the worst-credentialed lit associate in your class.

the midlevels whom you are assigned to will search you in the intranet (because every does this) and notice lol. and first impressions matter, and confirmation bias is a real thing. true of everyone, but especially for you: don't screw up the easy stuff. if you do a great job, the credentials thing will become a non-issue. if you do not, they will decide, very quickly, that you're a moron, and look at your credentials as one more piece as evidence of this.

it's unfair, but the reality of doing lit at a "prestige" law firms. people hang their diplomas on the wall, fuss about where people clerk, care about the difference between AUSA-ing at SDNY vs EDNY, blah blah blah

LBJ's Hair wrote:you can't change it anyway, so this is all kinda besides the point, but.

to your question about the undergrad making up for it - like, absolutely not lol. The people who are gonna be assholes about where you went to law school are gonna look at your HYS admissions and think "uh how did someone who went to HYS for undergrad fail to get into a single T14 law school. must've been a recruited athlete/paid someone to take his SATs/legacy/etc."

Others may disagree, but in lit at a NY V5 law firm, most people (associates, partners, etc) are from T14 schools. if you're at a low T1, aren't on the law review (no one cares about secondary journals), and don't have a clerkship, you're probably one of the worst-credentialed lit associate in your class.

the midlevels whom you are assigned to will search you in the intranet (because every does this) and notice lol. and first impressions matter, and confirmation bias is a real thing. true of everyone, but especially for you: don't screw up the easy stuff. if you do a great job, the credentials thing will become a non-issue. if you do not, they will decide, very quickly, that you're a moron, and look at your credentials as one more piece as evidence of this.

it's unfair, but the reality of doing lit at a "prestige" law firms. people hang their diplomas on the wall, fuss about where people clerk, care about the difference between AUSA-ing at SDNY vs EDNY, blah blah blah

Mid-level in corp, not lit, at a NY V5 firm, so my experience may be different, but the above sounds like a pretty toxic work environment. While you're at your firm, literally NO ONE cares what law school you went to, and I can't imagine anyone that's not a complete numbnut actually looking up what school someone went to unless they think maybe they know them from something.

I came from outside a T-14 and have had zero "confirmation bias" issues, despite me making all the same mistakes every other junior makes. If anything, coming from a lower ranked school generally signals to folks that you've earned that spot. Lateraling options (which I've looked into from time to time) have also not remotely been affected by what law school I went to. If you manage to survive at any of the top shops in town, that says a whole lot more about you than what school's name is on your transcript when it comes to finding your next job.

Seriously, OP, discount pretty much everything the above poster said and don't stress about making mistakes (EVERYONE does...seriously, I've lost count of how many mistakes I've had to fix of juniors with a T14 pedigree). Congratulations on getting hired at a V5. I'm confident you will have lots of lateral options available to you down the road, or at the very least, they won't be affected by the law school you went to.

.

Anonymous User wrote:Thank you for the responses! Yes, I probably am one of the worst-credentialed for the class even with summa latin honors since I randomly don't have LR, but that's unchangeable. Although irrelevant and people around me will still assume the worst, I did get admitted to a T14 at sticker because I'm a splitter (partial STEM undergrad). I just couldn't justify that cost with an obscenely generous scholarship from my regional school. It's certainly not smart to bank on making top 10% or getting big law from a lower ranked school, but it worked out for me. I was just curious what others thought of the situation, and I'm glad that I received some varying responses.

I hope my firm is not too much like the place LBJ's Hair is at, but I tend to assume the worst and appreciate the honesty. Thank you, Yodamiked, and I will do my best regardless even if there are some mistakes along the way! Maybe I can get some guidance from peers at my firm about seeking a clerkship for a couple years from now to see how useful that would be.

Yodamiked is right. You already have the job, and if (when?) you look to lateral down the road the first thing people see will be your current firm. That’s your instant credibility.

Don’t let the external bullshit get to your head. You got into a T14 and chose a more financially feasible option, while still getting a v5 offer. Seems to me you’re overwhelming capable and anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. Good luck.

yodamiked wrote:

LBJ's Hair wrote:you can't change it anyway, so this is all kinda besides the point, but.

to your question about the undergrad making up for it - like, absolutely not lol. The people who are gonna be assholes about where you went to law school are gonna look at your HYS admissions and think "uh how did someone who went to HYS for undergrad fail to get into a single T14 law school. must've been a recruited athlete/paid someone to take his SATs/legacy/etc."

Others may disagree, but in lit at a NY V5 law firm, most people (associates, partners, etc) are from T14 schools. if you're at a low T1, aren't on the law review (no one cares about secondary journals), and don't have a clerkship, you're probably one of the worst-credentialed lit associate in your class.

the midlevels whom you are assigned to will search you in the intranet (because every does this) and notice lol. and first impressions matter, and confirmation bias is a real thing. true of everyone, but especially for you: don't screw up the easy stuff. if you do a great job, the credentials thing will become a non-issue. if you do not, they will decide, very quickly, that you're a moron, and look at your credentials as one more piece as evidence of this.

it's unfair, but the reality of doing lit at a "prestige" law firms. people hang their diplomas on the wall, fuss about where people clerk, care about the difference between AUSA-ing at SDNY vs EDNY, blah blah blah

Mid-level in corp, not lit, at a NY V5 firm, so my experience may be different, but the above sounds like a pretty toxic work environment. While you're at your firm, literally NO ONE cares what law school you went to, and I can't imagine anyone that's not a complete numbnut actually looking up what school someone went to unless they think maybe they know them from something.

I came from outside a T-14 and have had zero "confirmation bias" issues, despite me making all the same mistakes every other junior makes. If anything, coming from a lower ranked school generally signals to folks that you've earned that spot. Lateraling options (which I've looked into from time to time) have also not remotely been affected by what law school I went to. If you manage to survive at any of the top shops in town, that says a whole lot more about you than what school's name is on your transcript when it comes to finding your next job.

Seriously, OP, discount pretty much everything the above poster said and don't stress about making mistakes (EVERYONE does...seriously, I've lost count of how many mistakes I've had to fix of juniors with a T14 pedigree). Congratulations on getting hired at a V5. I'm confident you will have lots of lateral options available to you down the road, or at the very least, they won't be affected by the law school you went to.

I think there's a meaningful cultural difference between litigation and corporate even at the same firm. My friends doing corporate literally stopped going to class midway through 2L. My friends litigating were trying to grind out As in Federal Courts with XYZ Professor to try to get ABC clerkship or because they thought it mattered for AUSA applications down the line

not justifying it, but think it's better to know than not.

And I agree that for lateral opportunities law school matters for only a handful of boutique litigation shops in major markets, and even then it's not dispositive. a competitive clerkship would make it basically irrelevant

I started in lit and rotated to corp, and definitely think there is a difference. Nobody in corp seems to care where you went, but I knew of one somewhat toxic midlevel in corp who wanted to lateral to AUSA and mentioned several times that they thought they were behind the curve because of where they went to school. Not sure if that really was the driver behind the toxicity, but it did feel like part of this person's problem was at least somewhat related to trying everything they could to make themselves appear like a strong candidate for those AUSA positions, and needing to compensate for their school was an element of that.

I didn't experience it in the context of seniors pre-judging junior's work, however.

Your law school matters a bit in lit, but you’ve fixed any resume issues you might have had with the V5. Don’t worry about it.

Thanks again for all the encouraging and honest responses since yesterday. I really appreciate it.

Well, people who don't know you will say mean things about you and make assumptions about your intelligence and competence, but you'll probably be an equity partner well-recognized in your field.

A lawyer's intelligence and competence is not necessarily commensurate with their law school rank/grades, because intelligence is not freely transferrable (math genius =/= potentially great lawyer), and law school exams do not accurately reflect the practice of law.