Mentioning schools I turned down in interviews/essays Forum

[Anonymous User]

As a 0L, I got into a few T14s but chose a T50 in my hometown because I got a full ride, could have zero debt by living at home, wanted to be close to family, and at the time thought I wanted to stay in the area. I don't regret my choice--I'm in the top 5% of my class and have a federal district clerkship after graduation. But I no longer want to stay in this area and plan to apply to a variety of competitive jobs following my clerkship (including DOJ honors, additional clerkships, fed gov jobs, and NYC biglaw--I'm open-minded, but I want to move to NYC or DC and do something impressive).
If my process of choosing a school or career path comes up in interviews, or I have to write essays and choose to discuss those things, is it a good idea to mention the T14s I got into and explain the reasons for my decision? Would that boost my applications at all, or have no effect? Or would it just risk judgment from people who think I should've chosen higher-ranked schools over everything else? Is having gotten into higher-ranked schools and turned them down a liability, an asset, or irrelevant?

[anon121]

As a 0L, I got into a few T14s but chose a T50 in my hometown because I got a full ride, could have zero debt by living at home, wanted to be close to family, and at the time thought I wanted to stay in the area. I don't regret my choice--I'm in the top 5% of my class and have a federal district clerkship after graduation. But I no longer want to stay in this area and plan to apply to a variety of competitive jobs following my clerkship (including DOJ honors, additional clerkships, fed gov jobs, and NYC biglaw--I'm open-minded, but I want to move to NYC or DC and do something impressive).
If my process of choosing a school or career path comes up in interviews, or I have to write essays and choose to discuss those things, is it a good idea to mention the T14s I got into and explain the reasons for my decision? Would that boost my applications at all, or have no effect? Or would it just risk judgment from people who think I should've chosen higher-ranked schools over everything else? Is having gotten into higher-ranked schools and turned them down a liability, an asset, or irrelevant?

Absolutely not. You're going to come across as incredibly insecure. If I was reading a cover letter that talked about how the applicant could've gone to a better school, I would immediately toss their application in the trash. Frankly, I would question the person's emotional maturity. You're doing well in law school. There's not much more to it and you need to just accept your decision.

[Anonymous User]

No. I agree with the poster above. It struck me as a weird flex. If you have chosen a school, make peace with it.

[Anonymous User]

At my T40, we actually received some complaints of students doing this in interviews. People interviewing at your school theoretically want to hire people from you school--often they'll introduce you to alumni. At the very least, they don't want people who complain about their school or give "Well, I could have gotten into a better school but this one was cheaper, so I chose this one!"

Employers don't care about what law schools you could have gotten into in the same way they don't care about what your LSAT was after you graduated; it comes across as insecure. Overall, it's an ugly look. Plenty of people in your situation also got into higher-ranked schools than the one they attend. You aren't going to get any credit for choosing money over prestige.

A question like this is a softball--just say some things you like about your school. Looks like you can highlight that it was in the region you wanted to practice in. Mentioning a scholarship is tricky though because even if it's honestly the main reason you chose to go to a law school, you come across as though you're bragging about something that employers do not care about at all.

[bwh8813]

If someone explicitly asked you in an interview, "why X school?" as part of your answer, it's ok to tell them because you had a full ride and thought it a better financial decision than incurring debt at a "higher ranked" school. But absolutely no need to name any schools or even range of schools. Certainly never bring it up yourself. You did well in law school and should be proud of that and go off your own merits. Having confidence in your decision (don't talk badly about the school you attended) and performing well is much more impressive than a list of schools you could have gone to. As an interviewer, how could I know you're telling the truth about those schools anyway? It screams insecurity.

[nixy]

I think the actual T14s you got into are irrelevant and that bringing them up would be a liability. Basically, bringing up those schools will just make you look insecure, and I really don't think people reviewing applications will care where you got in but didn't go.

Law is snobby and there will always be some people who will discount you for not having a T14 education, so it's possible you'll run into someone in an interview who asks about why you picked your school and is clearly implying it was a bad choice. At that point I suppose it could be fair to say, "actually, I got into [whatever T14s] as well, but chose to go to my school because [your good reasons]." But I really don't think bringing that up on your own ever makes sense. Talking about why you chose your school (if relevant to whatever context) is fine, just not the "but I also got into T14s and turned them down" part. Someone who doesn't want to hire you because you didn't go to a T14 probably isn't going to care that you could have - you can't market someone as "went to school X but COULD HAVE gone to a T14."

Only exception to this: I had a judge once ask what my LSAT was, which I think was to get at, did I go to the school I attended b/c it was the only place I got in, or could I have gone elsewhere. But the point wasn't where I got in so much as how I compared to the national pool of applicants. If you have your UGPA on your resume and you include that you got a full ride to your current school, employers will get the picture.

(I started this before seeing the other posts above mine but basically agree with everything they say.)

[2013]

Please don’t do this. I’d cringe if I saw this. The only time I’d bring something up is to make some sort of connection.

Let’s say your interviewer went to Cornell Law. You can mention how the law school and Ithaca are beautiful and you considered going there for law school. This would be the only organic way of bringing up that you got into a better school.

[Hi-So - ArshavinFan]

I think the actual T14s you got into are irrelevant and that bringing them up would be a liability. Basically, bringing up those schools will just make you look insecure, and I really don't think people reviewing applications will care where you got in but didn't go.

Law is snobby and there will always be some people who will discount you for not having a T14 education, so it's possible you'll run into someone in an interview who asks about why you picked your school and is clearly implying it was a bad choice. At that point I suppose it could be fair to say, "actually, I got into [whatever T14s] as well, but chose to go to my school because [your good reasons]." But I really don't think bringing that up on your own ever makes sense. Talking about why you chose your school (if relevant to whatever context) is fine, just not the "but I also got into T14s and turned them down" part. Someone who doesn't want to hire you because you didn't go to a T14 probably isn't going to care that you could have - you can't market someone as "went to school X but COULD HAVE gone to a T14."

THIS - I had this happen to me while interview for a Chicago office. I talked about how I grew up in the Midwest and saw it as great place for me to start my career, but I literally got asked why did I go to the T6 I attended instead of the local Chicago schools - and it was clearly negative? I literally did what you described in your answer here - that I had applied to some schools but the opportunity at my school was too good to pass up. I later was informed that the partner I was talking to was just a homer for Chicago schools and a little crazy.

Also OP, you shouldn't feel bad at all. Again, during OCI for us I had an interviewer tell me how a kid was talking about his multiple law school acceptances. I think 9/10, it's just going to come off as arrogant and pompous and that's the last thing you want as a first impression because it's nearly impossible to come back from that in 20-30 minute chats.

[Anonymous User]

Absolutely not. At this point, it doesn't matter whether you got into HYS. You're going to be a T50 graduate and nothing you do or say will change that. And that's NOT something to be ashamed of! You've clearly done well, you have a federal clerkship coming up (something that a lot of T14 grads can't get), and you're going to be fine. Will Wachtell hire you? Probably not. But that doesn't mean that you're SOL when it comes to post-clerkship hiring.

If you try to downplay your school, it will come across as extremely immature and insecure. Even though the legal profession is prestige-driven, it's not the kind of place where you want to be obvious about that. Plus, say a non-V5 firm wants to hire you. They don't want to hire someone who would then shit-talk them down the line because you "could have" gone to Cravath or whatever.

[The Lsat Airbender]

On top of everything else that has been said, your class rank at a T1 school strongly implies that you could have transferred to a T14 if you really wanted to.

[PrinterInk]

Though I agree with other posters that it is a bad idea to list schools you got into, it’s overall a bad thing for society that this is frowned upon. It’s essentially etiquette that exists for people from upper middle class striver backgrounds to maintain higher status over lower middle class people whose heads explode at the idea of $200k for school.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Though I agree with other posters that it is a bad idea to list schools you got into, it’s overall a bad thing for society that this is frowned upon. It’s essentially etiquette that exists for people from upper middle class striver backgrounds to maintain higher status over lower middle class people whose heads explode at the idea of $200k for school.

What problem would it solve for people to share this info? How someone fared in the law-school admissions game is even less probative of their capabilities than the current school+grades nonsense.

Like, if I know someone was top-10% at UCLA, but then I find out they also got admitted to Berkeley and Stanford, what am I supposed to take away from that? It doesn't make sense to impute that they also would've been top-10% at those other schools, which in the aggregate have somewhat brighter students. It hints that they did really well in undergrad and on the LSAT, but I can see the former on their resume already and the latter means almost nothing after 1L exams.

[nixy]

Though I agree with other posters that it is a bad idea to list schools you got into, it’s overall a bad thing for society that this is frowned upon. It’s essentially etiquette that exists for people from upper middle class striver backgrounds to maintain higher status over lower middle class people whose heads explode at the idea of $200k for school.

I don’t understand this at all. Sure, the emphasis on school pedigree and obsession over small differences in schools is dumb, as is automatically discounting someone who didn’t go to school X or above. But I don’t understand how saying you got into school X but didn’t go would address that. If nothing else, it sends the message that going to school X still matters, despite the applicant’s clear success from a different school, and that the applicant has to somehow justify where they went. It’s buying into the system.

Not listing schools you got into doesn’t prevent you from making clear to employers your competitiveness as an applicant, to the extent they care about that (over what your law school performance has actually proven about your ability). You can even still make clear that you went to a given school because it made financial sense and that was important to you.

[Anonymous User]

Bit off topic but:

UCLA Median LSAT/GPA: 169/3.79.

Berkeley Medians: 168/3.81

Stanford Medians: 171/3.91

I’d say that a 3 point difference on LSAT and a .1-.2 difference on GPA doesn’t necessarily equate to “brighter” students average such that it would be unreasonable to infer that a top 10% student at UCLA wouldn’t be able to get around the same rank at the other two schools.

[2013]

Bit off topic but:

UCLA Median LSAT/GPA: 169/3.79.

Berkeley Medians: 168/3.81

Stanford Medians: 171/3.91

I’d say that a 3 point difference on LSAT and a .1-.2 difference on GPA doesn’t necessarily equate to “brighter” students average such that it would be unreasonable to infer that a top 10% student at UCLA wouldn’t be able to get around the same rank at the other two schools.

This is a really bad take.

[powerwhee]

Bit off topic but:

UCLA Median LSAT/GPA: 169/3.79.

Berkeley Medians: 168/3.81

Stanford Medians: 171/3.91

I’d say that a 3 point difference on LSAT and a .1-.2 difference on GPA doesn’t necessarily equate to “brighter” students average such that it would be unreasonable to infer that a top 10% student at UCLA wouldn’t be able to get around the same rank at the other two schools.

This is a really bad take.

Care to explain why exactly? Or you can just stick to your conclusory assertion unsupported by reasoning.

[PrinterInk]

Though I agree with other posters that it is a bad idea to list schools you got into, it’s overall a bad thing for society that this is frowned upon. It’s essentially etiquette that exists for people from upper middle class striver backgrounds to maintain higher status over lower middle class people whose heads explode at the idea of $200k for school.

I don’t understand this at all. Sure, the emphasis on school pedigree and obsession over small differences in schools is dumb, as is automatically discounting someone who didn’t go to school X or above. But I don’t understand how saying you got into school X but didn’t go would address that. If nothing else, it sends the message that going to school X still matters, despite the applicant’s clear success from a different school, and that the applicant has to somehow justify where they went. It’s buying into the system.

Not listing schools you got into doesn’t prevent you from making clear to employers your competitiveness as an applicant, to the extent they care about that (over what your law school performance has actually proven about your ability). You can even still make clear that you went to a given school because it made financial sense and that was important to you.

It’s really quite simple. The average person who gets into Harvard is as smart as the average person who chooses to attend Harvard. Actually going to a fancy school confers you with no special powers beyond your ability when you walked in the door. However, some employers—typically the most prestigious ones—will only hire the person who puts “Harvard” on the resume.

[nixy]

Though I agree with other posters that it is a bad idea to list schools you got into, it’s overall a bad thing for society that this is frowned upon. It’s essentially etiquette that exists for people from upper middle class striver backgrounds to maintain higher status over lower middle class people whose heads explode at the idea of $200k for school.

I don’t understand this at all. Sure, the emphasis on school pedigree and obsession over small differences in schools is dumb, as is automatically discounting someone who didn’t go to school X or above. But I don’t understand how saying you got into school X but didn’t go would address that. If nothing else, it sends the message that going to school X still matters, despite the applicant’s clear success from a different school, and that the applicant has to somehow justify where they went. It’s buying into the system.

Not listing schools you got into doesn’t prevent you from making clear to employers your competitiveness as an applicant, to the extent they care about that (over what your law school performance has actually proven about your ability). You can even still make clear that you went to a given school because it made financial sense and that was important to you.

It’s really quite simple. The average person who gets into Harvard is as smart as the average person who chooses to attend Harvard. Actually going to a fancy school confers you with no special powers beyond your ability when you walked in the door. However, some employers—typically the most prestigious ones—will only hire the person who puts “Harvard” on the resume.

I agree (mostly - there’s an argument that you might get better legal experiences/make better connections attending Harvard vs. not attending Harvard), but I have no idea why this means you should be able tell people the schools that you got into and turned down because that would make it better. The person who only hires you with Harvard on your resume isn’t going to hire you if Harvard only appears on your resume as a school you got in to and turned down. If you want people to know you were smart enough to go to Harvard, put your UGPA and your scholarship on your resume. If you want to turn down Harvard that’s fine (and there are a lot of good reasons to do so) but one of the consequences is losing out on benefiting from the Harvard name.

Overall I agree that the prestige economy in law supports the economic status quo but I don’t think saying where you got in will change that one iota.

(There are also lots and lots and lots of attorneys hiring for very snazzy jobs who did not go to the T14 who will be very very very turned off by anyone feeling the need to prove that they’re not like the average grad from their non-T14 school, by virtue of having got *in* to a T14.)

[sparty99]

As a 0L, I got into a few T14s but chose a T50 in my hometown because I got a full ride, could have zero debt by living at home, wanted to be close to family, and at the time thought I wanted to stay in the area. I don't regret my choice--I'm in the top 5% of my class and have a federal district clerkship after graduation. But I no longer want to stay in this area and plan to apply to a variety of competitive jobs following my clerkship (including DOJ honors, additional clerkships, fed gov jobs, and NYC biglaw--I'm open-minded, but I want to move to NYC or DC and do something impressive).
If my process of choosing a school or career path comes up in interviews, or I have to write essays and choose to discuss those things, is it a good idea to mention the T14s I got into and explain the reasons for my decision? Would that boost my applications at all, or have no effect? Or would it just risk judgment from people who think I should've chosen higher-ranked schools over everything else? Is having gotten into higher-ranked schools and turned them down a liability, an asset, or irrelevant?

You would be a loser if you did this and stuck-up. If you want to talk about Michigan Law School then you should have attended Michigan Law School. Otherwise, focus on your T50.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Though I agree with other posters that it is a bad idea to list schools you got into, it’s overall a bad thing for society that this is frowned upon. It’s essentially etiquette that exists for people from upper middle class striver backgrounds to maintain higher status over lower middle class people whose heads explode at the idea of $200k for school.

I don’t understand this at all. Sure, the emphasis on school pedigree and obsession over small differences in schools is dumb, as is automatically discounting someone who didn’t go to school X or above. But I don’t understand how saying you got into school X but didn’t go would address that. If nothing else, it sends the message that going to school X still matters, despite the applicant’s clear success from a different school, and that the applicant has to somehow justify where they went. It’s buying into the system.

Not listing schools you got into doesn’t prevent you from making clear to employers your competitiveness as an applicant, to the extent they care about that (over what your law school performance has actually proven about your ability). You can even still make clear that you went to a given school because it made financial sense and that was important to you.

It’s really quite simple. The average person who gets into Harvard is as smart as the average person who chooses to attend Harvard. Actually going to a fancy school confers you with no special powers beyond your ability when you walked in the door. However, some employers—typically the most prestigious ones—will only hire the person who puts “Harvard” on the resume.

Employers that care about the brand name typically also care about grades, though, and they can't just assume that you would've gotten median/top-third/magna grades if you went to HLS in this scenario. Law school is partly a signaling mechanism but it's also, itself, a ranking mechanism, and you don't get the benefit of the doubt if you opt out.

(Whether it's reasonable to base anything off of grades/rank in the first place, of course, is debatable, but once you're within that mindset it makes sense to have rules like "we only want top-20% students from a T14 or top-third students from HYS")

[lolwutpar]

Sometimes I weep for you all.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Bit off topic but:

UCLA Median LSAT/GPA: 169/3.79.

Berkeley Medians: 168/3.81

Stanford Medians: 171/3.91

I’d say that a 3 point difference on LSAT and a .1-.2 difference on GPA doesn’t necessarily equate to “brighter” students average such that it would be unreasonable to infer that a top 10% student at UCLA wouldn’t be able to get around the same rank at the other two schools.

This is a really bad take.

It's not. On average, transfers finish above median to a significant degree during 2L/3L, and that includes the T2 students who transfer to HLS, CLS, NYU etc. We have a lot of statistical evidence that GPA/LSAT together only correlate relatively weakly with law school GPA and that even top-credentialed people on conditional scholarships lose them at pretty high rate.

Top 10% at UCLA would do great anywhere. IDK about "the same rank" at SLS (or if you could even calculate that between different grading systems) but the general gist of the post is more true than not.

[LawrenceGazebo]

Bit off topic but:

UCLA Median LSAT/GPA: 169/3.79.

Berkeley Medians: 168/3.81

Stanford Medians: 171/3.91

I’d say that a 3 point difference on LSAT and a .1-.2 difference on GPA doesn’t necessarily equate to “brighter” students average such that it would be unreasonable to infer that a top 10% student at UCLA wouldn’t be able to get around the same rank at the other two schools.

This is a really bad take.

It's not. On average, transfers finish above median to a significant degree during 2L/3L, and that includes the T2 students who transfer to HLS, CLS, NYU etc. We have a lot of statistical evidence that GPA/LSAT together only correlate relatively weakly with law school GPA and that even top-credentialed people on conditional scholarships lose them at pretty high rate.

Top 10% at UCLA would do great anywhere. IDK about "the same rank" at SLS (or if you could even calculate that between different grading systems) but the general gist of the post is more true than not.

My take on law school was that it was about 80% work ethic and 20% mental horsepower. You can wiggle with those numbers a bit, but it doesn't take a genius to understand law school information. It makes sense that transfers do well--they likely worked really hard at their first school, and likely worked really hard at their transfer schools.

[ksm6969]

Bit off topic but:

UCLA Median LSAT/GPA: 169/3.79.

Berkeley Medians: 168/3.81

Stanford Medians: 171/3.91

I’d say that a 3 point difference on LSAT and a .1-.2 difference on GPA doesn’t necessarily equate to “brighter” students average such that it would be unreasonable to infer that a top 10% student at UCLA wouldn’t be able to get around the same rank at the other two schools.

This is a really bad take.

It's not. On average, transfers finish above median to a significant degree during 2L/3L, and that includes the T2 students who transfer to HLS, CLS, NYU etc. We have a lot of statistical evidence that GPA/LSAT together only correlate relatively weakly with law school GPA and that even top-credentialed people on conditional scholarships lose them at pretty high rate.

Top 10% at UCLA would do great anywhere. IDK about "the same rank" at SLS (or if you could even calculate that between different grading systems) but the general gist of the post is more true than not.

What does this mean? That transfers to HLS-- which accepts, what, top 5% 1L's from other T1s and probably top 1% from T2s-- end up being in top 1/3 in 2L and 3L? (and I assume you are comparing only 2L/3L performance to 2L/3L performance... a lot of transfers end up with latin honors only because 1L grades, which tend to be lower since its all required classes and no seminars, tend to be lower than 2L/3L grades. lots of people would get latin honors if you just didnt count their 1L grades). Even if they end up in top 1/4, thats not really that good either (top 1% to top 25% is quite a drop). Even top 1% to top 10% would be quite a drop.

Without specific data, saying that transfers end up "significantly above median" at the new school, when they were literally probably the top single student at their old school, and then saying that shows the competition is equal doesnt really follow.

But to answer the OP: make sure at your wedding you mention how you could have married the prettiest girl in the class, if you really wanted to, but instead settled for your wife cause you thought she would be cheaper to maintain.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

What does this mean? That transfers to HLS-- which accepts, what, top 5% 1L's from other T1s and probably top 1% from T2s-- end up being in top 1/3 in 2L and 3L? (and I assume you are comparing only 2L/3L performance to 2L/3L performance... a lot of transfers end up with latin honors only because 1L grades, which tend to be lower since its all required classes and no seminars, tend to be lower than 2L/3L grades. lots of people would get latin honors if you just didnt count their 1L grades). Even if they end up in top 1/4, thats not really that good either (top 1% to top 25% is quite a drop). Even top 1% to top 10% would be quite a drop.

Without specific data, saying that transfers end up "significantly above median" at the new school, when they were literally probably the top single student at their old school, and then saying that shows the competition is equal doesnt really follow.

Yeah, just comparing apples to apples, probably top 33% or so. No one is saying Cardozo's top 5% would be Harvard's top 5%. Just noting that the students they do take, who perform very well at their 1L schools, are more than capable compared to their new peers in the aggregate, and provides evidence the difference in measured law school ability is not as great as is sometimes implied on the Internet, and so the difference in student quality (which is hard to measure before people actually take exams and thus winds up being something of a crapshoot) is not gonna be meaningfully different at schools like UCLA and SLS (and certainly not with equivalent measurables like UCLA and Berkeley). Whether or not it's impressive, I will leave to judgment.