Top Law Schools

I was writing to get advice on where to transfer. I am currently at a T4 school and was accepted to GW and univeristy of MD. I am married with a toddler and trying to decide which school would be the better choice. My husband will be working above Baltimore so I am either looking at a horrible commute or chosing a school that is a bit lower ranked. I am hoping anyone can give me some advice if it is really worth it in the long run to face a 1.5 hour commute to go to school in the city.

I take it you live near Baltimore now? Why don't you guys move closer to college park or silver springs and split the commute? From there, you can metro it over to GW no prob.

Edited for spelling

In your situation (as a mother, big law isn't really an option), the hit in rankings isn't going to have a significant impact on your job prospects so long as you preform near the top of your class (as it appears you're likely to do).

Edit - to clarify, I'm not advising stay put.

do what makes you most happy

.

It's difficult to conclude whether he was saying "as a mother BigLaw isn't really an option" or whether he intended "as a mother, BigLaw isn't really an option" to be two separate propositions. BigLaw probably isn't happening for anyone transferring into either GW or UMD.

amyLAchemist wrote:

JackReliant wrote:In your situation (as a mother, big law isn't really an option), the hit in rankings isn't going to have a significant impact on your job prospects so long as you preform near the top of your class (as it appears you're likely to do).

Edit - to clarify, I'm not advising stay put.

Is this 1910 or 2010?

Splitting the commute and going to GW seems TCR, regardless of the type of law you want to practice.

http://thecareerist.typepad.com/thecare ... lity-.html

RVP11 wrote:It's difficult to conclude whether he was saying "as a mother BigLaw isn't really an option" or whether he intended "as a mother, BigLaw isn't really an option" to be two separate propositions. BigLaw probably isn't happening for anyone transferring into either GW or UMD.

Unfortunately, the more controversial interpretation is the accurate one. I'm not going to get into a lengthy debate on the topic, as I don't have the time being in BIGDOCREVIEW...err, law, but I don't think my assertion is an entirely original one, or one unsupported by data. Being a mother simply isn't compatible with the demands of biglaw, especially when the dad is working as well. It's obtainable, sure, and many women are perfectly capable of doing it. But you're entering a veritable fairyland if you deny the general proposition.

amyLAchemist wrote:

Mirrored wrote:

amyLAchemist wrote:

JackReliant wrote:In your situation (as a mother, big law isn't really an option), the hit in rankings isn't going to have a significant impact on your job prospects so long as you preform near the top of your class (as it appears you're likely to do).

Edit - to clarify, I'm not advising stay put.

Is this 1910 or 2010?

Splitting the commute and going to GW seems TCR, regardless of the type of law you want to practice.

http://thecareerist.typepad.com/thecare ... lity-.html

I'm tired of these pointless articles. The unwarranted generalizations, assumptions, and stereotyping (mainly that women are always primary caregivers) that are used in coming to these conclusions is just ridiculous. Ok, back to transfer topic. Sorry for the thread hijack, but, as a future female biglaw litigator, those comments irk me to no end.

You backhandedly attacked this woman by implying that she must be out of touch with modern times because she would rather have a proactive and physical presence in her children's lives than pursue a career in biglaw. Biglaw and motherhood don't have to be mutually exclusive, but there is no denying that being in biglaw is going to take a mother away from her kids to a pretty large degree. Just because this woman isn't comfortable with that doesn't mean that she is some ass-backwards person.

amyLAchemist wrote:

romothesavior wrote: You backhandedly attacked this woman by implying that she must be out of touch with modern times because she would rather have a proactive and physical presence in her children's lives than pursue a career in biglaw. Biglaw and motherhood don't have to be mutually exclusive, but there is no denying that being in biglaw is going to take a mother away from her kids to a pretty large degree. Just because this woman isn't comfortable with that doesn't mean that she is some ass-backwards person.

I assumed Jack was a man based on his name, and he was engaged in sexist trolling (see post count). Sorry if I was wrong about that.

That's a fair point. RC fail by me. I'm bored at work... so my ability to focus is minimal right now.

amyLAchemist wrote: Any woman (or man) who wants to devote a large part of their life to their kids, great for them. It's just not what every woman (or man) wants, that's all I was saying anyways.

Are you saying not to have kids, or to have kids but not to devote a large part of your life to them? Because if it is the latter, then

romothesavior wrote:
Are you saying not to have kids, or to have kids but not to devote a large part of your life to them? Because if it is the latter, then

Alternate interpretations:

1) She would want a male primary caregiver and is frustrated with gendered roles.
My Reply: Snarky comments about Berkeley and a PhD shielding her from reality. Trolling and Ad hominem. All used to cover an admission that stereotypes are just that.

2) She is not interested in having children.
My Reply: Then yes, you can expect to do well in Biglaw.

3) She believes that you can have children without having to fanatically devote all of your time to them.
My Reply: I agree. We live in a weak society that has turned parenthood into this bizarre obligation to constantly crowd your kid with your attention. This creates children that are spoiled, bratty, and generally whiny kids who see Education as a Value rather than as a Means, expect to be coddled by their employers, etc. etc.

Want to know what kids succeed the most?
Kids who go to boarding schools.

Food for thought.

.

...I think we've lost perspective regarding the actual commute problems OP seems to have. The MARC train runs all over MD, especially south of Baltimore. Relocate to the middle of Bmore and DC, hubby drives 45 minutes tops (as a native, anyone who thinks you can't get north of Bmore from the southern suburbs in an acceptable timeframe for a daily commute is just being dramatic), mom either MARCs it or metros it. As someone who lived in Baltimore city and commuted quite close to GW law for a few months, it's really not bad. From Penn (and there are a lot more reasonable MARC stops to pick from) it took me an hour, tops.

Balance. Compromise. Awesome.

JackReliant wrote:In your situation (as a mother, big law isn't really an option), the hit in rankings isn't going to have a significant impact on your job prospects so long as you preform near the top of your class (as it appears you're likely to do).

Edit - to clarify, I'm not advising stay put.

Amy, I have no idea why you feel the need to justify your comments about Jack's perspective. You're right, end of story.

If Jack had said, "as a parent who wishes to spend a good deal of time with their kids, big law isn't really an option," there would be no problem. He said mother and indicated that her "role" makes a demanding career impossible. Its stupid, sexist and shows a limited perspective on what forms good parenting can take, what gender is "supposed" to carry the bulk of parenting and ultimately denounced the ability of women to have what men are expected to achieve. There are a lot of problems there, and not just chauvinism.

to be completely honest, you've already chosen a degree of balance ending up at a tier 4. i mean no slight by this. if you are willing to adjust this balance you currently live with, go for it. I don't see GW or MD as schools that will ruin an opportunity at living a well balanced lifestyle... although there will certainly be a shock at first. IMO there are very few people in the top 3 law schools who are capable of finding a comfortable balance. put it like this, if you wanna be the best, you can't be balanced. Kobe will never be completely happy unless he's winning. Same with most greats... but thats why they're great. GW and MD arent the best, they're good... and places I'd love to go as well. I say do it. Also, the pay coming from a school like GW may be good enough that you can offer your kids enough that they don't end up with a freaky money complex. its better to have money and choose not spoil your children than to not spoil em cause you cant... there's balance for ya.
i cant tell if want i wrote is balanced or all hyperbole, but i dont know how to write about something i know nothing about.

nematoad wrote:to be completely honest, you've already chosen a degree of balance ending up at a tier 4. i mean no slight by this. if you are willing to adjust this balance you currently live with, go for it. I don't see GW or MD as schools that will ruin an opportunity at living a well balanced lifestyle... although there will certainly be a shock at first. IMO there are very few people in the top 3 law schools who are capable of finding a comfortable balance. put it like this, if you wanna be the best, you can't be balanced. Kobe will never be completely happy unless he's winning. Same with most greats... but thats why they're great. GW and MD arent the best, they're good... and places I'd love to go as well. I say do it. Also, the pay coming from a school like GW may be good enough that you can offer your kids enough that they don't end up with a freaky money complex. its better to have money and choose not spoil your children than to not spoil em cause you cant... there's balance for ya.
i cant tell if want i wrote is balanced or all hyperbole, but i dont know how to write about something i know nothing about.

romothesavior wrote:

nematoad wrote:to be completely honest, you've already chosen a degree of balance ending up at a tier 4. i mean no slight by this. if you are willing to adjust this balance you currently live with, go for it. I don't see GW or MD as schools that will ruin an opportunity at living a well balanced lifestyle... although there will certainly be a shock at first. IMO there are very few people in the top 3 law schools who are capable of finding a comfortable balance. put it like this, if you wanna be the best, you can't be balanced. Kobe will never be completely happy unless he's winning. Same with most greats... but thats why they're great. GW and MD arent the best, they're good... and places I'd love to go as well. I say do it. Also, the pay coming from a school like GW may be good enough that you can offer your kids enough that they don't end up with a freaky money complex. its better to have money and choose not spoil your children than to not spoil em cause you cant... there's balance for ya.
i cant tell if want i wrote is balanced or all hyperbole, but i dont know how to write about something i know nothing about.

kinda how i felt writing it

Another helpful point for OP. UM places freakishly well in market-paying jobs in Baltimore.

(go terps)

Add me to the list of a mom that wants kids and biglaw and a dad that works a lot not being the most conducive environment for the kids.

A'nold wrote:Add me to the list of a mom that wants kids and biglaw and a dad that works a lot not being the most conducive environment for the kids.

Again, then you're just against two parents working a lot. Not specifically a Mom's ability to be a good mother and obtain biglaw.

Pearalegal wrote:

A'nold wrote:Add me to the list of a mom that wants kids and biglaw and a dad that works a lot not being the most conducive environment for the kids.

Again, then you're just against two parents working a lot. Not specifically a Mom's ability to be a good mother and obtain biglaw.

Admittedly, my wife and I are more traditional in this sense, but if you can make it work, all the more power to you. It's just if you have kids you might realize that there's nothing greater in the world and that it pains you to be away from them for any great length of time. That will break you down over time to where the average person would just go to a smaller firm with a better work/life balance or go pt or whatever. Either that or you like being away or are indifferent, then I'm not so sure being a parent was a great idea for you, haha.

A'nold wrote:

Pearalegal wrote:

A'nold wrote:Add me to the list of a mom that wants kids and biglaw and a dad that works a lot not being the most conducive environment for the kids.

Again, then you're just against two parents working a lot. Not specifically a Mom's ability to be a good mother and obtain biglaw.

Admittedly, my wife and I are more traditional in this sense, but if you can make it work, all the more power to you. It's just if you have kids you might realize that there's nothing greater in the world and that it pains you to be away from them for any great length of time. That will break you down over time to where the average person would just go to a smaller firm with a better work/life balance or go pt or whatever. Either that or you like being away or are indifferent, then I'm not so sure being a parent was a great idea for you, haha.

I'm not arguing each person's setup. Its not my place, and who the fuck can tell someone else whats best based on their personal experiences. Parents, workaholics or classroom-parents, can really screw up or they can be wonderful. Whatever.

My problem is with someone like that Jack person making a statement that "as a mom, biglaw isn't really an option." If you feel that way generally about parenting...why just single out a Mom and not simply, "parent."

Pearalegal wrote:

JackReliant wrote:In your situation (as a mother, big law isn't really an option), the hit in rankings isn't going to have a significant impact on your job prospects so long as you preform near the top of your class (as it appears you're likely to do).

Edit - to clarify, I'm not advising stay put.

Amy, I have no idea why you feel the need to justify your comments about Jack's perspective. You're right, end of story.

If Jack had said, "as a parent who wishes to spend a good deal of time with their kids, big law isn't really an option," there would be no problem. He said mother and indicated that her "role" makes a demanding career impossible. Its stupid, sexist and shows a limited perspective on what forms good parenting can take, what gender is "supposed" to carry the bulk of parenting and ultimately denounced the ability of women to have what men are expected to achieve. There are a lot of problems there, and not just chauvinism.

I agree.

Pearalegal wrote:

A'nold wrote:

Pearalegal wrote:

A'nold wrote:Add me to the list of a mom that wants kids and biglaw and a dad that works a lot not being the most conducive environment for the kids.

Again, then you're just against two parents working a lot. Not specifically a Mom's ability to be a good mother and obtain biglaw.

Admittedly, my wife and I are more traditional in this sense, but if you can make it work, all the more power to you. It's just if you have kids you might realize that there's nothing greater in the world and that it pains you to be away from them for any great length of time. That will break you down over time to where the average person would just go to a smaller firm with a better work/life balance or go pt or whatever. Either that or you like being away or are indifferent, then I'm not so sure being a parent was a great idea for you, haha.

I'm not arguing each person's setup. Its not my place, and who the fuck can tell someone else whats best based on their personal experiences. Parents, workaholics or classroom-parents, can really screw up or they can be wonderful. Whatever.

My problem is with someone like that Jack person making a statement that "as a mom, biglaw isn't really an option." If you feel that way generally about parenting...why just single out a Mom and not simply, "parent."

I'm all for people doing what they want, as long as they don't hurt others on the way. I'm kinda like traditional nuisance law in that sense.