Boalt or SLS? Forum

[Sav]

I

[KidStuddi]

Lol. I hope you're trolling with the preftige nonsense. If not, you sound like a complete tool.

Transferring would probably reduce your chances at competitive clerkships because you will lose recommenders by transferring and you won't be on law review. While it's definitely possible to land an A3 somewhere without law review, especially at HYS, when you're applying against people from HYS who do have Law Review, you're obviously at a disadvantage. On the other hand, Berkley+law review is pretty much on equal footing with anyone.

The benefits of HYS for long-term career development are undeniable in academia, so if that's what your professors meant that's spot on, but that's about it. In the private sector, the data on partnership advancement doesn't show much correlation with law school (and especially not law school success). It's certainly nowhere as strong as the correlation to SA hiring. B v HYS won't matter for government.

[Uncle.Joe]

I echo what Studdi said.

It will likely hurt you for clerkships. It is unlikely to help, and may hurt at OCI. In your position I would not transfer. Professors truly do not know what they are talking about, their experiences are not typical of anyone. Reach out to practitioners, call it networking.

[jbiresq]

Lol. I hope you're trolling with the preftige nonsense. If not, you sound like a complete tool.

Transferring would probably reduce your chances at competitive clerkships because you will lose recommenders by transferring and you won't be on law review. While it's definitely possible to land an A3 somewhere without law review, especially at HYS, when you're applying against people from HYS who do have Law Review, you're obviously at a disadvantage. On the other hand, Berkley+law review is pretty much on equal footing with anyone.

The benefits of HYS for long-term career development are undeniable in academia, so if that's what your professors meant that's spot on, but that's about it. In the private sector, the data on partnership advancement doesn't show much correlation with law school (and especially not law school success). It's certainly nowhere as strong as the correlation to SA hiring. B v HYS won't matter for government.

This. With every judge jumping the gun in hiring, having 1L profs to recommend you is damn helpful.

There are literally no reasons for you to transfer. I would still apply, though, and see if you can get more money from the school. Unless you're already on a full-ride, in which case you've hit the law school Powerball.

[juzam_djinn]

Lol. I hope you're trolling with the preftige nonsense. If not, you sound like a complete tool.

Transferring would probably reduce your chances at competitive clerkships because you will lose recommenders by transferring and you won't be on law review. While it's definitely possible to land an A3 somewhere without law review, especially at HYS, when you're applying against people from HYS who do have Law Review, you're obviously at a disadvantage. On the other hand, Berkley+law review is pretty much on equal footing with anyone.

The benefits of HYS for long-term career development are undeniable in academia, so if that's what your professors meant that's spot on, but that's about it. In the private sector, the data on partnership advancement doesn't show much correlation with law school (and especially not law school success). It's certainly nowhere as strong as the correlation to SA hiring. B v HYS won't matter for government.

This. With every judge jumping the gun in hiring, having 1L profs to recommend you is damn helpful.

There are literally no reasons for you to transfer. I would still apply, though, and see if you can get more money from the school. Unless you're already on a full-ride, in which case you've hit the law school Powerball.

Would berkeley give him more money? I've heard no top school is willing to re-negotiate scholarships, even for their top students...

But yes, I agree transferring would be pretty dumb for solely prestige reasons

[SHIA]

.

[Sav]

[

[SHIA]

Lol. I hope you're trolling with the preftige nonsense. If not, you sound like a complete tool.

Thanks for the answers. I'm not trolling, may be a tool. It's just that I have heard so much time and again about law being very prestige-driven and a hierarchical profession and that it matters where you go to school -- look at S Ct clerks. I will not be going back to school for an MBA or something later, so this is my last chance to go to a top 3 school.

I feel I could work for 2 years and then go clerk, so may be I don't need 1st yr recos. I didn't realize Berkley+law review and good grades would be better than HYS without law review.

From what I've heard, law-review really only matters for clerkships but if you want to clerk after working in biglaw then it will matter less because you will have work experience to back it up. Many people clerk after years in biglaw with no law review. You can get onto HYS law review as a transfer so I would still throw in an app (which is what I'm doing)

[Sav]

?

[Emma.]

transferring would be pretty dumb for solely prestige reasons

What I appear to have learned over the last 4 years is that this "prestige" drives jobs, clerkships, future career options. What makes it dumb?

Prestige might drive your first job, but if you want biglaw you are going to do just fine from the top of the class at Boalt. As far as future career options, what you've done during your time practicing (and who you know) are going to matter more than what school you attended.

Transferring might make clerkship stuff tricky. If you want to clerk straight out of law school, you need to be applying really early. Who are you going to have to recommend you if you transfer and then want to send out apps in September or October of this year?

[KidStuddi]

Lol. I hope you're trolling with the preftige nonsense. If not, you sound like a complete tool.

Thanks for the answers. I'm not trolling, may be a tool. It's just that I have heard so much time and again about law being very prestige-driven and a hierarchical profession and that it matters where you go to school -- look at S Ct clerks. I will not be going back to school for an MBA or something later, so this is my last chance to go to a top 3 school.

I feel I could work for 2 years and then go clerk, so may be I don't need 1st yr recos. I didn't realize Berkley+law review and good grades would be better than HYS without law review.

Going to work and then going back to clerk is not as simple as you seem to think it is. The vast majority of AIII judges hire current law students or current clerks. Even if they require the students to work for a year or two before coming back to clerk, they still generally hire current students. There are clerks who hire graduates, but if you wait until after law school you're taking already insanely competitive process and eliminating probably 70-80% of the potential positions. Not to mention it would almost certainly mean dropping everything in your personal life to move across the country for a year and taking a huge pay cut to do so.

What I appear to have learned over the last 4 years is that this "prestige" drives jobs, clerkships, future career options. What makes it dumb?

It's not dumb to want to get a great education and attend a great school. It's extraordinarily dumb to underestimate the caliber of people who attend HYS and think that their success is primarily attributable to the institution name on their degree; as if they would have been abject failures had they gone to a lowly school such as Berkeley. More to the point, you should drop your prestige obsession because it turns you into a tool. Attending HYS might get your resume a slightly longer look and get you in the door, but it won't exempt you from interviews, performance reviews, and the general scrutiny of superiors and colleagues. If you come across as an insufferable ass who actually thinks they're a better person (or even a better lawyer) because they attended a "top three" school, you're going to repulse most everyone you meet.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Going to work and then going back to clerk is not as simple as you seem to think it is. The vast majority of AIII judges hire current law students or current clerks. Even if they require the students to work for a year or two before coming back to clerk, they still generally hire current students. There are clerks who hire graduates, but if you wait until after law school you're taking already insanely competitive process and eliminating probably 70-80% of the potential positions. Not to mention it would almost certainly mean dropping everything in your personal life to move across the country for a year and taking a huge pay cut to do so.

I don't think this is nearly as much the case as it used to be. More and more judges are hiring alums and prefer applicants who have practice experience. And even if you're eliminating some positions (I wouldn't say it's nearly as high as 70-80%), you're also eliminating all the 2L applicants you'd have to compete with for clerking right out of law school. I mean, the pay cut and personal upheaval part is usually true (you can't guarantee getting a clerkship in the same city where you're working), but that's also why you're not going to face as much competition applying after you've been working. Anecdotally, a lot of people here report greater success applying as an alum/experienced candidate than as a 2L.

[KidStuddi]

Like the OP, I am interested in a similar transfer (not from Boalt, but from CCN to YSH), why do people say it will hurt at OCI? I'm not interested in clerkships but want to transfer for personal reasons (I want biglaw).

It's because OCI is a numbers game and it seems to be mostly about how you stack up against candidates from your school. Basically, firms don't offer callbacks to every student they interview with at any school -- it just doesn't seem to happen. So when you start out with the premise that a good percentage of the students who screen with a firm won't be offered callbacks, it's pretty logical to conclude transferring may hurt your chances. Being top dog at your current school makes you more likely to be one of those students who gets callbacks. When you're the transfer student being compared to your new school's homegrown elite, you're probably more likely to be one of the people who don't make the cut. The same culling goes on after the callback stage too.

If you're transferring from a school with an anemic OCI program, the much larger pool of OCI employers at your new school usually means you'll get more opportunities by transferring. When your 1L school has an OCI program every bit as strong as your new school, all you're really doing is moving yourself to the middle of the pack. You'll probably still get a job, but you're probably taking yourself out of the running for the competitive ones.

[KidStuddi]

I don't think this is nearly as much the case as it used to be. More and more judges are hiring alums and prefer applicants who have practice experience. And even if you're eliminating some positions (I wouldn't say it's nearly as high as 70-80%), you're also eliminating all the 2L applicants you'd have to compete with for clerking right out of law school. I mean, the pay cut and personal upheaval part is usually true (you can't guarantee getting a clerkship in the same city where you're working), but that's also why you're not going to face as much competition applying after you've been working. Anecdotally, a lot of people here report greater success applying as an alum/experienced candidate than as a 2L.

75% is what I've heard from my clerkship office (in terms of judges that hire only students or current/past clerks). If they're wrong, they're wrong. But I tend to think that's about right.

Are there really judges that only do alum hiring (as in to the exclusion of 2Ls and clerks). I did not know that existed.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I don't think this is nearly as much the case as it used to be. More and more judges are hiring alums and prefer applicants who have practice experience. And even if you're eliminating some positions (I wouldn't say it's nearly as high as 70-80%), you're also eliminating all the 2L applicants you'd have to compete with for clerking right out of law school. I mean, the pay cut and personal upheaval part is usually true (you can't guarantee getting a clerkship in the same city where you're working), but that's also why you're not going to face as much competition applying after you've been working. Anecdotally, a lot of people here report greater success applying as an alum/experienced candidate than as a 2L.

75% is what I've heard from my clerkship office (in terms of judges that hire only students or current/past clerks). If they're wrong, they're wrong. But I tend to think that's about right.

Are there really judges that only do alum hiring (as in to the exclusion of 2Ls and clerks). I did not know that existed.

Yes. I interned for one. Although admittedly, many consider previous clerkships to be experience, so I don't make as strong a distinction between current clerks and those with actual practice experience. And I've never seen a judge specify that they only hire 2Ls/current clerks, where I do see judges specifying that they require candidates to have legal work experience.

[KidStuddi]

Yes. I interned for one. Although admittedly, many consider previous clerkships to be experience, so I don't make as strong a distinction between current clerks and those with actual practice experience. And I've never seen a judge specify that they only hire 2Ls/current clerks, where I do see judges specifying that they require candidates to have legal work experience.

Interesting. I have no reason to doubt your personal experiences, but I can't imagine why my school would try and mislead us about the relative difficulty of applying as a 2L versus after practicing for a few years. This was specifically addressed during the information sessions in quite a bit of detail and infront of a panel of judges too.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Yes. I interned for one. Although admittedly, many consider previous clerkships to be experience, so I don't make as strong a distinction between current clerks and those with actual practice experience. And I've never seen a judge specify that they only hire 2Ls/current clerks, where I do see judges specifying that they require candidates to have legal work experience.

Interesting. I have no reason to doubt your personal experiences, but I can't imagine why my school would try and mislead us about the relative difficulty of applying as a 2L versus after practicing for a few years. This was specifically addressed during the information sessions in quite a bit of detail and infront of a panel of judges too.

Well, I don't mean they're trying to mislead you - it may depend on where you are and what judges your school traditionally feeds to. I also kinda suspect there may be a district/circuit court divide, too (I think practice experience is much more relevant to trial-level clerking and that's where I usually see the preference for experience). In any case, my stuff is just anecdata, and historically, what you describe has been the case (but I do think there's been a measurable shift since the economy went down the toilet).

[run26.2]

transferring would be pretty dumb for solely prestige reasons

What I appear to have learned over the last 4 years is that this "prestige" drives jobs, clerkships, future career options. What makes it dumb?

Top 10-20% at Boalt + EE = strong chance for Federal Circuit clerkship.

[juzam_djinn]

transferring would be pretty dumb for solely prestige reasons

What I appear to have learned over the last 4 years is that this "prestige" drives jobs, clerkships, future career options. What makes it dumb?

sorry how exactly have you learned this?

if you wanna transfer, go for it. might hurt your clerkship chances b/c of foregone relationships w/ faculty (so that answers your q about how it would affect clerkships)

but yeah, you would get that "prestige"

on another note, does anyone wanna estimate his chances? I'm in a very similar position and would like to know what everyone thinks

[Sav]

?

[jbiresq]

Top 10-20% at Boalt + EE = strong chance for Federal Circuit clerkship.

Thanks, and would (Median or Below Median at HLS + EE) be better than (Top 10-20% at Boalt + EE) for a Federal Circuit clerkship? That is the decision I am trying to make.

I will definitely not be applying to transfer to YLS because I won't be able to do a big law summer 2L associate position in New Haven (Can't move for the summer from whichever school I am in) but HLS may be an option since Ropes and Gray and other EE patent lit firms are there in Boston. However, long term I definitely want Northern California. This 1L summer 2013, I am at big law in SF. So if I transfer to HLS and work my 2L summer in Boston, how easy is it then to move to another big law firm in CA right after graduating? I have heard that you work after 3L normally in the same firm/office you worked in for 2L summer. Will firms wonder why I am moving so much?

Why won't you be able to move for the summer? If that's the case and you will probably be on LR at Boalt and you have BigLaw 1L summer and will get BigLaw 2L summer and you're pretty much lock for some kind of clerkship, then, I don't know, don't transfer.

[run26.2]

Top 10-20% at Boalt + EE = strong chance for Federal Circuit clerkship.

Thanks, and would (Median or Below Median at HLS + EE) be better than (Top 10-20% at Boalt + EE) for a Federal Circuit clerkship? That is the decision I am trying to make.

I will definitely not be applying to transfer to YLS because I won't be able to do a big law summer 2L associate position in New Haven (Can't move for the summer from whichever school I am in) but HLS may be an option since Ropes and Gray and other EE patent lit firms are there in Boston. However, long term I definitely want Northern California. This 1L summer 2013, I am at big law in SF. So if I transfer to HLS and work my 2L summer in Boston, how easy is it then to move to another big law firm in CA right after graduating? I have heard that you work after 3L normally in the same firm/office you worked in for 2L summer. Will firms wonder why I am moving so much?

I'm not sure why you would trade what you have gotten for HLS, given what you want. My understanding is that top 10-20% at Boalt should be pretty safe for 2L SA->offer, especially if you are interested in doing patent work and have an EE degree. I certainly would not transfer in your shoes (and I did transfer so I am not against transferring).

To answer your question, I would think that top 10% @ Boalt > median at HLS, but top 20% vs. median at HLS is harder. I don't have enough familiarity with that situation to make a call. In terms of judges graduating from the respective law schools, they are tied: Dyk went to HLS, and Wallach went to Boalt.

I'm sure they all realize that HLS is a great school. But they also will recognize Berkeley as an awesome school. Many of these judges went to schools in DC, i.e. not with quite the same level of prestige as either of the schools you are talking about, so my sense is they probably are not focusing on getting clerks from HYS. My sense is that experience is a big plus. 1-2 years work experience and/or a Ph.D. is a huge plus. For people coming straight out, a stellar academic record is close to a requirement. At schools inside the lower T10, I think top 10% is going to be about what you will need to be competitive. If you have w/e or a Ph.D., that requirement will probably be relaxed. Hence, if I were in your shoes, I would stay at Berkeley and try to improve your class rank.

[SemperLegal]

I'm not sure that its a foregone conclusion that you lose all your 1L recommendations if you transfer, especially locally. Most B professors have some sort of relationship with S, or at least recognize that it brings a lot of things to the table. I think you can certainly maintain relationships with them, and get LoR if you transfer.

[run26.2]

Also, your concerns about prestige are unfounded. No one sits around at a law firm and thinks more highly of you or is more prone to give you work or a favorable review because of where you went to school (at least not the people who are succeeding). Your work product will speak for itself. Where you are, OP, is sufficient to get in the door. What happens next is up to you, regardless of where you went to school.

[Sav]

.