WUSTL Recent Grad (and others) Taking Questions Forum

[xspider]

What are typical median outcomes at WUSTL?

I want to know about this as well...
and how well does WUSTL place its grads in Chicago? I've been told Chicago is the closest of big markets so it's relatively ok, but really there are a lot of competitions...

Chicago is pretty brutal (or at least it was as of a couple years ago). I'm not sure I'd go to WUSTL with the intent of going to Chicago.

I am not a student at WUSTL, full disclosure, but I've asked this question in this forum and with other current students and your chances may increase if you are URM. If this doesn't apply, I can't say for non-URMs.

[Joscellin]

What are typical median outcomes at WUSTL?

I want to know about this as well...
and how well does WUSTL place its grads in Chicago? I've been told Chicago is the closest of big markets so it's relatively ok, but really there are a lot of competitions...

Proximity doesn't really matter in this particular scenario. Chicago is rough from any school not named UChi or NU. I would absolutely not come to Wash U if you're deadest on Chicago (or big law or bust in general).

[mjs289]

What are typical median outcomes at WUSTL?

I want to know about this as well...
and how well does WUSTL place its grads in Chicago? I've been told Chicago is the closest of big markets so it's relatively ok, but really there are a lot of competitions...

Proximity doesn't really matter in this particular scenario. Chicago is rough from any school not named UChi or NU. I would absolutely not come to Wash U if you're deadest on Chicago (or big law or bust in general).

Not really deadset on Chicago nor big law or bust. Am hoping to aim for Chicago though..the city and it's pretty much the only place I have some family in.
Meh, I guess I was hearing things from wrong people.

[PeanutsNJam]

If you are a URM, finding a biglaw job is markedly easier and you don't have to worry about grade cutoffs or the like; interviewing well and having medianish grades are likely sufficient for at least secondary market biglaw, if not primary market biglaw.

This is true to a lesser extent for people with other desirable attributes such as vet status, strong STEM major from a top UG, impressive work experience, strong ties to the location or the firm itself, etc. Connections to recruiting attorneys (which can be easily established by attending networking events and such) are certainly helpful.

Assuming you have strictly median grades, and nothing else going for you at all, biglaw (and selective PI) is highly unlikely. All other law, however, is not. Whether "all other law" is desirable is up to you, and it's a very wide variety of jobs.

All that said, for firms that don't pay 145k+, grades are not dis-positive. I've seen too many 1Ls outside the top 20% at WUSTL get 1L SAs to believe otherwise. The issue still remains that only 30ish% is going to get biglaw or fed clerkships. This is not, however, the top 30% by any means.

[Cellar-door]

Does anyone have tips for Con Law I with professor Law? He's been pretty silent about what the exam is like and what he's looking for on it. Thanks -

I honestly don't remember it that well, but I do remember thinking it was pretty straightforward. Is he still doing modified closed book? (1 page front and back?) I remember having 1 page with normal font and doing very well. If I remember correctly it was basic short answer with 2 mid-length essay questions, one of which included policy arguments. On the whole if you go to class take good notes and pay attention to how he sets things up it won't be much of a problem, he isn't someone who has a particularly idiosyncratic exam.

[mjs289]

If you are a URM, finding a biglaw job is markedly easier and you don't have to worry about grade cutoffs or the like; interviewing well and having medianish grades are likely sufficient for at least secondary market biglaw, if not primary market biglaw.

This is true to a lesser extent for people with other desirable attributes such as vet status, strong STEM major from a top UG, impressive work experience, strong ties to the location or the firm itself, etc. Connections to recruiting attorneys (which can be easily established by attending networking events and such) are certainly helpful.

Assuming you have strictly median grades, and nothing else going for you at all, biglaw (and selective PI) is highly unlikely. All other law, however, is not. Whether "all other law" is desirable is up to you, and it's a very wide variety of jobs.

All that said, for firms that don't pay 145k+, grades are not dis-positive. I've seen too many 1Ls outside the top 20% at WUSTL get 1L SAs to believe otherwise. The issue still remains that only 30ish% is going to get biglaw or fed clerkships. This is not, however, the top 30% by any means.

I'm not from a top UG (tier 1 though), no work experience, but am a STEM major (non EE, but engineering) with a MS degree.
I keep asking here and in admits thread because law school can be a life decision, and it's not easy one to make... WashU is the best offer I have in my hands right now, but employment stat worries me little. Any reading is a lullaby to me, so I don't think I'll do well in law school in general... my guess is strictly median.
Not interested in PI at all. Hoping for IP, anywhere above a mid-size firm would be ok with me. Biglaw will be ideal for the sake of exit option, but if doesn't work out, so be it. I would like 100k+ pay, but not necessarily 145k+. Is this a doable goal at WashU?

I'm waitlisted at multiple T14s and have some pending. Some people advised me to wait for all waitlists, take a year off and reapply, and things like that. But WashU is being really generous to offer full tuition + living stipend, and I think hardly any T14 can beat it. Am I being realistic enough, or should I be chasing a T14 still with my goal?

[hoos89]

Obviously it's doable in that plenty of people achieve that from WUSTL every year, but it's certainly not a sure thing. IP should help, and if you're willing to be geographically flexible then WUSTL isn't a bad choice for the right price IF you have maxed you're LSAT.

[valen]

Does anyone have tips for Con Law I with professor Law? He's been pretty silent about what the exam is like and what he's looking for on it. Thanks -

I honestly don't remember it that well, but I do remember thinking it was pretty straightforward. Is he still doing modified closed book? (1 page front and back?) I remember having 1 page with normal font and doing very well. If I remember correctly it was basic short answer with 2 mid-length essay questions, one of which included policy arguments. On the whole if you go to class take good notes and pay attention to how he sets things up it won't be much of a problem, he isn't someone who has a particularly idiosyncratic exam.

Yes he is. I've gone to every class and dutifully have not read any chemerisnki. I wasn't sure what the format would be but short answer plus a few essays seems doable.

Did you talk about specific judges' tendancies? Like "a judge like Breyer would probably say X but one like Scalia would give it a more originalist reading with Y."

And do you remember how you switched between narrative 1 (law is logical and holdings make sense) and narrative 2 (law is pure judicial discretion and politics)?

Finally, do you remember if you wrote in a more formal or conversationalist style? His lectures are super conversational and I can see how it'd be easy to write essays that mimick that style.

Thanks for your input! He's like a black box about the exam.

[tebowtime23]

Does anyone have tips for Con Law I with professor Law? He's been pretty silent about what the exam is like and what he's looking for on it. Thanks -

I honestly don't remember it that well, but I do remember thinking it was pretty straightforward. Is he still doing modified closed book? (1 page front and back?) I remember having 1 page with normal font and doing very well. If I remember correctly it was basic short answer with 2 mid-length essay questions, one of which included policy arguments. On the whole if you go to class take good notes and pay attention to how he sets things up it won't be much of a problem, he isn't someone who has a particularly idiosyncratic exam.

Yes he is. I've gone to every class and dutifully have not read any chemerisnki. I wasn't sure what the format would be but short answer plus a few essays seems doable.

Did you talk about specific judges' tendancies? Like "a judge like Breyer would probably say X but one like Scalia would give it a more originalist reading with Y."

And do you remember how you switched between narrative 1 (law is logical and holdings make sense) and narrative 2 (law is pure judicial discretion and politics)?

Finally, do you remember if you wrote in a more formal or conversationalist style? His lectures are super conversational and I can see how it'd be easy to write essays that mimick that style.

Thanks for your input! He's like a black box about the exam.

Also, did he have a word limit for his exam?

[RareExports]

If you are a URM, finding a biglaw job is markedly easier and you don't have to worry about grade cutoffs or the like; interviewing well and having medianish grades are likely sufficient for at least secondary market biglaw, if not primary market biglaw.

This is true to a lesser extent for people with other desirable attributes such as vet status, strong STEM major from a top UG, impressive work experience, strong ties to the location or the firm itself, etc. Connections to recruiting attorneys (which can be easily established by attending networking events and such) are certainly helpful.

Assuming you have strictly median grades, and nothing else going for you at all, biglaw (and selective PI) is highly unlikely. All other law, however, is not. Whether "all other law" is desirable is up to you, and it's a very wide variety of jobs.

All that said, for firms that don't pay 145k+, grades are not dis-positive. I've seen too many 1Ls outside the top 20% at WUSTL get 1L SAs to believe otherwise. The issue still remains that only 30ish% is going to get biglaw or fed clerkships. This is not, however, the top 30% by any means.

I'm not from a top UG (tier 1 though), no work experience, but am a STEM major (non EE, but engineering) with a MS degree.
I keep asking here and in admits thread because law school can be a life decision, and it's not easy one to make... WashU is the best offer I have in my hands right now, but employment stat worries me little. Any reading is a lullaby to me, so I don't think I'll do well in law school in general... my guess is strictly median.
Not interested in PI at all. Hoping for IP, anywhere above a mid-size firm would be ok with me. Biglaw will be ideal for the sake of exit option, but if doesn't work out, so be it. I would like 100k+ pay, but not necessarily 145k+. Is this a doable goal at WashU?

I'm waitlisted at multiple T14s and have some pending. Some people advised me to wait for all waitlists, take a year off and reapply, and things like that. But WashU is being really generous to offer full tuition + living stipend, and I think hardly any T14 can beat it. Am I being realistic enough, or should I be chasing a T14 still with my goal?

If you do not enjoy reading dry materially carefully, or are not good at it, I would start with the presumption that law practice may not be a good career choice for you. Obviously, this presumption is not impossible to overcome, and if notions of adversarial justice, for example, appeal to you, law may be a perfectly good career path. But I will strongly caution you that most of law school is reading, and from what I can tell, the emphasis does not decrease in law practice.

As to your specific question, 100k+ pay may be more common than 145k+ pay from Wash U only because the top STL firms pay over 100k but not over 145k. If you have no ties to STL, I don't think it's necessarily any easier to get 100k pay than 145k pay. The only places that will pay a new graduate 100k are going to be biglaw firms, and from there the difference between 100k+ and 145k+ is mostly explained by geography/cost of living. This is all to say that I would treat your desire to get over 100k as the same as getting 145k, which means biglaw or bust. If you are patent bar eligible (it sounds like you probably are), that will help your case, but you will most likely still have trouble getting biglaw at median. The drop in pay for biglaw to non-biglaw is typically much larger than 145k to 100k. You're most realistically looking at 160k to 50-80k.

So I think what you're asking is, is a non-biglaw job paying 100k possible? I don't want to say that it is impossible, but if it exists, it is very much exceptional, and would probably require the same qualifications as biglaw would. This answer goes for any school. There might be some employment opportunities in business that would pay a new graduate 100k, and those are probably more accessible through the very top schools, but I don't think many graduates of any law school who don't get biglaw are making 100k+. Whether that is an acceptable outcome for you is a judgment call.

I hope this is helpful.

[Cellar-door]

Does anyone have tips for Con Law I with professor Law? He's been pretty silent about what the exam is like and what he's looking for on it. Thanks -

I honestly don't remember it that well, but I do remember thinking it was pretty straightforward. Is he still doing modified closed book? (1 page front and back?) I remember having 1 page with normal font and doing very well. If I remember correctly it was basic short answer with 2 mid-length essay questions, one of which included policy arguments. On the whole if you go to class take good notes and pay attention to how he sets things up it won't be much of a problem, he isn't someone who has a particularly idiosyncratic exam.

Yes he is. I've gone to every class and dutifully have not read any chemerisnki. I wasn't sure what the format would be but short answer plus a few essays seems doable.

Did you talk about specific judges' tendancies? Like "a judge like Breyer would probably say X but one like Scalia would give it a more originalist reading with Y."

And do you remember how you switched between narrative 1 (law is logical and holdings make sense) and narrative 2 (law is pure judicial discretion and politics)?

Finally, do you remember if you wrote in a more formal or conversationalist style? His lectures are super conversational and I can see how it'd be easy to write essays that mimick that style.

Thanks for your input! He's like a black box about the exam.

Also, did he have a word limit for his exam?

If I remember correctly there was no word limit.

I definitely brought in different ways something might be looked at out of: Textualism, Originalism, Formalism, Purposivism, Structuralism, Pragmatism, I don't remember if I used the names of justices, but I might have.

I don't remember how if at all I addressed narratives.

I was fairly conversation in my style, I definitely wasn't like IRAC, probably more like how a poli-sci essay would read, so: Here is how it has been done before, here is the reasoning for how it might be addressed in the future, etc.

Sorry I don't have more detail, but it was a couple years ago and I never looked at it again after I took it.

[valen]

Still helpful, thank you!

[JCougar]

What are typical median outcomes at WUSTL?

I want to know about this as well...
and how well does WUSTL place its grads in Chicago? I've been told Chicago is the closest of big markets so it's relatively ok, but really there are a lot of competitions...

Chicago is pretty brutal (or at least it was as of a couple years ago). I'm not sure I'd go to WUSTL with the intent of going to Chicago.

Most people from my class that gave Chicago a shot are severely under-employed--some to the point that their story would probably make you cry.

Illinois is losing population faster than just about any state out there. The job market is shrinking. Less clinets, less need for lawyers. Couple this with the fact that there's about 20 law schools within a 300-mile radius of Chicago all trying to dump their cum laude grads there (a ton of them are Tier 1, too), and you have a recipe for hopelessness.

[star fox]

What are typical median outcomes at WUSTL?

I want to know about this as well...
and how well does WUSTL place its grads in Chicago? I've been told Chicago is the closest of big markets so it's relatively ok, but really there are a lot of competitions...

Chicago is pretty brutal (or at least it was as of a couple years ago). I'm not sure I'd go to WUSTL with the intent of going to Chicago.

Most people from my class that gave Chicago a shot are severely under-employed--some to the point that their story would probably make you cry.

Illinois is losing population faster than just about any state out there. The job market is shrinking. Less clinets, less need for lawyers. Couple this with the fact that there's about 20 law schools within a 300-mile radius of Chicago all trying to dump their cum laude grads there (a ton of them are Tier 1, too), and you have a recipe for hopelessness.

Sidley nearly doubled their class size this year.

[splitterfromhell]

Post removed.

[hoos89]

Median is not a comfortable place to be for most people, but outcomes are widely varied and depend on a ton of factors so nobody can really give you a good answer that is likely to be relevant to you.

[chingwoo]

Can someone address my earlier question about median outcomes? Or is there just no real one-size-fits-all answer?

You can start doing things from day 1 that can increase the likelihood of a positive median outcome. Start getting lunches with attorneys early as possible. Even meeting 2L and 3Ls can get you interviews the next year. Also, get involved in the Missouri Student Bar Association or whatever it is called. Resume building 1L year is also very possible though maybe not recommended by others.

Yes you have to study,no you won't have too much work that you can't do any of this stuff. If you are screwing up exams at 50 hours a week of studying, you are probably getting diminishing marginal returns at 20-30 hours a week of studying. You can slow down as November shows up.

[PeanutsNJam]

Can someone address my earlier question about median outcomes? Or is there just no real one-size-fits-all answer?

Factors considered in hiring besides grades:

- URM status
- Other diversity (non-URM, LGBT, vet, etc.)
- Impressive previous W/E (relevant to the practice group they're trying to fill)
- Personability, eloquence, and general social grace (are you sociable and likeable?)
- Ties to the region
- Ties and connections to the firm (friends with recruiter?)
- Etc.

The weaker your grades, the stronger your overall factors need to be. If you're at median, you're going to need to convince the firm why they should hire you over everybody else applying for the same job. At median, without URM status, I'd say biglaw is very unlikely (but certainly not impossible).

[skyhigh4760]

Maybe (probably) already on this thread but are there any specific names of apartment complexes in Central West End or closer to campus that are really nice and have everything included? Like fitness center, pool, etc. Just curious which complexes have reps for being really nice. Thanks.

[mjs289]

If you do not enjoy reading dry materially carefully, or are not good at it, I would start with the presumption that law practice may not be a good career choice for you. Obviously, this presumption is not impossible to overcome, and if notions of adversarial justice, for example, appeal to you, law may be a perfectly good career path. But I will strongly caution you that most of law school is reading, and from what I can tell, the emphasis does not decrease in law practice.

As to your specific question, 100k+ pay may be more common than 145k+ pay from Wash U only because the top STL firms pay over 100k but not over 145k. If you have no ties to STL, I don't think it's necessarily any easier to get 100k pay than 145k pay. The only places that will pay a new graduate 100k are going to be biglaw firms, and from there the difference between 100k+ and 145k+ is mostly explained by geography/cost of living. This is all to say that I would treat your desire to get over 100k as the same as getting 145k, which means biglaw or bust. If you are patent bar eligible (it sounds like you probably are), that will help your case, but you will most likely still have trouble getting biglaw at median. The drop in pay for biglaw to non-biglaw is typically much larger than 145k to 100k. You're most realistically looking at 160k to 50-80k.

So I think what you're asking is, is a non-biglaw job paying 100k possible? I don't want to say that it is impossible, but if it exists, it is very much exceptional, and would probably require the same qualifications as biglaw would. This answer goes for any school. There might be some employment opportunities in business that would pay a new graduate 100k, and those are probably more accessible through the very top schools, but I don't think many graduates of any law school who don't get biglaw are making 100k+. Whether that is an acceptable outcome for you is a judgment call.

I hope this is helpful.

Thanks. This was really helpful for me to get the picture. I'm aware studying law will not be a good fit, but think I'll be ok once I get a job. I usually enjoy working on practical matter even if it involves reading. Since I'm learning toward patent prosecution side, I'm expecting it'll involve more technical stuff, which should help also.

From what I searched through, many people say biglaw( well any non IP boutique firms in general) don't do much prosecution, but rely heavily on litigation. But I want to do some prosecution if not more than lit at this point, so my goal is more of IP boutiques. Many of them (not huge ones like Fish or Finnegan, but those that would more appropriately classified as mid-size) listed their base salary to be 100k+, so that was more of what I was wondering. Midsized IP boutiques:) I should've been much more specific. 100k+ would be ideal, but lower pays are just fine as long as I can make living. Since I'm not looking into super prestigious biglaw firms or PI, I was thinking WashU would likely yield an objectively better output if I can attend for fullride than going to a T14 with a substantial debt... but again law school is a professional school, so I gotta weigh chances of outcome etc. and not knowing much about WashU prospect troubled me making decisions. It may be a wrong idea but I think pay usually correlates with amount of work and I just want to be somewhere where I can have more opportunity to learn the work, so that's where my 100k+ desire came from. I'm obviously oblivious to law market as a 0L, so any input helps. Since I have no ties in STL, I'll probably end up mass mailing any firms around the country and hope coin falls at a right place...

Again, thank you for taking your time!

[RareExports]

If you do not enjoy reading dry materially carefully, or are not good at it, I would start with the presumption that law practice may not be a good career choice for you. Obviously, this presumption is not impossible to overcome, and if notions of adversarial justice, for example, appeal to you, law may be a perfectly good career path. But I will strongly caution you that most of law school is reading, and from what I can tell, the emphasis does not decrease in law practice.

As to your specific question, 100k+ pay may be more common than 145k+ pay from Wash U only because the top STL firms pay over 100k but not over 145k. If you have no ties to STL, I don't think it's necessarily any easier to get 100k pay than 145k pay. The only places that will pay a new graduate 100k are going to be biglaw firms, and from there the difference between 100k+ and 145k+ is mostly explained by geography/cost of living. This is all to say that I would treat your desire to get over 100k as the same as getting 145k, which means biglaw or bust. If you are patent bar eligible (it sounds like you probably are), that will help your case, but you will most likely still have trouble getting biglaw at median. The drop in pay for biglaw to non-biglaw is typically much larger than 145k to 100k. You're most realistically looking at 160k to 50-80k.

So I think what you're asking is, is a non-biglaw job paying 100k possible? I don't want to say that it is impossible, but if it exists, it is very much exceptional, and would probably require the same qualifications as biglaw would. This answer goes for any school. There might be some employment opportunities in business that would pay a new graduate 100k, and those are probably more accessible through the very top schools, but I don't think many graduates of any law school who don't get biglaw are making 100k+. Whether that is an acceptable outcome for you is a judgment call.

I hope this is helpful.

Thanks. This was really helpful for me to get the picture. I'm aware studying law will not be a good fit, but think I'll be ok once I get a job. I usually enjoy working on practical matter even if it involves reading. Since I'm learning toward patent prosecution side, I'm expecting it'll involve more technical stuff, which should help also.

From what I searched through, many people say biglaw( well any non IP boutique firms in general) don't do much prosecution, but rely heavily on litigation. But I want to do some prosecution if not more than lit at this point, so my goal is more of IP boutiques. Many of them (not huge ones like Fish or Finnegan, but those that would more appropriately classified as mid-size) listed their base salary to be 100k+, so that was more of what I was wondering. Midsized IP boutiques:) I should've been much more specific. 100k+ would be ideal, but lower pays are just fine as long as I can make living. Since I'm not looking into super prestigious biglaw firms or PI, I was thinking WashU would likely yield an objectively better output if I can attend for fullride than going to a T14 with a substantial debt... but again law school is a professional school, so I gotta weigh chances of outcome etc. and not knowing much about WashU prospect troubled me making decisions. It may be a wrong idea but I think pay usually correlates with amount of work and I just want to be somewhere where I can have more opportunity to learn the work, so that's where my 100k+ desire came from. I'm obviously oblivious to law market as a 0L, so any input helps. Since I have no ties in STL, I'll probably end up mass mailing any firms around the country and hope coin falls at a right place...

Again, thank you for taking your time!

I don't know anything about IP boutiques, but my assumptions are that they often do pay 100k+ and that those jobs are not often any easier to get than biglaw.

Much of your ability to get one of those jobs from Wash U, or from any school (or the difference in likelihood between Wash U and another school) is dependent on your STEM qualifications. There are those who are experts, or close to it, in a certain field, and then there are those who were chemistry majors in undergrad. If any of these jobs are easier to get than biglaw (i.e. they don't require as high of a class rank), it is only because of the emphasis placed on technical abilities, and at that point, you're right, school prestige/ranking won't matter as much, but I wouldn't discount it.

This is all based on conjecture though. Someone with IP employment experience would be much more qualified than me to discuss this.

[JCougar]

Sidley nearly doubled their class size this year.

That's encouraging, because not a single person from my class got a job there despite its proximity and size. Completely shut out, no matter what your grades.

And from the looks of their website, they have three attorneys from c/o 2014 (two in Chicago), and only one from 2015. To get jobs at firms like these in Chicago from WUSTL, you pretty much have to be in the top 10%, and it's better if you're in the top 5%. Slightly more leniency if you're IP or URM.

IIT-Kent seriously has better CSO placement in Chicago than does WUSTL. I got nearly a full scholarship there--I shouldn't have turned it down. I really hope the new CSO can figure out how to make inroads into this market...because the St. Louis market isn't open to outsiders, and is only large enough to absorb less than a dozen graduates per year.

[JCougar]

Can someone address my earlier question about median outcomes? Or is there just no real one-size-fits-all answer?

I finished around median, and up until this point, I basically ruined my life going to law school. People with similar grades, or even slightly better, have fared no better, save for a few exceptions.

[hoos89]

Oh come on, more than a dozen people get well paying legal jobs in St Louis each year.

[JCougar]

Oh come on, more than a dozen people get well paying legal jobs in St Louis each year.

I was talking about Biglaw when I said "a dozen." I don't think that's inaccurate, at least from my class. 3-4 went to BC, two went to Greensfelder (one of which lasted only a year and took something like a $40K/year gig as a fallback option), one or two went to Lewis Rice, one or two went to TC. I don't think AT hired anyone. One went to Lanthrop Gage. Another 2-3 went to Littler and/or Ogletree.

Only 5 people from my class (out of 300) got Chicago biglaw. So when you combine that with the above, maybe 15-20 people per year can count on St. Louis or Chicago biglaw. This group from my class was about 50% URM, and at least two of the ones that weren't were IP or combat veterans. All of them were at least cum laude, with most also being magna cum laude.

Yeah, there's another dozen or so in St. Louis that got paying gigs, but most of these jobs pay $40K per year.