Undergrad Reputation in Biglaw hiring Forum

[LegalReality]

Person with firm rejection, never asked firm. Was a lateral candidate from another big firm so obviously wasn't a total barrier for that person.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Actually, I don't think quality of education is really what distinguishes Directional State University from the blueboods, nor do I think you can make any assumptions about a person's intellectual ability based on where they went to school. I could see firms using UG prestige as a tiebreaker when they're deciding between largely equal candidates, but I don't think that has anything to do with the quality of education the person received.

[Otunga]

^^ Agreed. At big state schools, the cliche of "it's what you make of it" applies in terms of education quality.

[bravos89]

I wouldn't worry about it. I don't think going to an unknown UG will really hurt you. In my experience, the only impact of UG on hiring is a slight benefit if you went to a top UG like HYP, Stanford, etc....

[abl]

^^ Agreed. At big state schools, the cliche of "it's what you make of it" applies in terms of education quality.

That's exactly the point. Legal employers have no reliable way of telling what you made of it. How are legal employers supposed to know that, say, U-Mass Amherst has a good art history program? Or that "Psychology of Food" at Nebraska is actually an incredibly challenging class? Worse schools (however defined) are going to have a greater percentage of bad classes than better schools (however defined). The chances that an art history class is a legitimate, challenging class are far greater at a Wesleyan or a Williams than at Western Kentucky. Sure, there are great classes at schools like Western Kentucky. And there are some duds at Wesleyan. But, as a general rule, better schools will have more better classes and fewer crummy classes.

This is not to say that it's not possible at Western Kentucky to get the same quality of education as what most students at Swarthmore get. I am sure that some of the best new lawyers in the country each year went to lousy undergrads. But legal employers have no easy way to figure out if you are one of the few W-KY alums who managed to piece together an incredible education. The fact of the matter is that MOST students at Western Kentucky will not get a comparable education to MOST students at Swarthmore. If you're an employer making an educated guess about the abilities of someone who you are hiring, you'd be foolish to assume that a W-KY graduate came out of college with the same knowledge and skills as a Swarthmore graduate. The key here is the word "assume." If lawyers were hired for one-year trial apprenticeships, the importance of this assumption would diminish as employers could get a sense for themselves of what their candidates' skill bases were. But in our current system of limited information, the best assumption a legal employer can make about a job candidate is one that considers the quality of that candidate's undergraduate education.

[Ricky-Bobby]

^^ Agreed. At big state schools, the cliche of "it's what you make of it" applies in terms of education quality.

That's exactly the point. Legal employers have no reliable way of telling what you made of it. How are legal employers supposed to know that, say, U-Mass Amherst has a good art history program? Or that "Psychology of Food" at Nebraska is actually an incredibly challenging class? Worse schools (however defined) are going to have a greater percentage of bad classes than better schools (however defined). The chances that an art history class is a legitimate, challenging class are far greater at a Wesleyan or a Williams than at Western Kentucky. Sure, there are great classes at schools like Western Kentucky. And there are some duds at Wesleyan. But, as a general rule, better schools will have more better classes and fewer crummy classes.

This is not to say that it's not possible at Western Kentucky to get the same quality of education as what most students at Swarthmore get. I am sure that some of the best new lawyers in the country each year went to lousy undergrads. But legal employers have no easy way to figure out if you are one of the few W-KY alums who managed to piece together an incredible education. The fact of the matter is that MOST students at Western Kentucky will not get a comparable education to MOST students at Swarthmore. If you're an employer making an educated guess about the abilities of someone who you are hiring, you'd be foolish to assume that a W-KY graduate came out of college with the same knowledge and skills as a Swarthmore graduate. The key here is the word "assume." If lawyers were hired for one-year trial apprenticeships, the importance of this assumption would diminish as employers could get a sense for themselves of what their candidates' skill bases were. But in our current system of limited information, the best assumption a legal employer can make about a job candidate is one that considers the quality of that candidate's undergraduate education.

What you're still describing here is asymmetric information, which is often cited as a reason for racial discrimination in hiring (employer doesn't dislike minorities, but knows that a higher percentage of minorities come from disadvantaged backgrounds). There are merits to this argument, but I don't think it applies when there is a post-grad filtering option. Is there a large amount of asymmetric information in law school admissions? Sure. My undergrad GPA should be ignored because my undergrad school is powderpuff. This is irrelevant after admission, though. If I go to HLS and place in the top 10% of the class I obviously have the same abilities as someone else in the top 10% who happened to go to Princeton undergrad. Your assumption that elite undergrad institutions better prepare students in analytic thinking and writing, and that this somehow this translates into post-law school success, is flawed. If anything, someone from Southeastern Kentucky State doing well in an elite law school is more impressive and shows more character.

There very well could be bias in legal hiring based on undergrad. I don't know enough to say either way. I do know that client prestige-whoring makes more sense than your cobbled-together explanation of differing intellectual abilities. Maybe all hiring partners do think like you. I don't know, so my arguments are essentially worthless speculation. Thanks for playing along.

[hopefulapplicant2]

I know someone who attended a top 20 undergraduate school and a public high school. That person went on to attend a top 7 Law school in 1976-1979. That person was Phi Beta Kappa undergraduate and in the top 2% of their law class. While the institution required law firms to interview those students who fell into the gpa range, one firm stood with his back to the student, for the duration of the interview, since the student did not attend a top private prep school or an Ivy league undergraduate school. There was a bias, at that time, for top private prep schools and Ivy League undergraduates. That person did get a big law job in NYC, but not at a blue blood firm. I hope things have changed.

[Teoeo]

If you look through abl's post history, it largely consists of commentary along the lines of:

"I went to only top ranked programs, and as a result I think I can justifiably comment on how much better my education is, how much smarter and more interesting my peers have been, how much more open my intellectual and professional opportunities are, and how exponentially richer my life and experiences are as a result, than yours"

Once you place his comments on this board in context, you can begin to understand how he would arrive at such asinine positions.

As a caveat, I attended equally thoroughly blue blooded institutions myself, but I don't find the "superior core analytic skills" argument at all convincing. The reasonable explanations tend to be far more exogenous. What I do think these prestigious names DO provide on your resume is a critical "bar reaching" measure for future employers, which is to say, they can make certain assumptions about you because someone else has already decided you met a certain standard/level of qualifications, so they won't have to. If your CV says "Johns Hopkins" and "Boston Consulting Group," regardless of your actual experiences as a member of those institutions, the future employer sees instantly you've met that bar and can move on. Less time spent proving yourself.

Meeting client delusions/expectations and the above discussion is far more TCR to me than abl's internal skills-driven argument, although admittedly there's probably a hint of truth and hint of exaggeration to each.

Hey, great, attack me instead of my arguments if you'd like. That's definitely not, as you would say, asinine. But if you actually look at what I'm saying, I think you'll see I'm not making a controversial point here -- that not every school provides an identical quality of education. The value of going to a good undergraduate school is not merely the signal that it provides (that you were a good high school student, for whatever that's worth), but also the education that you receive. Once again, note, that I'm only making a very limited proposition: that as a general rule, better schools (however defined) provide a better education.

What arguments? All you did was speculate as to what hiring partners might think. I am a practicing lawyer and my experience has been that where one goes to UGrad is largely irrelevant.

P.S. - Almost nothing you learn at college has any bearing on your ability to practice law, so whether or not you get a "better education" is moot.

[UVAIce]

If you look through abl's post history, it largely consists of commentary along the lines of:

"I went to only top ranked programs, and as a result I think I can justifiably comment on how much better my education is, how much smarter and more interesting my peers have been, how much more open my intellectual and professional opportunities are, and how exponentially richer my life and experiences are as a result, than yours"

Once you place his comments on this board in context, you can begin to understand how he would arrive at such asinine positions.

As a caveat, I attended equally thoroughly blue blooded institutions myself, but I don't find the "superior core analytic skills" argument at all convincing. The reasonable explanations tend to be far more exogenous. What I do think these prestigious names DO provide on your resume is a critical "bar reaching" measure for future employers, which is to say, they can make certain assumptions about you because someone else has already decided you met a certain standard/level of qualifications, so they won't have to. If your CV says "Johns Hopkins" and "Boston Consulting Group," regardless of your actual experiences as a member of those institutions, the future employer sees instantly you've met that bar and can move on. Less time spent proving yourself.

Meeting client delusions/expectations and the above discussion is far more TCR to me than abl's internal skills-driven argument, although admittedly there's probably a hint of truth and hint of exaggeration to each.

Hey, great, attack me instead of my arguments if you'd like. That's definitely not, as you would say, asinine. But if you actually look at what I'm saying, I think you'll see I'm not making a controversial point here -- that not every school provides an identical quality of education. The value of going to a good undergraduate school is not merely the signal that it provides (that you were a good high school student, for whatever that's worth), but also the education that you receive. Once again, note, that I'm only making a very limited proposition: that as a general rule, better schools (however defined) provide a better education.

I have had the opportunity to spend a reasonable amount of time, at least one year, at institutions that run the gamut of "higher education" and I have to say that the actual education you receive is fairly equal across the board when it comes to the basics. I think the real difference comes in the fact that the body of talent at elite institutions is a lot deeper - at times arguably the entire class - whereas at a mediocre or poor college the body of elite talent might only be three to five percent of the class(if that).

Your argument on why an elite institution on the candidate's resume should be the deciding point between two otherwise equal or similar rising 2Ls receiving a job at a big law firm should be (fairly) based on undergrad credentials seems a bit weak. For one, kids are accepted into elite institutions because they did better on standardized tests and tests while they were in high school. Sure, there are some paper based classes in high school, but the level and amount of writing required for an A in high school English is not high. So Charlie gets into Dartmouth because he did well in high school and on the SAT. Who says he paid attention while he was at Dartmouth? His grades? Thank you grade inflation. Or lets say Charlie goes to Brown and spends his days learning about the patriarchy and sustainable basket weaving. That kid should automatically, or near automatically, get the nod over state U kid who couldn't afford to go to Vanderbilt and decided to go the ETSU with a full-ride? I don't think so.

And this logic gets weaker when you consider that we aren't looking at these candidates right out of college, but after they've been processed and screened by an elite law school where the ETSU bro did amazing. Let's be honest and say that the "quality of education" is not what is at play here.

What is a legitimate reason for going with elite institution x rather than state U is that the kid who went to the elite institution has, likely, a better business network. His friends, if he had any, are more likely to reach positions where they could provide meaningful work to a large law firm. There is also a sort of panache in our culture that comes with saying that so and so went to (insert name of elite institution here) that you don't get from saying that your lawyer went to ETSU for undergrad. In our culture it's a mark of immediate competence; it's something akin to saying that we hired Cravath to handle the matter.

And I have to say that I noticed a real advantage in hiring if someone went to an elite institution. The only firms where I didn't receive a callback were those firms that almost only hired kids that went to top undergrads. But let's not kid ourselves and say that they get the nod for their superior education. It's all about the cachet of hiring from the Ivy League.

[woosah]

In our current system of limited information, the best assumption a legal employer can make about a job candidate is one that considers the quality of that candidate's undergraduate education.

I think there are two arguments against this. The first one is the one that has been already made multiple times on this thread:

1. Any difference in "core analytic skills" between individual "x" who went to University of Florida and individual "y" who went to Princeton is accounted for by their performance in law school.

However, I see your point:

Perhaps there are some skills which aren't accounted for by the metrics of performance in law school. And it is reasonable to assume that y is better in those skills than x.

The problem with this point is that there isn't much reason to believe that employers are interested in these skills to any meaningful degree.


There is a second argument to be made, as well.

2. Perhaps x has skills that y does not in virtue of having attended an undergraduate institution of lower quality.

Perhaps y had more resources than x which nurtured his performance (i.e. resources that led him to have a better GPA, led him to have a higher LSAT, led him to have a better LOR, led him to have better experiences on his resume). If the two students reached the same point in class rank (e.g. top 5%), then one could argue that x has abilities that y does not which allowed him to overcome his "lack of resources."

Of course, to make this argument, one would have to show that this difference in skill isn't accounted for by the metrics of performance in law school. But, then again, this is the same burden that lies on your argument.

[abl]

^^ Agreed. At big state schools, the cliche of "it's what you make of it" applies in terms of education quality.

That's exactly the point. Legal employers have no reliable way of telling what you made of it. How are legal employers supposed to know that, say, U-Mass Amherst has a good art history program? Or that "Psychology of Food" at Nebraska is actually an incredibly challenging class? Worse schools (however defined) are going to have a greater percentage of bad classes than better schools (however defined). The chances that an art history class is a legitimate, challenging class are far greater at a Wesleyan or a Williams than at Western Kentucky. Sure, there are great classes at schools like Western Kentucky. And there are some duds at Wesleyan. But, as a general rule, better schools will have more better classes and fewer crummy classes.

This is not to say that it's not possible at Western Kentucky to get the same quality of education as what most students at Swarthmore get. I am sure that some of the best new lawyers in the country each year went to lousy undergrads. But legal employers have no easy way to figure out if you are one of the few W-KY alums who managed to piece together an incredible education. The fact of the matter is that MOST students at Western Kentucky will not get a comparable education to MOST students at Swarthmore. If you're an employer making an educated guess about the abilities of someone who you are hiring, you'd be foolish to assume that a W-KY graduate came out of college with the same knowledge and skills as a Swarthmore graduate. The key here is the word "assume." If lawyers were hired for one-year trial apprenticeships, the importance of this assumption would diminish as employers could get a sense for themselves of what their candidates' skill bases were. But in our current system of limited information, the best assumption a legal employer can make about a job candidate is one that considers the quality of that candidate's undergraduate education.

What you're still describing here is asymmetric information, which is often cited as a reason for racial discrimination in hiring (employer doesn't dislike minorities, but knows that a higher percentage of minorities come from disadvantaged backgrounds). There are merits to this argument, but I don't think it applies when there is a post-grad filtering option. Is there a large amount of asymmetric information in law school admissions? Sure. My undergrad GPA should be ignored because my undergrad school is powderpuff. This is irrelevant after admission, though. If I go to HLS and place in the top 10% of the class I obviously have the same abilities as someone else in the top 10% who happened to go to Princeton undergrad. Your assumption that elite undergrad institutions better prepare students in analytic thinking and writing, and that this somehow this translates into post-law school success, is flawed. If anything, someone from Southeastern Kentucky State doing well in an elite law school is more impressive and shows more character.

There very well could be bias in legal hiring based on undergrad. I don't know enough to say either way. I do know that client prestige-whoring makes more sense than your cobbled-together explanation of differing intellectual abilities. Maybe all hiring partners do think like you. I don't know, so my arguments are essentially worthless speculation. Thanks for playing along.

Thanks for actually engaging with my arguments. The problem is that the abilities required to place in the top 10% at Harvard Law School (or anywhere else) are not necessarily the relevant abilities for predicting lawyer ability. If they were, then I would totally agree with you. But I would guess that few on this board really believe that law school performance captures all or even most of the relevant considerations -- writing ability, speaking ability, and research ability, for example, are three of the most important traits possessed by a good lawyer. Yet, research and speaking ability may not factor into one's law school standing at all, and writing ability only influences performance insofar as (1) you're able to communicate your ideas on exams better, and/or (2) you choose to take paper classes. Law school exams, instead, by and large test students' ability to master, memorize, and regurgitate legal concepts in an artificially compressed time period. Typing speed, recall speed, and overall test-taking acumen, therefore, often take precedence over writing ability or even grasp of legal concepts. Is someone in the top 10% at HLS likely also adept at mastering difficult legal issues? Of course! But like it or not, school standing is only an imperfect measurement of even that most core trait.

So, no, if you place in the top 10% at HLS you don't necessarily have the same abilities as someone who went to Princeton undergrad and did. You very well may. And you may have better abilities. But we can't know that without looking beyond your class standing / law school. Unless law firms want to ask for several writing samples and actually call references, quality of undergrad is one of the next best proxy signals for the sort of relevant abilities that are not well-captured by law school performance.

[abl]

If you look through abl's post history, it largely consists of commentary along the lines of:

"I went to only top ranked programs, and as a result I think I can justifiably comment on how much better my education is, how much smarter and more interesting my peers have been, how much more open my intellectual and professional opportunities are, and how exponentially richer my life and experiences are as a result, than yours"

Once you place his comments on this board in context, you can begin to understand how he would arrive at such asinine positions.

As a caveat, I attended equally thoroughly blue blooded institutions myself, but I don't find the "superior core analytic skills" argument at all convincing. The reasonable explanations tend to be far more exogenous. What I do think these prestigious names DO provide on your resume is a critical "bar reaching" measure for future employers, which is to say, they can make certain assumptions about you because someone else has already decided you met a certain standard/level of qualifications, so they won't have to. If your CV says "Johns Hopkins" and "Boston Consulting Group," regardless of your actual experiences as a member of those institutions, the future employer sees instantly you've met that bar and can move on. Less time spent proving yourself.

Meeting client delusions/expectations and the above discussion is far more TCR to me than abl's internal skills-driven argument, although admittedly there's probably a hint of truth and hint of exaggeration to each.

Hey, great, attack me instead of my arguments if you'd like. That's definitely not, as you would say, asinine. But if you actually look at what I'm saying, I think you'll see I'm not making a controversial point here -- that not every school provides an identical quality of education. The value of going to a good undergraduate school is not merely the signal that it provides (that you were a good high school student, for whatever that's worth), but also the education that you receive. Once again, note, that I'm only making a very limited proposition: that as a general rule, better schools (however defined) provide a better education.

What arguments? All you did was speculate as to what hiring partners might think. I am a practicing lawyer and my experience has been that where one goes to UGrad is largely irrelevant.

P.S. - Almost nothing you learn at college has any bearing on your ability to practice law, so whether or not you get a "better education" is moot.

I didn't just speculate -- I am also making normative arguments as to what hiring partners should think and should do.

Incidentally, I am also a practicing lawyer, and I use far more of what I learned in undergrad in practicing law than what I learned at my law school. I don't know what you learned in undergrad, or what you do as a lawyer, but in my job, good writing, critical thinking, and research skills are easily the most important abilities that differentiate good lawyers from bad (and these are all things that I learned far more about in undergrad than in law school). I suppose that as I grow in my career business development will take on greater and greater importance, but that's years away and really only important for someone looking to make partner. What would you say the most important skills are for being a lawyer?

[BankruptMe]

I think that this is pertinent. There was an article written about how going to Harvard MBA program, without doing a prestigious job/undergrad, is not going to gain you the same opportunities as someone who has the prestige background. If you go to Big State Univ, work 5 years, go to HBS, you are not going to have the same opportunities as the Princeton history major, 2 years IBD, 2 years PE student.

Essentially, law firms want highly credentialed employees so they can charge the price that they do and to put corporations at ease...as was told to me from a borderline millionaire consultant..."I mean, all lawyers are the same...but hey, at K&L Gates, you get a Harvard grad on your case and it puts my clients at ease."

Here is another article:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/01/news/ec ... e.fortune/

Why would it not apply to law?

[anyriotgirl]

Can we gloss what we're talking about when we talk about "prestigious undergrad"? Are we talking about schools beyond HYP? How far beyond? Do schools like Brown/Cornell/Dartmouth count? Hopkins/Georgetown/Emory?

[ph14]

I did not come from a prestigious undergrad and I did just fine in OCI, clerkships, etc. Seems like, for the most part, people care much more about law school. The exception would be if you did something truly exceptional in undergrad, and even then, it's fairly minimal.

[abl]

I have had the opportunity to spend a reasonable amount of time, at least one year, at institutions that run the gamut of "higher education" and I have to say that the actual education you receive is fairly equal across the board when it comes to the basics. I think the real difference comes in the fact that the body of talent at elite institutions is a lot deeper - at times arguably the entire class - whereas at a mediocre or poor college the body of elite talent might only be three to five percent of the class(if that).

Well, if we're going to play the battle of the anecdotes game, I also have spent significant amounts of time studying at different higher ed institutions of differing qualities (I have three degrees and a certification from six schools) and my quality of education wildly varied. I have also taught in two different post-graduate institutions and that experience only confirmed what I had suspected as a student -- what is taught and what is learned, at least in the humanities, varies enormously qualitatively from institution to institution. The fact that you have experienced otherwise only tells me that the institutions you attended may not have been as different in quality as you thought. In my experience, the most prestigious schools are not always the best schools. I would take an Oberlin grad over a Harvard grad any day, for example. Note that I have made no claims about prestige -- only about quality.

Note also that the reason why I have been arguing that undergraduate institution should matter is because of the education received. I absolutely agree with you that it's unfair that some students get to go to Dartmouth because they have lived a privileged life. It's an injustice I have spent a significant amount of my life working to mitigate. Part of the injustice is that the difference between Peter Privilege and the guy who has to live locally and work two jobs college only grows through college. And yes, it may be in many ways MORE impressive for the guy who works two jobs in college to get straight A's at his community college than it is for Peter to do the same at Harvard. I would be in favor of law firms looking at these sorts of things, too, in making decisions! But none of this changes the fact that a community college English class is not equivalent to a Harvard English class, and in more instances than not, Peter will graduate from Harvard with better developed writing and thinking skills than the guy who went to community college. Does that mean that a firm should hire Peter over the community college guy? Maybe not. But it's certainly one relevant factor the firm should consider in deciding between the two candidates.

Now, in many ways this hypothetical is entirely false. The best schools work hard to attract students who don't come from privilege. And many, many students of privilege attend mediocre schools -- because they screwed up high school, because their parents are cheap, because they want to stay close to home, etc. Most Harvard kids are solidly middle class -- not all that different from most kids at lower ranked (especially lower ranked private) institutions. So I agree -- employers should be considering privilege in evaluating candidates as well. A candidate who graduated from a tribal college in AZ and then went on to be top 10% of HLS would be incredibly impressive. But in most instances, schools are going to be comparing graduates of Berkeley to graduates of Bowling Green, or graduates of Williams to graduates of Wheaton. In such circumstances, without more, it would not be reasonable to assume that whatever advantages in education the Berkeley kid had should be counterbalanced in "overcoming adversity" points for the BGSU kid.

Finally, sure, a basket weaving major at Brown may not have gotten that great of an education relative to an aerospace engineer from Michigan State. Fortunately, legal employers can see what you majored in (at least if they want to) and discount it accordingly. So this presents no problem for a legal employer looking to take into account undergraduate education.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Totally agree with UVAice that the quality of education is pretty comparable across the board. Swarthmore doesn't necessarily get you a better education. It gets you (generally) richer classmates who come from high-achieving backgrounds/educational settings, and it gets you connections and a bunch of social cachet. There were plenty of people at my Swarthmore-like (but better ) undergrad who drank and partied and coasted their way through - again, the education is what you make of it. I'd go so far as to say that the elite UGs can provide some opportunities not available at Directional State, but that's still no reason to assume someone from the elite UG is better than someone from Directional State. (Big state universities offer other kinds of opportunities.)

[theotherone823]

I think that this is pertinent. There was an article written about how going to Harvard MBA program, without doing a prestigious job/undergrad, is not going to gain you the same opportunities as someone who has the prestige background. If you go to Big State Univ, work 5 years, go to HBS, you are not going to have the same opportunities as the Princeton history major, 2 years IBD, 2 years PE student.

Essentially, law firms want highly credentialed employees so they can charge the price that they do and to put corporations at ease...as was told to me from a borderline millionaire consultant..."I mean, all lawyers are the same...but hey, at K&L Gates, you get a Harvard grad on your case and it puts my clients at ease."

Here is another article:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/01/news/ec ... e.fortune/

Why would it not apply to law?

This is, I think, TCR. It seams completely naïve to think that a person's undergraduate institution is a complete non-factor in hiring decisions. But to the degree that it is considered - and I would imagine that it is among the least important factors - it is all about the amount of prestige that is associated with the school. It is simply a fact that just having a prestigious name like Harvard or Yale on your degree is going to open more doors for you that if your degree is from Podunk State University. Hell, the prestige and name recognition that come with attending certain schools are a large part of why many people choose to attend them.

That said, the assentation being thrown around ITT by some that someone who went to a "better" or "more prestigious" UG school is somehow automatically smarter or better prepared to be a lawyer - and therefore "more qualified" for a job with all other factors being held constant - is laughably stupid. Going UG and getting a degree is going to teach you the basic required skills - reading, writing, research, analytical thinking - necessary to be a successful lawyer regardless of where you go. A 19th Century English Lit class is still 19th Century English Lit whether you take it at Harvard or Podunk State and the material covered is the same. The principles of Mathematics or Engineering don't suddenly become easier to grasp just because you study them at MIT. The difference in "quality of education" across institutions is marginal at best.

[dwil770]

Totally agree with UVAice that the quality of education is pretty comparable across the board. Swarthmore doesn't necessarily get you a better education. It gets you (generally) richer classmates who come from high-achieving backgrounds/educational settings, and it gets you connections and a bunch of social cachet. There were plenty of people at my Swarthmore-like (but better ) undergrad who drank and partied and coasted their way through - again, the education is what you make of it. I'd go so far as to say that the elite UGs can provide some opportunities not available at Directional State, but that's still no reason to assume someone from the elite UG is better than someone from Directional State. (Big state universities offer other kinds of opportunities.)

Maybe big firms don't want to play Pretty Woman with all their hires from Directional State.

[MistakenGenius]

Post removed.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Totally agree with UVAice that the quality of education is pretty comparable across the board. Swarthmore doesn't necessarily get you a better education. It gets you (generally) richer classmates who come from high-achieving backgrounds/educational settings, and it gets you connections and a bunch of social cachet. There were plenty of people at my Swarthmore-like (but better ) undergrad who drank and partied and coasted their way through - again, the education is what you make of it. I'd go so far as to say that the elite UGs can provide some opportunities not available at Directional State, but that's still no reason to assume someone from the elite UG is better than someone from Directional State. (Big state universities offer other kinds of opportunities.)

Maybe big firms don't want to play Pretty Woman with all their hires from Directional State.

Well, that's charming.

[FKASunny]

Totally agree with UVAice that the quality of education is pretty comparable across the board. Swarthmore doesn't necessarily get you a better education. It gets you (generally) richer classmates who come from high-achieving backgrounds/educational settings, and it gets you connections and a bunch of social cachet. There were plenty of people at my Swarthmore-like (but better ) undergrad who drank and partied and coasted their way through - again, the education is what you make of it. I'd go so far as to say that the elite UGs can provide some opportunities not available at Directional State, but that's still no reason to assume someone from the elite UG is better than someone from Directional State. (Big state universities offer other kinds of opportunities.)

Maybe big firms don't want to play Pretty Woman with all their hires from Directional State.

Well, that's charming.

When I'm successful and drowning in models and bottles, I'm going to hang a giant Pretty Woman movie poster in my office.

[hichvichwoh]

If you look through abl's post history, it largely consists of commentary along the lines of:

"I went to only top ranked programs, and as a result I think I can justifiably comment on how much better my education is, how much smarter and more interesting my peers have been, how much more open my intellectual and professional opportunities are, and how exponentially richer my life and experiences are as a result, than yours"

Once you place his comments on this board in context, you can begin to understand how he would arrive at such asinine positions.

As a caveat, I attended equally thoroughly blue blooded institutions myself, but I don't find the "superior core analytic skills" argument at all convincing. The reasonable explanations tend to be far more exogenous. What I do think these prestigious names DO provide on your resume is a critical "bar reaching" measure for future employers, which is to say, they can make certain assumptions about you because someone else has already decided you met a certain standard/level of qualifications, so they won't have to. If your CV says "Johns Hopkins" and "Boston Consulting Group," regardless of your actual experiences as a member of those institutions, the future employer sees instantly you've met that bar and can move on. Less time spent proving yourself.

Meeting client delusions/expectations and the above discussion is far more TCR to me than abl's internal skills-driven argument, although admittedly there's probably a hint of truth and hint of exaggeration to each.

Hey, great, attack me instead of my arguments if you'd like. That's definitely not, as you would say, asinine. But if you actually look at what I'm saying, I think you'll see I'm not making a controversial point here -- that not every school provides an identical quality of education. The value of going to a good undergraduate school is not merely the signal that it provides (that you were a good high school student, for whatever that's worth), but also the education that you receive. Once again, note, that I'm only making a very limited proposition: that as a general rule, better schools (however defined) provide a better education.

I'm busy, and it would take too long to read and process your arguments. Therefore, based on what UG schools you went to, I think jbagelboy is correct.

[abl]

hat said, the assentation being thrown around ITT by some that someone who went to a "better" or "more prestigious" UG school is somehow automatically smarter or better prepared to be a lawyer - and therefore "more qualified" for a job with all other factors being held constant - is laughably stupid.

Nobody's made that assertion. The assertion I'm making is that someone who went to a better UG school (NOT the same thing as "more prestigious") is going to be a safer bet for hiring with all other factors being held constant -- e.g., that the AVERAGE person who goes to a good undergrad is better prepared to be a lawyer than the average person who does not. There will be many, many individuals who buck that rule. As has been pointed out, many drink and party their way through great undergrads. And there are students who work incredibly hard to maximize their educational opportunities at even the worst schools. But because employers cannot know how hard you worked, or how rigorous your classes were, looking at where you went to undergrad is the next best thing.

Going UG and getting a degree is going to teach you the basic required skills - reading, writing, research, analytical thinking - necessary to be a successful lawyer regardless of where you go. A 19th Century English Lit class is still 19th Century English Lit whether you take it at Harvard or Podunk State and the material covered is the same. The principles of Mathematics or Engineering don't suddenly become easier to grasp just because you study them at MIT. The difference in "quality of education" across institutions is marginal at best.

Sure, maybe you'll come away with the BASIC required skills, but not all people learn how to read, write, research, or analytically think on the same level. Spend about 16 minutes in practice and you'll see that first-hand for yourself; many lawyers are terrible writers, are terrible researchers, or are terrible analytical thinkers (many are lousy at all of them at once). Yet you are correct -- they all learned how to read, write, research, and think in college. Just some learned better than others.

And, no, a 19th Century English Lit class is not the same whether you take it at Harvard or Podunk State. Having both taught and taken similar classes at similar schools, I can personally vouch for that. The material taught in a 19th C. lit class will vary from professor to professor and from school to school -- so the class you'll take at Princeton likely will be very different from the class you take at Yale. Not necessarily better. But different. Those differences start to have a qualitative tinge at worse schools (note I didn't say less prestigious -- I said worse. Some little-known schools will have wonderful English departments). The amount that faculty can expect for their students to do at a Podunk State is, like it or not, less than at Harvard. In part this is because as an English Lit professor, you have to focus more on basics: how to write in complete sentences, how to use topic sentences, etc. It's horrifying that college students don't know how to do this, but many don't (far fewer don't at better schools). (It's also because professors at Podunk State often went to Podunk State and therefore don't have intimate knowledge of what higher expectations can look like.) At Harvard, professors have the luxury at starting their discussions and analyses at a higher level -- so you may end up reading many of the same books, and learning the same set of facts about the authors, but your discussion of how the imagery impacts the themes (and whatnot) will vary. And because most Harvard students pick things up quickly, professors at good schools can move quickly to more and more complex ideas. Moreover, the expectations of workload and final product vary widely based on the quality of an institution. I have taught at and attended schools where it's considered unreasonably rigorous to assign/be assigned more than several books each semester. And I have taught at and attended schools where it's considered standard to read a book a week. I have taught at and attended schools where students routinely write papers the night before they're due. And I have taught at and attended schools where most students (not all, but most) spend days reworking and revising papers before turning them in. There are huge differences from school-to-school in these sorts of expectations. Now, not all Harvard professors may fully take advantage of this, and some Podunk state professors will manage to get their students to a high level quickly. So I imagine there will continue to be folks on this board who loudly proclaim about how they went to "lousy school x" and "prestigious school y" and didn't find them all that different. But having had years of teaching experience, I promise you that the material covered in classes at these schools as a general rule will not be identical (notwithstanding the occasionally Harvard or Podunk State class to the contrary). Finally, the quality of the other students in a class have a huge impact on the quality of that class (especially in the humanities). The best humanities classes are discussion classes, and in schools filled with students who struggle academically -- and who often don't take their work seriously -- the quality of a classroom discussion can really suffer. And sure, there are dunces and partiers at Harvard, too. And no, not all discussion classes at Harvard are going to rock (less so, probably at a place like Swarthmore). But the quality of discussion at better schools is better than that at worse schools. And because what you're really learning from an English class is not about the Brontes or the early modernists, but how to read, write, and discuss difficult concepts, the quality of classroom discussions ends up really mattering.

[A. Nony Mouse]

FWIW, I also have years of teaching experience at a variety of schools. And while I agree there are obviously differences between schools, I disagree that employers can/should assume that the average person who goes to prestigious school X was better prepared to be a lawyer by that school. I think you can make some very rough assumptions about the demographic makeup of a given school and employers probably use those demographics as a proxy for ability,* but I don't think that has anything to do with quality of education.

*see Scalia's comment about hiring clerks out of HY because he knows they have to be smart just to get in - not because he thinks the education at those schools is any better.