Undergrad Reputation in Biglaw hiring Forum

[cotiger]

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.

BOOM

HEADSHOT.

[whereskyle]

OP here. Conclusion: Yes, it may matter in certain instances, depending on the one doing the considering. It makes sense that law firms would want clients to see nothing but the most prestigious schools when they search associates. (Not that they typically will do this.) Making the choice to save $ in undergrad is a choice that distinguishes candidates from those who paid for a recognizable brand. These things, of course, say nothing of the education actually received. The kicker is that someone from School General Mills may get in the door to discuss the quality of their education, while someone from School CVS Brand may not get in that door to have that discussion. I do take solace in the fact that my UG is not a directional state U. Hopefully, it will raise some eyebrows and some interest when the time comes.

[chneyo]

...

[bearsfan23]

It doesn't matter, but you're posting on a board full of paranoid law students, so of course TLS thinks it does

[Balthy]

One of my professors taught at U Penn before coming to my TTT undergrad, so I asked him if he teaches the same stuff in his courses now as he did at his previous school. He candidly told me that, if he did, it would go over everyone's heads. That's just my bit of worthless anecdotal evidence, since everyone is sharing. He did say that he thinks the top students at my TTT are just as smart as those at elite schools (maybe just to make me feel better).

ETA now that i think about it, I also took courses at oxbridge and i think i got WAY more from that prof at my TTT who counted me as one of those "top students" and thus gave me more attention than others. so maybe what the other poster said is right: for state schools, it's really what you make of it. 90% of my class just didn't give a shit.

[IgosduIkana]

Thanks for the balls in pants recommendation.

Please tell me what this means exactly so I can use it in conversation

[Balthy]

Thanks for the balls in pants recommendation.

Please tell me what this means exactly so I can use it in conversation

Lol, just in case you guys are serious..

Someone told OP not to go "balls out" and proclaim that his undergrad is the best for training future lawyers.

OP replies, thanks for the balls in pants recommendation.

Whenever I hear someone say "balls out," I don't think of actual testicles flying across the room, so don't worry, I was a bit confused by OP's response too.

[bonerland]

.

[banjo]

Going to a top undergrad helps in two ways:

1) It slightly increases the chance that you'll interview with a fellow alum, given that a disproportionate number of big firm attorneys went to top undergrads. Interviewing with a fellow alum makes it easier to connect. Huge advantage.

2) Your "academic background" just looks more impressive on first blush. Again, that can tip an interviewer in your favor.

Grades and law school obviously matter a lot more.

[Total Litigator]

In all fairness to abl.

The following is anecdotal, but true.

I went to a state undergrad. Scored in the 99th SAT percentile and had a 3.9 in highschool, but chose scholarship money over big debt at a more 'prestigious' school (nothing like HYPS though). I didn't take my undergrad seriously because I found I could pull off A-'s (pfff who needs A's right? Ha...) in my econ classes with minimal studying. Just memorize the formula's the night before, plug the test info in the next day.

Spring term of my senior year, I chose to take an econ class of a professor who was visiting from his tenure at Princeton. He warned everyone in the class the first day that he always failed 1/2 the class, so anyone who wasn't cool with that should leave. First test of his I took blew my mind and I got a C on it. Average grade on that test was an F. He told the class straight there would be no curving. 2/3 of that class ended up dropping the class soon after that. About 100 students down to 30 in the first few weeks.

I ended up getting a B in that class and it was by far the most challenging class I had taken thus far. I spoke with the Prof and he said that he had been asked by the Dep to focus less on theory and critical application of concepts and more on straightforward application of formulas. But he said F that I'm teaching this class like I taught it at Princeton.

And the average grade across the 30 remaining people in the class was a B, not an F. In his mind, he had failed out all those 70 people who dropped his class.

I think if I had all classes of that calibar, I would had in fact grown more intellectually in college.

So now I'm trying to play catch-up.

[chuckbass]

In all fairness to abl.

The following is anecdotal, but true.

I went to a state undergrad. Scored in the 99th SAT percentile and had a 3.9 in highschool, but chose scholarship money over big debt at a more 'prestigious' school (nothing like HYPS though). I didn't take my undergrad seriously because I found I could pull off A-'s (pfff who needs A's right? Ha...) in my econ classes with minimal studying. Just memorize the formula's the night before, plug the test info in the next day.

Spring term of my senior year, I chose to take an econ class of a professor who was visiting from his tenure at Princeton. He warned everyone in the class the first day that he always failed 1/2 the class, so anyone who wasn't cool with that should leave. First test of his I took blew my mind and I got a C on it. Average grade on that test was an F. He told the class straight there would be no curving. 2/3 of that class ended up dropping the class soon after that. About 100 students down to 30 in the first few weeks.

I ended up getting a B in that class and it was by far the most challenging class I had taken thus far. I spoke with the Prof and he said that he had been asked by the Dep to focus less on theory and critical application of concepts and more on straightforward application of formulas. But he said F that I'm teaching this class like I taught it at Princeton.

And the average grade across the 30 remaining people in the class was a B, not an F. In his mind, he had failed out all those 70 people who dropped his class.

I think if I had all classes of that calibar, I would had in fact grown more intellectually in college.

So now I'm trying to play catch-up.

This anecdote again follows the "what you make of it" argument. Before that class, you were content with goofing off and getting an A-.

[A. Nony Mouse]

The other thing about that anecdote* is that based on what the professor said, he failed half the students at Princeton, too, which makes me wonder whether the difference in quality had anything to do with the school as opposed to just that particular professor's practices. There are certainly harder and easier professors at every school.

*I fully recognize that my own anecdotes are also only anecdotes, and not any better than anyone else's, so I don't mean that as a criticism.

[patogordo]

i'm pretty skeptical of the world-shattering genius of any professor who says shit like "i always fail half the class"

[jbagelboy]

In all fairness to abl.

The following is anecdotal, but true.

I went to a state undergrad. Scored in the 99th SAT percentile and had a 3.9 in highschool, but chose scholarship money over big debt at a more 'prestigious' school (nothing like HYPS though). I didn't take my undergrad seriously because I found I could pull off A-'s (pfff who needs A's right? Ha...) in my econ classes with minimal studying. Just memorize the formula's the night before, plug the test info in the next day.

Spring term of my senior year, I chose to take an econ class of a professor who was visiting from his tenure at Princeton. He warned everyone in the class the first day that he always failed 1/2 the class, so anyone who wasn't cool with that should leave. First test of his I took blew my mind and I got a C on it. Average grade on that test was an F. He told the class straight there would be no curving. 2/3 of that class ended up dropping the class soon after that. About 100 students down to 30 in the first few weeks.

I ended up getting a B in that class and it was by far the most challenging class I had taken thus far. I spoke with the Prof and he said that he had been asked by the Dep to focus less on theory and critical application of concepts and more on straightforward application of formulas. But he said F that I'm teaching this class like I taught it at Princeton.

And the average grade across the 30 remaining people in the class was a B, not an F. In his mind, he had failed out all those 70 people who dropped his class.

I think if I had all classes of that calibar, I would had in fact grown more intellectually in college.

So now I'm trying to play catch-up.

This anecdote again follows the "what you make of it" argument. Before that class, you were content with goofing off and getting an A-.

Sounds like the prof had an axe to grind.. Also princeton is notoriously grade deflating. If it was a Brown or Harvard prof, might have increased the class median gpa.

[Mack.Hambleton]

Because those who go to good undergrads are more likely to be strong writers and strong critical thinkers than those who go to bad undergrads (because that is much of what you get from a good undergraduate education), it is less likely that a candidate who went to Amherst -> Harvard Law and graduated top 25% is simply a good test taker than a candidate who went to Southeastern Kentucky State -> Harvard Law and graduated top 25%.

I don't think this argument is nearly as convincing as the "we're buttboys to prestige whores, so we'll prestige whore too" argument.

This. /thread

[TigerDude]

The people who care are the people who think they are personally awesome because of their undergrad degree. Yes, these people exist. They are terrible people, but they clearly exist.

[crit_racer]

It doesn't matter. LS+grades and being cool/nice/notweird are all that matters for biglaw

[Pancakes12]

How much does high-school preftige matter for BIGLAW???

[Hipster but Athletic]

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.

Are you kidding me? You think that if I holler from a balcony on spring break at a group of 8 ole miss chicks to come up and play drinking games... and then do the same at a group of duke chicks, there's no way to predict who will be smarter?

[hichvichwoh]

The people who care are the people who think they are personally awesome because of their undergrad degree. Yes, these people exist. They are terrible people, but they clearly exist.

also, they are your bosses/clients

[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.

Are you kidding me? You think that if I holler from a balcony on spring break at a group of 8 ole miss chicks to come up and play drinking games... and then do the same at a group of duke chicks, there's no way to predict who will be smarter?

I think you can make predictions about their demographics and you can assume that the Duke chicks had test scores/grades above X, where X is whatever it takes to get into Duke. You can't assume the state school chicks don't, though, because you don't know why they went to that school. And you also can't assume that high school grades/test scores are an accurate indication of intelligence without having more info.

Or let me put it this way: there probably are more less smart people at the state school than at Duke, but when faced with any one of those people, you can't tell whether they fall into that category or not.

Besides, the debate was about quality of education received, not raw intelligence. The argument was that firms are picking people from the elite school because they know the elite school better prepares someone to be a lawyer. If the point was that firms pick people from the elite UGs because they know on average students at Princeton have higher grades/SATs than students from State School X, sure, I wouldn't argue with that.

[haus]

If you did not attend an elementary school that is big in prestige, you are done for.

[Mack.Hambleton]

How much does high-school preftige matter for BIGLAW???

One time during an interview the guy looked at my resume, saw I hadn't attended exeter phillips, and threw my resume into the trash

[Hipster but Athletic]

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.

Are you kidding me? You think that if I holler from a balcony on spring break at a group of 8 ole miss chicks to come up and play drinking games... and then do the same at a group of duke chicks, there's no way to predict who will be smarter?

I think you can make predictions about their demographics and you can assume that the Duke chicks had test scores/grades above X, where X is whatever it takes to get into Duke. You can't assume the state school chicks don't, though, because you don't know why they went to that school. And you also can't assume that high school grades/test scores are an accurate indication of intelligence without having more info.

Or let me put it this way: there probably are more less smart people at the state school than at Duke, but when faced with any one of those people, you can't tell whether they fall into that category or not.

Besides, the debate was about quality of education received, not raw intelligence. The argument was that firms are picking people from the elite school because they know the elite school better prepares someone to be a lawyer. If the point was that firms pick people from the elite UGs because they know on average students at Princeton have higher grades/SATs than students from State School X, sure, I wouldn't argue with that.

Ok fair enough. But still, if you were constantly surrounded by duds, I think it might significantly restrict your worldview without necessarily impacting your ability to do well on the LSATs and then write a decent torts exam. I think you're giving too much weight to eight law exams for predicting intellectual ability.

[Hipster but Athletic]

Also, for what it's worth, people from elite undergrads who I'm familiar with where they'll be 2l summering far outperformed their class rankings. They also seemed to do better in LS as a whole.