Top Law Schools

If someone's goal was to be a good litigation lawyer, and they were accepted to any T6, would they do better going to one of those T6 or going to a college like Baylor who is 3rd for top Trial advocacy program?

Special rankings don't mean anything. It depends entirely on your regional and specific litigation goals.

Soup2Nuts wrote:If someone's goal was to be a good litigation lawyer, and they were accepted to any T6, would they do better going to one of those T6 or going to a college like Baylor who is 3rd for top Trial advocacy program?

Specialty rankings are meaningless and Baylor is a bad law school (and also apparently cutthroat and miserable).

IExistedOnceBefore wrote:Special rankings don't mean anything. It depends entirely on your regional and specific litigation goals.

Correct me if im wrong, region will only matter if you dont get into a decently ranked school? I have a hard time believing you wouldnt be able to find work as a Columbia grad in Dallas TX.

Soup2Nuts wrote:

IExistedOnceBefore wrote:Special rankings don't mean anything. It depends entirely on your regional and specific litigation goals.

Correct me if im wrong, region will only matter if you dont get into a decently ranked school? I have a hard time believing you wouldnt be able to find work as a Columbia grad in Dallas TX.

You are wrong. Many markets are tough to break into regardless of if you went to Cooley or Yale. Unfortunately, TX is one of those markets. Many TX firms want to see good grades + ties. If you don't have any ties (previously lived in TX, SO/family in the state, etc.), then you could very well not get a big law gig there, even as a Columbia grad. This is why people always suggest throwing NYC into the mix when bidding, because it's truly the only market where ties are pretty much irrelevant. Some people also get locked out of CA and Chicago for not having strong enough ties. There's never a guarantee of a BL offer anywhere just for attending a top law school. Every year T13 graduates strike out and end up unemployed at graduation and sometimes even 9 months after.

RedPurpleBlue wrote:

Soup2Nuts wrote:

IExistedOnceBefore wrote:Special rankings don't mean anything. It depends entirely on your regional and specific litigation goals.

Correct me if im wrong, region will only matter if you dont get into a decently ranked school? I have a hard time believing you wouldnt be able to find work as a Columbia grad in Dallas TX.

You are wrong. Many markets are tough to break into regardless of if you went to Cooley or Yale. Unfortunately, TX is one of those markets. Many TX firms want to see good grades + ties. If you don't have any ties (previously lived in TX, SO/family in the state, etc.), then you could very well not get a big law gig there, even as a Columbia grad. This is why people always suggest throwing NYC into the mix when bidding, because it's truly the only market where ties are pretty much irrelevant. Some people also get locked out of CA and Chicago for not having strong enough ties. There's never a guarantee of a BL offer anywhere just for attending a top law school. Every year T13 graduates strike out and end up unemployed at graduation and sometimes even 9 months after.

So, forgo any acceptance to T6 just to go to Denver University because I want to live there one day? Just sounds unreasonable to me is all.

Soup2Nuts wrote:

RedPurpleBlue wrote:

Soup2Nuts wrote:

IExistedOnceBefore wrote:Special rankings don't mean anything. It depends entirely on your regional and specific litigation goals.

Correct me if im wrong, region will only matter if you dont get into a decently ranked school? I have a hard time believing you wouldnt be able to find work as a Columbia grad in Dallas TX.

You are wrong. Many markets are tough to break into regardless of if you went to Cooley or Yale. Unfortunately, TX is one of those markets. Many TX firms want to see good grades + ties. If you don't have any ties (previously lived in TX, SO/family in the state, etc.), then you could very well not get a big law gig there, even as a Columbia grad. This is why people always suggest throwing NYC into the mix when bidding, because it's truly the only market where ties are pretty much irrelevant. Some people also get locked out of CA and Chicago for not having strong enough ties. There's never a guarantee of a BL offer anywhere just for attending a top law school. Every year T13 graduates strike out and end up unemployed at graduation and sometimes even 9 months after.

So, forgo any acceptance to T6 just to go to Denver University because I want to live there one day? Just sounds unreasonable to me is all.

How did you possibly draw that conclusion from what he said?

Soup2Nuts wrote:

RedPurpleBlue wrote:

Soup2Nuts wrote:

IExistedOnceBefore wrote:Special rankings don't mean anything. It depends entirely on your regional and specific litigation goals.

Correct me if im wrong, region will only matter if you dont get into a decently ranked school? I have a hard time believing you wouldnt be able to find work as a Columbia grad in Dallas TX.

You are wrong. Many markets are tough to break into regardless of if you went to Cooley or Yale. Unfortunately, TX is one of those markets. Many TX firms want to see good grades + ties. If you don't have any ties (previously lived in TX, SO/family in the state, etc.), then you could very well not get a big law gig there, even as a Columbia grad. This is why people always suggest throwing NYC into the mix when bidding, because it's truly the only market where ties are pretty much irrelevant. Some people also get locked out of CA and Chicago for not having strong enough ties. There's never a guarantee of a BL offer anywhere just for attending a top law school. Every year T13 graduates strike out and end up unemployed at graduation and sometimes even 9 months after.

So, forgo any acceptance to T6 just to go to Denver University because I want to live there one day? Just sounds unreasonable to me is all.

I agree that the bolded sounds unreasonable, but no one in this thread has said that or anything like it.

Soup2Nuts wrote:

RedPurpleBlue wrote:

Soup2Nuts wrote:

IExistedOnceBefore wrote:Special rankings don't mean anything. It depends entirely on your regional and specific litigation goals.

Correct me if im wrong, region will only matter if you dont get into a decently ranked school? I have a hard time believing you wouldnt be able to find work as a Columbia grad in Dallas TX.

You are wrong. Many markets are tough to break into regardless of if you went to Cooley or Yale. Unfortunately, TX is one of those markets. Many TX firms want to see good grades + ties. If you don't have any ties (previously lived in TX, SO/family in the state, etc.), then you could very well not get a big law gig there, even as a Columbia grad. This is why people always suggest throwing NYC into the mix when bidding, because it's truly the only market where ties are pretty much irrelevant. Some people also get locked out of CA and Chicago for not having strong enough ties. There's never a guarantee of a BL offer anywhere just for attending a top law school. Every year T13 graduates strike out and end up unemployed at graduation and sometimes even 9 months after.

So, forgo any acceptance to T6 just to go to Denver University because I want to live there one day? Just sounds unreasonable to me is all.

No, that's not what he's saying. Going to U of Denver would limit you much more to Colorado. It's all relative to someone's career goals, where they want to live, how much the schools are offering in financial aid, etc. but in a vacuum a T14 would be much better than U of Denver.

stego wrote:No, that's not what he's saying. Going to U of Denver would limit you much more to Colorado. It's all relative to someone's career goals, where they want to live, how much the schools are offering in financial aid, etc. but in a vacuum a T14 would be much better than U of Denver.

So then why the big harp T6 this and T20 that? If it is so fluid then there is no point to "go to the best ranked law school". Just go to whichever one is the best in the region you want to work in. Less stress and money. And you can be a big fish in a small pond.

Rankings just seem frivolous if its so relative.

Which brings me back to my original question. Going to baylor for litigation would be better than going to a T6 if you want to stay in the mid-south/east/west.

Or am i missing the point here? lol

Soup2Nuts wrote:

stego wrote:No, that's not what he's saying. Going to U of Denver would limit you much more to Colorado. It's all relative to someone's career goals, where they want to live, how much the schools are offering in financial aid, etc. but in a vacuum a T14 would be much better than U of Denver.

So then why the big harp T6 this and T20 that? If it is so fluid then there is no point to "go to the best ranked law school". Just go to whichever one is the best in the region you want to work in. Less stress and money. And you can be a big fish in a small pond.

Rankings just seem frivolous if its so relative.

Which brings me back to my original question. Going to baylor for litigation would be better than going to a T6 if you want to stay in the mid-south/east/west.

Or am i missing the point here? lol

Yes, you are badly missing the point.

rpupkin wrote:

Soup2Nuts wrote:

stego wrote:No, that's not what he's saying. Going to U of Denver would limit you much more to Colorado. It's all relative to someone's career goals, where they want to live, how much the schools are offering in financial aid, etc. but in a vacuum a T14 would be much better than U of Denver.

So then why the big harp T6 this and T20 that? If it is so fluid then there is no point to "go to the best ranked law school". Just go to whichever one is the best in the region you want to work in. Less stress and money. And you can be a big fish in a small pond.

Rankings just seem frivolous if its so relative.

Which brings me back to my original question. Going to baylor for litigation would be better than going to a T6 if you want to stay in the mid-south/east/west.

Or am i missing the point here? lol

Yes, you are badly missing the point.

Such great insight as to help me understand. Your helping hand is unmatched.

Soup2Nuts wrote:Such great insight as to help me understand. Your helping hand is unmatched.

Sorry to be blunt, but you're quite stupid. You seem incapable of understanding fairly simple points. You then convert your misunderstandings into faulty premises, and then you reach conclusions that don't even follow from those premises.

Perhaps a more patient poster will take the time to walk you through your confusion, but I'm not up for it tonight. Best of luck to you.

rpupkin wrote:

Soup2Nuts wrote:Such great insight as to help me understand. Your helping hand is unmatched.

Sorry to be blunt, but you're quite stupid. You seem incapable of understanding fairly simple points. You then convert your misunderstandings into faulty premises, and then you reach conclusions that don't even follow from those premises.

Perhaps a more patient poster will take the time to walk you through your confusion, but I'm not up for it tonight. Best of luck to you.

O no, i understand the points just fine. I want explanation of the points being made. Not some, "its always been like this, so im just repeating what someone told me" bullshit. Repeating the same thing that was said to you and explaining the reasoning as to why people believe the way it was stated, are two different things. There was none of the latter. Keep up.

Forgive me for trying learn as to the "why" instead of just taking what someone has said as gospel. My pedantic conclusion jumping was to spark conversation. But again, thanks for the insight. You have progressed the convo quite well.

Soup2Nuts wrote:

stego wrote:No, that's not what he's saying. Going to U of Denver would limit you much more to Colorado. It's all relative to someone's career goals, where they want to live, how much the schools are offering in financial aid, etc. but in a vacuum a T14 would be much better than U of Denver.

So then why the big harp T6 this and T20 that? If it is so fluid then there is no point to "go to the best ranked law school". Just go to whichever one is the best in the region you want to work in. Less stress and money. And you can be a big fish in a small pond.

Rankings just seem frivolous if its so relative.

Which brings me back to my original question. Going to baylor for litigation would be better than going to a T6 if you want to stay in the mid-south/east/west.

Or am i missing the point here? lol

It's probably fair to say that if a T6 is an option you should not be considering Baylor.

Also, Baylor isn't even remotely the best law school in Texas.

As far as rankings being frivolous, that is sort of true. It's sort of silly to rank strong regional schools against each other if they serve different regions. You should pay less attention to USNWR rankings and more attention to the published employment data. What percentage of recent grads are getting certain types of jobs?

stego wrote:It's probably fair to say that if a T6 is an option you should not be considering Baylor.

Also, Baylor isn't even remotely the best law school in Texas.

As far as rankings being frivolous, that is sort of true. It's sort of silly to rank strong regional schools against each other if they serve different regions. You should pay less attention to USNWR rankings and more attention to the published employment data. What percentage of recent grads are getting certain types of jobs?

Baylor was just a name that happened to be "ranked 3rd" for litigation, which i find interesting (litigation that is). Nothing more.

Your missing the regional nature of law hiring and huge variance market size along with any mention of career goals.

If you just want to live in Denver and possibly work as a lawyer, go there.

If you want to work in the tiny biglaw market that is Denver, well it helps to have ties and go to a T6 to return home to Denver. (Note for some markets and some firms, this could be bad because they prefer the local grad over the kid who left.)

If you want a biglaw or competitive PI job but don't care where you live, then go T6 or whatever metric you are using for a winning cost-benefit analysis.

Npret wrote:Your missing the regional nature of law hiring and huge variance market size along with any mention of career goals.

If you just want to live in Denver and possibly work as a lawyer, go there.

If you want to work in the tiny biglaw market that is Denver, well it helps to have ties and go to a T6 to return home to Denver. (Note for some markets and some firms, this could be bad because they prefer the local grad over the kid who left.)

If you want a biglaw or competitive PI job but don't care where you live, then go T6 or whatever metric you are using for a winning cost-benefit analysis.

If you can, what is the thinking behind the firms/markets that would hire a local grad over someone who, for arguments sake, went to a better school and returned? Why is there so much emphasis on "region" when it comes to law hiring as opposed to someone just getting a JD and working wherever like you can with an MBA?

Soup2Nuts wrote:

Npret wrote:Your missing the regional nature of law hiring and huge variance market size along with any mention of career goals.

If you just want to live in Denver and possibly work as a lawyer, go there.

If you want to work in the tiny biglaw market that is Denver, well it helps to have ties and go to a T6 to return home to Denver. (Note for some markets and some firms, this could be bad because they prefer the local grad over the kid who left.)

If you want a biglaw or competitive PI job but don't care where you live, then go T6 or whatever metric you are using for a winning cost-benefit analysis.

If you can, what is the thinking behind the firms/markets that would hire a local grad over someone who, for arguments sake, went to a better school and returned? Why is there so much emphasis on "region" when it comes to law hiring as opposed to someone just getting a JD and working wherever like you can with an MBA?

Because law firms are different types of businesses. They want to be sure you want the job and won't bail on them; they want to know you will fit in; they want to maybe use any connections for business you might have; and mostly, they have many qualified people for each position so they can really choose who they want for whatever reason.

Going to a T6 school increases your chances at getting a job somewhere, maybe NYC. It may help with a local market- but I've seen people trying to return to markets like Portland (tiny) being questioned as to why they left for school instead of staying home.

Maybe it signals a lack of commitment to the area or maybe they all went to the local school and think you are being elitist for going away. Maybe they think you are returning just because you failed in bigger markets.

There is no right path that guarantees a job in a market you want (outside of NYC probably). A top school helps in getting a job with worse grades than other schools. Grades are an unknown factor so people minimize risk by going to top schools.

One last thought: don't underestimate how overly saturated the market is for associates. The competition is tough and not everyone will get their first choice dream job.

Npret wrote:

Soup2Nuts wrote:

Npret wrote:Your missing the regional nature of law hiring and huge variance market size along with any mention of career goals.

If you just want to live in Denver and possibly work as a lawyer, go there.

If you want to work in the tiny biglaw market that is Denver, well it helps to have ties and go to a T6 to return home to Denver. (Note for some markets and some firms, this could be bad because they prefer the local grad over the kid who left.)

If you want a biglaw or competitive PI job but don't care where you live, then go T6 or whatever metric you are using for a winning cost-benefit analysis.

If you can, what is the thinking behind the firms/markets that would hire a local grad over someone who, for arguments sake, went to a better school and returned? Why is there so much emphasis on "region" when it comes to law hiring as opposed to someone just getting a JD and working wherever like you can with an MBA?

Because law firms are different types of businesses. They want to be sure you want the job and won't bail on them; they want to know you will fit in; they want to maybe use any connections for business you might have; and mostly, they have many qualified people for each position so they can really choose who they want for whatever reason.

Going to a T6 school increases your chances at getting a job somewhere, maybe NYC. It may help with a local market- but I've seen people trying to return to markets like Portland (tiny) being questioned as to why they left for school instead of staying home.

Maybe it signals a lack of commitment to the area or maybe they all went to the local school and think you are being elitist for going away. Maybe they think you are returning just because you failed in bigger markets.

There is no right path that guarantees a job in a market you want (outside of NYC probably). A top school helps in getting a job with worse grades than other schools. Grades are an unknown factor so people minimize risk by going to top schools.

One last thought: don't underestimate how overly saturated the market is for associates. The competition is tough and not everyone will get their first choice dream job.

Thanks. This is what I was wanting. Obviously no guarantee in anything, I just wanted to know how it looks. The why. Appreciate it.

I love that the OP totally abandoned the specialty rankings idea without any explanation but won't accept that regional schools are regional without some kind of dissertation on how legal employment works.

Soup2Nuts wrote:

Npret wrote:Your missing the regional nature of law hiring and huge variance market size along with any mention of career goals.

If you just want to live in Denver and possibly work as a lawyer, go there.

If you want to work in the tiny biglaw market that is Denver, well it helps to have ties and go to a T6 to return home to Denver. (Note for some markets and some firms, this could be bad because they prefer the local grad over the kid who left.)

If you want a biglaw or competitive PI job but don't care where you live, then go T6 or whatever metric you are using for a winning cost-benefit analysis.

If you can, what is the thinking behind the firms/markets that would hire a local grad over someone who, for arguments sake, went to a better school and returned? Why is there so much emphasis on "region" when it comes to law hiring as opposed to someone just getting a JD and working wherever like you can with an MBA?

You're conflating a couple of things here. Someone who is from a region, went to a better school (but ideally a national school that justifies leaving home), and returns usually will do reasonably well (so a Denver kid who goes to Columbia for law school and then comes back should be able to get job in Denver, probably more easily than the local grad if you're talking biglaw), because they have the requisite ties. That's different from going to a T14 and then trying to get hired in Denver with no previous connections there - that person is going to struggle, but at least they will have options in other cities (whereas the Baylor grad probably won't).

I don't know why you're asking hypotheticals OP.

T6 schools provide a lot of advocacy training for students who want it. The specialty rankings are frustrating. Hard to see how publishing them and citing them (without making it clear that they provide incredibly limited information about the market value of a given JD) can possibly be in good faith.

cavalier1138 wrote:I love that the OP totally abandoned the specialty rankings idea without any explanation but won't accept that regional schools are regional without some kind of dissertation on how legal employment works.

The specialty ranking seems to get addressed in the first few posts as "dont listen to it". Ok, i still wanted to know why and whats the thinking behind that reasoning. Which was answered on the "dissertation". I dont see whats so hard to follow.