| Topic Name: |
Outside of the top 25, Tiers don't matter |
| Message Name: |
I agree with you |
| Date Posted: |
08/30/2001 |
| In Reply To: |
Very good post, as is your post in the law section.
A few thoughts:
1. Whether it is the top 5 or top 14 or top 20, top 25 or even top 35 that count as the "national" schools can be debated, and the answer from a hiring standpoint fluctuates as the entry level hiring market fluctuates.
The answer was different in 1991 than it was in 2000, based on the hiring successes of new grads.
But your point is a good one--below the top x number of national schools, most law schools are the same in terms of hiring clout, and regional reputation of the school matters the most. The local law school is frequently the best choice among the non-national schools. Still, not all law schools below the national schools are the same. In Houston, for example, U of Houston grads (assuming equivalent ribbons) usually have an advantage over South Texas grads who have an advantage over Texas Southern, and in LA, Loyola grads have a real advantage over Whittier grads. So it can matter where you go to school even below the "national" schools--it's just that you can't look at the USNWR "tiers" and get the kind of concrete data about who has better hiring prospects in Houston, LA, Dallas, etc. Instead, you have to do the market research of which schools matter in the place in which you live. That doesn't mean that you have to feel guilty about looking at the USNWR rankings--they have their place (step one of a long process, of only the most general use). It's just that they are wholly ineffective for sorting out school number 39 from school number 83. When it comes to defining "national" schools, many folks would reach a different ordering, but few would say that the USNWR ordering is inarguable for the top 20 or so places.
2. I can't say if, for instance, a UCLA grad in the top 35% will do worse than a Southwestern grad in the top 10% by an appreciable amount.
The median incomes from UCLA recently suggest that the difference might not be that great. But the crux of your point stands--high grades, even from a non-national law school, tend to get you a good job, and only in the top x number of schools (whether it is "top" 5 or 10 or 15, etc.) can one with low grades be reasonably certain to get a great job. Great grades are the best way to generate a great job, regardless of tier.
3. Completely agree that gimmicks do not get most through law school, and even if they got one the grades, can't imagine that law school would be half as interesting if it was a matter of just looking at canned briefs and faking the cases.
4. Middle of the class folks from state schools in the 2d, 3rd and sometimes 4th tier do have success, and I'm not sure they are in the minority.
But it may be that how one defines success is the difference here. To me, success is an interesting practice, the ability to have a decent lifestyle, and avoidance of debt. If one graduates from any but a national school under the top 25 percent or so, the job prospects usually don't make entry level particularly lucrative, but that doesn't mean that one can't have an interesting and workable career, whether second, third or fourth. But going to a fourth tier private school, and taking on tremendous debt to bet that one will make top grades, seems to me a risky proposition indeed.
If one defines success, though, as having the opportunities of top grads from top schools, then lower first, second, third and fourth tier grads with low grades rarely achieve that kind of success.
|
| Message: |
I left out some of things you mentioned because people ask for my advice on entering BIGLAW.
But yes, a career in BIGLAW doesn't necessarily mean that you are successfull. It all depends upon the individual's perspective.
However, I do stand by my earlier post. It is extremely difficult for someone from a low-tier school not in the top 15 percent to enter BIGLAW.
|
|
