| Topic Name: |
Re-Apply? |
| Message Name: |
Lower Tier 1 |
| Date Posted: |
06/24/2002 |
| In Reply To: |
I actually have no desire to do BIGLAW but it may become a matter of necessity by the time I graduate. I want to work for the DOJ in some capacity (won't say what exactly because I just can't handle all the discouragement I would get, lol). I get the impression that the government is just as finickey (sp?)as big firms, it seems the attitude is you have to be "good enough" in terms of pedigree for them to accept your desire to work in public interest. I may be off in this assessment of course. So, basically Hastings and USD are the same thing huh? I just wish Hastings would just put me out of my misery already and tell me one way or another so I can get on with my life, lol.
One more thing, so basically what you are saying is if one doesn't do well in a non-top half 1st tier school, they are sunk? It seems like a big risk to take for the majority of law students who do not wind up in one of those coveted top 25 law schools? |
| Message: |
I wouldn't include Hastings in the lower tier 1 category. I'm not quite sure where 'upper tier 1' would begin but probably about Fordham/Hastings/Davis. IMHO, there's a difference between schools like Hastings and Tulane/Wake/SMU. So there is a difference between USD and Hastings but the difference is not huge except maybe in SF itself (but that's because both schools are regional so will place better in the region, probably USD would be better for SD than Hastings even though the latter is ranked higher)
BTW, the bottom half isn't good enough at most top 25 schools. Bottom half at Emory or Illinois or even Vandy isn't much good. So it's not that the top 25 is the magic cutoff point for security. USC is better than Hastings but Illinois or Emory isn't better than Hastings.
And yes, you're right that the majority of law students are screwed by the system.
|
|
