| Topic Name: |
non-top 10 law schools |
| Message Name: |
McGeorge |
| Date Posted: |
05/18/2000 |
| In Reply To: |
Gurdonak, sorry to bother you about this, but since you are from California, what would be your first impression of a graduate from McGeorge (tier 4: is is really so bad)? All other things being equal, would they be given similar consideration to graduates from tier 2 schools such as Loyola or San Diego? Would I "have to" work extra hard to make personal connections or "have to" get on the law review? Gotta big scholarship from there, so just askin'... |
| Message: |
I cannot answer as to what the hypothetical
southern CA law firm might say about a McGeorge graduate, but here are my own thoughts as an LA lawyer who has worked in a mid-size and small firm environment.
I am generally of two minds when it comes to school rank. On the one hand, some law firm employers, particularly at the top tier, accord tremendous weight to law school rank in addition to class rank. I do believe there is an objective basis for the differentiation other than mere tradition. On the other hand, though, I see a lot of prospective law school attendees, and particularly law students whose "real world" has not included the real world of practice, accord dramatic and career-changing importance to school rank, as though that is what will make the largest difference in success in practice. My own view is that class rank and school quality can be an advantage in the first job, and such matters do show some aptitude differences among candidates. I also believe, though, that one has to learn so much in the first five years of practice that the advantage posed by school rank or class rank is in general just moving the blocks up a few yards in the track meet, rather than determining who has won the career race.
In terms of one's first job, the perceived quality of the law school in the hiring market means two things--that the very top grads will get the higher tier big firm jobs, and that the higher quality the school, the lower down the lesser big firms and the little firms will reach in "seeking after" grads during a recruiting process.
In general, though, if you do not go to a very top tier firm, and you do not have good grades, you must rely on making good connections during law school or thereafter in order to ensure yourself the most desirable job. I don't see this as a particular disadvantage--you'll be having to do this in practice in order to win clients in the long run. If you'll pardon a bit extra editorial, I see a lot of new grads
with the idea that "I got my JD, now the world should be mine on a platter". It's true that this hiring year for a few top grads from top schools, this may come partially true (at the cost of 2400+ hours/year and, one might expect, enhanced performance requirements from the already-high expectations of the finest of such firms for young associates). But it is also true that for the vast, vast majority of new grads, even those below the median from top schools, you have to get out and work your way into the first job.
In a more specific answer to your question,
Loyola and U of San Diego are seen in a different, more favorable light than McGeorge. You will take a "recruiting hit" from being from McGeorge that you would not have taken had you had the same grades from Loyola, at least you would if your resume came across our firm's way. But I don't want to overdo the distinction. If you have top ten percent from McGeorge, Loyola or San Diego, you'll get a fine job. If you are in the bottom 20 percent, you'll have to work a little harder to get a job from any of the three schools. The issue is instead how much easier will the folks in the middle have in getting a job, and also whether a Loyola top grad might get a stellar job, while a McGeorge top grad might only get a great job. So, yes, it does make a difference where you go, but you don't have to look at McGeorge as though it would be impossible to go there.
Hope this helps...
|
|
