If you can go to a first tier school go. You can make money and lots of it because there are spots for you in any large metro area, but NY and Washington especially. They take care of their own. Otherwise it really doesn't matter. I don't see the thirtieth ranked law school as being much different from #130 after that first job.
Q
- Thread starter Nittany Ned2
- Start date
This is important, too - if you're looking at getting a job in West Virginia, you have a better chance in achieving that goal going to WVU (#111) than you do going to Arizona State (#24).
A full ride at a T14 is as close to the "ideal outcome" as it gets in the law school admissions game. Unless your goal is a spot at one of the elite firms, or to get fast-tracked into academia, or to be a Supreme Court justice, or something similar, it's very hard to argue that the law of diminishing returns favors going to a Yale, Harvard or Stanford for $250,000+ over a full-ride at a T14 like Virginia, Michigan, or Duke.
What a great tournament weekend that is. Though I think some of the kids from other schools were a bit shocked to see us Duquesne kids receiving IV lines on the bench from our former Army medic classmate on Saturday morning.
Completely agree, I assumed with 3.95 and 170 we were talking T14 vs non. Once you're outside the T14, take the money for the school in the region you're going to practice.
Well, I hit the Great Recession and had to bust my ass working for the government and oil and gas companies on nights and weekends on the side, but put in the 70+ hour weeks for 5 years nonetheless, so CHECK.
I actually took the bar in two additional states (WV and IND), 7 years apart on one, but close enough for CHECK.
Columbus is fine for me, and I wear jeans every day I'm not in court or meeting with a client, and I also make my own hours, so CHECK again.
Damnit. This is where I blew it.
Sorry to keep quoting you, but this is exactly where I stand. UVA is ideal. My uncle was a UVA law guy, worked at Latham in Chicago for his formative years, went in-house, became COO and is now the President and CEO of a business that will be doing $1 billion in sales soon. He's in his late 40s.
That is why UVa was my first choice. The people that go there and the softball. Charlottesville is amazing. I have a lot of great friends who went to school with me. Much moreso than high school.
For
Totally agree. Law school provides one with a great education, but the law is in general a terrible profession and has been for some time. Partners at large and even mid-sized law firms can make a lot of money, but they are generally chained to their desks and don’t have the time to truly enjoy the money they earn.
Good stuff so far.
If your family is wealthy or very well connected so as to be able to offer a prospective firm a high net-worth client with lots of billable hours upon your hiring, then the school doesn't matter. Money talks and law firms only exist to make partners money. If you don't have those kind of connections, then the school, your grades, and your willingness to work hard above all else matters a lot more because you will have to distinguish yourself from all of the other graduates who can only trade their time for salary. And there is always a newer, cheaper, potentially more highly connected law school crowd arriving in 365 days. Hire slow and fire fast.
I read some statistic somewhere that the overwhelming majority of lawyers work in "small firms" which was defined as 20 or fewer attorneys. So, regardless of where you go to school, the odds say you will be working at one of these places. For the majority of these places, they don't care about where you went to school. They just want you to handle your case load and go market yourself for new clients so that you can make the pie bigger for the other partners. Going to a top school can make it a lot easier to get to big firms with a higher starting salary, but you have to be able to maintain this type of job beyond year one. The majority of the Big Law guys are never made real partners because sweat equity (also known as being a complete workaholic for ten plus years) is rarely rewarded. Due to the high work demands, your ability to market will be close to zero, so you rarely can acquire the clients necessary to make you desirable. At small firms, sweat equity combined with some marketing will usually give you better standing in the firm.
Out of my graduating class (10 plus years ago), I think less than 10 to 15 people are still at Big Law jobs. I think less than 5 are "real" partners.
If your family is wealthy or very well connected so as to be able to offer a prospective firm a high net-worth client with lots of billable hours upon your hiring, then the school doesn't matter. Money talks and law firms only exist to make partners money. If you don't have those kind of connections, then the school, your grades, and your willingness to work hard above all else matters a lot more because you will have to distinguish yourself from all of the other graduates who can only trade their time for salary. And there is always a newer, cheaper, potentially more highly connected law school crowd arriving in 365 days. Hire slow and fire fast.
I read some statistic somewhere that the overwhelming majority of lawyers work in "small firms" which was defined as 20 or fewer attorneys. So, regardless of where you go to school, the odds say you will be working at one of these places. For the majority of these places, they don't care about where you went to school. They just want you to handle your case load and go market yourself for new clients so that you can make the pie bigger for the other partners. Going to a top school can make it a lot easier to get to big firms with a higher starting salary, but you have to be able to maintain this type of job beyond year one. The majority of the Big Law guys are never made real partners because sweat equity (also known as being a complete workaholic for ten plus years) is rarely rewarded. Due to the high work demands, your ability to market will be close to zero, so you rarely can acquire the clients necessary to make you desirable. At small firms, sweat equity combined with some marketing will usually give you better standing in the firm.
Out of my graduating class (10 plus years ago), I think less than 10 to 15 people are still at Big Law jobs. I think less than 5 are "real" partners.
While I know this exists, it simply isn't my experience. I work 60+ hour weeks often, but I enjoy my job, I vacation with my family annually, I play with my son an hour plus every day, and I'm there when he goes to bed and wakes up in the morning 340 days a year. Sure, I sacrifice a lot during trials and the lead-up, but I'm also able to provide him a lot as a result. I don't see my friends in business having a better work/life balance than I do, though I admit, I work for a pretty great firm in that regard.
Yes, but the overwhelming majority of lawyers don't go to the T14 schools that are options for this kid. The odds are NOT that he will be working somewhere like that if he goes to a top school. And they will care where he went. You're describing what it's like for a kid at Pitt, not a kid a T14 law school.
Most of those people don't become partners because they end up going in-house for a great work-life balance and still being paid extremely well. The uncle I described who is a millionaire would fall into your description of who failed out of big law. He would not be in the position he is if he had not attended a T14. He didn't become a partner at Latham, but he succeeded incredibly, because of UVA law.
Easy, simple answer. Take the money. In practice, lawyers graduating from "elite" schools are not fundamentally better than those graduating from average schools. A very important part of law is getting along with people and understanding juries, which has nothing to do with the law school you attend.
Will agree that the big law firms tend to favor prestigious schools, but my observation is that most young associates don't like working for big law firms because of the hours they have to bill.
For example, the person I consider to be the best family law lawyer in Columbus went to Capital law school which is about as low in prestige as you can get.
Last edited:
True. A lot depends on where you want to work, for whom you want to work, what type of practice you desire and how much you want to make. Local court systems and firms sometimes look critically at a Harvard, Stanford or Penn attorneys coming to their fiefdoms, whereas in the Federal or political (not local) realms they are seen as normal. ASU had a run with SCOTUS judges which is where they took their jump to higher tier, but I would agree, if you're working in WV, you are better off going to WVU. Typically, Harvard or top tier grads become professors or judges, or political or social activist types. Very seldom do they put out their shingle.
I would certainly agree that the prestige of the school doesn’t dictate the caliber of lawyer. However, a lot of doors will close for this kid if he could go to T14 and he goes to mid-tier instead, no matter how great a lawyer he could be. Unless he already knows he isn’t interested in those doors, why put such limitations on himself.
I guess all of our advice isn’t worth much unless we know what the kid wants, and we haven’t been told that.
Your advice is pertinent for would be litigators, but an M&A or Corporate Finance lawyer, for example, will never see a courtroom. If you want to have as many options as possible as a lawyer, you go for the brand name - T14 school as referenced elsewhere.
I think it is more nuanced than you are being told. To the extent that it is possible to do so, try to figure out what the kid wants to do. Now, if he has no lawyers in his family or that he knows well, it is likely he will not have a clue regarding the actual practice of law, and what the choices are like.
But if he has always wanted to try cases, or always wanted to manage transactions, or always wanted to be an appeals court judge, there will be some indications in that.
If he wants to be a lawyer who tries cases, there are schools which produce lots of top notch trial lawyers which are NOT in the top 10 academically.
Trials are dispute resolution. Transactional law is forward looking dispute avoidance. Someone once said that trials are bloodbaths; transactional legal work is a series of love fests.
Surely, if he wants to be a Supreme Court clerk, he likely needs a top 10 school. If he wants to prosecute or defend murder cases in his hometown, he needs a decent school in or near his home state.
I didn’t go there for law school - got waitlisted in a bad year to apply as I had the scores to get in most other years. I went to William and Mary which I loved - borderline top 20-25 and cheap as hell for a Va resident. Got into some higher ranked schools but they were way more expensive without a sufficient enough bump in prestige. UVA was far and away my first choice.
I learned about UVA not taking anyone from the WL that year while on a 3 month backpacking trip in Europe so that eased the disappointment.
I got an M.A. from UVA in 1990 and applied to law schools on 1996 - going to W&M from 97-00. So I knew all about the school and town.
I agree 100%; and it was worse back in the Stone Age when I went to law school.
I suspect the education was structured that way because new lawyers would learn the skills you referenced from their mentor and other lawyers. That model went the way of the horse and buggy.
Not billing is even better than you think. It’s incredibly liberating. If you’re slow, no stress - the work will come. No client development. In house is awesome. I can do as much lawyering as I want or farm things out. Of course, it depends on the company, but I’ve been pretty fortunate in that regard.
Last edited:
So you were a young associate when salaries went crazy - what a time. I was in law school and saw starting firm salaries go up about 60-70% from 97-00. Bonkers. Great market to be interviewing in. Then, of course, the crash
I would say there is great value in not being burdened with a large debt. He could potentially take a lesser paying job that would be more satisfying in other ways -- such as, for instance, giving him more family time. Obviously a judgment call either way. I do agree that coming out of law school those attending the more prestigious schools have more options -- but in this instance, at what cost.
Also, looking at the bigger picture, I would tell the young person to consider whether he wants to work in a business that is connection based and not merit based and wouldn't give Albert Einstein or Tom Brady a chance.
I would say there is great value in not being burdened with a large debt. He could potentially take a lesser paying job that would be more satisfying in other ways -- such as, for instance, giving him more family time. Obviously a judgment call either way. I do agree that coming out of law school those attending the more prestigious schools have more options -- but in this instance, at what cost.
Also, looking at the bigger picture, I would tell the young person to consider whether he wants to work in a business that is connection based and not merit based and wouldn't give Albert Einstein or Tom Brady a chance.
I would say there is great value in not being burdened with a large debt. He could potentially take a lesser paying job that would be more satisfying in other ways -- such as, for instance, giving him more family time. Obviously a judgment call either way. I do agree that coming out of law school those attending the more prestigious schools have more options -- but in this instance, at what cost.
Also, looking at the bigger picture, I would tell the young person to consider whether he wants to work in a business that is connection based and not merit based and wouldn't give Albert Einstein or Tom Brady a chance.
I would say there is great value in not being burdened with a large debt. He could potentially take a lesser paying job that would be more satisfying in other ways -- such as, for instance, giving him more family time. Obviously a judgment call either way. I do agree that coming out of law school those attending the more prestigious schools have more options -- but in this instance, at what cost.
Also, looking at the bigger picture, I would tell the young person to consider whether he wants to work in a business that is connection based and not merit based and wouldn't give Albert Einstein or Tom Brady a chance.
Much depends on the quality of education at these two institutions. If a more prestigious one can get an excellent education, then I can live with the lack of a scholarship. For me specifically, it's not that important. But I know that among my fellow students some needed a scholarship, so they were willing to accept any quality of education. Now each of them works in the same field, but in different areas, for example, one of my student friends here https://swpdxlaw.com/services/real-estate , deals with real estate. I work with major fraud cases.
Last edited:
So you are talking law school? I think it is crazy but 60 year old lawyers still talk about their HS and Law School credentials. While people that graduated from Cleveland State often out perform them. Regardless, having ND or Georgetown on your resume is a massive door opener if he wants to go that route. And three years of law school on a student loan wouldn't be that bad if he lands a $200k/yr job out of college. Plus, he has a chance to make connections at a top school that he won't in a small school. I know several people that "got ahead" by meeting kids of wealthy business owners in college. Three years of expenses, if you can swing it, is a small price to pay as a launching point for a promising career IMHO
Based on my brother's experience, I'd also vote with some others in the thread in favor of the big-name law school over the immediate financial advantages of scholarship money at a lesser institution.
He went to Penn Law, made Law Review, and then wrote his own ticket...was heavily recruited after graduation, literally wined and dined, and ended up with a prestigious Boston firm.
In contrast, I knew a guy who went to a "lesser" law school -- I think it was Dickinson -- and did well there. Smart, hard worker, high-character...but he scrambled to find a position after graduation with fewer options and none of them too glamorous or lucrative.
This was quite a long time ago, and I have no idea where the guy ended up or how well he did. I know my brother did very well indeed.
My friend's son recently graduated from NYU Law. He had offers before he had his diploma! In NY, Columbia Law, NYU Law and Fordham are the big three with NYU and Columbia at the top.
If he wants to go to Big Law (i.e. work for a large multi-national firm - starting salary in NYC around $200k this year), then he should go to the best school he can manage to get into. Yale is considered the best for some time running. Harvard and Stanford rotate between 2-3. With those numbers I'd shoot for those 3 or no less than Top 14 schools. A scholarship at a lesser school is worthwhile only if he's for sure going to be at the top (do not assume this will be easy - a lot of people at lesser schools want to try to move up to a better-ranked school by doing well 1st year) or has definite plans that don't include Big Law or academia. Can you get into Big Law or academia from a lesser school? Yes, maybe, but it will be a lot less likely and in most cases impossible. It's a numbers game. You increase your odds of being able to follow certain paths by going to schools that are perceived better. Prestige matters at big firms and academia. That doesn't mean you can't have a great career going to a "lesser" school. You'll just have to realize that certain doors within the profession are likely to be all but closed to you no matter how brilliant you are. But there are probably plenty of people who go to big name schools who don't have careers that are all that great. A lot of this choice comes down to the individual. Just don't go in assuming that if he takes the money he'll have every opportunity that he may have had at the top school. On the other hand, having no debt may allow him to pursue public interest law, which may not be an option financially with debt hanging over your head.
Agreed. If you graduate from a name school, it is like running the 100m dash but starting on the 10, 20 or 30-meter line. You can spend a decade catching up but you'll never get that money back. It doesn't mean you can't win, but you have to be demonstrably better than the candidate with the big-name school.
Many schools teach the law very well with many specializing in certain areas. Temple is a litigation school. Vermont is an Environmental school. Where to go to school depends on what area of law he wants to practice and what type of firm he wants to wok for. Small town attorney = no reason for big name school. Work for DA's office or public defender = no reason for big time school. Be a defense attorney or litigation attorney or local real estate attorney = no reason to go to big time school. If you want to work on wall street or in DC at one of the big firms you definitely want to got to the best school possible. Politician = best school. Professor or judge = best school. Want to make big bucks at the expense of no time to your self for the first 5 - 7 years or so = big time school. Some attorneys make big time money but most do not. If you don't get into one of the top twenty or so schools it does not really matter where you go unless you are staying in the same region where many positions of power are held by alumni of local schools.
I agree that starting at a big name school gives you a head start in making more money. However, I don't agree that going to a big name school gives you a head start in being a more effective and career satisfied lawyer. The big law firms sell the "prestige" of the big name law school graduates to unsophisticated clients who pay big bucks for a large amount of not very useful scut research work. In fact the young lawyers at the big firms intuitively understand how useless much of their work is because many are unsatisified with their work. https://www.lifeafterlaw.com/2021/11/22/young-lawyers-are-increasingly-saying-no-to-big-law-firms/
One example of how pie in the sky and useless many lawyers are, and in particular Ivy League lawyers. I have been a co-investor on a good number of projects with a long time real estate investor who has owned over 1,500 houses. We needed to evict a bum renter from one of our projects who claimed that she didn't owe rent because the applicable law was from Monrovia (or something like that). The instinct for lawyers who haven't really gone toe to toe in litigation is file a moderately time consuming summary judgment motion. Much easier to file a request for admissions [that renter hadn't paid and has no cancelled checks to show proof of payment] I utilized the request for admissions tactic (simple technique explicitly authorized by civil rules), and my co-investor called the tactic "brilliant" -- in all of his years in real estate not one of the lawyers involved in messy rental evictions had used this simple, very practical tactic.
Similar threads
