<p>i don't know an actual situation in which this exact scenario happened so this is all supposition on my part, but if someone turned down YLS and attended ABC tier 3 law school (because they gave him a full ride, because it was close to home, whatever) and the student applied to biglaw jobs and enclosed a copy of his/her YLS acceptance letter with his resume, i don't think that in and of itself would move that resume from the pile of tier 3 applicants to the pile of HYS applicants for consideration. </p>
<p>its just my guess -- based on recruitment discussions i was part of at the firms where i worked in which the import of the school attended was discussed -- i think the fact that the student then didn't experience the YLS classroom and what it had to offer would be a difference even though he/she would be just as smart as if he/she had chosen to attend YLS. and again, i don't think its because of any substantive thing the employer thinks the student would have learned at YLS -- i think its because the level of intellectual discourse at YLS (whether in a more traditional civ pro class or a rule 23 class) in and of itself is seen as valuable in shaping the future lawyers thought process.</p>
<p>(and this is also not to say that the ABC law student couldn't end up getting a biglaw job -- but it would be much more difficult.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
and the student applied to biglaw jobs and enclosed a copy of his/her YLS acceptance letter with his resume, i don't think that in and of itself would move that resume from the pile of tier 3 applicants to the pile of HYS applicants for consideration.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, no. They wouldn't have any of the prestige associated with going to YLS, which is largely what the firm wants. Because if YLS and ABC tier 3 law school switched names, curricula and faculty, the YLS students would still get much better jobs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i don't know an actual situation in which this exact scenario happened so this is all supposition on my part, but if someone turned down YLS and attended ABC tier 3 law school (because they gave him a full ride, because it was close to home, whatever) and the student applied to biglaw jobs and enclosed a copy of his/her YLS acceptance letter with his resume, i don't think that in and of itself would move that resume from the pile of tier 3 applicants to the pile of HYS applicants for consideration.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Probably not, but I think that has more to do with transactions costs than anything else. To illustrate, it's easy to buy a copy of the Daily News for 50 cents cash. It's would be a lot harder to buy the same newspaper with a letter signed by the Secretary of the Treasury promising to pay 50 cents to the bearer of the letter. Even if the newspaper vendor thinks it's probably legitimate, he knows that it may not be easy to convince others of the same fact.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They wouldn't have any of the prestige associated with going to YLS, which is largely what the firm wants. Because if YLS and ABC tier 3 law school switched names, curricula and faculty, the YLS students would still get much better jobs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There may be some truth to that too. The real test would be if law firms could legally hire people on the basis of their test scores. There would probably be some firms who simply hired law graduates with high LSAT scores, regardless of where they went to law school. Would all firms eventually go that way? Perhaps.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There may be some truth to that too. The real test would be if law firms could legally hire people on the basis of their test scores. There would probably be some firms who simply hired law graduates with high LSAT scores, regardless of where they went to law school. Would all firms eventually go that way? Perhaps.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I doubt that all firms would. See below. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Probably not, but I think that has more to do with transactions costs than anything else. To illustrate, it's easy to buy a copy of the Daily News for 50 cents cash. It's would be a lot harder to buy the same newspaper with a letter signed by the Secretary of the Treasury promising to pay 50 cents to the bearer of the letter. Even if the newspaper vendor thinks it's probably legitimate, he knows that it may not be easy to convince others of the same fact.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that's the key right there - the notion of 'transaction costs'. I think we need to keep in mind that law firms have to sell themselves to clients. A law firm that has no clients is a bankrupt law firm. Law firms don't just want lawyers who are highly qualified. Not exactly. They also want lawyers who *look *highly qualified because having them makes it easier to land clients. That's why most top law firms will list the degrees and honoraria (i.e. "cum laude", law review editorship, etc.) of their staff. It becomes a matter of marketing. One of the functions of a law firm is matching clients to individual lawyers, and that matching process is easier to complete when the lawyers have impressive-looking credentials, i.e. degrees from schools like Harvard or Yale. </p>
<p>So while there may be some law firms who might indeed hire based purely on test score, or hire a guy who did get admitted to YLS but chose to go to Quinnipiac instead, many other law firms would not, because of the difficulties in marketing such people. Yeah, maybe those guys are indeed as good as any other lawyers, but you may have problems convincing clients of that. Let's keep in mind that most clients don't really know who the good lawyers are.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think we need to keep in mind that law firms have to sell themselves to clients. A law firm that has no clients is a bankrupt law firm. Law firms don't just want lawyers who are highly qualified. Not exactly. They also want lawyers who look highly qualified because having them makes it easier to land clients. That's why most top law firms will list the degrees and honoraria (i.e. "cum laude", law review editorship, etc.) of their staff. It becomes a matter of marketing. One of the functions of a law firm is matching clients to individual lawyers, and that matching process is easier to complete when the lawyers have impressive-looking credentials, i.e. degrees from schools like Harvard or Yale.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I couldn't agree more. Law firms are very concerned with filling their associate ranks with former federal court clerks, law review editors (from top law schools, of course), moot court champions, and, it goes without saying, students with excellent grades who have cum laude, magna cum laude and summa cum laude on their diplomas. Why? First, the perception at many law firms is that the firm is more likely to hire a "winner" from a top law school. Yes, the law firms do recognize that not every Harvard lawyer will be a superstar, and that the occasional hire who is a "first in their class" from a tier 3 law school may be that superstar. There is often also strong alumni pull for students from a lawyer's alma mater at law firms. </p>
<p>Second, I have heard many clients over the years speak glowingly of their lawyers' credentials. In addition, in dog and pony shows/beauty contests (where law firms pitch clients for work -- increasingly common, though still not at the very top law firms), you always hear some statement of the backgrounds of the lawyers at that firm, which always includes examples of prior work as well as educational backgrounds. </p>
<p>It is difficult to escape the prestige factor associated with the name brand of a law school in many situations in law.</p>
<p>but will these lawyers (all school names and law firm intentions aside) be as good in the sense of skills and analyzing than those who went to more theory-based schools? because like was mentioned before by the OP, they really didn't learn practicality as well as tier 4 kids.</p>
<p>if school names didn't matter in terms of opportunities, would the yale acceptees who chose to go to tier 4 be as successful as the others?</p>
<p>even if you go to a law school that spends 3 years preparing you to pass the bar exam, you still don't really learn how to be a lawyer until you work as a lawyer. personally, this is why i think someone's first legal job can be so important -- its how they are going to be trained. you can't just ignore the employment opportunities -- the jobs a tier 4 grad gets vs. a YLS grad are different and will determine the type of training they each get on the job.</p>
<p>IF you assume that both a tier 4 grad and a YLS grad go to work at the same place -- if its a job that requires knowledge of the local laws, the tier 4 grad may have a short heard start, but since most of the ability to perform the job will be learned on the job, my guess is that the YLS will more than be able to catch up quickly. </p>
<p>but you can't ignore the job options available. would the yls acceptee be as successful if he/she goes to a tier 4 school? how can you judge this without considering what job that person would be able to get? </p>
<p>people keep wanting to talk about all of this in theory by trying to ignore certain facts. you just can't because the facts are what they are. the career paths of tier 4 graduates will, for the overwhelming majority, be vastly different than the career paths of HYS grads -- they can each be vastly successful in whatever their chosen career path ends up being -- but you simply can't ignore the differences in the options they will have -- those differences will effect not only their first legal job, but all subsequent jobs, and the type of training they end up getting.</p>
<p>
[quote]
even if you go to a law school that spends 3 years preparing you to pass the bar exam, you still don't really learn how to be a lawyer until you work as a lawyer. </p>
<hr>
<p>IF you assume that both a tier 4 grad and a YLS grad go to work at the same place -- if its a job that requires knowledge of the local laws, the tier 4 grad may have a short heard start, but since most of the ability to perform the job will be learned on the job, my guess is that the YLS will more than be able to catch up quickly.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It seems to me that a necessary implication of this reasoning is that the supposed advantage enjoyed by Yale grads by virtue of the theoretical discussions they had with their classmates is similarly ephemeral.</p>