<p>With so many sources saying you MUST go to the highest ranked school you get into, I wonder what the point is in going to a school ranked 40-100? Do big firms even hire from schools such as these? </p>
<p>Mainly because I'll be taking out student loans, I am just wondering if it's worth it to spend $150,000+ on a school that fall into this category...</p>
<p>It depends on type of law you’re doing for one thing. If you’re starting a law firm, probably don’t need top school. If you’re looking for something where someone needs to hire you, then top school would help.
Not really sure if this makes much sense lol…</p>
<p>But I can see you want to go to UCLA and I know that it has a top ranked law school. 
So you don’t necessarily have to go Ivy League.</p>
<p>I don’t know where Berkeley is getting his information from, but it’s not quite accurate.</p>
<p>For one thing, it’s not as though anybody with a JD can simply hang up a shingle and say “Hey everybody, new law firm in town!”. Aside from the huge capital investments required for such a project, business would be next to nonexistent for a firm started by a freshly-minted lawyer with no experience or client contacts. </p>
<p>But to address the OP’s main question, the conventional wisdom on this question is as follows:</p>
<p>If you’re looking to work in BIGLAW in a major market like NYC, DC, Chicago, etc., then a degree from a top school (and we’re really talking top 14 here) is extremely helpful. Whereas one usually needs to be near the top of one’s class at lower-ranked schools in order to even receive consideration from top law firms, at top law schools, said firms are willing to recruit all the way down towards the lower end of class rankings. For instance, when I was visiting for an Admitted Students Weekend at HLS, a 3L quipped that as long as you weren’t in the bottom 20% of your class, you could land a BIGLAW job. To be fair, I’m not sure if it’s so easy these days given the bloodbath in the legal industry, but the same principle still applies. The better your school, the more breathing room you have in terms of grades and recruitment opportunities.</p>
<p>As for lower-ranked schools, as I just mentioned, you can still get a BIGLAW job if you’re ranked very highly. On the other hand, many lower-ranked schools have very strong regional placement as well. So if you’re not terribly enamored with the idea of working in a big metropolitan market, your job opportunities may not be that limited. </p>
<p>However, in the end, it still comes down to a question of dollars and cents. Is attending a lower-ranked school worth it if you have to take on the same debt burden as a top law school graduate and perhaps have much sparser job opportunities? It’s a question only each individual can answer for himself, taking into account personal financial situation, recruitment history of the school in question, desired region, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unbelievably, I think this is pessimistic. That 3L sounds to me like he’s being modest. [url=<a href=“http://www.bcgsearch.com/pdf/BCG_Law_School_Guide_2009.pdf]84%[/url”>http://www.bcgsearch.com/pdf/BCG_Law_School_Guide_2009.pdf]84%[/url</a>] of Columbia Law grads end up in BIGLAW or a clerkship, which is usually even more selective. And of course HLS grads are more in-demand than CLS grads.</p>
<p>From what I’ve seen, actually, the bloodbath isn’t affecting hiring at the top few schools–it’s delaying start dates and such (which I don’t mean to trivialize), but I’ve seen some anecdotes as well as some tentative data indicating that hiring at the top law schools is actually up.</p>
<p>BDM, if it’s true that hiring at top schools is actually up, that gives me some comfort, but not a lot. As this NYT article points out, the current pyramid structure of BIGLAW firms seems more and more unsustainable: </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/nyregion/07law.html?em[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/nyregion/07law.html?em</a></p>
<p>Call me a pessimist, but I think the old way of doing business is on its way out. It’s a client’s market out there right now, and I just can’t see firms continuing to maintain such bloated classes of associates. </p>
<p>On the other hand, this is perhaps even more reason to aim for the top schools, as they would probably be the last to be hit by a hiring pinch.</p>
<p>
This was exactly the logic that I’ve been hearing, except even more so.</p>
<p>In my restatement of something I heard from some BIGLAW folks:
“Imagine that we used to hire about half of our kids from the top six schools, and about half from everybody else. We cut hiring by 40% this year. That 40% all comes from the ‘everybody else’ category, so now we’re hiring the same 50% from Harvard and Columbia but now only 10% (of our previous total) from ‘everybody else.’ Well, that’s just not efficient to send recruiters and interviewers if we’re just hiring 10% of our previous total. So may as well bump recruiting to 60% at Harvard and Columbia.”</p>
<p>Of course, all that goes out the window if the model is long-term completely unsustainable. Maybe I’m too old-school, but I’m actually not convinced of that. It’ll be much smaller, and I think other models will pop up, but I think deep down that the “Cravath Model” does make a lot of sense in some limited contexts–limited, but not so limited that T6 students won’t be able to find spots.</p>
<p>well i mean that the only time a top ranked school would be necessary is if you want to work in a big law firm. then if you went to say harvard, they’d be more likely to hire you.</p>
<p>obviously a good school would be worth it though. but if you’re say starting a law firm or working in a small town, something like that, you could get a job without it</p>
<p>Berkeley, that was my point in pointing out the unrealistic plan of just starting one’s own firm. You need experience and client contacts first, things that are usually acquired while working at a bigger law firm. And to reach that first step, it’s usually best to go with the highest-ranked school possible.</p>
<p>True, but not required. For example, my cousin, who is finishing law school, when I was talking to her about her future plans, said that the best thing to do is start your own firm. She said thats because getting a job is usually more difficult to do. And you can definitely start a firm right out of law school because another friend of mine recently graduated and has started one already. Of course, it all depends on your goals. Are you aiming to have the best law firm in the city? Obviously, a top ranked law school would help.</p>
<p>I’d also like to say a “top school” doesn’t necessarily mean Ivy League. Many public colleges (UCs included) have top ranked law schools.</p>
<p>I think your cousin’s advice is erroneous. Successfully starting your own firm is *extremely *difficult. Much harder than finding a job.</p>
<p>Exactly. You can “definitely start a firm right out of law school”, but does that mean the law firm will be viable or have any success? With my current assets, I could probably start my own catering business, but would anybody actually hire a caterer with absolutely no practical knowledge of how the business works or prior experience? </p>
<p>Keep in mind that the vast majority of things one learns in law school is theoretical, not practical. The real knowledge comes from being on the job. Being a successful lawyer requires experience. Starting a law firm straight out of law school is a project likely doomed to failure.</p>