<p>I have to agree with Americanski. Getting hired in law is not purely regional. I have a hard time believing that, all other things being equal, a corporation based outside of the eastern corridor (let's say Minneapolis -- or for that matter Chicago, Atlanta or Dallas) with operations large enough to warrant having an in house lawyer wouldn't jump at the opportunity to at least interview the Harvard Law grad in addition to their other candidates. The Harvard Law grad will almost always get their foot in the door based upon that degree. I'm not sure that the same holds true for the regional law school grad. This is particularly true if someone has lived in a particular area -- they grew up in St. Louis Park outside of Minneapolis, or they went to Emory, or they spent summers growing up with their grandparents in Dallas -- the Harvard Law grad will almost never be disadvantaged in the hiring process.</p>
<p>Yep, sallyawp is exactly right. My HLS classmates who wanted to go to smaller markets (St. Louis, Seattle, Miami) were universally snapped up by the very best firms in those cities.</p>
<p>Outside the top 14, regional reputation is extremely important in that U of Iowa grads have vastly better opportunities in Minneapolis than they have in San Diego. But regional rep does not trump national rep when it comes to the top of the law school rankings. Even in Des Moines, Yale grads will get treated as well as Iowa grads.</p>
<p>Americanski and Sally missed my point, whereas Hanna got it right. Regionally, there may be no substantial ADVANTAGE in having graduated from Harvard. Obviously, it gets noticed and may garner an interview. But a big advantage over the locals in terms of jobs?...not necessarily.</p>
<p>By the way, folks in the know would readily attend U of Minnesota Law School to take a gender discrimination class with Katherine McKinnon (if she's still there), one of the preminent scholars in the field. She's well published and a bit of a lightening rod, so it's likely that an applicant who is interested in Constitutional Law would know about her. And believe me, the best of the excellent midwestern public law schools, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin receive applications from throughout the nation. Even Dan Qualye couldn't get admitted to Indiana Law School.</p>
<p>There is an advantage to going to Harvard; I don't think Hannah's post refuted that idea at all. Probably, the Harvard grads she mentioned were hired by firms that wouldn't consider a local grad who wasn't in the very top of his class. </p>
<p>
[quote]
By the way, folks in the know would readily attend U of Minnesota Law School to take a gender discrimination class with Katherine McKinnon (if she's still there), one of the preminent scholars in the field.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure, OK, but that's really not a reason to choose Minnesota over Harvard. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And believe me, the best of the excellent midwestern public law schools, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin receive applications from throughout the nation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Michigan really isn't on the same level as the other two. And just about every school gets applications from across the nation. Some people either don't realize they might have to end up working in the region or don't mind that prospect. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Even Dan Qualye couldn't get admitted to Indiana Law School.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, well, if Dan Quayle couldn't do it...</p>
<p>I thought Dan Quayle did go to Indiana Law School, actually. Are there two similarly named law schools in Indiana?</p>
<p>So in light of this conversation, let me pose the following question:
D got large scholarship to Minnesota, and a small scholarship to Wash U and no scholarship to Texas. Minnesota would be cheapest by a long shot, but she did not like it when she visited. Texas has already been ruled out due to no scholarship. Is it worth taking on a large debt to go to Wash U. because she "loved" it, versus going to Minnesota for very little debt where she thinks she may not be happy? How much debt is realistic to take on, particularly if child thinks she may want to go into a public interest field.
Thanks for all your help in advance.</p>
<p>Americanski from who I hear Michigan is better than the other two if that's what you meant by not on the same level.</p>
<p>If you want to go into public interest, and you're looking at schools that have crummy loan repayment programs, IMHO it's crazy to borrow a lot of money to go to a school that won't offer you substantially better employment opportunities compared to the much cheaper school.</p>
<p>Catharine MacKinnon is at Michigan, not Minnesota</p>
<p>Well Michigan must have made McKinnon an offer she couldn't refuse, because she made her reputation at U of Minnesota.</p>
<p>Americanski, you make a good point about the 'depth' of the class. When it comes to job opportunities, a common measure of a law school's quality/reputation is how far down major firms will go into the class. It's no question that at the Ivy's et al, employers will interview someone who is neither law review nor has a top 10% ranking. Clearly, it's much harder for that same graduating 3L to get an interview if he's from 'No Ivy Law School' and his ranking isn't as high or if he has no Law Review pedigree.</p>
<p>
[quote]
'No Ivy Law School'
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Let's not substitute "Ivy" for the idea of quality- they are not sysnonymous.</p>
<p>Or rather "synonymous." Most of the members of the top 14 are not in the Ivy League while 5 are.</p>
<p>While you've got your dictionary open, look up 'allegory and 'symbolic.'</p>