<p>The point is “if you want to go into Big Law”. Those are the lawyers who hate their jobs and lives.</p>
<p>MoWC, I get what you’re saying, but I know a lot of BigLaw attorneys who actually like their jobs…or at least like certain things about them, like getting to work on major deals for high-profile clients, having secretaries and librarians and all the equipment they need to do good work, the opportunity to do interesting pro bono projects (many Guantanamo detainees and people on death row are represented by BigLaw attorneys, because you need a lot of manpower and support to do big cases like that), and the money to have nice things for their families and themselves (in the few hours they aren’t working). </p>
<p>Obviously, most people don’t enjoy BigLaw (there’s a reason so many attorneys leave it each year, even before the recession). And it wasn’t for me–I had an offer to join a big firm and I turned it down to do public interest work. But not all biglaw lawyers hate their jobs and lives!</p>
<p>With that said, even my own school did have several people asked to defer their offers. As those associate classes return full-force, I think it’s possible that the recession will have a “lag” time in terms of its recruiting impact.* </p>
<p>I actually suspect it’s unlikely, but I’m perpetually a glass-half-full kind of guy when it comes to the economy. I made a lot of incorrect predictions between August and January. (But I have been mostly right since.)</p>
<p>At a quick approximation, our OCI seems to have 2 employers/offices coming for every student in our class, so maybe the optimist in me will be right this time.</p>
<p>why does everyone cut the list off at 14?</p>
<p>what about 15-20? i mean, is there really that significant of a difference from 14 to 15?</p>
<p>Cartera, a law firm recruiter, once told us that it was a question of “top 10” schools, but most employers weren’t really sure exactly who was in the top 10. There are 14 schools that are commonly considered “top 10,” and so the Internet tends to refer to them as T14.</p>
<p>Unless you qualify for in-state tuition, a regional LS is still costly, unless you get a merit scholarship. For example, the estimated cost of attendance, i.e., tuition + living expenses, for out of state students at UGeorgia is $46,000 plus per year.</p>
<p>And if your FAMILY–including parents and spouse–is of very limited means, you’re probably better off going to the expensive top private, since they do give need-based fin aid. Few regional LSs do.</p>
<p>Throw in the fact that the top privates have better loan forgiveness/income protection programs, and reality is that the top private is often the better deal financially. (If the Y or H grad is laid off with only a few months severance, (s)he won’t be expected to make any loan repayments while unemployed, absent special circumstances. The regional LS grad will.)</p>
<p>Of course, you may be able to get merit $ and if you do, the calculation is different. Still, it’s not just the top NYC law firms that are cutting their recruiting. I actually believe that going to a top LS is every bit as important for the kids who are aiming for the good public interest jobs. A few years ago, one of my kid’s friends was offered a job at what is seen as one of the best federal public defenders offices in the US, after being interviewed on campus. A young man in my neighborhood applied for the same job. He attended a regional LS. He sent in his resume and got an interview–at its offices a long way from the LS. He had to pay his own plane fare–and didn’t get the job. In other words, with a limited budget for recruiting, the public defenders office only sent interviewers to the top law schools. </p>
<p>This economy has HURT legal hiring across the board. It’s not just top law firms. For example, the Philly DA’s office rescinded offers to 12 new grads who were supposed to start this fall.</p>
<p>There are only 14 law schools which are really national in terms of both the students who enroll and the employers who come to hire. All 14 of these schools have been ranked in the top 10 law schools by US News and World Report at some time since the rankings began in the early '80s. No other law schools have ever been ranked in the top 10. </p>
<p>Historically, the two schools usually ranked just below the top 14 are UTexas-Austin and UCLA. While both are certainly excellent LSs, they aren’t really national. (If you want to be in Texas and qualify as an in-state student, I’d pick Texas over any of the LSs ranked 7-14 in a heart beat.) </p>
<p>When I was young and dinosaurs roamed the earth, it was Y&H at the top, with Stanford quite a ways behind at third. Chicago and UMichigan were viewed as the next two in line–and I went to college in the Northeast. That was before USNews started ranking LSs though.</p>
<p>After first year you get in-state tuition in most cases.
There is a lot of ground between “Big Law” and public interest work or hanging out a shingle. I don’t consider the medium-size regional firms “Big Law” and I think the quality of life is bigger. You still have a secretary (although now they are called “Administrative Assistants”).</p>
<p>I am really responding to the original post. I am not claiming that it is usually wise to pick Georgia or Kansas over Yale or Stanford. I am saying that NOT getting into a T14 school does not mean you should not go to law school. I happen to think law school offers a valuable education, and if you have some reasonable possibility of being able to get a job that will enable you to pay off your loans, go for it. I do think incurring a lot of debt for T14 might lock you into a certain career path that might not be the one you want.
I would have hated doing complex transactions, tax or SEC work. I would have hated Big Law. I wouldn’t have liked public interest work either. I’m glad I had the options I did coming out of a top school. I chose a path not chosen by many (maybe one other) in my class.</p>
<p>MOWC…</p>
<p>You may know more about it than I do, but my impression is that “most states” do NOT offer the chance to pay in-state tuition after one year. SOME states do, but even in those states, you usually have to sign a sworn statement that you intend to remain in the state after you graduate and take the state bar exam. See e.g. <a href=“http://www.law.uga.edu/facstaffstu/students/residency_form.pdf[/url]”>http://www.law.uga.edu/facstaffstu/students/residency_form.pdf</a></p>
<p>For a list of states where it is easy and hard–the veracity of which I can’t confirm–see [Law</a> School Residency Issues by State](<a href=“http://www.top-law-schools.com/law-school-residency.html]Law”>Law School Residency Issues by State)</p>
<p>This can have some ramifications if you don’t really intend to do this and say you do. It can be an issue for a character and fitness committee. It can also make you ineligible to be treated as a state resident in your real home state, and some states give preference to state residents in hiring attorneys for government positions. </p>
<p>Now, if you go to an out of state law school and are more than willing to stay in that state for a few years after you finish law school, that’s another story. </p>
<p>In any event, any LS applicant who plans to do this should check out the requirements in the state in question.</p>
<p>If you choose to go to an out of state law school, I think you should plan to remain in the stae (except for maybe Michigan or Virginia). For example, for many reasons, UTexas was very high on my son’s list for law school. He grew up in Texas, loves it, and the school is excellent. He is NOT a Texas resident because we moved 3 years ago. He was going to apply to higher ranked schools, but Texas really was high on the list. I think he could have honestly met the residency requirements after a year. (All this is moot because he is not applying or taking LSAT- at least not this year. Don’t even get me started…)</p>
<p>Southeast firms, for whatever reason, are notoriously loyal to the regional law schools. Maybe it’s attributed to the stigma of “northern” graduates carpetbagging their way to the old Confederacy and displacing the good ol’ boys in the marketplace, who knows. You see it to a lesser extent in the Midwest and even on the west coast, but in a lot of cases a firm in FL or GA would prefer a UF or UGA/Emory grad over t14 if the former has the right grades. </p>
<p>Reponse; Absolultely right. Many law jobs are offered to the local law school grad. However, the KEY point is that you need good grades,which means generally be in the top 10% or on law review.</p>
<p>Moreover, I see some folks who are espousing going to a lessor teired law school for the scholarship offer with the "guarantee’ that they will do well in school. This is NOT necessarily the case. I have found that the LSAT is almost worthless in law school prediction.</p>
<p>I personally know of two people who didn’t do well on the LSAT and who performed fabulously in law school. Likewise , I know some kids who did fabulously well on the LSAT , as they did on all standardized tests, and almost flunked out. In fact, one did flunk out.</p>
<p>Don’t assume that because you had great LSAT and good GPA that you will be in the top 10%. If anything, I think the GPA is a much better predictor from what I have seen.</p>
<p>
I am trying to imagine the leading faculty members in “dinosaur law.” Torts stemming from Tyrannosaurus rampages, contracts regarding dinosaur egg ownership, whether the 14th Amendment applies to dinosaur governments, etc.</p>
<p>Hrrmm… What if I knew where I wanted to live… but not in that state yet… Would it behoove me to move to that state and wait a year before applying? I graduated way back in 2002 but have been thinking of Law school as an option. Say I wanted to work in Chicago… I could apply to UC, NW and UI… not sure if any other good schools in state that place people in Chicago firms. </p>
<p>I am out in California now but it is so expensive and not a big fan of the cities here…</p>
<p>If I got into a T14, the options here would be UCB and Stanford, but otherwise the out of state tuition seems like it would eat me up. Or do law schools waive this?</p>
<p>Even if I stayed here, not a big fan of Bay Area Law/Politics and the high price of home ownership shies me away from living here long term.</p>
<p>Um, you don’t get in-state tuition for Stanford.</p>
<p>UC and NW are private schools; residence will have no bearing on cost or admission. According to the link above, Illinois is one of the tougher states in which to acquire residency. (I don’t know if that’s accurate.) It also states that the dif between in-state and out of state isn’t that great.</p>
<p>MOWC,</p>
<p>Texas is one of the states in which it is difficult to establish residency after starting LS. If your son really wants to go to UT Law, he’d better move to Texas 12 months before he would start. You cannot claim him as a dependent for any part of that 12 months. So, if he finished school in June 2009 and moved to Texas in August 2009, you can’t claim him as a dependent for 2009 (unless you live in Texas) if he wants to enter in August/Sept 2010. The real reason to do it is that Texas is one of the states in which it’s MUCH easier to be admitted if you’re a Tx resident.</p>
<p>You stated that it wasn’t worth going into debt to attend a T14. You imply that it costs more to attend a T14 than to attend a lower ranked school. In many, if not most cases, it costs as much to attend a lower ranked school. The exception is if you are an in-state resident or get merit money. </p>
<p>Most of the top LSs have loan forgiveness/income protection programs. So, nobody is forced to go work for biglaw to pay back LS loans. The only tough year is a clerkship year.</p>
<p>I agree with you that there are MANY situations in which it DOES make sense to go to a lower ranked LS if you can NOT get into a top LS. But, in MOST situations it makes LESS sense to go into debt --usually just as much debt–in order to attend a LS ranked lower down on the totem pole. This is especially true if you are aiming to live in an area with lots of higher ranked LSs.</p>
<p>There are too many young lawyers now. It’s tough to get a job. If you read abovethelaw, you know that some top law firms are interviewing for paralegal jobs at lower-ranked LSs. The LSs wouldn’t allow them to interview on campus if they were confident that all their students could get jobs as attorneys.</p>
<p>The market is way too over-populated with LS grads, period. A lot of this is attributed to the ABA accrediting way too many schools in the past year, thus flooding the legal field with attorneys and creating an incredibly lopsided labor curve. The result is that the bimodal salary model is only further emboldened as even more lower-tier grads than ever before are being precluded from biglaw jobs and forced into less lucrative options.</p>
<p>I’m really starting to get sick of the T14 or nothing, Biglaw or nothing attitude that seems to prevail around here. There are other reasons to go to law school, and there are fine attornies coming out of T3 and T4 schools that (gasp) make money and even (bigger gasp) enjoy their work. </p>
<p>squman1 - Who said everyone outside the T14 was benig “forced” anywhere? I don’t want to work in Biglaw. Hourly, it’s not much (if any) more money than working for the government or a firm with a better work/life balance. My school isn’t T14, but it is a very strong regional school in an area I want to work, it will get me where I want to go, and they’re paying me to come. Even if I take a clerkship year the money will be perfectly sufficient to support my lifestyle. Sounds better than paying the full boat at the lower T14 schools I might have attempted and ending up in the same job (or worse, unable to take it because of my crushing loan debt).</p>
<p>there’s absolutely nothing wrong with attending a regional program if that’s what you choose. hell, i’d do the same if it was the right school in the right location for where I wanted to work. just saying that the over-population of lawyers has led to even more of a lopsided supply-demand for attorneys in the job market.</p>