<p>First of all, is it true that the best law schools in the country do not discriminate between majors of applicants or is this a myth? Would an engineer be able to find a place in corporate law or real estate law (basically something other than patent law which is the big thing for engineers apparently)?</p>
<p>One question at a time:</p>
<p>*LSAT and GPA are, by far, the two most important factors in admission to law school. You may get a "tip" for being an engineer - some schools will give more of a tip than others, and some indirectly give a tip by putting more weight on the LSAT than others do. </p>
<p>By in large, though, your major is secondary to your GPA.</p>
<p>*Engineers can do any type of law they want - what, do you think that the real estate people are going to start banning them? For legal fields which don't require a specialized background, your law school and your grades will matter a heck of a lot more than your undergrad major.</p>
<p>That all said... WHY would you put yourself through the hell of four years of engineering, only to turn around and go to law school - and not even for something in the sciences???? That's seven years of some of the most, if not the most, grueling education you can imagine - and four years of it is going to be irrelevant at best and a hindrance at worst (have fun trying to get into a top law school with engineering grades). Why????</p>
<p>Probably for a backup career, in case he can't get into a good law school. As others have said, with law school stratification the way it is, it probably isn't even worth going to a mediocre law school. I'm sure that having a backup career is a big reason why a lot of people go to MIT to get engineering degrees only to run off to non-engineering careers like consulting/banking, law school, med-school, etc. </p>
<p>What's ironic is that, because law school admissions are so GPA focused, by getting an engineering degree in order to have a backup career, you will probably get lower grades than you would if you didn't do engineering such that you end up hurting your chances of getting into a good law school, and hence you end up having to take up that backup engineering career. Hence, in some ways, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Happily, consulting+banking are not particularly GPA focused, and I'm sure that's a big reason why they're so popular among engineers at the elite schools.</p>
<p>How many law schools do you think would be considered to be "top tier"? For instance, top 4? top 10? top 50? Thanks!</p>
<p>I don't know who the "others" are that have said that it probably isn't "worth going" to a "mediocre" law school, or what is meant by a "mediocre" law school, but in general, whomever they may be, I disagree.</p>
<p>Many, many successful lawyers graduate from local or regional law schools, even schools that elite-minded individuals would consider "mediocre". If the objective is to graduate from a "name" school, then only a "name" school will do. If the obejctive is to get a good legal education, pass a bar examination and practice law, many law schools can provide that (providing the student provides the necessary time and effort to learn). It all depends on one's career objectives.</p>
<p>Thanks for the encouraging words, dadofsam. I know several lawyers (50-ish) who went to less than elite law schools, who work in a variety of practices and lead happy and comfortable lives. But I thought maybe things were more cut-throat these days. I'm glad there is room for all kinds of people in the legal profession (oops, I mean in law school, since many apparently go to banking or consulting...and I gather top schools are required for these areas).</p>
<p>Elaborating on DadofSam's post - it is a point which ConcernedDad has made elsewhere. IMO, graduating from a top school, generally, gives you more options than graduating from a lesser-known school. Whether or not you want those options is an entirely different matter. </p>
<p>Generally, it's easier to find work in a rough economy coming from a top school. </p>
<p>Generally, you should try to get into the best school in the region in which you want to practice. I could be wrong, but I've always maintained that if you want to work in Atlanta, go to Emory. A higher-ranked school (such as Northwestern) might have more of a name, but the majority of Atlanta law firms will probably interview OCI with Emory; the alumni networking is probably fantastic in that area; and it might be easier to establish yourself as someone who wants to stay permanently.</p>
<p>The advice I always give is to find a copy of US News and World Reports, Graduate Edition. In the back, you can find fun statistics, such as percentage of students employed in each field (private sector, gov't, business, non-legal, judicial clerkships) and the percentages who are in each region of the country. Those stats alone should really help you to find schools which are aligned with what you want. </p>
<p>For a slightly less quantitative measurement, take a look at Princeton Review's rankings for law school, and pay attention to things like quality of student life and which schools have the good professors. </p>
<p>So yes, whether or not it is worth going to a mediocre school depends on what you want out of your legal education, your law degree, and your pedigree. Just my opinion.</p>
<p>To answer LFK's question... it depends on whom you ask. But, your post could have been construed as asking for my opinion, so here goes:</p>
<p>I would consider "first tier" to be, well, the top portion of the top two tiers (i.e. top 100 schools) - roughly the 35 and up range. National placement, high amounts of students who do things like get judicial clerkships, the vast majority of students are employed at graduation, and there are a slew of judges, scholars, professors, etc among the graduates... subjectively, that is what I'm getting at.</p>
<p>Don't be fooled, though - law school has a fairly standardized curriculum (because of the bar), and, in the words of my pre-law advisor, I could go to a fourth-tier school and still be challenged. (Of course, the flip side is that in an overcrowded market, distinctions have to be drawn somewhere, so why not be snobby about who you hire?)</p>
<p>Many, many posters will disagree with me and draw the line at one of two other places: the top 3 (Y, S, and H, which are in a league of their own) or the top 14 (Columbia, NYU, Chicago, Michigan Northwestern, Cornell, Georgetown, Penn, Duke, UVA, and Berkeley/Boalt).</p>
<p>Thanks, AA! I always value your advice! I think I tend to agree with you that it would be wise to go to the best national or regional school possible, depending on the ultimate goal. But not all will have that option and it's good to know that students not attending the top three schools don't have to jump into an abyss!</p>
<p>Don't know--I turned down Boalt for UCDavis law & was VERY happy there & got my dream job after my 2nd year of law school & they hired me as an associate & had me start working & even paid me while I was studying for the bar exam. I've never regretted choosing Davis over Boalt & Davis was very generous with my aid package (I was OOS).</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't know who the "others" are that have said that it probably isn't "worth going" to a "mediocre" law school, or what is meant by a "mediocre" law school, but in general, whomever they may be, I disagree.</p>
<p>Many, many successful lawyers graduate from local or regional law schools, even schools that elite-minded individuals would consider "mediocre". If the objective is to graduate from a "name" school, then only a "name" school will do. If the obejctive is to get a good legal education, pass a bar examination and practice law, many law schools can provide that (providing the student provides the necessary time and effort to learn). It all depends on one's career objectives.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
So yes, whether or not it is worth going to a mediocre school depends on what you want out of your legal education, your law degree, and your pedigree. Just my opinion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ok, I'll bite. While I don't pretend to speak for everybody about what constitutes a mediocre law school that may not be worth going to, I would submit that a good example would be a non-ABA accredited law school. Given the attenuated career choices available from graduating from a school like that, I would argue that if you had an engineering degree and the best law school you can get into is a non-ABA accredited one, you may be better off financially just working as an engineer. </p>
<p>I would also argue that the law schools that are accredited, but in the 4th tier. Take a gander at the average salaries of graduates of those schools, and you will see that they are not significantly higher than the starting salaries of engineers, and in many cases, are even lower. Hence, again, I would argue that if you have an engineering degree from Stanford or Berkeley, and the best law school you can get into is Golden Gate, you may be better off just being an engineer. </p>
<p>{What's ironic is that there are some people who graduate from Berkeley and Stanford, some engineers some not, who actually get rejected from Golden Gate Law}</p>
<p>Now, I know what somebody's going to say. I'm sure that Golden Gate has had some very successful graduates. Look, I don't want to be unduly casting aspersions, but with a less than 30% bar passage rate, with only 62% of its graduates finding employment 9 months after graduation, and with the median salaries of private sector jobs being 58k (which isn't a lot of money in San Francisco), I think I'm on fairly safe ground when I say that if you have an engineering degree and you are given the choice between working as an engineer and going to Golden Gate, I think a lot of people would rather just choose to be an engineer. </p>
<p>Hence, when I say 'mediocre', I'm not talking about something like Davis, as Davis is still a strong tier 1 school, ranked #32 according to USNews. I'm talking about something like a non-accredited law school, or a tier-4 school. I'm sure, ariesathena would agree that it's a LONG way down to the bottom.</p>
<p>I agree that UC Davis is a fine law school. I also agree that many Golden Gate graduates have fine careers, including several partners and some associates at our firm. In the Bay Area, the top law schools are considered to be Boalt and Stanford, then UC Davis and Hastings, then others such as Golden Gate, Kennedy, McGeorge, etc. We have hired attorneys from just about all of these. They all produce some very good lawyers; everyone knows that only a limited number of top people can get into the most highly ranked schools. Also, some students must attend law school at night, and Boalt Stanford and UC Davis do not have evening schools. </p>
<p>A top student at Golden Gate with the right credentials will get plenty of consideration; a lower ranked student from any of those schools, including Boalt, will get a lot less consideration.</p>
<p>I do not consider a non-ABA accredited law school as mediocre; I put them in the same class as unrated movies. A Non-accredited school may be fairly good, but many are awful. Some good students graduate from them and pass the bar exams. Some become good lawyers. Most attend for financial reasons. However, in all cases, graduating from a non-accredited law school can severely limit your career options. If you wish to move to another state, you probably would not be allowed to take that state's bar exam, period. Your chances at obtaining a good position as an attorney are relatively low. However, if you want to open your own office, or perhaps take a government position, membership in your state's bar can be sufficient. In any case, if there is a choice, go to an accredited school and if you have to go to a non-accredited one, go to one that has been in business for a long time.</p>
<p>Look, my real point is this. Let's face it. A lot of people enter law school not because they have a burning love of the law. They do it for a simple reason - they think that doing so will advance their career. I would again point to the example of former Sec. of the Treasury Robert Rubin, who confessed in his own autobiography that he went to Yale Law without any clear reasons for why he was doing it, and even before he entered, he knew that he didn't really want to work as a lawyer. He went because he thought it would be useful for whatever he would end up doing, although he didn't know what that would be, and he later found his true calling as a Goldman Sachs banker. In other words, he got a Yale law degree not because he loved the law but just because he wanted a marketable degree. Whether you think he was right or wrong to do that, that's what he did. A lot of engineering students operate the same way - they study engineering not because they really love engineering but just because they want a marketable degree. </p>
<p>Hence, I use the term 'mediocre' from a marketability standpoint and in particular from a standpoint relative to that of an engineering career. If what you care about is marketability, and you have an engineering degree, then let's face it. That makes a lot of the low-end law schools mediocre in the sense that they don't deliver enough of a boost to your income over what you'd get as an engineer to justify the expense. </p>
<p>Again, lest you think that I am being far too mechanistic and mercenary in my approach, think of this. Let's say that lawyers made a small fraction of the money that they do now. I think we would then all agree that fewer people would want to go to law school, and some current law students may even drop out. That just goes to show you that money and marketability has something to do with why people want to get into law. If Robert Rubin had reason to believe that a Yale Law degree was not marketable, he wouldn't have gone. </p>
<p>Don't get me wrong. If you have an absolute burning desire to get into law no matter what and you don't care about the money or about the marketability, then sure, you should go to whatever law school you can get into, even if it's unaccredited, and even if you have an engineering degree from MIT. However, I would argue that most people aren't like that. For most people, a financial payoff calculation is important. Hence, a definition of mediocrity is therefore something that does not have a solid return on investment for them, given whatever else they could be doing with their time (like working as an engineer).</p>
<p>Putting numbers into Sakky's post:</p>
<p>*My student loans will be $16,000/year to pay off (10 years).<br>
*Chemical engineers, straight out of college, earn about $50,000/year
*So, to even break even on my investment into my education, I would have to earn about $75k/year (remember, that $16k is largely after taxes).</p>
<p>I'm sure I was very, um, strident, on this point last semester... mostly because I kept trying to drive it into my then-boyfriend's head on a regular basis (he always thought that I worked too hard and that I didn't need to get good grades - yes, sad that I let that relationship last so long!). My own thing is that I don't want to be less employable after three years and six figures worth of debt than I was at age 22. </p>
<p>Some of it is a regional thing - my mom (who lives on the west coast) said that she would not have the same opportunities in the northeast that she has there - she said that people would want to see a college degree (which she lacks), while people in SoCal are willing to see beyond that. My guess is that the same translates to law - it certainly applies to other fields - lot of education snobbery in the Northeast. </p>
<p>More on the regional nature of law schools... always be aware of how large the market is that you are trying to enter. Boston has small legal market and cannot absorb, except when the economy is booming, the law school grads in the area. Contrast DC, where most people who graduate from law school there wind up employed, because there's enough work to go around, between all of the law firms, politics, gov't work, etc. A friend ('03 law grad at a Northeast school) told me that American (WCL) grads get jobs - that all of her friends who went there are employed. It's a very strong second-tier school, not third/fourth as we've been discussing.</p>
<p>The specific school matters, too. Boston has Suffolk, which is a third-tier school (once ranked as 4th tier, but, IMO, that's nuts), but has a really incredible alumni network in the area and is thought of quite highly by Bostonians. The same applies to Baltimore (Univeristy of, I believe), Richmond, etc. Some schools just have enough of a local presence to be very worthwhile to attend.</p>
<p>I'm always a fan of people going to law school with their eyes open.</p>
<p>Not to put AA on the spot, but I think she's saying that her decision to go to law school was not absolute, but rather was contingent on which one she got into. I'm not going to say which one she's at, but I don't think she'd mind if I said that her law school is ABA-accredited. I have a feeling that if the only schools she could get into are non-accredited ones, she probably wouldn't be going.</p>
<p>And that's the point I've been trying to make. For most people, the decision to go to law school or not is not an absolute yes or no decision, but rather a decision that depends on which law school they get into. For example, not to continually harp on this point, but I'm fairly certain that Robert Rubin, wasn't just going to go to just any law school, but would go only to certain ones like Harvard Law (which he attended but dropped out after a few days), and Yale Law (which he ultimately graduated from). After all, Rubin himself said that he all he was looking for was a marketable graduate degree, and furthermore, having graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Harvard, he had many options available to him, including admission to the Harvard econ doctoral program. So if the best law school he could get into was an unaccredited one, or Golden Gate, I am 99.9% sure he would have chosen to do something else. Hence, his decision to go to law school was a function of which particular law schools he got into. Hence, Rubin, given his choices, would have calculated that certain law schools were too mediocre for him to have chosen. </p>
<p>The point is, a person with an engineering degree has the choice to simply work as an engineer. Hence, if that person chooses to do something else, that something else ought to be better than just working as an engineer, whatever 'better' means for that person (financially, lifestyle-wise, etc.). In AA's case, going to her law school was better than working as a chemical engineer. In Rubin's case, Yale Law was better than entering the Harvard econ doctoral program. It's a dynamic calculation.</p>
<p>Well, after I'm done interviewing, we'll see how my decision plays out. I never wanted to be an engineer, though - so there is some quality of life issue. Breaking even is fine with me.</p>
<p>But Sakky is right. I selected by law schools carefully, did a ton of research, and figured out what I needed to do and where I needed to go for law school to be a worthwhile decision. There were law schools that I considered applying to, knowing I would probably get in and maybe with merit money, but decided against - because, ultimately, it seemed too risky a proposition for me.</p>
<p>A lot of my decisions were driven by financial considerations - on the front end, not the back end. I hate debt, hate the idea of paying off educational loans forever, but am on my own for graduate school. For various reasons, I do think that my mid-30s are the years when I'll be paying other people's college expenses, and I want law school paid off by then.</p>
<p>Other than tax law in which accounting or finance training is preferred or IP where Sci or Eng is preferred, what counts is the law school ranking and your rank within the law school. This will allow you to get in with a big firm doing complex transactions.</p>
<p>ariesathena,
I somehow didn't realize that you NEVER intended to be an engineer. I guess I just assumed that you originally wanted to be an engineer and later had your interests turn to law. Did you always plan to attend law school? And if so, why did you choose such a difficult undergraduate major?
Thanks!</p>
<p>I loved chemistry, physics, and math, so engineering seemed like a great choice for me. When I did engin., I actually liked it - but ultimately realized that, despite doing some of the most cutting-edge work available at a company I loved, that research was not and never will be something that I'll LOVE. To me, it just didn't make sense to spend the rest of my life doing something that I didn't love - 21 is too darned young to be stuck in a profession. </p>
<p>I should say that, when I went into engineering, I was thinking of medicine (engin. BS/MS and MD in eight years)... then I worked in engineering and really liked it - then realized that I only liked it but really didn't want to spend the rest of my life at it. Actually at one time contemplated the Ph.D. route... but engin. just isn't the right field for me. I don't like the mechanics of lab work - but I love the mechanics of writing, researching (like library research), and constructing a point. Doesn't matter what it's for - I still love it. OTOH, the engin. work was interesting to me mostly because of what it did - thinking, "Oh, someday, this will be part of a Stealth bomber."</p>
<p>(sorry...duplicate post)</p>