<p>Hey guys.</p>
<p>I know that both prestige and geography of a law school can go a far way for a LS alum in terms of getting a good job.</p>
<p>Let's say I want to practice law in the city of Chicago. As far as landing a job in Chicago, will I be better off going to UChicago LS or another LS that is higher rated, like NYU?</p>
<p>In other words, when dealing with t14 schools does geography matter or is it all about prestige and ranking?</p>
<p>USNews does put down a statistic in terms of national placement which should be read with a grain of salt since it is the choice of the graduates of certain law schools where they want to work.</p>
<p>For example, UChicago has better national placement than Stanford though it is highly likely Stanford grads can work anywhere they want. Its just that the alumni network and Stanford's excellence in patent law keeps many of its graduates in the Bay Area.</p>
<p>HYS have no problems in terms of national placement but the more you move down the rankings of law schools the more a law school is likely to be regional.</p>
<p>UT law and UCLA law grads are very heavily concentrated within their respective states in terms of jobs.</p>
<p>If you want to practice law in Chicago, I think that your list of law schools should be: HYS, Chicago, Northwestern, then the others. UMich may place well there. </p>
<p>In some situations, you may want to go to Chicago over say, Harvard. If you grew up in Massachusetts, went to college there, and then went to HLS, how are you going to explain to employers that you really, really want to live in Chicago for the rest of our life?</p>
<p>"UT law and UCLA law grads are very heavily concentrated within their respective states in terms of jobs"</p>
<p>I don't disagree, but there is an important sidenote to that comment: Texas and California are each about as big as 5-6 other states combined. After all, how many other states require you to get on a plane to travel within the state? So being confined to those states isn't exactly restrictive!</p>
<p>
[quote]
In some situations, you may want to go to Chicago over say, Harvard. If you grew up in Massachusetts, went to college there, and then went to HLS, how are you going to explain to employers that you really, really want to live in Chicago for the rest of our life?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I doubt any employer asks and expects that realistically anymore.</p>
<p>Why do some people put UCLA and Texas in its own tier? I understand they aren't as good as the top 14 but what makes them better than 17-50?</p>
<p>
[quote]
the more you move down the rankings of law schools the more a law school is likely to be regional.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thank you for the information.</p>
<p>What I gather from this thread -- with the exception of HYS, geogaphy can play a role in job placement among t14 schools, although any role geography may play at a t14 school is far less significant than it may play at a lower ranked school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you want to practice law in Chicago, I think that your list of law schools should be: HYS, Chicago, Northwestern, then the others. UMich may place well there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Very cool! If I am suddenly blessed by some supernatural force thereby making me sufficiently intelligent and capable of scoring in the ~99% range on the LSAT, these would be the law schools on the top of my list. Assuming I get a GPA in the 3.6-4.0 range at Emory.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I doubt any employer asks and expects that realistically anymore.
[/quote]
Having been asked before, I have no doubt that it happens. Answers such as, "It's one of three cities in the US that has ____ (fill in with speciality) and I went to law school ___ (hours) away to be geographically close to ___" doesn't cut it. </p>
<p>If you want Chicago, you would be better off at Loyola, DePaul, etc. than at Emory.</p>
<p>I'm going to be a freshman at Emory next year.</p>
<p>I don't understand what you're saying.</p>
<p>I am better off going to Loyola Chicago to get into UChicago or Northwestern LS than I am at Emory?</p>
<p>Emory College or Emory Law?</p>
<p>Sorry. My writing is very unclear. To further complicate the issue, I have a nasty habit of pressing the "edit" button and editing my posts.</p>
<p>Next year, I will be a freshman at Emory undergraduate. I WANTED to be in Chicago, but I ignorantly did not apply to Northwestern, and tragically was wait listed at UChicago. Got into Loyola Chicago, but they gave me a poor package and I did not feel it was the right college for me.</p>
<p>By the way, Emory law school is that poorly regarded outside of Atlanta? I thought it would certainly be regarded higher than DePaul LS, even in the city of Chicago.</p>
<p>Man! If I don't get into a t14, I think I will seriously consider not going to LS. (LS is far off still, I know)</p>
<p>What Aries means when it comes time for you to go to law school. If you were looking to practice in chicago, you would be better served to go to law school at chicago, loyola, northwestern, etc than it would be to go to emory.</p>
<p>ariesathena is absolutely correct. I think that the only city where I've never heard of anyone being asked about their commitment to that city is NYC (in my opinion, due to a level of cockiness where everyone in NYC law firms just wonders why any attorney would want to go anywhere else). When I interviewed for jobs out of law school, I was asked at screening interviews, and then again during call backs, by firms in Boston, Philadelphia and S.F. why I would want to live and work there. You had better have some very good answers. It happens less once you are practicing, mostly because people do relocate for jobs, but the question is still asked.</p>
<p>I disagree. If you want to work in Chicago, you're still better off going to Harvard Law than to Northwestern or Chicago, assuming equivalent academic performance. No employer is going to sit there with your resume and think--gee, I bet (s)he could have gotten into Harvard but chose Chicago because (s)he wants to stay here. Nope, he's going to think that Chicago or Northwestern is the most highly ranked law school which admitted you and/or it gave you the best financial deal. </p>
<p>It's true that employers ask why you want to work in X city. It's rarely a make or break question. Moreover, having gone to law school in a city and saying the equivalent of "I like it here and want to stay" is usually a suspect answer. Many, many law students have significant others who are tied to the city where they attend law school for a few years. Law firms KNOW this.</p>
<p>For example, lets assume you are married. Your husband or wife has a full-time job in Chicago while you are attending law school. When it's time to interview for that all important 2L summer job, your spouse would prefer that you get a job in Chicago so you can be together. During the job interview, it comes out that you're married. Oh, so what does your spouse do? Oh, (s)he works for the Chicago Mercantile Exchange...Where is (s)he originally from? Oh, New Orleans or Atlanta or ...just like you. [You get the idea;firms assume, hey, as soon as this interviewee has finished law school, they'll pack up and head home. ] </p>
<p>Even if you aren't married, the most frequent reason to want to stay is that you've got a significant other who has more schooling to finish up. </p>
<p>In my admittedly limited experience, a "connection" is only important in a few cities. Honolulu is #1 on the list--lots of people think a summer in Honolulu would be fun. Smaller markets are usually more concerned with connections; they care more about turnover. However, most prestigious law schools aren't located in smaller markets. </p>
<p>Within a tier, it makes sense to pick the local school. Chicago, NYU and Columbia are all about the same level. If you want to be in Chicago, it would make sense to choose UChicago for law school. But turning down Harvard and going to Michigan or Nortwestern--assuming the cost is the same--because you want to work in Chicago would IMO be idiotic..even if you grew up in Boston. </p>
<p>How to "fix" this? One approach is to take a low paying or no paying job the summer after 1L year in the city where you want to live. Then say "I've always loved Chicago and after working here last summer, I knew it's where I want to live when I finish school."</p>
<p>Again, I concede geography matters within the same tier or below the top 14. But, when you go to a NATIONAL--top 14--LS, nobody is going to assume you went there because you want to settle in that area after law school. Most people will assume it's the best law school or best financial aid package that made the decision.</p>
<p>Agreeing with a lot of what Jonri wrote. (If you'll notice, I did rank HLS above UChicago & NW.)</p>
<p>There are job markets that will ask you why you want to be there. I interviewed with a Boston firm once, and they asked. I directed them to my resume - college in Boston, family there, worked there after graduation - and the woman said, "Oh, good, you actually want to be here. I get a lot of people who say things like, 'Because my boyfriend's second cousin lives here and loves it.'" Granted, Boston is a very, very insular market - NYC is obviously much different - but that does happen.</p>
<p>Jonri's suggestion of working for free after 1L year is a good one. Somehow, you should figure out a way to demonstrate a connection to the city if you really, really want to work there.</p>
<p>I have done interviews for a few large firms. We seldom ask that question because we realise that job mobility is par for those who are ambitious. In addition, most large firms have offices in many major cities and tranfers are very common. In many occasions, we offer opportunities for transfer after a few years. We would never expect anyone to tell us he/she wants to live in X city for the rest of his/her life. I believe some interviewers ask because of curiosity and definitely not a deal breaker, unless the firm is in a very undesirable market.
Perhaps these considerations were important years ago but definitely seldom applicable now.</p>
<p>I counsel 2Ls during the interview process, and the question is still asked (I hear about it most often in Boston, SF, Atlanta, Philadelphia and smaller legal markets), though I agree that it is probably not a deal breaker. I do think that it is a good idea to go into interviews with an idea of how best to answer that question when asked, particularly when your resume or background do not make the ties to a particular city obvious.</p>
<p>Since when is NYU better than chicago in Law? Harvard and Yale are the top 2. After those two, you have 5 law schools of equal calibre, and both Chicago and NYU are considered among them. I'd understand the question if you were asking about Yale or Harvard over say Northwestern or Georgetown. But Chicago and NYU are peers where Law schools are concerned.</p>
<p>Alexandre... </p>
<p>...if you're going to try to convince people that a single place differential in the US News rankings is entirely insignficant...</p>
<p>1) I'll support you all the way, because it needs to be said; and
2) good luck, because it's like telling 15th-century preists that the earth revolves around the sun and is kind of squished about the middle instead of being a perfect sphere. </p>
<p>Usually, law schools can be ordered as: HYS; Chicago, NYU, Colubmia; the rest of the T14; UCLA and Texas; the rest of the top 25ish; etc.</p>
<p>I tier them slightly differently (according to USNWR reputation scores). </p>
<p>Tier 1 (average repitational score of 4.8-5.0/5.0):
Harvard 4.85/5.0
Stanford 4.8/5.0
Yale 4.85/5.0</p>
<p>Tier 2 (average reputational score of 4.5-4.7/5.0):
Cal: 4.5/5.0
Chicago 4.65/5.0
Columbia 4.65/5.0
Michigan-Ann Arbor 4.55/5.0
NYU 4.55/5.0
UVA 4.55/5.0</p>
<p>Tier 3 (average reputational score of 4.1-4.4/5.0):
Cornell 4.15/5.0
Duke4.25/5.0
Georgetown 4.25/5.0
Northwestern 4.1/5.0
Penn 4.4/5.0</p>