Is a six figure salary from a third tier law school possible?

Graduate School Law School
1

<p>So I have been looking at all the various statistics of salary... no, this is just something I am wondering, and is not the basis for my wanting to go to law school.</p>

<p>So... I am in the Los Angeles area. I really don't want to leave for law school, unless I go to a really good one, like Georgetown, NYU, Chicago, Columbia, etc. But so does anyone else.</p>

<p>Anyway, there are several 3rd and even 4th tier law schools around me: Whittier, Southwestern, and La Verne, among others. </p>

<p>I am considering these schools as backup, incase the big four (USC, UCLA, Loyola, Peppperdine) reject me.</p>

<p>All I am wondering is, is it possible to have a 6 figure starting salary out of these law schools? How accurate are the salary statistics on the websiteS?</p>

<p>This is my first post on the law forum, and my third post in general, so any help would be appreciated.</p>

<p>Thank you very much. :)</p>

2

<p>Try UCal too.</p>

<p>Which type of law are you looking at?</p>

3

<p>Yes, it is possible to obtain a job with a six figure salary from a third or fourth tier law school. What you need to assess is the probability of obtaining that job. In my experience, it is definitely a long shot unless you are attending a law school with a good reputation and strong placement in the region, and if that region includes a big city where six figure salaries are paid to starting lawyers.</p>

4

<p>This chart shows the distribution in 2006 of starting salaries for lawyers, from all law schools: Empirical</a> Legal Studies: Distribution of 2006 Starting Salaries: Best Graphic Chart of the Year</p>

<p>My suspicion is that the percentage of recent graduates of Tier One schools who do not earn six figured salaries is significantly larger than the percentage of recent graduates of Tier Three and Four Schools who do.</p>

<p>My own view is that many prospective law students place too much emphasis on starting salaries when making decisions about law school. I took a job with a small firm when I graduated from law school. My salary was relatively modest, but the responsibilities placed on me were great. The work load was heavy, but reasonable enough that I could keep doing it for the long haul. </p>

<p>Most significantly, I learned how to practice law, and found that I liked it enough to continue do it, and to continue developing my professional skills. My remuneration has increased with time.</p>

<p>I was a little surprised at my 20th law school reunion how few of my classmates who had gone to work for big firms at more impressive salaries had stayed with those firms. A high percentage had left the practice of law altogether. Of those who were still practicing, a high percentage worked for the federal government, and had risen the ranks slowly and steadily. Twenty years out, most of the federal government attorneys were earning six figure salaries, with great benefits, reasonable work schedules, and satisfying work.</p>

<p>The most useful question prospective law students should ask themselves is, "will I like the work enough to want to keep doing it year after year, even if the money I'm making in the early part of my career is relatively modest?" Answering that question honestly will take some serious research into what it is attorneys do, and some serious soul searching. If you 've done this homework, and can honestly answer, "yes," then you're more likely to be satisfied with a long-term career in the law.</p>

5

<p>To the OP: I'd strongly urge you to reconsider your geographic tie-down. This isn't just urging you to be rawly ambitious and follow rankings, although I don't think that's entirely invalid either.</p>

<p>The big thing is that I think travel is good, in and of itself. The country is a more varied place, and each place has a lot more value, than people tend to give it credit for. Speaking as somebody who has lived in seven different cities across the country, I can tell you without a doubt that living in a series of different places has been one of the best things any young person can do in terms of growth and education -- it helps you see your own upbringing more clearly, reveals some of the provincial quirks that you've taken for granted, and lets you decide which of those you want and which of those you don't. You pick up your favorite phrases and cultural habits from each place.</p>

<p>Barring something that is really tying you down to Los Angeles -- and bluntly, I really think there's only two situations that should qualify -- I think you should be willing to follow wherever your education takes you. It's an adventure of the best kind.</p>

6

<p>I am thinking either corporate or real estate law.</p>

7

<p>This chart looks at where graduates of different schools end up: <a href="http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/20080414employment_trends.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/20080414employment_trends.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>As you can see, a lot of third- and fourth-tier schools have more students fail out than end up with six-figure jobs.</p>

8

<p>Quite bluntly, I cannot stand people who blindly try to persuade others not to attend "lower tiered" law schools. Such people have very parochial view of things to say the very least. People like these, who make the USNWR their Bible, would be completely lost without their precious rankings. Such adherences arise out of the genuine fear and insecurity of one’s own abilities. But I say to them that glorifying such arbitrariness is an infantile disease that should NOT be spread. Twenty years ago, there were NO rankings and it really made no difference that I attended a school that is now unexplicably categorized as tier 2. Perhaps, if you are too worried that without attending a top law school will keep you from being a good lawyer, THEN you shouldn’t attempt to become one. It is not for you.</p>

<p>And USNWR should be ashamed of themselves for changing the legal profession for the worse and those who listen these Sirens should punch themselves in the face to sober up to reality. A pox on all their houses!</p>

9

<p>I haven't seen any posts on this topic in which anyone was blindly trying to convince anyone of anything. There are a number of links above to sources of concrete information so that people won't be in a position to do anything blindly, such as incur six figures of debt, and forego three years of income, based upon unrealistic salary expectations.</p>

<p>I was already practicing law when US News and World Report started ranking law schools in 1987. They weren't the first to do so - the Gourman Report was around when I was in college, and there were other journals that published surveys of law school quality.</p>

<p>In any event, the state of the market for law school graduates decades ago when you and I attended is of little probative value for people who are making decisions about what to do with their lives today.</p>

10

<p>
[quote]
Quite bluntly, I cannot stand people who blindly try to persuade others not to attend "lower tiered" law schools. Such people have very parochial view of things to say the very least. People like these, who make the USNWR their Bible, would be completely lost without their precious rankings.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Talk about major PMS...the fact is if you want a "six figure salary" hence probably biglaw job, you pretty much need to attend the T-14 or at the very least a "sub national" school to have a decent shot. Even before USNews, there were established hiring tiers among corporate firms...USNews merely spelled out what already existed. </p>

<p>I would not recommend anyone to invest a load of dough and attend a T-3 if their goal is biglaw. It's not just blind elitism, it's reality.</p>

11

<p>what are the tier 1 schools? tier 2s? tier 3s?</p>

12

<p>
[quote]
Talk about major PMS...the fact is if you want a "six figure salary" hence probably biglaw job, you pretty much need to attend the T-14 or at the very least a "sub national" school to have a decent shot. Even before USNews, there were established hiring tiers among corporate firms...USNews merely spelled out what already existed. </p>

<p>I would not recommend anyone to invest a load of dough and attend a T-3 if their goal is biglaw. It's not just blind elitism, it's reality.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You know, I'm glad you responded because, no offense, but you are the exactly the type of person that I allude to. First of all, the magical "six figure salary" (and I assume you are refering to starting salaries) is nothing else but a red herring. Anyone and I mean anyone can make six figure in a couple years even if they don't right out of law school. Secondly, w-t-f is T-14? Do you even know where this not-so-inncuous number 14 comes from? And, sorry to say, but you're outright wrong that you need to be in the "T-14" to make 100G's. In fact, if you simply reference the index of your "USNews bible", you can clearly see that the majority of law schools (regardless of rank) span over the 100G mark in starting salary range. </p>

<p>Basically, you shouldn't put the USNews on the pedestal. They are not qualified rankings of an sort of "reality" but, rather, pure fiction (that little comes out the business end of one person). People need to stop worshiping the USNews gods, who merely what to turn a profit by simply rearranging the top fourteen schools a little bit every year. After all, how trustworthy is a ranking that has a particular school #1 for over fifteen years in a row? (if youve taken any statistics or research methodolgy class, you know you have to start question these odds). The sooner people stop kneeling at the sound of these Sirens, the sooner some degree of sanity can return to the profession! So please stop disseminating it.</p>

13

<p>US News didn't create a ranking out of thin air. As another poster noted, law firms recognized rankings long before US News made a list. I was a legal recruiter before US News got involved and major law firms had no problems ranking law schools. </p>

<p>Rant and rave all you want about rankings, but the top paying firms are going to continue to make every effort to staff from what they consider to be the top schools. They do it because they can. The economy is only going to make the rankings even more influential.</p>

14

<p>
[quote]
You know, I'm glad you responded because, no offense, but you are the exactly the type of person that I allude to. First of all, the magical "six figure salary" (and I assume you are refering to starting salaries) is nothing else but a red herring. Anyone and I mean anyone can make six figure in a couple years even if they don't right out of law school. Secondly, w-t-f is T-14? Do you even know where this not-so-inncuous number 14 comes from? And, sorry to say, but you're outright wrong that you need to be in the "T-14" to make 100G's. In fact, if you simply reference the index of your "USNews bible", you can clearly see that the majority of law schools (regardless of rank) span over the 100G mark in starting salary range.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I believe the T-14 alludes to employment practices...how biglaw firms hire. (Well actually, if you want the direct answer, the T-14 refers to the ONLY law schools ever ranked in the top 10, but many firms hire just from the illustrious T-14 and some even just the T-10 excluding certain schools. )</p>

<p>"Anyone can make six figures in a couple years even if they don't right out of law school..." Um, okay...I doubt "anyone" can. Yes, there are schools outside of the T-14 that have six figure median starting salaries (like Hastings) but you have to keep in mind that these schools limit you to that region alone (hence, San Francisco for Hastings) and hence make you immobile. In addition many biglaw and boutique firms only hire from the T-14. </p>

<p>Here's the employment trends for the top 100 of 194 ABA-approved schools. As you can see, the Top 15 schools comprise the top 15 spots of placement in money-making NLJ250 firms. (Btw, Vanderbilt (and pretty much any school above Yale) only outranks Yale because Yalies tend to pursue academia over biglaw.)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.law.com/pdf/nlj/20080414employment_trends.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.law.com/pdf/nlj/20080414employment_trends.pdf&lt;/a> </p>

<p>As for "majority" of law schools span over 100k in starting salary range. *** ARE YOU SMOKING? There are 194 ABA-approved law schools in America. You claim over 97 of these have starting salaries in the 100k range? I'm looking at USNews. By span, you mean the 75th hits over 100k,right? That is true for some non-T-14 Tier 1s (not all, by far, many of these btw do not have medians over 100k), but not true for Tier 2 and below. </p>

<p>For example one Tier 1 school that hits 100k at the 75th is Florida (ranked 46 and I believe it is strong regionally but definitely not a national school by any means). Its 25th-75th interquartiles are 60,000-100,000, meaning the median is not over 100k. Compare it to my own Top 10 school, the 25th-to 75th interquartile range starting salary is 135,000-145,000. </p>

<p>I would look through every single 194 schools that is ABA-approved to indeed see if your seemingly bogus claim is true at a later date, as this is time-consuming.</p>

<p>Needless to say the Top 14 schools are the only truly national ones and allow you mobility with the highest interquartile and median salaries. </p>

<p>(And please don't counter my claim with Howard Law, which is actively recruited by biglaw and has a high starting salary simply because firms want to lure minority employment.)</p>

<p>
[quote]

Basically, you shouldn't put the USNews on the pedestal. They are not qualified rankings of an sort of "reality" but, rather, pure fiction (that little comes out the business end of one person). People need to stop worshiping the USNews gods, who merely what to turn a profit by simply rearranging the top fourteen schools a little bit every year. After all, how trustworthy is a ranking that has a particular school #1 for over fifteen years in a row? (if youve taken any statistics or research methodolgy class, you know you have to start question these odds). The sooner people stop kneeling at the sound of these Sirens, the sooner some degree of sanity can return to the profession! So please stop disseminating it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>"Odds." I was a Mathematics minor in undergrad. Odds don't even apply in this case, as USNews factors in various points on which to evaluate schools. It's not about "odds." Yale is the number one school because of entering class GPA interquartiles/median, LSAT interquartile/medians, placement in academia, student:faculty ratio, endowments, funding, etc. </p>

<p>Regarding not putting USNews on a pedestal, I'm afraid that isn't going to happen any time soon as everyone applying now and everyone in law school now take/took USNews rankings seriously. Why wouldn't they? Like cartera says, and I'm sure cartera has just as much if not more experience than you in the legal field, major law firms already ranked schools before USNews. There's a reason why USNews ranks school these ways: employment prospects, mobility, GPA ranges, LSAT ranges, funding, endowment, faculty: student ratio, quality of teaching, etc. It's not just random bullcrap. And I'm guessing that USNews ranked schools partly based on the rankings that already existed in the legal field before it published its first edition.</p>

15

<p>Hiring</a> more deeply into top schools</p>

<p>
[quote]
Another school with a big increase was University of Southern California Gould School of Law, which jumped from the No. 20 spot to No. 14 this year. Of its 195 J.D. graduates in 2007, 85 of them, or 43.6%, took jobs with NLJ 250 firms. Of its 215 J.D. graduates in 2006, 36.3% began working full-time for NLJ 250 law firms.
Two schools dropped four spots compared with the ranking for 2006 graduates. Stanford Law School had 51.4% of its 2007 graduates go to NLJ 250 law firms, compared with 54.9% of its 2006 graduates. The school dipped to the No. 12 spot, from No. 8 the year before. Boston College Law School, ranked No. 20, sent 36.8% of its 2007 graduates to NLJ 250 firms, compared with 39.1% the year before. It was ranked No. 16 last year.

[/quote]
</p>

16

<p>
[quote]
I believe the T-14 alludes to employment practices...how biglaw firms hire. (Well actually, if you want the direct answer, the T-14 refers to the ONLY law schools ever ranked in the top 10, but many firms hire just from the illustrious T-14 and some even just the T-10 excluding certain schools.) </p>

<p>[and so on and so on...]

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What are you taking about? Seriously, talk about flipping out! Calm down, Chief. You don’t have to take the defensive simply because you may have a huge chip on your shoulder. It seems so strange to me that if you’re really in a “top” law school you would so vehemently need to prove that all schools are essentially worthless pursuits (or whatever point you’re trying to make – it’s really not clear). BUT, since it’s too “time consuming” for you (even after you wrote all that crap), Temple, Northeastern, NYLS, South Texas, Texas Southern, Rutgers, Southern, Detroit, William Mitchell, Miami, Catholic, USF, Santa Clara, and Franklin Pierce are all schools far from the USNews' top 14 but nevertheless clearly over 100G’s in ss range. I’m not exactly sure how you can overlook that (and do well on the lsat, for that matter) but OK, whatever. I really don’t care what you think or, actually, that you simply echo what the USNews thinks. I’m content with my own view from my personal experiences and, oh yea, a little revolutionary Painian common sense (which you obviously lack).</p>

17

<p>
[quote]
BUT, since it’s too “time consuming” for you (even after you wrote all that crap), Temple, Northeastern, NYLS, South Texas, Texas Southern, Rutgers, Southern, Detroit, William Mitchell, Miami, Catholic, USF, Santa Clara, and Franklin Pierce are all schools far from the USNews' top 14 but nevertheless clearly over 100G’s in ss range.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would be suspicious of those numbers, unless the school tells you what percentage of graduates actually report salary information. It's often well under half. For example, on NYLS's salary info site, they say that only 25% of graduates reported salary info: New</a> York Law School :: Employment Statistics Their site is still dishonest, as they initially report a median private firm salary of $160K. This is directly contradicted by the data they later report, which would suggest a median of about $60K. </p>

<p>This is why I always tell prospective law students to question the salary info they get from the schools, and ask what percentage of grads actually reported their salary information (another good question to ask is what percentage of students get jobs through on-campus interviewing). A lot of these third- and fourth-tier schools are poor investments, whose alumni end up deep in debt and wishing they hadn't attended.</p>

18

<p>"I’m content with my own view from my personal experiences and, oh yea, a little revolutionary Painian common sense (which you obviously lack)."</p>

<p>After re-reading your post I realized you said "Painian," given the context and tone I had originally thought you meant "Palinian", as in Sarah Palin. It originally made a lot of sense. :D</p>

19

<p>
[quote]
What are you taking about? Seriously, talk about flipping out! Calm down, Chief. You don’t have to take the defensive simply because you may have a huge chip on your shoulder. It seems so strange to me that if you’re really in a “top” law school you would so vehemently need to prove that all schools are essentially worthless pursuits (or whatever point you’re trying to make – it’s really not clear). BUT, since it’s too “time consuming” for you (even after you wrote all that crap), Temple, Northeastern, NYLS, South Texas, Texas Southern, Rutgers, Southern, Detroit, William Mitchell, Miami, Catholic, USF, Santa Clara, and Franklin Pierce are all schools far from the USNews' top 14 but nevertheless clearly over 100G’s in ss range. I’m not exactly sure how you can overlook that (and do well on the lsat, for that matter) but OK, whatever. I really don’t care what you think or, actually, that you simply echo what the USNews thinks. I’m content with my own view from my personal experiences and, oh yea, a little revolutionary Painian common sense (which you obviously lack).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How does my apparent "need" to prove "all" schools (talk about failing logic reasoning on the LSAT) are worthless conflict with my attendance of a top school? Wouldn't I be more justified in thinking low ranked schools are worthless to attend if I go to a top school rather than a low ranked one? </p>

<p>I do not think "all" schools are not worth attending. (Where did I say that?) I just find investing my money in a top ranked one to be more sound since I know that if I graduate below median in my class, I can still make over $130,000 starting and I have a good shot at working in the extremely competitive primary markets.</p>

<p>My own standards may be much higher than yours, but if I had not gotten into at least a top 25 school, I would not have gone to law school at all since I am paying completely on my own. The average student with my major (think along the lines of business/economics/math majors) at my undergrad (top 15) had starting salaries oftentimes higher than many Tier 3 and Tier 4 law schools' median starting salaries. I would not have wanted to invest 200k on a risky pursuit when I have no idea where I want to practice either (and hence attending a "national" T-14 is very important to me.) All I know is that I want to practice in a primary market: New York, Chicago, SF, which by the way, are saturated with Top 14 graduates and graduates from the school regionally strong in them. i.e. Fordham in NYC.</p>

<p>If you made the poor choice of attending a Tier 3 or Tier 4, deal with your regret on your own time and stop lashing out at those who find worth in USNews (which is pretty much everyone else). By the way pretty much every law school applicant these days understands its worth. You are the one with the chip on your shoulder if you cannot accept it.</p>

20

<p>Wildflower, I see definitely see how someone like you would immediately think that Palin and common sense go together. But who the heck would ever conclude at first glance that words like Paine, revolutionary and common sense would go together. It’s not like Paine’s Common Sense was perhaps the single most popular publication from the revolutionary era, right? You’re right, American history is for dummies. Long live Palin’s common sense? </p>

<p>
[quote]
If you made the poor choice of attending a Tier 3 or Tier 4, deal with your regret on your own time and stop lashing out at those who find worth in USNews (which is pretty much everyone else). By the way pretty much every law school applicant these days understands its worth. You are the one with the chip on your shoulder if you cannot accept it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, I didn’t attend a law school in the bottom two tiers but I didn’t attend one in the T14 either. But, I really don’t see how any of that is relevant. And I think you mentioned that you are in a “top 10” law school about 500 hundred times (plus you username is also kind of redundant to that claim). Either you’re unnecessarily overly proud of this label or you are trying to hide behind it (true or false). The beauty of the internet is that no one will ever know what is the truth no matter how many times you repeat it. </p>

<p>But BACK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND. Wasn’t the title of this thread about six figure salaries? Apparently, the information in my previous post contradicts every baseless claim that people from lower tiered schools can’t make six figures starting. Might I also add that according to USNews, Hofstra has an SS range of 160K which happens to be higher than Yale. But if, like Americanski says, these numbers are not accurate then none of the statistics that USNews provides should be trusted, hence, the rankings are nothing but a sham (which I have been saying all along). </p>

<p>Honestly, your conclusion that attending anything but the T14 is a risky investment is completely baseless and is nothing but a misguided opinion. I have never, in my entire legal career, met a lawyer that was bitter about having attended law school or thought that it was a bad investment (as if forgoing law school would open so many other doors for people). It becomes less and less important when you get out of law school (but, of course, you wouldn't know that yet). Interestingly enough (and quite telling), the only place I have seen such negative sentiment is on the internet. So it’s usually people sitting behind the security of the personal computer that complain, make stupid accusations and disseminate idiotic elitism (which, ironically, hurts the people disseminating it). But it’s safe to say that these people are usually frauds (much like the infamous Loyola2L). So, say all you want and, by all means, mention again your expensive and top-whatever education. No one really cares and your personally qualification claims certainly do add any weight to your hole-filled argument. For a 1L, with absolutely no concrete concept of the professional legal market, you seems very excessively confident. However, this shows great naivety and your proneness to being influenced by others. Don’t worry though, you’re opinion will probably change the moment that a veteran 4th tiered law graduate making three times your salary wipes the floor with you in the courtroom (I’ve seen it happen and it does happen to the “best” of us).</p>