<p>I agree with you, but as they say, there needs to be a difference that makes a difference.</p>
<p>Connections will also, often, trump ability.
To say that connections are more important than which college you went to is almost like saying showing up for the interview sober is better than showing up drunk. Of course connections are a more important factor, but more often than not a job applicant does not have a significant connection, and that's when the school rep + ability kicks in.</p>
<p>How many of us watch action movies or turn to watch the football? We all like to compete and by watching movies or game we turn to our wild side which has a very close theme related to violence. Similarly human being want to look elegant and groom up to be noticed. Tell me simple fact, how many of us will turn down money or power or social status; my guess is less than .001%.</p>
<p>Now by agreeing that prestige is nothing, I would be in serious denial. After all our intrinsic characteristics wants to be the best and compete for best. If all of us have everything equal, we all will vie for the best. However in real life we have make compromises and live within our means. Thus, applying for the prestige is not a bad thing as long as one recognizes that if the end result is not fruitful, we may have to move on. After all one has to try and see if they can make it, but not being admitted does not mean we are unsuccessful.</p>
<p>"We can probably say that it's a mix of undergrad reputation/quality and other factors that contribute to law school admission. Law school prestige, however makes a noticeable difference."</p>
<p>If you want connections out here, you'd be much better off attending UW or Gonzaga Law Schools. In fact, for the few who go to HYP, I'd say the vast majority who end up in law careers out here go to UW law school. Harvard Law won't provide the proper connections.</p>
<p>was really talking about the "hottest" jobs for law students. I know that some New York big law firms and clerking positions only consider a percentage of each student body based on how good the law school is. If you want to work in a local market, like Seattle, I'm sure UW would suit you just fine but I don't know if UW can give you better chances than Harvard. This is from another board (mods don't kill me)</p>
<p>"Here's a rough pecking order for hiring, as best as I can determine...</p>
<ol>
<li><p>HYSCCN</p></li>
<li><p>Other top 14's and University of Washington</p></li>
</ol>
<p>BIG GAP</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Non-CA top 25's</p></li>
<li><p>CA top 25's "</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Following on mini's point, and one raised frequently one of the dads....when thinking of school ranking, or NYC hiring, don't forget built-in regional bias. Many kids on the west coast just don't want to go east for grad school, bcos if they did they might likely go east for undergrad. (Stanford s/b excluded bcos only 50% of its class are Cal residents)</p>
<p>btw: Boalt Hall of Berkeley is a Cal school and is typically considered a top law school (but don't know about its east coast placement)</p>
<p>I think very few newly minted lawyers from top schools want to work in secondary markets. Later in their career some do, but by then school matters much less than what they've done. As for hiring by large national and international law firms, most firms have a list of schools they recruit from, and they really do recruit only from those schools. Even the well connected have a hard time getting an interview if their law school is not on the list.</p>
<p>In markets like Seattle, local law schools produce almost all of the attornies until the big city drop outs come calling.</p>
<p>Something interesting that I have noted about some top attorneys that I know:</p>
<p>I held an office on the board of a organization, which consisted of more than a fair share of top attorneys. While in that position, I was tasked with putting together the directory of members, which included their education and career experience. I found it interesting that most of the attorneys attended top 20 undergrad schools, then went to so-so law schools (good schools, but nowhere near Ivy&Co), then went on to Ivy&Co for LL.Ms. I've wondered about this a few times. Some of these attys are now officers in Fortune 100 corporations, some are professors, some are patners at top firms......a few went to HYP&Co for law school...most didn't. ALL went to top schools for undergrad (not particularly HYP&Co...but at LEAST top LACs) and ALL went to HYP&Co for the LL.M. </p>
<p>Why is this? Why the dip at the law school level? Bottom line, these people are WILDLY successful. I can't get specific for obvious reasons...but trust me that these are idols in their fields.</p>
<p>"In markets like Seattle, local law schools produce almost all of the attornies until the big city drop outs come calling."</p>
<p>Actually, my experience (which is on the political end of things) is just the opposite. The east coast lawyers have difficulty getting a toe hold (they are usually bottom of their classes to begin with), and leave fairly quickly. We have a bunch of politicians in the Seattle area who are HYP undergrads, but most went to UW law (and an occasional Gonzaga.) (though our past Gov was a Yale undergrad, Boston U. law school); former head of supreme court was Yale undergrad, UW law); current gov - UW/Gonzaga; current attorney general - UW/UChicago.</p>
<p>Some folks here talk about prestige as it relates to law school and future law practice. Well I did a bit of checking with a firm that recruits at Harvard Law and is internationally recognized, Dewey Ballentine. Now I didn't look at the bios of all their lawyers but those whose last names began with T, U. V, W, X, Y, and Z and were affiliated with one of their US offices, 53 lawyers total. A random selection I would think.</p>
<p>Here is whare their undergrad degrees were from. 25 were from private colleges, 28 from public colleges. 6 from Ivy League colleges, 47 from non-Ivy league colleges including one from Cornell's non-endowed IR college. 22 were from top 25 colleges and 31 from non-top 25 colleges as ranked by USNews.</p>
<p>I am not a statictician but these numbers seem to indicate that career success is within the reach of student regardless of where they choose to receive their undergrad degree. Attending a lower tier college like Ball State, Hawaii or Kansas does not necessarily condemn them to a lower tier career. I suspect in all cases however, the person must be an exceedingly good student and driven to reach the upper eschelon of the profession.</p>
<p>Mini, those I know who seek corporate jobs in nice places to live fit a mold. They did well in top big city firms and got tired of the lifestyle. These are folks who went to top law schools. They want a better lifestyle for themselves and their kids so seek in house jobs in pleasant, lower cost markets. Companies, especially growth ones doing acquisitions, love these candidates who can do these deals in their sleep. I'm sure local politicians, firms etc, are the whole local story.</p>
<p>Tis true! And I can't speak for other states. But if you were to take a gander either at the top law firms or the top political bodies out here, you just won't find that east coast law schools, or HYP/AWS etc. carry anything in the way of prestige, and little in the way of connections. Head to head - Harvard would not do well compared with BYU. I have no idea if this is true in Illinois or Iowa or Colorado or.... The reputation may be national, but at least out here, the carrying power isn't.</p>
<p>I think a JD from a prestige Law school or other professional school does carry a lot more weight than an undergradute degree from a prestige school. The fellow graduating at the bottom of his law school class at Harvard or Yale or Duke will get better offers than a middling graduate of a no name law school. I am not sure all other things being equal a BA from an Ivy or prestige LAC is going to open many doors on its own.</p>
<p>An interesting test though would be to see what the LSAT scores of Harvard law students look like. If the prestige school carries weight then we should see Ivy grads over-represented in the low scorers the hypothesis being the State Uer needs superior stats in order to overcome superior prestige.</p>
<p>There is a start on you senior honors thesis for anyone who is interested. Should be good for sociology, psychology, or econ majors.</p>
<p>The discussion of prestige undergrad/prestige law school ignores the correlation between high SAT's and High LSAT's. For many law schools, they're just allowing the undergraduate institution to weed out the low-scoring test takers in the applicant pool. If you're a state school with 20,000 undergrads and median test scores of 1100, you're going to produce far fewer kids who can score in the Harvard LSAT range than if you're Harvard with 4,000 undergrads and median scores of 1470, or whatever the number is. (I'm too tired to do the math but you see my point). Doesn't mean that Harvard Law school is obsessed with the prestige of your college; they just want to see LSAT scores at the tippy-top of the scale, and kids who scored at the tippy top of the SAT's have a better shot at that, than a kid who scored a 520 Verbal and is taking test prep for Harvard law school.</p>
<p>Right Blossom. No question the ivy grads would not be the low LSAT scorers at a top law schools. Just as more is expected by colleges of those who went to top high schools, Harvard and Yale law expect a lot from ivy grads. But it's very simple, those who did well enough on thje SATs to get into a top college will do very well on the LSATs.</p>
<p>I read up on this. I found: The LSAT reading is like the SAT. The other 3/4 of the test are totally different. Don't count on high SATs to get you a high LSAT/</p>