<p>I am currently a Sophomore attending Washington State University, and have been considering the possibility of law school in my future. As much as law interests me, and the opportunities seem promising, I cant help wonder what the significance of a top law school compared to an average school is.</p>
<p>While the entrance standards are higher and reflect the graduating individual of a top law school, I cant help but wonder how the education and curriculum is really that much better than Tier 2 or 3 schools. From my experience in college the material you learn is the material you learn, and the most significant difference in learning is up to the individual themselves and not the school. Even professors and instructors who have years of experience and prestige often seem like they cant teach as well as simple instructors or young Ta's. </p>
<p>As much as I would like to attend law school, I doubt I could or would really even want to attend a very top school, but I don't want to be limited on opportunities or earning because of the college I attend, and really just don't understand the issue. Even before attending college, I had a job that I enjoyed and payed nearly 100k as a plumber in commercial construction, so I guess law school would need to be a little more promising before I completely decide to pursue it.</p>
<p>i spoke with a close family friend that was an equity partner at Latham, he advised me to go to the highest ranked school as possible. Logically if i could get a full ride to T2 or pay full price to T1 i rather leave law school debt free. $120k+ of debt is a huge load to try and enter such a shaky economy</p>
<p>“I don’t want to be limited on opportunities or earning because of the college I attend, and really just don’t understand the issue.”</p>
<p>The issue is that legal employers don’t think the way that you do. They want to hire people with certain grades from certain schools, period. Opportunities and earnings (at least early in your career) ARE determined in large part by where you go to law school. It’s not about the curriculum or what material you’ve mastered or how well you were taught. You are right not to go to law school if you can’t make peace with that system.</p>
That makes sense. There’s no downside to being debt-free except your opportunity cost of time. However, if you went to a school that would cost you $200+k of debt over 3 years and did not manage to find employment to pay that off in a reasonable amount of time, you’re completely screwed.</p>
<p>thats why i say as debt free as possible when you graduate with the exception of HYS law students (i think the bottom 25% still make six figures at when they graduate)</p>
<p>That’s why you don’t go to tier 3 schools. The plain and simple of the situation is that so many laws schools have popped up, there has an influx in the number of JD’s. Thus, through simple supply and demand, there is a surplus, allowing companies to be more picky about who they take, because they have more candidates to choose from. Now who do you think they are going to select, someone who went to Touro (what the hell is that?) or someone who went to Northwestern?</p>
<p>I mean, bluntly I don’t think T2 or T3 schools are even worth the three years, even on a full ride. What good is a JD if you spend three years out of the workforce, when you could be building skills and earning money, if you can’t get a job afterwards?</p>
You could also apply the same argument to a T1 law school. What’s the point of going to a T1 law school and racking up $210,000 in debt if you can’t find a job that allows you to repay your debt without living on Ramen? There is a VERY REAL possibility this could be the case for a T1 graduate.
I think the best guaranteed deal with no “downside” is to work while attending a T2 or T3 part-time JD program on a full ride.</p>
<p>Absolutely. One extreme view which is gaining steam online – this is probably a little extreme for me – is that a T14 is worth it; a T1 is worth it if you can attend cheaply or for free; a T2 or a T3 is never worth it.</p>
<p>Actually, you’re probably correct. Before this, I didn’t familiarize myself with the actual definitions of T1, T2, and T3 probably because it never occurred to me to look outside a certain geographical area. A quick glance at this [Law</a> School 100 – Ranking the Best Law Schools in the United States](<a href=“http://www.lawschool100.com/]Law”>http://www.lawschool100.com/) cleared up quite a few things for me.</p>
<p>After reviewing this, I can say that I personally do agree with that view: Top 14 is worth it and Tier 1 is worth it if you can attend cheaply or for free.</p>
<p>I never even gave thought to T2 or T3 schools in my geographical region because quite frankly there aren’t that many.</p>
<p>You can get a 160K starting from a non-top 14 school if you rank high in your class.</p>
<p>But going to a higher ranked school puts significantly less pressure on you to get excellent grades. HYS don’t even give letter grades anymore.</p>
<p>The lower ranked schools also have much less nationwide appeal, but some have local appeal. Limits your options considerably.</p>
<p>The the only way I’d recommend a tier 2/3, is if you lived in Montana for instance, wanted to practice there, are content with 45 K a year (just threw out that number, have no idea in reality) and went to U of Montana Law. T14 grads are not competing for jobs in Montana.</p>
<p>Some of the information shared above does not reflect the harsher realities of 2010. The bifurcated salary distribution certainly persists, and it is a sharper division than in 2006. One issue with the salary charts is that they don’t include data from law graduates who do not find a job within the law. It is probable that the median salary has been steadily declining for law graduates since 2006.</p>
<p>Here is a link to the latest salary charts:</p>
<p>This year, in the competition for the all-important summer associate positions which provide a path to the high end salaries, many students, even from the ‘best’ schools have been locked out. Particular markets have been brutal. Notably, DC has been a bloodbath even for good students from the top 5 or 6 law schools. Even if you go to HYS, you’d better rank high in the class, bid smart, and do well in the interviews, or you’ll never hit the lottery payoff of a biglaw associate position. No one is safe.</p>
<p>The statement from LSU that “you can get a 160K starting (sic) from a non-top 14 school if you rank high in your class” is technically correct. Yes, you can, but it is extremely unlikely.</p>
<p>Bluedevil, I know it sounds like an exaggeration, but I don’t think I’m completely off the mark. </p>
<p>If you look at the discussions on [Top</a> Law Schools](<a href=“http://www.top-law-schools.com%5DTop”>http://www.top-law-schools.com) you’ll see that there are defintely kids with good grades from HLS who haven’t been able to land the biglaw jobs they were aiming for. </p>
<p>One additional factor that seems to make a big difference is prior work experience. So, the kids who went straight from college to law school are at a competitive disadvantage, even if their grades are quite good.</p>
<p>It’s a challenge for anyone to get a job in this economy, even for those who are ‘at the top.’</p>
<p>“In a worst case scenario you could have $270,000 in debt and no job”</p>
<p>damn… this really sucks for this dude. shoulda have spent that money on down payment on a house mortgage and maybe buy a nice car instead.</p>
<p>but how in the world did that guy amass that high level of a debt? does that debt include undergrad dept or something…</p>
<p>Btw, it is really screwed up that a law grad, even from a crappy school, is working as a house painter. Anybody can get that kinda job. Heck, I think even a 5th grader can get a job like that.</p>
